Two days left in the legislative session. The deceptively named “academic freedom” bills haven’t budged. Fortunately, time is running out.
Florida Times Union: Schools evolution proposal could die
The House passed that bill after significant debate Monday, but Storms said she can’t understand why it was changed.
“I have no idea,” she said, comparing the situation to having two cars traveling together as a caravan. “Suddenly the car behind us veered off the road and into the bushes.”
She said the Senate won’t pass that bill.
Others questioned whether the House effort was sabotaged.
“I’d say someone in the House, in the name of trying to push this bill, is actually trying to kill it,” said John West, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based organization that developed a model evolution-debate law that was the basis for Florida’s legislation.
“If nothing passes, I think there will be a lot of explaining to do,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Discovery Institute’s John West is for all intents and purposes accusing the Florida House Republicans of sabotaging the DI’s bill! Let the paranoia begin.
Wow! There are some Republicans left who haven’t adopted the fundie mind virus? What are their names so that I can get other sensible folks to re-elect them? I was beginning to despair for my political party but this gives me hope! 🙂
Who the hell is John West to say there will be some “explaining to do”? Is he even a resident of this state?
“Oh Lucy! You got some ‘splainin’ to do!”
Wolfhound – there’s at least one in Jacksonville – Senator Jim King. He voted against this bill and the mandatory Ultra-sound bill for women seeking an abortion in the 1st trimester. Who would have thought…
Maybe there’ hope after all in this Repulblican dominated state.
Yay for Senator King!
Take a look at the poll at the top of the page on the newspaper article link. There is no correct way to answer the question.
Please comment or call the TimesUnion.
Sorry, I still just don’t “get it”.
The Discovery Institute accuses the Florida officials of sabotaging the bill (that is THEIR model). It is CLEAR that the DI wants to teach creationism (OK, now called Intelligent Design) in our public schools.
This information is EVERYWHERE, and their website is full of it!! (Uh, pun intended.)
And, our officials STILL want to deny that this is about creationism in our public schools? Either these officials are fundamentalists themselves, there is a political reason for their voting for the bills, or they simply did not care enough to educate themselves about the situation.
I just don’t get it.
If these bills fail, as now seems likely, who will be the first to blame the coming hurricane season on the legislature’s ungodly behavior?
But what if Florida isn’t badly hit by hurricanes this year? Then both Ronda Storms and Al Gore will have some explaining to do.
PH- Ha ha! Remember the Dec 2004 tsunami? Some people at work were saying, “Oh, god is angry, that’s why this happened!” and all I could think of was, if this was a punishment from god, it wasn’t going to take out all these poor coastal fishing villages, it would be against the US- specifically Washington D.C.
Graf :our officials STILL want to deny that this is about creationism in our public schools? Either these officials are fundamentalists themselves, there is a political reason for their voting for the bills, or they simply did not care enough to educate themselves about the situation.
I just don’t get it.Yes you do Graf,it’s all of the above!!
Yeah, you think thats bad?! Look at these biblical teachings ! This is truly what needs to be taught!
http://jaypinkerton.com/backofthebible.html
Lets teach the bible like this! I mean after all, it is the word of god
Wolfhound,
Here’s an article you’ll enjoy. Conservative writer John Derbyshire tears intelligent design a new one over at the National Review.
Evolution is a theory with no credible evidence. There are no fossils or any real sciencntific facts to support it. The real deal is that evolutionists do not want to acknowledge that life comes from God. Our taxes should not go towards the teaching of garbage science. There is plenty of real science to dismiss the garbage science of evolutionism.
Why is evolution being jamed down the throats of my kids at the expense of my tax dollars? And since when can a so called theory not be challenged?
JM said:
There is plenty of real science to dismiss the garbage science of evolutionism.
Show me the evidence please.
How about for starters the lack of archeological evidence. Or better yet why don’t you show evidence which supports your “theory”?
Hey S. Scott, does this fall under DNFTT? I mean, haven’t we had this conversation almost if not every day while this bill has been in the senate/house?
It’s the same tried and true strategy of repeating a lie enough times that it becomes perceived as the truth by the general public. Bearing false witness for God is still bearing false witness…
ALL: DNFTT (AKA Charles/JM)
I hate to feed the trolls but here goes anyway… Hey Charles, your comments remind me of this quote by Isaac Asimov.
“Creationists make it sound as though a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.”
And here’s another Asimov quote one for you JM.
“Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.”
OK, one more for Karl,
“I believe that only scientists can understand the universe. It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong.”
Oh, but it’s soooo much fun. Really, after a day at work, I like to come home and wax a troll or two. I mean, we offer up all the evidence for evolution and they still suffer from HICs- Head in Cement Syndrome
Keep it up fundies, and continue to wonder why people laugh
at you.
How about for starters the lack of archeological evidence. Or better yet why don’t you show evidence which supports your “theory�
Oh, don’t look now, it’s teh attack of the stoopid!
Close…
A little more on the conservative tip:
Let’s be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological “theory” whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge — in this case, evolution — they are to be filled by God….How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein?
Charles Krauthammer, “Phony Theory, False Conflictâ€
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701304.html
Where’s you evidence instead of all the name calling?
Come on Charles,don’t walk away with your tail between your legs,show us all this “real science to dismiss the garbage science of evolutionism.”
My evidence is there is no fossil record to support the transition of one species to another…There would be thousands or millions of fossils of animals as they evolved from one form to another. And do you know why they haven’t been found? Because there ARE NOT ANY. Looks like you are the one with your tail between your legs.
Perhaps others on this board are skeptical about the sincerity of your (Charles/JM) quest for knowledge. People who are genuinely interested in a scientific theory generally read journal articles or even a popular science book on the relevant ideas. They generally do not come to internet forums expecting a 20-word synopsis to adequately sum up 150 years of research. If you are sincere in educating yourself on the topic, then I would sincerely suggest that you start the quest for knowledge with a good book (Gould and Mayr are both good popular biology authors that could clear up the fossil-record confusion implied in previous posts; Miller and Collins have both written books on evolution that are specifically geared towards fellow Christians) rather than an internet forum.
Oh Charles, why do we heathens bother? PLease google “tiktaalik” and see what you get. Oh, I forgot, make sure you read the information.
But hey, lets not let a little reading get in the way when you can watch movies!
Part I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGND4bEOtS8
Part II http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuVDB1Zxuc8
Feel free to ignore all that sciencey stuff Charles.
Just what I thought, you don’t have anything to present. But I didn’t really expect any. Just ridicule and name calling from a bunch of elitists.
OK Charles,
Pick your tail up,no need to read just watch:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/teachstuds/svideos.html
Charles and this:
Prediction 1.4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestors
Example 1: reptile-birds
Example 2: reptile-mammals
Example 3: ape-humans
Example 4: legged whales
Example 5: legged seacows
Prediction 1.4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestors
Example 1: reptile-birds
Example 2: reptile-mammals
Example 3: ape-humans
Example 4: legged whales
Example 5: legged seacows
OK, we posted the evidence, are you going to at least pretend to look at it? There is a test ya know.
Sorry about repeat post.
iiiiii
I agree with Joel. If Charles and his ilk are so eager to become students of paleontology, then they need to do their homework first. I’ve listed a few links to major paleontological journals below. The fossil record not provides valuable evidence to back up the Theory of Evolution, but has significant economic importance for the petroleum industry, the mining industry, the construction industry, and so on. And don’t forget that a considerable portion of our water in Florida is fossil water withdrawn from the Floridan aquifer.
Journal of Paleontology
http://www.journalofpaleontology.org/
Paleobiology
http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/
Palaeontology
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0031-0239&site=1
Lethaia
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0024-1164&site=1
Palaios
http://palaios.geoscienceworld.org/
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology
http://www.vertpaleo.org/publications/index.cfm
Marine Micropaleontology
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/503351/description#description
Journal of Foraminiferal Research
http://jfr.geoscienceworld.org/
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/503355/description#description
Paleoceonography
http://www.agu.org/journals/pa/
It sounds like Charles needs to study genetics. There are plenty of transitional forms — they can be found in our own DNA.
Also, it is very difficult to form fossils. Conditions have to be just right. Otherwise, our world would be full of fossils, it would be impossible to take a walk without stubbing your toe on one.
Just what I thought, you don’t have anything to present. But I didn’t really expect any. Just ridicule and name calling from a bunch of elitists.
It’s like a blind man scoffing at an oil painting and declaring it shows no artistic talent…
…or an irrational man scoffing at a rational man and claiming that being rational serves no purpose. 😉
Hey Green Earth, You are right – I am guilty as charged. 🙂
Looks like the reconciliation will take place early Friday morning.
“Why is evolution being jamed down the throats of my kids at the expense of my tax dollars? And since when can a so called theory not be challenged?”
1. Evolution is being tought in public schools because it is the best available explanation for the diversity of life we find on this planet.
2. All theories in science are subject to challenge, all the time. However, these challenges come from other scientists, not from religion. So far, the Theory of Evolution has met all scientific challenges it has been subjected to.
“How about for starters the lack of archeological evidence. Or better yet why don’t you show evidence which supports your “theoryâ€?”
Sure thing! Simply click here…
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
…and read. Oh, but be advised, this is only a SMALL sampling. Should take you about a week to read.
An interesting comment by one of the most astute men of our time:
I’ve always liked the exchange featuring the excited young Darwinian at the end of the 19th century. He said grandly to the elderly scholar, “How is it possible to believe in God?†The imperishable answer was, “I find it easier to believe in God than to believe that Hamlet was deduced from the molecular structure of a mutton chop.â€
That rhetorical bullet has everything — wit and profundity. It has more than once reminded me that skepticism about life and nature is most often expressed by those who take it for granted that belief is an indulgence of the superstitious — indeed their opiate, to quote a historical cosmologist most profoundly dead. Granted, that to look up at the stars comes close to compelling disbelief — how can such a chance arrangement be other than an elaboration — near infinite — of natural impulses? Yes, on the other hand, who is to say that the arrangement of the stars is more easily traceable to nature, than to nature’s molder? What is the greater miracle: the raising of the dead man in Lazarus, or the mere existence of the man who died and of the witnesses who swore to his revival?
The skeptics get away with fixing the odds against the believer, mostly by pointing to phenomena which are only explainable — you see? — by the belief that there was a cause for them, always deducible. But how can one deduce the cause of Hamlet? Or of St. Matthew’s Passion? What is the cause of inspiration?
This I believe: that it is intellectually easier to credit a divine intelligence than to submit dumbly to felicitous congeries about nature. As a child, I was struck by the short story. It told of a man at a bar who boasted of his rootlessness, derisively dismissing the jingoistic patrons to his left and to his right. But later in the evening, one man speaks an animadversion on a little principality in the Balkans and is met with the clenched fist of the man without a country, who would not endure this insult to the place where he was born.
So I believe that it is as likely that there should be a man without a country, as a world without a creator.
-Bill Buckley-
How Is It Possible to Believe in God? As heard on NPR’s Morning Edition, May 23, 2005.
“My evidence is there is no fossil record to support the transition of one species to another…There would be thousands or millions of fossils of animals as they evolved from one form to another. And do you know why they haven’t been found? Because there ARE NOT ANY. Looks like you are the one with your tail between your legs.”
Sorry, Charlie, but we asked you for POSITIVE evidence for YOUR beliefs, not for attacks on the Theory of Evolution.
However, your attack is WELL countered right here…
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html
…as is virtually EVERY other creationist claim you might have been told. Believe it or not, real scientists DO think of these things, and check them.
“I’ve always liked the exchange featuring the excited young Darwinian at the end of the 19th century. He said grandly to the elderly scholar, “How is it possible to believe in God?†The imperishable answer was, “I find it easier to believe in God than to believe that Hamlet was deduced from the molecular structure of a mutton chop.â€
That rhetorical bullet has everything — wit and profundity. ”
Sorry, I see neither wit nor profundity in this statement, as it makes absolutely no sense.
The fact remains that, rhetorical emotion-based appeals aside, there exists no positive, scientific evidence for any dieties whatsoever.
“Where’s you evidence instead of all the name calling?”
Well, here’s a SMALL sample of the evidence. Click here…
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Go ahead and read it. It should only take you about a week.
Yes Bill Buckley’s mind was much more superior than yours Ivy. Thats why it doesnt make sense to you.
Mr. Buckley was indeed an intelligent man.
Sad, then, that such intelligence was still overcome with superstition.
He should have been able to deduce that believing in supernatural beings is ALWAYS “easier” than simply learning about the natural world as we find it. But, if all we did when questions arose is claim that “it’s the work of the GODS!”, we’d have never advanced as far as we have.
His point being that from such beauty and inspiration of Hamlet coming out of an “evolved” inferior creater is folly.
Oh, and Charlie?
Here is a small sampling of the evidence you requested. Just click this link…
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
…and read. Learn, before you spout off.
As a bonus, we also have this…
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html
…which refutes just about EVERY claim that creationists have ever come up with. Please read it before you make one of the claims listed.
S. Scott- I’m sorry, I hope my post didn’t sound mean, usually you have to remind us of that. It’s just- seriously, what is wrong with these people? We’ve been over all this stuff before!
I realize his point, sir, but what he DOES NOT do is provide any reasons (based in logic and evidence) exactly WHY it is “folly”.
In other words, why invoke an unseen, unevidenced supernatural being to explain something MUCH easier explained by the fact that William Shakespeare was a gifted, imaginative writer?
“Gods” are simply unnecessary to explain the universe.
In Messages Thursday, May 01, 2008 5:20 PM
05/01/08 S Refused to concur, requested House to recede Thursday, May 01, 2008 5:03 PM
(A) A motion that the House recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment in writing then available on the floor. (B) A motion that the House insist on its disagreement to the Senate amendment and request a further conference with the Senate. (C) A motion that the House insist on its disagreement to the Senate amendment.
Many of the worlds most outstanding and productive scientists have been creationists Biblically and scientifically. Examples: Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Galileo, Michael Faraday Samuel Morse, George Washington Carver, Gregor Mendel, and Louis Pasteur.
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=2008s2692.hms.doc&DocumentType=Analysis&BillNumber=2692&Session=2008
The “beauty and inspiration” of Hamlet is entirely subjective. There are plenty of people who find Shakespeare tedious.
Nor does something being evolved make it inferior. There’s nothing upon which to base such a judgment. To make such a statement is ludicrous, not at all astute.
In the end, what we have in your quote is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. It is of no more value than someone saying “I don’t like broccoli, therefore broccoli must be the work of evil spirits.”
The fact is Ivy that the creation itself is evidence of a Creator. It is intuitively known.
So what, B. Mendel? They didn’t know as much about the world as we do now. Newton knew nothing of Pasteur, and Pasteur knew nothing of Watson and Crick. We have the benefit of being able to look at the work of not only these people but thousands upon thousands of others, too… many of which, might I add, were doing their investigations in the past 100 years, unlike most of those you mention on your list. Lastly, just because someone is good in one thing doesn’t mean they know anything about some other thing. Why is it more important if a scientist makes a category error you find supportable than if a plumber or janitor does the same? Are 17th and 18th century scientists to be considered omniscient now?
So far, you’ve advanced arguments from incredulity and authority. Can’t say I haven’t heard them before, and I’m no more impressed by them now than I have been in the past.
With intuition like that, who needs science?
If you want to reason about faith, and offer a reasoned (and reason-responsive) defense of faith as an extra category of belief worthy of special consideration, I’m eager to play. I certainly grant the existence of the phenomenon of faith; what I want to see is a reasoned ground for taking faith seriously as a way of getting to the truth , and not, say, just as a way people comfort themselves and each other (a worthy function that I do take seriously). But you must not expect me to go along with your defence of faith as a path to truth if at any point you appeal to the very dispensation you are supposedly trying to justify. Before you appeal to faith when reason has you backed into a corner, think about whether you really want to abandon reason when reason is on your side.
-Daniel C. Dennett
Each of the people that B Mendel mentioned did not have as much knowledge about the natural world as we do today. If they were presented with the evidence that we currently have, they would not believe in creationism.
As for Newton, he was both a Deist and an alchemist. Neither of these fit in the framework of evangelical Christian beliefs.
Gradebook http://blogs.tampabay.com/schools/
“May 01, 2008
Evolution bill nearing demise
The Senate, at Brandon Republican Ronda Storms’ request, just refused to accept the House version of an evolution teaching bill that Storms has been championing all session.
That means the bill (Sb 2692) has to bounced back to the House, where members will be asked to approve Storms’ more broadly worded “Evolution Academic Freedom Act,” which Storms says is aimed at protection teachers and students who question and critique the theory of evolution.
Majority Whip Rep. Ellyn Bogdanoff, R-Fort Lauderdale, has said there is little “appetite” in the House for Storms’ proposal. And session ends tomorrow, meaning it’s slim odds this legislation will pass this year.”
====
Pete
IN LESS THAN 10,000 YEARS Almost all dating methods favor a young Earth. Evolution requires billions of years to achieve even a ghost of a chance. And it is only that, a ghost.
Primordial Polonium Radio Haloes: Tiny specks of Polonium 218, a radioactive material encased in granite bedrock, have produced small spherical discolorations. Polonium 218 has a very short “half-life” of only 3 minutes and becomes extinct in a few hours. BUT, bedrock must be solid for polonium to make these tiny haloes. Thus, trillions of tiny polonium radio haloes show that earth’s bedrocks were miraculously created, probably instantly, or supernaturally cooled so quickly, these polonium radio haloes formed in the solid rock before these radioactive elements could become extinct.
Cooling Time of the Earth: A prominent geophysicist and his graduate students have computed the earth’s cooling time, from a molten state, at a maximum of 44 million years. This takes into account radioactivity. Evolutionists claim, however, that dinosaurs lived 70 million years ago. But, with Earth’s bed rocks SOLID to begin with, as the polonium haloes indicate, the earth’s cooling time would be just thousands of years. This approximates and is consistent with the 6000-year chronology of the Bible.
Carbon-14 dating: The production rate of C-14 in the atmosphere exceeds the decay rate by about 30% When this non equilibrium data is used instead of the unwarranted evolutionary assumption of equilibrium, computed dates of all the organic materials fall within 10,000 years. If the atmosphere really were old, by now, these two rates would be in equilibrium. Thus, the disparity in the two rates confirms a young atmosphere. Oil, coal, natural gas, and other items evolutionists suppose are very old have been dated by C-14. But, this should not be possible because this dating method is no good past about 50,000 years. So, the ability to date coal, oil, etc., shows these materials are recent.
Magnetic field: Direct measurements of the earth’s magnetic field over the past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. The half-life of the Earth’s magnetic field is about 1400 years. This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an electrical current inside the earth, which produces the magnetic field. If this view were correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so large that the earth’s structure could not have survived the heat produced. By the way, the sheer existence of the earth’s magnetic field is a miracle of creation. The surprisingly rapid decline in the earth’s magnetic field, when compared to the maximum possible, original, field strength, argues very strongly for a young earth. We assume, of course, that the magnetic field was created at the same time as the earth itself.
Atmospheric gases: Out atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium. (The decay of radioactive materials is the only natural source of Helium). There is no known way for large amounts of helium to escape our atmosphere. Our atmosphere must be young.
Moon dust: If the moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated extensive layers of space dust, possibly a mile in thickness. Before instruments were placed on the moon, NASA scientists were very concerned our astronauts would sink into a sea of dust. This did not happen; there is very little space dust on the moon. Conclusion: the moon must be young.
Decay of the Speed of Light: Two Australian scientists have collected, from scientific articles, data indicating the speed of light has not been constant as most of us were taught, but has really been decreasing. This seems to be confirmed by the words of earlier scientist. The speed of light may have been ten million times faster at one time. Thus, the light from the most distant star may have arrived within seconds of when God made the star. The two men think the permeability of free space is changing and with it the speed of light. Since light is an atomic process, atomic run-rates would change and this means radiometric dates must be recalculated. A rock said to be 4 billion years old, would really be just 6-7000 years old. Also, a National Bureau of Standards’ scientist has shown that atomic clocks are slowing down compared to the periods of orbiting celestial bodies.
Oil gushers: Abnormally high gas and oil well pressures within relatively permeable rock imply these fluids were formed or encased less than 10,000 years ago. Otherwise, natural leakage would have reduced their pressure to a level far below what it is today.
A great flood best explains geology: If sedimentary rock layers formed over long ages, we should find tree roots and meteorites imbedded in the layers. We don’t find any! In some places many layers are bent smoothly without any cracks. This confirms that these layers were still soft when bent. Dead bodies need rapid burial to form fossils; otherwise they rot or get eaten. Furthermore, sedimentary rocks are cemented together by some cementing agent. Calcium carbonate is a common agent, the same one used in commercial cement. We all know concrete “sets up” rapidly. Thus, fossil bearing rock formations must have been formed quite rapidly. Many layers extend thousands of miles, some even covering most of North America. The great Biblical, Genesis Flood, of Noah and the Ark, best explains these features.
Really? It doesn’t seem that intuitive to me that a 3000 year old story is true because we are all here to read it.
Wow… nevermind. I see no reason to argue here. B Mendel is a moron. He also believes the earth is only 10000 years old.
Wow great comeback Zy. If you have nothing to argue then call someone names. You can take your ball and go home wahhhh wahhhhh. LOL
Mendel, all your (quite laughable) claims are adressed here…
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html
Please, read a bit of REAL science before making ridiculous claims as above.
B Mendel … (sorry GE. 🙂 )
” … For this hypothesis to be accepted, it must be testable. Fortunately, Gentry’s thesis allows us to pose several questions which can be answered by looking at the evidence from the natural world. A yes answer to each question would significantly strengthen Gentry’s arguments.
1) Do the rocks from which Gentry drew his samples represent the “primordial” basement rocks of the originally created Earth?
Gentry is a physicist, not a geologist. He doesn’t follow accepted geologic reporting practice and consistently fails to provide the information that a third party would need to collect comparable samples for testing. For his research, Gentry utilized microscope thin sections of rocks from samples sent to him by others from various places around the world. Thus, he is unable to say how his samples fit in with the local or regional geological setting(s). He also does not provide descriptive information about the individual rock samples that make up his studies – i.e., the abundance and distribution of major, accessory, or trace minerals; the texture, crystal size and alteration features of the rocks; and the presence or absence of fractures and discontinuities.
Gentry does not acknowledge that the Precambrian time period represents fully 7/8 of the history of the Earth as determined by decades of intensive field and laboratory investigations by thousands of geologists. Consequently, he does not recognize the wide diversity of geologic terranes that came and went over that enormous time span. His claim that his samples represent “primordial” basement rocks is patently incorrect . In Gentry’s model, any rock looking vaguely like a granite and carrying the label Precambrian is considered to be a “primordial” rock. True granites are themselves evidence of significant crustal recycling and elemental differentiation (see for example, Taylor and McLennan, 1996), and cannot be considered primordial. A little detective work by Wakefield (1988) showed that at least one set of rock samples studied by Gentry are not from granites at all, but were taken from a variety of younger Precambrian metamorphic rocks and pegmatite veins in the region around Bancroft, Ontario. Some of these rock units cut or overlie older, sedimentary and even fossil-bearing rocks.
Gentry provides no explanation for how polonium alone finds its way into biotite and fluorite, or why radiation damage haloes in these minerals are common in areas of known uranium enrichment, but rare where uranium abundance is low. Gentry’s hypothesis would seem to suggest that there should be a uniform distribution of all polonium isotopes in primordial rocks, or at least no particular spatial association with uranium. Gentry (1974), himself, notes that haloes have not been found in meteorites or lunar samples, rocks known to be very low in uranium abundance. Lorence Collins (1997) has noted these and several other contradictory situations between the polonium halo hypothesis and observed geological relationships in the field.
Polonium haloes in mica are found only in granitic, or granitic-type rocks, and not in mica from adjacent rocks of other compositions
Polonium haloes are found only in rocks which contain myrmekite, a replacement mineral intergrowth – a clear indication that the rock is not “primordial.”
2) Are the concentric haloes observed by Gentry actually caused by alpha particle damage to the host crystal structure?
Going back to Gentry’s early research (Gentry, 1968, 1971; Gentry, et al., 1973), it is apparent that the association of concentric colored haloes with polonium is actually speculative. Gentry adopts and expands on the work of Joly (1917) that polonium isotopes were the most likely cause of the features observed. Joly did most of his work with discoloration haloes in the first decade of the Twentieth Century, a time when the structure of the atom was just being discovered, and before the crystal structure of minerals had been unraveled. This was also the period when the nature of radioactivity was just being uncovered. Joly made the very speculative assumption that if alpha particles could travel 3-7 centimeters in air, then they would only travel 1/2000 of that distance in biotite mica. From this generalization, and without considering the variability in the density and the crystal structure of the host mica (or even the variable density of air), Joly attempted to correlate the radial size of the concentric ring haloes with the alpha particles of specific isotopes (he was first to suggest polonium). He also tried to develop an age dating technique based on the diameter of the halo features – the larger the halo, the longer the radiation had been affecting the host mineral grain. Henderson (1939) carried Joly’s work further, developing a classification scheme for the different patterns of discoloration haloes he observed, and deriving hypotheses for how short-lived polonium could find its way into the host crystal structure. …”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
Mendel, PLEASE go to talkorigins.org and read both the “29 evidences for macroevolution” article and the “Index to Creationist Claims” article available there.
EVERY claim you just made has been shot to pieces by REAL science. What you’ve just posted is pure fraud and psuedoscience, pushed by theist fanatics.
B Mendel – http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
” … Are the concentric haloes observed by Gentry actually caused by alpha particle damage to the host crystal structure?
Going back to Gentry’s early research (Gentry, 1968, 1971; Gentry, et al., 1973), it is apparent that the association of concentric colored haloes with polonium is actually speculative. Gentry adopts and expands on the work of Joly (1917) that polonium isotopes were the most likely cause of the features observed. Joly did most of his work with discoloration haloes in the first decade of the Twentieth Century, a time when the structure of the atom was just being discovered, and before the crystal structure of minerals had been unraveled. This was also the period when the nature of radioactivity was just being uncovered. Joly made the very speculative assumption that if alpha particles could travel 3-7 centimeters in air, then they would only travel 1/2000 of that distance in biotite mica. From this generalization, and without considering the variability in the density and the crystal structure of the host mica (or even the variable density of air), Joly attempted to correlate the radial size of the concentric ring haloes with the alpha particles of specific isotopes (he was first to suggest polonium). He also tried to develop an age dating technique based on the diameter of the halo features – the larger the halo, the longer the radiation had been affecting the host mineral grain. Henderson (1939) carried Joly’s work further, developing a classification scheme for the different patterns of discoloration haloes he observed, and deriving hypotheses for how short-lived polonium could find its way into the host crystal structure. ” …
Another partial list of leading scientists:
150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.
Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]
Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]
Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]
Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]
Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]
Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]
Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]
Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]
Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]
John Grebe (chemist) [more info]
Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]
D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]
James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]
Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]
Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]
Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]
William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]
Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]
A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]
John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today’s atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.
test
Is B Mendel making up all this “evidence” on the fly cuz I recall that these same observed phenomenon actually supported the ~4.5 billion year old earth. Also, I distinctly recall that assuming a non-constant speed of light that was faster in the past actually makes the universe out to be MUCH OLDER. Here’s the mathematical proof:
Something is going on here. My posts are not functioning properly.
This is the link B needs –
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
Aaargh! My posts aren’t working!
Apparently, fundies don’t have a sense of humor either.
There is absolutely no evidence that supports a 10000 year old earth. All physical evidence points to an earth far older. How, Mendel, do you explain the existence of trees and other organisms that are more than 10000 years old? Did your god place these things here to test your faith?
Mental
All your points have been rebutted many times before,so I will reply to just one,Moon dust.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/moondust.asp
Even the creationists AIG knew this was so wrong and they admitted it.
Please go away and read a real science book.
This is the link for BM – I’m going to take the www out. It will have to be added back in –
.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
Riiiiight.
I find it interesting that most of the scientists that are on your list are long dead, and unable to defend themselves from your kooky accusations.
Brandon – Am I blocked from posting links?
Did your god place these things here to test your faith?
Zy, don’t you know- fossils are the work of the devil, they were placed on earth to test man’s faith in god. Duh, that is clearly the only explanation!
HA HA HA!!!
Actually, I’ve met Charles Thaxton. He’s not much good at anything outside of chemistry, including biology.
And that’s the point. So what if there are 300 misguided individuals who happen to be scientists or engineers expressing an opinion on something outside of their realm of expertise? There are hundreds of thousands who disagree with that opinion within the realm of knowledge applicable. Again, why should it matter more to me if a computer engineer believes in creationism than it does if a plumber gets it equally wrong?
If you look around enough, you can find someone who believes in almost anything at all. I’m sure we could find 300 pianists who believed in mermaids or 274 mathematicians who thought that moon landings were faked. So what? Thanks to the internet, all sorts of misguided people can find each other and support one another’s delusions — and those are people alive right now! I’m sure we could double the number if we took long-dead people into account, too, as your list does.
Science does not work on what someone else believes; science works on evidence.
Oh, and by the way, Werner von Braun also built the rockets that destroyed London during the Blitz of WWII. He was certainly a good scientist; should we be adopting his political beliefs based on this fact?
Francis Bacon died in 1626. He believed that elements of society he found disagreeable should be rounded up and executed. One of these elements were excessively religious people, a theme he wrote about in book called An Advertisement Touching on Holy War. He thought that religious fanatics posed a threat to man’s eventually coming to understand the world through reason.
What do you say, B. Mendel? I mean, he was at least in part responsible for the scientific method. Pretty brilliant guy in that regard. Should his advice in this other matter be followed as well?
So B. Mendel apparently knows how to copy and paste text from creationist web sites. Why think for yourself when you can parrot what other people say? Polly want a cracker?
If sedimentary rock layers formed over long ages, we should find tree roots and meteorites imbedded in the layers. We don’t find any!
This is an exercise in futility with someone like you, Sparky, … but there was a paper in Nature several years ago that described a fossil meteor from the Ordovician. In fact the meteorite appears to have clobbered some hapless mollusk.
While your explaining everything, perhaps you can enlighten us all as to why there is a geologic column on Mars. Was every planet in the solar system flooded? Or is God just trying to trick us by making everything seem old?
Silly boy. We will take you more seriously “when” you find fossil dinosaurs, rabbits, or axes in pre-Cambrian strata.
Also, why I’m at it: Can bad angels mate with human females (as described in Genesis)? Do the bad angels have compatible genitals? Or can they grow them at will? How are they able to have viable, albeit wicked, offspring with humans? Do they have DNA and a compatible number of chromosomes? You are so full of answers, I thought I might as well ask.
jehu –
Easy… the answer is magic. As soon as magic enters the equation, we can stop studying science and spend more time worshiping mystic sky fairies. 😉
S.Scott:
You are not blocked from posting links unless it is more than two or three at one time. Test it @ me if you like.
Help – Brandon – I’m almost out of antacids – can you perform an emergency block on the BM???
My previous post was blocked apparently, but one of the points that Mendel posted, regarding a non-constant decaying speed of light actually makes the universe (and also by extension, planet earth, much older than the current estimates that we give it using geometric calculations.
youtube.com/watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y&feature=related
apprently, linking causes the comment not to be posted.
I am going to link to this comment page – one link only Cap’n Dave … let’s see ..
https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=571#comments
OK – it worked that time but not before … hmmm …
I smell a right wing Creationist conspiracy . . . and it is not a pleasant smell.
I love that picture of Rhonda Storms! Cap’n Dave! LOL! Maybe I’ll make it my screen saver – LoL!!
It’s a classic, for sure, S.Scott. That AP photographer is gonna get a prize for that!
The creationist list pales in comparison to Project Steve. These are all modern, living scientists, too. 🙂
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
S.Scott:
A few of your spam-snatched comments have been released. They are now in the queue where they would have originally appeared. Unfortunately, within the life of a comment thread, their timeliness is now diminished. I hate when that happens. BM is apparently taking a nap right now.
Cap’n Dave … How do you know that? Just curious!
Oops! Nevermind! I see them now! Now I just look stupid – repeating myself over and over! Oh Well! 🙂
What picture? I wanna see!
Hey fc- it’s under “Late Night Tidbits” and it’s the Sarasota Herald Tribune link. Priceless picture of storms (I think that’s what they are talking about)
Here’s the link right to the article: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080424/COLUMNIST36/804240681/-1/newssitemap
Thanks GE! Wow, the paper must have it out for her and the damn thing just begs for a photoshop !
fc – It is at CaptDave’s blog. (click on his name in one of his comments) 🙂
Thaks S. Scott! It’s great!