The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

bogwalrus

Wicknight wrote: »

The lunatics are running the asylum.

www.myspace.com/beatlesons

their song "lunatics" seems quite appropriate music while reading this forum



Playing ireland on april 17th also in lower deck. class

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Wicknight

The lunatics are running the asylum

WHICH 'lunatics'........are running WHAT 'asylum'????:)

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

The people who pushed the bill are defending it saying that all work must still be held to "academic standards", what ever that means. Then the bill goes on to contradict itself by saying that homework cannot be marked down because of religious content, because that is discrimination.

"Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Homework and classroom assignments shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school district. Students shall not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work."

The last line is the bit causing the problem. It should of course be "students shall not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work unless the religious content expressed is the wrong answer"

Reading the bill itself it sounds like a law suit waiting to happen.

Thanks for the quote from the actual bill, Wickie.

As I suspected, it is merely promoting religious freedom, not scientific weakness.

Your fear expressed in your last sentence is unnecessary. The religious content is an addition to the scientific requirements, not instead of them:
ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance shows the full scientific case is required;
Students shall not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work shows that any religious content forms no part of the assessment.

The sole idea is to protect the student from religious/anti-religious bias by the assessors. So an answer that failed to give the current scientific account would by downgraded, no matter the religious content. But an answer that gave both the current and the creationist alternative would not be.

I think this bill gets over the discrimination issue by using 'religious content' to cover Creationism, without getting into the debate as to whether Creationism is valid science or not. Doubtless some Creationists will think it a fudge, but it seems to me a proper way for politics to handle the matter.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

But is this an accurate description of the bill? Sounds very weird. Maybe the commentator is skewing it to suit his anti-creation prejudices?

As a Creationist, I would be opposed to any such bill. I would expect any student be required to give the current scientific consensus view, and then critique that if it is not what he believes.

That is a freedom that needs to be enacted. I have seen academic fascism at work, demanding the student take the lecturer's view as the only possible one. That was in the Arts; I'm not sure how it works in the Sciences.

It depends a lot on the institution in question. I always felt (personally) that TCD's Geology department tended to take a quite authoritarian approach...whereas one of the reasons I liked my own department was that they took great delight in handing down something as authoritative, getting you all nodding, and then kicking it out from under you.

I was on a joint field trip with TCD where the lecturer held forth at great length on the official interpretation of the stress indicators on a particular outcrop in Mayo. All the TCD students wrote it down very seriously. Alas, we'd been there on a previous trip, and our lecturer had done the same to us, and then taken us to a nearby outcrop which completely contradicted the 'official' interpretation - so we did the same to the TCD students. Good clean fun.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hot Dog

Scofflaw wrote: »

It depends a lot on the institution in question. I always felt (personally) that TCD's Geology department tended to take a quite authoritarian approach...whereas one of the reasons I liked my own department was that they took great delight in handing down something as authoritative, getting you all nodding, and then kicking it out from under you.

I was on a joint field trip with TCD where the lecturer held forth at great length on the official interpretation of the stress indicators on a particular outcrop in Mayo. All the TCD students wrote it down very seriously. Alas, we'd been there on a previous trip, and our lecturer had done the same to us, and then taken us to a nearby outcrop which completely contradicted the 'official' interpretation - so we did the same to the TCD students. Good clean fun.

cordially,
Scofflaw

UCD FTW!!!11

I would actually be interested in hearing what JC's education is. he either knows a huge deal, or very little at all.

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

The sole idea is to protect the student from religious/anti-religious bias by the assessors. So an answer that failed to give the current scientific account would by downgraded, no matter the religious content. But an answer that gave both the current and the creationist alternative would not be.

Law can only do so much to protect people......and I suspect it can do little.....and may even be counter-productive, in this case!!!

.......do you REALLY believe that somebody who gives a perfect (conventional) account of Evolutionary Theory .....and then proceeds to 'take it apart' using the findings of Creation Science would get an 'A' Grade in their exam......from some of the Evolutionists on this thread???

.....in addition, because Creation Science will certainly NOT be formally taught in these schools......any 'creationist alternative' answer will be likely to have little scientific content.....and while the 'Creationist' student is busily writing their additional 'Biblical' comments on Question 1 (for which, at best, they will earn NO extra marks)....the rest of their peers will be busily answering Questions 2, 3, 4, etc.....!!!!!:)

The 'Creationist' may well get a few things 'off their chest'......but, in a best case scenario, this will come at the cost of not answering at least part of another mandatory question on the paper......with obvious consequences for their final grade!!!

J C

Hot Dog wrote: »

I would actually be interested in hearing what JC's education is. he either knows a huge deal, or very little at all.

Modesty forbids me from answering such a question!!!!:eek::):D

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

It depends a lot on the institution in question. I always felt (personally) that TCD's Geology department tended to take a quite authoritarian approach...whereas one of the reasons I liked my own department was that they took great delight in handing down something as authoritative, getting you all nodding, and then kicking it out from under you.

I was on a joint field trip with TCD where the lecturer held forth at great length on the official interpretation of the stress indicators on a particular outcrop in Mayo. All the TCD students wrote it down very seriously. Alas, we'd been there on a previous trip, and our lecturer had done the same to us, and then taken us to a nearby outcrop which completely contradicted the 'official' interpretation - so we did the same to the TCD students. Good clean fun.

cordially,
Scofflaw

....and was EITHER account the correct Creation Science interpretation????:pac:

.....I think I know the answer.......but I just couldn't resist asking the question!!:pac::pac::)

J C

.....so we did the same to the TCD students. Good clean fun.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hot Dog wrote: »

UCD FTW!!!

.......do I detect some good clean inter-varsity 'colours' rivalry here????:pac::pac::pac:

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

I would actually be interested in hearing what JC's education is. he either knows a huge deal, or very little at all.

Modesty forbids me from answering such a question!!!!:eek::):D

But not from regularly claiming the former...still, the question of JC's educational attainments has come up before, and is the Creationist equivalent of the Guidestones' authors. He has declined to state them, for fear that evolutionists will track him down and have him fired. My personal money has always been on Ag Sci at NUI.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hot Dog

J C wrote: »

Modesty forbids me from answering such a question!!!!:eek::):D

no one is asking you to brag, just state your credentials.

And yes. A healthy colours rivalry exits.

riftfiend

JC wrote:
How about an age of 340,000 to 2.8 million yearsfor rocks that are about 10 years old......using K-Ar dating????

Have you ever heard of xenoliths and xenocryts? These little beauties will nullify this statement. The large ages obtained from these young lavas are very obviously a result of contamination of the eruted magma by older county rocks which Mt. saint helens sits upon and also a factor of fractional crystallisation within the magma chamber. (bare in mind that an eruption does not have to completly empty its reservoir.)the very fact that the dacite described in the article in answers in genisis has coarse crystals in it says that they were already crystallised prior to eruption and very likly have been stored in the magma chamber for for hundreds of thousands to millions of years (i myself have seen dacite which contains garnet and cordierite, metamorphic minerals, quite high grade too. these were found in se spain. the metamorphic minerals incuded in the igneous dacite could only have come form the much older metamorphic basement beneath the volcanoe, very similar to the situation that is being descibed in your attempt at debunking radiogenic dating by claiming the ages are wrong{ i know st helens is on tertiary rock}). the liquid lava which erupted containing the inheirited crystals would have cooled very quiclky indeed only allowing glassy material and very fine crysals to form and you are quite right in saying that they shoud have low argon as they will be far to young to contain radiogenic argon-40 and will only contain trace amounts of argon-39.

Also, Potassium-40 decays to argon-40 via beta decay, i.e the loss of one proton and conversion to a nuetron so how exactly through the process of nuclear decay does one add a proton to potassium to form calcium as is implied in the notes at the end of the article form answers in genisis? surely that would indicate spontanious nuclear fusion??? last i checked we are not living on the sun!
This arguement on the validity or radiometric dating is void as the basic information that is needed to both interpret the results of the dating of both the whole rock and mineral samples is fundamentally flawed.

I apologise for my lengthy posts in the past but it is far too difficult to expain geological processes to those who only skim over evidence, usually completlely missing the point. this in itself is as brif as i could make it. it would howver be nice to see some wel informed answers and arguements on this thread instead of what appear to be a childs eye view of the evidence and taking it at face value without looking at the bigger picture to draw reasonable conclusions from the evidence.

As Ben Franklin said" i would have written a shorter letter if i had had more time" , or at least i think it was him who said it?:)

robindch

riftfiend wrote: »

As Ben Franklin said" i would have written a shorter letter if i had had more time" , or at least i think it was him who said it?:)

Certainly Pascal said it, and possibly Cicero did too.

Eschatologist

J C wrote: »

I can say with confidence that the ‘Big Bang’ DIDN’T or COULDN'T happen

You can say with confidence that the Big Bang didn't happen? Well now, you've contradicted yourself. Whether there was divine intervention or not is moot: you admit that in the beginning there was nothing then it 'exploded'. That is the Big Bang, the term used to refer to all matter and energy emerging from a single point, divine or no.

J C wrote: »

How about an age of 340,000 to 2.8 million yearsfor rocks that are about 10 years old......using K-Ar dating????

I have answered this before, twice now, and yet you still ask this question. I suggest you read riftfiend's eloquent and thorough geological explanation. The fact that you're ignoring these explanations is quite astounding - you post your argument then completely ignore the real scientific answer - backed up by peer-reviewed geology papers! (I refer you for the third time to Funkhauser, Barnes & Noughton, 1965 - quick review: scientists must be careful to date the crystals formed from the erupted melt rather than the usually much older phenocrysts in xenoliths broken off the volcano’s sidewall and incorporated into the young melt as it travels up the volcanic conduit. This is basic 1st year geology, but I suspect you don't even have that). This shows me you have no interest in learning why creationism contradicts the sound, verified, repeatedly tested evidence.

J C

Eschatologist wrote: »

You can say with confidence that the Big Bang didn't happen? Well now, you've contradicted yourself. Whether there was divine intervention or not is moot: you admit that in the beginning there was nothing then it 'exploded'. That is the Big Bang, the term used to refer to all matter and energy emerging from a single point, divine or no.

I most certainly DON'T accept that God or anything else formed the Universe in a 'Big Bang' from a single point!!!!

The Universe was Created with a whisper.....and NOT via a bang!!!

wrote:

Eschatologist
I have answered this before, twice now, and yet you still ask this question. I suggest you read riftfiend's eloquent and thorough geological explanation. The fact that you're ignoring these explanations is quite astounding - you post your argument then completely ignore the real scientific answer - backed up by peer-reviewed geology papers! (I refer you for the third time to Funkhauser, Barnes & Noughton, 1965 - quick review: scientists must be careful to date the crystals formed from the erupted melt rather than the usually much older phenocrysts in xenoliths broken off the volcano’s sidewall and incorporated into the young melt as it travels up the volcanic conduit.

riftfiend
This argument on the validity or radiometric dating is void as the basic information that is needed to both interpret the results of the dating of both the whole rock and mineral samples is fundamentally flawed.

It sure is ‘fundamentally flawed’ !!!!:eek:

….and the dating problems with K-Ar are widely known since the 1960's within the Geological community
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n315044734841448/

….and could I gently remind you that the 2.8 million year ‘age’ for the 10 year old rock was obtained AFTER making all of the adjustments that could be made to take account of this knowledge……..

......and could I ALSO point out that an ‘age’ of 2.8 million years for a 10 year old rock would ‘date’ a 6,000 year old rock at 1.7 billion years old!!!!:eek::)

…..and the INVALIDITY problems with the ‘age’ of rocks is referred to in the following quote from Dr. Paul Ackerman:-

"Let me be blunt on this matter. Evolutionists around the world have had to learn the hard way that evolution cannot stand up against creationism in any fair and impartial debate situation where the stakes are the hearts and minds of intelligent, undecided - but nevertheless objective and open-minded - audiences. Experience will prove that the same is true for the age issue as well. Evolutionist beliefs regarding the origin and development of life cannot withstand the scrutiny of an informed opposition, and neither can evolutionist claims to the effect that the universe has existed for 10 to 20 billion years. To delay the collapse of widespread public acceptance of such claims, it will be necessary for evolutionist scientists carefully to avoid debate."

-Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 13.

........prophetic words indeed!!!!:eek::pac::pac::pac::)

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

I most certainly DON'T accept that God or anything else formed the Universe in a 'Big Bang' from a single point!!!!

The Universe was Created with a whisper.....and NOT via a bang!!!



It sure is ‘fundamentally flawed’ !!!!:eek:

….and the dating problems with K-Ar are widely known since the 1960's within the Geological community
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n315044734841448/

….and could I gently remind you that the 2.8 million year ‘age’ for the 10 year old rock was obtained AFTER making all of the adjustments that could be made to take account of this knowledge……..

......and could I ALSO point out that an ‘age’ of 2.8 million years for a 10 year old rock would ‘date’ a 6,000 year old rock at 1.7 billion years old!!!!:eek::)

…..and the INVALIDITY problems with the ‘age’ of rocks is referred to in the following quote from Dr. Paul Ackerman:-

"Let me be blunt on this matter. Evolutionists around the world have had to learn the hard way that evolution cannot stand up against creationism in any fair and impartial debate situation where the stakes are the hearts and minds of intelligent, undecided - but nevertheless objective and open-minded - audiences. Experience will prove that the same is true for the age issue as well. Evolutionist beliefs regarding the origin and development of life cannot withstand the scrutiny of an informed opposition, and neither can evolutionist claims to the effect that the universe has existed for 10 to 20 billion years. To delay the collapse of widespread public acceptance of such claims, it will be necessary for evolutionist scientists carefully to avoid debate."

-Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 13.

........prophetic words indeed!!!!:eek::pac::pac::pac::)

Oh aye, and here we are, carefully avoiding debate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

I most certainly DON'T accept that God or anything else formed the Universe in a 'Big Bang' from a single point!!!!

The Universe was Created with a whisper.....and NOT via a bang!!!



It sure is ‘fundamentally flawed’ !!!!:eek:

….and the dating problems with K-Ar are widely known since the 1960's within the Geological community
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n315044734841448/

….and could I gently remind you that the 2.8 million year ‘age’ for the 10 year old rock was obtained AFTER making all of the adjustments that could be made to take account of this knowledge……..

......and could I ALSO point out that an ‘age’ of 2.8 million years for a 10 year old rock would ‘date’ a 6,000 year old rock at 1.7 billion years old!!!!:eek::)

…..and the INVALIDITY problems with the ‘age’ of rocks is referred to in the following quote from Dr. Paul Ackerman:-

"Let me be blunt on this matter. Evolutionists around the world have had to learn the hard way that evolution cannot stand up against creationism in any fair and impartial debate situation where the stakes are the hearts and minds of intelligent, undecided - but nevertheless objective and open-minded - audiences. Experience will prove that the same is true for the age issue as well. Evolutionist beliefs regarding the origin and development of life cannot withstand the scrutiny of an informed opposition, and neither can evolutionist claims to the effect that the universe has existed for 10 to 20 billion years. To delay the collapse of widespread public acceptance of such claims, it will be necessary for evolutionist scientists carefully to avoid debate."

-Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 13.

........prophetic words indeed!!!!:eek::pac::pac::pac::)

More profitable than prophetic, I think. Creationists saying evolution doesn't stand up in debate...whatever next? Will simply repeating it make it true? The answer, I suspect, is that it makes it 'true' for those who want it to be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hot Dog

J C wrote: »

I most certainly DON'T accept that God or anything else formed the Universe in a 'Big Bang' from a single point!!!!

The Universe was Created with a whisper.....and NOT via a bang!!!



It sure is ‘fundamentally flawed’ !!!!:eek:

….and the dating problems with K-Ar are widely known since the 1960's within the Geological community
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n315044734841448/

….and could I gently remind you that the 2.8 million year ‘age’ for the 10 year old rock was obtained AFTER making all of the adjustments that could be made to take account of this knowledge……..

......and could I ALSO point out that an ‘age’ of 2.8 million years for a 10 year old rock would ‘date’ a 6,000 year old rock at 1.7 billion years old!!!!:eek::)

…..and the INVALIDITY problems with the ‘age’ of rocks is referred to in the following quote from Dr. Paul Ackerman:-

"Let me be blunt on this matter. Evolutionists around the world have had to learn the hard way that evolution cannot stand up against creationism in any fair and impartial debate situation where the stakes are the hearts and minds of intelligent, undecided - but nevertheless objective and open-minded - audiences. Experience will prove that the same is true for the age issue as well. Evolutionist beliefs regarding the origin and development of life cannot withstand the scrutiny of an informed opposition, and neither can evolutionist claims to the effect that the universe has existed for 10 to 20 billion years. To delay the collapse of widespread public acceptance of such claims, it will be necessary for evolutionist scientists carefully to avoid debate."

-Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 13.

........prophetic words indeed!!!!:eek::pac::pac::pac::)

I have not seen any evidence of independent thinking by you since you attempted an explanation of the geology of Ireland, even then it was found sorely lacking.

riftfiend

J C wrote: »

…..and the INVALIDITY problems with the ‘age’ of rocks is referred to in the following quote from Dr. Paul Ackerman:-

And what exactly would a psychologist know about radiometric dating or any other form of dating for that matter? Perhaps you should not use references from "answers in genisis", after all it is a nonsensical website which does communicate basic science acccurately (i direct you to my previous comment where i show that the particular websites knowledge is incorrect in regards to nuclear decay) and so how can it be used in attempts to show that the evidence is consistant with a young earth. Similarly using quotes form people who are completly out of context does not stregnthen your arguement and if anything weakens it.
You are quite right the geological community is well aware that great care must be taken with K-Ar dating in order to get meaningful ages but in general other methods will also be used for example, U-Pb and even Be-10 methods.

sdep

J C wrote: »

….and the dating problems with K-Ar are widely known for some time within the Geological community
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n315044734841448/

….and could I gently remind you that the 2.8 million year 'age' for the 10 year old rock was obtained AFTER making all of the adjustments that could be made to take account of this knowledge……..

......and could I ALSO point out that an ‘age’ of 2.8 million years for a 10 year old rock would ‘date’ a 6,000 year old rock at 1.7 billion years old!!!!

Ah, another cherished item from the great Creationist cabinet of curiosities.

The Creation science modus operandi is to focus exclusively on freak statistical outlier results and claim that these invalidate the scientific methods for measuring anything. It's an unscientific, wrecking ball approach that, if generally adopted, would guarantee zero progress.

But what does Creation science put in place of proper science? I can see, even though I am absolutely not a geologist, that the Creation science response to the questions of the last few pages has amounted to no more than saying that the flood was a one-off cataclysm of such enormity and complexity that it could produce any conceivable geological formation anywhere on the planet. Of what use is that to someone prospecting for oil? Instead of predicting accurately where to look, using the best available mainstream science, you hand them a scrap of paper that says, "Lads, it's very complicated - the stuff could be anywhere, but be assured that wherever you do find it, it won't contradict Scripture." Now, I think I know which advice Shell would prefer.

So has Creation science actually come up with a single distinctive model that makes specific, testable, reliable predictions, or is it purely reactionary?

J C

wrote:

riftfiend
Potassium-40 decays to argon-40 via beta decay, i.e the loss of one proton and conversion to a nuetron so how exactly through the process of nuclear decay does one add a proton to potassium to form calcium as is implied in the notes at the end of the article form answers in genisis? surely that would indicate spontanious nuclear fusion??? last i checked we are not living on the sun!

You DON’T need to live on the Sun…….the radioactive isotope K-40 decays to Ar-40 and Ca-40 with a half life of 1.26 billion years!!!:cool:

wrote:

Dr. Paul D. Ackerman
"Let me be blunt on this matter. Evolutionists around the world have had to learn the hard way that evolution cannot stand up against creationism in any fair and impartial debate situation where the stakes are the hearts and minds of intelligent, undecided - but nevertheless objective and open-minded - audiences. Experience will prove that the same is true for the age issue as well. Evolutionist beliefs regarding the origin and development of life cannot withstand the scrutiny of an informed opposition, and neither can evolutionist claims to the effect that the universe has existed for 10 to 20 billion years. To delay the collapse of widespread public acceptance of such claims, it will be necessary for evolutionist scientists carefully to avoid debate."

Scofflaw
Oh aye, and here we are, carefully avoiding debate.

….. Dr Ackerman was offering good advice to Evolutionists about the need to carefully avoid debating with Creation Scientists……because the Evolutionist case is so hopeless that they invariably LOSE!!!!:eek::)
……and most American Evolutionists have already taken this advice on board.

…… the Evolutionists on this thread could also benefit from carefully avoiding further debate, in order to salvage what little credibility remains for Evolution on this thread!!!!:pac::pac::pac::)

wrote:

riftfiend
You are quite right the geological community is well aware that great care must be taken with K-Ar dating in order to get meaningful ages but in general other methods will also be used for example, U-Pb and even Be-10 methods.

I personally think that the Ar-Ar method is better……
However, although it is subject to less experimental error…….it still suffers from ALL of the problems and assumptions of radiometric dating.


sdep

wrote:

Creation science response to the questions of the last few pages has amounted to no more than saying that the flood was a unique cataclysm of such enormity and complexity that it could produce any conceivable geological formation anywhere on the planet. Of what use is that to someone prospecting for oil?

It would be of limited use to somebody prospecting for oil…….because the Flood DIDN’T produce much oil, in the first place.:eek:

Hint…..MOST mineral oil is abiotic in origin…… and that is WHY it is called MINERAL oil …….and that is all I wish to say on this topic!!!!;)

sdep

wrote:

Ah, another cherished item from the great Creationist cabinet of curiosities.

It actually came from the Evolutionist 'cabinet of curiosities'.......and NONE of them matching ANY prediction of the Theory!!!!!:eek::pac::pac::pac::)

Scofflaw

What can I say? I am...amazed anew.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Dr Ackerman was offering good advice to Evolutionists about the need to carefully avoid debating with Creation Scientists

And I'm sure having a PhD in Psychology places the good doctor in an excellent position to argue with biologists ... :rolleyes: :pac::pac::pac:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Hint…..MOST mineral oil is abiotic in origin…… and that is WHY it is called MINERAL oil …….and that is all I wish to say on this topic!!!!;)

What? You don't want to also mention that the abiotic origin theory of petroleum production has been terrible at predicting where to find oil and as such has been pretty much abandoned by the vast majority of oil prospectors?

Well I can certainly see why you would wish to ignore that little detail ...

sdep

Scofflaw wrote: »

What can I say? I am...amazed anew.
cordially,
Scofflaw

Would you mind elaborating a bit so I can get the rudiments - or be able to point me to somewhere earlier in the thread if you've already covered the ground?

Thanks.

[Edit]

Having read up on the lack of support for abiogenic oil formation, I think I see.

sdep

I haven't yet seen any Creation science model that makes better predictions and is consequently more practically applicable than a corresponding model provided by conventional science, founded on an old universe, old earth and evolution. I'll again invite the Creation science advocates to offer examples.

Ekancone

sdep wrote: »

I haven't yet seen any Creation science model that makes better predictions and is consequently more practically applicable than a corresponding model provided by conventional science, founded on an old universe, old earth and evolution. I'll again invite the Creation science advocates to offer examples.

I have yet to see a creationist model.

wolfsbane

J C wrote: »

Law can only do so much to protect people......and I suspect it can do little.....and may even be counter-productive, in this case!!!

.......do you REALLY believe that somebody who gives a perfect (conventional) account of Evolutionary Theory .....and then proceeds to 'take it apart' using the findings of Creation Science would get an 'A' Grade in their exam......from some of the Evolutionists on this thread???

.....in addition, because Creation Science will certainly NOT be formally taught in these schools......any 'creationist alternative' answer will be likely to have little scientific content.....and while the 'Creationist' student is busily writing their additional 'Biblical' comments on Question 1 (for which, at best, they will earn NO extra marks)....the rest of their peers will be busily answering Questions 2, 3, 4, etc.....!!!!!:)

The 'Creationist' may well get a few things 'off their chest'......but, in a best case scenario, this will come at the cost of not answering at least part of another mandatory question on the paper......with obvious consequences for their final grade!!!

Yes, I agree with what you say essentially, but take the view that some legal protection is better than none. Certainly the creationist student needs to remember that anything submitted outside the current consensus will count for nothing - they are only being protected from having marks deducted for it. So a brief statement is in order, to the effect that you think the evolutionary model is inadequate and that creationism better explains what we see.

I gather a significant number of complaints must have arisen from victimised students, for this bill to be presented. With a much higher percentage of creationists in the States, it is not surprising. I too would find it difficult to repeat back that such and such was formed so and so many millions of years ago, without qualifying it by saying, 'the current consensus' or 'but I consider the creationist dating to be correct', etc.

Hot Dog

J C wrote: »

You DON’T need to live on the Sun…….the radioactive isotope K-40 decays to Ar-40 and Ca-40 with a half life of 1.26 billion years!!!:cool:





….. Dr Ackerman was offering good advice to Evolutionists about the need to carefully avoid debating with Creation Scientists……because the Evolutionist case is so hopeless that they invariably LOSE!!!!:eek::)
……and most American Evolutionists have already taken this advice on board.

…… the Evolutionists on this thread could also benefit from carefully avoiding further debate, in order to salvage what little credibility remains for Evolution on this thread!!!!:pac::pac::pac::)




I personally think that the Ar-Ar method is better……
However, although it is subject to less experimental error…….it still suffers from ALL of the problems and invalid assumptions of radiometric dating.


sdep

It would be of limited use to somebody prospecting for oil…….because the Flood DIDN’T produce much oil, in the first place.:eek:

Hint…..MOST mineral oil is abiotic in origin…… and that is WHY it is called MINERAL oil …….and that is all I wish to say on this topic!!!!;)

sdep
It actually came from the Evolutionist 'cabinet of curiosities'.......and NONE of them matching ANY prediction of the Theory!!!!!:eek::pac::pac::pac::)

I hate manure

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Good blog piece about how popular scientific journalism's narrative of the lone under dog scientist over throwing the crusty dogmatic scientific establishment is leading to a misrepresentation of what science is and how it works in the mainstream public. Applies to everyone here who thinks there is a conspiracy shutting people out of science.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/adaptive_complexity/bad_science_journalism_and_the_myth_of_the_oppressed_underdog

Thanks for that interesting article. Yes, it is good to remind ourselves that journalism goes for the simpler and the more sensational version! But one of the bloggers warned of going to the other extreme:
In pointing out the follies of journalists, I worry about swinging the pendulum too far back, painting the scientific world as more of a well-oiled, egalitarian machine than it actually is.

Or as Professor Evelleen Richards, Science Historian, University of NSW, Australia put it:
Science ... a reality check
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/576

Following up my requests for examples of censorship regarding peer-reviews of Creationist submissions, I have gathered a few more links that are helpful.
Here's one directly on peer-review:
Correspondence w/ Science Journals
Response to critics concerning peer-review
http://www.trueorigin.org:80/behe07.asp

Others on the wider censorship:
Censorship of Information on Origins
http://www.rae.org/censor.html

Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1784

Doppler toppler?http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1611

A different view of the universe
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1662

Darwinian thought police strike again http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5126

Denied the prize
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5197

The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3593

Scientific American refuses to hire creationist
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1248