Posted on 01/11/2007 4:38:14 PM PST by xcamel
Dr. Donald R. Prothero is Professor of Geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles, and Lecturer in Geobiology at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. He is currently the author, co-author, editor, or co-editor of 21 books and almost 200 scientific papers, including five leading geology textbooks and three trade books. He is on the editorial board of Skeptic magazine, and in the past has served as an associate or technical editor for Geology, Paleobiology and Journal of Paleontology. He is a Fellow of the Geological Society of America, the Paleontological Society, and the Linnaean Society of London, and has also received fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation and the National Science Foundation. He has also been featured on several television documentaries, including episodes of Paleoworld and Walking with Prehistoric Beasts.
ping.
You have a better source than that? I think not.
Cry me a river...
They are being hypocritical. Rather than introducing Creationism, this edict(?) simply reduces Macroevolutionary doctrine.
Somebody please tell me that this is a joke!
If not, I'm not sure that I want to know...
Show me something with at least a single shred of evidence.
YEC INTREP
Our children were at the Grand Canyon for the first time this summer. We went with them on a ranger lead program that was very well done.
The ranger used the scientific dates from evolutionary theory in his presentation. OK. My children have been taught a creationist history of the world. They know what the basic theory of evolution says and why we are teaching them differently, but they are accepting of the way other people think.
It would be nice if the evolutionists were as tolerant as my 9 and 10 year olds are.
This is the sort of God-hater hyperbole that gives a bad name to more level-headed opponents of creationism.
That's going too far. What kind of impression are the geologists trying to make? That evolution is a religious belief that needs protecting? To them it probably is. They are lousy scientists.
Evolution theories do not require PR defense. They can stand by themselves.
The letter by Jeff Ruch is pretty interesting.
http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_peer_ltr_Bomar.pdf
I've always wondered why the grand cayon does not have a perfectly identifiable layering of all the geologic column? It only has 5 (permian, pennsylvanian, mississipian, devonian and cambrian) of the 12 layers identifiable. From a geological standpoint, isn't that hard to defend?
Indeed. From a secular standpoint, a Macroevolutionist or Creationist United States would both be able to make scientific and technological progress. Creationists and Macroevolutionists agree on most things of "current" science (physics, geology, astronomy, biology (yes), etc.); they disagree on what happened long ago. If the United States became predominantly Creationist, American scientific development would still remain on the vanguard of progress.
And cry it fast, because if that river can't erode a mile-deep canyon in less than 6,000 years, it didn't happen.
We're talking about water, wind, rock and sand.
Remind me again where evolution enters into it.
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.