Dude, that is epic..... I totally forgot about Monty...
Edit that line...g-d will make them pay for every sperm not found and the line I was Catholic since dad came..... lol...... brings me to tears
Sigh... I've got 4 Brothers 4 sisters.... tell me.... what religion do you think my dad is lol...
Now to open up my movie book and watch the movie again :)

Gah, why didn't I post that? Monty Python's always awesome... And has something to say about everything! :D

224
"Would you mind re-explaining this? I don't get your point. Are you saying that the bear would be too full to eat mike? I forgot to say that Dave's a midget, he's sort of like an entree."
Sure:
The origonal question was "Where Does Information Come from" you stated that it came from human observation which was incorrect, in which i said if thet were true they would be singing "Kum-bah-yah (one of those "peace lovers" favorite songs...i forgot why, it was slight parody on that point) until one ate mike (or whoever the heck was first) and then they became bloodthirsty carnivores
post 224
Well I've not been in a generalist school for a long time but when I was, if someone made the assertion that god was responsible for something, they'd be asked to document a hypothesis and come up with a testing regimen to prove or disprove it. None of my teachers would ever have started a class with a lecture about how god is a fantasy and if they did, they'd have probably been disciplined for wasting class time.
/post
If only teachers/professors in the U.S followed THAT model...(you are austrailian, and i assume an austrailian university yes? correct me if i am wrong here...)
post 224
Now if they were asked to teach creationism as depicted from a single unverifiable source as an equal science to the evolutionary model which has grown up out of centuries of methodical and verifiable analysis THEN the discussion would have gotten pretty heated.
\post
well the creationist scientists (yes they exist....I'll throw out a few names, apparently there are thousands of them, Johnathan Sarafati, Dr. Wilder-Smith, Dr. Baumgardener, Dr. Raymond Damidian, Dr. Humphryes, ect.) the question is, why do they see it that way, these are all PhD's in their study, why did they go against the grain, remember it takes one negative test to bring down ANYTHING in science, just look at what happened with the law of spontaneous generation!.
and I am going to take a sitting bull stance here, ("I will fight no more") It will seem to degrade into fruitless argument and a waste of my time when i have other things to do...

Farthest_Outpost wrote: "well the creationist scientists (yes they exist....I'll throw out a few names, apparently there are thousands of them, Johnathan Sarafati, Dr. Wilder-Smith, Dr. Baumgardener, Dr. Raymond Damidian, Dr. Humphryes, ect.) the question is, why do they see it that way, these are all PhD's in their study, why did they go against the grain,"
For anyone interested in hearing what the creationist scientists have to say, and seeing how they reconcile their difference from their fellow scientists, I very much recommend the site www.answersingenesis.org for viewing. One thing that caught my attention with them is that they include a page debunking some creationist arguments that they don't feel have sufficient evidence to back them or are urban myths (such as NASA's missing day).
If memory serves, Dr. Baumgardener is the foremost expert on plate tectonics, isn't he? I think I recall that being his name.

Something interesting to note is that not a single one of those individuals you mentioned actually studies biology, biochemistry, genetics, or pretty much any science that would actually be directly applicable to the study of evolution. Nor have any of them published any papers on the matter in any peer-reviewed journals, at least as far as I've been able to tell. These folks may be quite accomplished in their areas of expertise (Damadian, for instance, made impressive contributions to the development of MRI, although unfortunately then proceeded to act like a petulant child when he got passed over for a Nobel prize), but outside of their areas of expertise their views carry no more authority than anyone else.

You failed at "creationist scientist". These people are not scientists in the field in question, they're whacky reactionaries with a medieval world view. As are you. Owning a Ph.D in later victorian arts does not make you an expert at math. Do you understand?
The law of what? Get the fuck out, seriously. Just get the fuck out.

While the names mentioned above do not fall into your narrow idea of what a Creation or Evolution Scientist specialty shoud be - There are thousands of scientists from all fields of 1) The physical sciences, 2) The Earth Sciences, and 3) The Life Sciences that believe that creation better fits the known facts than evolution does. A quick google search will give you more information than you could possably hope for. While it will in most cases never be possable to persuade you otherwise I think you should actually look into the tremendous amount of work being done and at the very least acknowledge that there is a well documented, highly plausable alternative to the Theory of Evolution.

You mis-understand. I do not say use internet posted articles but use the internet to find qualified peer reviewed scientists who are actually doing the work. They do exist.

Peer-reviewed scientists or peer-reviewed work? I'm well aware there are a fair number of scientists out there that have published peer-reviewed papers and who back creationism, but as was the case with the individuals Farthest_Outpost mentioned their peer-reviewed work is almost always in a field outside of biology/genetics/etc, and simultaneously none of their "work" on evolution or creationism is peer-reviewed. Now, feel free to prove me wrong and point me to some peer-reviewed articles on the matter, but when I've gone looking for such in the past I basically got the feeling I was looking for a needle in a haystack, and I never had much luck finding that needle.

Start Here

Thanks. I'll read through one or two of those if I get around to it. It is somewhat disappointing, however, that despite the claims of there being many peer-reviewed articles on the subject that compilation consists of only 6 purported peer-reviewed articles, then a longer list of books (which aren't peer-reviewed). Of those 6 one is actually a conference talk (which has a much lower standard of peer-review), one is from Rivista di Biologia which is a theoretical journal and basically accepts everything thrown its way, one isn't a biology paper at all but rather philosophical musings from an information theory perspective, two are supposedly from journals which I can't find any reference to even existing, and one was actually forced to be retracted amidst claims of impropriety in the review process that initially accepted it. Not a particularly impressive track record to start with.
In the process of reading up on your sources I also happened across this which lists additional supposedly peer-reviewed articles on creationism/ID, along with various concerns regarding just how much weight those articles actually carry. It also makes a rather poignant observation about the extent of peer-reviewed work out there on creationism/ID: "One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review."

You might want to take a look at This It takes some time and a lot of work to overcome the "opposition to new paradigms" both scientific and political.

Whoa, how many parents do you have? Sounds like Mormon should be mentioned somewhere in that list ;-)

"started University at a big LDS school" - Sounds like BYU.