Slashdot Mirror

Actually, there are a very large number of people that advocate teaching the biblical account of Creation in schools. (And in fact, many of us are more than willing to pay $15,000 a year for private school to make sure it gets taught!)

There are indeed very good scientific reasons to consider young earth or catastrophism theories as scientifically valid. I also usge you to open your mind a little, if you're really not afraid of what you'll find. In fact, if one takes an objective look at the data, it quickly becomes obvious that Darwinian evolution is built on some of the worst "science" ever to walk under that banner. Whether you are for or against evolution, you owe it to yourself to understand some of the real scientific problems raised by the current evolutionary dogma. For a very fair assessment of how science undermines rather than supports evolution, I suggest uber-hacker Do-While Jones' excellent site devoted to the subject: www.scienceagainstevolution.org - you'll find a ton of mostly excellent articles that raise important issues in the archives of Disclosure, their monthly newsletter. Spend some time reading these - I particularly recommen Teenage Mutant Mammal Turtles, Let's Talk About Lucy, and the series on radiocarbon/radioactive dating methods. I think you'll be surprised...

Actually, there are a very large number of people that advocate teaching the biblical account of Creation in schools. (And in fact, many of us are more than willing to pay $15,000 a year for private school to make sure it gets taught!)

There are indeed very good scientific reasons to consider young earth or catastrophism theories as scientifically valid. I also usge you to open your mind a little, if you're really not afraid of what you'll find. In fact, if one takes an objective look at the data, it quickly becomes obvious that Darwinian evolution is built on some of the worst "science" ever to walk under that banner. Whether you are for or against evolution, you owe it to yourself to understand some of the real scientific problems raised by the current evolutionary dogma. For a very fair assessment of how science undermines rather than supports evolution, I suggest uber-hacker Do-While Jones' excellent site devoted to the subject: www.scienceagainstevolution.org - you'll find a ton of mostly excellent articles that raise important issues in the archives of Disclosure, their monthly newsletter. Spend some time reading these - I particularly recommen Teenage Mutant Mammal Turtles, Let's Talk About Lucy, and the series on radiocarbon/radioactive dating methods. I think you'll be surprised...

As evolutionary theory itself makes an enormous number of claims that are neither testable of falsifiable, I believe your argument fails.

Too many people are too quick to dismiss one side or the other on the basis of "religion".

The fact is that this entire area of inquiry is full of VERY hard qustions, and there are extremely valid SCIENTIFIC reasons to doubt much of what passes for evolutionary gospel in today's scintific circles.

I recommend a few of the following articles from uber-hacker Do-While Jones' excellent web site, if you're open-minded enough to really analyze the facts as we see them presented in the real world:

Problems with the Origin of Mammals

Radioactive Dating Methods (PartI, Radiocarbon) This series explains the fallacies that underlie several dating methods, including several quite possibly invalid assumptions that are "taken on faith" by the evolutionist scientists.)

Radioactive Dating Methods, (Part II, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, and Isochron methods, with similar observations to above about the underlying assumptions.

A great expose about the bias that permeates evolutionary thinking and the genuinely bad science that has resulted, and is now accepted as in the evolutionary truth. This is a shocker for those of you that think science is squarely on te side of evolution.

All of these articles can be found at the index to Do-While Jones' excellent web archive of his scienceagainstevolution.org newsletter, Disclosure (see sig below, or http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/newsletters .htm, plus many more. The truth may not be so clear-cut as you think...

As evolutionary theory itself makes an enormous number of claims that are neither testable of falsifiable, I believe your argument fails.

Too many people are too quick to dismiss one side or the other on the basis of "religion".

The fact is that this entire area of inquiry is full of VERY hard qustions, and there are extremely valid SCIENTIFIC reasons to doubt much of what passes for evolutionary gospel in today's scintific circles.

I recommend a few of the following articles from uber-hacker Do-While Jones' excellent web site, if you're open-minded enough to really analyze the facts as we see them presented in the real world:

Problems with the Origin of Mammals

Radioactive Dating Methods (PartI, Radiocarbon) This series explains the fallacies that underlie several dating methods, including several quite possibly invalid assumptions that are "taken on faith" by the evolutionist scientists.)

Radioactive Dating Methods, (Part II, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, and Isochron methods, with similar observations to above about the underlying assumptions.

A great expose about the bias that permeates evolutionary thinking and the genuinely bad science that has resulted, and is now accepted as in the evolutionary truth. This is a shocker for those of you that think science is squarely on te side of evolution.

All of these articles can be found at the index to Do-While Jones' excellent web archive of his scienceagainstevolution.org newsletter, Disclosure (see sig below, or http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/newsletters .htm, plus many more. The truth may not be so clear-cut as you think...

As evolutionary theory itself makes an enormous number of claims that are neither testable of falsifiable, I believe your argument fails.

Too many people are too quick to dismiss one side or the other on the basis of "religion".

The fact is that this entire area of inquiry is full of VERY hard qustions, and there are extremely valid SCIENTIFIC reasons to doubt much of what passes for evolutionary gospel in today's scintific circles.

I recommend a few of the following articles from uber-hacker Do-While Jones' excellent web site, if you're open-minded enough to really analyze the facts as we see them presented in the real world:

Problems with the Origin of Mammals

Radioactive Dating Methods (PartI, Radiocarbon) This series explains the fallacies that underlie several dating methods, including several quite possibly invalid assumptions that are "taken on faith" by the evolutionist scientists.)

Radioactive Dating Methods, (Part II, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, and Isochron methods, with similar observations to above about the underlying assumptions.

A great expose about the bias that permeates evolutionary thinking and the genuinely bad science that has resulted, and is now accepted as in the evolutionary truth. This is a shocker for those of you that think science is squarely on te side of evolution.

All of these articles can be found at the index to Do-While Jones' excellent web archive of his scienceagainstevolution.org newsletter, Disclosure (see sig below, or http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/newsletters .htm, plus many more. The truth may not be so clear-cut as you think...

As evolutionary theory itself makes an enormous number of claims that are neither testable of falsifiable, I believe your argument fails.

Too many people are too quick to dismiss one side or the other on the basis of "religion".

The fact is that this entire area of inquiry is full of VERY hard qustions, and there are extremely valid SCIENTIFIC reasons to doubt much of what passes for evolutionary gospel in today's scintific circles.

I recommend a few of the following articles from uber-hacker Do-While Jones' excellent web site, if you're open-minded enough to really analyze the facts as we see them presented in the real world:

Problems with the Origin of Mammals

Radioactive Dating Methods (PartI, Radiocarbon) This series explains the fallacies that underlie several dating methods, including several quite possibly invalid assumptions that are "taken on faith" by the evolutionist scientists.)

Radioactive Dating Methods, (Part II, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, and Isochron methods, with similar observations to above about the underlying assumptions.

A great expose about the bias that permeates evolutionary thinking and the genuinely bad science that has resulted, and is now accepted as in the evolutionary truth. This is a shocker for those of you that think science is squarely on te side of evolution.

All of these articles can be found at the index to Do-While Jones' excellent web archive of his scienceagainstevolution.org newsletter, Disclosure (see sig below, or http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/newsletters .htm, plus many more. The truth may not be so clear-cut as you think...

As evolutionary theory itself makes an enormous number of claims that are neither testable of falsifiable, I believe your argument fails.

Too many people are too quick to dismiss one side or the other on the basis of "religion".

The fact is that this entire area of inquiry is full of VERY hard qustions, and there are extremely valid SCIENTIFIC reasons to doubt much of what passes for evolutionary gospel in today's scintific circles.

I recommend a few of the following articles from uber-hacker Do-While Jones' excellent web site, if you're open-minded enough to really analyze the facts as we see them presented in the real world:

Problems with the Origin of Mammals

Radioactive Dating Methods (PartI, Radiocarbon) This series explains the fallacies that underlie several dating methods, including several quite possibly invalid assumptions that are "taken on faith" by the evolutionist scientists.)

Radioactive Dating Methods, (Part II, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, and Isochron methods, with similar observations to above about the underlying assumptions.

A great expose about the bias that permeates evolutionary thinking and the genuinely bad science that has resulted, and is now accepted as in the evolutionary truth. This is a shocker for those of you that think science is squarely on te side of evolution.

All of these articles can be found at the index to Do-While Jones' excellent web archive of his scienceagainstevolution.org newsletter, Disclosure (see sig below, or http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/newsletters .htm, plus many more. The truth may not be so clear-cut as you think...

Oh, don't be ridiculous, and the ad hominem attack is unwarranted. There are *really good* scientific reasons not to believe in evolution - see http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/newsletters .htm, if you're not afraid to deal with the truth, that is...

I don't believe in evolution simply because the "science" that supports the idea is so apalingly bad, and would be run out of town on a rail if it weren't in opposition to religious claims, which gives it a perverse immunity to rigorous examination.