Why Hasn't A Creationist Scientist Published The Scientific Proof That Creationism Is Real? (Christ, science)

[kduncan1775]

yea, there's a society that believes the earth is flat also, doesn't make it so. Its been proven many times and yet there are people that believe such an archaic notion.

[Driftwood2011]

"The Great 21st Century Scientific Watergate
Ten Scientific Papers Censored
by the Los Alamos National Laboratory
arXiv staff (now at Cornell Univ)
Each of these ten scientific papers overturns Big Bang cosmology and provides evidence for the Genesis record of Creation. They were posted on the LANL arXiv on February 28, 2001, and prepared for release on the internet with the arXiv number imprinted on the first page of each paper. However, the arXiv staff, being fearful of the results of the papers supporting the Genesis record of creation and the overturning of Big Bang cosmology, deleted these papers before they were released to the world. This is scientific censorship at the very highest level and a very clear abridgement of the First Amendment right of freedom of speech. "

Ten papers here: Orion Foundation: Ten Censored Papers

and:


http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/

Here is a muslim who has written a few publications in regards to creation and evolution: http://www.harunyahya.com/en.m_book_index.php

I don't know if this rates as published material in satisfaction to the original poster.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

I've asked this question a number of times and I've never received a response from anyone so I'm going to start a thread on it. Scientists who have made progress in any field of study often want to present their work to the scientific community by writing a paper and submitting it to a scientific journal. Scientific journals contain papers that have been peer reviewed in order to establish their credibility and to keep a high standard in scientific publications. If there are scientists who have discovered solid evidence that can be demonstrated following the scientific method that creationism has a foundation based on fact why don't they present this evidence to the scientific community in the same manner that other scientists do? There are countless scientific journals on any topic you can think of in which professional scientists present their work following a rigorous set of established guidelines. I would think that if any scientist could really lay out all of the evidence they've discovered that proves the earth is only a few thousand years old and that mankind has descended from Adam and Eve that they'd be chomping at the bit to get it published because they'd be in Nobel Prize country. Contrary to what creationists are always saying about science it's clear that scientists thrive on controversy and overthrowing a previously accepted idea because a new one can be shown to be more plausible is what scientists do. That's how progress is made. So why hasn't anyone presented the scientific evidence for creationism and published it in a scientific journal?

Well maybe you can answer this question. Why are scientist attacked when suggesting that evolution may have flaws in it. Such was the case of Dr. Sternberg who is an evolutionary scientist with two doctorates in biology. He was managing editor of the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Bilolgical Society of Washington.

http://www.icr.org/article/smithsoni...ts-prohibited/

Could it be, that there is such a bias in the field, that many scientist feel why bother. Especially when they are being taken to task for questioning the authorities?

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by kduncan1775

what proof has evolution ever provided?

You're obviously not keeping up with the times old boy.

the whole concept of something coming at of nothing is totally absurd.

Yes, isn't it. But you know, the only people that claim 'something came from nothing' are creationists. Science certainly doesn't claim that. Further, if something coming from nothing is absurd, I take it that you agree that Bible god must have come from something...had to have a creator/designer himself?

there are many things that confirm intelligent design, take the ear or the eye on a small scale, how could anyone think that these complex systems could come from chaos and time, ...

There is nothing 'complex' about the eye. It's a simple light sensitive cell. Nor is the ear complex. Have you never played a tune on a simple hair comb that has been covered in paper. The ear works in a similar way.

Originally Posted by Driftwood2011

"The Great 21st Century Scientific Watergate
Orion Foundation: Ten Censored Papers

and:


Information Theory and DNA vs. Atheists « Cosmic Fingerprints


I don't know if this rates as published material in satisfaction to the original poster.

No they don't mate. Your first link is to material written by Robert V Gentry who is a rabid 7th Day Adventist, a creationist, a global flood believer, thinks the Earth is only 6000 years old.... and a laughing stock amongst his scientific peers....

"In the late 1970s, Gentry challenged the scientific community to synthesize "a hand-sized specimen of a typical biotite-bearing granite" as a test of his claims. The scientific response was dismissive, with geologist G. Brent Dalrymple stating:

“As far as I am concerned, Gentry's challenge is silly. … He has proposed an absurd and inconclusive experiment to test a perfectly ridiculous and unscientific hypothesis that ignores virtually the entire body of geological knowledge."


"His self-published book 'Creation's Tiny Mystery' was reviewed by geologist Gregg Wilkerson, who said that it has several logical flaws and concluded that "the book is a source of much misinformation about current geologic thinking and confuses fact with interpretation." He also noted that the book contains "considerable autobiographical material" and he observed that "in general I don't think educators will find its worth their time to tread through this creationist's whining."



Your second link is nothing more than Bible Apologetics.



What the OP asked for was peer reviewed papers for creationism. Look it up if you don't know what that means.....and whilst you're looking that up, have a look at what evolution is/says.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by Rafius

You're obviously not keeping up with the times old boy.

Yes, isn't it. But you know, the only people that claim 'something came from nothing' are creationists. Science certainly doesn't claim that. Further, if something coming from nothing is absurd, I take it that you agree that Bible god must have come from something...had to have a creator/designer himself?

There is nothing 'complex' about the eye. It's a simple light sensitive cell. Nor is the ear complex. Have you never played a tune on a simple hair comb that has been covered in paper. The ear works in a similar way.

No they don't mate. Your first link is to material written by Robert V Gentry who is a rabid 7th Day Adventist, a creationist, a global flood believer, thinks the Earth is only 6000 years old.... and a laughing stock amongst his scientific peers....

"In the late 1970s, Gentry challenged the scientific community to synthesize "a hand-sized specimen of a typical biotite-bearing granite" as a test of his claims. The scientific response was dismissive, with geologist G. Brent Dalrymple stating:

“As far as I am concerned, Gentry's challenge is silly. … He has proposed an absurd and inconclusive experiment to test a perfectly ridiculous and unscientific hypothesis that ignores virtually the entire body of geological knowledge."


"His self-published book 'Creation's Tiny Mystery' was reviewed by geologist Gregg Wilkerson, who said that it has several logical flaws and concluded that "the book is a source of much misinformation about current geologic thinking and confuses fact with interpretation." He also noted that the book contains "considerable autobiographical material" and he observed that "in general I don't think educators will find its worth their time to tread through this creationist's whining."



Your second link is nothing more than Bible Apologetics.



What the OP asked for was peer reviewed papers for creationism. Look it up if you don't know what that means.....and whilst you're looking that up, have a look at what evolution is/says.

If there is nothing complex about the eye, then why do we still see blind people walking around Rafius?

If the ear is so simple, why do we still have deaf people?

You seem to make a lot of comments, yet such comments appear to have little to do with the real reality of things.

Next, will you be telling us how simple the brain is?

[Dusty Rhodes]

Why Hasn't A Creationist Scientist Published The Scientific Proof That Creationism Is Real?


Because it ain't!!!!

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by Dusty Rhodes

Why Hasn't A Creationist Scientist Published The Scientific Proof That Creationism Is Real?


Because it ain't!!!!

Creationist have published a great deal of information. Yet they are almost immediatly attacked by the establishment. Consider how one evolutionary scientist was treated when he stated that evolution was more like religion than science. And he was one of their own. Link below.

http://www.icr.org/article/smithsoni...ts-prohibited/

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

If there is nothing complex about the eye, then why do we still see blind people walking around Rafius?

If the ear is so simple, why do we still have deaf people?

Are you for real mate??

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by Rafius

Are you for real mate??

Well, you were the one that said eyes and ears were not complex. If that is the case, we should start makeing replacement eyes and ears for all those in need. It should easy to do, because you said they were so simple.LOL

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Well, you were the one that said eyes and ears were not complex. If that is the case, we should start makeing replacement eyes and ears for all those in need. It should easy to do, because you said they were so simple.LOL

Artificial eyes have been made since the 80's old horse.
Visual prosthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With regard to the ear, all you need is a nerve connected to something that can vibrate.