Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Statler Waldorf; Oh really? Creationists always fail to recognize that problem? You should read the quotes below then...

So they have recognised the problem, what is their solution?

Apart from the obvious one of the universe actually being its perceived age of 14 billion years old.

---

Well I was hoping you’d be man enough to admit you were wrong about your first assertion that creationists don’t realize this issue, however I am not surprised you didn’t. They have several proposed solutions to the problem, Anisotropic Synchrony Convention, the Gravitational Well Model, and Moshe Carmeli’s Cosmological Model. These are just three of the more popular models which can account for light from distant stars reaching Earth in a very short period of time.

I've seen you claim this over and over and over, so let's put a stop to this now.

Well it’s pretty obvious you just got all of this from some “Bible Contradiction” website. If you had just read a few of these verses in context and had a basic knowledge of scripture you would have saved me some time by not posting them. Oh well, I will answer them anyways I guess.

For starters,

when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world’s first bits of soil. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep

So here we establish that before there was land, he drew a circle on the face of the deep when he created the earth

Hmm, not sure what translation this is from, the one I am looking at says “horizon”, not circle. Don’t see any issues there.

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in

So god sits above the circle of the earth so much that its inhabitants appear as grasshoppers. Note that he can actually see us because grasshoppers are visible creatures, so he's not sitting in orbit yet he can see the whole circle of the Earth.

This verse is not a problem at all for two reasons. The first is that there was no word for ‘sphere’ in the ancient Hebrew, so the use of circle is as good as the writer’s could do to describe a spherical Earth.


"The Hebrew language lacked a specific term for sphere as well as terminology for infinite space. The word Chug, as described above and as used, in context with other words in Isaiah cannot be used to prove that the Bible teaches a flat earth."

answers.com

The second reason is that from the vantage point described in the passage the Earth would look like a circle, just as it does from the moon. It is important to remember what the verse is trying to convey, it is not trying to inform its readers on the shape of the earth.
You atheists need to start getting your stories straight though, some of you say the Bible teaches the Earth is flat with four corners, others say it is circular and flat, well which is it?

Also, apparently heaven enfolds the circle like a tent for us to live in.

Heavens, not heaven. Heavens is used to describe the sky and clouds, which of course do give us a safe place to live like a tent does. Try to live on a planet without an atmosphere or clouds and see how that works out for you.

---

Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.

A tree grew at the center of the Earth? In a sphere, this means a tree somehow grew in our molten iron-nickel core, but clearly this passage indicates that the center of the earth means the middle of a circle (a flat, 2 dimensional object like a paper or a table) and that the tree was so tall that it was visible to the ends of the earth.
Now, where does the surface of a sphere end? Was this tree so damn tall and wide that it was visible to the opposite side of the planet?
Further, it's top reached to heaven. Where is heaven, exactly? I'm pretty sure we fly planes each and every day higher than any tree ever grown and there haven't been any angels floating about in the clouds.
I'm pretty sure we would have found out about heaven being spread over the circle of the earth like a tent when we were building the international space station.

---

C’mon man, you are really reaching with this one (or at least the website you stole this from was). This is describing a dream that conveyed meaning. So the Bible itself says that these things are symbolic.

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor;

All of the kingdoms are visible from a mountain top?

No problem here, it never says that they saw all the kingdoms from the mountain top, it just says they went up there. Elsewhere in Luke it says that Jesus was shown all of these kingdoms “in a moment in time”, so it was most likely a supernatural event occurring between the son of God and the devil.

that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?

Let me know when you find a planet with edges where you can grab hold and shake it.

Intention of the passage is not to inform the readers about the shape of the earth. It’s a descriptive form of speech, just as today when scientists use the terms “sunrise” and “sunset” they don’t believe the sun orbits the earth. They are just using descriptive language. I am a bit disappointed, I was really hoping you would actually find a verse that explicitly says, “the earth is flat”.

Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

Descriptive language again, just like “sunrise” and “sunset”.

any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other,

One end to another end.
... where are the end points on a sphere again?

Descriptive language used to convey “everywhere”, not an issue. Intention of the passage was not to inform the reader about the shape of the earth. Besides it’s a lot easier than saying, “covering all of the surface area of the sphere we live on!” lol. J.R.R Tolkien even uses similar terminology in his books, maybe he thought the Earth was flat too?

… He has established the world; it shall never be moved

According to wikipedia:
The earth has an equatorial rotation velocity of 1,674.4 km/h
The earth has an orbital speed of 107,200 km/h

Now that depends on your frame of reference now doesn’t it? I think it’s a beautiful passage because from the Earth’s frame of reference the Earth cannot be moved, ever.

---

For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.

There you have it. The circle of the earth is a stationary object on a set of 'the lord's pillars.' Ever wonder where that old adage came from? Shake the pillars of the earth? This is where it came from because at one point in time, they honestly thought it was true.
Of course, this was before an understanding of gravity and that the earth doesn't need to be supported as it flys around the solar system at breakneck speeds.

---

Oh boy, if you had taken the time to read the context of the passage you would not have posted this. This is just more evidence you lifted this from a secondary website and not from your own biblical knowledge. The passage is clearly talking about people before and after this verse so it’s clear this verse is also talking about people. The “pillars” of the earth are the noble men who God providentially uses for His glory. Just as when you say, “Wow that family is great, they really are one of the pillars of the community”, you don’t actually believe the community is built on physical pillars right? I just referred to a couple of the commentaries on this passage (Calvin’s and Gill’s) and they agree with me.

or the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.

So we've now learned that heaven has windows which can be opened and the foundations of the earth can tremble in the literal sense of the words.

Those are not the literal senses of the words. Literal sense means you interpret something in accordance to how it is being used in the literature (it’s literary aspect). So if it is a physical description you interpret it as a physical description. If it is a descriptive metaphor (like here) you interpret it as descriptive metaphor.

You seem to love Wikipedia, so here you go…

“It [Biblical Literalism] does not, however, mean a complete denial of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).”

[url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism[/url]

And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

A dome to seporate water from water. Rather straightforward.

I don’t see any issue with this one, more descriptive metaphors. Really is pretty straightforward.

Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!

Hey, remember that tree that nearly reached heaven? I'm pretty sure there isn't water in orbit.

Most Biblical commentators believe that the “waters” above the heavens were the material that God used to create the rest of space. This is not a bad metaphor to use if that was the case. Especially since there was no ancient Hebrew word for “infinite space”, so making one up would have just confused the readers.

---

And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. God made the two great lights–the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night–and the stars.
God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,

So celestial bodies were placed on this dome for the express purpose of seporating night from day. Right at the beginning of this sordid little fantasy I might add.
So the allmighty created two lights to rule the cycles of night and day.
Also: celestial bodies being defined here as the sun, moon, planets, and stars.

---

Huh? I don’t see any issues with this verse. The sun is out during the day, the moon is out during the night. The sun determines our seasons and establishes our days and years. Seems all pretty simple to me. I think the fact that this first indicates that our seasons our determined by the angle of sun to the earth is actually a pretty amazing prediction. I actually never noticed that, thanks for posting this one! Lol.

---

Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?

Great, so the sky-dome has properties, in this case being 'hard as a molten mirror' and not simply another way of saying 'atmosphere' since that was also a concept yet-undiscovered in a time before a spherical world in an endless void circling a burning sun circling a great black hole at the center of our galaxy. Those things weren't known then. But god didn't apparently know either otherwise it would be somewhere in this tripe.

---

Oh man you actually believe the myth perpetuated by Washington Irving that people in these days were ignorant of the Earth’s shape? The earth’s shape was known by people long before Christ’s birth do to ships disappearing over the horizons and the shadows created by solar eclipses.

---

Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.’

So yeah... the dome is dense enough for god to walk on, shrouded in clouds.
I have to wonder which clouds these could be because there are a variety of clouds that form in the earth's atmosphere, which varies by distance above the Earth's surface.

Of course, mountains can actually get above the lowest of clouds, so the tree mentioned some distance above must have been as tall or taller than a mountain. Either way, mountains don't pierce into the middle or upper atmosphere, so if this dome is tall enough to be threatened to be reached by a tree or the tower of babel, then it can't be much higher up than a mountain.
This would give the allmighty a bird's eye view of the whole circle of the earth, though humans would be invisible and not small like grasshoppers at that height.

---

You are really having trouble with the whole concept of descriptive metaphors aren’t you? You would be every poet’s nightmare lol. Besides, I don’t think anything needs to be “dense enough” for an all powerful God to walk on it.

And he said to him, "Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."

... that's because the devil stole heaven't garage door opener.
That crafty rascal.

Huh? I don’t see anything wrong with that verse. Heaven opens up and angels ascend and descend to and from earth. So?

He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners.

a large sheet being lowered by its four corners? The onramp to heaven? The highway to hell?

Notice it says, “like a large sheet”, yeah in English we call that a simile. I can’t believe you actually put some of these on here, they are pretty simple.

"Look," he said, "I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!"

... and then... the backyard barbecue ensues after letting heaven's golden retriever in the front door.

Jesus reins from the right hand of God, so?

And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased."

I'm curious to see what, exactly, these openings look like. They're always depicted as beams of light in order to not look retarded, but that's silly as well, because god walks on the dome (established above) so it must be transparent so he can see through it.

Maybe someday you will find out. Again, I see no issue with this verse. I love how you say the Bible is not consistent but then you use terms like, “they are always depicted as…” haha. Sounds pretty consistent to me.

"When heaven (same Hebrew word as sky) is shut up and there is no rain because…

...oh right. The dome keeps the water out. I forgot that the dome was to seporate the water from the water. God must be walking upside down on the dome becuase that's just how he rolls.

So the next time the meteorologist on the Weather Channel says, “Expect this week for the clouds to open up and you to see some serious rain!” he doesn’t actually know who rain works? Give me a break. Here I was all excited that maybe you’d show me some actual contradictions in the Bible and all you have done is display your complete ignorance of literary elements and figures of speech. *sigh*

Yet he commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven (same Hebrew word as sky);

Of course, the bible never seems to mention snow, hail, hurricanes, sleet, or tornadoes.
Then again, it doesn't really do any of those things in the middle east. [/quote]

Yeah you’d totally expect a book that depicts happenings in the Middle East to talk about things that don’t happen in the Middle East huh? Lol. Though you saying it never mentions these things at all is false.

“The breath of God produces ice,
and the broad waters become frozen.” Job 37

“Does the rain have a father?
Who fathers the drops of dew?
29 From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
30 when the waters become hard as stone,
when the surface of the deep is frozen?” Job 38

This is actually good evidence for the single ice age model that creationists believe followed the flood because Job uses metaphors about ice and cold. Something which would not ever be talked about in today’s Middle East.

No mention of hail in the Bible?

“He hurls down his hail like pebbles.
Who can withstand his icy blast?” Psalms 147

Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing. (talking about rain for crops)

Ah. I wonder where the heavenly septic pump is for after these rains and floods he causes. Maybe the pillars are supported by a basement pump that returns the water to outside the dome?

Metaphors.

They have authority to shut the sky, so that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying,

So THAT's where the garage door opener is.

Metaphor.

---

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

This is why America needs proper health reform. We just don't live to 600 years like we used to, before medicine, pennicillin, and old age diseases.
Also, I'm confused. Sometimes when heaven opens, jesus comes out or goes up. Other times, genocide by rainfall. It's like a horrifying game show of guess what's behind these doors. Choose right, you get salvation. Choose wrong and you and millions of your neighbors regardless of salvation or innocence all die.
Because god loves you all.

---

More pure genomes and longer telomeres led to longer lives. People don’t “choose” their salvation. Nobody is innocent. Granting common grace to all and saving grace to some is evidence that God does love everyone.

... but wait, for 9.95$, we still have more bargain quotes to drive my point home.

If this is what you call driving your point home, I want my $9.95 back.

On the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the LORD; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon."

---

And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.

That's right. Someone found that remote from that Adam Sandler movie "Click" and hit the 'pause' button specifically on the movements of heaven. Not only is the circle of the earth stationary now, but everything else is as well, except for people.

---

[orogenicman]

Well I was hoping you’d be man enough to admit you were wrong about your first assertion that creationists don’t realize this issue, however I am not surprised you didn’t. They have several proposed solutions to the problem, Anisotropic Synchrony Convention, the Gravitational Well Model, and Moshe Carmeli’s Cosmological Model. These are just three of the more popular models which can account for light from distant stars reaching Earth in a very short period of time.

None of which explains the current rate and types of stellar evolution. So tell us, Statler, have you ever spent even one minute inside of a real observatory? Do you even know how a digital camera works? How about a spectrograph? Please explain how these stars (all of which are found within our solar system, some of which, like M1 itself, is already dead) were formed in 6 days:



I took this photo Tuesday. How can these stars form in six days, and yet suddenly slow by orders of maginitude their evolution miraculously as soon as we start looking at them?

[Ashendant]

Couldn't the same be the same about the universe? the universe is truth and it will never contradict itself, if the universe contradicted itself we wouldn't be here.

How do you know the universe can’t contradict itself? You would have to observe this to be true and considering we can observe and test very little of the universe this is a conclusion unfounded. Even if the universe didn’t contradict itself, which I believe is the case but because God tells us it won’t, this does not mean that we humans should or ought to act in a way similar to the universe. So you still have no foundation for being logical and rational.

Because the Universe is a fact and facts can't contradict themselves, unless one of the facts is either fake or misinterpreted, and we do act in similar way to universe, because we're part of it, it's called life and our morals evolve with our evolution both social and biological

Absolute morality? that's why priests still rape children, while society as moved one besides, your so called "absolute morality" was stolen from the Egyptian book of the dead(yes another religious book but at least this one had things thought out and the bible/torah just copied it halfassed ignoring other important rules)

That's just the god of gaps argument, filling gaps in knowledge with the word "god did it" just because we don't know.

How do you know it was stolen from the Egyptians? Were you there to witness this? The Bible says that man is fallen and chooses according to his sinful nature, so the fact there is “evil” in the world adds more validity to its claims. In fact, it gives us the absolute moral standards to be able to say rape and murder are wrong. Using your worldview you’d have no basis to tell anyone anything is wrong and they should act in any particular way.[/quote]

Because 7 of the 10 Commandments are exactly the same just worded differently and even so, the Egyptian had these rules set before Abrahamic god gave the ten commandments, meaning that the Egyptian had already these rules and these rules are independent of him, if you think the rules is a moral code of divine providence, boy your barking at the wrong god.

Social Evolution might explain "evil".

Then your standards are pretty much skewered because you ignore claims that have been peer reviewed with a lot of proof, and choose to accept claims that have either proven false or just show a small contradiction in a large more broading theory, besides the point that the reason of that contradiction is most probable justified with other insignificant causes

What did this have to do with youtube?
[/quote]
I was explaining your faults besides the pope has rejected creationism some time ago, so it's unchristian to believe in creationism as nothing more than allegory, of course you can just refuse it or be part of one of the many sects that is not part of the mainstream catholic

[Welsh cake]

The scientific method is used in operational sciences, not origins sciences (Evolution). You can’t very well observe, test and repeat the past now can you?

Stick to interpreting the Bible Statler, keep making excuses for it, that's what you excel at.

Understanding the methodology behind the scientific body of techniques we use for investigating, inquiring, and predicting phenomena through observing and collecting empirical evidence to formulate rigorously-tested hypotheses to provide explanations of reality that are reliable, are currently beyond your grasp.

Ruling out possible answers beforehand (the supernatural) is not being objective and is hardly scientific.

Define "natural" and its scope or limits first. Until you do, "super-natural" is a meaningless word.

First of all this is not testing the validity of the claims, you would have to directly observe the age of the earth to do that.

Likewise, you have apply your own convoluted logic and live 248 Earth years to directly witness Pluto make one complete orbit around the sun, maybe if we pray sincerely to your infallible-brand-of-god and hope he'll let us live that long? Maybe we'll fail miserably and die without knowing, and all because you couldn't be bothered to use your brain and apply the laws of physics to calculate the mechanics of any given celestial bodies' orbital motion through space-time.

NO. We have the math. We have radiometric methods. They're not always as accurate as we'd like, but science doesn't stop working therefore it cannot fail in anything outright, the learning process doesn't stop, we are constantly developing calibration methods to refine their dating accuracy all the time.

CMI is an international scientific organization that publishes a peer-reviewed journal that has many articles written by experts that confirm the validity of the creation model.

Okay. Creationist magazines are NOT peer-reviewed scientific journals. You really should proof-read your posts BEFORE the stupidity leaps off the webpage and burrows into my skull.

It may not be by your arbitrary definition, but I am not about to let you redefine the English language for the purpose of the debate. Using the actual definition of science the Journal of Creation is very much a scientific source, it takes a systematic approach to gaining knowledge about the physical world.

ENOUGH ALREADY. Creationist magazines are NOT peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[orogenicman]

I suspect that Statler doesn't understand that the Vatican observatory doesn't actually exist in order to verify creationism. The fact is that the Vatican observatory understands as well as every other astronomical organization that the universe is very, very old.

[Statler Waldorf]

Because the Universe is a fact and facts can't contradict themselves, unless one of the facts is either fake or misinterpreted, and we do act in similar way to universe, because we're part of it, it's called life and our morals evolve with our evolution both social and biological

How do you know facts can’t contradict themselves? You are not giving me justification for this belief. You are just saying things can’t contradict themselves because things can’t contradict themselves. Morals evolve? Then how are they determined?

Because 7 of the 10 Commandments are exactly the same just worded differently and even so, the Egyptian had these rules set before Abrahamic god gave the ten commandments, meaning that the Egyptian had already these rules and these rules are independent of him, if you think the rules is a moral code of divine providence, boy your barking at the wrong god.

Similarities do not equate to intellectual theft. I am older than you and I have similar moral beliefs as you do, does that mean I stole my morals from you? Nope. Non-sequitur.

I was explaining your faults besides the pope has rejected creationism some time ago, so it's unchristian to believe in creationism as nothing more than allegory, of course you can just refuse it or be part of one of the many sects that is not part of the mainstream catholic

The Pope is not infallible and does not speak for Christianity, hence why we had a reformation. The Pope could believe that God didn’t exist and it would not change my beliefs on the matter. Telling a Reformed Christian, “Well the Pope believes it therefore you should too!” is actually a bit humorous.

Stick to interpreting the Bible Statler, keep making excuses for it, that's what you excel at.

Understanding the methodology behind the scientific body of techniques we use for investigating, inquiring, and predicting phenomena through observing and collecting empirical evidence to formulate rigorously-tested hypotheses to provide explanations of reality that are reliable, are currently beyond your grasp.

Everything you said here is operational science, very good. Try to do all of this with the past (observe, test, repeat, predict). You just proved my point my friend. Thanks.

Define "natural" and its scope or limits first. Until you do, "super-natural" is a meaningless word.

Natural events are the way that God consistently upholds His creation; we describe these events by formulating “Laws of Nature”. These laws help us to make predictions in the future. When God acts in a way that is contrary to his usual way of upholding his creation we call this a super-natural event. To suggest that supernatural events cannot happen is completely inappropriate.

Likewise, you have apply your own convoluted logic and live 248 Earth years to directly witness Pluto make one complete orbit around the sun, maybe if we pray sincerely to your infallible-brand-of-god and hope he'll let us live that long? Maybe we'll fail miserably and die without knowing, and all because you couldn't be bothered to use your brain and apply the laws of physics to calculate the mechanics of any given celestial bodies' orbital motion through space-time.

What does Pluto’s orbit have to do with observing the age of the earth?

NO. We have the math. We have radiometric methods. They're not always as accurate as we'd like, but science doesn't stop working therefore it cannot fail in anything outright, the learning process doesn't stop, we are constantly developing calibration methods to refine their dating accuracy all the time.

We can test our calculations about Pluto’s orbit with direct observation and we can repeat these observations. However, when we test radiometric methods with actual known observed ages they are never even close to being right. If you want to have the blind faith that these methods are all of the sudden valid when dating materials without known ages, be my guess but it’s not scientific to me.

Okay. Creationist magazines are NOT peer-reviewed scientific journals. You really should proof-read your posts BEFORE the stupidity leaps off the webpage and burrows into my skull.

By definition they actually are. They are written by scientists conducting science and reviewed by scientists (their peers).

ENOUGH ALREADY. Creationist magazines are NOT peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Enough already with the baseless assertions, back it up or shut it up.

I suspect that Statler doesn't understand that the Vatican observatory doesn't actually exist in order to verify creationism. The fact is that the Vatican observatory understands as well as every other astronomical organization that the universe is very, very old.

I was beginning to think maybe you had fallen into a tar pit or something somewhere. The Vatican is not infallible. Actually several creationists have worked at some of the most prestigious labs and observatories in the world. After all, the Apollo space program was headed by a YEC. As to your other posts, actually all three of those models work perfectly fine; we are just waiting to see which one presents itself as the best explanation. Distant starlight is not a problem to a biblical creation. Good to see you again though OGM, I like the avatar.

[Minimalist]

They are written by scientists conducting science and reviewed by scientists (their peers).

Only you would call creationist shitheads "scientists."

[Ashendant]

How do you know facts can’t contradict themselves? You are not giving me justification for this belief. You are just saying things can’t contradict themselves because things can’t contradict themselves. Morals evolve? Then how are they determined?

Because I've checked the dictionary

something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

If facts where not truth then one of them had to be a lie, if natural facts contradicted, then we wouldn't exist because that's impossible

By survival.

Similarities do not equate to intellectual theft. I am older than you and I have similar moral beliefs as you do, does that mean I stole my morals from you? Nope. Non-sequitur.

Except that one appeared after they left culture that had those same laws... and they needed to keep order...

[quote]
The Pope is not infallible and does not speak for Christianity, hence why we had a reformation. The Pope could believe that God didn’t exist and it would not change my beliefs on the matter. Telling a Reformed Christian, “Well the Pope believes it therefore you should too!” is actually a bit humorous.

He might not speak specific to you but he speaks to catholic Christianity, he speaks with the voice of St. Peter, and can issue formal definitions of faith and morals

[Statler Waldorf]

They are written by scientists conducting science and reviewed by scientists (their peers).

Only you would call creationist shitheads "scientists."

Actually so would the dictionary. Creationists are using a systematic approach to obtain knowledge about the physical world. This by definition makes them scientists. If you want to be arbitrary and change the definition to fit your beliefs then do it, but I simply cannot agree with you for intellectual and logical reasons.

[Ashendant]

They are written by scientists conducting science and reviewed by scientists (their peers).

Only you would call creationist shitheads "scientists."

Actually so would the dictionary. Creationists are using a systematic approach to obtain knowledge about the physical world. This by definition makes them scientists. If you want to be arbitrary and change the definition to fit your beliefs then do it, but I simply cannot agree with you for intellectual and logical reasons.

an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences.

Since creationism is neither natural or a physical science(you claimed that creationism was the study of super-natural origins) therefore any creationist is by the definition given by the dictionary, not a scientist.

I just beat you with a dictionary, how does that feel