See who is a Creation Scientist

"No cell known to science could survive if it was limited to the results you site."

That is the chief fallacy of your argument. The cells that are "known to science" have had 4 billion years to evolve. No one seriously proposes that a modern cell just popped into existence.

But what my reference does show you is a very probable way that life could have started. You must combine it with some of the other references I have given you to have a complete picture, however. In short, I gave you a reference that describes how optically pure ribose could be made which can then be turned into the bases of RNA which can then be assembled into strands of RNA, all with the right chiral arrangment. RNA by itself is known to act in much the same way that proteins do for modern cells. In some cases, they still perform these functions. RNA can perfrom most of the same functions as proteins and can serve as a carrier of information. In this sense, you can make a functional cell based on RNA chemistry from common materials and with the right chiral orientation. RNA can code for the optically pure amino acids and proteins that you question. Since the RNA is already correct, the amino acids and proteins will be correct. RNA can also handle the chemistry associated with DNA. So, yes, this is a viable solution.

"Asimov confesses "This is what the 2nd law is all about" when observing entropy INCREASING in human biological systems. And that in fact IS my point."

Then why do do remove the part of his quote where he tells you why entropy is not a problem for evolution? Why do you ignore the references that I have given you that show that entropy is actually a driving force towards life?

"Just that it never existed in all of time as Simpson confesses."

Let the reader follow the link. What the reader will find is that SImpson was saying that the old, smooth series did not happen because additional data has shown that the series was actually jerky and bushy. If you don't see this you never will but I doubt that the reader will have such a problem.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/17.html#000251

"Actually I said that the atheist evolutionists were in agreement (finally) that Archaeopteryx is a TRUE BIRD. I then point out YOUR quote that you think it is a INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN true birds and true reptiles."

You said that the scientists at the conference decided that archy was only a bird. I have provided ample eevidence that this is not the case. You now say that "desperate atheist evolutionists continue to cling to notions that Archaeopteryx had characteristics similar to reptiles" without realizing that this undermines your original claim. If they were desparately clinging then they were not saying that it was just a bird.

So now you do not believe that Billy Graham is a reliable source when he says he sees no conflict between science and the Bible? You said you would believe him so when I quote him you now don't believe him because he is "confused."

Oh, and if you don't mind, tell me why archy the "true bird" does not have a beak.

 

Hi Bob,

I have a gigantic list of scientists that affirmed biblical creation and their contributions to science. We would not have science as we know it without them. See here: http://www.jcsm.org/Contents/Famous.htm .

God bless,
Jason

 

Jason

I think that you need to do some serious revisions to your list. Many of those on your list practiced science at a time either before or contemporary with the development of modern physics, biology and astronomy and could therefore not be expected to have an opinion on these subjects. It is like making a list of the followers of Jesus Christ before the first century and concluding that we should not be Christians because none of the famous people (or none at all) followed Jesus. He had not been born yet. And so it is with your list. The modern sysnthesis of biology had yet to be born when many of these people lived so how could they have possibly accepted or rejected it.

Furthermore, there are many fine Christian men and women today who work in the sciences and have no problem with an old earth. You could still call them "creationists" as they almost surely believe in some for of OE, but it would be disengenuous to put them on a list such as this that implies YE.

A few specifics, skipping all those who are too old to matter in this debate and should be removed pronto.

For instance you list Kelvin. But in his famous paper "On The Secular Cooling Of The Earth" he said "I think we may with much probability say that the consolidation cannot have taken place less than 20,000,000 years ago, or we should have more underground heat than we actually have, nor more than 400,000,000 years ago, or we should not have so much as the least observed underground increment of temperature." Since Kelvin estimates the age of the earth to be between 20 and 400 million years old, I do not think that he belongs on a list of young earth creationists.

Charles Lindbergh - What does flying a plane, though well, have to do with biology, geology or astronomy. Fallacy of an appeal to authority.

Albert Einstein - I really do not think he had a problem with an old universe, do you? He initially believed in a static universe and placed his cosmological constant in there to make the forces balance over long periods to give a stable universe. (No need in a young universe, eh?) When Hubble showed that the universe was expanding, Einstein dropped his constant in favor of the big bang. Not exactly YE.

Sir Arthur Eddington - He was a believer in evolution. In fact, he was opposed to early models of the Bib Bang because he did not like the idea of a beginning because he felt it would limit the time available for evolution to proceed.

Georges Lemaitre - The father of the Big Bang on a list of young earthers?

Oh I am only half way down. Honestly I don't recognize many of these names and have skipped many of them. I am also skipping the hordes of names from before the theory of evolution even existed.

If this is supposed to be a list of those who support YE, then it needs to be severely pruned. If it is a list of scientists who happen to be Christian, then I think it undermines Bob's argument by showing that many, many Christians also can be productive, mainstream scientists and that furthermore many of the modern science disciplines that confirm and support an old earth were started by Christian men and not godless atheists.

You may also want to check out Project Steve. It is a list of scientists who support evolution who are named Steve. A bit silly, yes, but there are not many Steve's on your "gigantic" list which could tell us a bit about the number of people with knowledge of the subject matter who accept an old earth and evolution.

 

You're begging the question and can't have it both ways. Simply because you think the theory of the evolution of species wasn't created before some of these scientists, it doesn't make their claims of young earth creationism any lesser. They could have proposed old earth dates! They could have done research and found evidence of an old earth! However, they didn't and they affirmed biblical creation because they found it to be true.

Please don't do any more hand waving regarding the gigantic list.

You had a handful of quibbles. Most were arguments by assertion. Your third logical fallacy of the day. When you give some proof (and how about a page number for your claim regarding Kelvin?) we can take your post seriously and give a detailed response.

Lastly, OEC contradicts Genesis and Exodus and the rest of the scriptures. You can see my research on it here: http://www.jcsm.org/Creation/CreationAccount.htm .

God bless,
Jason

P.S. Don't forget to sign your name on your posts; unless you want me to call you UTEOTW (whatever that means).

 

Jason you are the one making a false appeal to authority if you want to get into to it. You are appealing to these guys and young earthers when there really was not any alternative at the time. The modern sciences had yet to be developed yet and so these guys have absolutely no standing to comment on the validity of modern biology or geology or anything else related to whether the earth is young or old.

Once we actually get into the modern era for these sciences, you compound your problem by including on your list of young earthers people who obviously were not in any sense young earthers. Do you not find it a stretch to call people who helped develop the Big Bang theory young erathers? Well if you don't I do. You also continue your false appeal to authority by including people like Lindbergh who have absolutely no standing to comment on biology unless flying an airplane has a connection to evolutionary biology that I am missing.

As far as your claims of logical fallacies... Please show me where I was using circular logic. Please tell me that pointing out the obvious problem that your list of people opposed to evolution included mostly people who were already long dead by the time the theory was developed. Please tell me how it is hand waving to point out this obvious logical problem and then to start listing specific people on your list of young earthers who were actually old earthers. Please tell me.

Your best support is that "They could have done research and found evidence of an old earth!"

Well, I guess we can throw out most of science on that basis. Except for a few, I don't think the people on you list supported general relativity, so we can throw that out. I mean, if there was something to it one of them would have discovered it first, right? And I am pretty sure you do not have any M-theorists on your list so I guess that must be false.

Be real here. You know that science progresses at a certain pace and it so happens that most of the people on your list lived before they had any ability to comment on the modern sciences. Things take time to develop.

OOOHHHHHH, one more accusation of a logical fallacy. I don't remember your list having a long list of citations for each of your claims of young earhters. So I guess we are both doing this by assertion.

"and how about a page number for your claim regarding Kelvin"

You might find the floowing URL handy. www.google.com . Excerpts are readily available. http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/paper2.html
http://www11.homepage.villanova.edu/jeffrey.johnson/images/Kelvin-On%20Cooling%20Of%20The%20Earth%20and%20Origin%20of%20Life.htm

"P.S. Don't forget to sign your name on your posts; unless you want me to call you UTEOTW (whatever that means)."

Call me whatever you wish. Many shorten it to Ute. It is an acronym. The day I registered I was home sick. My first try was an attempt at a variation on my name. It was taken and I did not feel like wadingthrough a bunch of names until I got one not taken. SO I went with something I knew would not be taken. I don't mind a little anonymity on the web in any case.

And BTW, poked around on your site a bit and I think there are other problems here.

 

Jason,

Thanks for the contribution. This thread is turning into a great reference for lists of creation-accepting bible-believing good-science-promoting scientists in contrast to the myths and junk-science-believers in evolutionism.

What is amazing is that the Christian evolutionists turn a blind eye to these skilled scientists and claim that only the junk-science-myths of evolutionism's dreams are "science". (Reminds me of some atheist evolutionists who argue the same point).

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks Bob and you're welcome.

I'm a firm believer in evolution. Evolution is a fact. I believe in every type of evolution that we have observed. That's science. What I don't believe in is all of the leaps and jumps and bounds in evolution that nobody has ever seen. Those are the things that evolutionists want you to believe and even try and pass off as fact. Tsk, tsk.

What we have seen is generally called micro-evolution. What we haven't seen is generally called macro-evolution. I have written a paper (more like some data and a list of hotlinks) on this as well: http://www.jcsm.org/Contents/MicroAndMacroEvolution.htm .

God bless,
Jason

 

Really? Were they gagged and bound? Were they forbidden to think openly? If your position is that they had "no alternative" you are essentially calling the greatest, scientific minds of all time fools. If your theory were correct, any one of them could have penned it. However, they all rejected it.

I'm more interested in your proof than your arguments by assertion. Heck, I don't even know your name. Arguments like yours from unnamed people are a dime a dozen in my world.

It's circular to say that we cannot mention young earth creation scientsts who rejected the old earth theory since these same scientists didn't put it in mainstream science, yet because they didn't find enough evidence for it. If you can't see how this is circular and begging the question, then I cannot help you.

Any one of those brilliant scientists could have affirmed the old earth theory, but they didn't. They rejected it as a poor and incorrect theory.

You didn't provide evidence for your claims against a handful of people on the list. I'm not interested in your opinion, but I'm interested in proof.

If it pertains to this topic, feel free to post it here. If it doesn't, then feel free to start a new thread or email me.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

"I'm more interested in your proof than your arguments by assertion."

Like I said, your whole list is a false appeal to authority done through assertion. Nothing but a list of names of people you claim to have rejected a theory which did not exist in their lives. And most of them simply listed, very little if any evidence to corroborate your assertions.

Tell you what. I gave you a quote and the reference from the quote for Kelvin that shows that he thought the world was in the millions of years old. That should be enough to remove him from your list. And Lindbergh was an obvious appeal to authority since being a pilot has nothing to do with astronomy or biology or geology or any other germane field. So he should be removed with little other discussion. Let us know here on this thread when you have removed these two. That will let me know that it is worth my time to dig up information on the others who at least lived after the theories were developed and who could thus comment on them.

"Really? Were they gagged and bound? Were they forbidden to think openly? If your position is that they had "no alternative" you are essentially calling the greatest, scientific minds of all time fools."

They had no alternative because the old earth theories had not been developed yet. How hard is that to understand?

Your position is that if some theory was not developed by these people that it must not be true. What kind of logic is that? There are new discoveries being made every day. Should we discount them all because somebody did not think of them 50 or 100 or 500 years ago. Certainly not. Just as we should not reject evolution just because someone did not develop it before Darwin. (An oversimplification of Darwin's role, yes.) That is just silly. I mean, I am assuming that you have had vaccinations and that you take antibiotics if needed even though medicine developed both of those treatments since most of the guys you list lived. You do not reject relativity out of hand. I mean, any one of these brilliant guys could have done thought of that, right. Or are they all fools for not coming up with general relativity before Einstein? I suppose we should have had integrated circuits since the beginning of time, too.

But that is not how things work in the real world. New ideas come up and are developed or rejected. It is not any sort of indictment against evolution or modern geology or astronomy that their ideas were not sprouted until, let's say, the last two centuries. There was a combination of factors that led to it taking that long for these things to develop. For instance in astronomy you needed the invention of instruments such as telescopes large enough to study space outside of our galaxy and spectronomy to measure Doppler shift before the first ideas of the Big Bang could hatch. Those that came before were not fools, as you suggest, but did not have the tools nor the foundation to begin that branch of science. If you feel that it is acceptable to reject the science because of that then it is your right, but I will strongly disagree.

"If your theory were correct, any one of them could have penned it. However, they all rejected it."

And if your theory is true why did these brilliant minds not discover general relativity or M-theory or the kinetic theory of gasses or germ theory or thermodynamics or radioactivity or transitors or the structure of DNA or NMR spectroscopy or liquid chromotography or the internal combustion engine or powered flight or any other technology or discovery of which you can think before the time we actually got them?

You just do not see that there was no theory for them to reject and that it is not a problem of the modern theories that they were not discovered earlier. YOu assert that they "rejected" it. They could not have possibly rejected a theory which did not exist!

"Heck, I don't even know your name. Arguments like yours from unnamed people are a dime a dozen in my world."

Well I don't know you from Adam, either. If you have a problem with people using pseudonames then the internet may not be a place for you. I don't see you criticizing people who agree with you here for trying to maintain some anonymity. I guess that means you are just using my screen name as a reason to make a personal attack to distract from the issue. I think there is an informal fallacy for that.

"It's circular to say that we cannot mention young earth creation scientsts who rejected the old earth theory since these same scientists didn't put it in mainstream science, yet because they didn't find enough evidence for it. If you can't see how this is circular and begging the question, then I cannot help you."

I do believe that it is much closer to circular logic to suggest that people rejected a theory they had never heard of because they did not invent it themselves. Maybe neither is actually circular. Doesn't matter. You are the one trying to prop up the idea that a modern theory cannot be valid because somebody did not think of it sooner.

"Any one of those brilliant scientists could have affirmed the old earth theory, but they didn't."

How could they have confirmed a non-existant theory?

"They rejected it as a poor and incorrect theory."

And you say I argue by assertion! You are asserting that these guys who lived before the TOE was ever a lightbulb in the back of Charles Darwin's mind "rejected it as a poor and incorrect theory." Well, I am just going to have to ask for proof of that one.

And is it possible for me to go ahead and come out as opposed to whatever discovery will win the 2050 Nobel Prize for physics? I'd like to get in on that. Maybe I can get my name on a list!

"You didn't provide evidence for your claims against a handful of people on the list."

Quote and reference for Kelvin. Don't forget.

"I'm not interested in your opinion, but I'm interested in proof."

Doesn't sound like it.

"If it pertains to this topic, feel free to post it here. If it doesn't, then feel free to start a new thread or email me."

It is not relevant and I am loath to post it. It would certainly be misconstrued as a personal attack and character assination by some though I think it is a valid question since you have posted links to this information on other threads here.

 

Really? Were they gagged and bound? Were they forbidden to think openly? If your position is that they had "no alternative" you are essentially calling the greatest, scientific minds of all time fools. If your theory were correct, any one of them could have penned it. However, they all rejected it.
</font>[/QUOTE]Jason, Jason, what is going on here in your head? Knowledge does not decrease over time having once been perfect and then forgotten. Instead, knowledge accumulates over time, and we gradually learn more and more. There has to be a first time for people tor realize the truth about evolution. It is not a strange mystery that the people before the first to realize it did not realize it.

It's circular to say that we cannot mention young earth creation scientsts who rejected the old earth theory since these same scientists didn't put it in mainstream science, yet because they didn't find enough evidence for it. If you can't see how this is circular and begging the question, then I cannot help you.
</font>[/QUOTE]Jason, Jason, what is going on here in your head? Knowledge does not decrease over time having once been perfect and then forgotten. Instead, knowledge accumulates over time, and we gradually learn more and more. There has to be a first time for people tor realize the truth about evolution. It is not a strange mystery that the people before the first to realize it did not realize it.

Any one of those brilliant scientists could have affirmed the old earth theory, but they didn't. They rejected it as a poor and incorrect theory. You didn't provide evidence for your claims against a handful of people on the list. I'm not interested in your opinion, but I'm interested in proof.
[/QUOTE]

Jason, Jason, what is going on here in your head? Knowledge does not decrease over time having once been perfect and then forgotten. Instead, knowledge accumulates over time, and we gradually learn more and more. There has to be a first time for people tor realize the truth about evolution. It is not a strange mystery that the people before the first to realize it did not realize it.

 

Jason,

"I'm a firm believer in evolution. Evolution is a fact. I believe in every type of evolution that we have observed. That's science. What I don't believe in is all of the leaps and jumps and bounds in evolution that nobody has ever seen. Those are the things that evolutionists want you to believe and even try and pass off as fact. Tsk, tsk.

What we have seen is generally called micro-evolution. What we haven't seen is generally called macro-evolution."


That's quite a good point. Microevolution certainly does exist. And I agree that some the tenets of Darwinian evolution are somewhat speculative. This is why I do not consider myself an evolutionist per se. But I believe that God gave us intellectual capacity - and using it does not constitute sin. I want to learn as much as God will let me. Though I am not an evolutionist my faith would not be shaken if went back in a time machine and saw apes evolving into people!

 

Oh...Let me do another one.

Sir Arthur Eddington

Let me first quote from his book Science and the Unseen World from 1929 published by The MacMillan Company.

So maybe he did accept evolution as I earlier asserted and you rejected.

I am not even sure he believed in a Creator. On page 23 he says

And two pages later

So where others see a Creator, he sees "accidents" and he is against placing religious implications on the results of scientific research. You sure he belongs on your list?

Let's move on. Remember how I said he was opposed to Big Bang because it suggested a beginning which limited the time for evolution in his mind?

Sorry that I cannot yet found where he said it, but he said

It was repugnant to him the the universe should have a definate beginning because to him that implied a Creator.

He also said

"The Expanding Universe," Penguin: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK, 1940, p.117

Again, he is upset that having a beginning implies a Creator.

Could you please post for us here when you have removed these three men from your list?

 

One more?

Ok.

Georges Lemaitre

Not exactly a scientific article but...

http://space.about.com/cs/astronomerbios/a/lemaitrebio.htm

There you will find support for my assertion that he is known as the father of the big bang. His personal estimate of the age of the universe was 10 - 20 BILLION years. Again, not exactly a younger earther, eh? But surely you did not know enough about the man to put him on your list without knowing this already. I guess I can give you the benefit of the doubt.

Our list of people for you to remove continues to grow.

 

No response yet.

Let's look at Einstein.

First off, a little reading about Einstein and you should have no problem finding that he preferred an eteranl universe without a beginning before he finally came to accept the Big Bang. Not exactly young earth. But I don't have any one specific citation that discussed just this.

But, a few Einstein quotes.

Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

This does not sound like the statement of a young earth creationists to me.

Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A. Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)

Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

Another scientist that needs to be removed from your list.

Do you have any scientists in here who were actually trained in evolution and rejected it or trained in geology and rejected it or trained in astronomy and rejected its findings?

Do you have any genuine young earth scientists since these theories became well developed?

It does not appear so. Maybe you can point some out for us.

 

Thanks for your kind words, Charles.

I'm at Promise Keepers this weekend and I'm volunteering as a Prayer Captain. I'll try and post something here in the next few days.

God bless,
Jason

P.S. I see that nobody tried to say the Bible tells us the earth/solar system is billion of years old. In fact, nobody addressed my research paper that reveals how the Bible clearly tells us the earth is young. Face it. NOBODY ever read the Bible and said, "I think the earth is billions of years old." Certain people used today's, secular science as the litmus test for truth and tried to make the Bible fit into it.

 

So no comments on your young earthers who really were not young earthers?

"I see that nobody tried to say the Bible tells us the earth/solar system is billion of years old."

There is a thread ongoing here where basically the YEers have been challenged to show why they accept some parts of the Bible as non-literal based on scientific data and yet insist that other parts must be literal in spite of such data. To phrase it your way, no one has ever looked at the Bible and said that I think the earth orbits the sun. No one has every looked at the Bible and concluded that the earth is round. Thus far the thread has gone on for many pages and no young earthers have been able to articulate how they draw the difference. Few have even made a passing attempt. This is a common challenge around here and no one seems to be able to rise to even this level.

In the end the science overwhelmingly indicates and old earth, an old universe, and common descent. There is no doubt to any of this. Considering that the Bible must be true, then these two facts must not be in opposition. The logical conclusion is that God must have intended something other than the literal reading.

Do you have any plans to remove the examples I have documented for you of definate old earthers and accepters of evolution on your list of young earthers?

Do you have any intention of attempting to articulate for us why you think certain aspects of science should be rejected simply because they were not developed earlier while (I assume) that you do not think this about all areas of science? This is important to do if you want to attempt to maintain some semblance that people who lived before a theory was developed actually rejected that theory. It is shacky ground to try and hold.

 

Jason,

"Certain people used today's, secular science as the litmus test for truth and tried to make the Bible fit into it."

Very true. I think that for man to by default believe scientific hypothesis or theory over the Bible is not wise. If Jesus had said in Matthew, "beware those who would say that the earth is ancient of years - for clearly it was made in only six days", then I think things would be different. As it stands many of us read Genesis and wonder whether the thrust of the passage was the actual DETAILS of creation.

It is one thing to say that the Bible is wrong on this issue because science says so. It is another to say I think the Bible was not intended to be literal in this passage.

 

Charles,

It doesn't appear that you have read my research on this subject and it also doesn't look like you have studied the word "yom." http://mustsee.jcsm.org (the last several links)

Exodus 20:11 reads, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

That verse really sums it up. Doesn't it?

God bless,
Jason

 

UTEOTW,

If you were speaking to 3rd graders, then perhaps they would be believing you. You have presented absolutely nothing to convince any the earth is old. You've given us tons of arguments by assertion, too. When you are approached, your best defense is, "Well, that's what you do." That, of course, is not defense at all. In other words, you still haven't made any point. I can see that you think you have made a good point; which is said.

By the way, the word definitely doesn't have an "a" in it.

Now, you have been approached about the Bible and the young earth and you give us more of a smoke screen and tell about some other thread where you think you are winning. Haha. Let me tell you plainly again, you haven't given one shred of evidence that the Bible tells us the earth is old. On the contrary, the Bible itself gives us plenty of evidence that the Earth was created in 6 days and is young.

When you were approached on this, you failed to provide an answer to the question. Instead, you tried to extrapolate my position into other positions that I don't necessarily hold. Very poor tactic.

You have a serious problem with staying on task, answering questions, and giving solid defenses to your assertions. Perhaps we should formally debate! Are you up for it?

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich

 

Jason,

The Exodus verse is a good point. It is a precedent in that it shows an example of creation being "referred to" as occurring in 6 days.

I have studied yom. It means a day and would NOT likely have been used to symbolize a longer period of time. (Interestingly it may also have been used primitively to mean wind or storm.)

The way I see it either the Bible is intending to say the creation occurred in 6 literal days or else the story was somewhat of a theological epic - not intending to assert the details of how creation actually happened. I would agree that there is no room to see "yom" as meaning a time period other than a day. I assume that's what you were getting at.