A Request for Tranquility Base

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I've sifted through that article. If you think there is anything of value in it why not summarize it. I found very little.

​

That book was put together in a very simple way via a grassroots church/contacts email campign by Ashton. I was invited to write for it three years ago and chose not to at the time (I was not tenured at that time and felt it wasn't wise). There are 50 PhDed scientists who responded and they are in the book. They cover all areas of science as it should be.

​

That critisism seems utterly pathetic. It is a fine book that is pure and simple testimony of how PhDed people can be YECs. Nothing more, nothing less.

​

I have met PhDed YECs in 2 out of 3 departments I have been in. They do not all preach from a pulpit. only a handful of my collegues know that I am a YEC for example.

​

Your best coffee table buddy could be a YEC!

---

Just because a person has a Ph.D doesn't mean that they are always right or an expert in all fields as well, that is why they have peer reviewed journals and the like. How many of these 50 Ph.Ds have published on this topic in a respected mainstream peer reviewed journal? How many are in the correct fields to make a more than informed opinion on this? You can get a Ph.D in just about anything now, especially if you go to one of those diploma mills as many openly creationists do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ The very point is that most of creationists are not working on C vs E. That is the point. That book is simply a series of testimoneis and the individual should judge it for themselves. It proves nothing except that science PhDed researchers can be YECs in the scores.

---

Of course they aren't doing any such research since they don't have anything to back up what they are saying. In other words they are living a lie. Their science tells and shows them one thing yet they want to believe the opposite.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:If they are members of the ICR they are explicity prohibited from accepting data that contradict their religious views....that is one major reason why creation science will never be credible...and it should not be called creation SCIENCE rather creation belief. There is no falsifiable or testable hypothesis thus far put forth by ANY creationist so it is therefore not accurately called science.[/B][/QUOTE]How about creation pseudo-science?