Sciencescience

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 08:00 AM

I read on the internets that "95% of science can be done independent of evolution or the BBT"

While this may or may not be true, where did that come from? Who said that? And what data is available to support that number? What is the scope of that number -- science since the beginning of time, science since Darwin, science since the BBT?

Does the number derive from the same sort of source as Little Stevie's 71% Muslim prison? We know the data supporting that. Little Stevie walked in and said "Oh shit. 70% of these people are Muslims!" And then the three habitual internet liars -- Zombie, Fruitcake, and Cutie -- decided that 70% sounded like a made up figure so they changed it to 71% to sound more scientific. Of course, no prisons in the UK are even close to 50% Muslim.

Is this similar to where the 95% figure came from? Wouldn't it be better to change it to 94%?

66 replies, 1754 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 66 replies Author Time Post
Reply I read on the internets that "95% of science can be done independent of evolution or the BBT" (Original post)
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 OP
quad489 Aug 2018 #1
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 #2
quad489 Aug 2018 #4
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 #5
quad489 Aug 2018 #6
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 #7
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 #11
quad489 Aug 2018 #27
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 #28
quad489 Aug 2018 #32
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 #33
Cold Warrior Sep 2018 #63
nolidad Sep 2018 #66
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 #24
nolidad Aug 2018 #42
nolidad Aug 2018 #18
rampartb Aug 2018 #3
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 #12
rampartb Aug 2018 #14
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 #15
rampartb Aug 2018 #16
nolidad Aug 2018 #20
nolidad Aug 2018 #29
SatansSon666 Aug 2018 #31
nolidad Aug 2018 #34
nolidad Aug 2018 #19
nolidad Aug 2018 #43
SatansSon666 Aug 2018 #44
Gunslinger201 Aug 2018 #8
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 #9
Gunslinger201 Aug 2018 #10
SatansSon666 Aug 2018 #13
nolidad Aug 2018 #17
Meowmenow Aug 2018 #22
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 #25
Meowmenow Aug 2018 #37
nolidad Aug 2018 #21
Meowmenow Aug 2018 #23
Micrometer Aug 2018 #26
nolidad Aug 2018 #30
SatansSon666 Aug 2018 #35
Cold Warrior Aug 2018 #39
Meowmenow Aug 2018 #38
SatansSon666 Aug 2018 #41
Cold Warrior Sep 2018 #56
Meowmenow Sep 2018 #57
Micrometer Aug 2018 #46
nolidad Aug 2018 #50
Micrometer Aug 2018 #51
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #55
nolidad Aug 2018 #36
SatansSon666 Aug 2018 #40
Micrometer Aug 2018 #45
Meowmenow Aug 2018 #47
nolidad Aug 2018 #48
Micrometer Aug 2018 #49
nolidad Aug 2018 #52
Meowmenow Aug 2018 #53
Cold Warrior Sep 2018 #54
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #59
Cold Warrior Sep 2018 #60
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #61
Cold Warrior Sep 2018 #62
SatansSon666 Sep 2018 #58
nolidad Sep 2018 #64
Meowmenow Sep 2018 #65

Response to Cold Warrior (Original post)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 08:11 AM

1. Who claimed ''95% of science can be done independent of evolution or the BBT''...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #2)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 08:48 AM

4. ''95% of science can be done independent of evolution or the BBT'' is not there, nor is there...

...anything about BBT there.........OR are you trying to claim that ''95% of scientific fields can be done whether one is a creationist or evolutionist'' is the same thing as what you quote???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #4)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 09:08 AM

5. Apologies, he doesn't include the BBT here

He has in the past. If I am misstating him (which I'm not) he is welcome to correct me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #5)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 09:33 AM

6. Any apologies should be directed to the target you falsely quoted, not me. Call it a pet peeve...

...but I dislike fake quotes and lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #6)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 10:02 AM

7. That's nice but he knows he has included the BBT in the past

Regardless, the question still stands where did the number come from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #6)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 10:53 AM

11. Ah found it in one of my own threads

“Over 95% of science has nothing to do with evolution or the big bang.”

https://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=280757

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #11)

Thu Aug 30, 2018, 07:28 AM

27. Nope, that quote doesn't match it either. This is pretty comical from one who demands scientific...

...fact, accuracy, etc., and then can't even accurately quote what someone wrote. Oh well, enough of this shit cause I'm sure you got some christians that need bashing before dinner time while we ignore the really dangerous cult/religion of today.

“Over 95% of science has nothing to do with evolution or the big bang.” = ''95% of science can be done independent of evolution or the BBT''

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #27)

Thu Aug 30, 2018, 08:17 AM

28. Sigh

So you don’t think a reasonable person can equate “has nothing to do with” with “can be done independent of”? And, on what basis do you make that determination? Wait, I know!

Look over there! It’s MUSLIMS!!

What have you ever said on this board to legitimately criticise Islam? Have you...

- Cited the 2013 Pew Research Poll (http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/) demonstrating how so-called “moderate” Muslims feel about punishments for adultery and apostasy? I have, many times

- Posted legitimate criticism of the intellectual threat to the Western Enlightenment from critics such as Maher, Dawkins, and Harris? I have many times including Harris’famous “mother lode of bad ideas” statement

- Posted cartoons of Mohammed? I have

- Posted any of Thunderf00t’s videos mocking Islam via “Draw Mohammed Day?” I have

- Posted Sye Ten’s (a notorious Christian apologist) musical videos about contemporary atrocities committed by Muslims, including the Nice massacre? I have

- Posted any of the debunkings of “Science in the Quran” by Logicked? I have

No, your contributions are generally of the form, “why are you mocking Christianity when you could be mocking Muslims.” Not much intellectual content there. But hey, whatever gets you through.

Finally note that the premise of the OP — the 95% number was just made up — has been validated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #28)

Thu Aug 30, 2018, 01:11 PM

32. Wow, even your weak summarizations of my stances are a total off target failure.................sigh

"No, your contributions are generally of the form, “why are you mocking Christianity when you could be mocking Muslims."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #32)

Thu Aug 30, 2018, 01:35 PM

33. Sorry, that and

“Muslims be bad” are all you got. Show me one of your posts that actually criticises the heart of the Islamic threat. You got nothing. You simply use Muslims to deflect criticism of Christianity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #32)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 04:44 AM

63. Still waiting for the plethora of your posts

critising Islam. I know you’re just sorting through the hundreds that you’ve made in order to respond with the real gems. You know, those other than “Muslims be bad” and “why are you criticising Christians when those Muslims be bad.” I’m only asking because I certainly don’t want to misrepresent your stances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #63)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 01:39 PM

66. And once again you throw out a red herring to try to distract

from the real reasons you cannot post a cogent on topic answer! SS666 must be proud of you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 30, 2018, 03:25 AM

24. As you can see from our esteemed colleague's responses below

The 95% number is exactly like Little Stevie’s 71% number — completely made up. What a surprise!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #24)

Fri Aug 31, 2018, 06:36 AM

42. and the 95% came from an evolutionist on you tube video!

I didn't actually do a total count but once again in case you missed it the first 2 times:

One can be an excellent award winning scientist in all fields of science (except for the fields that require a belief in evolution like evolutionary biology) From anatomy to zoology and not believe in Creation or not believe in evolution!

But you know that and are fearful of admitting it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #5)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 05:23 PM

18. Well then let me be clear:

95% of all science can be done whether one believes in YEC and Creation ex-Deo or whether one believes in Evolution ex-nihilo and the BBT

The only "scientific" disciplines that require a belief in evolution are the evolutionary specific studies.

But from Anatomy to zoology- one can do an excellent job whether one believes in Creation or evolution.

That is hard empirical scientific fact as proven by evidence! Evolutionary studies comprise approx. 5% of science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Original post)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 08:44 AM

3. I might just guess that most physics can be proved independently of the bbt

And that evolution is not necessarily a starting point for biology.

If natural selection is not an ongoing process I have a little trouble with antibiotic resistance or thoroughbred racing, but "young earth" is harder to believe than most evolutionary theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #3)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 11:01 AM

12. You're correct, what Creationists fear is not evolution, but rather deep time

as they think it disproves the foundations of their simplistic interpretations of the Bible. It is worth noting that there are millions of Christians who have reconciled their faith with the actual age of the universe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #12)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 12:06 PM

14. Simpler than even that, I'm afraid

Evolution implies that we are animals, and not very special after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #14)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 12:39 PM

15. Possibly, relates to the whole geo-centric mentality

First, Galileo and the helio-centric universe. Then Darwin and no more created in the image of Yahweh. Then modern cosmology and our smallness in the universe.

I see it in the domain I’m much more familiar with, literature. From Arnold’s Dover Beach to Eliot’s The Wasteland to Beckett’s...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #15)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 12:58 PM

16. I did an "Image and likeness" thread recently

To be made in the image and likeness is just as literally true at the genetic level if God is a dinosaur or a crocodile or a philodendron.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #15)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 05:32 PM

20. Well followers of Christ have long known the eaeth is not the center of the galaxy

despite the teachings of Rome.

Thee are all legitmitate hypotheses, as for Darwin, now we are awaiting real science to validate them. None so far- just opinion and conjecture and maybes, and could be, and suggests..... Sounds like guess work to well everybody!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #12)

Thu Aug 30, 2018, 12:10 PM

29. Maybe you should ask creationists if they fear this!

We don't!

Yes millions have reconciled their faith with the actual age of the universe. We are called young earth creationists!

But I posted just one of many major problems with "deep time" and no one who declare they are so much smarter than a loon like me has been able to answer this one problem- let alone many others!

I guess if so many of you were learned in answering questions instead of just iguring what your next ad-hom will be things would be different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #29)

Thu Aug 30, 2018, 12:51 PM

31. You have posed no such thing.

Everything you have posed can be easily sought out and read about and, if you are lucky, understood.
You either aren't lucky, or ignore everything because of your bias.
Don't fucking pretend that science brought you to young earth creationism. You already believed all that shit and fell for a con. A pretty fucking dumb con too, but here you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #12)

Thu Aug 30, 2018, 02:45 PM

34. Just for you if you do not fear investing an hour to be challenged.

?t=3

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #3)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 05:29 PM

19. I fully understand your hesitancy.

But antibiotic resistance is not natural selection But variation via Mendel's LAw.

It is simply a bacteria having a suppressed protein expressed. But the big problem is this- A bacteria that is antibiotic resistant can thrive in an antibiotic ecosphere. However remove it from th at ecosphere and it goes extinct because it used so much energy to gain the resistance, it cannot thrive in a "normal" ecosphere.

Yes their are certain breeds of horses that are faster than others. But one must train and race and carefully control their diet and life in order to make it a contender! YOu cannot hope to get a racehorse by breeding Clydesdales!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #3)

Fri Aug 31, 2018, 06:37 AM

43. NAtural selection is an ongoing process!

But natural selection always results in a loss of information, not a net gain in genetic information. The exact opposite of what the hypothesis of evolution demands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #43)

Fri Aug 31, 2018, 07:47 AM

44. Yet you clearly can't understand how

The evolution of a polar bear clearly shows that you are wrong.
You refuse to say what you mean by "information", you can't show me one created 'kind' of animal that isn't related to other animals.
You know nothing about genetics, phylogeny or anything else involved in the theory of evolution.

You don't even understand what a scientific theory is, you prove it every time you call it the hypothesis of evolution. You've proven it at least 30 times so far. You really do not understand what it is.
Again, you pretend to have knowledge the rest of the scientific world doesn't know about.
Then you claim evolution can occur in a couple of thousand years but not millions.
You are the laughingstock of discussionist.
I'm glad you started your 9/11 threads, so the rest of the discussionists see that as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Original post)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 10:11 AM

8. Here in Maryland BBT is Baltimore Bank & Trust

Took me a second to figure out the meaning Here!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #8)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 10:29 AM

9. It's science Slinger! Science!

And science definitely has nothing to do with banking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #9)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 10:30 AM

10. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Original post)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 11:07 AM

13. Sure, but when it all points to the same thing, well..

Then it isn't science anymore.
Science stops after like 6000 years.
Anything earlier than that isn't science. It can't be, nothing existed before that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Original post)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 05:19 PM

17. Deflections and red herrings notwithstanding.

Every field of science can be expertly done (except for the hypothetical evolutionary fields) regardless of ones belief in beginnings.

Medicine
Biology
Geology
Astronomy
Zoology

Etc.etc.etc.

Unless you can show that you have to believe in evolution to be a prqacticing scientist in all fiedls not directly related to the study of evolution- once again you are just blowing smoke to delfect what?

That you hate the fact? Wish it wasn't True? or are just a mean spirited cuss?

Here is a list oc YEC or ID or scientists who have grown entirely sceptical of Darwinian evolution. Maybe you should start a crusade with your not so subtle vitriol and have them booted form their positions seeing as they do not believe in Evolution. Just think how stupid many secular colleges are! Hiring YEC or ID believers and even having them chair depts!!!!

https://dissentfromdarwin.org/

"Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection's ability to create complex biological systems - and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour."
Professor Colin Reeves, Dept of Mathematical Sciences Coventry University

I await another of your patented smarmy ad-homs in reply!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #17)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 10:13 PM

22. 1000 morons.

 

Out of and estimated SEVEN MILLION scientists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meowmenow (Reply #22)

Thu Aug 30, 2018, 03:32 AM

25. And an internets list at that

Chock full of EEs, Mathemeticians, Physicists.

BTW, his next list which originally was collated by RationalWiki is explained in detail here, with credentials (or more generally lack thereof) provided:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_creationist_scientists

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #25)

Thu Aug 30, 2018, 07:44 PM

37. By all rights they should be sued for fraud.

 

"(Lack of) qualifications

Although one might think that being a biologist or geologist or astronomer is required to prove a recent creation or intelligent design, creationists apparently disagree, as the list includes numerous of the following:

mathematicians and statisticians — fields consisting almost entirely of a priori reasoning rather than scientific observation
assorted medical professionals, including dentists, veterinarians and plastic surgeons
engineers
and even a couple of philosophers.

A large percentage of those signatories who do have a research record are retired.

Three-quarters of the signatories had no academic background in biology. The number of biologists actively researching biological issues even remotely related to evolution can be counted on one hand.

Some of the listed scientists are academics, almost all at evangelical Christian universities.

Even the actual scientists frequently work in fields completely unrelated to the subject at hand. But, but, SCIENCE! In fact, relatively quick searches reveal that a very large percentage of those listed have no academic affiliation at all. Further, many of those listed are currently employed by AIG, CMI, DI, or ICR themselves — making them less than unbiased. "

"Misinterpretations

Larry Moran puts it:

" I am skeptical of claims that natural selection accounts for all of the complexity of life. There are lots of other things going on during evolution.

But I will not sign because Dembski and the IDiots will deliberately misinterpret my intentions. They have no idea what dissent from classical Darwinism really means. They have no idea that someone like me could (mostly) agree with the statement while, at the same time, referring to all Intelligent Design Creationists as IDiots. I suspect that some of those who signed the petition would feel the same way about Intelligent Design."

When the National Center for Science Education contacted several of the signatories of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, many of them admitted that they had no problem with common descent or evolution at all; one of them said that his "dissent mainly concerns the origin of life," but the theory of evolution is, of course, not a theory about the origin of life at all (though if the statement is read literally, such concerns would in fact be a reason to assent to it).

However, the language of the statement is misleading. It frames the argument in a way that anyone could agree with it. Anyone who is open to the idea of scientific inquiry would agree that they should be skeptical of everything, including evolution. Many signatories — including quite a few who have real, respectable research records — have explicitly denied that they have any problems with evolution, but signed the list for other reasons (e.g. Patricia Reiff, Phillip Savage, Ronald Larson).
Overrepresented or creationist institutions

Texas A&M University (28 of those listed either studied or work(ed) at A&M.)
Georgia Institute of Technology (16 of those listed either studied or work(ed) at GIT.)
Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico (10 of those listed work(ed) at AUG.)
Liberty University (9 of those listed either studied or work(ed) at LU.)
Oral Roberts University (9 of those listed either studied or work(ed) at ORU.)
Bob Jones University (3 of those listed either studied or work(ed) at BJU.)
Cedarville University (14 of those listed either studied or work(ed) at CU.)
California Baptist University (2 of those listed either studied or work(ed) at CBU.)
Institute for Creation Research Graduate School (3 of those listed either studied or work(ed) at ICRGS (now ICR's School of Biblical Apologetics).)"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Original post)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 05:40 PM

21. Here is a partial list of scientists with PHD's who were willing to go on the record

as believing in Creation: Many more don't for fear of backlash and academic blackballing by the evolutionists.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Markus Blietz, Astrophysicist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics)
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Dr Angel Duty, Biomedical engineering
Dr Chad Duty, Mechanical engineering
Robert H. Eckel, Medical research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr Deborah (Debbie) Eisenhut, Medical missionary with SIM
Dr Edward Elmer, Orthopedic surgery specialist (Harvard Medical School graduate)
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Tim Gilmour, Electrical Engineer
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe, Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biology
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr John G. Leslie, Biochemistry, molecular biology, medicine, biblical archaeology
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biology, Genetics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr Alan Love, Chemistry
Dr Heinz Lycklama, Nuclear Physics
Dr Ian Macreadie, Molecular Biology, Microbiology:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biology
Dr George Marshall, Ophthalmology
Dr Jim Mason, Nuclear Physics
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemistry
Dr John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr David Pace, Organic Chemistry
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr Albert E. Pye, invertebrate zoology, biotechnology, biological control (1945–2012)
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr John Sanford, Geneticist
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist (1923–2012)
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineer
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Matthew Young, Mechanical Engineering, Robotics
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #21)

Wed Aug 29, 2018, 10:15 PM

23. Nice list of FAIL.

 

Hope they have tenure if they are in academia, because they should be fired for stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #21)

Thu Aug 30, 2018, 04:06 AM

26. Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist

1. If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
2. Logic is meaningful.
3. Therefore, the Bible is true.
—Jason Lisle

Creationism and starlight

Given his qualifications in astrophysics, Lisle has become an authority on the
"starlight problem" in creationist circles.

However, his explanation for how distant starlight is compatible with a 6 day creation
only a few thousand years ago is very, very weak. It essentially consists of immediately
throwing out the conventional science just because it conflicts with scripture and then
proposing that "creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically".
Most of Lisle's points just begin with the claim that the Bible must be true, cannot change
and so can explain everything and he's no stranger to wall-bangingly circular logic.
* * * *
It shouldn't need to be stated that this is the opposite of what a good scientist should do
. * * * *
So, while he may be a published and qualified scientist, the remarks he makes regarding
creationism aren't actually very scientific - indeed, for AiG to use him as a leading scientist is
practically a sham, as it leads their audiences to think that his ideas - which aren't really his
ideas, just the same old tired arguments - automatically have credibility due to his real PhD.
Although he has done research with genuine merit into the sun's heliosphere, Lisle has yet
to perform, let alone publish, credible work into starlight or creationism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 30, 2018, 12:17 PM

30. Maybe if you listened to him and get the full statements

You would not sound so ignorant about Dr. Lisle.

"So, while he may be a published and qualified scientist, the remarks he makes regarding
creationism aren't actually very scientific"

And he does not try to hide that fact!

Whi hides their belief system is the believers in the BBT model of origins.

The simple fact of teh matter is both models are outside of the scientific method of verification and are beliefs.

There are "scientific problems" with both models, but once again using the scientific method

Simply said this is the scientific method:

The scientific method
At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
Make an observation.
Ask a question.
Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
Test the prediction.
Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.

Using this- there is far more support for a young creation than for a 14 by universe that started as nothing!

What you seem to conveniently forget is that evolutionists and BBT believers start with a belief that evolution is true and then proceed from there! evolutionists do not start their careers reproving darwin over again- they believe from the indoctrination in evolutionary science they received through their school years! so your statement about Lisle is just simply a straw man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #30)


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #35)

Fri Aug 31, 2018, 02:00 AM

39. This happens because you attempt to seriously argue with him and his lunacy

I gave that up a few months ago when, in response to my factual observation that in order to go from a populaion of eight in 2400 BCE to a population of 2M in 2200 BCE, a date in which civilisations were flourishing in Egypt, India, and China thereby making even 2M a very low estimate, the population would need to double every 11 years. This doubling would need to occur on a post-flood earth wherein all vegetation had been destroyed, the ground had been soaked in saline water for 150 days (or whatever), there were only two (or seven) of each animal many of whom were on their way back to their native habitats (some by the volcano express ), there was no modern medicine, etc. Further a doubling of population every 11 years has never occurred in recorded history, not even in the second half of the 20th century when advances in agriculture and medicine have been available.

His response? “It could have happened. You weren’t there.”

It was at that point that I realised that if the loons told him that pink unicorn shit (as opposed to unicorn pink shit) was used to seal the timbers of Noah’s Big Boat to make them waterproof, he would believe them. There was no point in wasting any more time attempting to rationally discuss these sorts of topics with him as there was no rationality there, just a somewhat abusive hostility in his defense of the indefensible. Some responses herein are indicative of that. His lists of Creationist “scientists,” which I’ve previously debunked as all it takes is a link to RationalWiki which destroys virtually all of them as well as his oft repeated mantra that thousands (or is it tens of thousands ?) of “evolutionist scientists” are becoming Creationists reflect this mindset.

Therefore, I never respond to him, I just mock his ideas. When he posts some blatant “creation science” lunacy, I simply start a thread debunking it. It’s a much more satisfying endeavour as arguing directly with him is pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #30)

Thu Aug 30, 2018, 07:54 PM

38. OFFS

 



Creationist and 9-11 truther. What else? Are you one of the QANON idiots too? Hillary roasting babies in a pizza parlor? We didn't really land on the moon? Hey! Did you know if you forward your SS check to me god will strike down a homosexual?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meowmenow (Reply #38)

Fri Aug 31, 2018, 06:03 AM

41. Anything that confirms any of his beliefs, he takes as fact.

He really is that gullible.
Sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meowmenow (Reply #38)

Sat Sep 1, 2018, 03:47 AM

56. Betcha he's a Birther too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #56)

Sat Sep 1, 2018, 03:45 PM

57. That's almost too mainstream.

 

Loons gotta REALLY loon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Micrometer (Reply #46)

Fri Aug 31, 2018, 06:55 PM

50. I guess you haven't read many of the prior discussions.

I would call them debates but all on your side could muster would ad-hominems and straw men like these 15 answers!

All those points were long ago debunked!

Do you want to go point by point and see how foolish each of these supposed superiore answers fail to be scientific at all???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #50)

Fri Aug 31, 2018, 06:57 PM

51. I'd like for you to show proof.

I'd like for you to show proof.



Show one evolutionists who has said this:

"Evolutionists say the same--if evolution were not true then logic would be meaningless!"

If you can't, the fact will be that you just make shit up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #50)

Sat Sep 1, 2018, 03:45 AM

55. You haven't fucking debunked anything.

Nothing.
Also people discuss things here. We don't debate. I know it makes you feel smarter to call it debating, but it isn't.
If you actually debated anyone here that knows what they are talking about, and there are quite a few, you'd end up crying because you would have no place to hide. You'd never be able to hold up because you'd burn through your 4 or 5 talking points that you bring up over and over and over right in your opening statement. Then you'd get your ass handed to you and have absolutely nothing left to talk about for the rest of the debate.
That's a fact, Jack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 30, 2018, 04:35 PM

36. Also the opposite is just as true.

Evolutionists say the same--if evolution were not true then logic would be meaningless!

Big bangers have a harder problem with distant starlight than creationists do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #36)

Fri Aug 31, 2018, 05:25 AM

40. Wrong. Creationists don't have a problem with it

Because they refuse to understand the math.
They, like you, cannot comprehend how it works and why.
They, like you, resort to ridiculous claims that make no sense.
They, like you, offer questions and questions but have absolutely no answers for anything.

The fact you idolize these loons says a lot about you. The fact that you lie about having a 162 IQ in order to make yourself seem smart says a lot about you.
Einstein had a 160 IQ, look what he accomplished. You copy/paste from loon websites, 162 indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #36)

Fri Aug 31, 2018, 08:27 AM

45. I'd like for you to show proof.

Show one evolutionists who has said this:

"Evolutionists say the same--if evolution were not true then logic would be meaningless!"

If you can't, the fact will be that you just make shit up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #45)

Fri Aug 31, 2018, 10:57 AM

47. Even worse he just believes and re-spews shit somebody else makes up.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #45)

Fri Aug 31, 2018, 06:47 PM

48. I do not know the term it is called

But it is a simple If A then B.

What do you get when evolution is shown to be scientifically impossible.????? Besides depressed that is!

But I have had many who consider themselves superior intellects here tell me if evolution is not true then science is all gibberish! Maybe they are lying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #48)

Fri Aug 31, 2018, 06:52 PM

49. I'd like for you to show proof.



Show one evolutionists who has said this:

"Evolutionists say the same--if evolution were not true then logic would be meaningless!"

If you can't, the fact will be that you just make shit up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #49)

Fri Aug 31, 2018, 07:08 PM

52. Well as I have them on ignore I will not write their names

but two evolutionists here have said if evolution is not true then science is gibberish! that is a paraphrase.

I know of no major talking head who came out with that directly- but it is still just a deflection from having to answer the questions posed.

Is this the new way of the evolutionists? Instead of discussing just hurling ad-homs and focusing on trivial things to avoid having to deal with real science???

If you spent 1/5 the time trying to discuss instead of just trying to see who can be the crudest here- we could actually have a discussion! But I guess that is too much to expect from you and others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #52)

Fri Aug 31, 2018, 08:23 PM

53. What, if you utter the names of people you ignore god will strike you with a lightning bolt?

 

You clearly got caught making up shit. Again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meowmenow (Reply #53)

Sat Sep 1, 2018, 02:39 AM

54. I suspect mine is one of the two names he dareth not speaketh

but I have never made a statement as silly as that. I have simply questioned the 95% number he loves to throw about. While I certainly agree that much science can be done independently of an acceptance of evolution and the BBT, how did he determine 95%? Did he get it from Little Stevie?

Well, it turns out he got it from an unnamed YouTube video (see Post #42) by an unnamed scientist (an “evolutionist” of course). This is almost as falsifiable as claiming Yahweh told him. Even if someone did say it in a video, what evidence(s) were offered to support the claim. I’ve googled multiple combinations of search terms and cannot find it.

So yeah, he loves to make things up just like his loony mentors. Another one I love is the “tens of thousands of evolutionary scientists who are becoming creationist scientists.” Riiiight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #54)

Sat Sep 1, 2018, 04:14 PM

59. I wish TM didn't have me on ignore anymore.

Just so I could show him my favorite forum in my profile isn't 'beliefs' anymore, it's science now.
I think he'd be proud and happy for me.
Alas, I'll never know.
He ignored me because people were alerting on his personal attacks on me, according to him, because he got a post hidden. lmao
Blamed lefty or some shit because he couldn't hold himself responsible for his own words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #59)

Sat Sep 1, 2018, 04:20 PM

60. Our colleague TM666 has done a GBCW

So he won’t be back until next week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #60)

Sat Sep 1, 2018, 04:28 PM

61. awww..

I missed that..
Oh well.

edit: found it..
He blames getting his post hidden for leaving.. lmao..
How dare they!!
Same reason he put me on ignore..hahah

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meowmenow (Reply #53)

Sat Sep 1, 2018, 05:12 PM

62. Hahaha! Now he says ABOUT 95%



https://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=28674

Is that now what the “evolutionist” said on YouTube — “about 95%.” Jeez!

A credit to Creationists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #52)

Sat Sep 1, 2018, 04:09 PM

58. When asked for proof, you paraphrase.

SCIENCE!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #49)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 07:09 AM

64. Tell you what!

Do not take my word for it. Go ask some staunch evolutionists! Just simply ask them what it would mean if evolution is not true!

If I find talking heads that are evolutionists that deal with this, I will gladly post it. See, it is more of a worldview battle than anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #64)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 12:40 PM

65. Exactly.

 

"See, it is more of a worldview battle than anything else."

Between reality and science, and bullshit derived from a two thousand year old myth promulgated by charlatans and loons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience