"Creation Science" experiments.

Secular - If there was a world wide flood, what evidence would be left behind?Creation - If God made the world flood, what evidence would be left behind?Is that fair? Why, if the science is the same but the assumptions differ, would we get any different answer?

But none of this is really true.On the one hand, lots of what you would call "secular scientists" and what I would call scientists manage to believe in God and miracles and still do science perfectly well.

Creationists, on the other hand, do not merely think that God exists, they believe that he has done certain specific things, and will advance any hypothesis, no matter how unevidenced, that will protect that belief.This is why there is no general creationist method for doing science. If there was it would look like this:Scientist : The boiling point of water at sea level is 100C.Creationist : God says that it is 80C, so you are wrong.Scientist : But I did the experiment. Here's the data.Creationist : God says that it is 80C, so you are lying about the data. You evil atheist liar.Scientist : Come and look. Look here. Boiling water. Thermometer. See?Creationist : Clearly the devil or God or some form of magic pixie is tampering with your thermometer.Scientist : But look, I can calibrate it against objects of known temperature, so I know it works.Creationist : Well, that rests on your materialist atheistic assumption that calibration works and that God never does miracles to confute your secular materialistic calibration.Scientist : I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.Creationist : ATHEIST! ATHEIST! ATHEIST! I don't have to listen to what you say about the measurements you've made because you assume naturalism! This is secular science! You have the wrong assumptions!

The only reason that this particular scenario has never played out is that creationists are only obliged to be wrong about some things, not everything.

Assumption does not automatically mean wrong or suspect, as creationists would have us believe.

Assumptions in scientific theories and techniques are not guesses, nor are they random and arbitrary. They follow the evidence.Example: it is assumed that the radioactive decay rate is constant because all the evidence points in that direction. Radiocarbon dating, even though based on this assumption, is considered reliable as this assumption is supported by the evidence.In some scientific modeling the assumptions may be arbitrary, random, or unsupported by evidence as this is one method of obtaining feedback on those assumptions (in this they act as variables). These models should not be confused with scientific theories, which are supported by immense amounts of data and are not contradicted by any significant data.

This shows that creationists' argument that they are just interpreting the evidence in light of a different set of assumptions is a flawed method, and is not science. The assumptions creationists propose are not supported by immense amounts of evidence but are the result of a need to try to force the data to support their desired conclusions. These assumptions are frequently contradicted by huge amounts of evidence (e.g., young earth and global flood ca. 4,350 years ago).

This flawed method is commonly found in creation "science," and has led to the "teach both theories" slogan. Ignored is the fact that science generates theories based on the evidence, while creation "science" is designed to support religious dogma and belief and to sneak that religious dogma and belief back into the schools. There is no theory in creation "science" -- only beliefs which must be supported no matter what the evidence shows.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr John Ashton, Chemist, Food technology
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 Donald Baumann, Solid State Physics, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, Cedarville University
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 Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Stuart Burgess, Engineering and Biomimetics, Professor of Design & Nature, Head of Department, Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK)
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr Robert W. Carter, PhD Marine Biology
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 Xidong Chen, Solid State Physics, Assistant Professor of Physics, Cedarville University
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
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr Andr Eggen, Geneticist
Dr Leroy Eimers, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Dr Dennis Flentge, Physical Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry and Chair of the Department of Science and Mathematics, Cedarville University
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 Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr Steven Gollmer, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics, Cedarville University
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 Steven Hayes, Nuclear Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Larry Helmick, Organic Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
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
Dr G. Charles Jackson, Science Education
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlstrm, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
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 Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr Johan Kruger, Zoology
Dr Wolfgang Kuhn, biologist and lecturer
Dr Heather Kuruvilla, Plant Physiology, Senior Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jean Lightner, Agriculture, Veterinary science
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Ral E Lpez, meteorologist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Heinz Lycklama, Nuclear physics and Information Technology
Dr Ian Macreadie, Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemistry
Dr Mark McClain, Inorganic Chemistry, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr John McEwan, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr Victor Meyer, Entomology, environmental science
Dr Douglas Miller, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
Robert T. Mitchell, specialist in Internal Medicine and active speaker on creation
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
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Mathew Piercy, anaesthetist
Dr Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Jules H. Poirier, Aeronautics, Electronics
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy
Dr John Sanford, Plant science / genetics
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Alicia (Lisa) Schaffner, Associate Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
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 Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
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 S.H. ‘Wally’ Tow (Tow Siang Hwa), retired chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Singapore
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 History (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and Archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Daiqing Yuan, Theoretical Physics
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

I think you are missing the point. The point is this. Why are none of these scientists doing any science in creationism or ID. You can tout their credentials and research all day long, but at the end of the day none of them are doing any creation or ID science.

No one is questioning that they have strong religious beliefs. No one is questioning whether they are performing science in their fields. (though I think a questioning of the validity of some of their research may be in order.e.g. Dr Clifford Wilson, Dr Kurt Wise, John Whitmore and Bryant Wood to mention a few).They are just not doing any research into creationism and ID. Why is that? I would have to question the strength of some of their beliefs if they are not willing to try to find evidence for their beliefs.

Seems to be bullshit. A lot of these people are very obscure and I can find no peer reviewed articles by them, in any subject matter.

So no real creation science then.

What a crock that was. They threw out all the evidence and enacted some sort of magic effect from their god. Do we have to rehash the RATE thread again?

You have shown far less than majority. Even just looking at the ones on your list. I have already found that many that are so obscure that hardly anyone knows who they are. You should be very careful on using words like "majority".

Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature.

But we are not asking for peoples' beliefs. We are asking for experiments that test hypotheses derived from creationism. Those are two very different things.

Unless they have published original research that tests creation science hypotheses then it really isn't relevant.

So what experiments did he run to test this hypothesis? What observations, if made, would falsify this hypothesis?

Why do you think listing names has any bearing on the validity of creation "science" as an endeavour?

the significant points are as follows. First, I will be referencing Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.the Red Wall Limestone is one of the upper layers in the Grand Canyon, but still relatively old.
if the flood is invoked as the mechanism that supposedly swept all the shells into an area where they could later be compacted and turned into limestone, then the Flood is not available to explain any of the other formations or for cutting the Grand Canyon itself.
the layer is limited and bounded.
the layer is NOT continuous world wide.

So how does he go from a moving water to a global flood?

That's just it. The walls of the Grand Canyon are loaded with these very sediments. The Coconino sandstones are a perfect example. They are wind deposited sand dunes like those found in the more famous deserts across the world. Other areas are loaded with fossil bearing limestone, evidence of long periods of calm water. There are also extensive burrows from air breathing animals within these sediments.

To this day I have never seen a single creation scientist that honestly and specifically described a hypothetical geologic structure that they would accept as falsifying a young earth or a global flood. None. This highlights the problem with creation "science". Potential falsifying evidence is ignored or handwaved by referring to completely ludicrous or magical mechanisms. In creation science there is no null hypothesis. There is only a conclusion that must be assumed and not questioned. When you can no longer put the conclusion in doubt you are no longer doing science.

I have read papers by the RATE people and criticism's. Are you claiming that they do not invoke a magic effect from their god in order for it all to work?

This is from Larry Vardiman. They make sure to highlight his Ph.D. You know what his Ph.D. is in? Atmospheric Science, he is a meteorologist. A highly educated weatherman and he is their point person on nuclear decay?

So explain how they are not invoking godidit.

Now maybe you misunderstood me. I am not saying I could not find any peer reviewed articles by any of them. I am saying that a lot of the people on the list are very obscure and for those people I could find nothing.

Then again maybe this is your out "the majority of creationists involved in the debate".

Are you saying the only a minor portion of the people on the "list" are "involved" in the debate. If so that is true, you are correct, but the list is just a disingenuous gish gallop.

Certainly you have an example? Or are you referring to "scientists" who are also creationists? I'd be hard pressed to see an actual scientist who is a creationist who also does not push a creationist agenda.

Are you going with the idea that to back up you comment every thesis is published and peer reviewed? I mean yeah I guess technically, but that really really sets an incredibly low bar doesn't it. Then again that doesn't really matter because your original comment was this(pay attention to the bold)

Then again finally. Show the research on creation science. That is the premise of the thread, The premise not that there are not any scientists that believe in creationism and ID. No one has stated that. You have misread something that makes you think that was said, but by continuing down this vein you are just blowing smoke to deflect from the real point that there is no creation or ID science.

There is no science that supports creationism. No verifiable predicted results that have been achieved as a direct result of creationist theories or interpretations. No discoveries. Nothing new. Zip. Nada. Zilch. How can you call an activity that has never discovered anything "science"?

All you guys do, all you ever do, is re-interpret genuine scientific discoveries in terms of your own pre-defined beliefs. That is not science. It is confirmation bias of the very worst kind.