De-Evolution is Alive and Well!

[chefmike]

De-Evolution is Alive and Well!


It's called creation evangelism... :roll:

Evangelist Ken Ham smiled at the 2,300 elementary students packed into pews, their faces rapt. With dinosaur puppets and silly cartoons, he was training them to reject much of geology, paleontology and evolutionary biology as a sinister tangle of lies.

"Boys and girls," Ham said. If a teacher so much as mentions evolution, or the Big Bang, or an era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, "you put your hand up and you say, 'Excuse me, were you there?' Can you remember that?"

The children roared their assent.

"Sometimes people will answer, 'No, but you weren't there either,' " Ham told them. "Then you say, 'No, I wasn't, but I know someone who was, and I have his book about the history of the world.' " He waved his Bible in the air.

Read the whole article here.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-creation11feb11,0,6286102,full.story

[Felicia Katt]

Perhaps in time the so-called Dark Ages will be thought of as including our own.
Georg C. Lichtenberg

FK

[Jasadin]

I wonder if Luis and Walter 'Alvarez hypothesis'get christian hate mail for causing all this confusion :)

[chefmike]

And so it goes...

Georgia Considers Bible as Textbook

By Patrik Jonsson, The Christian Science M-o-n-i-t-o-r :wink:

ATLANTA (March 27) - Decatur High School student Kurt Hughes wouldn't call himself religious. He's never even read the Bible.

But he wouldn't mind taking a class on the holy text if it were offered at his high school in Decatur, Ga. After all, "You look at 'The Old Man and the Sea,' 'King Arthur' and even 'The Matrix,' all have biblical allusions," the junior says. "It'd be useful to know exactly what's in it."

The Georgia legislature seems poised to endorse just such a course. Though students in many states enroll in classes related to the Bible, Georgia would become the first to require its Department of Education to put in place a curriculum to teach the history and literature of the Bible. Schools would use the book itself as the classroom textbook. Specifically the bill would establish electives on both the New and Old Testaments.

It has overwhelmingly passed both chambers, but needs a final vote on a minor House change. The vote is expected as early as Monday. If it passes, the state's Department of Education has a year to establish Bible elective courses in the curriculum.

In the late 1700s, Congress thought enough of the Bible as a textbook that it printed 40,000 copies. But the bold effort here in Georgia to use the Bible in today's secular curricula may be about presenting it as a moral code rather than a foundation to better understand the biblical allusions in literature, critics say.

"Behind this is the tension around the country about how to go about doing a Bible elective, and a lot is at stake," says Charles Haynes, director of the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va.

The Bible is already being used as a course study in as many as 1,000 American high schools, according to the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools in Greensboro, N.C. The US Supreme Court allows it as long as it's presented objectively, and not taught as fact. But the Georgia legislature's unprecedented decision to wade into what is usually a school district initiative has created concerns.

For example, the bill's use of terms such as Old and New Testament reflect a Protestant bias, some critics say. After all, Catholics and Jews have different interpretations and names for the tome. "To pick one is to suggest that is the right Bible, which is a school district making a faith statement," says Judith Schaeffer, a lawyer for People For the American Way, which works to maintain the separation of church and state.

Others worry that this trend - Alabama and Missouri are also considering statewide Bible study classes - is part of the broader culture war over the role of religion in civic life, and seeks to satisfy social conservatives rather than enlighten students.

"This is a political issue as much as it is a religious issue," says Frances Paterson, a professor at Valdosta State University who specializes in religion and public education. "I would guess that [its sponsors] hope that nobody is going to police this, and when people step over the line, it's going to be ignored, either because nobody's aware of it or they'd be intimidated into not objecting."

Its sponsors insist the bill aims to help students gain broader understanding about the underpinnings of Western culture, from Michelangelo to Hemingway.

"The biggest misconception is that this teaches the Bible when, in fact, it uses the Bible as the primary text to teach a course in history and literature influenced by the Bible," says a spokesman for Sen. Tommie Williams (R), the bill's sponsor.

The Bible was the most quoted source for the Founding Fathers, Bible scholars say.

The "New England Primer," with its heavy reliance on scriptural texts to teach reading and comprehension, instructed all presidents until James Garfield, according to Kenyn Cureton, of the Southern Baptist Convention, who studies early textbooks in US history.

"It's amazing that we have jettisoned the Bible from the classroom when it is the foundation of the Republic," says Dr. Cureton, a spokesman for the Convention with headquarters in Nashville, Tenn.

Many parents, however, may object to using the Bible as a textbook since doing so may expose their children to the book's various interpretations and criticism, some say.

"A great many people in Georgia are conservative Protestants who take the Bible literally, and that's going to be a problem if you have an academic study of the Bible...." says Dr. Paterson.


03-27-06


http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060327103409990005&cid=2194

[ezed]

I suppose if you want to engage in a long term war with the Moslems, you must be prepared to be as whacky as they are!

"WE HAVE A BOOK AND IT HAS MORE PAGES THAN YOURS! AND CAN BE JUST AS WHACKY! SO THERE, YOU PEOPLE WITHOUT INDOOR PLUMBING!!!!!"

[Trogdor]

*takes a nap in a ditch* :sleep

[blckhaze]

lol, im chistian, but i also believe in forms of evolution. im pretty sure there are parts of history outside of the bible, other wise the erth would have to be ALOT smaller

[InHouston]

I'm atheist and absolutely reject the Big Bang Theory as nonsense. That's just another form of creationism for scientists. The notion that the entire universe was packed into an area smaller than an atom is as absurd as the notion of a god creating the earth in seven days.

[SidChromeAU]

I take it, then, that physics wasn't your strong suit at school?

[trish]

InHousten said, "I'm atheist and absolutely reject the Big Bang Theory as nonsense. That's just another form of creationism for scientists. The notion that the entire universe was packed into an area smaller than an atom is as absurd as the notion of a god creating the earth in seven days. "

as long as "absurd" doesn't mean outright contradiction, i agree: one is as absurd as the other. but all the scientific evidence points to the former scenario and no evidence can be found for the latter. the universe, in 60's terminology, is mind expanding.

[InHouston]

I take it, then, that physics wasn't your strong suit at school?

I suppose then you believe in the theory of wormholes too. The Big Bang and wormholes are just theories, and while they can be argued to be mathematically plausible, it in no way serves as empirical evidence of their validity. No matter how elaborate a calculation may be, its premise can still be fundamentally incorrect.

Before the Wright brothers demonstrated controlled flight to the world, many engineers and physicists argued that mathematically it wasn’t possible for man to accomplish this. Some even argued that mathematically it would take thousands of years to accomplish this feat. One of the Wright brothers figured it out by twisting a cigar box in his hands while talking to a customer at their bicycle shop that led to warped-wing control.

Occam's Razor – The simpler answers tend to be the correct ones.

[InHouston]

InHousten said, "I'm atheist and absolutely reject the Big Bang Theory as nonsense. That's just another form of creationism for scientists. The notion that the entire universe was packed into an area smaller than an atom is as absurd as the notion of a god creating the earth in seven days. "

as long as "absurd" doesn't mean outright contradiction, i agree: one is as absurd as the other. but all the scientific evidence points to the former scenario and no evidence can be found for the latter. the universe, in 60's terminology, is mind expanding.

I'm not sure which side you're driving at here. However, there is no direct evidence of the Big Bang. It's just a theory.

[trish]

InHousten said, "I'm atheist and absolutely reject the Big Bang Theory as nonsense. That's just another form of creationism for scientists. The notion that the entire universe was packed into an area smaller than an atom is as absurd as the notion of a god creating the earth in seven days. "

as long as "absurd" doesn't mean outright contradiction, i agree: one is as absurd as the other. but all the scientific evidence points to the former scenario and no evidence can be found for the latter. the universe, in 60's terminology, is mind expanding.

I'm not sure which side you're driving at here. However, there is no direct evidence of the Big Bang. It's just a theory.Of course it's a theory. The hubble expansion, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the distribution of atomic abundances, all number among a growing list of quantitative evidence in its favor. i'm not sure what you mean by direct evidence and why direct evidence is a requirement for the acceptance of a hypothesis.

[InHouston]

InHousten said, "I'm atheist and absolutely reject the Big Bang Theory as nonsense. That's just another form of creationism for scientists. The notion that the entire universe was packed into an area smaller than an atom is as absurd as the notion of a god creating the earth in seven days. "

as long as "absurd" doesn't mean outright contradiction, i agree: one is as absurd as the other. but all the scientific evidence points to the former scenario and no evidence can be found for the latter. the universe, in 60's terminology, is mind expanding.

I'm not sure which side you're driving at here. However, there is no direct evidence of the Big Bang. It's just a theory.Of course it's a theory. The hubble expansion, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the distribution of atomic abundances, all number among a growing list of quantitative evidence in its favor. i'm not sure what you mean by direct evidence and why direct evidence is a requirement for the acceptance of a hypothesis.

Yes the Hubble expansion reveals that the universe is expanding in all directions. However, a balloon expands in all directions when you push air into it, yet no one can compact the balloon into a space smaller than an atom, and that’s just a balloon.

Cosmic microwave background radiation is just one of several electromagnetic frequencies that are prevalent throughout the cosmos.

Distribution of atomic abundances? Those same atomic abundances would be present if the universe were expanding or contracting.

To prove that the entire universe was compacted into a space smaller than an atom, would require you to compact the entire universe in a space smaller than an atom.

[trish]

InHousten said, "I'm atheist and absolutely reject the Big Bang Theory as nonsense. That's just another form of creationism for scientists. The notion that the entire universe was packed into an area smaller than an atom is as absurd as the notion of a god creating the earth in seven days. "

as long as "absurd" doesn't mean outright contradiction, i agree: one is as absurd as the other. but all the scientific evidence points to the former scenario and no evidence can be found for the latter. the universe, in 60's terminology, is mind expanding.

I'm not sure which side you're driving at here. However, there is no direct evidence of the Big Bang. It's just a theory.Of course it's a theory. The hubble expansion, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the distribution of atomic abundances, all number among a growing list of quantitative evidence in its favor. i'm not sure what you mean by direct evidence and why direct evidence is a requirement for the acceptance of a hypothesis.

Yes the Hubble expansion reveals that the universe is expanding in all directions. However, a balloon expands in all directions when you push air into it, yet no one can compact the balloon into a space smaller than an atom, and that’s just a balloon.

Cosmic microwave background radiation is just one of several electromagnetic frequencies that are prevalent throughout the cosmos.

Distribution of atomic abundances? Those same atomic abundances would be present if the universe were expanding or contracting.

To prove that the entire universe was compacted into a space smaller than an atom, would require you to compact the entire universe in a space smaller than an atom.1) A star of ten solar masses cannot ultimately resist collapse into a region smaller than an atom. The universe is a lot more massive than that.

2) Electromagnetic radiation is prevalent throughout the universe, but not cosmically uniform backgrounds of just the frequency predicted by the big bang hypothesis.

3) The quantitative distribution of atomic abundances depends on the density of the early universe and the time required for nuclei of varous complexities to form. The current abundances are predicted by the big bang model and would NOT be the same under all other circumstances.

[Quinn]

While I really enjoyed reading Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time," astrophysics definitely isn't my strong suit. That said, I am of the opinion that, at this point, there is substantially more evidence to support the Big Bang than any competing theory.

If you're looking for some really interesting reading, take a look at Einstein's work toward establishing a unified field theory.

-Quinn

[Felicia Katt]

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody
discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it
will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre
and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has
already happened"
Douglas Adams

FK

[BeardedOne]

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody
discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it
will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre
and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has
already happened"
Douglas Adams

Damn, I love that man's work and still kick myself for not jumping at the opportunity to talk to him when I saw him in Boston in 1980. :x

Because the human race is just one big ball o' whackos anyway, you can be sure that, two millenia down the road (If we haven't blown it up before then) someone is sure to be selling the Church at the End of the Universe theory and the words "So long, and thanks for all the fish" will be added to the standard funereal rites of most cultures.

[chefmike]

Scientists Call Fish Fossil the 'Missing Link'
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: April 5, 2006
Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.

In addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life.

article here-

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/science/05cnd-fossil.html?ex=1301889600&en=43e5c9ecb1dd0cd6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[chefmike]

It hasn't been a good week for the bible-bangers.... :)

Floating Ice May Explain How Jesus Walked on Water, Researchers Say

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 6, 2006; A03



Combining evidence of a cold snap 2,000 years ago with sophisticated mapping of the Sea of Galilee, Israeli and U.S. scientists have come up with a scientific explanation of how Jesus could have walked on water.

Their answer: It was actually floating ice.

The scientists acknowledge that the Sea of Galilee, in what is now northern Israel, has never frozen in modern times. But they say geological core samples suggest that average temperatures were lower in Jesus's day, and that there were at least two protracted cold spells in the region 1,500 to 2,500 years ago.

In addition to chilly weather, their explanation depends on a rare physical property of the Sea of Galilee, known to modern-day Israelis as Lake Kinneret. It is fed by salty springs along its western shore that produce plumes of dense water, thermally isolating areas that could freeze even if the entire lake did not, they assert.

"I don't know whether the story is based on someone seeing Jesus walk on ice," said Doron Nof, an Israel-born professor of oceanography at Florida State University. "All I know is that during that time, a freeze could have happened -- and it could have looked like someone was walking on water, particularly if it rained after the ice formed."

This is not the first time that Nof, 61, has attempted to debunk a biblical miracle. In 1992, he and Nathan Paldor, an atmospheric scientist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, wrote a scientific article proposing that strong winds across the narrow, shallow Gulf of Suez could have lowered the Red Sea by 10 feet, allowing the Israelites to cross to safety and then swallowing up an Egyptian army within a few minutes when the wind stopped, just as the book of Exodus says.

Nof, who described himself as a nonreligious Jew, said he hopes that critics will realize that he is an "equal opportunity miracle buster" who has taken on both Moses and Jesus.

"This isn't going to convince a believer not to believe, and nobody's trying to do that. At least, I'm not trying to do that," he said. "I personally believe that all these biblical stories are based on some truth."

To develop their theory of what they call "springs ice" on the Sea of Galilee, Nof and Paldor teamed up with Ian McKeague, a statistician at Columbia University. Their 23-page paper appears in this month's edition of the Journal of Paleolimnology, a peer-reviewed publication on the history of lakes.

In recent years, possible scientific explanations have also been proposed for several other Bible stories, including Noah's flood (seawater surging from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea as glaciers melted at the end of the last Ice Age) and Joshua's destruction of the walls of Jericho (an earthquake).

The reaction yesterday among biblical scholars to Nof's theory ranged from bemused detachment to real irritation.

"When I look at those verses, I don't need a scientific explanation. I'm a religious man, and I believe that God can do whatever he wants to do, that Jesus could do whatever he wanted to do," said Stanley M. Burgess, professor of Christian history at Regent University, an evangelical Christian school founded by Pat Robertson in Virginia Beach.

But Burgess added that he has "no problem at all" with scientists propounding alternative explanations for miracles. Rather than undercutting religious belief, such explanations may strengthen the faith of people who accept the gospel message but have difficulty accepting "signs and wonders" at face value, he said.

"If you need miracles to prop up your faith, then maybe your faith is weak to begin with," he said.

Wendy Cotter, professor of scripture at Loyola University Chicago, a Roman Catholic school, wrote her doctoral dissertation 15 years ago on biblical accounts of Jesus's stilling the wind and walking on the sea. When she heard about Nof's theory, she said, her first thought was: "Anything's possible -- but that's not what the writer means."

To the Romans, she said, the sea was "the ultimate force of nature, which was why the Caesars always claimed control over it." Jews in the time of Jesus also feared the sea and, moreover, were familiar with the Book of Job, in which God is described as the one who can "walk on the sea," she said.

In attributing to Jesus the power to walk across the waves, "Christians were using the imagery that had previously been used by both the Romans and the Jews to show that a person has been given authority by God," Cotter said. "Water, or ice, is not the point."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040501709_pf.html

[trish]

chefmike wrote:


Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.

In addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life.

It is an exciting discovery that promises to teach us quite a bit about the vertibrate transition from water to land; but i hardly think yet another rebuttal of creationist doctrine is required. Since it dropped out of the running as a serious hypothesis over a century ago, most biologists feel no need to refute creationism. What is required is a strategy that would allow the general public to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific knowledge. i confess, i don't have one. i usually wind up claiming irritably that creationism is less than a theory, it's a fantasy.

[chefmike]

Unholy shit! It's even goin' on across the pond!

Pupils 'confused by science lessons in creationism'
by LAURA CLARK, Daily Mail

07:57am 11th April 2006

Leading scientists have launched an unprecedented attack on the teaching of creationist theories in Tony Blair's flagship academies.
Britain's most prestigious scientific body, the Royal Society, said children were being confused by the teaching of the Bible's creation story in science lessons.

It follows a recent revival in creationist thinking, most notably in three schools supported by multi-millionaire car dealer and evangelical Christian Sir Peter Vardy.

In a statement issued today, the Royal Society defends Darwin's theory of evolution as the best explanation for life on earth.

It accuses the Government of failing in its duty to ensure pupils at state schools, including the academies, learn the value of genuine science.

The society says: "Science has proved enormously successful in advancing our understanding of the world, and young people are entitled to learn about scientific knowledge, including evolution.

"Young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs."

Sir Peter's charitable trust runs Emmanuel College in Gateshead, the King's Academy, Middlesbrough and Trinity Academy, Doncaster. A fourth school is in the pipeline.

Nigel McQuoid, director of schools at the Emmanuel Foundation, has said he believes the earth was created by God in six days.

A recent Channel 4 documentary showed former students at Emmanuel College saying that although they were taught the theory of evolution, teachers made no attempt to hide their bias towards creationism.

Other developments which have prompted the society's statement include the revelation that a new national science syllabus invites teachers to discuss creationist theories in GCSE lessons. Exams set by the OCR examination board - one of the main three in England - could require students to outline ideas which contradict evolution.

American advocates of the creationist off-shoot 'intelligent design' - which says nature is so complex that only an intelligent force could have made it - have also been attempting to promote their ideas in Britain.

Ministers, meanwhile, insist that creationism is not part of the school curriculum.

And the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said recently that the creation story was not worth teaching alongside the modern theory of evolution. He stated that classroom work should include the Bible only when 'discussing what creation means'.

However, the Royal Society is concerned that confusion remains. Its vice-president, Professor David Read, said it was 'timely' for the body to publish a 'clear statement' on creationism.

"There have been a number of media reports, particularly relating to an academy in North-East England, which have highlighted some confusion among young people, parents, teachers and scientists about how our education system allows the promotion of creationist beliefs in relation to scientific knowledge.

"Our Government is pursuing a flexible education system, but it should also be able to ensure and demonstrate that young people in maintained schools or academies are not taught that the scientific evidence supports creationism and intelligent design in the way that it supports evolution."

[chefmike]

I always suspected that Satan was behind the evolutionists and their propaganda...

Creationist descends on Britain to take debate on evolution into the classroom

By Sarah Cassidy, Education Correspondent
Published: 21 April 2006
A leading creationist who claims to use science to prove the Bible's version of how the Earth was made begins a controversial tour of Britain today.

John Mackay, an Australian geologist who believes he has uncovered fossil evidence which dismisses evolution and proves that Noah's flood really did happen will speak at several state schools and universities during his eight-week visit to the UK.

His visit has provoked anger among educationalists who are concerned about what they see as an increasing focus by evangelists on children.

They fear creationism - which rejects Darwin's theory of natural selection and insists that God created the world in six days - is becoming an increasingly accepted view in Britain's classrooms and lecture halls.

Mr Mackay will address meetings at St Andrews, Bangor and Northampton universities and plans to give presentations at a number of secondary schools, including most controversially one on the Fylde coast in Lancashire where he will give a series of talks over three days.

The visits have already sparked controversy with teaching unions, scientists and secular groups rushing to condemn the exposure of a captive audience of children to his views.

It follows a statement from scientists issued by the Royal Society arguing that creationism has no place in schools. It says pupils must understand that scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution.

Steve Jones, the award-winning geneticist and author, argued that suggesting that creationism and evolution be given equal weight in education was "rather like starting genetics lectures by discussing the theory that babies are brought by storks".

As its supporters have become more vocal, creationism has become an increasingly contentious subject in the UK. The Archbishop of Canterbury recently warned that creationism should not be taught in schools, and the National Union of Teachers last week demanded new laws to prevent the teaching of creationism in science lessons.

Organisers of the trip declined to reveal the name and exact location of the Lancashire school on Mr Mackay's speaking tour, citing the need to protect staff and pupils from unwelcome attention.

One worried local resident said to the Blackpool Citizen: "Why is the location being kept secret? Why are parents, teachers and governors not being informed? Why is a man whose background cannot be verified being given three-day access to a secondary school?"

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society said he was appalled that Mr Mackay would be lecturing at the school.

"Giving a creationist three days to indoctrinate a captive audience of pupils is verging on intellectual child abuse," he said. "Who else but someone bent on brainwashing their pupils would invite a creationist to... for three days without any balancing scientist?

"If I were a parent I would be calling for a new headteacher.

"Adults can make up their own minds whether they want to embrace science or anti-science, but where children are concerned we must be absolutely clear that creationism will not be presented to them as an alternative to real science.

"Evolution has a mile-high stack of evidence to support it, creationism has only wishful thinking."

Mr Mackay's organisation, Creation Research, says it "exists to seek evidence for the biblical account of creation" and that it has already discovered proof in the earth's crust.

Mr Mackay, who has a geology degree, has conducted digs around the world where he has excavated fossils which he claims prove that the Bible was literal truth.

His website argues that the theory of evolution was introduced by Satan and that the idea has already undermined Western society and must not be allowed to spread to the Third World.

"Satan has only recently begun introducing evolution to Third World countries in order to destroy missionary enterprise," it states. "Let's get in first with our spiritual armour on and provide Third World missionaries and others with the weapons to do battle against the subtleties of Satan as he seeks to undermine confidence in God's Word and missionary enterprise."

Mr Mackay's trip will also include two debates with academics, who will argue against his ideas. Jeff Ollerton, lecturer in ecology specialising in plant evolution at Northampton University, who will debate with Mr Mackay, said he had sympathy with those who felt that creationists should not be given a platform, but as a scientist he felt obliged to expose the falsity of the creationists' argument.

"My position is that anyone is allowed to believe whatever they want," he said. "If they want to believe the earth is flat or that it's 10,000 years old or that life was created in six days that's up to them. But it's not just a matter of their personal beliefs. They are people who are trying to influence government policy and influence the school curriculum."

Randall Hardy, Mr Mackay's spokesman in the UK, expressed dismay that leading critics of creationism, such as the zoologist Richard Dawkins, had refused invitations to debate the issue.

"These people are not just scientists, they are atheists," he said. "Their arguments do not come from pure science but from their interpretation of the evidence in order to back their beliefs."

A science teacher who claims that fossils back the Bible

John Mackay converted to Christianity when he was an undergraduate at the University of Queensland.

His UK spokesman, Randall Hardy, says: "He was converted by reading a book on geology written by an atheist which made particular fun of the biblical position. From this, he started reading the Bible and was totally convinced by it."

Mr Mackay, who is in his late 50s, taught science in state and private schools in Queensland as well as lecturing in geology to higher education students at technical colleges.

He was a founder of Creation Science Foundation in Brisbane and a director of CSF until 1987 when he resigned and established his own creationist organisation, Creation Research, also based in Brisbane. His organisation is not linked to any denomination and is funded solely by public donations.

For more than 30 years Mr Mackay has travelled the world excavating fossils on digs in the US, Britain, Europe, the Caribbean, New Zealand, Australia, Pacific islands and Asia. The expeditions were looking for evidence for creation, Noah's flood and the Tower of Babel.

He believes he and his supporters have discovered evidence that proves that these were real events rather than biblical allegories.

Mr Mackay has just finished tours of Canada and the US.

Answering the big questions

1 HOW DID LIFE ON EARTH DEVELOP?

Creationists say:

Refer to Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Creationists believe that the Bible is the literal truth and the written word of God. They believe the account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events. Thus they believe that the world was created in six days by God.

Evolutionists say:

All life on earth originated by natural processes, which can be explained by science, and that all speciesdeveloped from simpler forms by natural selection. Evolution is a change in traits of living organisms over generations. The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, set out in 1859 by Charles Darwin, above, in The Origin of Species, .

2 HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

Creationists say:

If you add up the dates in Genesis, Adam was created between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Hence the Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.

Evolutionists say:

The whole universe and life itself arose by chance billions of years ago. The Big Bang theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe, which claims the universe was created between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion.

3 WHAT DO FOSSILS TELL US?

Creationists say:

The fossil record provides no proof of the evolution of different species. There is a continuing lack of evidence for evolution despite an enormous number of fossils.

Evolutionists say:

Fossil evidence supports the common descent hypothesis: that different species have developed from a common root. The fossil record allows us to trace the history of a species showing how it has changed over time.


http://education.independent.co.uk/news/article359111.ece

[trish]

Sarah Cassidy in the article above summarizes some of the beliefs of Creationists and "Evolutionists". According to her


Creationists say:

Refer to Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Creationists believe that the Bible is the literal truth and the written word of God. They believe the account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events. Thus they believe that the world was created in six days by God.


i wonder which of the two versions of creation to be found in Genesis is literally true; the one where Eve is formed from Adam's rib or the other one?

Also according to Cassidy


Evolutionists say:

All life on earth originated by natural processes, which can be explained by science, and that all speciesdeveloped from simpler forms by natural selection. Evolution is a change in traits of living organisms over generations. The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, set out in 1859 by Charles Darwin, above, in The Origin of Species, .

Most scientists will admit that many of the chemical and physical processes leading to the development of life on Earth will never be understood in detail. Though there is hope that we will eventually have a broad general understanding of life's origins. I recommend Christain de Duve's book Live Evolving.

Cassidy also reports


Mr Mackay, who has a geology degree, has conducted digs around the world where he has excavated fossils which he claims prove that the Bible was literal truth.

His website argues that the theory of evolution was introduced by Satan and that the idea has already undermined Western society and must not be allowed to spread to the Third World.

Gee...i knew the idea of evolution predated Darwin, but I never heard of this Satan dude. Odd he's not credited in the text books.

[chefmike]

Meanwhile, back on this side of the pond...

See You in Bible Class
Georgia plans to teach the Good Book in schools.


By Sarah Childress
Newsweek
May 1, 2006 issue - Fresh from a bruising federal court fight over the teaching of evolution, Georgia marched back into the culture wars last week when Gov. Sonny Perdue signed a bill allowing Bible classes in public high schools. An estimated 8 percent of the nation's schools offer some form of Bible study. But the Georgia law is the first to set statewide guidelines and earmark public dollars for a Bible course. Five other states are considering similar measures. Georgia's school board has until February 2007 to decide how the courses should be taught, and forces on both sides of the issue are bracing for a messy battle.

the rest of this article here-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12440797/site/newsweek/

[Trogdor]

It's like when the white men first set foot on the americas.

Might as well go make one big state out of the south, they all vote togather like that anyways, frm georgia, up to around tennesee and called the whole thing either Dixxie or Jesusland. :roll:

[SkankyTrannyAnna]

I'm atheist and absolutely reject the Big Bang Theory as nonsense. That's just another form of creationism for scientists. The notion that the entire universe was packed into an area smaller than an atom is as absurd as the notion of a god creating the earth in seven days.

Is it absurd like how those tiny dots in the night sky are balls of gas about 1,300,000 times the size of the earth? Is it absurd like how the flat ground under your feet is actually a sphere which people are stood upright on the opposite side of? Is it absurd like how the sun and moon are not the same size? Is it absurd like how a whale and a fish aren't the same kind of animal. Is it absurd like how actually a whale and fish actually are the same kind of animal, but so is a giraffe?

Argument from incredulity is one of the poorest arguments ever.

Simple fact is, reality and common sense are more likely to be at odds with each other than not.

[BBaggins06]

Yeah, it's almost as absurd as reanimating a 5 year old thread where the majority of posters left long ago. Chef Mike, where art thou? :)