Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

Not sure what gave you the idea that this is in any way an intelligent response to the challenge you were given.

Your OP does not contain any scientific evidence that the age of the earth is 10,000 old. You've been asked to provide it, but you won't do that, because you know you can't. So you play this pathetic game that you think fools people. It's amusing.

 

Not that I am aware of. Perhaps 1 or 2. Man and dinosaurs walked the earth together also, yes?

It suffices in more ways than 1.

 

But science does take note of the conditions of the time. Your posts do not. They are often badly biased by creationist ideas. Observable science is not the creationists best friend.

Noahs flood is not a future thread. It never existed. There is no evidence that the highest mountain - Everest - was ever covered. And the science of hydrology proves that this could never happen. At best all the water on earth of any kind could not cover more than a fraction of the low lying lands of the continents.

Some rocks can take millions of years to erode. Ulyru -Ayres rock, in Australia was laid down millions of years ago, as with other rocks down under.. There are areas like this all over the world

A FOSSILISED jawbone of the world's oldest whale has been discovered in the foothills of the Himalayas - a part of the world that was once a sea separating two ancient continents.

The find sheds new light on the evolution of one of the most successful groups of sea mammals, which became adapted to a semi-aquatic life in river estuaries and shallow seas before becoming fully marine.


Scientists have dated the fossil to about 53.5 million years old, making it 3.5 million years older than the previous oldest known member of the whale family.
H. subathuensis is considerably older than a more recent whale ancestor, Pakicetus, which has also been linked with the ancient Tethys Sea separating Asia and the Indian subcontinent before they collided to form the Himalayan mountains.

Pakicetus is believed to have been the ancestor of the first truly ancient whale, archaeocetus, a fish-eater that grew to about the size of a modern porpoise and lived more than 35 million years ago.


"When first described, pakicetus was interpreted as an amphibious initial stage of whale evolution that rested and reproduced on land and entered Tethys opportunistically to feed on fish," the scientists say.

The latest fossil jawbone was recovered from a sedimentary layer 100 metres deeper than previous pakicetus finds, Bajpal and Gingerich say. "This not only extends the fossil record of Cetacea [the whale family] back in time, but also reinforces the idea that whales originated on the margin of Tethys and corroborates interpretation of pakicetids as an initial amphibious stage of cetacean evolution entering Tethys to feed on fish."


inRead invented by Teads
The chemical composition of other early whale fossils showed evidence of life in freshwater rather than sea environments. Analysis of phosphate in the newly discovered fossil teeth revealed values half way between those associated with freshwater and sea-living species, the scientists report.

"Himalayacetus came from a shallow, oyster-bearing marine deposit, whereas Pakicetus and the other oldest pakicetids known previously came from continental red beds and were found in association with land mammals," they say.

Although modern whales have lost their hind legs, their earlier ancestors evidently had functional limbs that allowed them to roam around on land. Archaeocetus had two vestigial hind legs that protruded from its body but which seemed to serve little or no function. Further adaptations allowed modern whales to exploit the rich ocean environment to become, in the case of the blue whale, the largest animal on Earth.

 

Not sure what gave you the idea that this is in any way an intelligent response to the challenge you were given.

Your posts does not contain any scientific evidence that the age of the earth is not 10,000 old. You've been asked to provide it, but you won't do that, because you know you can't. So you play this pathetic game that you think fools people. It's amusing.

 

the flat earth society are evolutionist.


“The Flat Earth Society is an active organization currently led by a Virginian man named Daniel Shenton. Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming, he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of.
-Wolchover, N., Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Theory Revealed In Old Map, Live Science, 23 June 2011



Yes.

 

]But science does take note of the conditions of the time. Your posts do not. They are often badly biased by evolutionary ideas. Observable science is not the evolutionist best friend.



“People dont believe lies because they have to, but because they want to”
-Malcolm Muggeridge

That was an incredible copy paste that absolute refutes creation and proves evolution. So long as what i claim is not true.

“The western world have never had the chance to learn creation thinking and know only evolution. Naturalism enjoys a virtual monopoly in today's classrooms, while instructors who have been schooled only in naturalistic worldview play the part of evolutionary evangelist.”
-John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017

“Absolute stranglehold materialistic atheism has on every thought that is allowed to be considered in the scientific and educational realms. This makes the American classroom one of the most censored, thought-controlled locations on the planet.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017


Now if what i claim is true, that evolutionist are indoctrinated sheep unable to think and only given interpretations that make the sheep believe the high priests of naturalism, and can only be preached where no critical thinking is allowed [science classroom] so as to keep the sheep indoctrinated. In fact as your above post shows you sheep need no actual evidence, you just need to hear your papal infallibility priest declare it so, and you believe. Its amazing faith but everything you said is either based on faith, or refuted by actual science some embarrassingley so. Given that this thread is on the age of the earth I will apply skepticism to your faith and ask, just how did they date those fossil finds? Just how did they date those rocks? surely you would need evidence for such claims. So I ask, please support scientifically the age, or argue with something besides evolutionary story telling, why those rocks and fossils are as old as the article claims.


Much of your post is on the evolution of the whale and vestigial hind legs supports my claims. Now you might be surprised to find you have been lied to. Not just on the whales hind legs but on dozens of claims missing links. Evolutionist often lie for their religion, but because the sheep cannot think for themselves, they believe whatever the high priest tell them to believe such as your copy paste.

Biblical Creation vs Evolution- The Fossil Record

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...eation-vs-evolution-the-fossil-record.538071/


My hope is to get you to learn to think critically instead of just behaving and believing as told. It takes time to learn to think critically, it too k me years. But know that this sheep had broken free he wants others like you to as well.

 

NO. Science class is ALL ABOUT critical thinking. Science methodology is one of ensuring that all evidence is considered, that there is duplication of efforts to find answers, that there is serious review by experts in the field, that the best that science produces is theory that has passed these rigors, but is still open to criticism FOREVER!

Religion is the place where there are priests, NOT science. Religion is based on acceptance WITHOUT EVIDENCE! Religion provides no opening for human fallibility.

Age of rocks: There are NUMEROUS ways to age rock. Testing rock for age does NOT depend on one method alone. ALWAYS several methods are used on any one sample.

These tests include decay rates of various atoms and molecules, characteristics of the strata in which they are found (such as juxtaposition with other rock, with layers laid down by volcanism, etc.), by the rate at which such rock forms (such as what it takes to build deposits such as the Dover cliffs, by material found captured in the sample, etc.

Your idea that these dates are GROSSLY wrong is just plain preposterous. You are rejecting all of geology. And, your comments on evolution reject premises so solidly verified that they form one of the foundations of all biology.


Given that sweeping rejection of science, you would need to come up with STARTLING evidence - evidence so profound that it would falsify human scientific progress.


And, you can't complain that people just won't listen to you. Science is BUILT to accept new evidence. Once again, please remember that science is open to new evidence. For example, scientists test Einstein's theories of relativity over and over and over again. The latest gravitational wave results are a test of these theories, for example.

So, it is YOUR turn.

YOU have to try to prove something. YOU have to pick a theory and prove it false.

 

Creationists don't think critically.

 

Let's start with one objection at a time. Chapter 1 of Genesis gives us a universal view of what happened, Chapter 2 gives us a view of what happened specifically in the Garden of Eden.

 

Amen!

One of the problems is that so many of these arguments they make have been refuted over and over and over again.

If ANY of these creationists actually had respect for the truth they would do a simple search on their idiotic claim and learn why it is false!!

Why should ANYONE who claims to be a "critical thinker" get all the way to this board with ideas that are so ubiquitously proven false?

 

The primary problem here is that the cultural bases for those allegories has faded with time.

We're left with two incompatible timelines, neither of which is a country mile from being literal. But, they are also not necessarily false in the sense that allegories tend not to be false and do contribute information.

We can learn from Aesop's Fables regardless of whether the creatures in the story actually ever existed.

 

One story came from Israel, the other from Judah.

 

These same clowns want to teach creationism in lieu of science in schools.

 

Exactly.

Yet, science is a methodology for exploring our physical universe.

And, religion is not.

 

No that is how science is suppose to work , not how evolutionist allow it to work. NO. Science class is suppose to be ALL ABOUT critical thinking. Science methodology is one of ensuring that all evidence is considered, that there is duplication of efforts to find answers, that there is serious review by experts in the field, that the best that science produces is theory that has passed these rigors, but is still open to criticism FOREVER!

Evolution is the place where there are priests, NOT science. Evolution is based on acceptance WITHOUT EVIDENCE! [as they have proved many times this thread] evolution provides no opening for naturalistic fallibility....Given evolutionist sweeping rejection of science, you would need to come up with STARTLING evidence - evidence so profound that it would falsify human scientific progress....And, you can't complain that people just won't listen to you. Science is BUILT to accept evidence for an old earth. Once again, please remember that science is open to new evidence. For example, scientists test Einstein's theories of relativity over and over and over again. The latest gravitational wave results are a test of these theories, for example.

So, it is YOUR turn.

YOU have to try to prove something. YOU have to pick a theory and prove it false







Not surprising much of what you believe of radiometric dating is false. See post 3 for radiometric dating. i would love to get one of you guys to finally try and defend it.

 

“The western world have never had the chance to learn creation thinking and know only evolution. Naturalism enjoys a virtual monopoly in today's classrooms, while instructors who have been schooled only in naturalistic worldview play the part of evolutionary evangelist.”
-John D Morris and Frank J Sherwin The Fossil Record 2017


“Absolute stranglehold materialistic atheism has on every thought that is allowed to be considered in the scientific and educational realms. This makes the American classroom one of the most censored, thought-controlled locations on the planet.”
-John Morris and Frank Sherwin The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History of Life 2017



Slaughter of the Dissidents
https://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Di...2&sr=1-1&keywords=Slaughter+of+the+dissidents

Silencing the Darwin Skeptics
https://www.amazon.com/Silencing-Da...rd_wg=G0TuK&psc=1&refRID=B52TA9KWAN88GXZ7MPCF

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed https://www.amazon.com/Expelled-Int...=UTF8&qid=1496579182&sr=8-2&keywords=expelled
free to think? no longer

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"&HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"s=booksHYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"&HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"qid=1301919284HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Caroline-I-Crocker/dp/0981873448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"&HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/Free-Think-Ca...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301919284&sr=1-1"sr=1-1



The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry
https://www.amazon.com/Altenberg-16...azur+North+Atlantic+Books,+Berkeley,+CA,+2010



4 centuries of education in america

Disc 8 -- Episodes 20-21



http://shop.wallbuilders.com/The-American-Heritage-Series-10-DVD-Boxed-Set



Lies in textbooks

Video 4 of kent hovind seminar lies in the textbooks.

http://www.creationtoday.org/lies-in-the-textbooks-seminar-part-4/



How Textbooks Mislead Dr Don Batten

http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/textbooks-mislead-p-1105.html



what the schools are teaching DR Dr Charles Jackson

http://usstore.creation.com/catalog...p-1129.html?osCsid=mbeej69pjaamce1d75sa0o5oa0



Creation Seminar DVD Set by Dr. Kent Hovind https://2peter3.com/shop/official-creation-seminar-dvd-set-by-dr-kent-hovind-var/


Indoctrinate U





IndoctriNation Public Schools & the Decline of Christianity in America

http://www.amazon.com/IndoctriNation-DVD-Schools-Decline-Christianity/dp/B006074Q3O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/IndoctriNation-DVD-Schools-Decline-Christianity/dp/B006074Q3O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321889741&sr=8-1"&HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/IndoctriNation-DVD-Schools-Decline-Christianity/dp/B006074Q3O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321889741&sr=8-1"qid=1321889741HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/IndoctriNation-DVD-Schools-Decline-Christianity/dp/B006074Q3O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321889741&sr=8-1"&HYPERLINK "http://www.amazon.com/IndoctriNatio...4Q3O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321889741&sr=8-1"sr=8-1

Agenda: Grinding America Down
https://www.amazon.com/Agenda-Grind...1496579900&sr=8-1&keywords=Agenda+documentary

AGENDA 2: MASTERS OF DECEIT
https://www.amazon.com/AGENDA-2-MAS...rd_wg=BP45q&psc=1&refRID=A7CEZ5X76KRVAZN1ZM70



The Cartel – Documentary on Public education

http://www.thecartelmovie.com/

Is there evidence of discrimination against creation scientists?
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/




Discrimination/Censorship

“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.”
-J. Dunphy, “A Religion for a New Age,” The Humanist, Jan.–Feb. 1983, 23, 26

“What we are up against throughout the story is not scientist but officials.”
-C.S Lewis

"In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you
can criticize the government but not Darwin."
-Chinese paleontologist Wall Street Journal, "The Church of Darwin", Phillip Johnson, August 16, 1999




A US Department of Education; implementation of a scientific materialist philosophy; studies, being cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the bourgeois ideology; students taught on the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and general ethics of a new socialist society; present obsolete methods of teaching will be superseded by a scientific pedagogy. The whole basis and organization of capitalist science will be revolutionized. Science will become materialistic, hence truly scientific. God will be banished from the laboratories as well as from the schools.”

~William Z Foster (1932)





“Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?”

~C.F. Potter: (1930)




Evolutionist are the most intolerant of other beliefs out of any belief system in the world. They want there faith taught but no one else's. They know that if there views are challenged they dont stand up at all, so there only tactic is to be the only voice herd. There have been thousands of teachers and scientist who have been fired or lost government grant money because they did not believe in evolution, or spoke out against it, or for even showing lies or false information that is in textbooks in support of evolution. Evolutionist are now even trying to ban words that teachers can use in science class refereed to as dangerous words or creation jargon such as “evaluate” “analyze” “critique” etc.





The following are some examples.

Mazur calls attention to the existing censorship against non-Darwinian ideas. She opposes that censorship, and rightly so. Creationists experience far heavier censorship against their ideas. Yet her explanations for the censorship are nearly identical to what creationists say.

“The commercial media is both ignorant of and blocks coverage of stories about non-centrality of the gene because its science advertising dollars come from the gene-centered Darwin industry. … . At the same time, the Darwin industry is also in bed with government, even as political leaders remain clueless about evolution. Thus, the public is unaware that its dollars are being squandered on funding of mediocre, middlebrow science or that its children are being intellectually starved as a result of outdated texts and unenlightened teachers” (Mazur, p. ix). “The mainstream media has failed to cover the non-centrality of the gene story to any extent. … this has to do largely with Darwin-based industry advertising, editors not doing their homework and others just trying to hold on to their jobs” (Mazur, p. 104). “The thinking is we can no longer pretend evolution is just about Darwinian natural selection even if that’s what most biologists say it’s about and textbooks repeat it” (Mazur, p. 105). “The consensus of the evolution pack [i.e. the science blogs] still seems to be that if an idea doesn’t fit in with Darwinism and neo-Darwinism—keep it out” (Mazur, p. viii). “Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory” (Stuart Newman, p. 104).“One reason that so little progress has been made in this area is that perfectly valid scientific concepts that employ nonadaptive evolutionary mechanisms are rarely considered because of the hegemony of the neo-Darwinian framework” (Stuart Newman, p. 131).
Lynn Margulis reveals how the established worldview (evolution) enforces unity within its ranks:

“[P]eople are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of “truth”— scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders” (Lynn Margulis, p. 275).
“This is a big debate, which the media is not covering. It’s reached a crescendo and a lot of people are saying there’s a sea change happening” (p. 252).

The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010



We are being stifled into a politically correct ideology and scientists are being motivated more by fear about their reputations and hunt for money than by curiosity. Freedom of inquiry is allowed only within the context of accepting the ‘fact’ or neo-Darwinian evolution. This will have a huge negative impact not only on science, but also on our well-being and economy. One needs only to remember the consequences of Lysenkoism to understand” (p. 182).She adds: “Science has immense potential for good or evil—I do not like the idea of giving over all scientific decisions to those who do not believe in academic freedom or scientific objectivity … ” (p. 194).




The dogmatic promulgation of Darwinian orthodoxy is widespread. Crocker says:

“The suppression of academic freedom and scientific objectivity is not just found at GMU. During the Louisiana House Educational Committee hearings on SB 773 in Baton Rouge in May of 2008, Bryan Carstens, a Louisiana State professor spoke proudly of how he and 59 other biology professors at LSU have signed a document confirming their public agreement with evolution. Since I was present at the hearing, I recall a revealing exchange when a house member wryly asked him what would happen to someone who refused to sign. The silence was deafening” (p. 185).
Lawyer Ben Stein said it best, on the back cover of this book:

“A chilling true life story of how free speech and free inquiry rights have simply vanished in a large swath of the academic community. This story would be depressing in a 1950’s Iron Curtain country. Unfortunately, it’s a contemporary American story and far more upsetting for that reason. This shutdown of the search for truth is not something that could happen. It DID happen.”
A review of Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters by Dr Caroline Crocker
Leafcutter Press, Southworth, WA, 2010

28 June 2011 Darwinist bid to get hold of Expelled film fails News

Talk origins were trying to buy Expelled “The reason given is so they can then release unpublished material, but equally they could prevent future sales of the film.”

http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/darwinist-bid-to-get-hold-of-expelled-film-fails/





“"George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by 'genius beyond genius,' and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

J: "No. I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living."

http://www.icr.org/article/760/296/

 

Darwin Lobbyists Urge Ban on "Dangerous" Words in State Science Standards
If you needed more evidence that the Darwin lobby wants to turn science education into little more than unquestioned propaganda, take a look at the outlandish new "HYPERLINK "http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102681667879&s=7736&e=001yzVyrSvo5viiLdKr6ruPYoPZLKGT2g66Xwy10buS-vTXyhIfueyz6M22xIpNQ327mFNH8BfjpMMjfzh8lgKVBA6y3pPSfueEj1Dzu_wNMh7-Ah-CQBH-hRt0GxNDsCfqs94P3mD5YLHZ9ky7EBjxYKm-A-yr_WLYKWZQZkfVVcdDWknSwadz3Q=="studyHYPERLINK "http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102681667879&s=7736&e=001yzVyrSvo5viiLdKr6ruPYoPZLKGT2g66Xwy10buS-vTXyhIfueyz6M22xIpNQ327mFNH8BfjpMMjfzh8lgKVBA6y3pPSfueEj1Dzu_wNMh7-Ah-CQBH-hRt0GxNDsCfqs94P3mD5YLHZ9ky7EBjxYKm-A-yr_WLYKWZQZkfVVcdDWknSwadz3Q==""

evaluating state science standards published by two officials of the National Center for Science Education, the leading Darwin-only lobbying group. Published by a journal devoted to the one-sided teaching of evolution, the article by Louise Mead and Anton Mates condemns various states for filling their science standards with "dangerous" words and "creationist jargon."Just what are these "dangerous" words that must be banned? "Assess," "Analyze," "Evaluate," and "Critique."No, I'm not kidding.





Journal apologizes for censuring intelligent design and pays $10,000 after censuring article June 7 2011 evoltionnews.org

http://www.icr.org/article/4769/study/ study finds scientist manipulate results to support there theories



Award-Winning Neurosurgeon Condemned by Major University for Not Believing in Evolution Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/5182/a...for-not-believing-in-evolution/#ixzz23vulLXFR

What happens to a professor who does everything right but has wrong ideas? |

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/19818





why one man was able to take on the establishment

If you want to be a whistleblower you have to be prepared to lose your job. I'm able to do what I'm doing here because I'm nobody. I don't have to keep any academics happy. I don't have to think about the possible consequences of my actions for people I might admire personally who may have based their work on this and they end up looking silly. There are 160,000 psychologists in America and they've got mortgages. I've got the necessary degree of total independence."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/19/mathematics-of-happiness-debunked-nick-brown





Stephen myer after 20 years of research published in proceedings of the biological society of washington

the origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories, he suggested a intelligent designer was responsible for life on earth because of the impossibility of evolution accounting for the Cambrian explosion. The next day the editor was fired evolutionist were outraged and had big meting right after to decide what to do to the editor for allowing meyers paper to go through. His carer was almost ruined. Nothing was wrong with the science, just the idea of a designer.



when the journal science put out articles why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life many people wanted the editor to be fired the next day. People sent in angry emails etc.not because the science was wrong because it challenged Darwin.



“We have no evidence that the tree of life is a reality”

Eric bapteste evolutionary biologist

New scientist Darwin was wrong cutting down tree of life

201 2692 24 January 2009



many evolutionist boycotted the magazine, sent many angry emails etc, not because the science was bad because it attacked one of darwins main supposed evidences.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-HYPERLINK "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html"misleading-HYPERLINK "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html"claim-scientists.html
http://esciencenews.com/sources/the...tion.charles.darwin.was.wrong.about.tree.life

Journal Censors 'Second Law' Paper Refuting Evolution

A new technical paper on this fundamental law of nature completely undermines a naturalistic origins perspective. And this explains why the paper, after first having been approved, was withdrawn from publication.

After the paper was accepted for publication in Applied Mathematics Letters, an anti-design blogger wrote to the editor, warning that the journal's reputation would be tarnished if the paper was printed. So, the journal's editor withdrew it

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/journal_apologizes_and_pays_10047121.html



discrimination in england

http://creation.com/creation-religious-education



In evolutionist francis collins book the language of god, he says evolutionist who believe also in god are fearful to let there beliefs known. How much more creationist?



SCIENTIST FIRED FOR MAKING DINOSAUR DISCOVERY
Finding undermines belief behemoths roamed earth 60 million years ago


“But doing so in an attempt to silence scientific speech at a public university is even more alarming. This should be a wakeup call and warning to the entire world of academia,” he said.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/scientist-fired-for-making-dinosaur-discovery/#9xQMAQeX5Y5ARURw.99

The mainstream journal PLOS ONE published a paper describing the precise coordination between nerves, muscles, and finger motions in the human hand. Its Chinese authors wrote that this anatomy reflects “proper design by the Creator.”5 The evolutionary community revolted and forced the journal to retract the paper,6 which is available online

Liu, M. J. et al. 2016. Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living. PLOS ONE. 11 (1): e0146193.

1. Cressey, D. Paper that says human hand was ‘designed by Creator’ sparks concern. Nature. Posted on nature.com March 3, 2016, accessed July 12, 2016.
   
   
2. 
   
   International conference result censored
   http://creation.com/c14-dinos#txtRef2
   
   
   
   
   
   Madsen and Madsen have recently given a very clear summary of the characteristics of modernist versus postmodernist science….“A simple criterion for science to qualify as postmodern is that it be free from any dependence on the concept of objective truth.”…However, these criteria, admirable as they are, are insufficient for a liberatory postmodern science: they liberate human beings from the tyranny of “absolute truth” and “objective reality”, but not necessarily from the tyranny of other human beings. In Andrew Ross’ words, we need a science “that will be publicly answerable and of some service to progressive interests” [i.e., promoting politically humanistic “progress” such as achieving so-called “liberation theology” agenda goals]
   
   Sokal, A. 1996. Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. Social Text, #46/#47 (spring/summer 1996), 217-252. After publishing his postmodernism-promoting “epistemology” article in Social Text,Sokal exposed his journalistic experiment in “A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies,” Lingua Franca, May/June 1996, pages 62-64, describing his successful experiment as publishing “an article liberally salted with nonsense…[that] sounded good and…flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions.” Embracing a hoax in order to embrace evolutionary assumptions is known to happen in paleontology as well. Dr. Timothy L. Clarey debunked the “Archaeoraptor” hoax (also known as the “Piltdown bird”) that National Geographic fell for: Clarey, T. 2006. Dinosaurs vs. Birds: The Fossils Don’t Lie.Acts & Facts. 35 (9). See also Austin, S. A. 2000. Archaeoraptor: Feathered Dinosaur From National Geographic Doesn’t Fly. Acts & Facts. 29 (3).
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   A Special Thank You from David Berlinski
   December 11, 2008
   
   
   
   
   
   As one of the scholars who has been "expelled"by the scientific community for espousing heretical doubts about Darwin, I'd like to say: Thank you. Thank you for having the chutzpahto stand up for your fellow heretics by signing Discovery Institute's Academic Freedom Petition(www.academicfreedompetition.com).
   
   You may have seen me in Expelledwith Ben Stein. I was the one in the chic Paris apartment. I am one of those people who are not supposed to exist in the scientific community--an intellectual (and an agnostic one, at that!) who finds Darwin's theory of evolution unpersuasive.
   
   
   Although Darwinism is very often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution. They know better and they are not stupid.
   
   Among evolutionary biologists, the problems with Darwin's theory are well known. In the privacy of the faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests.
   
   "Darwin?" a Nobel laureate in biology once remarked to me over his bifocals. "That's just the party line."
   
   Alas, Darwin's theory serves as the creation myth of our time, and it demands an especially militant form of advocacy, as anyone can attest who has had the misfortune to pick up such churlish volumes as The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins or Letter to a Christan Nation by Sam Harris. In the view of these modern witch-hunters, anyone who disagrees with Darwin must be burned at the stake.
   
   
   
   
   
   shows examples through history and why consensus science is anti science and harmful to science. Also shows examples of discrimination against those who dare challenge the consensus.
   
   
   
   
   78–84
   
   Why consensus science is anti-science
   Paper by Jerry Bergman
   
   
   Journal of Creation Volume 27, Issue 2Published August 2013
   
   
   “Evolutionary science is as much about the posturing, salesmanship, stonewalling and bullying that goes on as it is about actual scientific theory. It is a social discourse involving hypotheses of staggering complexity with scientists, recipients of the biggest grants of any intellectuals, assuming the power of politicians while engaged in Animal House pie-throwing and name-calling: ‘ham-fisted’, ‘looney Marxist hangover’, ‘secular creationist’, ‘philosopher’ (a scientist who can’t get grants anymore), ‘quack’, ‘crackpot’ …“In short, it’s a modern day quest for the holy grail, but with few knights. At a time that calls for scientific vision, scientific inquiry’s been hijacked by an industry of greed, with evolution books hyped like snake oil at a carnival.” -The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur
   
   
   
   
   
   An evolutionary True Believer and educator, one Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PloS-ONE, proudly stated:
   
   ‘it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.’
   
   ‘If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don’t you think?
   
   
   
   Noma referring to
   
   For example, he discusses a common evolutionary propaganda tactic, NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria), invented by the late Marxist Stephen Jay Gould. This pretends that science and religion are two non-intersecting categories of thought, so cannot prove or disprove each other. We have shown that this is a form of the fallacious fact-value distinction, and is philosophically bankrupt (see Stephen Jay Gould and NOMA). Zivkovic agrees that it’s false, but justifies its pretence all the same
   
   
   28 June 2011
   
   Darwinist bid to get hold of Expelled film fails
   
   News
   
   A bid by Darwinists to acquire rights to the Expelled documentary on the ID theorists has failed. From TOAF:
   
   Combined with the funds the Foundation already had on hand, we had just over $50,000 available to bid on the film (and pay the 10% buyer’s premium). The winning bid, however, was $201,000. Because all of the bidders were anonymous, we do not know identity of the winning bidder.
   
   Film probably went to business interest. More later.
   
   Update, just in: Walt Ruloff and his associates, who were the original producers of EXPELLED, won the auction. More later.
   
   Timeline
   
   Talk origins were trying to buy Expelled “The reason given is so they can then release unpublished material, but equally they could prevent future sales of the film.”
   
   http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/darwinist-bid-to-get-hold-of-expelled-film-fails/
   
   
   
   Journal apologizes for censuring intelligent design and pays 10,000 after censuring article june 7 2011 evoltionnews.org
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

 

Greetings!

Would Thomas Jefferson be blacklisted from your local high school or college because of his scientific views?

Incredibly, the answer is probably yes. Jefferson believed that nature provides powerful evidence of intelligent design, and many people are working overtime to silence any teacher or professor who voices support for intelligent design or who dares to question Darwin's theory of evolution.

As we celebrate this month our inalienable rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, please remember to help defend the freedom to question Darwin. Here are three things you can do:

First, spread the word about Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer's blockbuster new book about the evidence of intelligent design inside our DNA. If distributed widely enough, this book can help open hearts and minds as to why our culture needs more debate about the evidence for and against Darwinism.

Second, urge your friends to sign the Academic Freedom Petition. Since last year, more than 30,000 people have signed this simple statement in support of academic freedom on evolution, and the petition was cited before the Texas Board of Education to show public support for teaching both sides of the debate. Help us reach our goal of 50,000 signers!

Third, forward this Academic Freedom newsletter to your friends, and encourage them to sign up for continuing updates so they can be kept informed of the threats to open discussion on evolution and how they can help.

Thank you for being willing to stand up for freedom!

Sincerely,

John G. West, Ph.D.
Associate Director, Center for Science and Culture
Discovery Institute


http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo4/IDcaldwell.php

http://www.rae.org/WBGSU.html



Support Free Speech: Tell California Science Center to Reinstate Screening of Intelligent Design Film



Let your voice be heard! In a clear act of government censorship, the California Science Center-a "department of the State of California"-has canceled the Los Angeles premiere of the pro-intelligent design film Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record. A private group, the American Freedom Alliance, had rented the California Science Center's IMAX theater for the screening. But after the screening attracted public attention, the Science Center decided to pull the plug on the event in clear violation of the freedom of speech and equal protection.



dalizing Bookstores and Censoring Books in the Name of Darwin

Just in time for Academic Freedom Day, Feb. 12 (aka Darwin Day), graduate student Michael Barton at Montana State University boasts of regularly going into his local bookstore and purging books critical of Darwin from the science section of the store and reshelving them in the religion section. This past Sunday Barton posted a report about his most recent act of vandalism:

Today I moved [Michael Behe's] The Edge of Evolution and [Benjamin Wiker's] The Darwin Myth away from the shelve directly under where copies of Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth were, and placed them next to--I just had to--the Adventure Bible and the Princess Bible in the religion section.

Whatever Barton claims, his actions constitute censorship, pure and simple. Barton is trying to hide books he doesn't like in order to prevent others from being exposed to views with which he disagrees. Indeed, he is apparently so insecure about the ability of Darwinists like Dawkins to make their case that he thinks he has the duty to vandalize private bookstores in order to keep the books of Darwin's critics away from the public. Barton's activities are not only juvenile, they may well be illegal.



Censors like Barton aren't doing Darwinian evolution any favors. They merely prove to the public just how bigoted and intolerant the Darwinist establishment has become. Much like certain global warming fanatics, Darwinist ideologues increasingly place themselves above the law and try to exempt themselves of any sort of real accountability.



Ironically, Darwin himself was a lot more fair-minded than his latter-day defenders. Writing at the beginning of On the Origin of Species, Darwin acknowledged that "a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."





Heresy in Israel! Chief education scientist dismissed for denying evolution and global warming



http://creation.com/heresy-in-israel-gavriel-avital





Scientist alleges religious discrimination in KY

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1256892



question evolution?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-091/question-evolution-get-fired?utm_source=feedburnerHYPERLINK "http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-091/question-evolution-get-fired?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+AWKH+(Answers+...+with+Ken+Ham"&HYPERLINK "http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-091/question-evolution-get-fired?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+AWKH+(Answers+...+with+Ken+Ham"utm_medium=feedHYPERLINK "http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-091/question-evolution-get-fired?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+AWKH+(Answers+...+with+Ken+Ham"&HYPERLINK "http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-091/question-evolution-get-fired?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+AWKH+(Answers+...+with+Ken+Ham"utm_campaign=Feed:+AWKH+(Answers+...+with+Ken+Ham)





Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980:

‘Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.’





As Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, noted, those who toe the party line are publicly praised and have grants ladled out to them, but scientists:
‘who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libelled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. Lindzen, R., Climate of Fear, OpinionJournal, 12 April 2006


Richard Lamsden became a christian and was expelled from the science faculty at Tulane university see transformed by the evidence testimonies of leading creationist

The concealment of funding
Lynn Margulis saw that government funding for evolutionary research comes in a disjointed manner from various distinctly separate government agencies and departments, rather than from a coherent single entity. So she, together with other evolutionists, wrote a letter to the National Science Foundation [NSF] urging it to set up a single entity, especially for funding evolution research.

“So we talked about ways of putting pressure on the National Science Foundation to set up an evolution section. … . This would lead to reduction of redundancy and save money for the funding agencies. … . Anyway, I deduced that the NSF scientist-bureaucrats were conflicted about our letter. The woman [representative from the NSF] assigned to answer us wrote to say there were so many American citizens opposed to evolution that if the NSF put chemistry, geology, etc. into a single evolution division, it would be like sticking out our heads to be chopped off. Such a proposal, no matter its intellectual validity, would surely not fly! She said the NSF thought it would strengthen evolution science by avoidance of the word ‘evolution’ and not by centralizing research activities” (Lynn Margulis, pp. 263–264).
This shows how a centralized government can relabel things and partition a large funding stream in various confusing ways, so as to intentionally obscure where taxpayer money is going—and intentionally get around the will of the people. Evolutionists use this maneuver, and Mazur reports no objection to it. Evolutionists feel justified in intentionally withholding key information from the public. This is consistent with their belief system that morals are merely products of evolution.

A review of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur
North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2010

reviewed by Walter J. ReMine

 

Amen!

One of the problems is that so many of these arguments they make have been refuted over and over and over again.

If ANY of these evolutionist actually had respect for the truth they would do a simple search on their idiotic claim and learn why it is false!!

Why should ANYONE who claims to be a "critical thinker" get all the way to this board with ideas that are so ubiquitously proven false?

 

These same clowns want force evolution in lieu of science in schools by stealing creationist tax money. Than lying to them.

 

Exactly.

Yet, science is a methodology for exploring our physical universe.

And, evolution is a hindrance.

 

Oh.. You don't want to pay taxes.. Are you all Americans?

 

The primary problem here is that the modern liberal cultural bases for rejecting these as allegories has increased with time.

Thus We're left with two incompatible timelines, neither of which is a country mile from being literal. But, they are also not necessarily false in the sense that allegories tend not to be false and do contribute information.

We can learn from Aesop's Fables regardless of whether the creatures in the story actually ever existed





Or we could could leave never land and ask for support. How do you know this? what is your evidence? why must we reject the text as written and understood by those who owned them for thousands of years just to fit a modern liberal desires so he can reject the bible itself and self govern himself?

 

I accept your concession.

Oh, and reported for trolling.

 

Perhaps a better education would lend credence to your stories.