School killings possibly caused by teaching evolution - left tries to censor truth

[fossten]

Couric: Conservative 'freeSpeech' Segment Might Be Found 'Repugnant'
http://newsbusters.org/node/8095
Posted by Dave Pierre on October 4, 2006 - 22:03.

According to CBS Evening News host Katie Couric, a Monday installment of its "freeSpeech" segment, which espoused a strong conservative viewpoint, could be viewed as "repugnant." The issue was discussed on tonight's episode of The O'Reilly Factor (Wednesday, October 4, 2006).

In light of Monday's shooting at a Pennsylvania Amish school, CBS invited Brian Rohrbough, the father of a victim of the 1999 Columbine school massacre, to speak on "freeSpeech."

Quite simply, Mr. Rohrbough delivered a powerful and thoughtful editorial. His commentary is a must-read/must-see (link (with video)). Among other things, Mr. Rohrbough said:

This country is in a moral free-fall. For over two generations, the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum, expelling God from the school and from the government, replacing him with evolution, where the strong kill the weak, without moral consequences and life has no inherent value.

We teach there are no absolutes, no right or wrong. And I assure you the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including by abortion. Abortion has diminished the value of children.

Suicide has become an acceptable action and has further emboldened these criminals. And we are seeing an epidemic increase in murder-suicide attacks on our children.

Sadly, our schools are not safe ...

Apparently, Rohrbough's words were a little too much for some people to handle. On her blog, Katie reported that she was bombarded with e-mails over the segment. She acknowledged that she received both positive and negative feedback, but part of her response appeared sympathetic to those who were critical of the segment. Wrote Couric,

We knew when we decided to put on this segment that a lot of people would disagree with it. We also knew some might even find it repugnant. (Some of you made that point loud and clear!)

"Repugnant"? As Bill O'Reilly articulated on his show tonight, by using the word "repugnant," Couric left the impression that she was diminishing the legitimacy of what Rohrbough had to say. Said Bill:

Why would any fair-minded person find Mr. Rohrbough's opinion "repugnant"? You can disagree with the man, but using a word like "repugnant" marginalizes his legitimate opinion. Millions of Americans see it the way Mr. Rohrbough does. Now I don't believe Ms. Couric meant to demean the man, but her words reflect the elitist attitude common in network news and in the general media. Using the word "repugnant" might restore Ms. Couric's cocktail party credibility, but it is an unfortunate choice of words ... The truth is that conservative and traditional P.O.V.'s (points of view) are rarely heard on network newscasts and are usually met with eye rolls by the PC anchors ... Everyone can see how uncomfortable [the segment] has made the network. That should not be the case.

Amen, Bill. This entire episode/uproar provides clear-cut evidence of a liberal bias in mainstream media. If views like Rohrbough's were heard more regularly, what would be the big deal? Views like Rohrbough's are so rarely aired in the mainstream media news that CBS Evening News executive producer Rome Hartman felt compelled to publicly remark that he knew the commentary "would be controversial, perhaps even offensive to some" (emphasis mine). As O'Reilly articulated, millions of conservatives (not all, mind you) found nothing "repugnant," "controversial," or "offensive" about anything Rohrbough said; it's how they think, too!

To her credit, on her blog, Couric added,

When we approached Brian Rohrbough and asked him his thoughts about this latest school shooting, this essay was the result. We understood that people may disagree with what he said, and with what he believes. But censoring or attempting to re-shape his opinion would be antithetical to the very idea of free speech.

This is a nation built on dialogue and debate. And, most importantly, on freedom of speech. As George Washington once said, “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

*************************************************

Before going to the high school and shooting the place up, the boys made a video where they said that it was time to kill the weak, just like they'd been taught in school in evolution class. Also, one of the boys had a t-shirt that said "Natural Selection" on it. But the police won't release the video. Wonder why? I wonder if there are higher powers preventing that release.

Teaching evolution and condoning abortion has spawned a backlash, and here it comes. Do you people think God is happy about 45 million murdered babies in the last 30 years?

 

[TheDude]

LOL... That is a FAR reach, that evolution being taught in schools leads to crime...

 

[Dereck]

Hi

Religion is the root of all evil not evolution!

Regards

Dereck

 

[segxr7]

I agree, it's not "repugnant" at all.

"Mind-numbingly stupid", on the other hand...

It's funny to see how the focus has shifted to the supposed moral implications of evolution, rather than arguments based in science and/or logic. Gee, I wonder why.

 

[TheDude]

Hi

Religion is the root of all evil not evolution!

Regards

Dereck

All you need to ask yourself is, how long has evolution been taught in schools, 70+ years? Certainly murder, rape, thievery and general dishonesty happened before then.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Teaching evolution and condoning abortion has spawned a backlash, and here it comes. Do you people think God is happy about 45 million murdered babies in the last 30 years?

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!"

- Chicken Little

Looks like someone is desperately trying to draw attention away from the real issues of today.

 

[fossten]

I agree, it's not "repugnant" at all.

"Mind-numbingly stupid", on the other hand...

It's funny to see how the focus has shifted to the supposed moral implications of evolution, rather than arguments based in science and/or logic. Gee, I wonder why.

This post is about the moral implications of evolution. If you look back on previous threads concerning evolution, you will find that I have thoroughly plastered any and all challengers all over the walls of this forum in the scientific arena of evolution vs. creation. That's why nobody bothers to talk about it anymore.

Any time, and I mean ANY TIME, you want to debate me on the phony science behind evolution, big boy, you go right ahead. I will warn you, however, that you might want to figuratively make sure your head is screwed on very tightly.

 

[fossten]

LOL... That is a FAR reach, that evolution being taught in schools leads to crime...

Um...did you miss the part about the video where they cited evolutionary teachings as the REASON they were going to kill their fellow students? And did you also miss the comment about the t-shirt?

You may not agree with that as a cause, but you can't claim in good faith that it's a "FAR reach."

 

[TheDude]

This post is about the moral implications of evolution. If you look back on previous threads concerning evolution, you will find that I have thoroughly plastered any and all challengers all over the walls of this forum in the scientific arena of evolution vs. creation. That's why nobody bothers to talk about it anymore.

Any time, and I mean ANY TIME, you want to debate me on the phony science behind evolution, big boy, you go right ahead. I will warn you, however, that you might want to figuratively make sure your head is screwed on very tightly.

A master in your own mind... You tried to use a skewed view of science to dismiss widely accepted scientifc foundations.

SEGXR7, I say go for it. The gauntlet has been thrown!

 

[TheDude]

Um...did you miss the part about the video where they cited evolutionary teachings as the REASON they were going to kill their fellow students? And did you also miss the comment about the t-shirt?

You may not agree with that as a cause, but you can't claim in good faith that it's a "FAR reach."

Murder has been going on for a very, very, very long time, way before evolution was even an idea. Blaming evolution now for these murders is just as ridiculous as when someone commits murder and says "God told me to do it", do 'we' then blame God? No we don't, people take (or need to take) responsibility for their own actions. If evolution were indeed a catalyst for committing murder, then we would have far more cases across the country since it is taught in all public and most private schools.

I do not agree with the cause and it is a far reach. Just like when a kid goes out and kills someone and the parents try a far reach attempt by blaming it on everything from video games to rock music. Fact is, the kid is just a bad apple and he/she would have probably killed someone regardless of the video games etc.

 

[segxr7]

I'm always up for a good debate! Bring it on.

By the way, Europe is overall much more secular than America, and practically everyone there believes in evolution. Yet their rate of violent crime is far lower than ours. If evolution teaches kids that life is worthless and encourages them to go on shooting sprees, shouldn't Europe have a *higher* crime rate than we do?

 

[MAC1]

I'm always up for a good debate! Bring it on.

By the way, Europe is overall much more secular than America, and practically everyone there believes in evolution. Yet their rate of violent crime is far lower than ours. If evolution teaches kids that life is worthless and encourages them to go on shooting sprees, shouldn't Europe have a *higher* crime rate than we do?

Gregory S. Paul’s theory about the correlation between crime and secularism has been debunked. See, Debunking Gregory S. Paul. In actuality, crime in Europe is skyrocketing and, in comparison to the United States, statistics indicate that the U.S. is an overall safer place to live with only one exception–Homicide. (In large part due to gang related killings). Recent statistics indicate that more assaults are committed per capita in England than in the United States. Furthermore, theft rates in European countries, including Britain, Denmark, France and Germany have dramatically accelerated and statistics now indicate that theft is more prevalent in European countries than in the United States. Moreover, Europeans also fall victim to non-violent crime on par with the U.S.

While European countries may be overall more secular than the United States, it can be said that such proposition no longer correlates with the notion that Europeans enjoy greater “social cohesion.”

 

[fossten]

Murder has been going on for a very, very, very long time, way before evolution was even an idea. Blaming evolution now for these murders is just as ridiculous as when someone commits murder and says "God told me to do it", do 'we' then blame God? No we don't, people take (or need to take) responsibility for their own actions.

You are absolutely wrong. All the liberals try to associate Christians with hate crimes any time that happens. Hell, Rosie O'Donnell the other day on the view tried to equate radical Christianity with radical Islamofascism. Don't tell me Christianity isn't hated by the left and the media in this country. They've got to protect their god: Darwin.

If evolution were indeed a catalyst for committing murder, then we would have far more cases across the country since it is taught in all public and most private schools.

Oh really? Well that's a blanket statement from a non-expert if I've ever read one. We've had three incidents inside of a week, and your other explanation is...? Anyway, you will see a pattern developing in the future, so be sure and come back here and tell me that I'm right when it happens.

I do not agree with the cause and it is a far reach. Just like when a kid goes out and kills someone and the parents try a far reach attempt by blaming it on everything from video games to rock music. Fact is, the kid is just a bad apple and he/she would have probably killed someone regardless of the video games etc.

There you go trying to distract from the issue again. Nobody said the parents are only ones blaming this on evolution. The KIDS THEMSELVES did that on their own. I'm sorry for you that you will deliberately ignore factual evidence in order to avoid admitting that you're wrong. Nice try, but it not only isn't a stretch, you are deliberately stretching to dissociate the two. My, my, aren't you afraid of being wrong. You don't know any of the facts surrounding that case, so don't even try.

BTW, your babe Hillary is one of the ones touting the video game cause and wants to ban the violent ones anyway.

Finally: As far as your claim that I use "pseudoscience," that's just sour grapes because you get your head handed to you every time we debate evolution. You have ZERO science to offer. You and I know that the sum total of YOUR evolutionary knowledge is what you learned in school who knows how many years ago. So stop pretending and bashing you coward and, if you have the ba!!s, start something!

 

[fossten]

Euthanasia ‘out of control’ in Holland

An interview with Dr Karel Gunning
by Robert Doolan

The death revolution taking place in Holland through its toleration of euthanasia is a tragic warning to the world, a leading Dutch physician has warned. Dr Karel Gunning is spearheading a world-wide fight against euthanasia. He said Holland had ‘crossed the border’ of ethics into a territory where there are almost no limits on medical killing any more.

‘What Holland shows is that once you start making euthanasia possible, it becomes completely out of control’, he said.

Dr Gunning is president of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life. He visited Australia in July and August as a guest of Right to Life Australia.

Dr Gunning said that when abortion becomes tolerated it inevitably leads to euthanasia. ‘And if you start with voluntary euthanasia, then you end with its being compulsory.’

He said that each year in Holland there are about 20,000 cases of intentional killing from a total of 130,000 patient deaths. There were even many cases where a doctor ended a patient’s life without discussing euthanasia with the patient.

Dr Gunning said he could see a link between the problem of euthanasia and the evolutionary ideas of ‘survival of the fittest’ and eugenics (breeding an improved race).

He said that patients who felt they were a burden to their children may be almost forced to ask for euthanasia.

‘They may be put under pressure by their own kin. That’s why it’s so dangerous.’

Dr Gunning said he believed that the creation and taking away of human life was God’s domain, and that governments needed to protect the lives of their citizens.

He said evolution by pure chance was impossible. He had written a paper titled ‘Is Spontaneous Evolution Possible?’, in which he described the impossibility of the genetic code’s arising by chance evolutionary processes.

He did not believe that God used evolution as His method of creation. ‘We do not use parts of an existing car to build a new model’, he said. ‘We conceive the new model in our minds and then build it from new materials. Why then should the Creator use an ape-like creature’s DNA to create man?’

Dr Gunning said he was disturbed by the whole attitude which regarded killing through abortion and euthanasia as normal.

He said that when doctors are allowed to kill, ethics ‘become elastic, and allow what you want to be allowed.’

Holland’s tolerance of killing should sound a warning for the world, he said. ‘Holland has indeed become a dangerous country.’

http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/euthanasia.asp

This is what we will become if things don't change. So much for Europe being more socially progressive than the US.

 

[fossten]

Euthanasia: hospital humanism

by Chan Perry

Euthanasia is one of the most critical issues ever to face Western society. This can be seen as a logical consequence of the acceptance of evolution as truth and, therefore, the rejection of God’s authority in the Bible. With belief in evolution, the absolutes of God's Word are lost and hence right and wrong become a matter of individual opinion. After all, if we have all evolved, we are the only ones who can decide what is right and no one else can tell us what to do. However, the Bible is not silent on the issue of euthanasia and we find in His Word the foundation for defending the value of human life.

Perhaps the most common misunderstanding in the debate about euthanasia concerns what euthanasia actually is. Euthanasia is not the turning off of machines in intensive care units which may be artificially prolonging the dying process. Euthanasia is the direct act of killing a patient, e.g. by lethal injection. Thus, to avoid confusion, it is better described as patient-killing. If a respirator is finally turned off on which a patient depends, the direct intent may not be to kill that patient, because if they were to live, then no more would need to be done. However with euthanasia, if the first dose of toxic ‘medication’ was not sufficient to ‘terminate’ the patient, then higher and higher doses would be given until the patient was dead.

Evolution has played a major role in paving the way for the acceptance of euthanasia. Evolution reduces humans to the level of animals, making it just as acceptable to put down a human as put down a dog. Many evolutionists advocate euthanasia as a wonderful means to rid us of unwanted burdens. Such opinions lead to the belief that killing a severely handicapped child is ultimately no different to killing a pig.1 Since there is no God, there is no intrinsic value to human beings and therefore nothing wrong with killing a child who has Down's syndrome (a tragedy that already happens with abortion). Sadly, such opinions have wide acceptance by ethics committees deciding the fate of thousands of defenceless newborn children in our hospitals.

What are the consequences of accepting euthanasia? According to a Dutch study investigating the effects in Holland, where euthanasia is tolerated while not strictly legal, it was found that in a single year there were more than 2,700 reported euthanasia deaths. Over 50% of these were involuntary, i.e. the patient was not given a choice.2 In one case, an elderly lady required admission to hospital for her illness, but feared that she would be euthanased if she was admitted. Her physician assured her that he would take personal responsibility to see that this would not happen. However, having returned after a day absent from the hospital the physician found that the bed was occupied by another patient. Upon inquiry to the doctor in charge he found that the patient was killed because they needed the bed!3 If involuntary euthanasia is occurring in a country where euthanasia is not even legal, one can easily foresee the horrible results of legalising euthanasia.

Every day in our hospitals, decisions are made concerning patients’ lives. Should this patient be treated for his renal failure? Should that patient be resuscitated if she suffered a heart attack? Should this patient receive any treatment at all, or should even food and water be withdrawn from this patient because he has dementia? More and more doctors are deciding whether or not to treat patients on the basis of whether they believe the patient’s life is worth living, not on the basis of their intrinsic value as human beings.

What does the Bible have to say about euthanasia? In 2 Samuel 1:1–16 we read the account where an Amalekite claimed to have committed euthanasia on Saul.4 Instead of praising the act of killing Saul as merciful and kind, David calls for the man to be executed because of his not being afraid to destroy the Lord's anointed. In fact, God has ‘anointed’ all life as sacred: Genesis 9:6 says, ‘Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.’ Thus only God, not any man, has the right to take away life, except where God has delegated that authority.5 If God has given life, man has no right to take it away, not even his own. Euthanasia therefore violates God's holy law and will bring God's judgment upon any society permitting it.

When people are sick, especially when they are terminally ill, they may at times want to die. But in almost all circumstances such feelings are a reflection of an underlying depression or a response to isolation or loneliness or pain, all of which have solutions other than killing the patient. It is only in very rare circumstances that pain cannot be adequately relieved.

Thus, requests for euthanasia are very often a cry for help and should not be taken at face value. Often the initial shock of the diagnosis and the fear of the disease process may be overwhelming. To offer lethal injection as a solution to these problems robs these people of the chance to deal with their new life situation and brings a terrible burden of guilt to their families.

According to my cancer-specialist colleagues, suicide is extremely rare in cancer patients. Dutch cancer specialist Zybigniew Zylicz says that of the 100 or so dying cancer patients who asked him for euthanasia (out of some 400), 98% changed their mind after adequate counselling and skilled pain relief.6 Euthanasia is certainly an easier and cheaper alternative to providing proper palliative care. Our governments and health systems should be concentrating on addressing the underlying issues leading to the desire to die, rather than legislate to permit the killing of the sick.

In Nazi Germany, once evolution was accepted as ‘state truth’, social Darwinism in the form of euthanasia was implemented—first on the terminally ill, then on the disabled and the elderly—those who were ‘burdens to society’—and finally on six million Jews and minority groups such as gypsies. In the same way, once euthanasia is legalised, our belief in evolution and false confidence in the opinions of men will likely carry it through society until death is not just a ‘right’, but a regimen. The vulnerable elderly, whose families have something to gain from their relative’s death, would have no protection against this evil because they are unable to fend for themselves. The right to die can easily become a duty to die, as already many are unwanted burdens under the current system.

The drastic erosion of the Christian basis for society is the logical consequence of the church’s failure to make a stand against evolution. Deny Genesis, and there is no reason for believing that man was made in God's image. We, who should be ‘salt and light’ in our culture, will be held even more responsible if we remain silent about the dangers of euthanasia whenever evolutionists are agitating for its legalization.

Chan Perry, M.B., B.S., is completing specialist training in the areas of anesthetics and intensive care medicine through the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Melbourne, Victoria.

 

[TheDude]

You are absolutely wrong. All the liberals try to associate Christians with hate crimes any time that happens. Hell, Rosie O'Donnell the other day on the view tried to equate radical Christianity with radical Islamofascism. Don't tell me Christianity isn't hated by the left and the media in this country. They've got to protect their god: Darwin.

Oh really? Well that's a blanket statement from a non-expert if I've ever read one. We've had three incidents inside of a week, and your other explanation is...? Anyway, you will see a pattern developing in the future, so be sure and come back here and tell me that I'm right when it happens.

There you go trying to distract from the issue again. Nobody said the parents are only ones blaming this on evolution. The KIDS THEMSELVES did that on their own. I'm sorry for you that you will deliberately ignore factual evidence in order to avoid admitting that you're wrong. Nice try, but it not only isn't a stretch, you are deliberately stretching to dissociate the two. My, my, aren't you afraid of being wrong. You don't know any of the facts surrounding that case, so don't even try.

BTW, your babe Hillary is one of the ones touting the video game cause and wants to ban the violent ones anyway.

Finally: As far as your claim that I use "pseudoscience," that's just sour grapes because you get your head handed to you every time we debate evolution. You have ZERO science to offer. You and I know that the sum total of YOUR evolutionary knowledge is what you learned in school who knows how many years ago. So stop pretending and bashing you coward and, if you have the ba!!s, start something!

You are absolutely wrong, all Liberals do not associate Christianity with hate crimes, what you said is a ridiculous statement and you know it. You do know that there are Christians that are also Liberals right? Rosie O'Donnell... Who in the hell cares what Rosie O'Donnell said.

Three incidents oh my, the sky is falling is right... I suppose all three incidents were caused by evolution being taught in schools then and this is only the start. Yea right... That's as foolish as someone trying to blanket the Heavens Gate mass suicide and claim that a rise in religious group mass suicides will be happening.

Great, the kids blamed evolution and I say "Bullsh!t", just like when someone goes out, kills a few people and then tries to pass the blame off on God or Religion, I say "Bullsh!t" to that too. The difference here between yourself and I, someone commits a crime and tries to pass the buck onto evolution and you say 'Ha, see, evolution is the downfall of America', but when someone commits a crime and blames it on Christianity, you then cry 'Bullsh!it'. I on the other hand, cry "Bullsh!t" in either instant. Who's stretching?

Great, Hillary is jumping on a bandwagon to gain support from knee-jerkers who'd rather blame something else than their own lousy parenting skills. I don't give a #$%. Another reason I wouldn't support her for the presidency.

LOL... And all you can do is copy and paste from I.D. sites. The difference here is, the science I can copy and paste from is proven... Start it up then, Evolution is accepted, do not ask me to prove a negative. If you want to rehash your clownshoe arguments that evolution couldn't have happened because the Earth is only 6k years old or explain away in sci-fi like fantasy how we all spawned from two perfect humans and inbreeding didn't affect us because Adam & Eve were genetically uber-beings; go ahead chief.

 

[fossten]

LOL... And all you can do is copy and paste from I.D. sites. The difference here is, the science I can copy and paste from is proven... Start it up then, Evolution is accepted, do not ask me to prove a negative. If you want to rehash your clownshoe arguments that evolution couldn't have happened because the Earth is only 6k years old or explain away in sci-fi like fantasy how we all spawned from two perfect humans and inbreeding didn't affect us because Adam & Eve were genetically uber-beings; go ahead chief.

Okay:

Name one thing about evolution that is true.

*crickets*

 

[TheDude]

Okay:

Name one thing about evolution that is true.

*crickets*

You're asking me to prove a negative; the burden to disprove evolution is on you. But whatever…

Evolution states that changes happen gradually over eons due to mutation, natural selection and a need to either adapt to or die out. The Earth is billions of years old, not the mere 6k you profess, therefore it stands to reason that the time for the changes and the diversity of life is there.

Name one thing about creation that is true.

*crickets to the Nth power*

 

[fossten]

You're asking me to prove a negative; the burden to disprove evolution is on you. But whatever…

Evolution states that changes happen gradually over eons due to mutation, natural selection and a need to either adapt or die out. The Earth is billions of years old, not the mere 6k you profess, therefore it stands to reason that the time for the changes and the diversity of life is there.

Name one thing about creation that is true.

*crickets*

1. You don't even understand Darwinian evolution well enough to properly state it. So let me do it for you. Evolution doesn't say that "changes" happen, it says that new species evolve from less able ones. There is ZERO, I repeat ZERO evidence whatsoever that supports that. In fact, the fossils have REPEATEDLY and THOROUGHLY refuted all evolutionary claims regarding species. Moreover, all so-called "missing links" have been proven to be mistakes or DELIBERATE FRAUDS or HOAXES.

2. The VAST majority of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE shows that the Earth CANNOT be billions of years old. I can use astronomy or geology to prove this. Every time a scientific discovery shows the evolutionists are wrong, the literally INVENT a new explanation because they ASSUME there is no possible way Creation could be true.

3. I can prove that creation is true, but I can only do it by analogy. I can, however, prove not only by analogy, but also by actual scientific data, that evolution is a sorry little crock. I doubt that you are open-minded enough to even listen, however, since you've already taken the time to demagogue that evidence about which you know nothing. I'd be wasting my time.

Nevertheless:

I've challenged your house built on sand, and it's time to present your evidence. You bring yours, and I'll bring mine.

Which one of these two topics do you want to discuss first?

 

[TheDude]

1. You don't even understand Darwinian evolution well enough to properly state it. So let me do it for you. Evolution doesn't say that "changes" happen, it says that new species evolve from less able ones. There is ZERO, I repeat ZERO evidence whatsoever that supports that. In fact, the fossils have REPEATEDLY and THOROUGHLY refuted all evolutionary claims regarding species. Moreover, all so-called "missing links" have been proven to be mistakes or DELIBERATE FRAUDS or HOAXES.

2. The VAST majority of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE shows that the Earth CANNOT be billions of years old. I can use astronomy or geology to prove this. Every time a scientific discovery shows the evolutionists are wrong, the literally INVENT a new explanation because they ASSUME there is no possible way Creation could be true.

3. I can prove that creation is true, but I can only do it by analogy. I can, however, prove not only by analogy, but also by actual scientific data, that evolution is a sorry little crock. I doubt that you are open-minded enough to even listen, however, since you've already taken the time to demagogue that evidence about which you know nothing. I'd be wasting my time.

Nevertheless:

I've challenged your house built on sand, and it's time to present your evidence. You bring yours, and I'll bring mine.

Which one of these two topics do you want to discuss first?

1) Darwin was a pioneer in the field, much of what he thought has been worked over, see, that is what science is, you gradually learn and improve on your predecessors work and knowledge. Just like medicine for example, today’s research will leads to tomorrows cure. Science isn't 'poof there it is' that is creationist thinking.

2) There is ZERO valid evidence that the Earth is 6k years old, with the exception that the Bible tells us so.

3) Then analogize away and use science to disprove science. I am very open minded, but when someone throws a crock of sh!t at me, I will call it as I see it. Prove away with scientific facts how we spawned from two people and prove away how two of every animal fit in the Ark, let alone the food that would be required to feed and the manual labor need to care and feed for these animals for 40 days and 40 nights, or was it 140 day/nights? etc. etc. etc.

Either.

{edit}

 

[fossten]

1) Darwin was a pioneer in the field, much of what he thought has been worked over, see, that is what science is, you gradually learn and improve on your predecessors work and knowledge. Just like medicine for example, today’s research will leads to tomorrows cure. Science isn't 'poof there it is' that is creationist thinking.

2) There is ZERO valid evidence that the Earth is 6k years old, with the exception that the Bible tells us so.

3) Then analogize away and use science to disprove science. I am very open minded, but when someone throws a crock of sh!t at me, I will call it as I see it. Prove away with scientific facts how we spawned from two people and prove away how two of every animal fit in the Ark, let alone the food that would be required to feed and the manual labor need to care and feed for these animals for 40 days and 40 nights, or was it 140 day/nights? etc. etc. etc.

Either.

{edit}

Okay, we'll tackle Number 2 for now. We'll come back to the others later.

First of all, I have a law school exam tonight, so I won't be able to get to this until sometime tomorrow. But I will point out one thing:

So far, the only person in this conversation who has brought up the Bible in the context of our specific debate is you. If you want to bash the Bible, go ahead, but I'm going to use scientific evidence to shred your arguments.

See ya tomorrow.

 

[TheDude]

Okay, we'll tackle Number 2 for now. We'll come back to the others later.

First of all, I have a law school exam tonight, so I won't be able to get to this until sometime tomorrow. But I will point out one thing:

So far, the only person in this conversation who has brought up the Bible in the context of our specific debate is you. If you want to bash the Bible, go ahead, but I'm going to use scientific evidence to shred your arguments.

See ya tomorrow.

Groovy.

Best of luck.

I am not "bashing" the Bible.

It's a date, but I may not be back on until Sunday/Monday.

 

[fossten]

1) Darwin was a pioneer in the field, much of what he thought has been worked over, see, that is what science is, you gradually learn and improve on your predecessors work and knowledge. Just like medicine for example, today’s research will leads to tomorrows cure. Science isn't 'poof there it is' that is creationist thinking.

Deville, you said yourself that science keeps on advancing, and we learn from our mistakes. So what will you say when science actually and finally disproves evolution? Will you accept Creation then? Even the highest levels of evolutionary scientists cannot refute the article I'm about to show you. They admit that there is no way they can support their beliefs. Yet they still cling to them by faith.

My question to you is: Will you continue to cling to beliefs taught to you years ago in an outdated text whose authors are dead and whose teachings are now being refuted with MODERN science? If so, then you are more guilty of acting by faith than I am.

Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages

by John Baumgardner, Ph.D.
http://icr.org/article/117/

Abstract

The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year.

Evolutionists generally feel secure even in the face of compelling creationist arguments today because of their utter confidence in the geological time scale. Even if they cannot provide a naturalistic mechanism, they appeal to the "fact of evolution," by which they mean an interpretation of earth history with a succession of different types of plants and animals in a drama spanning hundreds of millions of years.

The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet's history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. This Biblical interpretation of the rock record implies that the animals and plants preserved as fossils were all contemporaries. This means trilobites, dinosaurs, and mammals all dwelled on the planet simultaneously, and they perished together in this world-destroying cataclysm.

Although creationists have long pointed out the rock formations themselves testify unmistakably to water catastrophism on a global scale, evolutionists generally have ignored this testimony. This is partly due to the legacy of the doctrine of uniformitarianism passed down from one generation of geologists to the next since the time of Charles Lyell in the early nineteenth century. Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.

With the discovery of radioactivity about a hundred years ago, evolutionists deeply committed to the uniformitarian outlook believed they finally had proof of the immense antiquity of the earth. In particular, they discovered the very slow nuclear decay rates of elements like Uranium while observing considerable amounts of the daughter products from such decay. They interpreted these discoveries as vindicating both uniformitarianism and evolution, which led to the domination of these beliefs in academic circles around the world throughout the twentieth century.

However, modern technology has produced a major fly in that uniformitarian ointment. A key technical advance, which occurred about 25 years ago, involved the ability to measure the ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms with extreme precision in very small samples of carbon, using an ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer. Prior to the advent of this accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method, the 14C/12C ratio was measured by counting the number of 14C decays. This earlier method was subject to considerable "noise" from cosmic rays.

The AMS method improved the sensitivity of the raw measurement of the 14C/12C ratio from approximately 1% of the modern value to about 0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from about 40,000 years to about 90,000 years. The expectation was that this improvement in precision would make it possible to use this technique to date dramatically older fossil material.1 The big surprise, however, was that no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of the modern value!2 Since most of the scientists involved assumed the standard geological time scale was correct, the obvious explanation for the 14C they were detecting in their samples was contamination from some source of modern carbon with its high level of 14C. Therefore they mounted a major campaign to discover and eliminate the sources of such contamination. Although they identified and corrected a few relatively minor sources of 14C contamination, there still remained a significant level of 14C—typically about 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrument—in samples that should have been utterly "14C-dead," including many from the deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record.2

Let us consider what the AMS measurements imply from a quantitative standpoint. The ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms decreases by a factor of 2 every 5730 years. After 20 half-lives or 114,700 years (assuming hypothetically that earth history goes back that far), the 14C/12C ratio is decreased by a factor of 220, or about 1,000,000. After 1.5 million years, the ratio is diminished by a factor of 2^1500000/5730, or about 1079. This means that if one started with an amount of pure 14C equal to the mass of the entire observable universe, after 1.5 million years there should not be a single atom of 14C remaining! Routinely finding 14C/12C ratios on the order of 0.1-0.5% of the modern value—a hundred times or more above the AMS detection threshold—in samples supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is therefore a huge anomaly for the uniformitarian framework.

This earnest effort to understand this "contamination problem" therefore generated scores of peer-reviewed papers in the standard radiocarbon literature during the last 20 years.2 Most of these papers acknowledge that most of the 14C in the samples studied appear to be intrinsic to the samples themselves, and they usually offer no explanation for its origin. The reality of significant levels of 14C in a wide variety of fossil sources from throughout the geological record has thus been established in the secular scientific literature by scientists who assume the standard geological time scale is valid and have no special desire for this result!

In view of the profound significance of these AMS 14C measurements, the ICR Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team has undertaken its own AMS 14C analyses of such fossil material.2 The first set of samples consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record, three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. These samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses.

These values fall squarely within the range already established in the peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature. When we average our results over each geological interval, we obtain remarkably similar values of 0.26 percent modern carbon (pmc) for Eocene, 0.21 pmc for Cretaceous, and 0.27 pmc for Pennsylvanian. Although the number of samples is small, we observe little difference in 14C level as a function of position in the geological record. This is consistent with the young-earth view that the entire macrofossil record up to the upper Cenozoic is the product of the Genesis Flood and therefore such fossils should share a common 14C age.


Percent Modern Carbon

Applying the uniformitarian approach of extrapolating 14C decay into the indefinite past translates the measured 14C/12C ratios into ages that are on the order of 50,000 years (2-50000/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). However, uniformitarian assumptions are inappropriate when one considers that the Genesis Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the atmosphere—organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and oil shale deposits. A conservative estimate for the pre-Flood biomass is 100 times that of today. If one takes as a rough estimate for the total 14C in the biosphere before the cataclysm as 40% of what exists today and assumes a relatively uniform 14C level throughout the pre-Flood atmosphere and biomass, then we might expect a 14C/12C ratio of about 0.4% of today's value in the plants and animals at the onset of the Flood. With this more realistic pre-Flood 14C/12C ratio, we find that a value of 0.24 pmc corresponds to an age of only 4200 years (0.004 x 2-4200/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). Even though these estimates are rough, they illustrate the crucial importance of accounting for effects of the Flood cataclysm when translating a 14C/12C ratio into an actual age.

Percent Modern Carbon

Some readers at this point may be asking, how does one then account for the tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years that other radioisotope methods yield for the fossil record? Most of the other RATE projects address this important issue. Equally as persuasive as the 14C data is evidence from RATE measurements of the diffusion rate of Helium in zircon crystals that demonstrates the rate of nuclear decay of Uranium into Lead and Helium has been dramatically higher in the past and the uniformitarian assumption of a constant rate of decay is wrong.3 Another RATE project documents the existence of abundant Polonium radiohalos in granitic rocks that crystallized during the Flood and further demonstrates that the uniformitarian assumption of constant decay rates is incorrect.4 Another RATE project provides clues for why the 14C decay rate apparently was minimally affected during episodes of rapid decay of isotopes with long half-lives.5

The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence that reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended.

Acknowledgement: The RATE team would like to express its heartfelt gratitude to the many generous donors who have made the high precision analyses at some of the best laboratories in the world possible. The credibility of our work in creation science research depends on these costly but crucial laboratory procedures.

 

[fossten]

More MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that refutes evolution:

New Rate Data Support a Young World

by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Abstract

Exciting new developments in RATE projects are confirming our basic hypothesis: that God drastically speeded up decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the Genesis Flood and other brief periods in the earth's short history.

New experiments done this year for the RATE project1 strongly support a young earth. This article updates results announced in an ICR Impact article last year2 and documented at a technical conference last summer.3 Our experiments measured how rapidly nuclear-decay-generated Helium escapes from tiny radio-active crystals in granite-like rock. The new data extend into a critical range of temperatures, and they resoundingly confirm a num-erical prediction we published several years before the experiments.4 The Helium loss rate is so high that almost all of it would have escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian5 age of the rock, and there would be very little Helium in the crystals today. But the crystals in granitic rock presently contain a very large amount of Helium, and the new experiments support an age of only 6000 years. Thus these data are powerful evidence against the long ages of uniformitarianism and for a recent creation consistent with Scripture. Here are some details:

Radioactive crystals make and lose Helium

These radioactive crystals, called zircons, are common in granitic rock. As a zircon crystal grows in cooling magma, it incorporates Uranium and Thorium atoms from the magma into its crystal lattice. After a zircon is fully formed and the magma cools some more, a crystal of black mica called biotite forms around it. Other minerals, such as quartz and feldspar, form adjacent to the biotite.

The Uranium and Thorium atoms inside a zircon decay through a series of intermediate elements to eventually become atoms of Lead. Many of the inter-mediate nuclei emit alpha particles, which are nuclei of Helium atoms. For zircons of the sizes we are considering, most of the fast-moving alpha particles slow to a stop within the zircon. Then they gather two electrons apiece from the surrounding crystal and become Helium atoms. Thus a Uranium 238 atom produces eight Helium atoms as it becomes a Lead 206 atom. (See diagram page 1.)

Helium atoms are lightweight, fast-moving, and do not form chemical bonds with other atoms. They move rapidly between the atoms of a material and spread themselves as far apart as possible. This process of diffusion, theoretically well-understood for over a century, makes Helium leak rapidly out of most materials.

Natural zircons still contain much Helium

In 1974, in the Jemez Mountains of northern New Mexico, geoscientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory drilled a borehole several miles deep into the hot, dry granitic rock to determine how suitable it would be as a geothermal energy source. They ground up samples from the rock cores, extracted the zircons, and measured the amount of Uranium, Thorium, and Lead in the crystals. From those data they calculated that 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay had taken place in the zircons,6 making the usual uniformitarian assumption that decay rates have always been constant.7

Then they sent core samples from the same borehole to Oak Ridge National Laboratory for analysis. At Oak Ridge, Robert Gentry (a well-known creationist) and his colleagues extracted the zircons, selected crystals between 50 and 75 µm (0.002 to 0.003 inches) long, and measured the total amount of Helium in them. They used the Los Alamos Uranium-Lead data to calculate the total amount of Helium the decay had produced in the zircons. Comparing the two values gave the percentage of Helium still retained in the zircons, which they published in 1982.8

Their results were remarkable. Up to 58 percent of the nuclear-decay-generated Helium had not diffused out of the zircons. The percentages decreased with increasing depth and temperature in the borehole. That confirms diffusion had been happening, because the rate of diffusion in any material increases strongly with temperature. Also, the smaller the crystal, the less Helium should be retained. These zircons were both tiny and hot, yet they had retained huge amounts of Helium!

Experiments verify RATE prediction

Many creationists believed it would be impossible for that much Helium to remain in the zircons after 1.5 billion years, but we had no measurements of diffusion rates to substantiate that belief. As of 2000 the only reported Helium diffusion data for zircons9 were ambiguous. So in that year, the RATE project commissioned experiments to measure Helium diffusion in zircon (as well as biotite) from the same borehole. The experimenter was one of the world's foremost experts in Helium diffusion measurements in minerals.

At the same time, we estimated the diffusion rates that would be necessary to get Gentry's observed Helium retentions for two different zircon ages: (a) 6000 years, and (b) 1.5 billion years. Then in the year 2000 we published the two sets of rates as "Creation" and "Evolution" models in our book outlining the RATE project goals.10

The next year, 2001, we received a preprint of a paper reporting data on zircons from another site. In 2002 we received zircon data for our site from our experimenter. Both sets of data cover a temperature range of 300º to 500º C, which is somewhat higher than the temperature range of Gentry's data and our prediction, 100º to 277º C. Both sets agree with each other and, while not overlapping our "Creation" model, both lined up nicely with it. We reported these data in a technical paper that the editors of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism11 accepted for publication in their Proceedings.12

In July 2003, just one month before the conference, we received a new set of zircon and biotite data from our experimenter. These data were much more useful to us, in three ways: (1) these zircons were 50 to 75 µm in length, (2) both zircons and biotite came from a 1490 meter depth, (3) the zircon diffusion rate data went down to 175º C. Items (1) and (2) mean that these zircons matched Gentry's exactly, being from the same borehole, rock unit, depth range, and size range. Item (3) means the diffusion rate data now extend well into the temperature range of our models.

These new data13 agree very well with our "Creation" model prediction, as the figure shows. Moreover, the diffusion rates are nearly 100,000 times higher than the maximum rates the "Evolution" model could allow, thus emphatically repudiating it.

New data closes loopholes

The experimenter also accurately measured the total amounts of Helium in both the zircons and in the surrounding flakes of biotite. This ties up some loose ends for our case: (1) The total amount of Helium in the zircons confirms Gentry's retention measurements very well. (2) Our measurements show that the Helium concentration was about 300 times higher in the zircons than in the surrounding biotite. This confirms that Helium was diffusing out of the zircons into the biotite, not the other way around. (3) The total amount of Helium in the biotite flakes (which are much larger than the zircons) is roughly equal to the amount the zircons lost.

Compare this situation to an hourglass whose sand represents the Helium atoms: We have data (from Uranium and Lead) for the original amount in the top (zircon), the present amount in the top, the present amount in the bottom (biotite), and the rate of trickling (diffusion) between them. That makes our case very strong that we are reading the Helium "hourglass" correctly.

The zircons are young

The new data allow us to calculate more exactly how long diffusion has been taking place. The result is 6000 (± 2000) years—about 250,000 times smaller than the alleged 1.5 billion year Uranium-Lead age. This and other exciting new developments in RATE projects are confirming our basic hypothesis: that God drastically speeded up decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the Genesis Flood and other brief periods in the earth's short history. Such accelerated nuclear decay collapses the uniformitarian "ages" down to the Scriptural timescale of thousands of years.

 

[fossten]

Science isn't 'poof there it is' that is creationist thinking.

You mean like the "Big Bang Theory?"

If there ever was a 'poof there it is', that would take first prize.

:lol: