Calilasseia

Taken from the above cited words of afdave in the above post:

Can he name any of these?

If the name list includes Batten, Woodmorappe or Humphreys, then I think most people here would not regard these as individuals with sound credentials.

ck1

Dave's list includes people like Isaac Newton, Louis Agassiz and Gregor Mendel. And lots of other long dead scientists many of whom pre-dated Darwin.

And, of course, a host of contemporary but nameless scientists cowering in their labs for fear of losing their jobs should they dare to disagree with the Darwinistas in charge. (And there is that DI list of ~700 dissenting scientists)

Note also that Dave mentions "hundreds" of scientists - not many considering the fact that there are several hundred thousand scientists working in the US alone.

But the most important question is always unanswered - can Dave name any creationist scientist who has made a real contribution to his field that is clearly derived from creationism?

Calilasseia

Oh of course, I forgot all about the people Dave claims were "creationists" in his sense of the term, when they were actually "creationists" because there was no other competing theory extant when they were alive. Not that having that canard brought into the light of day repeatedly will ever stop him from resorting to it as and when he thinks it is convenient to do so. Unfortunately, in the case of Lord Kelvin, his doubts about deep time were based upon the fact that he could not figure out a mechanism by which the Sun could generate heat for hundreds of millions of years, which had to wait for the advent of nuclear physics. Kelvin had alighted upon a fair amount of good scientific knowledge on heat (the Kelvin scale of absolute thermodynamic temperatures was his invention after all) but limited as he was to energy derived from chemical processes (he died before nuclear physics really started to take off) he was stymied as to how the Sun could continue generating heat for the timescales implied by geology. Therefore using Lord Kelvin as an argument against deep time is yet another canard, because if Lord Kelvin has alighted upon nuclear physics and nuclear fusion, he would doubtless have revised his views, just as he revised his views as a result of both deduction and experiment in the controversy over the connection between heat and work evident in the exchanges between Carnot and Joule.

Citing pre-Darwinian scientists as "good creationist scientists" is therefore a complete canard. Not least because once a competing theory arose, it took over because it explained the evidence provided by real world observation, a fact that Dave simply refuses to acknowledge, preferring instead to devise ever more convoluted and contrived defences of his theology.

After that, I feel minded to put the following in boldface and draw people's attention to it, because, CK, you have hit the head most squarely on the nail with this and deserve a MAJOR hat tip for it, with a little modification of my own that rounds it off nicely:

But the most important question is always unanswered - can Dave name any creationist scientist in the modern era who has made a real contribution to his field that is clearly derived from creationism?

I suspect that any thread launched specifically for this purpose will prove to be another "Miss Haversham" thread, rather like my "flood sediment deposit" one.

Worldtraveller

Ah, my alma mater.

I spent a lot of time visiting some of the other departments when I was an undergrad there. I've seen at least one of the trees in person at the U of A. I'm not sure if that was one of the trees in question.

I wonder if dave would like me to dig through my boxes of pictures and see if I have a shot of that tree?

I also spent a lot of time at the U of A Planetary and Space Sciences visual library. That is the 'backup' site used by NASA to store all the old photos (and now digital media). It literally contains a copy of every picture ever taken by NASA in outer space, from the Ranger program way back, to current video from space shuttle missions. Something else (well, millions of something elses) that make dave's young universe blatantly wrong.

Cheers,
Lane

Calilasseia

I bet a few of us would have fun browsing through those archives!

Mind you there are quite a few impressive archives to browse through in places not too far from me. If you have a passion for entomology for example, Liverpool Museum's Department of Invertebrate Zoology has a fascinating collection and several published authors of international stature among the staff.

connick

I hope CM doesn't let the grace period slip past! I'd really like to see this debate come to a conclusion!

mung bean

It's unlike CM. Hope he isn't ill or anything.

Occam's Aftershave

I think Dave asked for and got a one week 'freeze' on the debate due to his travel.

Calilasseia

Shouldn't the mods therefore have a record of this and apply it to CM too?

mung bean

So CM's post is up and it's game, set and match.
Dave may as well stay in Mexico.