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

[Jaymax]

Originally Posted by Frankie117

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you there. I know the 'scientific' thing to do is not believe anything without hard evidence - well, one thing scientists can't understand is faith. It requires a 'higher' level of thinking beyond measurements and observation. I know that the 'scientific community' always wants to put everyone beliefs on trial, but that just doesn't fly with most of us.

Faith requires no thinking at all. In fact it's almost a requirement.

[Jaymax]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

What really irritates me about these creationist websites is that they're trying to put forward an image of having a solid foundation of scientific evidence when in fact they do not. It's really a kind of fraud to deceive the believers with alot of technical sounding jargon in order to convince them that they're cutting edge scientists who are about to shake up the world with their discoveries. Creationists are playing this two ways, they're trying to appear legitimate in the scientific sense while they're also acknowledging that faith plays a large role in their endeavors and that is something that is supposedly beyond mere mortals to understand. If you want to believe in creationism that's your right but don't call it science. My point in starting this thread is to simply to point out that creationists can't possibly publish scientific evidence is a respected journal because there is no evidence that supports their viewpoint. If it really existed it would have been published a long time ago.

I don't think it's a "kind" of fraud. It's just fraud.

[lifertexan]

Creationists like to posit the argument as atheist vs Christian,with all Christian opinion being censored,rejected,dismissed,etc out of hand.This is simply not true.There are many Christian scientists who accept evolution,who have done the work to learn the science and explore it for themselves in a search for the truth.One would expect these Christian scientists,if they properly learned the science and then found flaws in it,to announce this and show the scientific world these flaws in truly scientific papers that could stand up to a peer review from fellow scientists,whether Christian or atheist.Where then are these studies?

And to clarify,when I say Christian scientists,I emphasize the word scientist.Scientists who also happen to be Christian ,who have learned the theory properly from accredited programs,at first accepted it,and then began to see flaws as they progressed in their learning and investigation.The inference here is someone who has learned the theory from a standpoint of believing it,then found it not to be true through scientific flaws in the process.I am most certainly NOT referring to Christians who never accept the theory and and "study" the theory only from a dishonest standpoint of trying to figure out how to marginally attack the theory in a way that will suit their less educated fellow believers and give them some shaky leg to stand on in denying evolution.In other words,Christian scientists studying the theory honestly,as opposed to Christians posing as scientists whose only education towards this has been for the sake of finding supposed flaws in the theory rather than truly understanding it and giving it an honest appraisal.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by lifertexan

In other words,Christian scientists studying the theory honestly,as opposed to Christians posing as scientists whose only education towards this has been for the sake of finding supposed flaws in the theory rather than truly understanding it and giving it an honest appraisal.

Like those working for ICR.

[sanspeur]

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?

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?

Geez, Campbell, if god is such a great designer why do we see blind and deaf people, and others born with various other deficiencies? What you see is evolution at work...Creatures born with deficiencies are generally expelled from the gene pool, (They don't live long enough to reproduce) except in the case of humans and you can thank science for that.

[Nea1]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Geez, Campbell, if god is such a great designer why do we see blind and deaf people, and others born with various other deficiencies? What you see is evolution at work...Creatures born with deficiencies are generally expelled from the gene pool, (They don't live long enough to reproduce) except in the case of humans and you can thank medical science for that.

Well not only that, but if a God wanted us to go out and procreate, why did he make the odds so bad. I mean 300 million sperm per time and they mostly get killed by the defenses of the woman's body!! Why make it so hard ( not to mention dangerous for the sperm!!)Lol

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Nea1

I mean 300 million sperm per time and they mostly get killed by the defenses of the woman's body!! Why make it so hard ( not to mention dangerous for the sperm!!)Lol

Even more astonishing...300 million sperm and Campbell was the one that got through!! Intelligent design my arse!!

[Driftwood2011]

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?

[Nea1]

Originally Posted by Driftwood2011

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?

This guy?

Dr. Humphreys Feels the Pressure

[Driftwood2011]

Originally Posted by Nea1

This guy?

Dr. Humphreys Feels the Pressure

The OP asked for published and reviewed material by creation scientists. There has been.

I wonder if any non-creation science believers understand how much evolutionary science has been reviewed and exposed along with their scientists and methodology?

I am definitely not a YEC, but it is interesting to me how the first reaction by opponents of any position is to attack the person, not the science, especially when the majority of them are simply coat tail riders.

I simply provided information for the answer, I haven't taken a position in support of any individual scientist.