Православно учење о сујеверју , астрологији, врачању, магији и лажним пророцима

[Александар Милојков]

Који ли је дух у Мирољубу?

[Ignjatije]

Који ли је дух у Мирољубу?

Duh Jude Iskariotskog. nesiguran

[DYNABLASTER]

duh ultraegomanije :lol:

[Александар Милојков]

Ја бих пре рекао дух неког кловна из циркуса.

[Ignjatije]

Duh plagijatora.

[Avocado]

To da branimo besmislicama je vec uobicajeni ad hominem od strane ateista.

Ad hominem je kad umesto necijih argumenata napadas tog nekoga... dakle, moja recenica svakako nije ad hominem... naucite prvo znacenje pojmova koje zelite da koristite... inace, ja sam bio na vasem forumu, odgovorio na vase "argumente" i pokazao da su besmislice...

Nemate jedan jedini razuman dokaz protiv TE + postoji gomila stvari koje ne umete da objasnite iz kreacionisticke perspektive...

E sada kada si izjavio ovako nesto predpostavljam da za to imas dokaze, da se sam bavis naucno istrazivacim radom.

Koji od naucnika koji se pominju na nasem forumu samo piskara a ne bavi se naucno istrazivacik radom?

Ne znam ko se od njih trenutno bavi naucno-istrazivackim radom i u kojoj nauci?

(ja nisam naucnik, niti sam bilo kada tvrdio da jesam)

[grigorije22]

Ad hominem je kad umesto necijih argumenata napadas tog nekoga... dakle, moja recenica svakako nije ad hominem... naucite prvo znacenje pojmova koje zelite da koristite... inace, ja sam bio na vasem forumu, odgovorio na vase "argumente" i pokazao da su besmislice...

Nemate jedan jedini razuman dokaz protiv TE + postoji gomila stvari koje ne umete da objasnite iz kreacionisticke perspektive...

Ne znam ko se od njih trenutno bavi naucno-istrazivackim radom i u kojoj nauci?

(ja nisam naucnik, niti sam bilo kada tvrdio da jesam)

Onda ne znam kako se to definise kada optuzis nekog da prica besmislice ali nebitno.

Nemamo razuman dokaz protiv nerazumne teorije, a voleo bi da cujem samo jednu stvar od te silne gomile koju ne znamo da objasnimo.

Jel si ti rekao da niko od ovih naučnika koji odbacuju darwinizam a koji su članovi Kreacionističkih i ID instituta nisu u stvari naučnici koji se bave praktičnom naukom,odnosno aktivni naučnici koji se bave naučno-istraživačkim radom a ispravi me ako grešim?(i to dok si ono za diplome pominjao)?A ja ti lepo kažem navedi mi tog naučnika kojeg smo mi naveli,a koji nije aktivan naučnik član i sekularnih i naravno član novih naučnih ID i Kreacionih Instituta kojih ima sve više u svetu.

[Avocado]

Onda ne znam kako se to definise kada optuzis nekog da prica besmislice ali nebitno.

Nemamo razuman dokaz protiv nerazumne teorije, a voleo bi da cujem samo jednu stvar od te silne gomile koju ne znamo da objasnimo.

Pa evo nek ne bude neko od mojih pitanja (zajednicke mutacije, varve) neka bude Babicevo pitanje o geoloskom stubu... ova tema... osim ako ne smatras Lindemanovo brukanje razumnim odgovorom? ono "objasnjenje" gde imas morsko dno pa nekoliko slojeva iznad opet morsko dno, i to sve u jednom Potopu...

Sloj povlacenja mora, pa iznad njega sloj morske soli od isparavanja, pa par slojeva iznad opet krecu slojevi sa morskim zivotinjama...

Cista sizofrenija...

Jel si ti rekao da niko od ovih naučnika koji odbacuju darwinizam a koji su članovi Kreacionističkih i ID instituta nisu u stvari naučnici koji se bave praktičnom naukom,odnosno aktivni naučnici koji se bave naučno-istraživačkim radom a ispravi me ako grešim?(i to dok si ono za diplome pominjao)?A ja ti lepo kažem navedi mi tog naučnika kojeg smo mi naveli,a koji nije aktivan naučnik član i sekularnih i naravno član novih naučnih ID i Kreacionih Instituta kojih ima sve više u svetu.

Zaista ne znam ni jednog koji jeste... ako bi bio ljubazan da me uputis na neki kreacionisticki naucno-istrazivacki rad...

mozda se ne razumemo... "akivan naucnik koji se bavi naucno-istrazivackim radom" nije neko sa diplomom ko piskara eseje o tome zasto je TE pogresna, vec neko ko istrazuje i pokusava da otkrije nesto novo u prirodi, nesto sto do sada nismo znali...

[Млађони]

Zaista ne znam ni jednog koji jeste... ako bi bio ljubazan da me uputis na neki kreacionisticki naucno-istrazivacki rad...

slabije

mozda se ne razumemo... "akivan naucnik koji se bavi naucno-istrazivackim radom" nije neko sa diplomom ko piskara eseje o tome zasto je TE pogresna, vec neko ko istrazuje i pokusava da otkrije nesto novo u prirodi,

Egzekli. Secam se kada sam bio mladji i kreacionista, nikad nisam preterano sumnjao jer sam mislio da su oni koji pricaju o kreacionizmu zapravo naucnici jer je ispred njihovog imena stojalo PHD ili DR. Jednom sam na pocetku srednje gledao Miroljuba (prva god srednje ) i mislio sam da je on neki uvazeni naucnik plus onaj 'centar za prirodnacke studije" mislio sam neka ozbiljna naucna ustanova kad ono na kraju se ispostavi da je geologija nauka o zivotu jer je geo zivot po miroljubu-naucniku.

Veliki je problem sto ljud igeneralnu ne znaju sa je zapravo naucni metod, ko je naucnik sta je naucni rad, sta je naucni clanak u kom vidu dolazi ta publikacija gde moze da se nadje sta to znaci da ima recezente etc.

I to je ono sto zeza vecinu nasih obrazovanih ljudi (medju kojima i gligorija) sto nas niko ne nauci sta je to nauka i kak ose radi, pa masinci misle da kada konstruises masinu da radis naucni rad, ustvari radis tehnicki rad.

Etc.

[Млађони]

Nemamo razuman dokaz protiv nerazumne teorije, a voleo bi da cujem samo jednu stvar od te silne gomile koju ne znamo da objasnimo.

Fosili dinosaurusa, merenje starosti zemlje i fosila, nepostojanje bilo kakvog objasnjenja kako vrste zapravo nastaju niti ijedan dokaz koji bi bilo kakvom objasnjenju isao pod ruku.

Po vama vrste nastaju tako sto ih je bog stvorio magijom pre par hiljada godina, a dokaz za to vam je to sto mislite da evolucija nije tachna te ovo mora da bude tachno.

Nauka tako ne funkcionise i da funkcionise tako, danas bi nam najvece naucno dostignuce bilo spoznaka da voda tece nizvodno a tehnicka navodnjavanje njiva i kola za magare.

[Walter]

Који ли је дух у Мирољубу?

Duh sa sekirom ... Zagor Te-nej

[grigorije22]

Ad hominem je kad umesto necijih argumenata napadas tog nekoga... dakle, moja recenica svakako nije ad hominem... naucite prvo znacenje pojmova koje zelite da koristite... inace, ja sam bio na vasem forumu, odgovorio na vase "argumente" i pokazao da su besmislice...

Nemate jedan jedini razuman dokaz protiv TE + postoji gomila stvari koje ne umete da objasnite iz kreacionisticke perspektive...

Ne znam ko se od njih trenutno bavi naucno-istrazivackim radom i u kojoj nauci?

(ja nisam naucnik, niti sam bilo kada tvrdio da jesam)

Lindeman je pratio dijalog izmedju nas dvojice pa je odlucio da ti on odgovori. Nadam se da ti to ne smeta.

Hehehehe...ehhhh avokado,avokado ...znači debatovali smo o TEORIJI EVOLUCIJE i ti si sada OpET samo pomenuo varve,i varve i varve ..držiš se varvi,a dobro znaš da ti je na temi o njima ODGOVORENO i čak šta više,ja sam ti ukazao na to da su tvoji ,,izvori,, lagali kada su ,,brojali,, varve,odnosno govorili koliki je broj varvi u pitanju,jer su počeli sa ,,trinaest miliona slojeva,, ..zatim osam...pa je onda bilo ,,šest miliona slojeva,, ...e tu,tu ti je lepo dat i eksperimentalni podatak koji glasi da je čistim naturalnim procesima,čaki BEZ katastrofizma,kao npr. globalnog potopa dovoljno MAKSIMALNO od 70 do 75 hiljada godina da se formira toliki broj varvi(daleko je od bilo kakvih STOTINA hiljada,ili čak ,,miliona,, zemljine starosti koju ti propagiraš) da bih ti na kraju NAMERNO dao podatak u kojem ti jasno u 2009toj godini piše da se u stvari radi o odprilike oko TRI miliona,odnosno skoro TRI miliona varvi(što je više nego duplo manje od onih zadnjih navodnih ,,šest miliona slojeva,, iliti ,,trinaest,, koje ste lupali bez potrebe i bručili se) ...i zato sam te i pitao zašto pod broj jedan 1.ti veruješ NERELIJABILNIM nagadjačkim izvorima čiji su se podaci pokazali kao lažni(misinformacije,kao i po običaju) i pod 2.znaš li ti onda,s obzirom da ih u stvari ima tek do 3 miliona(mada mnogi kažu da ih je manje od toga) da se to savršeno uklapa u zemlju staru makar 20 000 godina,a sa katastrofizmom broj je i još kraći,jer su ti dati i eksperimenti koji jasno pokazuju da se u vremenima značajnih promena reljefa u veoma kratkom roku formiraju metri i metri slojeva u toku samo nekoliko časova,a kamoli dana ili nedelja,meseci itd. ..znači....idi pile na temu varve koju si ti otvorio i vidi kako je tekao razgovor,a zatim mi odgovori i na onu poruku koju sam ti tamo potavio,gde si odlepršao posle onih pitanja koja sam ti uputio vezano za laži,misinformacije i miskoncepciju samih podataka,čak i o samom kvantitetu varvi ...zato,molim te,ne budi toliko bezočan lažjivac,ima se tamo čitava tema videti,i niko nije blesav da tebe sluša a ignoriše sve ono napisano tamo ..eh da..i poenta je na kraju krajeva da zemlja nije niti blizu starosti čak i od 85,90 iliti 100 hiljada godina,a kamoli tih nebuloznih milione i milijarde i ostale stvari koje ti propovedaš ...opet,žalim,ni varve ti se ne uklapaju u tvoj uniformistički model ....

Za ,,zajedničke mutacije, vitamin c deficijenciju,ERV viruse itd sve sam ti to odgovorio više puta,i objasnio,čak sam i nedavno još jedan tekst o ,,zajedničkim mutacijama,, i vitaminu c postavio pre neki dan, ,,dokaze,, koje si okolo,kao jedan neobrazzovan ateista evolucionista proglašavao za ,,činjenicu,, darwinizma i ,,zajedničkog pretka,, (koji je davno odbačen od svih ozbiljnih naučnika,bilo sekularnih bilo kreacionista i ID naučnika) ali ako hoćeš možemo i na TO da se vratimo ...

A što se tiče geološkog stuba(jel primećuje neko da avokadčić samo koristi sdve tri iste ,,optužbe,, i da su one uglavnom bazirane na uniformističkoj geologiji,a ne biologiji? ) i o ,,geološkom stubu,, sam ti dao čak i video klipove ..geološki stub je IMAGINACIJA ...on samo postoji u tvojim udžbenicima ..govoriti o ,,geološkom stubu,, je kao govoriti o ...onim vašim raselovim čajnicima na koje se pozivate ...,,geološki stub,, je samo jedan crtež koji je koji je u glavi izmislio nekakav pravnik(a ne geolog) čarls lajel,a ako treba,čak ćemo se i na TO i opet vratiti da vidiš kako ,,geološkog stuba,, NEMA ..niti ga može biti ...čuo si za fenomen ,,petrified trees,,?E samo ovo drveće ti je uništilo ,,geološki stub,, jer je fosilizovano u ,,geološkom stubu,, spajajući jedno pet šest ,,epoha,, zajedno...e sad...samo ovo obično DRVEĆE kojega ima na desetine hiljada na različitim messtima u ,,geološkim stubovima,, dokazuje ili 1.geološki stub je bs kao i što jeste...i 2.onda je drveće nekada raslo desetinama,čak i stotinama miliona godina,i kako je reslo ,,sloj po sloj,, tako ga je po jedna ,,epoha,, tokom miliiiooona godina zatrpavala,da bi se ono nekako eto ..fosilizovalo ...

Znači možemo se i na ovu tvoju imaginaciju ,,geoloških stubova,, vratiti,a tebe izazivam ako smeš da mi nadješ JEDNOG geologa,praktičnog geologa koji će se sa tobom složiti danas da je geološki stub išta drugo do nekakav imaginarni crtež ideoloških bigota od pre nekoliko decenija,čak i vekova ..(daleko si iza nauke 21 veka avokado ). Zato,tvoja neiskrenost i fail se vidi opet i u ovom tekstu ....

[grigorije22]

Ako bih bio ljubazan?Znači 1.opet koristiš one falacije kao onaj tzv. ,,naivko marinko,, o ,,naučnim radovima,, a 2.toliko si ignorantan da ti je ,,promaklo,, sve ono što je nepoznati,a kasnije i ja postavio vezano za naučne radove koje i kreacionistički i ID naučnici izdaju ,čak si i BIOGRAFIJE naučnika koje dodajemo tamo,a koji ostavljaju darwinizam,isto tako ,,ignorisao,, jer ti je i u njima navedeno koliko naučnih radova kako u sekularnim tako i u ID i Kreacionim naučnim zajednicama i institutima isti ovi izdaju ...evo ti ...čisto radi reda,da ti zadovoljim i ovu falaciju,pardon ..satisfakciju ...dovedi i marinka sa tobom neka se utvrdi ...lol...

n his book The Monkey Business (1982) paleontologist Niles Eldredge wrote that no author who published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly “has contributed a single article to any reputable scientific journal” (p.83). Apparently Eldredge couldn’t be bothered to glance at the Science Citation Index or any other major science bibliographic source.

Developmental biologist Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dutch creationist and CRSQ contributor, published a classic and widely cited paper on developmental anomalies in fruit flies (“Developmental genetics of homoeosis,” Advances in Genetics, 16 [1976], 179-248). Herpetologist Wayne Frair, a frequent CRSQ contributor, publishes his work on turtle systematics and serology in such journals as Journal of Herpetology, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica.

In their study of creationist publishing practices (“The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation ‘Science’,” Quarterly Review of Biology 60 (1985): 21-30), Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole surveyed the editors of 68 journals for the period from 1980-1983, looking for creationist submissions. Out of an estimated 135,000 submitted papers, Scott and Cole found only 18 that could be described “as advocating scientific creationism” (p.26).

Scott and Cole were not looking for papers like the following: In 1983, the German creationist and microbiologist Siegfried Scherer published a critique of evolutionary theories of the origin of photosynthesis entitled “Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 104 [1983]: 289-299, one of the journals Scott and Cole surveyed. Only an editor who had a complete roster of European creationists, and the insight to follow the implications of Scherer’s argument would have flagged the paper as “creationist.”

How many papers did Scott and Cole miss? Let’s look at 1984, one year past the end of their survey. Would Scott and Cole have turned up “Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer,” by the creationist biochemist Grant Lambert (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107 [1984]:387-403)? Lambert argues that without editing enzymes, primitive DNA replication, transcription, and translation would have been swamped by extremely high error rates. But the editing enzymes are themselves produced by DNA.

It’s a brilliant argument for design. Lambert understandably counts on some subtlety and insight from his readers, however. Lambert doesn’t “explicitly” wave his creationist banner, leaving the dilemma as "an unresolved problem in theoretical biology” (p.401). By Scott and Cole’s criteria, such papers don't really count. By any other reasonable criteria, however, they do.

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist working for the prestigious Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico (who is involved with the laboratory's particle beam fusion project, concerning thermonuclear fusion energy research) is a board member of the Creation Research Society. He has about 30 published articles in mainstream technical journals from 1968 to the present. In the last eight years a lot of his work has been classified, so there has been less of it in the open literature.

His most recent unclassified publication is a multiple-author article in Review of Scientific Instruments, Vol. 63, Number 10, October 1992, pp. 5068-5071, “Comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFAII thermal source experiments.” I understand that a more recent unclassified article will be published in the near future.

Here is just a sampling of some of his earlier articles:

“Inertial confinement fusion with light ion beams,” (Multiple-author) International Atomic Energy Agency, 13th International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Washington D.C., 1-6 October 1990.

“Progress toward a superconducting opening switch,” (Principal author), Proceedings of 6th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 29 - July 1, 1987) pp. 279-282.

“Rimfire: a six megavolt laser-triggered gas-filled switch for PBFA II,” (Principal author),Proceedings of 5th IEEE Pulsed Power Conference (Arlington, VA June 10-12, 1985) pp. 262-2265.

“Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons,” (Principal author) International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, Vol. 34, Number 1, 1983, pp. 261-268.

“The 1/gamma velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials,” (Only author) Nuclear Physics, Vol. A182, 1972, pp. 580-592

Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics. As mentioned previously, the article by Scott & Cole was a search for articles openly espousing creationism, which is a different matter altogether. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.

In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had a “hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.” Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, “It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.” This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent “the range of opinions received” (e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions). Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

Humphreys’ letter and Ms. Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article *“Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps” to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a “slight bias” exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

The Institute for Creation Research published a laymanized version of Humphrey’s article in their Impact series [No. 233, “Bumps in the Big Bang,” November 1992]. Reference 5 of that article contains information about the Nature submission.

In the 70s and early 80s physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn't publish openly creationist conclusions. Gentry had discovered that granites contain microscopic coloration halos produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium. According to evolutionary theory, polonium halos should not be there. Some believe that the existence of polonium halos is scientific evidence that the Earth was created instantaneously.

When Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminated Gentry’s connection with them as a visiting professor (shortly after it became nationally known he is a creationist) the number of his articles slowed down, but he continues to publish.

Russell Humphreys said in a 1993 interview: “I’m part of a fairly large scientific community in New Mexico, and a good number of these are creationists. Many don’t actively belong to any creationist organization. Based on those proportions and knowing the membership of the Creation Research Society, it’s probably a conservative estimate that there are in the US alone around 10,000 practicing scientists who are biblical creationists.” (“Creation in the Physics Lab”, Creation Ex Nihilo 15(3):20-23).

[grigorije22]

Additional information on Dr. D. Russell Humphreys:

Dr. Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist. For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company. Since 1979, he has worked for Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project. Dr. Humphreys is an adjunct professor of Geophysics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, a Board member of the Creation Research Society and is president of the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico. He is also the author of the book “Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe,” Master Books, 1994 (ISBN 0-89051-202-7) which details his white hole cosmology theory.

One other ICR Impact article by Humphreys can be viewed at: The Earth’s Magnetic Field is Young

NOTE: A companion video for Creation’s Tiny Mystery entitled “Fingerprints of Creation,” Video Cat. No. VFINCR (34 minutes) can be ordered at http://www.ior.com/~kjc/books/

Another prominent creationist who publishes in mainstream journals is Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, professor of mathematics at the U. S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

See also the biographies of Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Pierre Jerlström for examples of mainstream scientific publications by full-time Answers in Genesis Research Scientists.

Shah, A.A., Brindley, J. and McIntosh, A.C. “Gas-phase and heat-exchange effects on the ignition of high- and low – exothermicity porous solids subject to constant heating”, Jnl. Eng. Maths 56, 161-177, Nov. 2006.

Shah, A.A., Brindley J., McIntosh, A.C. and Griffiths J.F. (2007) “Ignition and combustion of low – exothermicity porous materials by a local hotspot.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 463, pp.1287-1305.

Teerling, O.J.; McIntosh, A.C.; Brindley, J. (2007) Pressure wave excitation of natural flame frequencies. Combustion Theory and Modelling, 11(1), pp.147-164.

Beheshti, N. and McIntosh, A.C. (2007) “A biomimetic study of the explosive discharge of the Bombardier Beetle.” Int. J. of Design & Nature, 1(1), pp.61-69.

McIntosh, A.C., “True Science and Origins”, Science in Parliament 64 (3), 22-24, 2007

McIntosh, A.C., Combustion, fire, and explosion in nature – some biomimetic possibilities. Proc. IMechE, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 221(C10), 1157–1164, 2007

Beheshti, N. and McIntosh, A.C. “The bombardier beetle and its use of a pressure relief valve system to deliver a periodic pulsed spray” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics (Inst of Physics), 2, pp.57-64, 2007.

McIntosh, A.C. “New technology derived from a beetle”, Public Service Review (PSCA International), Central Government 16, 150-151, April 2008.

McIntosh, A.C. and Beheshti, N, “Bio-inspiration for new pharmaceutical sprays”, Industrial Pharmacy (Euromed Communications), 17, 12-14, March 2008.

McIntosh, A.C. and Beheshti, N, “Insect inspiration”, Physics World (Inst of Physics), 21(4), 29-31, April 2008.

Shah, A.A., Brindley, J., McIntosh, A.C. and Rademacher, J. “The effects of heat exchange and fluid production on the ignition of a porous solid” Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, 9(2), 562-584, April 2008.

McIntosh, A.C. “Evidence of design in bird feather and avian respiration”, Int. J. of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4, No. 2, 154-169, 2009.

McIntosh, A.C. “Information and Entropy – Top-down or bottom-up development in living systems?” Int. J. of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4, No. 4, 351-385, 2009.

Hmaidi, A., McIntosh, A.C. and Brindley, J. “A mathematical model of hotspot condensed phase ignition in the presence of a competitive endothermic reaction”, Comb. Theory and Modelling 14(6), 893–920, October 2010. DOI: 10.1080/13647830.2010.519050.

McIntosh, A.C. (2007) “Functional Information and entropy in living systems” In: 3rd International Conference on Design and Nature, New Forest June 2006, edited by C.A. Brebbia, WIT Press; pp. 115-126; ISBN 1-84564-166-3

Beheshti, N. and McIntosh, A.C. “A novel spray system inspired by the bombardier beetle” Presented Weds 25th June 2008 as Invited Presentation, Design and Nature IV, Proc of 4th Int. Conference on Design and Nature, Tivoli Almansor, Algarve, Portugal, 24-26 June 2008, Ed. C.A. Brebbia, WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol 114, pp 13-21, WIT Press, 2008, 978-1-84564-120-7

McIntosh, A. C., “Biomimetic inspiration from fire and combustion in nature including the bombardier beetle” in Biomimetics and Bioinspiration, edited by Raul J. Martin-Palma, Akhlesh Lakhtakia, Proceedings of SPIE Conference San Diego, August 2009 SPIE Vol. 7401 (SPIE, Bellingham, WA 2009) 74010F.

McIntosh, A.C. and Prongidis, A. “Further biomimetic challenges from the Bombardier Beetle – the intricate chemical production system”, Invited presentation at Design and Nature V, Proc of 5th Int. Conference on Design and Nature, Pisa, Italy, 28-30 June 2010

The Development of the Biolistic Process

Mendel’s Accountant

Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory

Mendel’s Accountant: A Biologically Realistic Forward-Time Population Genetics Program

Mendel’s Accountant: A New Population Genetics Simulation Tool for Studying Mutation and Natural Selection

Using computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load

Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium Argon "Dating" by Andrew A. Snelling Ph.D. Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism. 1998.

The Earth's magnetic field and the age of the Earth by Andrew A. Snelling. Creation 13(4):44–48 September 1991

Excess Argon: The Archilles Heel of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Volcanic Rocks by Andrew A. Snelling. ICR Impact No. 307

Galaxy-quasar ‘connection’ defies explanation by Andrew Snelling. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 11(3):254–255, 1997

Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., Steven A. Austin, Ph.D., John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D., and Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. L. Ivey (Ed.), pp. 175–195, 2003.

Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling and David E. Rush, Journal of Creation 7(1):2-42, 1993

Moon dust and the age of the solar system by Dr Andrew A. Snelling and David E. Rush. TJ 7(1):2–42. April 1993

Polonium Radiohalos: Still "A Very Tiny Mystery" by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. ICR Impact #471.

Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crystal Rocks and the Problem of Excess Argon by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. ICR Impact #438

Andrew Snelling performing microscopic analysis.

The ‘principle of least astonishment’! by Andrew Snelling. TJ 9(2):138–139. August 1995

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth by Larry Vardiman, Andrew Snelling, and Eugene Chaffin is a young-earth creationist research initiative of the Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society. 675 pages. Hardcover. ISBN: 0-932766-19-6

Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. ICR Impact 376 Oct 1, 2004

Saturn's rings short-lived and young by Andrew Snelling.TJ 11(1):1. April 1997

Solar neutrinos—the critical shortfall still elusive by Andrew Snelling. TJ 11(3):253–254. December 1997

Special report: Amazing ‘Ark’ exposé by Andrew Snelling Creation Ex Nihilo 14(4):26–38

Startling evidence for Noah’s Flood: Footprints and sand ‘dunes’ in a Grand Canyon sandstone! by Andrew A. Snelling and Steven A. Austin. Creation 15(1):46–50. December 1992

Chemistry by Chance: A Formula for Non-Life by Charles McCombs, Ph.D., Acts & Facts Feb 1, 2009.

Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality by Charles McCombs, Ph.D., Acts & Facts May 1, 2004

Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem of Control by Charles McCombs, Ph.D., Acts & Facts Aug 1, 2004

Cyanide -- An Ingredient for Life? by Charles McCombs, Ph.D. and Brian Thomas, M.S., Acts & Facts Nov 30, 2009

................Eto ti ..samo jedan mali delić,od eto nekoliko naučnika kreacionista,hemičara,biologa,geologa itd ...Jeli ok sad,ili hoćeš još ,,naučnih radova,, koje ti i ostali falativni darwinisti tražite ?Eh da,hajde ti meni objasni kako to da oni vaši stručnjaci lažiraju i to decenijama rezultate i podatke,i brukaju tvoju ,,peer review,, komunu koja naseda na sve,samo dok im se to slaže sa vašom ideologijom? Eno ti vidi najzadnji skandal tvojih ,,peer review,, eksperata kako nasamaruju,i kako su nasamareni jedni od drugoh(slepci slepce vode) eno,Grigorije ti može poslati sa našeg foruma ove vesti vezane za onog holanskog ,,čuvenog,, stručnjaka ....da vidiš kako tvoji podvaljuju,a sve da bi se domogli slave,novca i uticaja ..(kao i svugde u svetu,u svakoj sferi društva) ...

mozda se ne razumemo... "akivan naucnik koji se bavi naucno-istrazivackim radom" nije neko sa diplomom ko piskara eseje o tome zasto je TE pogresna, vec neko ko istrazuje i pokusava da otkrije nesto novo u prirodi, nesto sto do sada nismo znali...

....................Hmmmm,možda se ,,ne razumemo,, jer si ignorantan dečko,ali ja sam ti već rekao,navedi mi JEDNOG naulnika kojeg smo naveli,a koji se ne bavi ISTRAŽIVAČKIM radom na različitim poljima,upravo najviše njih danas radi na zarvijanju biomimetike,bionike i biotehnologije i bioinženjeringa,čak šta više Dr. Endi MekIntoš sa svojim istraživačkim timom pravi revoluciju sa svojom najnovijom µMist tehnologijom,koja ima višenamensku primenu ...znači,kratko i jasno,naučnici koje navodimo su AKTIVNI naučnici koji rade na istraživanjima,koji imaju doktorate,koji imaju autoritet da govore i iznose svoje stručno mišljenje u naučnoj zajednici,i koji izdaju kako u sekularnim žurnalima,tako i u ID i kreacionističkim žurnalima.Čuveni paleontolog Dr.Kurt Wajz,aktivan istraživač i paleontolog,i jedan od čuvenih 2 učenika stivena gulda......Endrju Snelling čak vodi i australijski geološki istraživački tim,br. 1 geolog australije ...i šta sad,on nije ,,aktivni naučnik,, ?Značai,OVO su avokado tvoje klasične FALACIJE i AD HOMINEMI i STRAW MAN kvaziargumenti koje ti koristiš non stop..NE napadaš nikada argumente,nego uvek one koji iznose argument,čak i ove naučnbike i njihov kredibilitet TI i tebi slični dovodite u pitanje,i iznisite različite falacije,a ništa bolje i ne možete ponuditi ..zato,reci ti meni,koji je to naulnik kojeg mi navodimo ovde,a koji nije nikakav naučnik,nego eto samo sedi i ,,piskara eseje,, o teoriji evolucije?(inače da si dovoljno inteligentan,shvatio bi i da je samo kritikovanje teorije evolucije rezultat ISTRAŽIVANJA na različitim poljima, ne može niko kritikovati nešto pre nego li ISTRAŽI to što kritikuje).Mada ovo vi radite non stop,pa mislite da su i svi drugi takvi kao i vi ..(kritikuje,a ne zna ni šta kritikuje)lol

[Млађони]

Napisati ogromne kolicine teksta a ne reci nista konkretno je stvarno impresivno.

Na stranu sto polovina nema veze sa kreacionizmom i bavi se teorijom young earth.

Jos kad pogledam gde publikuju radove tek mi se izvrne zeludac.

Eto ti ..samo jedan mali delić,od eto nekoliko naučnika kreacionista,hemičara,biologa,geologa itd ...Jeli ok sad,ili hoćeš još ,,naučnih radova,, koje ti i ostali falativni darwinisti tražite ?

Poruci lindermanu da postavi neki stvarno naucni rad. A ne naucni rad izdat u "Journal of Creation" i "institute for creation"

I nemoj da se pravi tosa zna on odlichno sta je naucni rad.

I Jovan Deretic ima clanstvo u "ruskoj akademiji nauka"

Dakle, eksperiment, dokaz, tim, raport - sve to na uvid kompletnoj naucnoj zajednici za kritiku, review. Ovo to nije. Ovo je propagadni materijal.

Oni koji nisu stampani u ovim "Journal of creation" i slichnim bogosity mestima su uglavnom nevezani za ID ili Kreacionizam.

p.s.

Sto se ovog fizicara tice russela Humphreya, njegovi modeli i teorije ne rade, jednostavno ne drze vodu padaju kada e stave na test.

Ne pruzaju rezultate koje predvidja.

A on ako je pravi "naucnik" trebalo bi to da zna.