Do any 'leading/accomplished' scientists support young earth theory?

[Annik]

Thanks, I just glanced at Russell Humphreys' credentials, and Louisiana State University doesn't cut it, not even close. Why am I not surprised he is from Louisiana. I'm looking for members of the NAS, Oxford Fellows or similar.

Are you serious?

[Cato]

Being a deity and all, I know nothing of science. So I defer to all the scientists around the world and throughout history for my knowledge of science. In regards to the age of the earth, there are scientists who are also christian who argue for the young earth claims of the bible. However, is there any group of 'leading/accomplished' geologists or physicists who have actually published something that is considered a plausible argument for an earth that is 6,000 years old? If so, can someone please reference the publication.

Note, do not give reference to an unpublished scientist with a Phd from some backwater university, like Oral Robert University.

So, based on later posts you consider LSU a 'backwater university, like Oral Roberts...?

[Angrboda]

Vroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom!



What a way to die — run over by a goalpost.

[gomtuu77]

Being a deity and all, I know nothing of science. So I defer to all the scientists around the world and throughout history for my knowledge of science. In regards to the age of the earth, there are scientists who are also christian who argue for the young earth claims of the bible. However, is there any group of 'leading/accomplished' geologists or physicists who have actually published something that is considered a plausible argument for an earth that is 6,000 years old? If so, can someone please reference the publication.

Note, do not give reference to an unpublished scientist with a Phd from some backwater university, like Oral Robert University.

I would suggest that there are very few, if any. The evidence doesn't support that position without having to do all kinds of rational/irrational gymnastics to get there. But then a significant proportion of the informed Christian community doesn't hold to a young-earth creation view either. In my case, I see it as a secondary and possibly tertiary issue, but I'm all for people having the debate and attempting to get at the truth.

[GhostofZeus]

School pride? LOL! There you go making dumb ass assumptions again. I could give a shit about about LSU. Too bad you stopped reading when you did though because you might have learned something. Considering I provided enough information in my first post for you to figure out your original question I guess that's a bit much to expect. You blew that one off too.

Your hostile, petulant, crude and inaccurate insult, communicates to me that you are a very unpleasant person, and anything you write is likely to be of little value.

[Cato]

Your hostile, petulant, crude and inaccurate insult, communicates to me that you are a very unpleasant person, and anything you write is likely to be of little value.

Oh, please, do go fuck yourself. Being very concerned that you might also consider me hostile, petulant, crude and unpleasant I will allow you to choose your self-fuck weapon of choice.

Let's review, shall we....

In the OP you asked for scientists that give a 'plausible' case for a young earth and that also did not gain their scientific credentials from 'backwater' institutions such as Oral Roberts. Despite your very conditioned question, Popeye immediately eliminates 'plausible' and gives you three names to consider. You then wiki Humphries and reply with a post that can only be concluded as LSU=backwater=Oral Roberts and pile on indicating that you are looking for something from the NSA or Oxford (you didn't like the answer, so you tack on further consideration). Popeye then gives a lengthy, but enjoyable retort regarding the value of work at LSU. You apparently missed the part in the middle where the team at LSU provided a question that the NSA considers one of the top nine questions to be considered.

Still feeling butt-hurt, you continue to reply using four adjectives to describe the insult you perceived. What the fuck exactly is your major malfunction?

[Justtristo]

I prefer in this to see what creationist work gets published in the peer reviewed journals, rather than look at their credentials (lack therefore) of these creationists.

So I would ask what creationist stuff has been published in the scientific peer reviewed journals? None. That why Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis have started their own "peer review" journals. Because the peer review process acts quite effectively as crank filter, when it comes to the sciences.

[Hovik]

School pride? LOL! There you go making dumb ass assumptions again. I could give a shit about about LSU. Too bad you stopped reading when you did though because you might have learned something. Considering I provided enough information in my first post for you to figure out your original question I guess that's a bit much to expect. You blew that one off too.

Your hostile, petulant, crude and inaccurate insult, communicates to me that you are a very unpleasant person, and anything you write is likely to be of little value.

Your inane, pedantic, childish and moronic comments communicate to me that you're a fucking idiot. Instead of cherrypicking what to reply to, how about you demonstrate that you have basic reading comprehension and actually come back with something substantial?

[popeyespappy]

Look Zeus, the thing you need to realize here is that most respectable science journals don’t publish blatantly creationist articles. For good reason I might add. Many of them don’t accept papers from outspoken young Earth creationists period even when their submittals aren’t blatantly young Earth. That’s going to make it hard for you to find what you are looking for in the peer reviewed journals.

It doesn’t however mean that people like Humphreys, Hartnett and Gentry aren’t qualified in their field. Neither has it stopped them from publishing their opinions in the popular press. Indeed many of the “science” based arguments for a young Earth you hear have their origins in the writings of these three men. Humphreys has his very own cosmological model that attempts to deal with the distant starlight problem. There are even current members of this forum that have argued for a young Earth using his hypothesis.

If you want to engage someone like Waldork or GC on the issue of young Earth creationism it certainly helps to familiarize yourself beforehand with both the arguments they might use and the rebuttals to those arguments. If you don’t then frankly they are going to hand you your ass on a platter. If you are going to reject even looking at what people like Humphreys has to say based on a preexisting and baseless bias that causes you to automatically reject what he says simply because he received his doctorate in Louisiana then, as I have said before, that puts you in the same category as the creationists. Humphreys’ hypothesis needs to be judged on its own merits not on your unfounded opinion of the worthiness of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at LSU.

[Anomalocaris]

If you want a rather high standard of "accomplished/leading" in scientists who also happen to be young earth creationists, try Raymond Demadian. He is the inventor of the MRI, winner of a number of prestigious awards such Lemelson MIT award and national technology medal, and sufficiently accomplished in applied physics to have been nominated for the Nobel prize in physics itself. His nomination had enough merit such that it was endorsed by several Nobel prize winning physicists, including Steven Weinberg, author of the standard model of particle physics and probably the most infleuential physicist after Einstein; and CN Yang, the author of guage field theory and Yang Mills equation, instrumental to modern string theory.

Indeed the fact that he was not awarded the Nobel prize for his seminal work related to the MRI, while his collaborators Mansfield and Lauterbur, was, leD to one of the biggest controversies in Nobel prize selection process in recent years. It was said the Nobel committee cannot OBJECTIVELY judge the actual value of a scientist's work if he also happen to be an out spoken creationist in his spare time.

In his further defense, although he thought his exclusion from the mansfield lauterbur award was grossly unfair, and others have argued Nobel committee ought to recognize outstanding work in one field even if the worker had silly ideas in another, damadian himself never attributed the action of the committe to antagonism generated by his creationism.