Californians Say Teach Scientific Evidence Both For and Against Darwinian Evolution, Show New Polls

Discovery Institute ^ | 5/3/04 | Staff: Discovery Institute

[Right Wing Professor]

. He's battling on the ISCID forums right now as a matter of fact. You could introduce yourself and say hello if you'd like. He's in the midst of a nice debate there with some of the more vocal evo's.

Too many forums already, thanks.

[orionblamblam]

> expect everyone to take one person's "rebuttal" as fact.

It only takes one. However, Google is full of refutations of Gentry's notion, as is the literature. Such as "The Geology of Gentry's 'Tiny Mystery'," May 1988, Journal of Geological Education. I especially liked the summation in: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm
"The formation of granite by replacement of solid rocks means that Gentry's theory is no longer tenable. He can no longer legitimately say that Po-halo-bearing granites must form by supernatural means."

Nice and succinct.

> The NAS won't debate him publicly

Why should they? Should they waste their time debating EVERYONE with a crackpot notion? It would be a waste of time and resources, and would achieve nothing.

Please note that in every area of crackpot endeavor, be it Creationism, UFOlogy, Ley Lines, ancient astronauts, ghosts, telekinesis, etc., etc., the claim is nearly always made "Ha! The 'experts' refuse to debate me publicly! This proves that they are afraid of my Discovered Truth!!!!!"

All it *really* proves is that the experts do not have infinite time to mess around with crackpots.

Science is self-correcting. If someone has a notion that the scientific community sees as nutty, but it Really Does Work, then that will be found out. If it was real, people would be making money with it, and demonstrating the truth of it. Scientists like nothing better than disturbing the Established Order. That's what *every* scientist craves... to make some discovery that will shake the foundations. Claims that scientists only want to tow some party line are ignorant and slanderous.

But like Cold Fusion, polywater, pyramid power and a myriad of other "discoveries," polonium halos are based not on Truth, but on misunderstandings of the evidence and perhaps intentional deception.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[Elsie]

It's a very late transcription of a much older oral tradition, by an unsophisticated and relatively primitive middle-eastern tribe.

How does we KNOW this assertation?

[Elsie]

That's a very unintelligent way to design a plankton feeder, no?

Obviously, it's a sign of random mutations then....

[Elsie]

That which grows best there prospers, that which doesn't, dies.

An obsever, looking over your fence would conclude what??

That Nature has taken it's course, or,

Someone must have DESIGNED they way the yard looks.

[orionblamblam]

Mostly they would note that nature has taken it's course. When on those rare occaisions the lawn mower attacks it, they would note that the lawn was not *designed* but simply shaved down; the mower did not discriminate one plant species from another, just height above the ground.

[RipSawyer]

Whatever helps you make it through the night, Danny. I certainly believe in a higher power which I believe has helped me make it through some dark times but if Genesis were put forward by some group belonging to a religion which was entirely new to you I don't think you would see it the way you describe it.
Peace.

[DannyTN]

about your highly vaunted polonium halo "refutation" of extreme Earth age: 'Talk Origins Link' Debunked.

That's not much of a debunking. What did Talk Origins do?

They questioned one of Gentry's assumptions. And they proposed without any proof or evidence, an alternative and possibly plausible explanation for the origin of the halos other than plutonium. That fair, but hardly debunks it. It simply indicates more research is needed.

They resort in the end to "this contradicts the vast amount of research saying the earth is old" so Gentry must be wrong. But there is not much research to support an old age earth that does not have numerous questions about it's underlying assumptions.

And the research continues.

New Findings on Plutonium Halos

[Elsie]

if Genesis were put forward by some group belonging to a religion which was entirely new to you I don't think you would see it the way you describe it.

I'd have to disagree, for Humans will fall for ANYTHING that vaguely sounds 'religious'.

---

Why have we 'evolved' this concept of a GOD? Animals don't seem to have one...

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

They resort in the end to "this contradicts the vast amount of research saying the earth is old" so Gentry must be wrong.

To their credit - at least they recognized his credentials and didn't slander the man, which is more than I can say for some of the posters here. They may have disagreed with his conclusions, but at least gave him some respect.

[DannyTN]

"Whatever helps you make it through the night, Danny. I certainly believe in a higher power which I believe has helped me make it through some dark times but if Genesis were put forward by some group belonging to a religion which was entirely new to you I don't think you would see it the way you describe it. "

True, if I had been first been taught evolution in the public schools, and then had to examine Christianity without the benefit of knowing God, it might very well give me pause. But then I do have the benefit of knowing God. That has made me very skeptical about the claims of evolution from an early age, to say the least. Of course, I might believe that homosexuality was normal and a civil right. I might believe that abortion is a right. And I might believe that the only right and wrong in the world is what I define for myself too.

But in addition to that I've seen how the Medical community attempted to demonize Atkins only to have Atkins proved right 35 years later. I've seen the FDA take an allergy medicine that I grew up on off the market and replace it with one that is unquestionably worse. I've seen enought junk science accepted as fact by organized science bureacracy in my life and eventually debunked, that I'm not intimidated by evo's claims even when they come up with something that the creationists don't have a ready response to. Responses often take time and man's knowledge and understanding is very limited.

And then there's that prediction by God 2000 years ago that man would forget that God made the world and flooded it because of uniformitarianism. Of course the Bible didn't use that word, but it described it remarkably well.

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Which has more credibility, God or the evolutionists? There, of course, is no comparison. It's irrelevant that most if not all of Darwin's initial proofs have been proven false and that evolution has to keep reinventing itself to maintain it's plausibility. It's irrelevant that creationists can poke holes is every one of the evolutionist's dating methods. It's irrelevant that the flood presents a better explanation much of the fossil record than does evolution. God was there, man has neither has the knowledge or the understanding to sufficiently contradict him.

I realize that doesn't help someone who doesn't know God. But then it's not like it's impossible for people to know Him. They choose not to.

[RipSawyer]

"I am waiting for them to find a man in the same strata as a dinosaur. That will really shake them up (they would probably destroy that find)."

I believe you should concentrate on extending your own lifespan as I feel fairly confident that you must wait a very long time.

[Right Wing Professor]

I agree.

[Right Wing Professor]

How does we KNOW this assertation?

This seems to be a fair summary.

[RipSawyer]

We have a concept of God to put a name on that which we can never fully understand. We have a concept of God because some human beings show the greatest respect and love toward their neighbors while some treat others with the contempt we would expect from the demonically influenced.
Unfortunately, the world is filled with people who for the most part attribute human emotions and failings to God, I can offer no proof of the existence of God which would satisfy the scientific method and even less am I able to offer proof of the nonexistence of God. The only solution which works for my limited thinking ability is that there is a higher power than man which is in charge of all that is seen or unseen but that proves only my limited ability.
I do draw a line at believing in a God who consigns his creations to an eternity of suffering and I do so beause I myself could not find it within me to condemn the worst who ever lived to an ETERNITY of incredible suffering and I cannot believe that I am more merciful than my creator. Spare me your explanations of how we choose our own eternity of suffering by our actions, I have heard it from the best and the worst, I was baptized into a Southern Baptist church at the age of thirteen and I don't believe it.
Peace and love.

[RipSawyer]

"I realize that doesn't help someone who doesn't know God. But then it's not like it's impossible for people to know Him. They choose not to."


I wish you the best Danny, if I didn't have so much work to do right now, I would rip into that statement.
Later,
Rip

[orionblamblam]

> I've seen how the Medical community attempted to demonize Atkins only to have Atkins proved right 35 years later.

Not proven. Still a raging debate. See the latest issue of "Skeptic."

> all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Yup. Them dodos and Moas and Tazmanian tigers and mammoths and passneger pigeons and Stellar's Sea Cows are all cruizing along just like they were when they got off the Ark.

> Which has more credibility, God or the evolutionists?

I can demonstrate that evolutionists exist. That which *is* is more credible that that which *you'd* *like* *to* *be*.

> it's not like it's impossible for people to know Him. They choose not to.

Ah, the prideful nature of some Christians...

[DannyTN]

I can demonstrate that evolutionists exist. That which *is* is more credible that that which *you'd* *like* *to* *be*.

God's already demonstrated that He is. And He continues to do so.

Ah, the prideful nature of some Christians...

Pride or knowledge?

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Sure sounds like choosing to me. But then I realize there are Christians that don't believe the scriptures, but that's not humility any more than believing them is pride.

[DannyTN]

"Yup. Them dodos and Moas and Tazmanian tigers and mammoths and passneger pigeons and Stellar's Sea Cows are all cruizing along just like they were when they got off the Ark. "

Quit skoffing and pay attention!!! When the Bible says that skoffers will say "All things continue as from the beginning" it matches exactly what uniformitarionism is. It's a belief that only natural processes have occurred since the very beginning. It rules out special creation. It rules out the Flood. And that's exactly what the Bible says the skoffers would believe having adopted such a foundational belief such as uniformitarianism.

The Bible also says the skoffers are "willfully" ignorant. If God can prove that and make that accusation stick.... Well, frankly, it's going to suck to be you.

[orionblamblam]

> The Bible also says the skoffers are "willfully" ignorant.

Then the Bible is in error, since that is obviously not the case.

> it's going to suck to be you.

Appeals to supernatural punishment do not change the facts of the situation: the universe, from the grandest of scales to the smallest, exhibits the nature of something that has evolved.