I've met a real-live Young-Earth Creationist!

Originally posted by KellyJay
"…The issues in question are:
* How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes without rotting or being knocked down?
* How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could stand for the length of time it takes to build up the additional layers? … "

OR could the layers be laid down much faster than we believe they
were?

This is a lie? A que ...[text shortened]... give no credit to any question brought up,
and even questions are called lies by you.
Kelly

…OR could the layers be laid down much faster than WE believe they
were? … (my emphasis)

Just to make absolutely sure the record is put straight: the “WE” in the above excludes all credible scientists.

… you should just stop worrying about creationist…

I am not so much worrying about creationists themselves as I am worrying about their misrepresentation of science.

…you give no credit to ANY question brought up,
and even questions are called lies by you…. (my emphasis)

Nop, not all the questions; just the questions that insinuate lies.

An observation: there are Christian scientists, and there are scientists who do not discount a "young earth" possibility. These are not necessarily the same people, but both groups do exist.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"…The issues in question are:
* How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes without rotting or being knocked down?
* How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could stand for the length of time it takes to build up the additional layers? … "

OR could the layers be laid down much faster than we believe they
were?

This is a lie? A que ...[text shortened]... give no credit to any question brought up,
and even questions are called lies by you.
Kelly

Kelly, are you on the back foot here? You were initially posting reasonable comments but that one is just petty.

I am sure you are aware the 'lie' was not the question but the implication that there is claim of tree fossils being found "standing erect through geological layers representing millions and often hundreds of millions of years".

This is the question I am asking: Have any such fossils actually been found? So far nobody has suggested an example. You said you would look for it. Have you had any luck yet? I have failed in my search so far. Note that the claim contains the word "often" so we should easily be able to find references to them.

You also said you remembered a plane found embedded in million year old ice. I have failed to find that either. Have you had any more luck?

So far, I am reasonably happy with Andrews answer, unless someone can find an example of the kind of fossil being claimed by YECs.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
An observation: there are Christian scientists, and there are scientists who do not discount a "young earth" possibility. These are not necessarily the same people, but both groups do exist.

there are Christian scientists

True. There are many scientists who are christians.

and there are scientists who do not discount a "young earth" possibility.

There are very few, if any, well respected scientists who think the evidence points to a young earth.

The existence of a group doesn't mean their views are legitimate or legitimate science though.

There is a group of people who are christians and they claim to be expressing true scientific opinions and they claim that the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it. They exist too.

I'm not sure what your real point is.

Originally posted by Penguin
Kelly, are you on the back foot here? You were initially posting reasonable comments but that one is just petty.

I am sure you are aware the 'lie' was not the question but the implication that there is claim of tree fossils being found "standing erect through geological layers representing millions and often hundreds of millions of years".

This is the ...[text shortened]... s someone can find an example of the kind of fossil being claimed by YECs.

--- Penguin.

I found a plane story, have not gotten around to posting, but the
example was a weak one nonetheless as I read about it. It seems
there are several ways to count age using ice, and according to just
one of the ways it showed thousands of years. If this was the same I
one I was thinking about I don't know, I recalled hearing about it, but
didn't really go into it at the time.

I'll review my other posts later.
Kelly

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
there are Christian scientists

True. There are many scientists who are christians.

and there are scientists who do not discount a "young earth" possibility.

There are very few, if any, well respected scientists who think the evidence points to a young earth.

The existence of a group doesn't mean their views are legitimate or ...[text shortened]... ry and the sun revolves around it. They exist too.

I'm not sure what your real point is.

Just what I said--it's an observation. Several posters have claimed that these people don't exist, or that you can't be a scientist and believe in a relatively young earth, or that "creation scientist" is an oxymoron. I'm just pointing out that they do exist, and I believe in more numbers than many realize. I don't agree with all of them, but that doesn't mean they're not entitled to the degrees they've earned, as well as their beliefs.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Just what I said--it's an observation. Several posters have claimed that these people don't exist, or that you can't be a scientist and believe in a relatively young earth, or that "creation scientist" is an oxymoron. I'm just pointing out that they do exist, and I believe in more numbers than many realize. I don't agree with all of them, but that doesn't mean they're not entitled to the degrees they've earned, as well as their beliefs.

There is no such thing as a creationist scientist.
You can't dismiss scientific observations when you at the same time call yourself a scientist. No way.
It's as dumb as being an atheistic christian.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
There is no such thing as a creationist scientist.
You can't dismiss scientific observations when you at the same time call yourself a scientist. No way.
It's as dumb as being an atheistic christian.

You are so full of your own opinion you completely reject that others
with degrees as good as or better than yours who can work in the
various fields can hold different opinions it isn't even funny. It is the
height of arrogance on your part to hold such a narrow minded opinion.
It seems if people do not agree with the way you view things they are
some how something less.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are so full of your own opinion you completely reject that others
with degrees as good as or better than yours who can work in the
various fields can hold different opinions it isn't even funny. It is the
height of arrogance on your part to hold such a narrow minded opinion.
It seems if people do not agree with the way you view things they are
some how something less.
Kelly

And atheistic christian or a creationist scientist? What's the difference? Oxymorons both of them. Or perhaps just morons.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Just what I said--it's an observation. Several posters have claimed that these people don't exist, or that you can't be a scientist and believe in a relatively young earth, or that "creation scientist" is an oxymoron. I'm just pointing out that they do exist, and I believe in more numbers than many realize. I don't agree with all of them, but that doesn't mean they're not entitled to the degrees they've earned, as well as their beliefs.

The point of calling the term creation scientist an oxymoron is that to try and support the claim that the earth was created 6000 years ago you have to ignore scientific evidence, and a lot of it.

The point is that just because someone calls themselves a scientist doesn't mean they're actually doing real or good science.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
An observation: there are Christian scientists, and there are scientists who do not discount a "young earth" possibility. These are not necessarily the same people, but both groups do exist.

Most scientists who take YEC seriously are not in relevant fields. They don't understand the science that shows the extreme unlikelihood of that model.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Most scientists who take YEC seriously are not in relevant fields. They don't understand the science that shows the extreme unlikelihood of that model.

Correct, but at least you can see that they are, nevertheless, scientists. There are plenty of them teaching biology, chemistry, and physics at Christian schools like Liberty and Bob Jones University. I don't happen to agree with them, but I am not so arrogant as to call them morons.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Correct, but at least you can see that they are, nevertheless, scientists. There are plenty of them teaching biology, chemistry, and physics at Christian schools like Liberty and Bob Jones University. I don't happen to agree with them, but I am not so arrogant as to call them morons.

That somewhat raises the question as to what the true standards of Liberty and Bob Jones universities are.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
That somewhat raises the question as to what the true standards of Liberty and Bob Jones universities are.

You can be sure of one thing: these christian u's will not be making an honest effort to teach evolution, it will get short shrift if not forbidden to be taught completely.

I wouldn't like to have a physics teacher who believed that the Earth is flat, the Earth is the center of the universe, and that the universe is limited by the seventh heaven, and that he tought us this to be the truths using 'science' to prove it.