Jacor
Posts: 2
Joined: Nov. 2002
|
I just want to make the observation that if the level of scientific "thought " as presented by the person with the title of "Information Representative" of AiG is true of the actual science used by them. I predict that within 2 generations of Creationists being able to teach their "science" as a valid alternative theory, society will be well on its way back to pre-scientific levels of health and knowledge. This is due to the superficial level of thinking that is encouraged.
John Verderame, in a fairly detailed non-answer to my statement on why I did not accept his generalizations as answers to my specific questions. gave this Bio. "I have a B.S. in Biology and a Master of Theology degree from a highly respected Seminary and almost 30 years of work experience both in ministry and in the fields of biology and astronomy, so have done some studying too."
In response to my observation that the problem with relying on the Bible to answer anything that is not currently in the "known" column in science is that it discourages the original research needed to find the answers. His response was "prove that". He also referred me to a list of "research" done by creationists.
Here is what I found.
Dr Steve Austin PhD, describes self as Creationist Geology Professor, B.S. (Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA, M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Only acknowledged publications are in Creationist publications, and are not on field of specialty of Geology. No original research.
Dr Don Batten He is doing work that any self-respecting agriculturist does. He might have a new hybrid, but no original research. Does have publications in Creationist publications on mutation as evidence of divine intervention, other than "the Bible tells me so", no supporting evidence. He makes unsupported statements about the number of nucleotides that can be changed before becoming fatal (3). I will point out that 3 nucleotides do not make up a single gene. His degree is in Horticulture.
Dr John Baumgardner (B.S, M.S., PhD (UCLA)) is a geophysicist employed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. His work involves detailed computer modeling of the structure and processes of the earth's interior, as well as a variety of other fluid dynamics phenomena.
Only published works supporting Creationism is at 3 Creation Conferences, and are not related to his field of study.
Is this supposed to impress me? Especially since his bio states that he changed majors to prove creationism is correct. Since he has not run any tests to prove or disprove his hypothesis he can not claim that his belief is anything other than an opinion.
Jerry Bergman PhD Psychology Published in Creationist publications on topic of why there is no scientific support for evolution.
I know a master level psychologist that believes that watermelons are cucumbers left on the vine too long. So?
I do not see any original research here. How does this disprove my statement?
Dr. Verderame's response: "(What are YOUR credentials, that you are in such a position to pass judgment?)"
Like an idiot I actually sent them. AAS Nursing, BS double major Chemistry and Biology
His response: "Please don't expect any further responses. We are not getting anywhere.
Have a good weekend.
John"
Since the following are verbatim quotes from him in two earlier communications I must state that I do not have his permission to quote this, however I am quoting just to show his level of response when he can't think of anything better.
He cited Pasteur as being the perfect "Creationist Scientist" because he developed the germ theory despite opposition by scientific thought. In response I sent an abbreviated history of contributors to the germ theory going back to 50 AD. He now changes his argument to:
JV: "What is your point? Of course, no theory arises in isolation. We point out that evolution has its basis in ancient Greek philosophy. But Darwin helped to systematize and quantify the concept so that those who followed him recognize his work as a watershed. Same with Pasteur.
I could not resist, so my response and his reply follows.
He inserted responses in my answer and they are designated as "JV".
Technically since Pasteur did not publish, and Koch provided the proof, Koch should be credited with the formulation of the theory.
JV: Nice try. So 'publishing' is what distinguishes the men from the boys, eh?
Otherwise credit would have to go to Henle in 1840. As pointed out in the section on Koch, just like evolution, the Germ Theory continues to "evolve."
JV: Which you have yet to demonstrate ;-) Throw the word around all you want. But back it up with facts. You know those microorganisms Pasteur and Koch played with? Make one. Starting with nothing. And then, if you can do it, prove to me it took no intelligence to do it.
I could not reply to his comments as he cut communication with me. The range of topics had grown to the proportion that there was no cohesive way to respond to all of them in each communication. The list kept growing as Dr. Verderame added to the list each time. I think he was planning on overwhelming me with the sheer volume of topics.
Paul C
|
