>>
>>I asked you if you were a working scientist and you did not answer.
>>
>
>Yes I did; let me repeat my answer for you: "As a matter of fact yes; I
>have a MS in Biochemistry specializing in protein chemistry and enzymology,
>with over 15 years experience in research."
>
>>
>>For
>>your information, there is scientific prejudice even in areas not as
>>contested as in the area of the question of origins.
>>
>
>Only against bad data and sloppy logic, not fundamental beliefs.
>
>>
>>I have experienced that....
>>
>
>Considering the sloppy logic and bald assertions you have made in these
>posts, I'm not surprised.
>
>>
>>and known of many cases in my 35 years of publishing in scientific
>journals.
>>
>
>If your papers have been anything like these posts, again I'm not
surprised.
>
>>
>>I believe in a Creator and my papers get published. That proves that my
>>ideas and work are acceptable by the scientific community.
>>
>
>Which also proves that there is no prejudice against creationists, as long
>as they produce good data and use good logic. You have just contradicted
>your own claims above.
>
>>
>>In areas of
>>research where new ideas are proposed, then the going gets more difficult.
>>People oppose new ideas. It is the nature of the beast.
>>
>
>SOME people do; others embrace them. You are using a hasty generalization,
>which is a logical fallacy; see what I mean about sloppy logic?
>
>>
>>I say again: WE WILL NEVER KNOW HOW GOD CREATED. WE CAN ONLY >SPECULATE,
>THAT IS ALL WE CAN DO.
>>
>
>You may believe that personally, but before you can convince me of this you
>will have to provide some evidence that it is true; without evidence this
is
>simply your opinion, and I do not respect you well enough to accept your
>opinion as fact.
>
>>
>>You say that we will figure out the question of origins. Let me quote you
a
>>verse: "Professing to be wise, they became fools," Rom. 1:22.
>>
>
>Is that suppose to be a scientific rebuttal to my scientific claim? It
>sounds to me like you are the one who is prejudiced against new ideas.
>
>>
>>Speaking of ignorance. Do you know the importance and problem involved in
>>determining the values of fundamental constants? Have you ever published a
>>paper on this problem? Do you know the names of famous physicists who have
>>worked on this problem without success?
>>
>
>I freely confess I am ignorant of these specific details; I also know that
>there are just as many physicists who are confident that we are making
>steady progress and that it is just a matter of time. You are engaging in
>the appeal from ignorance fallacy: because no one has established how the
>values of the fundamental constants were fixed, it is an impossible task.
>See what I mean about sloppy logic?
>
>>
>>If it is not obvious to you that the theory of how life came from
nonliving
>>matter is astronomically more difficult than that of the values of the
>>fundamental constants, then you do not know what matter is nor what life
>is
>>nor what a fundamental constants is.
>>
>
>On the contrary, I appear to understand the nature of life and abiogenesis
>better than you do. But you don't have to take my word for it; if you
would
>read the scientific literature for a change instead of relying on your own
>ignorance, you would see that we have in fact been able to create life in
>the laboratory. Therefore, the problem is not as difficult as you may
think
>it is.
>
>Kevin L. O'Brien
"Life has been able already been created in the lab?" Please stop watching
Frankenstein movies. Who won the Nobel Prize for that and in what year????