Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,923 Year: 4,180/9,624 Month: 1,051/974 Week: 10/368 Day: 10/11 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sarah Palin & Intelligent Design + Creationism
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5622 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 7 of 51 (481441)
09-10-2008 11:45 PM


It seems Palins focus is on drilling oil in our own country getting focus on the economy with an independence off foreign oil. Drill baby drill CafePress.com : Not Found
P.S. Maybe the issue is evolution job security given evolution is a story is based on transistional fossils that interestingly are still missing. I suppose kids should beable to ask questions where are the missing links and why are they still missing.
Seems she is more for allowing challenging Evolution theory in a classroom without the teacher fearing losing tenure. If a teacher understands radioactive decay they should bring up primordial polonium decay supports a young earth that it trumps the old earth folk given it has to be primordial polonium decaying to give its signature. The teacher should not lose tenure for teaching science that uses the elements of the earth to support a young earth premise and by understanding radon decaying into polonium the student is getting a greater grasp of the sciences. Understanding why its an young earth given the physics of polonium and if its a young earth then question the theory of evolution. I can empathize with Palin wanting to allow honest questioning of evolution but can also see this is not what the evolutionists want questioning that which they have no answers too. If teachers could but question these two points without even mentioning creation or ID the students would gain a grasp of the missing transistionals and the young age of the earth.
P.S. Now that its obvious of the young age of the earth and the missing transistional fossils lets allow truth to be questioned in the theory being promoted and see how long it can stand if teachers do not fear losing tenure, etc...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there.
--- David Coppedge
Speaking of Science, Creation Matters, May/June 2003
Debunking Evolution - Scientific evidence against evolution - Clash between theory and reality
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 09-11-2008 12:46 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 11 by obvious Child, posted 09-11-2008 2:45 AM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5622 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 10 of 51 (481449)
09-11-2008 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by bluescat48
09-11-2008 12:21 AM


When are these ultra rightwing creos going to get it through their heads that creationism & ID are not science and don't belong in science classes. They are based on religion and belong in churches.
You do agree teachers should beable to challenge the scientific merits of evolution without fear of losing tenure. Thats all I see Palin wants so the kids understand all the different scientific theory of the origin of life. What are the evolutionists afraid of if evolution is not a religion?
Oh...thats right I forgot evolution roots are from the atheist religion. hmmm...maybe its time you switched and become a Christian? Is it possible to be a democrat and a christian? It says all things are possible with God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by bluescat48, posted 09-11-2008 12:21 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by obvious Child, posted 09-11-2008 2:52 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 25 by bluescat48, posted 09-11-2008 3:03 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5622 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 13 of 51 (481454)
09-11-2008 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coyote
09-11-2008 12:46 AM


Re: Creation "science" again
Off topic post hidden.
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
You know primordial polonium halos pretty much trumps the old earth stuff perhaps you could start rewriting paleontology 101. It was primordial polonium halo's think it Gentry work that proves its a young earth.
Your fossil is good example to explain to the students why the evolutionists date sediments is to give whatever age to the fossil they need without actually directly dating the fossil. That the age is assumed by indicator fossils, sediment layers, and other bogus reasonings when these same fossils are dated by C14 to be only thousands of years old.
That baumgardener and all of the RATE Boys talks of directly dating with carbon 14 that there is still enough of a ratio left in those young bones to date these kind of fossils directly and they are all dating young. Imagine that the paleontologists were off by near a 1.75 million years.
Then explain in spite of new technology the paleontologists refuse to believe any ratio is left when clearly all fossils of this type are all dating thousands of years old.
If they were 1.75 millions of years old they simply would not have any ratio left. That this is another prime example of the young earth phenomenom thats being excluded from the textbooks because its scientific evidence of an young earth! Yes Creation science again and again, etc...
Edited by AdminNosy, : off topic post hidden

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 09-11-2008 12:46 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 09-11-2008 10:11 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5622 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 14 of 51 (481457)
09-11-2008 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by obvious Child
09-11-2008 2:45 AM


Off topic post hidden.
As for the alleged lack of transitional fossils, you are either lying or are ignorant.
You need billions of transisitional fossils if the earth is but a young earth. How pray tell did the butterfly morph into a bird just how did the wing evolute the fossil record is quite clear all the fossil record from the cambrian explosion came fully formed. Why pray tell is that unless they were all created as the fossil record attests fully formed. How is the fossil record lying, etc...
And there is no evidence for a young Earth. None.
Quote the part relevant about primordial polonium could not be evidence of a young earth and why, etc... What I remember is that polonium parent is formed by a mobile decay thus the concentric circles means the polonium is primordial or from the beginning of the earth before the polonium had time to decay. Do you have a different decay path to polonium to explain the concentric halo's that could only be so perfectly formed if it was primordial polonium, etc...
Surely if the National Academy of Sciences would of stood up and shown Gentry wrong instead they have only shown that they can not so they dare not cause its an young earth. The National Academy of
sciences can not lie their way out of this one so they dare not, etc...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences
The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.
We have posted here letters and other documents pertaining to our challenge to the National Academy of Science.
Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates
Edited by AdminNosy, : Off topic post hidden

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by obvious Child, posted 09-11-2008 2:45 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by obvious Child, posted 09-11-2008 4:04 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 21 by AdminNosy, posted 09-11-2008 9:59 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5622 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 16 of 51 (481461)
09-11-2008 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by obvious Child
09-11-2008 2:52 AM


Off topic post hidden.
Darwin was not an atheist. Nor was Mendel.
I think your right he recanted on his death bed that God did it. right? I don't remember him completing his theology degree? for that matter don't remember him getting any degree in the sciences. hmmm....I hope for his sake he recanted on his death bed, we all know the evolutionists (athesistic religion)took his book an ran with it from someone that never completed a degree. He was a real amateur though I suppose.
Mendel now he was a saint, a catholic I hear, even these days hear good things from Catholics,etc....But he certainly did not believe the origin of the species had not a creator. He was a saint was he not?
How about, for a change, you actually provide evidence?
Heres a present time catholic benedictine monk and what the catholic church thru this Monk has to say about evolution, here the catholic church says that evolution is a pagan religion. I personally considered atheism a religion but after listening suspect this Catholic is right on this one point that they are violating the separation of church and state.
Enjoy,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kmuCiEdgqQ
As far as evolution is not a religion listen to benedictine Monk Michael Dimond as he tells the laity that evolution is a dangerous heresy that its a pagan religion.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminNosy, : Off topic post hidden.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by obvious Child, posted 09-11-2008 2:52 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by obvious Child, posted 09-11-2008 4:07 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024