Slashdot Mirror

Not to worry. I have found your proof, offered by an absolutely unquestionable authority on such matters.

Actually, if the original post meant "the first museum on creationism ever" then the people in Kentucky are a little bit too late: there is already a creationism museum in Santee, California: http://www.icr.org/discover/index/discover_museum/ If the original post was to be interpreted as the first such museum in Kentucky, then, well, I don't know whether Kentucky already has one of these treasures or not. Also, I don't know how much of a tourist attraction the museum in Santee is; at least I get a good laugh each time I drive by (you can see it from the 67 freeway).

located in the heart of gods country, Santee California. you might recognize the from the high school shootings a few years back, or perhaps the town having an unusually high concentration of white supremacists. I'm sure those little details are just a coincidence and have nothing to do with this fine learning institution.

http://www.icr.org/discover/index/discover_museum/

oh, and Pen & Teller featured this "museum" on an episode of bullshit, which I'd highly recommend.

Screw that, we've got them beat in the greater San Diego area. Located in lovely Santee, CA (or Klantee, or Santucky depending on your preference...) A bunch of my grad school friends took a field-trip to the Institute for Creation Research and went on their museum tour. Apparently is quite well done, with out-of-context quotes of real peer-reviewed science papers, superb rhetorical slight-of-word, and a veneer of 'research.'

-Ted

Screw that, we've got them beat in the greater San Diego area. Located in lovely Santee, CA (or Klantee, or Santucky depending on your preference...) A bunch of my grad school friends took a field-trip to the Institute for Creation Research and went on their museum tour. Apparently is quite well done, with out-of-context quotes of real peer-reviewed science papers, superb rhetorical slight-of-word, and a veneer of 'research.'

-Ted

I just wanted to point out that there's already a museum dedicated to furthering creationism: http://icr.org/discover/index/discover_museum/

There's evidence for a supreme being? Please notify The Institute for Creation Research, they've been trying to find evidence for ages. I can't wait to read their first publication in a peer reviewed journal.

I bet I know where they got their scientists.

Stumble over to a creationism site, they're up to the eyeballs in investigations and arguments. Try Answers In Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research or Geoscience Research Institute for a few examples.

Apparently not everyone agrees.

Amazing how ignorant people make baseless claims like this without doing a little research first. I am currently reading a series of essays of 50 PhDs advocating literal creation in six days... They are PhDs in a wide variety of scientific fields, including biology, biochemistry, geology, and physics, to name a few.
(The book is called "In Six Days"). There are plenty others out there including here, for example.

And the commentator gets rated 'Insightful'. Speaks to the wisdom of most slashdotters.

On the flip side, most Christians do not read the Bible closely enough to properly answer the arguments that evolutions try to pose against creationism. Most importantly, they fail to reckon from the perspective of original sin (most of them don't believe in it anyway) and sin that blinds man to truth (John 9:39, John 9:40,41). It fails to reckon with man's bondage to to sin, so that he ALWAYS seeks the lie, because he by nature hates God and seeks the lie. (Ephesians 2:1-6, John 15:18-25). This results in them proposing poor responses to arguments for evolution, or leaving out things altogether.

The number of people believing or advocating an idea bears no weight as to the truth of the matter. In fact, most often the majority is wrong, as history has proven again and again. Yet man in his pride always likes to think he is more intelligent than his predecessors.

It is humorous how the majority of slashdotters trying to argue why God should not exist argue from the perspective of what they think a God should be. Of course, it is almost always only something a little above a human, and a God prone to many of the human weaknesses found in humans. Rather ludicrous, don't you think, that man should define God based on his feelings about what he thinks God should be?

Evolutionists make science their god, and anything that cannot be observed in nature through some means or another does not exist. Thus they purposely cut themselves off from ever even entertaining the possibility that there is more than that. In fact, they run in the opposite direction. They won't even entertain any alternate theories to evolution anymore, even if it was made by a non-religious person.

Sometimes I wish all the evolution and ID stories would be left off of slashdot. They seldom result in any constructive comments anyway. Perhaps it's time to filter them out of my list.

There's some interesting stuff up at icr.org, see for example
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio n=view&ID=1842
"Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old."

I suspect you could find other examples of this in upstate New York and and other northern coastal areas if you wanted to look, but I really don't. I will assume you were going to saw off Georgia and the other southern coastal states.

Only a few.

You also have to ask yourself: what would you expect an evolution-dominated textbook to say? "We're presenting six hundred pages on evolution here, but we don't think it's important?"

Repeated assertion is not proof.

Evolution is a theory (perhaps I should say Theory) which attempts to explain Linnaeus' organisation. That it succeeds is what's in question here. The Creationists explain the same things which evolutionary principle has had kingship of claimed for it, many of them far more plausibly. They claim, with this as justification, that creation is the central organising principle of biology.

You assert that "creation science has yet to generate a single testable, falsifiable, hypothesis, which is the first step to becoming a theory", but you do so speciously. Creation science sites are awash in hypotheses and you simply haven't noticed. Fixed speciation is one such hypothesis, and it matches reality exactly. The absence of interspecies fossils is another prediction of Creartion, and so far they've won the day on that one pretty convincingly (the closest to a refutation we've come is that glorified hoatzin called archaeopteryx).

Early Creationists (at least in Europe) got too carried away with this and insisted that not just species but individual subspecies of animal were immutable. This in the face of cross-breeding programs. Mind you, this was back in the day when Spontaneous Generation was accepted as the scientifically valid opposition to this concept, so I'm inclined to cut both sides some slack here.

Go and actually read some Creationist sites -- know thy enemy and all that. They've got reasonable-sounding hypotheses on geology, astronomy, all manner of stuff. If you're going into a battle of wits, do remember to go in armed! Read some of the refutations of DDI (and DCD's errata) as well. Have an argument, not a shouting match! (-:

Meanwhile, there are many evolutionary biologists who would cheerfully donate a limb to the cause if they thought they'd get a naturalistic self-organising principle out of it. That alone should be a big hint that there's something major still missing from the panacea called evolution.

On the contrary, I've asked for references to scientific works, but all you've provided are references to non-technical work.

How convenient; in other words, there is no need to investigate the information I provided because it conflicts with your pre-determined outcome of what you believe science should prove in the future.

The scientific basis for that work seems hard to discern, to the point where I question its existence.

Doesn't this statement contradict your previous statement? If you refuse to investigate how can you possibly have an opinion about something you have never studied?

You appear to have a strong faith in things that are at odds with the evidence in the world around us, and your explanation for this discrepancy is a supernatural one, based on faith.

What evidence, unproven scientific theories that throw away data in order to prove there is a possibility they might be right without actually proving their theory?

Here is a quote from http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htmpaleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen:

The debate over Haikouella casts Western scientists in the unlikely role of defending themselves against charges of ideological blindness from scientists in communist China. Chinese officials argue that the theory of evolution is so politically charged in the West that researchers are reluctant to admit shortcomings for fear of giving comfort to those who believe in a biblical creation.

"Evolution is facing an extremely harsh challenge," declared the Communist Party's Guang Ming Daily last December in describing the fossils in southern China. "In the beginning, Darwinian evolution was a scientific theory .... In fact, evolution eventually changed into a religion."

Here are some more links that talk about data "Neo-Darwinian" believers don't want to discuss:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=news&action=vi ew&ID=51Dinosaurs, Grasses, and Darwinism

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio n=view&ID=2033The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6874La rge mammals once dined on dinosaurs

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/248836_dino 18.htmlDinosaur poop shows grass is older than it seems

You can write me off as some kind of crackpot; though, the mounting evidence keeps rolling in. Why is there an abundance of C14 in everything from diamonds, coal and dinosaur fossils? The list gets very large very quickly, though as I have been saying all along:

There is a principle which is a bar against all information,which is proof
against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting
ignorance.
That principle is condemnation before investigation.
--Edmund Spencer

On the contrary, I've asked for references to scientific works, but all you've provided are references to non-technical work.

How convenient; in other words, there is no need to investigate the information I provided because it conflicts with your pre-determined outcome of what you believe science should prove in the future.

The scientific basis for that work seems hard to discern, to the point where I question its existence.

Doesn't this statement contradict your previous statement? If you refuse to investigate how can you possibly have an opinion about something you have never studied?

You appear to have a strong faith in things that are at odds with the evidence in the world around us, and your explanation for this discrepancy is a supernatural one, based on faith.

What evidence, unproven scientific theories that throw away data in order to prove there is a possibility they might be right without actually proving their theory?

Here is a quote from http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htmpaleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen:

The debate over Haikouella casts Western scientists in the unlikely role of defending themselves against charges of ideological blindness from scientists in communist China. Chinese officials argue that the theory of evolution is so politically charged in the West that researchers are reluctant to admit shortcomings for fear of giving comfort to those who believe in a biblical creation.

"Evolution is facing an extremely harsh challenge," declared the Communist Party's Guang Ming Daily last December in describing the fossils in southern China. "In the beginning, Darwinian evolution was a scientific theory .... In fact, evolution eventually changed into a religion."

Here are some more links that talk about data "Neo-Darwinian" believers don't want to discuss:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=news&action=vi ew&ID=51Dinosaurs, Grasses, and Darwinism

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio n=view&ID=2033The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6874La rge mammals once dined on dinosaurs

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/248836_dino 18.htmlDinosaur poop shows grass is older than it seems

You can write me off as some kind of crackpot; though, the mounting evidence keeps rolling in. Why is there an abundance of C14 in everything from diamonds, coal and dinosaur fossils? The list gets very large very quickly, though as I have been saying all along:

There is a principle which is a bar against all information,which is proof
against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting
ignorance.
That principle is condemnation before investigation.
--Edmund Spencer

It is logical and scientific, if you understand the science behind the statement.

No, that's silly. Science cannot prove the existence of an intelligent designer from the kind of evidence we're discussing, and if it could, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the backwaters of Slashdot, it would be major news, not just imagined to be major news by religious extremists. (I'm choosing that term carefully: after all, the Catholic Church, which has a long history of resisting scientific advances, has rejected Intelligent Design and indicated its support for evolution to the extent that it doesn't deny the possibility of a creator, which of course it never has.)

Many other possibilities exist, and many of them are much more likely.

Please provide scientific references to back up your assertion.

You misunderstand me: I'm making a simple logical argument. There's literally an infinite variety of possible conditions that could have led to the generation of life on the early earth, with chemical reactions possibly having been spurred by things like lightning, volcanic eruption, meteor strikes, high pressure beneath the surface of the earth, activity near volcanic vents under the sea, etc. The wikipedia article on the Origin of Life gives some idea of the range of possibilites. The idea that a single scientist could rule out all of these possibilities even in a lifetime of work is ludicrous. Therefore, I conclude that your Kenyon has made a leap of faith, if the conclusion he's come to is that this "must have been" the work of an intelligent designer.

Kenyon has backed up his assertions with scientific data and experimentation; if you believe his competency as a scientist is in question please provide proof with references.

Please refer me to Kenyon's peer-reviewed scientific work, then, since watching religious promo videos doesn't really cut it for me.

Since you brought up the subject "geological time", you probably will not be happy to know that scientist are challenging radioisotope dating methods; in other words, "Neo-Darwinian" evolution my not have had the billions of years required to pull off random evolution. http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=produ ct_info&products_id=2650/

Again, please refer me to the original peer-reviewed scientific work -- I have no plans to buy a video intended as a companion to a "non-technical" book. I'm perfectly capable of assessing the original work. If there truly is legitimate science questioning some aspect of dating methods, I think that's great news, because the goal of science is to find out more about the universe around us.

However, what you are referring to sounds to me not very much like science, but rather like people who are intent on convincing themselves of something, i.e. they're looking to prove their pre-conceived notions. Unfortunately, everything we know about science indicates that when people try to do that, they often succeed; but the result isn't science, because when someone tries to repeat that work more objectively, they usually fail.

One thing that distinguishes science from religion is that science's theories and knowledge of the world change, often quite dramatically, over time, as new information is discovered. Religions don't change to the same degree, and as such, you are forced to reject science that's at odds with your religion, which itself is highly unscientific.

You're currently attempting to reject dating techniques for that exact reason. Who should I believe: people who have no particular reason to lie about the work they've done, and no particular reason to prefer one outcome over

Kenyon came to realize that if all this guidance was needed for such little results reached in the lab, that there must have been an intelligent designer.

But that's not a logical or scientific leap, that's a leap of faith.

It is logical and scientific, if you understand the science behind the statement.

Many other possibilities exist, and many of them are much more likely.

Please provide scientific references to back up your assertion.

It's rather ridiculous, in fact, to try a few things in a lab over a timescale that's essentially zero in comparison to geological time, and then conclude that because in that fleeting instant of time, you couldn't duplicate some very foreign conditions that you actually have little direct knowledge of, there must be a magical universe-wide ghost who did it.

Kenyon has backed up his assertions with scientific data and experimentation; if you believe his competency as a scientist is in question please provide proof with references.

Since you brought up the subject "geological time", you probably will not be happy to know that scientist are challenging radioisotope dating methods; in other words, "Neo-Darwinian" evolution my not have had the billions of years required to pull off random evolution.

Could you please expand on your personal revelations concerning:

"very foreign conditions that you actually have little direct knowledge of"

Do you have "special scientific knowledge" that has not been revealed? Please provide your scientific data/experimentation and sources.

The fact is, nothing you can ever do is going to give scientific evidence of an intelligent designer, short of that designer revealing itself in ways that can be scientifically studied, repeatably. You have to accept that your belief in such a designer is faith (in any case, I thought She wanted it that way?) and give up on the idea that any gap in scientific knowledge can be twisted to help bolster your faith, or to convince other equally weak-minded people to join you in your faith.

It turns out God does reveal Himself thru His Word; though, that is probably not a discussion that is appropriate for this forum.

I would prefer to stay on subject and discuss the scientific merits of irreducible complex systems verses the faith based "Neo Darwinian" evolution theory.

God bless you and keep you,
LovedByGod

Sure, evolve a cell from amino acids using no DNA (intelligence) or try evolving a stable protein outside of a cell using no DNA.

Here is a pretty good video if you want to hear from some of the world's top scientists on why Neo-Darwinian evolution could not have happened:

http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=produ ct_info&cPath=13_15&products_id=2550

I find it interesting that the very scientists that wrote the text books to support Darwin's evolution are now the authors of ID, unfortunately their students didn't keep up with their later works.

God bless you and keep you,
LovedByGod

There is a principle which is a bar against all information,which is proof
against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting
ignorance.
That principle is condemnation before investigation.
--Edmund Spencer

BTW, Creation's Tiny Mystery is about radio halos found in the crystals of granite/earth's bedrock. The cross sections studied--2D bullseye patterns of the spherical decay layers of Palonium (214 IIRC)--show extemely short half-life rings; the rocks had to intstantly harden to capture them.

And you could save on the Radioisotopes book Volume 1 buy buying both volumes together: http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_ product_book_info&products_id=2658

Ok, looks like this thread is winding down. I heartily thank all the people who have submitted works in response to my posting.

so I have:

"Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel -- this looks like a really interesting book, and I'm looking forward to it.

Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_ product_book_info&products_id=2655 [icr.org]

Creation's Tiny Mystery by Robert V. Gentry

Bones Of Contention: A Creationist Assessment Of Human Fossils by Marvin L. Lubenow -- this sounds extremely intersting as well. I admit one eyebrow went up when I read the title, but I will dismiss that as I am reading.

Evolution on Trial by Dr. Thomas Kindell

Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design by William A. Dembski (Editor), James M. Kushiner (Editor).

The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design by William A. Dembski.

I'll check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and see what's there

Miracles by CS Lewis -- I loved the Chronicles of Narnia, so I'm eager to read this as well... and no, I'm not going to go the the LW&W movie.

The Bible, though it is not specifically relevant to what I meant, it couldn't hurt to read it again.

Let me know if I missed any. Whew! Looks like I committed myself to a lot of reading, but after finishing my greek plays phase I've been looking for another reading project anyway :)

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_ product_book_info&products_id=2655

Creation's Tiny Mystery by Robert V. Gentry http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0961675330/qid=11 36933189/104-3539345-2578349

Bones Of Contention: A Creationist Assessment Of Human Fossils by Marvin L. Lubenow http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801065232/qid=11 36933445/104-3539345-2578349

Evolution on Trial by Dr. Thomas Kindell http://kindell.nwcreation.net/biography.htm (don't reading the excerpt; not representative)

Interesting that you should mention that. We see transitionals within the cambrian period. Google lobopods (between worms and arthropods). I'm not sure how you think that the "cambrian explosion" somehow works against evolutionary theory. All we see is a proliferation of new phyla over the course of 5-40 million years. There are a lot of good ideas as to why this was a major branching point (appearance of mobile predators, the development of "hox genes", etc.) and no reason to think that it's odd.

A person trained in the field can look at a fossil and tell you how old it will turn out to be when it is dated.

Interesting that you should mention that. We see transitionals within the cambrian period. Google lobopods (between worms and arthropods). I'm not sure how you think that the "cambrian explosion" somehow works against evolutionary theory. All we see is a proliferation of new phyla over the course of 5-40 million years. There are a lot of good ideas as to why this was a major branching point (appearance of mobile predators, the development of "hox genes", etc.) and no reason to think that it's odd.

A person trained in the field can look at a fossil and tell you how old it will turn out to be when it is dated.

Interesting that you should mention that. We see transitionals within the cambrian period. Google lobopods (between worms and arthropods). I'm not sure how you think that the "cambrian explosion" somehow works against evolutionary theory. All we see is a proliferation of new phyla over the course of 5-40 million years. There are a lot of good ideas as to why this was a major branching point (appearance of mobile predators, the development of "hox genes", etc.) and no reason to think that it's odd.

A person trained in the field can look at a fossil and tell you how old it will turn out to be when it is dated.

Interesting that you should mention that. We see transitionals within the cambrian period. Google lobopods (between worms and arthropods). I'm not sure how you think that the "cambrian explosion" somehow works against evolutionary theory. All we see is a proliferation of new phyla over the course of 5-40 million years. There are a lot of good ideas as to why this was a major branching point (appearance of mobile predators, the development of "hox genes", etc.) and no reason to think that it's odd.

A person trained in the field can look at a fossil and tell you how old it will turn out to be when it is dated.

As a liberal Christian, I have a certain passionate hatred for creationism. I despise creationism because it makes Christians look like a bunch of narrow-minded idiots. For example, I was reading in a Christian newspaper an article about the ICR, which stated the earth was young, and cited four reasons for this. All four reasons [1] have been long-since refuted over at Talkorigins.org or the Evolution Wiki. I was able to refute three of the four points off of the top of my head.

I have seen creationist after creationist come to this Creation-Evolution debate board I lurk on, tell us the Earth must be young because of XXX and that we are all wrong. Once we present to them some scientific evidence that the Earth is old, they get real quiet real fast.

Basically, believing in an old Earth is only possible when a creationist is in a serious state of denial. Case in point: The only people who believe in a young Earth have a religious reason for doing so. Many Christians believe in an old Earth; not one atheist believes in a young Earth.

[1] The original offending article can be seen here. The refutations can be found here (just because you can come up with one case where we got different dates doesn't mean the 99+% of cases where we get the same age via different techniques is invalid) here, here, and here (the refutation is for creationist claims for c14 levels in coals, but the process in question can make diamonds have c14 atoms also).

If you go sites like http://creationism.org/ or http://icr.org/ you will find more proof that we are living on a young earth rather than one that is 4.3 billion years old. A few evidences are: Lack of dust on the moon. Vegetation found on the south pole.

are you out of your tree? of course there is debate and it is massive has been going on since the Scopes trials and before that.

I imagine that the scientific journals of which you speak as being "reputable" are only the ones that have been supporting an evolutionary view. There are many journals and scientists that are purposely not published in those journals because of there "reprehensible" belief in special creation.

If you really feel you've got it all together, then you may want to check out some of the opposing sites like http://www.icr.org/ or http://www.answersingenesis.org/ amongst many. You have been led to believe and lied to blatantly in some cases where evidence has already proven so called evidence wrong.

Yet the school textbooks and Discovery channels still proclaim as absolute fact. If you can take a step back and just analyze what you hear and see being taught and broadcast everyday from a perspective that is open to all options, you will begin to get a sick feeling in your stomach that you have been misled.

" With all due respect, there is no debate. There have been no articles in respectable scientific journals that support ID" "There is no debate" are you out of your tree? of course there is debate and it is massive has been going on since the Scopes trials and before that. I imagine that the scientific journals of which you speak as being "reputable" are only the ones that have been supporting an evolutionary view. There are many journals and scientists that are purposely not published in those journals because of there "reprehensible" belief in special creation. If you really feel you've got it all together, then you may want to check out some of the opposing sites like http://www.icr.org/ or http://www.answersingenesis.org/ amongst many. You have been led to believe and lied to blatantly in some cases where evidence has already proven so called evidence wrong. Yet the school textbooks and Discovery channels still proclaim as absolute fact. If you can take a step back and just analyze what you hear and see being taught and broadcast everyday from a perspective that is open to all options, you will begin to get a sick feeling in your stomach that you have been misled.

Ok, here's some new evidence. But I don't see any biologists changing. This is the sort of evidence intelligent design proponents want taught in the classroom. Why should it be banned?

There is much scientific evidence that supports a young earth...the site I cited has affirmed such evidence. For one to deny this truth is dishonest and points to the fact that he/she has not examined the evidence objectively, but rather, with a biased view to begin with.

What do you say about the "Evolution Is Impossible" section at this location:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio n=view&ID=456

I'd think twice. We have an ICR phalanx here too. Eg YEC Geologist

I would like to preface this by saying I mean this in all seriousness and I ask that you seriously consider the points presented in the following site and the specified article. One can't merely discard ID as an explanation, not only from a Christian standpoint...but from a scientific one as well. Please read.

www.icr.org

A great place to start would be here:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio n=view&ID=774

If you would like to comment or ask questions...do so to invalidmail@gmail.com (it's a real address...promise).

Actually, Mendel's problem had nothing to do with the age of the earth, but rather the discreet nature of the genetics he had discovered argued against any gradual model of change. There still does not exist a gradual model that has any sort of experimental validity.

As for the age of the earth, there are only _some_ measures which give the earth a great age, most of them dealing with alpha nuclear decay. Beta nuclear decay indicates a young age of the earth, as do other metrics such as helium diffusion within crystals. See the book Thousands not Billions. If you want to look at what they were investigating, you can see their pre-research book, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.

Much of their work is summarized in the following posters they had available at the American Geophysical Union:

Precambrian Zircons Yield a Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 years.
The Enigma of the Ubiquity of 14C in Organic Samples Older than 100 ka.
Abundant Po Radiohalos in Phanerozoic Granites and Timescale Implications for their Formation.

Actually, Mendel's problem had nothing to do with the age of the earth, but rather the discreet nature of the genetics he had discovered argued against any gradual model of change. There still does not exist a gradual model that has any sort of experimental validity.

As for the age of the earth, there are only _some_ measures which give the earth a great age, most of them dealing with alpha nuclear decay. Beta nuclear decay indicates a young age of the earth, as do other metrics such as helium diffusion within crystals. See the book Thousands not Billions. If you want to look at what they were investigating, you can see their pre-research book, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.

Much of their work is summarized in the following posters they had available at the American Geophysical Union:

Precambrian Zircons Yield a Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 years.
The Enigma of the Ubiquity of 14C in Organic Samples Older than 100 ka.
Abundant Po Radiohalos in Phanerozoic Granites and Timescale Implications for their Formation.

Actually, Mendel's problem had nothing to do with the age of the earth, but rather the discreet nature of the genetics he had discovered argued against any gradual model of change. There still does not exist a gradual model that has any sort of experimental validity.

As for the age of the earth, there are only _some_ measures which give the earth a great age, most of them dealing with alpha nuclear decay. Beta nuclear decay indicates a young age of the earth, as do other metrics such as helium diffusion within crystals. See the book Thousands not Billions. If you want to look at what they were investigating, you can see their pre-research book, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.

Much of their work is summarized in the following posters they had available at the American Geophysical Union:

Precambrian Zircons Yield a Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 years.
The Enigma of the Ubiquity of 14C in Organic Samples Older than 100 ka.
Abundant Po Radiohalos in Phanerozoic Granites and Timescale Implications for their Formation.

Actually, Mendel's problem had nothing to do with the age of the earth, but rather the discreet nature of the genetics he had discovered argued against any gradual model of change. There still does not exist a gradual model that has any sort of experimental validity.

As for the age of the earth, there are only _some_ measures which give the earth a great age, most of them dealing with alpha nuclear decay. Beta nuclear decay indicates a young age of the earth, as do other metrics such as helium diffusion within crystals. See the book Thousands not Billions. If you want to look at what they were investigating, you can see their pre-research book, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.

Much of their work is summarized in the following posters they had available at the American Geophysical Union:

Precambrian Zircons Yield a Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 years.
The Enigma of the Ubiquity of 14C in Organic Samples Older than 100 ka.
Abundant Po Radiohalos in Phanerozoic Granites and Timescale Implications for their Formation.

Sigh

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio n=view&ID=342
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio n=view&ID=227
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio n=view&ID=338

Sigh

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio n=view&ID=342
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio n=view&ID=227
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio n=view&ID=338

Sigh

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio n=view&ID=342
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio n=view&ID=227
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio n=view&ID=338

If you want some intelligent discussion on the subject of creationism vs. "evolution"/etc., please visit the Institute for Creation Research.

Besides, since when have people gotten a better understanding of the truth by excluding more ideas? If intelligent design is in fact bunk, then people will have no problems picking that out. It will rise or fall by its own merits. If no one can refute the claims they make, then it may rise, and rightfully so. But if we can genuinely refute those claims, they will have about a snowball's chance in hell of surviving the next 20 years.

Just thought I'd throw this out there and see what ya'll thought of them. Obviously very biased towards one side of the arguement, but I've been fairly impressed by some of their work that I've run across.

Articles/Topics from the Insitute for Creation Research

Here's one fairly good example I saw: Radioisotope Dating of Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology (#376)

-Mikey P

Just thought I'd throw this out there and see what ya'll thought of them. Obviously very biased towards one side of the arguement, but I've been fairly impressed by some of their work that I've run across.

Articles/Topics from the Insitute for Creation Research

Here's one fairly good example I saw: Radioisotope Dating of Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology (#376)

-Mikey P

If you want to see real scientific evidence concerning creationism researched by real-live christian scientists, you should go to http://www.icr.org/. Enough of this armchair science most of you /.ers are pulling out of thin air. I could state the sky is purple here and would have the same amount of proof many of you are throwing about on both sides backing my claim.

Since when have Physics, Biology, and Chemistry stopped being based on philosophical frameworks (or presuppositions)? Apparently, people so quickly forget that Copernicus was a sun-worshipper who supported his theory (which ended up being factually correct) despite having less evidence than its predecessor. As far as I remember, his theory is still taught as science today. Have we forgotten the great philosopher Hume who in his philosophy nixed much of what we call science as being provable since he denied the "law of causality"?

As a philosophy minor with an interest in the philosophy of science, I've searched into this a bit more than the people who blindly accept what the scientists (who suck at philosophy, frankly) pass down. There is widespread disagreement among scientists about the origin of life, ranging from alien interference (a wacky idea that is totally swallowed by many despite the fact that aliens have not been scientifically verified or classified) and meteorites as well as more basic scientific processes. You'd think with our extensive knowledge of Physics/Biology/Chemistry, we'd have this "proved" already but scientists and theologians all have perpetuated "myths" instead (although in reality one such "myth" may in fact be true).

As far as proving God philosophically, I'd think while many have exhausted much effort, they are likely wasting their time as it's probably impossible trying to prove a God whose logic supercedes ours. If it's a superhuman God, well then we've changed the traditional meaning of "God" and we might as well get to work creating a gentically perfect clone to prove our argument correct.

I'd be curious how many who have posted have actually attended an ID conference at Yale University like I have a few years ago. These people receive no backing from the Institute for Creation Research and they have various philosophical backgrounds and quite a bit more serious creditionals than the ICR folks. I've seen Evangelicals, Catholics, agnostic Jews, and likely others all giving major speeches covering indepth probability theory, biochemistry, and other areas of their expertise as it pertains to the naturalistic theories. Of course, some /.ers may still trust their college science textbooks as Scripture despite the fact that they have (and even still do) included faulty experiments in support of various simplistic evolutionary ideas which have been already discounted by current researchers and evolutionary proponents.

I'd prefer that the whole "origin of life" issue and general discussion of evolution be completely dropped from textbooks entirely. Leave out evolution, leave out creationism, leave out ID. Just teach the current theories, taxonomies, etc. and have interested students study "Evolution" as another optional scientific discipline. And replace that content and time with a study of philosophy and/or logic because young students today could benefit more by learning how to THINK critically!