Posted on 07/11/2009 9:58:05 AM PDT by Tamar Rush
Foiled Forever by Fossil Finding
Last January, Scientific American declared 2009 as “the year of Darwin” in celebration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of the revolutionary evolutionist who turned man into a monkey.
The celebration is understandable.
No thinker has accomplished more to create a cleft between science and religion.
No writer has done more to undermine the claim of scripture that man was made in the image and likeness of God.
No scholar has forged greater support for moral relativity and modern materialism.
His theories are treated as laws; his notions as knowledge; his speculation as science.
But a recent finding in Kenya has sent evolutionists into a tail-spin.
And freshly unearthed discoveries of Darwin’s life have caused the academic community to reconsider his greatness and his contribution to advancement of modern science.
The first debunking of Darwin came with the discovery this year of a 1.5 million-year-old footprint in northern Kenya – - the oldest relic of primitive man since Mary Leaky discovered 3.75 million-year-old tracks in the volcanic ash of northern Tanzania.
Darwinist scientists who the footprint discovered in Kenya reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was made by Homo Erectus who had no business appearing in the lower Paleolithic period of world history.
By scanning the footprints with lasers and measuring sediment compression, the scientists determined that the individual who left this print had a modern foot and stride: a mid-foot arch, straight big toe and heel-to-toe weight transfer.
(Excerpt) Read more at nocompromisemedia.com ...
Don't you mean the Creationists settled out of court, they were the ones being sued right?
Interesting. How does a footprint go about the process of discovery?
Yes, that is my primary argument, but not everyone gets as deep as you, in understanding the point:
Time is a relative term.
Time on Earth is not the same as time, elsewhere.
Time is a measure of distance.
I’m not sure what I was supposed to notice from the list of links. I looked at the first few links and dems and reps polled almost exactly the same (actually much more similarly than I would have expected). And anyway, I was speaking more about professionals, as my follow up sentence implied “The vast majority of scientists of all persuasions believe in evolution.”
“Vast? Meanwhile this list is growing.
www.dissentfromdarwin.org”
—It such an innocuous statement that the people are signing that even *I* would sign such a document (if it was coming from a more honest source). As my previous post said “Generally scientists believe that there should be at least some room for skepticism of all theories and “facts”, since we are, after all, fallible.” And not only that, but there are other mechanisms, such as genetic drift and neutral selection, that are extremely important in evolution. So it’s a statement that says basically nothing - and certainly doesn’t necessarily imply any “dissent from Darwinism”.
And yet, despite the vacuousness of the statement, and the fact that it’s been circulating for nearly a decade, and that there are over half a million scientists and engineers with phds in the US alone, and that it’s open to scientists and engineers internationally - the list has yet to hit 1000 names. And most of the names on the list have degrees in fields that have nothing to do with evolution. The list could hardly be better evidence of how astonishingly little “dissent from Darwinism” there really is. I would have thought that such a list, being that it’s open to all fields of science and engineering worldwide - with that sort of statement - would have no problem getting tens of thousands of signatures - even with the overwhelming vast majority of scientists being Darwinists.
“I’m not sure what I was supposed to notice from the list of links”.
Color me shocked!!!
You didn’t notice for instance most freepers don’t buy into the cult of evolution?
I’ll bet you didn’t notice FR is a conservative website too.
“And yet, despite the vacuousness of the statement, and the fact that it’s been circulating for nearly a decade, and that there are over half a million scientists and engineers with phds in the US alone, and that it’s open to scientists and engineers internationally - the list has yet to hit 1000 names. And most of the names on the list have degrees in fields that have nothing to do with evolution. The list could hardly be better evidence of how astonishingly little “dissent from Darwinism” there really is. I would have thought that such a list, being that it’s open to all fields of science and engineering worldwide - with that sort of statement - would have no problem getting tens of thousands of signatures - even with the overwhelming vast majority of scientists being Darwinists”.
And here you conveniently left out that many scientists probably aren’t even aware of this site and that this site by no means is the only avenue of dissent.
What I find much more interesting is that despite the site being around for a decade as you point out, nevertheless the list indeed grows.
Try actually reading some of the observations sometime.
“You didn’t notice for instance most freepers don’t buy into the cult of evolution?
I’ll bet you didn’t notice FR is a conservative website too.”
—Of course I noticed it’s conservative. Whether most are evolutionists or not, hard to say, it looks like a pretty close call.
“What I find much more interesting is that despite the site being around for a decade as you point out, nevertheless the list indeed grows.
—It’s hardly interesting that the list grows. What’s the alternative? (Even if “dissent from Darwinism” is rapidly shrinking within the scientific community, the list would still grow)
And as I said before, skepticism of facts and theories should come naturally to scientists. And besides that, if we look again at the statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life” — far from mere skepticism, we KNOW that random mutation and natural selection don’t “account for the complexity of life”. There are other extremely important mechanisms: genetic drift, neutral selection, sexual selection, group selection (maybe, that one is controversial), and probably other things we haven’t thought of. And so there’s no reason for ANY scientist to not sign the statement - even the most hard core dogmatic follower of the Temple of Darwinism - except perhaps familiarity of how the signatures are being used to mislead laymen.
You’re singing to the choir when saying scientists should be naturally inquisitive. THIS is the entire point!
It’s not our side shutting down debate and smearing these observations:
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
If there’s any misleading going on here. it’s pretending all is well with these scientists merely signing these statements.
You ignored the “IT DESERVES TO BE HEARD” part.
“You’re singing to the choir when saying scientists should be naturally inquisitive. THIS is the entire point!”
—Well, I’m glad you agree with that. Is there some reason you think they aren’t being inquisitive?
“It’s not our side shutting down debate and smearing these observations:”
—Is there any side shutting down debate? Is this a reference to what is taught in science class in public school? Just because science class is used for teaching the scientific method and the leading theories (what else would it be used for?) that is not “shutting down debate”.
And I’m not sure what smearing you are referring to.
“If there’s any misleading going on here. it’s pretending all is well with these scientists merely signing these statements.”
—It’s still a bit baffling to me that anyone would be impressed with a few hundred signatures on an utterly innocuous decade old statement.
“You ignored the “IT DESERVES TO BE HEARD” part.”
—What deserves to be heard? That the scientific method calls for skepticism? That there’s more to evolution than mutation and selection? Those things are general knowledge and are taught in science class. Is there some reason you think they aren’t heard?
Why do you ask such a question?
Is there any side shutting down debate?
You don't follow along very well do you.
And I’m not sure what smearing you are referring to.
Of course. Color me all shocked once again.
What deserves to be heard?
Assuming you did go to dissentfromdarwin.org...
and assuming yu read their statement "it deserves to be heard".
What then do YOU think they're talking about?
Just because godless liberals have multiple hang-ups with God doesn't mean they have a right to hijack the scientific debate and shut it down ala the NEA, ACLU etc. etc. etc.
“(me)Well, I’m glad you agree with that. Is there some reason you think they aren’t being inquisitive?
(you)Why do you ask such a question?”
—Because you had just said:
“You’re singing to the choir when saying scientists should be naturally inquisitive. THIS is the entire point!”
I took that to mean that the point of your argument was that scientists should be inquisitive - which seemed like a strange thing to argue unless you thought scientists weren’t being inquisitive. But maybe I misread you.
“You don’t follow along very well do you.”
—sometimes, with some people.
“Assuming you did go to dissentfromdarwin.org...
and assuming you read their statement “it deserves to be heard”.
What then do YOU think they’re talking about?”
—I guess we just have trouble following each other, because I thought I had explained what I thought they were talking about in the next few sentences:
“That the scientific method calls for skepticism? That there’s more to evolution than mutation and selection? Those things are general knowledge and are taught in science class.”
That would seem to be what they believe should be heard, since that’s what in the statement they have people sign:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
If so, than they should be very happy to know that everything in the statement is common knowledge and taught in science class.
The other possibility that they may mean is the statement just above the “It deserves to be heard” which is “There Is Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.”
But I would say that that’s common knowledge also. In fact, I would say that there is far less scientific dissent than most people think.
But it’s very odd that the primary purpose of the site seems to be to have people sign a statement that has nothing to do with dissent from Darwinism. I’m hardly a dissenter of Darwinism, and I agree wholeheartedly with the statement. I’m not sure if there’s an evolutionary scientist on earth that doesn’t agree with the statement. Darwin himself said that forces other than selection and mutation were involved in the evolution of life, so he would have been a signer too.
“Just because godless liberals have multiple hang-ups with God doesn’t mean they have a right to hijack the scientific debate and shut it down ala the NEA, ACLU etc. etc. etc.”
—How has the debate been hijacked or shut down? Is this another reference to science class being used to teach the scientific method and the leading scientific theories?
No, the point of my argument was scientists are naturally inquisitive, as Edward Peltzer so nicely illustrates, and the conservative/creationists here on FR understand (singing to the choir) but when he is inquisitive, he gets smeared and called a religious kook by the evo-liberals here on FR and elsewhere.
“If so, than they should be very happy to know that everything in the statement is common knowledge and taught in science class”.
SO do you really and truly think these scientists that actually work in the various fields of science they represent are really just of the modern day black helicopter crowd? I mean they just think there’s some made up sky is falling attack on them, their worldview and they don’t know what they’re talking about when they say “it deserves to be heard”? And this is muchado about nothing?
Some people say Ben Stein was just making money off of people in “No Intelligence Allowed”, like the various creation museums btw, and there really isn’t a banning of those that dissent.
Does this include you?
I used to not pay too much attention like you, then I began to notice the various culture wars: Republican vs. democrat, liberal vs. conservative, secular vs. Judeo-Christian values, and the books and articles written by various people, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh’s brother, Ann Coulter, Franklin Graham, his sister and various other conservative folks...addressing these “culture wars”.
(this IS Free Republic after all, backing up a bit, are you even familiar with conservatism, and these conservatives???)
And then, as I began to be educated about the left’s tactics and the antics of people like Michael Newdow, I began noticing more in the immediate world around me. The theory put into practice.
Like the Georgia ACLU threatening the school board my kids go to to remove Christmas from the school calendar or face a lawsuit.
Or the kneejerk liberal reaction of a kid allergic to peanuts getting an ice cream with peanuts and the cafeteria staff being held accountable, (as they should) while the child, knowing she couldn’t have peanuts ordered them anyway, putting her own life at risk while implicating the lady in the cafeteria was NOT held accountable; and the principal banning all peanuts, no more PBJ’s allowed on school grounds, etc. etc. etc. (Obviosuly this failed and was a monumental waste of time, etc. and a stupid response.)
Outside my immediate area I began to notice Christmas trees, indeed all things Christmas being banned in the name of tolerance.
Towns having to change their logos because they might contain crosses in them, or something “offensive”...crosses banned from cemeteries...crosses banned from inside chapels...it all seemed so surreal, but nevertheless, the more I learned the more appalled I became because it’s true.
And of course we come to the subject here, creation vs. evolution, liberals calling anything that criticizes evolution a religious attack on science. Liberals have hijacked this theory and it’s not even debatable.
So the issue is, do American citizens deserve the right to teach their children as they see fit with public funds?
My position is allow creation taught alongside evolution.
Students that learn both in private or home school settings perform quite well in science. They understand the science just fine, as do the scientists at dissentfromdarwin.org.
Sooner or later this attack on our Judeo-Christian heritage/culture will have to be addressed by the SCOTUS, and public education will have to be addressed as well.
It’s also no debate the liberal secular model of education is an abject failure.
“If so, than they should be very happy to know that everything in the statement is common knowledge and taught in science class”.
It’s one thing to be misinformed but to spread around such blatant falsehoods like this needs to be addressed.
Are you familiar with the Georgia school board (not mine btw) that placed stickers on the science texts explaining evolution was a theory and not a fact and these concerned parents were sued to have the stickers removed?
You see it’s not as you assert at all. Not even close. Not only is it NOT common knowledge, but it’s a dangerous indoctrination in place of education with the further indoctrination that nothing’s wrong when there very much IS something very wrong...AND it’s NOT taught in science class.
“No, the point of my argument was scientists are naturally inquisitive, as Edward Peltzer so nicely illustrates, and the conservative/creationists here on FR understand (singing to the choir) but when he is inquisitive, he gets smeared and called a religious kook by the evo-liberals here on FR and elsewhere.”
—ok, I did misread you. I wouldn’t be surprised if Peltzer was smeared for his remark, as I’ve seen a lot of unfortunate cases of smearing for odd things. Like some people being called “liberals”, “godless” or a “Temple of Darwin” follower because they happen to believe the earth is older than 6k years or believe in evolution.
If you really want to see some inquisitiveness, check out Stanley Miller. Just recently I was reading about some interesting experiments he was working on. Almost no one thought that really interesting chemistry occurs in ice, but Stanley was inquisitive and wondered what would happen if some common chemicals were put in ice in sealed test tubes. After 25 years he opened them up and found nucleobases, RNA, and amino acids. When he first tried to publish the results to journals he was rejected - they couldn’t believe the results and said that the molecules had to have formed during the thawing process (must have been from Creationist censors!). So he redid the tests on other test tubes that showed that they really had formed before the thawing. No “intervening and tweaking” going on. Just some common chemicals mixed with ice and let sit for 25 years.
After he died they found tubes tucked away in all kinds of places around his office and lab, all various experiments he was trying.
Miller found just the opposite of what Peltzer was claiming. Very interesting chemistry - the molecules of life - form under a wide variety of initial conditions and without the need of tweaking by grad students.
“SO do you really and truly think these scientists that actually work in the various fields of science they represent are really just of the modern day black helicopter crowd? I mean they just think there’s some made up sky is falling attack on them, their worldview and they don’t know what they’re talking about when they say “it deserves to be heard”? And this is muchado about nothing?”
—The statement they signed wouldn’t suggest that they are the equivalent of the black helicopter crowd, as the statement IS muchado about nothing, and represents no dissent from Darwinism. Such a statement could come from the mouth of Richard Dawkins, or Darwin, or me.
The scarcity of signers might lend support to the argument that they are analogous of the black helicopter crowd however. Create a statement saying “We are skeptical of the moon landings” and you’d probably get a similar number of signers.
“Some people say Ben Stein was just making money off of people in “No Intelligence Allowed”, like the various creation museums btw, and there really isn’t a banning of those that dissent. Does this include you?”
—I haven’t seen the film yet, but I was aware of most of the examples used in “expelled” before the film even came out, and those cases are little more than internet urban legends. To use one example, that of Caroline Crocker, the film said “After she simply mentioned Intelligent Design in her cell biology class at George Mason University, Caroline Crocker’s sterling academic career came to an abrupt end.”
She didn’t “simply mention Intelligent Design”, she taught that common descent was false and showed slides with ludicrous claims like “Eohippus is found in the same layers as the modern horse”. Also, her “sterling academic career” didn’t come to an “abrupt end”, she finished teaching the course and was a temp that they simply didn’t rehire and she was subsequently hired by another university, and today is working as a researcher.
There are millions of scientists in the US and I have yet to see a single case of anyone being banned or fired for “dissension” to Darwinism. There may be some actual cases out there - in this sometimes screwy world, and with MILLIONS of scientists out there, I wouldn’t be surprised to find a case or two of someone being fired because others didn’t like his mustache, but I have yet to see one.
“I used to not pay too much attention like you, then I began to notice the various culture wars: Republican vs. democrat, liberal vs. conservative, secular vs. Judeo-Christian values, and the books and articles written by various people, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh’s brother, Ann Coulter, Franklin Graham, his sister and various other conservative folks...addressing these “culture wars”.”
—My story is a bit of the reverse... I used to watch Rush’s TV program and enjoyed it (I was said when it went off the air), and some other such programs. But the more I got into the real world, I began seeing how simplistic and false the worldview was that such commentations were describing. Innventing a “culture war”, “liberal vs conservative” or “christian vs secular”, is a good way to get viewers/listeners and sell books.
“Outside my immediate area I began to notice Christmas trees, indeed all things Christmas being banned in the name of tolerance.”
—As a huge fan of Christmas myself, it does really irk me to hear stories of businesses that stop having Christmas signs, or someone that’s offended by “Merry Christmas”. I’m even irked when where I work calls Christmas break the “holiday break” (or even worse, “winter break”). There has been some hypersensitivity by a few people (very very few - I’m never actually met such a person IRL), and a gross overreaction by some businesses, but the “War on Christmas” thing is silly hyperbole. Even calling it the “minor skirmish against Christmas” would seem an exaggeration. I haven’t seen anything close to what you’ve apparently seen - and I’m in an area that’s far more liberal and democrat than yours (I’m in the Pittsburgh area). I see Christmas signs and trees everywhere (usually starting about 2 weeks before Halloween lol).
My favorite example used as evidence of the “War on Christmas” is when people complain about “Xmas”, saying that it’s liberal or secular way to remove “Christ” from Christmas (even thought X is an ancient symbol for Christ). Ironically, the recent anti-Xmas fad started at a time when Xmas was probably less used than at any time in the past couple centuries. Particulary during the early 20th century it was quite popular. It was very popular when I was a kid and I used to see such signs everywhere, particularly on doors (I think people liked them because you could make the letters really big; if you try putting “Christmas” on a door the letters are rather small and hard to read from the street.) But the popularity of Xmas signs declined over the years (hmm, I just realized - I wonder if that’s why the popularity of wreaths has apparently grown so much, cause it’s so hard to fit “Christmas” on doors?), and then I pretty much stopped seeing them completely - and then some years go by - and THEN a big anti-Xmas campaign starts. lol I just think that’s pretty funny. If someone wants “Xmas” decorations, the best place (and very nearly the only place) to go now is some grandmother’s attic.
If what you are saying about the Georgia aclu forcing a school to remove Christmas from their calendar is true, than I’m completely against the aclu on that one. Being that it’s a national holiday there should be no problem having it on the calendar. Do you have a source for that? I’d like to see what the aclu’s take is on that one.
“Or the kneejerk liberal reaction of a kid allergic to peanuts getting an ice cream with peanuts...”
—I agree it’s a kneejerk reaction, but why is it a “liberal” kneejerk reaction? What has a school’s decision as to what to do about a student’s peanut allergy got to do with “liberal vs conservativism”?
“And of course we come to the subject here, creation vs. evolution, liberals calling anything that criticizes evolution a religious attack on science. Liberals have hijacked this theory and it’s not even debatable.”
—Well, (almost) every attack DOES originate from religious motives instead of good science. And such criticism doesn’t come from (just) “liberals”, just about any conservative christian scientist will say the same thing (e.g. Francis Collins).
“So the issue is, do American citizens deserve the right to teach their children as they see fit with public funds?
My position is allow creation taught alongside evolution.”
—I have some mixed feelings about the subject. I’m a strong state’s rights and local power advocate, and so it does make me uncomfortable to see a local school board set a school curriculum, and then see the gov step in and say “you can’t do that” (although in the Dover case, it was a judge from the local district that made the ruling, so it WAS handled locally). OTOH, I believe students should be given a decent science education that involves learning the scientific method and the leading scientific theories - and so I’m quite happy for the students of Dover and other places where Creationism/ID material has been ruled out, as it’s just really bad science and not advocated by the vast majority of scientists.
(me)“If so, than they should be very happy to know that everything in the statement is common knowledge and taught in science class”.
(you) It’s one thing to be misinformed but to spread around such blatant falsehoods like this needs to be addressed.”
—Which part of the statement isn’t common knowledge? That science calls for skepticism? That mutation and selection aren’t the sole means by which evolution occurs? Anyone that doesn’t know that stuff needs to open up an “Intro to Biology” textbook. Any such textbook from the past 80 years will do.
“Are you familiar with the Georgia school board (not mine btw) that placed stickers on the science texts explaining evolution was a theory and not a fact and these concerned parents were sued to have the stickers removed?”
—Why not put a sticker on every page that says “the stuff on this page could be wrong”? Why single out evolution? Personal religious beliefs is the only reason for doing so. I’m sure the textbook calls evolution “the theory of evolution”, and the book probably doesn’t call evolution a “fact”, and even if it does most scientists DO consider evolution a fact (although by “fact” scientists don’t mean “can’t be wrong”, but instead “beyond reasonable doubt”), and I’m sure that the book expresses that there’s still a lot to learn about evolution.
The difference being the creation scientists are merely trying to get their message heard in school, and I.D. which offers up a better explanation than evolution i.e. all we know happened "just because".
The liberal message is heard because if it's not crammed down throats and into mushy minds, liberals sue. Just that simple. They misrepresent and abuse the Constitution, law and everything else they can. And anything or anyone that threatens them or their twisted message is sued.
So, it's not this innocent "smearing of odd things", more often than not what you're experiencing is backlash, not smearing. And we all know liberals can't handle the heat in the kitchen or play by the same rules they set up for everyone else. Pretty much smear and then project about the smearing when they get caught.
It's how liberalism works. Don't vote for zerrhoid or you're a racist. Don't vote for the liberal racist Sotomayor, then you're a racist. They're doing the exact same thing when they hijack science and smear all those that don't buy into the cult of evolution. Conservatives and/or those without God hang-ups understand and recognize this.
Your "creationist censors" paragraph is quite entertaining fiction. That's a first for me, the censored censoring, what a hoot! This barrage of liberal projections has access to a limitless stockpile of ammo it appears! I've never heard of this Stanley Miller but since the media is in the liberal's back pocket, I know without a shadow of a doubt had his work been valid (and for that matter not so much) I'd have heard of him by now. I'll stick with Peltzer about life up and forming without intelligence and design is bunk, thanks. Unless you'd like to leave a link.
Create a statement saying “We are skeptical of the moon landings” and you’d probably get a similar number of signers.
OK you're on. Start a petition of scientists that don't believe we landed on the moon (40 years ago this Monday incidentally) and come back with your list and we'll compare it to dissentfromdarwin.org. And in your spare time you go and convince Dawkins and more evolutionary scientists to sign the dissentfromdarwin.org petition since it's no big deal and then you might have a coherent argument. Until that happens, errrrr frankly, not so much.
There are millions of scientists in the US and I have yet to see a single case of anyone being banned or fired for “dissension” to Darwinism. There may be some actual cases out there - in this sometimes screwy world, and with MILLIONS of scientists out there, I wouldn’t be surprised to find a case or two of someone being fired because others didn’t like his mustache, but I have yet to see one.
You need to see the film, there's much more to it than this and it sounds like you're simply not exposed to it more than anything else. And of course it helps to do your research from reputable sites, and not liberal mouthpieces.
—My story is a bit of the reverse... I used to watch Rush’s TV program and enjoyed it (I was said when it went off the air), and some other such programs. But the more I got into the real world, I began seeing how simplistic and false the worldview was that such commentations were describing. Innventing a “culture war”, “liberal vs conservative” or “christian vs secular”, is a good way to get viewers/listeners and sell books.
Wow, that was a LOOOONG time ago and we obviously occupy two very different worlds. When I'm at work (downtown Atlanta), I hear and see and experience things that make it seem like I've left a different PLANET when I get home in the sane part of Georgia about 30 miles east. Blue to red, liberal to conservative, insane to sane. The more I noticed the clearer it became.
I must admit I'm a little surprised you hang on at FR too. It seems a better fit would be ... elsewhere. FR seems to me for instance to be a solid SOLID observation of my experience rather than yours. For instance the Herr Olbermeister attack on Jim Robinson for starters.
If your experience is just the opposite of what I've described to you and the "commentators" are eliciting a "false" "simplistic" "invention", as you put it, then it's obvious to me you're out of place here!
But having said that, perhaps here is what's saved you too, if you've stopped (listening) to Rush and the rest of the conservatives and their warnings/observations!
—As a huge fan of Christmas myself, it does really irk me to hear stories of businesses that stop having Christmas signs, or someone that’s offended by “Merry Christmas”. I’m even irked when where I work calls Christmas break the “holiday break” (or even worse, “winter break”). There has been some hypersensitivity by a few people (very very few - I’m never actually met such a person IRL), and a gross overreaction by some businesses, but the “War on Christmas” thing is silly hyperbole. Even calling it the “minor skirmish against Christmas” would seem an exaggeration. I haven’t seen anything close to what you’ve apparently seen - and I’m in an area that’s far more liberal and democrat than yours (I’m in the Pittsburgh area). I see Christmas signs and trees everywhere (usually starting about 2 weeks before Halloween lol).
Yes it irks me too. But to say it's silly hypebole is completely disconnected from reality. Just because it hasn't fully penetrated your area doesn't mean it's not happening everywhere else, all around you. And as unaware as you are, I'm sure alot of what's going on immediately around you just isn't registering. Kind of the frog in boiling water effect.
I make it a point to say Merry Christmas, because I'm free enough to do so. For now. Not much has changed, because I've always said Merry Christmas and not "happy winter festival" or whatever liberal nonsense is politically correct these days.
Speaking of which, MUCH worse than the war on Christmas, and all things Christian in this country is political correctness.
Are you IN Pittsburgh? I have a friend in Connellsville and according to him people there simply won't tolerate this stuff, but this is the difference as with virtually ANY big U.S. city, like Atlanta, liberals congregate in the city, not so much outside city limits.
If what you are saying about the Georgia aclu forcing a school to remove Christmas from their calendar is true, than I’m completely against the aclu on that one. Being that it’s a national holiday there should be no problem having it on the calendar. Do you have a source for that? I’d like to see what the aclu’s take is on that one.
Interesting, how about the parental take? Does this not interest you? I first learned about it the way I described, but perhaps you'll find something on www.ThomasMore.org, if not google it, (Christmas, ban, calendar, ACLU, Georgia, school) but again, mind your sources...I would not exactly trust for instance the AJC, a known liberal rag in these parts.
I agree it’s a kneejerk reaction, but why is it a “liberal” kneejerk reaction? What has a school’s decision as to what to do about a student’s peanut allergy got to do with “liberal vs conservativism”?
Are you this unobservant? Surely you've heard of the NEA? They have very specific liberal guidelines, and surely you must realize this nonsense rubs off on principals...and I hear about these kooky things outside our school district, nationwide....like everyone gets a trophy so no one feels bad, or can't keep score because everyone's a(n)(Al Franken) winner, blah blah, blah. CLASSSIC liberalism! Don't hold the child/family accountable but everyone else and punish the colletcive. You're not pretending these are conservative values are you?
Well, (almost) every attack DOES originate from religious motives instead of good science. And such criticism doesn’t come from (just) “liberals”, just about any conservative christian scientist will say the same thing (e.g. Francis Collins).
Show me the religious motives then in Peltzer's observations. I would argue the same exists for liberals that have hijacked evolution turning it into a cult, for very anti-religious motives.
I also reject the hypersensitive lexicon "attack" overexaggeration too. Every little examination is often criticized as an "attack" on science, an auto-response really, rather it's something like Peltzer's work or something else. Just looking around here is all the proof you'll ever need.
and so I’m quite happy for the students of Dover and other places where Creationism/ID material has been ruled out, as it’s just really bad science and not advocated by the vast majority of scientists.
Oh, I bet you are quite happy the majority normal folks are squashed ala 1930's style...but it's not "bad science" (debunked here too many times to rehash) and the parents that sued think their views are somehow more important than the vast majority of normal parents. The scientists, (we've all been over this too) are in no position to dictate or do anything more than make recommendations, and actually it's the administration that embraces the anti-Christian cult of evolution and dictates what will or will not be taught, parents be damned. AND how is it some so-called "bad science" is OK to ban while any "bad science" that just somehow coincidentally has not so much to do with God, for instance algores' hot air cult of manmade global warming as science....is OK? Also about a million times more destructive to kids, science etc. btw!
Why not allow these so-called concerned parents to opt out of ID/creation? Why do the minority insane/multiple God hang-up families dictate to the majority normal people and often force the moral people to go to home or private school AND pay for their kids AND the loonies kids failed public screwels too? (I included wintertime and metmom here because they understand what your dangerous advocations mean to our culture.) And frankly, yours is an incoherent position.
—Which part of the statement isn’t common knowledge? That science calls for skepticism? That mutation and selection aren’t the sole means by which evolution occurs? Anyone that doesn’t know that stuff needs to open up an “Intro to Biology” textbook. Any such textbook from the past 80 years will do.
Yes, that's the textbook theory, but in practice a very very different thing occurs in the real world. And not isolated incidents either, and across the board, K through grad school. I have a nurse friend, LPN that's going back to school to get her RN. About 5 days ago we were talking about how school was going for her and she described an instructor she has at a local community college and how this lunatic bullied and went off on anyone that dared question his godless scientific model/worldview, not just evolution but ANY question that threatend his worldview was answered with insults and threats. She said several students were making formal complaints and she'd keep me posted. It's not what's in the textbooks that's at issue here, it's more about the insidious liberal godless worldvirew that's pervasive that's at issue. There's no education going on here, but indoctrination. Or a profound attempt to do so.
Is this how you think science should be taught, at any and every level?
—Why not put a sticker on every page that says “the stuff on this page could be wrong”? Why single out evolution? Personal religious beliefs is the only reason for doing so. I’m sure the textbook calls evolution “the theory of evolution”, and the book probably doesn’t call evolution a “fact”, and even if it does most scientists DO consider evolution a fact (although by “fact” scientists don’t mean “can’t be wrong”, but instead “beyond reasonable doubt”), and I’m sure that the book expresses that there’s still a lot to learn about evolution.
Sheesh, it's not only NOT done for personnal religious beliefs but I think I told you the reason it was "singled out" as you put it was because the cultists have hijacked this theory in particular and for their OWN religious beliefs taught it not as theory but fact, and noooo the textbooks or the content aren't even what's at issue, it's the way the material in the textbook is dishonestly presented. As there is NOT so much to belearned, because thee's no debate, or it's settled science, like liberals often parrot. Much like the liberal lunatic instructor presented the material in the aforementioned example I gave you earlier.
If there's soooo much to be known then why is it they're so insecure they need to present it as fact in the first place? Why do they sue people when all the sticker said was it's not fact, but theory? And if there's literally no "reasonable doubt" as you put it, shouldn't it be strong enough therefore to stand up beside ID/creationism or pretty much anything? I know liberals count on their indoctrinations not to allow any critical thinking, and this is exactly why they have to stomp out any and all debate as religious attacks on science before the actual debate even gets off the ground. NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED!
BTW, this merits further investigation on your part too obviously; and try getting some non-liberal, non-secular input for a change. It need not be a Christian source, but try for instance getting a conservative one (or more)!
“The difference being the creation scientists are merely trying to get their message heard in school, and I.D. which offers up a better explanation than evolution i.e. all we know happened “just because”.”
—Why would the ideas believed by a very tiny group of scientists, which doesn’t even meet the qualifications of a “scientific theory”, be taught in science class? The only reason to do so would be political correctness – because the ideas happen to be relatively popular among NON-scientists and not teaching it would offend their sensibilities.
ID has no answers for most of what we see in nature. Why does life organize naturally into a nested or branching hierarchy i.e. the taxonomic tree? Why does the fossil record match the taxonomic tree? Why is this same pattern seen elsewhere, like biogeography and embryology, etc? These are all things noticed by anti-evolutionists before Darwin was born, btw.
And, of course, evolution doesn’t say anything occurred “just because” – as with every other scientific theory, it proposes that things occur because of the laws of nature. Where did the laws of nature come from? Well, it’s not important for the theory (just as it doesn’t matter where the laws of nature came from for atomic theory, or germ theory, or the theory of gravitation) but a great many scientists believe that they came from intelligent design (most of whom, btw, oppose both Creationism and ID).
“The liberal message is heard because if it’s not crammed down throats and into mushy minds, liberals sue.”
—It’s not a “liberal message”, and if you think it is than I’m not the one that needs to be paying more attention.
“Your “creationist censors” paragraph is quite entertaining fiction. That’s a first for me, the censored censoring, what a hoot! This barrage of liberal projections has access to a limitless stockpile of ammo it appears!”
—Thanks, I thought it was entertaining fiction too. :-) It WAS meant as a joke, in case that wasn’t clear (from your reaction, I can’t tell if you noticed).
“I’ve never heard of this Stanley Miller but since the media is in the liberal’s back pocket, I know without a shadow of a doubt had his work been valid (and for that matter not so much) I’d have heard of him by now.”
—Stanley Miller? He’s – by far- the most famous researcher on abiogenesis. He’s the one that arguably “started it all” with the famous “Miller/Urey experiment” (hopefully the name now rings a bell?) in 1953 that created amino acids (thought my most then, even most scientists, to be an impossible feat – it’d be like a “tornado forming a 747 in a junkyard”). Pretty much every textbook that begins talking about abiogenesis begins with his name and experiment. He spent the last 50 years researching abiogenesis with a lot of interesting results up until his death a couple years ago.
“I’ll stick with Peltzer about life up and forming without intelligence and design is bunk, thanks. Unless you’d like to leave a link.”
—So you’ll stick with someone’s who’s spent most of their time working as an oceanographer. Ok, but I can use Peltzer’s logic to argue that snowflakes are intelligently designed. I’ve read about a half dozen articles on “breakthroughs” on snowflake formation over the years. Scientists have been working on the problem for decades and we still can’t produce them exactly. There are many types of snowflakes, some we can get pretty similar results and others we can’t really get close to at all. Put water in a freezer and you won’t get anything more interesting than an ice cube. It requires a lot of experimentation and “tweaking” and messing with “initial conditions (fine tuning)” to get anything resembling snowflakes. Is this evidence that there must be an intelligent creator sitting up in the clouds forming each snowflake?
Peltzer’s quote would fit perfectly with snowflakes; just replace “life” in the following quote with “snowflakes”:
“It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown.”
(an interesting article that came up with a quick search: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/13/HOGJTNGASU1.DTL )
“OK you’re on. Start a petition of scientists that don’t believe we landed on the moon (40 years ago this Monday incidentally) and come back with your list and we’ll compare it to dissentfromdarwin.org.
— heh, I won’t do that, but if you’ve watched any of the many documentaries on whether the moon landing is real or not over the years, you’ll know that they never have trouble finding actual scientists to argue that we didn’t go to the moon. It is the anniversary that made me think of that example – I had just got done reading several articles just released in honor of the anniversary on the skepticism of the moon landing
“And in your spare time you go and convince Dawkins and more evolutionary scientists to sign the dissentfromdarwin.org petition since it’s no big deal and then you might have a coherent argument.”
—He’s probably aware of how the list is being used and thus wouldn’t sign, but here’s a quote where he expresses the same thing:
“Darwin may be triumphant at the end of the twentieth century, but we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force our successors of the twenty-first century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition.”
And Darwin mentioning that other mechanisms are important in evolution:
“As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position—namely at the close of the Introduction—the following words: “I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification.” This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.”
and me:
“I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” :-)
“You need to see the film, there’s much more to it than this and it sounds like you’re simply not exposed to it more than anything else. And of course it helps to do your research from reputable sites, and not liberal mouthpieces.”
—I will certainly see the film. In the meantime, have any examples of anyone being fired for doubting Darwinism?
“Are you IN Pittsburgh? I have a friend in Connellsville and according to him people there simply won’t tolerate this stuff, but this is the difference as with virtually ANY big U.S. city, like Atlanta, liberals congregate in the city, not so much outside city limits.”
—I live in the burbs, but spend most of my day near downtown as I work in the city. Actually, where I work is in the campus area and is probably the most liberal part of the city.
“Interesting, how about the parental take? Does this not interest you? I first learned about it the way I described, but perhaps you’ll find something on www.ThomasMore.org, if not google it, (Christmas, ban, calendar, ACLU, Georgia, school) but again, mind your sources…”
—I can imagine what the parents take is on this one, and if the story is true – I’m 100% on their side. It’s the take of the other side that baffles me – but crazy things happen. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t more to the story though.
“If your experience is just the opposite of what I’ve described to you and the “commentators” are eliciting a “false” “simplistic” “invention”, as you put it, then it’s obvious to me you’re out of place here!”
—I don’t feel all that out of place – at least not more so than other places. heh And actually, from what I’m seen, I seem to get along better here with the freepers than you do. ;-)
“Why do the minority insane/multiple God hang-up families dictate to the majority normal people and often force the moral people to go to home or private school AND pay for their kids AND the loonies kids failed public screwels too? (I included wintertime and metmom here because they understand what your dangerous advocations mean to our culture.) And frankly, yours is an incoherent position.”
—If that’s what you think of the families that have been fighting to keep Creationism/ID out of the classroom than, again, I’m not the one that needs to pay more attention. From what I’ve seen, most of the families fighting to keep Creationism/ID out of the classroom have themselves been Christian. Most of the scientists trying to do the same are Christian as well (Francis Collins, Ken Miller, Keith Miller, etc – Eugenie Scott is an exception. Francis Collins, for example, actually talks about intelligent design and his Christian beliefs in his class, and writes books on it. He’s also a major opponent of ID.) And there’s nothing “insane” about wanting your children to learn science (i.e. the method and theories), and I don’t see what’s incoherent about that.
“Yes, that’s the textbook theory, but in practice a very very different thing occurs in the real world. …this lunatic bullied and went off on anyone that dared question his godless scientific model/worldview, not just evolution but ANY question that threatend his worldview…”
—Yes, there are idiot teachers out there, but I don’t think that’d be fixed with stickers, and it doesn’t answer the question of why evolution is singled out. If he’s teaching that there’s no God in class, than they should get the ACLU on him and he’ll be out of there post-haste.
“Is this how you think science should be taught, at any and every level?”
—No, I described how science should be taught. The scientific method and the leading theories should be taught. I can’t imagine what else a “science” class would be for.
I hope you aren’t equating having standards as to what is taught in a classroom with bullying totalitarianism and censorship and indoctrination? Would it make sense to have a teacher talk about last night’s baseball game all class and call it “science class”? Without any standards as to what is presented, why have a class at all?
I could care less if students are being “converted” to evolution, I just want people to understand it. By having people – believers and nonbelievers alike - who are knowledgeable and understand evolution, and the other leading theories – we can have higher level debates on the subject – and that’s how science progresses. It won’t progress by kicking standards as to what’s presented out the door.
“If there’s soooo much to be known then why is it they’re so insecure they need to present it as fact in the first place?
—It doesn’t “need” to be presented as fact, it’s just a fact that most scientists think it’s a fact. Why is “germ theory” and “atomic theory” presented as a fact? Because they think it is. Do you think the germ theorists are insecure?
“Why do they sue people when all the sticker said was it’s not fact, but theory?”
—Because 1) it goes against what the vast majority of scientists believe and is therefore misleading and 2) Because it singles out evolution, which again is misleading because it makes it appear that evolution is somehow special.
“And if there’s literally no “reasonable doubt” as you put it, shouldn’t it be strong enough therefore to stand up beside ID/creationism or pretty much anything?”
—Are you seriously asking why not just present “anything” in science class? I guess you really wouldn’t have a problem with a science teacher that just talks about last night’s baseball game every science class.
One of the reason I loved the sciences courses I took at university is because the science professors were always (at least the ones I had) open to argument and debate. In fact, I think they all loved it. There was a physical anthropology professor who I’d particularly give a hard time.
“BTW, this merits further investigation on your part too obviously; and try getting some non-liberal, non-secular input for a change. It need not be a Christian source, but try for instance getting a conservative one (or more)!”
—If you have any sources to suggest, name it. I’ve read dozens of books from Creationist and ID authors (Morris, Gish, Behe, Wells, Denton, Dembski, Johnson, etc etc), more Creationist/ID website than I can count (certainly all the major ones – most of the articles GodGunsGuts posts I’ve already read before, except for when they are very recent. That’s actually how I found my way to FR. I was trying to look up an ID article I had read several years ago and was googling it when I saw it had just been posted on FR and there was an interesting chat thread to go with it.)
No thinker has accomplished more to create a cleft between science and religion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Darwin didn’t create the cleft. The atheistic secular humanists merely saw him as an opportunity to use. If there hadn’t been a Darwin they would have found something or someone else.
There's a profound disconnect somewhere when even most evos recognize most scientists are Christian and therefore believe in an intelligent designer, and then turn around and say science is either too stupid or too disconnected from this reality to understand this or realize it. Again, it better explains origins and the complexity of life than evolution which is built upon the foundation that all just happened without design, for no good reason, by sheer happenstance. And if children already understand there to be an intelligent designer, then why wouldn't it be taught in science class? I would be satisfied with a statement or paragraph acknowledging the controversy and making ID books available in the library and going from there. There can only be one reason why this is simply too much to ask and it has ZERO to do with science!
I've said all along I'd be more than happy with simple recognition that intelligent design is a theory (I suspect that despite the godless efforts, many children already know this anyway.)
I would ask what's the harm in recognizing what most already know, but we know the answer to that: evolution, of course! And therein lies the rub.
The only reason to do so would be political correctness – because the ideas happen to be relatively popular among NON-scientists and not teaching it would offend their sensibilities.
Uh, noooooo the PC way is the libeal way which sues opponents into silence because their sensibilites are more important than children getting an education. Multiple hang-ups with God leading to squashing all debate simply isn't education and the results are more than proof of godless liberal failure.
And, of course, evolution doesn’t say anything occurred “just because” – as with every other scientific theory, it proposes that things occur because of the laws of nature. Where did the laws of nature come from? Well, it’s not important for the theory (just as it doesn’t matter where the laws of nature came from for atomic theory, or germ theory, or the theory of gravitation) but a great many scientists believe that they came from intelligent design (most of whom, btw, oppose both Creationism and ID).
That absolutely makes no sense whatsoever and sounds like so much cultish parroting. This reminds me of the commericals where even little kids know they're being BS'ed.And I suspect this is exactly how most kids would respond when being told evolution just is, and people are simply to ignore why it is and how it came about.
Engineers don't go building bridges willy nilly over stretches of water without taking soil samples, looking for evidence of seismic activity beneath the bedrock, and investigating the very reason the bridge is being built in the first place! etc. It is ESSENTIAL to understand origin when talking about origins of species, etc. Besides it appears you're another one that didn't get the memo...Bezerkly University makes origins of life evolutions business and relvenat to the discussion in evoluton 101 right at the beginning of the course! I suspect they're not alone.
And yes, it's a liberal message...liberals for the most part detest God's authority and that's what this is all about, not making liberals uncomfortable about their multiple hang-ups with God. Otherwise there's no explaining the lawsuits and all the other behavior, you see right here on FR, but this does actually require being honest and paying attention!
I have no idea what you're talking about with Peltzer, it would seem you're simply making my point for me....life, snowflakes, yes without God to create and design them, we wouldn't be talking about them.
He’s probably aware of how the list is being used and thus wouldn’t sign, but here’s a quote where he expresses the same thing:
Thanks, I think this illustrates the problems just fine.
In essence, it's just a pissing contest and not all about the science. Dawkins and his fellow liberals shut down debate, and the science isn't the issue, rather it's about control and funding and liberal sensibilities trumping children's education.
BUT in essence, no one put Dawkins or algore in charge of anything.
No, I described how science should be taught. The scientific method and the leading theories should be taught. I can’t imagine what else a “science” class would be for.
But this isn't what's occuring and this is the entire point! Ignoring it won't make it go away!
—I don’t feel all that out of place – at least not more so than other places. heh And actually, from what I’m seen, I seem to get along better here with the freepers than you do. ;-)
Well, I'm sure you get along fine with the closet liberal FReepers here just fine indeed! ;)
—I live in the burbs, but spend most of my day near downtown as I work in the city. Actually, where I work is in the campus area and is probably the most liberal part of the city.
Ahhhh this explains alot! RESIST RESIST...I think we need to investigate and look into scientific study of liberalism, perhaps it's a virus?? At any rate, it's painfully obvious brains are rotting!!! :)
—Because 1) it goes against what the vast majority of scientists believe and is therefore misleading and 2) Because it singles out evolution, which again is misleading because it makes it appear that evolution is somehow special.
Oh, I see. Most scientists belive evolution is fact, so why not change it to The Law of evolution then? Evolution IS special...it can not and will not tolerate dissent. And scientists and the NEA sensibilites and so forth trump the proper education of children!
—Are you seriously asking why not just present “anything” in science class? I guess you really wouldn’t have a problem with a science teacher that just talks about last night’s baseball game every science class.
The only reason someone responds this way is out of fear, fear of having your sensibilites and multiple hang-ups with God being exposed like a raw wound; because you know we're focused on ID and not baseball. Your liberalism is showing!
One of the reason I loved the sciences courses I took at university is because the science professors were always (at least the ones I had) open to argument and debate. In fact, I think they all loved it. There was a physical anthropology professor who I’d particularly give a hard time.
Sounds good to me and alot like my experiences as well, so the obvious question is, why wouldn't you want to keep it that way? Why is it if a student puts their hand up and asks about ID should they be threatened, attacked and ridiculed like the example I gave you just recently occuring to my nurse friend, just because some insecure liberal has multiple hang-ups with God???
This is why there are continual curriculum and policy wars over the government schools. Evolution and ID is only one conflict among thousands. One side wins, and has their worldview established by the government taxpayer dollar. The other side loses and has their values crushed by the government.
Also...Please remember that behind every government school stand armed police to collect the taxes and to demand that children attend. ( Real bullets in those guns on the hip.)
The solution to ending all of these school fights: Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education.
“There’s a profound disconnect somewhere when even most evos recognize most scientists are Christian and therefore believe in an intelligent designer, and then turn around and say science is either too stupid or too disconnected from this reality to understand this or realize it. Again, it better explains origins and the complexity of life than evolution which is built upon the foundation that all just happened without design, for no good reason, by sheer happenstance.”
—I don’t know about most, but yes, quite a few are Christian – and I’m glad to see you recognize that so many scientists are Christian. I was beginning to think that you didn’t think that hardly any scientists were Christian with the way you were equating Darwinism and evolution with being “godless”. Darwinism is a theory that describes what occurs via the laws of nature. For those that believe that God created the laws of nature, they believe evolution has a purpose – for those that believe the laws weren’t designed, they believe it doesn’t have a purpose. It’s the same as with every other theory in existence.
I’m not sure why you would say that an intelligent designer is a better explanation than evolution when there’s nothing about evolution that says there isn’t an intelligent creator. You just got done saying that most scientists are Christian, which makes that comment even more confusing – unless you meant “Intelligent Design” (which the vast majority of those Christian scientists are vehemently against).
And actually, if a teacher said something like “all just happened without design, for no good reason, by sheer happenstance” he/she’d likely be in some hot water.
“I’ve said all along I’d be more than happy with simple recognition that intelligent design is a theory (I suspect that despite the godless efforts, many children already know this anyway.)”
—Neither ID nor “intelligent design” are theories (I’m not sure which one you meant there) as neither are falsifiable. I have no idea what children think theories are, but one of the purposes of science class is to teach that there’s a difference between a belief and a scientific theory, and teaching them that some people believe “ID” and therefore it’s a theory doesn’t help. I have a lot of beliefs that don’t qualify as theories and have no place in science class.
“Uh, noooooo the PC way is the libeal way which sues opponents into silence because their sensibilites are more important than children getting an education. Multiple hang-ups with God leading to squashing all debate simply isn’t education and the results are more than proof of godless liberal failure.”
—Teaching the scientific method and the leading theories isn’t getting an education? And what “hang ups with God” are you referring to?
(me) “And, of course, evolution doesn’t say anything occurred “just because” – as with every other scientific theory, it proposes that things occur because of the laws of nature…”
(you)“That absolutely makes no sense whatsoever and sounds like so much cultish parroting. This reminds me of the commericals where even little kids know they’re being BS’ed.And I suspect this is exactly how most kids would respond when being told evolution just is, and people are simply to ignore why it is and how it came about.”
—My understanding of Darwinism/evolution comes from reading books, journals, and science magazines written by scientists spanning the time from Darwin to today. Where does your understanding of the subject come from? And why would someone ignore something just because it isn’t relevant to evolution? There’s more to life than what’s relevant to evolution (in fact, evolution is relatively unimportant).
“Engineers don’t go building bridges willy nilly over stretches of water without taking soil samples, looking for evidence of seismic activity beneath the bedrock, and investigating the very reason the bridge is being built in the first place!”
—Do the engineers concern themselves with how the laws of nature came about before building the bridge?
“It is ESSENTIAL to understand origin when talking about origins of species, etc. Besides it appears you’re another one that didn’t get the memo...Bezerkly University makes origins of life evolutions business and relvenat to the discussion in evoluton 101 right at the beginning of the course! I suspect they’re not alone.”
—I mentioned nothing about origin of life, I only mentioned the origin of the laws of nature. But yes, I saw the link to that site. This is really a different subject to anything I was talking about here, but yes, I would say the origin of life is also irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Of course, we NEED there to be life in order for there to be biological evolution, but I can’t really imagine anything we could discover about the origin of life that would affect the theory of evolution. Let’s say tomorrow we found definitive proof that life got here naturally via the laws of nature, or that it was ET that formed the first cell on earth, or that God snapped his fingers and the first cell appeared, or that it was Papa Smurf – what effect would this have on the theory of Darwinism? I can’t think of anything.
Of course, it’s only natural if the teacher says “it’s believed that evolution started about 3.8 billion years ago with the first lifeform…” to have students ask about where and how that lifeform got there, so many places will give a brief (very brief) overview on the various theories of life’s origin, and THEN jump into the subject of evolution/Darwinism.
Of course many places don’t bring up the subject at all: “Origin of Species” doesn’t mention the origin of life – even in passing – because it’s completely irrelevant to the theory.
Let’s say we traveled back in time and convinced Darwin that life got here, say – via panspermia. What edits would he need to do to his book to stay consistent with the new knowledge? Nada.
Again, evolution is like every other theory. The theory of gravitation concerns itself with how mass attracts other mass. How did the mass get there? Doesn’t matter.
“I have no idea what you’re talking about with Peltzer, it would seem you’re simply making my point for me....life, snowflakes, yes without God to create and design them, we wouldn’t be talking about them.”
—Wait, you really don’t believe that snowflakes form naturally? Wow, I certainly didn’t expect that. So are the scientists who are trying to figure out how snowflakes form godless liberals who are wasting their time? I guess we need to put a sticker on the page of textbooks that talk about snowflakes. So do you believe each snowflake form ex nihilo? Are there other things you believe form this way?
(Of course, by “naturally” I don’t mean without God, I simply mean that the snowflakes form because of the laws of nature, which Pelzer and many other scientists would say were designed by God to carry out that job. Pelzer, however, says that the laws of nature do not permit the formation of life – and I was trying to make the point that his arguments as to why that is could be applied to snowflakes, assuming that you believed that snowflakes do form naturally i.e. by the laws of nature, but I guess that point is now lost! heh)
(me)“No, I described how science should be taught. The scientific method and the leading theories should be taught. I can’t imagine what else a “science” class would be for.
(you)But this isn’t what’s occuring and this is the entire point! Ignoring it won’t make it go away!”
—In what way isn’t it occurring?
“Oh, I see. Most scientists belive evolution is fact, so why not change it to The Law of evolution then? Evolution IS special...it can not and will not tolerate dissent. And scientists and the NEA sensibilites and so forth trump the proper education of children!”
—Because theories don’t become laws. The reason the “germ theory of disease” is not the “germ law of disease” is not because of lack of evidence. Theories and laws are two different things, not two rungs on a ladder of a scale of certainty. The theory of evolution actually *contains* laws, e.g. Dollo’s law.
What’s not being tolerated is not the “dissent from evolution” – what’s being objected to is the corruption and twisting of what’s science. By throwing in some pet ideas people have, it distorts what science is – how can a teacher explain what the scientific method is, what a theory is, what the leading theories are, if stuff like Creationism or ID is included? It gives the message that whatever a group of people happen to believe - is science!
I have a lot of beliefs that aren’t science. I believe most of what Dawkins says, but I don’t believe that his books are appropriate for science class. His books contain a lot of personal beliefs, philosophizing, conjecture, etc that – although I happen to believe most of it – are not “scientific”, and therefore don’t belong in science class.
I don’t care about evolution – if it were disproven tomorrow, I’d be thrilled to live through such an interesting scientific revolution – I even hope it happens. What I care about is science. And that’s what most of the people (most of whom I believe are Christian) are fighting for when they fight against those trying to put Creationism and ID into science class – and that’s what all those Christian scientists fighting against the ID movement and Creationism are fighting for as well.
(me)“Are you seriously asking why not just present “anything” in science class? I guess you really wouldn’t have a problem with a science teacher that just talks about last night’s baseball game every science class.”
(you)The only reason someone responds this way is out of fear, fear of having your sensibilites and multiple hang-ups with God being exposed like a raw wound; because you know we’re focused on ID and not baseball. Your liberalism is showing!”
—I was discussing the standards of what ought to be presented in science class. What you said previously was “shouldn’t it be strong enough therefore to stand up beside ID/creationism or pretty much anything?”. The reason why not just “pretty much anything” is presented in science class has nothing to do with what evolution is “strong enough” to “stand up to”, it has to do with what’s science. ID isn’t science; baseball isn’t science; “pretty much” most things aren’t science. If an actual theory of ID were formulated, and it became a theory commonly believed by scientists, than by all means it should then be presented in science class – even if I don’t believe it.
“Sounds good to me and alot like my experiences as well, so the obvious question is, why wouldn’t you want to keep it that way? Why is it if a student puts their hand up and asks about ID should they be threatened, attacked and ridiculed like the example I gave you just recently occuring to my nurse friend, just because some insecure liberal has multiple hang-ups with God???”
—Did I say something that makes you think I would want any teacher behaving like that? Like I said, get the ACLU on him and get the bum out of there. (Oh wait, I just realized you’re probably talking about a university/college. That would be a bit harder).
Reformatted excerpted material from prior post (sorry)...
from FR posting on June 4th, 2009
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2264681/posts
1. DNA in “ancient” fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
2. Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old.
3. The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see review of the book and the interview with the author in Creation 30(4):45–47,September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007.
4. The data for “mitochondrial Eve” are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
5. Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.
6. Many fossil bones “dated” at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really?
7. Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen) are not consistent with their supposed age, but make more sense if the remains are young.
8. Lack of 50:50 racemization of amino acids in fossils “dated” at millions of years old, whereas complete racemization would occur in thousands of years.
9. Living fossils—jellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.
10. Discontinuous fossil sequences. E.g. Coelacanth, Wollemi pine and various “index” fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example? See The “Lazarus effect”: rodent “resurrection”!
11. The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with a time frame for the earth of thousands of years. Geological evidence Photo by Don Batten Radical folding at Eastern Beach, near Auckland in New Zealand, indicates that the sediments were soft and pliable when folded, inconsistent with a long time for their formation. Such folding can be seen world-wide.
12. Lack of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal / herbivore fossils. E.g., the Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana. See Origins 21(1):51–56, 1994. Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an “era” buried in situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day. This eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years.
13. Thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing. E.g. the Kaibab upwarp in Grand Canyon indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify (the sand grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened). This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood. See Warped earth.
14. Polystrate fossils—tree trunks in coal (Auracaria spp. king billy pines, celery top pines, in southern hemisphere coal). There are also polystrate tree trunks in the Yellowstone fossilized forests and Joggins, Nova Scotia and in many other places. Polystrate fossilized lycopod trunks occur in northern hemisphere coal, again indicating rapid burial / formation of the organic material that became coal.
15. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification.
16. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years.
17. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed.
18. Evidence for rapid, catastrophic formation of coal beds speaks against the hundreds of millions of years normally claimed for this, including Z-shaped seams that point to a single depositional event producing these layers.
19. Evidence for rapid petrifaction of wood speaks against the need for long periods of time and is consistent with an age of thousands of years.
20. Clastic dykes and pipes (intrusion of sediment through overlying sedimentary rock) show that the overlying rock strata were still soft when it happened. This drastically compresses the time scale for the deposition of the penetrated rock strata. See, Walker, T., Fluidisation pipes: Evidence of large-scale watery catastrophe, Journal of Creation (TJ) 14(3):8–9, 2000.
21. Para(pseudo)conformities—where one rock stratum sits on top of another rock stratum but with supposedly millions of years of geological time missing, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion; that is, it is a “flat gap”. E.g. Coconino sandstone / Hermit shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly a 10 million year gap in time). The thick Schnebly Hill Formation (sandstone) lies between the Coconino and Hermit in central Arizona. See Austin, S.A., Grand Canyon, monument to catastrophe, ICR, Santee, CA, USA, 1994 and Snelling, A., The case of the “missing” geologic time, Creation 14(3):31–35, 1992.
22. The presence of ephemeral markings (raindrop marks, ripple marks, animal tracks) at the boundaries of paraconformities show that the upper rock layer has been deposited immediately after the lower one, eliminating many millions of “gap” time. See references in Para(pseudo)conformities.
23. Inter-tonguing of adjacent strata that are supposedly separated by millions of years also eliminates many millions of years of supposed geologic time. The case of the “missing” geologic time; Mississippian and Cambrian strata interbedding: 200 million years hiatus in question, CRSQ 23(4):160–167.
24. The lack of bioturbation (worm holes, root growth) at paraconformities (flat gaps) reinforces the lack of time involved where evolutionary geologists insert many millions of years to force the rocks to conform with the “given” timescale of billions of years.
25. The almost complete lack of clearly recognizable soil layers anywhere in the geologic column. Geologists do claim to have found lots of “fossil” soils (paleosols), but these are quite different to soils today, lacking the features that characterize soil horizons; features that are used in classifying different soils. Every one that has been investigated thoroughly proves to lack the characteristics of proper soil. If “deep time” were correct, with hundreds of millions of years of abundant life on the earth, there should have been ample opportunities many times over for soil formation. See Klevberg, P. and Bandy, R., CRSQ 39:252–68; CRSQ 40:99–116, 2003; Walker, T., Paleosols: digging deeper buries “challenge” to Flood geology, Journal of Creation 17(3):28–34, 2003.
26. Limited extent of unconformities (unconformity: a surface of erosion that separates younger strata from older rocks). Surfaces erode quickly (e.g. Badlands, South Dakota), but there are very limited unconformities. There is the “great unconformity” at the base of the Grand Canyon, but otherwise there are supposedly ~300 million years of strata deposited on top without any significant unconformity. This is again consistent with a much shorter time of deposition of these strata. See Para(pseudo)conformities.
27. The amount of salt in the world’s oldest lake contradicts its supposed age and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah’s Flood.
28. The discovery that underwater landslides (“turbidity currents”) travelling at some 50 km/h can create huge areas of sediment in a matter of hours (Press, F., and Siever, R., Earth, 4th ed., Freeman & Co., NY, USA, 1986). Sediments thought to have formed slowly over eons of time are now becoming recognized as having formed extremely rapidly. See for example, A classic tillite reclassified as a submarine debris flow (Technical).
29. Flume tank research with sediment of different particle sizes show that layered rock strata that were thought to have formed over huge periods of time in lake beds actually formed very quickly. Even the precise layer thicknesses of rocks were duplicated after they were ground into their sedimentary particles and run through the flume. See Experiments in stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures, Sedimentation Experiments: Nature finally catches up! and Sandy Stripes Do many layers mean many years?
30. Observed examples of rapid canyon formation; for example, Providence Canyon in southwest Georgia, Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington, and Lower Loowit Canyon near Mount St Helens. The rapidity of the formation of these canyons, which look similar to other canyons that supposedly took many millions of years to form, brings into question the supposed age of the canyons that no one saw form.
31. Observed examples of rapid island formation and maturation, such as Surtsey, which confound the notion that such islands take long periods of time to form. See also, Tuluman—A Test of Time.
32. Rate of erosion of coastlines, horizontally. E.g. Beachy Head, UK, loses a metre of coast to the sea every six years.
33. Rate of erosion of continents vertically. See Creation 22(2):18–21.
34. Existence of significant flat plateaux that are “dated” at many millions of years old (“elevated paleoplains”). An example is Kangaroo Island (Australia). C.R. Twidale, a famous Australian physical geographer wrote: “the survival of these paleoforms is in some degree an embarrassment to all the commonly accepted models of landscape development.” Twidale, C.R. On the survival of paleoforms, American Journal of Science 5(276):77–95, 1976 (quote on p. 81). See Austin, S.A., Did landscapes evolve? Impact 118, April 1983.
35. The recent and almost simultaneous origin of all major mountain ranges around the world: all “dated” at only 5 million years ago, whereas the continents have, it is claimed, been around for up to billions of years. See Baumgardner, J., Recent uplift of today’s mountains. Impact 381, March 2005.
36. Water gaps. These are gorges cut through mountain ranges where rivers run. They occur worldwide and are part of what evolutionary geologists call “discordant drainage systems”. They are “discordant” because they don’t fit the deep time belief system. The evidence fits them forming rapidly in a much younger age framework where the gorges were cut in the recessive stage / dispersive phase of the global Flood of Noah’s day. See Oard, M., Do rivers erode through mountains? Water gaps are strong evidence for the Genesis Flood, Creation 29(3):18–23, 2007. Measured erosion rates at places like Niagara Falls are consistent with a time frame of several thousand years since Noah’s Flood.
37. Erosion at Niagara Falls and other such places is consistent with just a few thousand years since the biblical Flood.
38. River delta growth rate is consistent with thousands of years since the biblical Flood, not vast periods of time. The argument goes back to Mark Twain. E.g. 1. Mississippi—Creation Research Quarterly (CRSQ) 9:96–114, 1992; CRSQ 14:77; CRSQ 25:121–123. E.g. 2 Tigris–Euphrates: CRSQ 14:87, 1977.
39. Underfit streams. River valleys are too large for the streams they contain. Dury speaks of the “continent-wide distribution of underfit streams”. Using channel meander characteristics, Dury concluded that past streams frequently had 20–60 times their current discharge. This means that the river valleys would have been carved very quickly, not slowly over eons of time. See Austin, S.A., Did landscapes evolve? Impact 118, 1983.
40. Amount of salt in the sea. Even ignoring the effect of the biblical Flood and assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the salt, the maximum age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of the age evolutionists claim for the oceans.
41. The amount of sediment on the sea floors at current rates of land erosion would accumulate in just 12 million years; a blink of the eye compared to the supposed age of much of the ocean floor of up to 3 billion years. Furthermore, long-age geologists reckon that higher erosion rates applied in the past, which shortens the time frame. From a biblical point of view, at the end of Noah’s Flood lots of sediment would have been added to the sea with the water coming off the unconsolidated land, making the amount of sediment perfectly consistent with a history of thousands of years.
42. Iron-manganese nodules (IMN) on the sea floors. The measured rates of growth of these nodules indicates an age of only thousands of years. Lalomov, A.V., 2007. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66.
43. The age of placer deposits (concentrations of heavy metals such as tin in modern sediments and consolidated sedimentary rocks). The measured rates of deposition indicate an age of thousands of years, not the assumed millions. See Lalomov, A.V., and Tabolitch, S.E., 2000. Age determination of coastal submarine placer, Val’cumey, northern Siberia. Journal of Creation (TJ) 14(3):83–90.
44. Pressure in oil / gas wells indicate the recent origin of the oil and gas. If they were many millions of years old we would expect the pressures to equilibrate, even in low permeability rocks. “Experts in petroleum prospecting note the impossibility of creating an effective model given long and slow oil generation over millions of years (Petukhov, 2004). In their opinion, if models demand the standard multimillion-years geochronological scale, the best exploration strategy is to drill wells on a random grid.” Lalomov, A.V., 2007. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66.
45. Direct evidence that oil is forming today in the Guaymas Basin and in Bass Strait is consistent with a young earth (although not necessary for a young earth).
46. Rapid reversals in paleomagnetism undermine use of paleomagnetism in long ages dating of rocks and speak of rapid processes, compressing the long-age time scale enormously.
47. The depth-wise pattern of magnetization below the magnetic stripes evident where magma is welling up at the mid-ocean trenches argues against the usual interpretation of millions of years and rather indicates rapid processes consistent with a young earth (physicist Russ Humphreys pointed this out).
48. Measured rates of stalactite and stalagmite growth in limestone caves are consistent with a young age of several thousand years. See also articles on limestone cave formation.
49. The decay of the earth’s magnetic field. Exponential decay is evident from measurements and is consistent with theory of free decay since creation, suggesting an age of less than 20,000 years.
50. Excess heat flow from the earth is consistent with a young age rather than billions of years, even taking into account heat from radioactive decay. SeeWoodmorappe, J., 1999. Lord Kelvin revisited on the young age of the earth. Journal of Creation (TJ) 13(1):14, 1999. Radiometric dating
51. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
52. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
53. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
54. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years.
55. Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
56. Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
57. Demonstrably non-radiogenic “isochrons” of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron “dating” that gives billions of years. “False” isochrons are common.
58. Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different “ages” undermine all “dates” obtained from zircons.
59. Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.
60. The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, in Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 848 pp., 2005
61. Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296).
62. Pleochroic halos produced in granite by concentrated specks of short half-life elements such as polonium suggest a period of rapid nuclear decay of the long half-life parent isotopes during the formation of the rocks and rapid formation of the rocks, both of which speak against the usual ideas of geological deep time. See, Radiohalos: Startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processes, Creation 28(2):46–50, 2006.
63. Squashed pleochroic halos (radiohalos) formed from decay of polonium, a very short half-life element, in coalified wood from several geological eras suggest rapid formation of all the layers about the same time, in the same process, consistent with the biblical “young” earth model rather than the millions of years claimed for these events.
64. Australia’s “Burning Mountain” speaks against radiometric dating and the millions of years belief system (according to radiometric dating of the lava intrusion that set the coal alight, the coal in the burning mountain has been burning for ~40 million years, but clearly this is not feasible). Astronomical evidence Photo by NASA Saturn’s rings are increasingly recognized as being relatively short-lived rather than essentially changeless over millions of years.
65. Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth’s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old. See: Transient lunar phenomena: a permanent problem for evolutionary models of Moon formation and Walker, T., and Catchpoole, D., Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe, Creation 31(3):18, 2009.
66. Recession of the moon from the earth. Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity (Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age.
67. Slowing down of the earth. Tidal dissipation rate of Earth’s angular momentum: increasing length of day, currently by 0.002 seconds/day/century (thus an impossibly short day billions of years ago and a very slow day shortly after accretion and before the postulated giant impact to form the Moon). See: How long has the moon been receding?
68. Ghost craters on the moon’s maria (singular mare: dark “seas” formed from massive lava flows) are a problem for long ages. Evolutionists believe that the lava flows were caused by enormous impacts, and this lava partly buried other, smaller, impact craters, leaving “ghosts”. But this means that the smaller impacts can’t have been too long after the huge one, otherwise the lava would have hardened before the impact. This suggests a very narrow time frame for lunar cratering, and by implication the other cratered bodies of our solar system. They suggest that the cratering occurred quite quickly. See Fryman, H., Ghost craters in the sky, Creation Matters 4(1):6, 1999; A biblically based cratering theory (Faulkner); Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe.
69. The presence of a significant magnetic field around Mercury is not consistent with its supposed age of billions of years. A planet so small should have cooled down enough so any liquid core would solidify, preventing the evolutionists’ “dynamo” mechanism. See also, Humphreys, D.R., Mercury’s magnetic field is young! Journal of Creation 22(3):8–9, 2008.
70. The outer planets Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields, but they should be long “dead” if they are as old as claimed according to evolutionary long-age beliefs. Assuming a solar system age of thousands of years, physicist Russell Humphreys successfully predicted the strengths of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune.
71. Jupiter’s larger moons, Ganymede, Io, and Europa, have magnetic fields, which they should not have if they were billions of years old, because they have solid cores and so no dynamo could generate the magnetic fields. This is consistent with creationist Humphreys’ predictions. See also, Spencer, W., Ganymede: the surprisingly magnetic moon, Journal of Creation 23(1):8–9, 2009.
72. Volcanically active moons of Jupiter (Io) are consistent with youthfulness (Galileo mission recorded 80 active volcanoes). If Io had been erupting over 4.5 billion years at even 10% of its current rate, it would have erupted its entire mass 40 times. Io looks like a young moon and does not fit with the supposed billions of year’s age for the solar system. Gravitational tugging from Jupiter and other moons accounts for only some of the excess heat produced.
73. The surface of Jupiter’s moon Europa. Studies of the few craters indicated that up to 95% of small craters, and many medium-sized ones, are formed from debris thrown up by larger impacts. This means that there have been far fewer impacts than had been thought in the solar system and the age of other objects in the solar system, derived from cratering levels, have to be reduced drastically (see Psarris, Spike, What you aren’t being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system DVD, available from CMI).
74. Methane on Titan (Saturn’s largest moon)—methane would all be gone because of UV-induced breakdown to ethane in just 10,000 years. And large quantities of ethane are not there either.
75. The rate of change / disappearance of Saturn’s rings is inconsistent with their supposed vast age; they speak of youthfulness.
76. Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, looks young. Astronomers working in the “billions of years” mindset thought that this moon would be cold and dead, but it is a very active moon, spewing massive jets of water vapour and icy particles into space at supersonic speeds, consistent with a much younger age. Calculations show that the interior would have frozen solid after 30 million years (less than 1% of its supposed age); tidal friction from Saturn does not explain its youthful activity (Psarris, Spike, What you aren’t being told about astronomy, volume 1: Our created solar system DVD; Walker, T., 2009. Enceladus: Saturn’s sprightly moon looks young, Creation 31(3):54–55).
77. Miranda, a small moon of Uranus, should have been long since dead, if billions of years old, but its extreme surface features suggest otherwise. See Revelations in the solar system.
78. Neptune should be long since “cold”, lacking strong wind movement if it were billions of years old, yet the Galileo probe in 1995 found it to be otherwise—it has the fastest winds in the entire solar system. This observation is consistent with a young age, not billions of years. See Revelations in the solar system and Neptune: monument to creation.
79. Neptune’s rings have thick regions and thin regions. This unevenness means they cannot be billions of years old, since collisions of the ring objects would eventually make the ring very uniform. Revelations in the solar system.
80. Young surface age of Neptune’s moon, Triton—less than 10 million years, even with evolutionary assumptions on rates of impacts (see Schenk, P.M., and Zahnle, K. On the Negligible Surface Age of Triton, Icarus 192(1):135–149, 2007.
81. Uranus and Neptune both have magnetic fields significantly off-axis, which is an unstable situation. When this was discovered with Uranus, it was assumed by evolutionary astronomers that Uranus must have just happened to be going through a magnetic field reversal. However, when a similar thing was found with Neptune, this AD hoc explanation was upset. These observations are consistent with ages of thousands of years rather than billions.
82. The orbit of Pluto is chaotic on a 20 million year time scale and affects the rest of the solar system, which would also become unstable on that time scale, suggesting that it must be much younger. (See: Rothman, T., God takes a nap, Scientific American 259(4):20, 1988).
83. The existence of short-period comets (orbital period less than 200 years), e.g. Halley, which have a life of less than 20,000 years, is consistent with an age of the solar system of less than 10,000 years. AD hoc hypotheses have to be invented to circumvent this evidence (see Kuiper Belt). See Comets and the age of the solar system.
84. “Near-infrared spectra of the Kuiper Belt Object, Quaoar and the suspected Kuiper Belt Object, Charon, indicate both contain crystalline water ice and ammonia hydrate. This watery material cannot be much older than 10 million years, which is consistent with a young solar system, not one that is 5 billion years old.” See: The “waters above” .
85. Lifetime of long-period comets (orbital period greater than 200 years) that are sun-grazing comets or others like Hyakutake or Hale–Bopp means they could not have originated with the solar system 4.5 billion years ago. However, their existence is consistent with a young age for the solar system. Again an AD hoc Oort Cloud was invented to try to account for these comets still being present after billions of years. See, Comets and the age of the solar system.
86. The maximum expected lifetime of near-earth asteroids is of the order of one million years, after which they collide with the sun. And the Yarkovsky effect moves main belt asteroids into near-earth orbits faster than had been thought. This brings into question the origin of asteroids with the formation of the solar system (the usual scenario), or the solar system is much younger than the 4.5 billion years claimed. Henry, J., The asteroid belt: indications of its youth, Creation Matters 11(2):2, 2006.
87. The lifetime of binary asteroids—where a tiny asteroid “moon” orbits a larger asteroid— in the main belt (they represent about 15–17% of the total): tidal effects limit the life of such binary systems to about 100,000 years. The difficulties in conceiving of any scenario for getting binaries to form in such numbers to keep up the population, led some astronomers to doubt their existence, but space probes confirmed it (Henry, J., The asteroid belt: indications of its youth, Creation Matters 11(2):2, 2006).
88. The observed rapid rate of change in stars contradicts the vast ages assigned to stellar evolution. For example, Sakurai’s Object in Sagittarius: in 1994, this star was most likely a white dwarf in the centre of a planetary nebula; by 1997 it had grown to a bright yellow giant, about 80 times wider than the sun (Astronomy & Astrophysics 321:L17, 1997). In 1998, it had expanded even further, to a red supergiant 150 times wider than the sun. But then it shrank just as quickly; by 2002 the star itself was invisible even to the most powerful optical telescopes, although it is detectable in the infrared, which shines through the dust (Muir, H., 2003, Back from the dead, New Scientist 177(2384):28–31).
89. The faint young sun paradox. According to stellar evolution theory, as the sun’s core transforms from hydrogen to helium by means of nuclear fusion, the mean molecular weight increases, which would compress the sun’s core increasing fusion rate. The upshot is that over several billion years, the sun ought to have brightened 40% since its formation and 25% since the appearance of life on earth. For the latter, this translates into a 16–18 ºC temperature increase on the earth. The current average temperature is 15 ºC, so the earth ought to have had a-2 ºC or so temperature when life appeared. See: Faulkner, D., The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system, Journal of Creation (TJ) 15(2):3–4, 2001.
90. Cometesimals. From his studies, astronomer Louis Frank says that 100 million tonnes of water is being added to Earth every year in cometesimals (small comet remnants). This has strong implications for the supposed age of the oceans, if confirmed. See: Bergman, J., Advances in integrating cosmology: The case of cometesimals, Journal of Creation (CENTJ) 10(2):202–210, 1996.
91. The giant gas planets Jupiter and Saturn radiate more energy than they receive from the sun, suggesting a recent origin. Jupiter radiates almost twice as much energy as it receives from the sun, indicating that it may be less than 1 % of the presumed 4.5 billion years old solar system. Saturn radiates nearly twice as much energy per unit mass as Jupiter. See The age of the Jovian planets.
92. Speedy stars are consistent with a young age for the universe. For example, many stars in the dwarf galaxies in the Local Group are moving away from each other at speeds estimated at to 10–12 km/s. At these speeds, the stars should have dispersed in 100 Ma, which, compared with the supposed 14,000 Ma age of the universe, is a short time. See Fast stars challenge big bang origin for dwarf galaxies.
93. The ageing of spiral galaxies (much less than 200 million years) is not consistent with their supposed age of many billions of years. The discovery of extremely “young” spiral galaxies highlights the problem of this evidence for the evolutionary ages assumed.
94. The number of type I supernova remnants (SNRs) observable in our galaxy is consistent with an age of thousands of years, not millions or billions. See Davies, K., Proc. 3rd ICC, pp. 175–184, 1994.
95. The rate of expansion and size of supernovas indicates that all studied are young (less than 10,000 years). See supernova remnants. Human history
96. Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce today’s population. Where are all the people? if we have been here much longer?
97. “Stone age” human skeletons and artefacts. There are not enough for 100,000 years of a human population of just one million, let alone more people (10 million?). See Where are all the people?
98. Length of recorded history. Origin of various civilizations, writing, etc., all about the same time several thousand years ago. See Evidence for a young world.
99. Languages. Similarities in languages claimed to be separated by many tens of thousands of years speaks against the supposed ages (e.g. compare some aboriginal languages in Australia with languages in south-eastern India and Sri Lanka). See The Tower of Babel account affirmed by linguistics.
100. Common cultural “myths” speak of recent separation of peoples around the world. An example of this is the frequency of stories of an earth-destroying flood.
101. Origin of agriculture. Secular dating puts it at about 10,000 years and yet that same chronology says that modern man has supposedly been around for at least 200,000 years. Surely someone would have worked out much sooner how to sow seeds of plants to produce food. See: Evidence for a young world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.