Vera's question on publications is a good one.

Of course. Bare in mind, the peers of creation scientists are other creation scientists. The prejudice among natural scientists prevents them from publishing articles by creation scientists.

Yes we can. Isn't that good news? We can have our cake and... guess what? We get to eat it too. Praise be to God!



We look at the "scientific evidence" with the scope of philosophy, history, theology and mathematics. Natural scientist place self-imposed restrictions upon themselves which are not placed on creation scientists. Thus creation scientists can consider things that natural scientists cannot. Creation scientists do science but they do much more than that too. So not everything they do is science but they don't claim everything they do is science either. Some is and some isn't. Doesn't that cake taste good?

Natural science assumes all observed phenomenon is a result of natural processes. Is that not a predetermined prejudice? Of course it is. If we assume their is no god to start out with, the evidence will never lead us to God if indeed He actually exists, will it?



Natural scientists went in saying "the universe and all observable phenomenon is a result of natural processes." In order to support that basic assumption they have come up with some wildly improbable theories - such as matter came from non-matter all by itself and life came from non-life by random processes. Thus they need time. Lots of time. Unimaginable amounts of time.

The intelligent design group seems to be the only ones truly approaching the issue of origins (which science does not own.) without prejudice.



But they do do science. They simply add history, theology, philosophy and mathematics to it. Origins cannot be studied within the realm of science alone because basic assumptions of natural science prohibit an honest and vigorous study of the topic.

It's a strawman. It is an attempt to attack the credible of people that disagree with a cherished opinion or belief. It is a way of trying to belittle them. It certainly is not something that should be encouraged on this board.

She asked a simple question and said 'thanks'. No assumptions.....unlike the quote that followed. An attempt at control...possibly...maybe?

My comments are in regarding the "question" about the Adventist scientists at GRI being peer reviewed.

I often post links and as long as I don't make any comments within the post itself about the story, I don't usually place it in a quotation box. Any insinuation that I am somehow plagiarizing is simply an attack on me that doesn't deserve a response.

I absolutely disagree that asking about peer reviewed publications is an attempt to belittle anyone. Look at almost any definition of science and you'll see peer reviewed publication described as the sine qua non of science, the quality control mechanism. Flieschmann and Pons' cold fusion claims were rightly rejected because their experiments could not be replicated by anyone else. Unless science can be published and tested it is not science, simple as that.

Now, if you want to make the argument that there is systematic bias against creationist scientists that prevents their work being published in mainstream journals, that's an argument that's there to be made. Have any of these scientists written anything publicly about how many papers they have submitted to journals, how many have been rejected and the reasons given by the reviewers for the rejection? Or are there other forms of evidence relevant to making that argument?

Or, if you want to argue that the appropriate scientific community of peers of creation scientists and point to articles they have published within that community that have been reviewed by those peers, that is also a case that can be made.

But to claim that asking one of the most basic questions in science is an inappropriate attempt to belittle is... inappropriate.

You intentionally missed or did not acknowledge my point about the difference between basic assumptions and conclusions. Naturalists and creationists both go in with basic assumptions, but creationists also go in with conclusions. That is a real and significant difference.

The short answer is that several of the participants have 0 entries on Google Scholar, which is a reasonable first pass at checking a publishing career. These include Clausen and Gibson.

Roberto Biaggi does have several published papers in journals like Sedimentology. If it's the same person he also has a patent.

Raul Esperante has a published paper in Geology but it's about the preservation of whale skeletons from the Miocene-Pliocene era, so not exactly recent creationist. He has several other papers in the same field.

Ronald Nalin's work is similar in that it talks about features formed by sea level changes in the Pleistocene era.

Jacques Sauvagnat has one paper in an academic journal and a few discussion papers on creationist issues, but his academic paper uses fossils in rocks in Europe to date them to 130 million years old.

Timothy Standish has one paper, published in the journal Origins.

I'd encourage anyone to check on this work. I'm citing it not to belittle these credible scientists, but because claims are being made about their work which seem not to gibe with their actual work.

(Edit: Just checking for curiosity while I was there - I have about 18. Of course, it's a lot easier to publish in education than science, so this is not any sort of comparison, just a fun sidelight to a serious discussion, and a minibrag among friends.)