Where are the creationist scientists?

[McCulloch]

Creationists and other proponents of the literal flood base their arguments upon scripture (Bronze Age storytellers’ tales) rather than upon actual study of the fields of biology, meteorology, climatology, archeology, etc.

Nuts. There are scientists in various scientific fields on both sides of the issue who investigate physical data.

Are there scientists in various scientific fields on the side of the literal flood, as described by the Bible? Please cite examples of published scientists who are recognized experts in their fields who have published works in their areas of expertise supporting the creationist flood.

What not to do: cite, for example, a meteorologist who has published a critique of evolution.

Using Zzyzx's list, show us someone who is doing new recognized research work in biology who is a published supporter of all life being evolved from a single boat load of specimens within the last 5,000 years. Show us a leading meteorologist who advocates that there were no rainbows before the alleged flood. Find an archaeologist who is taken seriously when he asserts that all existing human civilizations are descended from a single family that emerged near Mt. Ararat about 5,000 years ago. Find a hydrologist who believes that there is enough water on earth to have flooded the world. Find a geologist who echoes the claims made by creationists that the mountains were significantly lower during the time that humans inhabited earth.

Where are the creationist scientists?

[XaWN]

You know perfectly well none of these gentlemen qualify. All I see are titles, books, articles published in creationist publications... not what we're looking for and you know it. We already know where you stand. If you can't find what we ask for, you should admit it.

Dr. Humphreys has retired from Sandia and now works with the Institute for Creation Research. He has published some 20 papers in secular scientific journals, as well as many creationist technical papers".

This one has potential. I would like to read these papers (just the titles would probably suffice). As it is, it's worthless. I very much doubt the papers published in secular journals were related to creationism. Not even the article at "Creationwiki" mentions them, and the link to ICR... dead.

I've already worked to discredit Humphreys work with RATE. I believe that is what the creationist papers refer to. His other 20 papers on on his work at Sandia and have nothing to do with Creationism.

[realthinker]

While I won't argue that the discussion going on doesn't apply to the OP, I would venture to say that what was anticipated is any evidence that a conclusion that is consistent with creationism has shaped the face of science. That is, has any research consistent with the creationist viewpoint supplanted the traditional viewpoint and changed the way science, on the whole, is progressing?

Quibble about who's a scientist and whether they've published and whether it's significant, but I don't think that's going to promote any meaningful conclusion.

[XaWN]

While I won't argue that the discussion going on doesn't apply to the OP, I would venture to say that what was anticipated is any evidence that a conclusion that is consistent with creationism has shaped the face of science. That is, has any research consistent with the creationist viewpoint supplanted the traditional viewpoint and changed the way science, on the whole, is progressing?

Quibble about who's a scientist and whether they've published and whether it's significant, but I don't think that's going to promote any meaningful conclusion.

I can agree with this. I think you're correct, in fact. Having said that, if someone is going to submit XXXXX as valid information. I think it is important to crush that as soon as it possible. Even if XXXXX doesn't pertain to the argument.

If two people are arguing about how much a rock weighs, and one says: "All rocks have diamonds in them." There's a certain obligation to getting rid of that before proceeding with the argument.

The fact is that this is a tactic used by creationists to derail a topic. A reputable scientist doing bad science does not make for good conclusions. I think that giving a full response in this case is warranted. Yes, it did derail the topic for a few posts, but at least it won't be brought up again.

I submit that no creationist will use "RATE" as evidence of "good science done by creationists" again. This is a benefit to the forum as a whole, even if it derails the topic for five or six posts.

[Goat]

You know perfectly well none of these gentlemen qualify. All I see are titles, books, articles published in creationist publications... not what we're looking for and you know it. We already know where you stand. If you can't find what we ask for, you should admit it.

Dr. Humphreys has retired from Sandia and now works with the Institute for Creation Research. He has published some 20 papers in secular scientific journals, as well as many creationist technical papers".

This one has potential. I would like to read these papers (just the titles would probably suffice). As it is, it's worthless. I very much doubt the papers published in secular journals were related to creationism. Not even the article at "Creationwiki" mentions them, and the link to ICR... dead.

This is a web site that has some of his papers, and refutes him

http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm

[Fisherking]

You know perfectly well none of these gentlemen qualify. All I see are titles, books, articles published in creationist publications... not what we're looking for and you know it. We already know where you stand. If you can't find what we ask for, you should admit it.
I very much doubt the papers published in secular journals were related to creationism.

Dr. Snelling has not published peer reviewed work relating to creationism. I could find no record on LexusNexus of him publishing a creationist paper in a journal that was not dedicated to creationism.

There won't be articles in non-creationist journals gentlemen. I think this is the 3rd time we have pointed it out. I picked a few scientists from various fields that do qualify as "silver" per the OP's requirements:

Gold - A biologist who has published a paper in a peer reviewed biology journal supporting one of the centrally held ideas of creationist biology.

Silver - A biologist who is regularly published in peer reviewed biology journals, who has written a work, published elsewhere supporting one of the centrally held ideas of creationist biology.

Substitute meteorologist|meteorology archaeologist|archeology hydrologist|hydrology geologist|geology for biologist|biology above.

John Stanford secular Publications

Michael J. Oard secular publications (will have to scroll down 1/2 page where it says "publications")

Larry Vardiman secular publications

Andrew Snelling secular publication

Clifford Wilson secular/creationism mix publications

Russell Humphreys secular publications (7th paragraph down)

Danny Faulkner publications

[Beto]

Silver - A biologist who is regularly published in peer reviewed biology journals, who has written a work, published elsewhere supporting one of the centrally held ideas of creationist biology.

John Sanford, from wiki:

"Formerly an atheist, since the mid-1980s Sanford has looked into Theistic Evolution (1985-late ninties), Old Earth Creation (late nineties), and Young Earth Creation (2000-present). According to his own words, he did not fully reject Darwinian evolution until the year 2000. More recently, he has written a book entitled Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (2005)[3] in which he claims that the genome is deteriorating and therefore could not have evolved. Sanford's claims have received little attention from the scientific community, and have not been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals."

From the link to Cornell University, I couldn't find any published work (peer-reviewed or otherwise) obviously supporting one of the centrally held ideas of creationism (apart from his book). I personally don't think he qualifies as "silver".

Neither does Larry Vardiman. That link showed absolutely nothing related to creationism.

You'll understand if I don't check them all.

Perhaps "regularly" and "elsewhere" need to be defined.

[XaWN]

Dr. Snelling has not published peer reviewed work relating to creationism. I could find no record on LexusNexus of him publishing a creationist paper in a journal that was not dedicated to creationism.

There won't be articles in non-creationist journals gentlemen. I think this is the 3rd time we have pointed it out. I picked a few scientists from various fields that do qualify as "silver" per the OP's requirements:

Gold - A biologist who has published a paper in a peer reviewed biology journal supporting one of the centrally held ideas of creationist biology.

Silver - A biologist who is regularly published in peer reviewed biology journals, who has written a work, published elsewhere supporting one of the centrally held ideas of creationist biology.

Substitute meteorologist|meteorology archaeologist|archeology hydrologist|hydrology geologist|geology for biologist|biology above.

Although I have no specific interest inholding your medal from you (at least you answered the post), I'm not sure you would consider Snelling a "regularly published" scientist when it comes to peer-reviewed journals. I should have made it clear. He has published one article in a peer reviewed journal many times. Same paper, different journals.

I also went on to mention that his peer-reviewed work contradicted his creationist work. He is either indecisive or, as suggested, he was "purchased" by AiG.

You certainly may have your silver medal, but I consider it tainted.

[Rathpig]

One of the major problems with so many of these Creation "scientists" is that they would be much better served to merely claim "God did it" and move on. As has been shown time after time their grasp of science is abysmal. Humphreys is perhaps the worst of the group because his various assertions have been demonstrated incorrect for decades and he still exploits the gullible theists with his fraud. He is a con man.

Letters after one's name does not make for a magic correctness on an issue. This fallacious appeal to authority seems to be the end all-be all of the vapid Creation ideology.

And just to makes a general statement of fact, any argument that is made through a link to Answers in Genesis is a failed argument. One may as well link to David Icke's site and claim the reptilian domination as fact.

[Fisherking]

As has been shown time after time their grasp of science is abysmal.

Of course.....and all the scientists you agree with have a better grasp on science I bet.

Letters after one's name does not make for a magic correctness on an issue. This fallacious appeal to authority seems to be the end all-be all of the vapid Creation ideology.

You might want to give your fellow athiests a lecture on appeals to authority.

And just to makes a general statement of fact, any argument that is made through a link to Answers in Genesis is a failed argument.

That would depend on who was reading the argument now wouldn't it.

[Rathpig]

As has been shown time after time their grasp of science is abysmal.

Of course.....and all the scientists you agree with have a better grasp on science I bet.

"Science" is not an opinion of the individual. I "agree with" Science which is only demonstrated through individual scientists not concluded by them individually.

Letters after one's name does not make for a magic correctness on an issue. This fallacious appeal to authority seems to be the end all-be all of the vapid Creation ideology.

You might want to give your fellow athiests a lecture on appeals to authority.

An "appeal to authority" is fallacy when one draws inference based on titles rather than conclusions. One can appeal to authoritative argument without fallacious error if that authoritative argument is documented. The problem with theistic-based "science" is that the premise begins in error, the methodology compounds the error, and the conclusion is contrived.

And just to makes a general statement of fact, any argument that is made through a link to Answers in Genesis is a failed argument.

That would depend on who was reading the argument now wouldn't it.

It would depend solely on the evidence and methodology of the argument. The observer is meaningless.

You only draw this conclusion because theistic views are subjective and theistic conclusions are predetermined by this subjectivity. AiG has been so thoroughly debunked that it is as valid as the the David Icke site that I referred earlier.

By the way, that is a nice Caucasian Adam and Eve Mister Ham placed in his "museum". I assume he knows his audience well.