Visit the Cellar!

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: bright folks talking about everything. The Cellar is the original coffeeshop with no coffee and no shop. Founded in 1990, The Cellar is one of the oldest communities on the net. Join us at the table if you like!

 
What's IotD?

The interesting, amazing, or mind-boggling images of our days.

IotD Stuff

ARCHIVES - over 13 years of IotD!
About IotD
RSS2
XML

Permalink Latest Image

Nov 17th, 2017 : Macrophotography

Recent Images

Nov 16th, 2017 : Animals in War
Nov 15th, 2017: Commie Food
Nov 14th, 2017: Bat Soup
Nov 13th, 2017: Disaster Memorials
Nov 12th, 2017: Strange Jazz
Nov 11th, 2017: Rats
Nov 10th, 2017: Roy Benavidez

The CELLAR Tip Mug
Some folks who have noticed IotD

Neatorama
Worth1000
Mental Floss
Boing Boing
Switched
W3streams
GruntDoc's Blog
No Quarters
Making Light
darrenbarefoot.com
GromBlog
b3ta
Church of the Whale Penis
UniqueDaily.com
Sailor Coruscant
Projectionist

Link to us and we will try to find you after many months!

Common image haunts

Astro Pic of the Day
Earth Sci Pic of the Day
We Make Money Not Art
Spluch
ochevidec.net
Strange New Products
Geisha Asobi Blog
Cute animals blog (in Russian)
20minutos.es
Yahoo Most Emailed

Please avoid copyrighted images (or get permission) when posting!

Advertising

Philadelphia Pawn Shop
The best real estate agent in Montgomery County
The best T.38 Fax provider
Epps Beverages and Beer, Limerick, PA
Sal's Pizza, Elkins Park
Burholme Auto Body, Philadelphia
Coles Tobacco, Pottstown
ERM Auto Service, Glenside
Glenside Collision
Moorehead Catering, Trappe
Salon 153, Bala
Dominicks Auto Body, Phoenixville

   Undertoad  Tuesday May 10 03:47 PM

5/10/2005: Dinosaur tracks



A recent earth sci pic of the day, sent along by xoB, these are dinosaur tracks. The EPOD caption:

The photo above showing dinosaur footprints on a limestone slab was taken in the Fumanya Coal Mine, near the city of Berga (Catalogna) in northern Spain. This large surface layer of Maestrichtian (upper Cretaceous) lacustrine limestone was exposed during mining activity. Fumanya Mine is located in the southern Pyrenees Mountains. The numerous alignments of rounded traces which can be observed here are tracks of dinosaur footprints. Given the size and the general shape of their footprints, these animals were probably sauropods -- large plant eating dinosaurs. Note also the superb network of small- scale offset faults that crosscut the structural surface.



glatt  Tuesday May 10 04:15 PM

I've got no sense of the scale of this thing from the picture. Those look like a house cat's tracks to me.



jaguar  Tuesday May 10 04:16 PM

now remember everybody, these were put here by THE ALMIGHTY LORD to test our faith.

glatt - picture is taken from above, probably a shopper, the area shot is about 20m wide.



glatt  Tuesday May 10 04:43 PM

I'm an idiot. I didn't see the scale in the corner.



mrnoodle  Tuesday May 10 05:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaguar
now remember everybody, these were put here by THE ALMIGHTY LORD to test our faith.
Erm, I'm pretty sure they were put there by big lizards. Your newfound acceptance of the concept of God is heartening, though. Rough around the edges, but it's a start.


sandra77  Tuesday May 10 06:18 PM

What a great picture!! Of course, dinosaurs are one of my favorite things. I would love to see this in real life.

Sandra



xoxoxoBruce  Tuesday May 10 10:05 PM

Spain awaits, Madam.



Troubleshooter  Wednesday May 11 09:13 AM

All we need now is for one of the dragon prints to have a human footprint in it and we'll be done.



wolf  Wednesday May 11 11:34 AM

There was a "creation archeologist" who was caught chiseling toe prints into some dinosaur tracks to make them look more like human footprints back in the 80s.



Troubleshooter  Wednesday May 11 12:26 PM

Any way to point me in a direction to cite that? I'd heard about the footprint in a footprint thing, but I never really looked into it.



lookout123  Wednesday May 11 12:37 PM

i'm sure it is true, there are idiots abundant in every religion and philosophy. and that guy deserved to catch a chisel between the eyes.

but seriously, don't you get tired of dogging people who hold faith in a higher power than themselves? it goes in spurts around here. nothing for awhile, and then several threads will careen off into christian bashing. quite often people who call themselves christians deserve to be slapped around for being stupid - but i don't see how that justifies ridicule of those that choose to follow Christ's teachings.

i'm not very good analogies but here goes: TW is an engineer who has liberal leanings. I disagree with TW on damn near everything. Should I then feel justified in ridiculing all liberal, or all engineers as stupid arrogant jackasses who...? or can i just realize that TW is one person who makes his own choices and it would be unfair to judge all by the actions of one?

edit: reread my post and thought i should clarify. TW - i do not think you are stupid. arrogant, sure. jackass, maybe. it was just an awkward analogy.



Happy Monkey  Wednesday May 11 01:14 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by lookout123
but seriously, don't you get tired of dogging people who hold faith in a higher power than themselves? it goes in spurts around here. nothing for awhile, and then several threads will careen off into christian bashing. quite often people who call themselves christians deserve to be slapped around for being stupid - but i don't see how that justifies ridicule of those that choose to follow Christ's teachings.
"People who try to put young-Earth creationism into public schools" doesn't have much to do with "people who hold faith in a higher power than themselves". Personally, I only have an issue with people who try to enforce something they call christianity on everyone else. If gays were running around trying to force everyone to marry someone of the same sex, I'd have the same problem with them. Or if the wiccans were trying to put Goddess stories into history books. Or if Jews were trying to ban non-kosher foods.


mlandman  Wednesday May 11 01:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
"People who try to put young-Earth creationism into public schools" doesn't have much to do with "people who hold faith in a higher power than themselves". Personally, I only have an issue with people who try to enforce something they call christianity on everyone else. If gays were running around trying to force everyone to marry someone of the same sex, I'd have the same problem with them. Or if the wiccans were trying to put Goddess stories into history books. Or if Jews were trying to ban non-kosher foods.
This one time, at wiccan camp...


OnyxCougar  Wednesday May 11 01:59 PM

As a literal creationist, I don't think Creationist views should be in public school at all.

Nor should Evolution as origin of man.

At the school-age level, no origin of man need be discussed at all.

It is not up to our schools to indoctrinate our children in ANY religion, humanist or otherwise.



And the tracks you refer to that were faked are the paluxy tracks.



mlandman  Wednesday May 11 02:04 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
It is not up to our schools to indoctrinate our children in ANY religion, humanist or otherwise.
Evolution isn't religion, humanist or otherwise. Nor is the presence of dinosaurs.

-mike


lookout123  Wednesday May 11 02:20 PM

at the risk of permanently derailing this thread with the ongoing cellarite obsession with creationism vs. evolution...

OC - i think it is important to teach what is known and believed about origins in the schools.

-evolution as it is understood should be taught - as the theory that it is. be clear about what is fact, and what is currently unproven.
-creationism shouldn't be taught in the schools. i believe in a Creator. the creator you believe in may not be the same as mine.

---what i absolutely do not support is the method of teaching evolution that my beloved teacher (who was also one of my wrestling coaches) used. "ok, class. raise your hand if you believe in a god. keep your hands up if you believe that you he created the world. ok. now keep your hands up if you believe that you were created in his image... *surveys the room* well, those of you with your hands in their should understand that you are the very definition of stupidity."

- it is possible to teach evolution and acknowledge that there are other ideas out there. it is for the parents to teach their children creationism if they so choose. it is not for a teacher to ridicule a student who believes in a creator. it is not for a teacher to misrepresent what is fact and theory in evolution.



Beestie  Wednesday May 11 02:20 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
Nor should Evolution as origin of man.
At one point, the "theory" that the earth revolved around the sun was advanced because there was some pretty decent evidence to back it up. The church was convinced that the earth was the center of the universe. The church fucked up and, 300-400 years later, finally came to terms with it.

There is a boatload more evidence to support the idea that man evolved from a lower species and that the universe is ±13B years old than there is to support the 6-day version and your stubborn reluctance to acknowledge that is nothing short of baffling. Much of what Jesus taught was "dumbed down" into parables and metaphors so that the people could understand - without a loss in clarity or meaning. Yet, the story of Genesis - a story without witnesses - which isn't even a doctrinal matter - and you treat each word as though they were tax form instructions.

Doesn't that also mean that only 144,000 people get to go to heaven?

Literalism cannot be applied to the Bible.


Troubleshooter  Wednesday May 11 02:21 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
And the tracks you refer to that were faked are the paluxy tracks.
Thanks


OnyxCougar  Wednesday May 11 02:23 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlandman
Evolution isn't religion, humanist or otherwise. Nor is the presence of dinosaurs.

-mike
Evolution as pertaining to origins *is* most assuredly a religion. See the thread in Philosophy to continue that argument.


lookout123  Wednesday May 11 02:25 PM

Quote:
Doesn't that also mean that only 144,000 people get to go to heaven?
not to nitpick, but that isn't in the Bible. 144,000 does refer to the Jews who will become followers of Christ post second-coming. these 144,000 will spend the coming years gathering as much of the Jewish nation to Christ as they can. there is no mention of how many people can go to heaven in the Bible.

there are some christian denominations that have gotten some bizarre ideas that THEY are the 144,000. (LDS, 7thday adventists, etc.)

some people have even been known to take fragments of Biblical teachings out of context. shocking, i know.


wolf  Wednesday May 11 02:43 PM

Where do you want them to learn about evolution, OC? On the street? The internet? I don't think it's a topic that one can reasonably hold off until college.



mlandman  Wednesday May 11 02:47 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
Evolution as pertaining to origins *is* most assuredly a religion. See the thread in Philosophy to continue that argument.
We disagree. It is obviously a hot topic amongst religious debates. It is clearly related to subject matter that most religions teach. It is absolutely controversial. However, I don't think it's 'a religion'.

Wiccans (silly bastards) are a religion, I suppose. And if one wants to treat the 'earth mother' as a 'religion' I *****suppose***** that might make sense.

"evolution" is NOT a religion. It's like saying that 'baptism' is a religion. Baptism is a practice within Christianity. Christianity is a religion.

Evolution is NOT a religion.

-mike


jaguar  Wednesday May 11 02:58 PM

Quote:
but seriously, don't you get tired of dogging people who hold faith in a higher power than themselves? it goes in spurts around here. nothing for awhile, and then several threads will careen off into christian bashing.
Lately it's mostly been me. Why? Few reasons:
More stuff about a new party back in Australia that tried to make abortion and creationism election issues. The whole Kansas 're-defining science' shit. Some groups pushing the creationist thing over here. mrnoodle.

I said it in the above thread, I don't give a fuck what people believe but I'm sick to the teeth of them trying to thrust their wacky fucking views on everyone else. I mean just look at OnyxCougar 2 posts above trying to claim that a scientific theory is religion for fucks sake. These people and this battle are in danger of becoming the defining cultural struggle of the 21st century, the rational verses the religious. it's not about love thy neighbour it's about trying to stop thy neighbour marrying his same-sex partner or forcing my religion down the throats of thy neighbour's son in public-funded schools or stopping thy neighbour having an abortion. As far as I and many others are concerned there is no more place for this shit in politics than there is sharia law or any other religious code.

While your teacher might've gone a little far lookout why in hell should time be given in a classroom to anything other than scientific theory?. Should the class on the solar system be prefaced with - 'this is only a scientific theory, some people think the earth is a disk that sits on the back of four elephants that in turn stand on a gigantic turtle swimming though space'? Why not? Comes from the teachers of another fucking huge religion.


lookout123  Wednesday May 11 03:09 PM

Jag, i didn't say creationism should be taught in school. i stated that teachers should teach fact as fact and theory as theory. too many teachers don't know or don't acknowledge that even evolution proponents know that there are holes in it - holes that they hope to fill with future discovery. so unless it is proven - evolution is a theory with parts of it that are hard fact. teach it as such. and don't ridicule students who have been entrusted to you that see in those holes support for their belief system, be it creationist or otherwise.

as far as the christian bashing thing... you're going to do whatever you want but i, for one, would appreciate if you would limit your bashing to those that step up and do something stupid rather than just blasting - in general terms- all those who follow Christ. it just gets old



jaguar  Wednesday May 11 03:24 PM

there are holes. There are holes in physics too but I don't see the value in teaching that either. It's the best, most complete and most empirically supported scientific theory. That is what should be taught, nothing more, nothing less. All science is theory outside laws, students should understand that implicitly.

as for the bashing, as a rule I do, this was just a once-off vent.



OnyxCougar  Wednesday May 11 03:48 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beestie
Literalism cannot be applied to the Bible.
Then there was no reason for Jesus to exist, no saving grace, and absolutely no reason for Christianity or Judaism either.


Or you're wrong.


OnyxCougar  Wednesday May 11 03:48 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlandman
We disagree. It is obviously a hot topic amongst religious debates. It is clearly related to subject matter that most religions teach. It is absolutely controversial. However, I don't think it's 'a religion'.

Wiccans (silly bastards) are a religion, I suppose. And if one wants to treat the 'earth mother' as a 'religion' I *****suppose***** that might make sense.

"evolution" is NOT a religion. It's like saying that 'baptism' is a religion. Baptism is a practice within Christianity. Christianity is a religion.

Evolution is NOT a religion.

-mike

Please see E v C debate in Philosophy Forum.


hot_pastrami  Wednesday May 11 03:50 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by lookout123
Jag, i didn't say creationism should be taught in school. i stated that teachers should teach fact as fact and theory as theory. too many teachers don't know or don't acknowledge that even evolution proponents know that there are holes in it - holes that they hope to fill with future discovery.
The following is from an excellent Scientific American article:

Quote:
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
So when scienists call it the "theory" of evolution, it doesn't mean it's based on guesses and conjecture... it it based on real evidence, experimentation, and observation over a long period of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
Evolution as pertaining to origins *is* most assuredly a religion. See the thread in Philosophy to continue that argument.
Suggesting that evolution is a religion is just silly, unless you're using the "to pursue with zeal" definition of the word. Evolution is the explanation that fits the observable facts completely, without exception. If any evidence is ever brought to light which contradicts evolution, science will adjust or discard the theory as appropriate. In contrast, most religions are full of ambiguities, contradictory statements, and outright disprovable notions... yet these are dismissed with empty excuses such as "God works in mysterious ways."

It is an important distinction that science will always take ALL evidence into account to reach conclusions, and alter those conclusions if new evidence gives them reason to; whereas religion holds tight to all beliefs, no matter now many facts may completely contradict them.


glatt  Wednesday May 11 03:52 PM

In every science class I ever took, the first day of class covered the scientific method. Even my 5 year old kindergarten girl has learned about the scientific method. Why would you stop and say "this is just a theory" for the theory of evolution but not for every other theory? As jaguar said, everything in science is a theory except for a few basic laws. Does the teacher need to start each class saying "everything I'm going to teach today is just a theory?"



Troubleshooter  Wednesday May 11 04:01 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
Then there was no reason for Jesus to exist, no saving grace, and absolutely no reason for Christianity or Judaism either.
Not at all. People need a model to live by. Fictional or not is the question, not whether it was needed at one point or another.

It's just that some people eventually evolve cognitively to the point of being able to realize that and to differentiate.


OnyxCougar  Wednesday May 11 04:12 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaguar
I said it in the above thread, I don't give a fuck what people believe but I'm sick to the teeth of them trying to thrust their wacky fucking views on everyone else. I mean just look at OnyxCougar 2 posts above trying to claim that a scientific theory is religion for fucks sake.
We've had this discussion on the EvC thread. A religion as defined is a set of beliefs that cannot be proven. Therefore the origins portion of the evolutionary theory is a relgion.

Quote:
These people and this battle are in danger of becoming the defining cultural struggle of the 21st century, the rational verses the religious.
I noticed the inference that if you're religious you can't be rational. That's simply not true.

Quote:
it's not about love thy neighbour it's about trying to stop thy neighbour marrying his same-sex partner or forcing my religion down the throats of thy neighbour's son in public-funded schools or stopping thy neighbour having an abortion.
I want it noted here that I don't want to stop gay marriage. I don't want to throw ANY religion (including humanism) down any child's throat in school. I don't want to stop your neighbor having an abortion. Those are all things (marriage and abortion) I firmly believe the persons in question should choose, and have the right to do.

Quote:
As far as I and many others are concerned there is no more place for this shit in politics than there is sharia law or any other religious code.
I agree. 100%

Quote:
While your teacher might've gone a little far lookout why in hell should time be given in a classroom to anything other than scientific theory?. Should the class on the solar system be prefaced with - 'this is only a scientific theory, some people think the earth is a disk that sits on the back of four elephants that in turn stand on a gigantic turtle swimming though space'? Why not? Comes from the teachers of another fucking huge religion.
Why do you have to talk about origins at all? Literal Creationists (generally) are not against science. Not at all. Repeatable, observable science SHOULD be taught to every school age child. Speculation and guesswork and exegesis should NOT.

If you give time to humanism, it's only fair and right that you give time to christianity, wicca, hinduism, buddhism, and other creation stories. Otherwise leave them ALL out. Including evolutionary origins.


OnyxCougar  Wednesday May 11 04:19 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot_pastrami
It is an important distinction that science will always take ALL evidence into account to reach conclusions, and alter those conclusions if new evidence gives them reason to; whereas religion holds tight to all beliefs, no matter now many facts may completely contradict them.

That is patently untrue and I defer you to the scientists at AiG who are just as qualified as the secular scientists, and hold a completely different viewpoint.

http://www.answersingenesis.org

And I don't want to rehash this all here. It's been done to death. I stand by the EvC thread, and if you want to rejoin that old argument there, have at it.

(However, your post DOES confirm the notion that even though scientists call it a theory, they put it forth and believe it is a fact. All the people who posted here and said "it's just a theory" should take note. They don't posit it as a theory, they posit it as a fact. I have a problem with that.)


OnyxCougar  Wednesday May 11 04:36 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubleshooter
Not at all. People need a model to live by. Fictional or not is the question, not whether it was needed at one point or another.

It's just that some people eventually evolve cognitively to the point of being able to realize that and to differentiate.
Think again.

If Genesis is not literal truth, then the bible can't be trusted, sin happened before Adam and Eve, and therefore, when Jesus referred to Genesis, he was quoting an allgorial story, meaning you can't trust him either, and if he is NOT who he says was, then God isn't who he said HE was, and there is no point to three of the world's major religions.

Radiometric dating is inaccurate. The CREATOR of radiometric dating even says it is wildly inaccurate.

The Geological column does not exist anywhere but textbooks.

Scientists date layers of rock by fossils found there and date fossils by layers of rock they are found in. ??

There are evidences of a young earth that scientists can't disprove.

It all hinges on what your starting bias is.....


jaguar  Wednesday May 11 04:44 PM

Quote:
A religion as defined is a set of beliefs that cannot be proven. Therefore the origins portion of the evolutionary theory is a relgion.
You're playing semantics. Prove is a very strong word. Look at mathamatics, just because 1+1 = 2 seems logical enough doesn't mean you've proven it. You cannot, ever 'prove' evolutionary theory in relation to the development humans, not in a way that would satisfy the likes of you. We have an ever-more-complete fossil tree with ever fewer gaps showing the gradual development of hundreds of species, including humans. This is part of the emperical evidence that makes evolutionary theory in the descent of humans a theory, not religion. It's based on analysis of the evidence, if a better theory is developed tomorrow so be it, science will accept it. There is however, no evidence that will convince people like you to change their minds. That is why evolutionary development of humans and other species is not religion. And creationism is. It's also why one should be taught in schools, along side other theories like the big bang, particle physics, quantum mechanics etc. It is put forward as fact because it is the best theory, if the theory changed, what is put forward would change. It would still be put forward as fact. Why do you find that so hard to accept?

Also: Answers in Genisis is full of shit. It's not linked to by one reputable scientific site, not just because it isn't scientific but because it tends to quote scientists and papers out of context to help makes its points. It's not run by qualified scientists but by a creationists out to prove an agenda by fudging the truth and building straw men.


Troubleshooter  Wednesday May 11 04:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
If Genesis is not literal truth, then the bible can't be trusted, sin happened before Adam and Eve, and therefore, when Jesus referred to Genesis, he was quoting an allgorial story, meaning you can't trust him either, and if he is NOT who he says was, then God isn't who he said HE was, and there is no point to three of the world's major religions.
Exactly, except for the whole no point thing. Religion serves a purpose, the same purpose as law. Social control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
The CREATOR of radiometric dating even says it is wildly inaccurate.
Cite please. And considering the evolution of technology since RCD was developed make sure he's talking about the new gear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
The Geological column does not exist anywhere but textbooks.
I'm sure we can tie this in with RCD above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
Scientists date layers of rock by fossils found there and date fossils by layers of rock they are found in. ??
RCD, again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
There are evidences of a young earth that scientists can't disprove.
Cite please and remember that you can't disprove anything, you can only show a lack of evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
It all hinges on what your starting bias is.....
And it helps to be biased towards reality, wouldn't you think?


OnyxCougar  Wednesday May 11 05:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaguar
You're playing semantics.
No I'm not. Read the EvC thread again.

Quote:
Prove is a very strong word. Look at mathamatics, just because 1+1 = 2 seems logical enough doesn't mean you've proven it. You cannot, ever 'prove' evolutionary theory in relation to the development humans, not in a way that would satisfy the likes of you.
You mean, with proof? No. You can't prove it to satisfy the likes of me. Because it is unprovable. You have no evidence, only conjecture, unsubstatiated claims and incomplete fragments of fossils that in some cases (Lucy) the bones were found miles away from each other.

Is any of that proof? Not to me, and it shouldn't be for you, either.

Quote:
We have an ever-more-complete fossil tree with ever fewer gaps showing the gradual development of hundreds of species, including humans.
Wrong again. We have known evidence of faked fossils, we have incomplete skeletons with bones found miles from each other, slapped together and called "proof". We have Haegel's drawing, still used in textbooks today, which were proven to be fraudulent, and for which he was censured for.

There have been fakes and frauds on both sides of this argument, no one is above independant verification. The FACT is that evolutionary origins CANNOT be proven, in the way the scientific method states it must be proven to be fact. You can guess, you can try to piece together the way you think it may have happened, but it cannot be proven. There is no silver bullet piece of evidence, jag, there just ISN'T.

At the Scopes trial, it went completely the opposite of the way it was depicted in "Inherit the Wind" Read the court transcripts. I did.

Quote:
This is part of the emperical evidence that makes evolutionary theory in the descent of humans a theory, not religion. It's based on analysis of the evidence, if a better theory is developed tomorrow so be it, science will accept it.
They say that, but it's not true. It's been proven scientifically that layers of rock like what has been observed all over the world and supposedly taken millions of years can be laid down in 20. It's been proven that mutations occur much faster than originally thought, it doesn't take millions of years. It's also been proven over and over again that species cannot mutate the way they would have had to do it the way evolution says they did, because WHOLE systems would have had to mutate at the same time for the creature to live, and that isn't how geneticists say it works.

Quote:
There is however, no evidence that will convince people like you to change their minds.
That's right, because there IS no evidence. Show me the money.

Quote:
That is why evolutionary development of humans and other species is not religion. And creationism is.
If you can't prove it, it's a belief. A set of unprovable beliefs is a relgion.

Quote:
It's also why one should be taught in schools, along side other theories like the big bang,
also a theory, not provable in the slightest

Quote:
particle physics, quantum mechanics etc. It is put forward as fact because it is the best theory, if the theory changed, what is put forward would change. It would still be put forward as fact. Why do you find that so hard to accept?
Because it's ALREADY BEEN PROVEN WRONG and HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED.

Quote:
Also: Answers in Genisis is full of shit. It's not linked to by one reputable scientific site, not just because it isn't scientific
oh bullshit it's not scientific.

Quote:
but because it tends to quote scientists and papers out of context to help makes its points.
obviously you have not seriously looked at the site. in fact it has MANY scientific speakers and debate it quotes in FULL and still manages to prove evolution has gaping holes in it.

Quote:
It's not run by qualified scientists
they have degrees from major universities from all over the world in astrophysics, geology, astronomy, paleontology, just about every -ology you can think of. What exactly makes them not qualified?

Quote:
but by a creationists out to prove an agenda by fudging the truth and building straw men.
Yes, they are out to prove evolution is full of crap. And they have the ssame credentials secular scientists do.

Scientists who come out with the fact they are creationist are blacklisted, and in fact, there are reports that they are not allowed to even publish if it does not fall in line with evolutionist theory. Many times, grants are withheld if a scientist comes out as Creationist. No wonder nothing is linked off of other sites, but jag, that doesn't make it less correct.

If I was the most evolutionary thinker in the world, and I'm not linked by another site with different views, does that mean I'm wrong? Of course not. That's a dumb criteria.

You're not thinking.


lumberjim  Wednesday May 11 05:32 PM

OC, why do you keep having this argument in THIS thread? why don;t you take it over to that Evolution vs. Creationism thread we had a while back?



OnyxCougar  Wednesday May 11 05:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubleshooter
Exactly, except for the whole no point thing. Religion serves a purpose, the same purpose as law. Social control.
I agree, organized relgion does serve that purpose. But someone with half a brain that thinks even remotely linearly cannot believe the bible is made up and still believe in Jesus' part in it as being real.

RCD articles:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp

semi-technical (and a non AiG website): http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp

technical (PDF): http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home...4n2_Crinum.pdf

Links to lots more RMD sites, most AiG, some offsite links, from many sources and different scientists.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...faq/dating.asp

Quote:
And it helps to be biased towards reality, wouldn't you think?
Absolutely agree!


OnyxCougar  Wednesday May 11 05:48 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by lumberjim
OC, why do you keep having this argument in THIS thread? why don;t you take it over to that Evolution vs. Creationism thread we had a while back?

*I* have already suggested it like 4 times and they aren't moving it to that thread. Why point *me* out? Why not ask Jag and TS and everyone else?


lumberjim  Wednesday May 11 05:54 PM

actually, i think it was 5. and i thought you'd pick up on the sarcasm. guess you're too fired up right now about The Lord. That's okay. it happens. zeal seems to obscure many senses including humor.



smoothmoniker  Wednesday May 11 05:59 PM

ARRRRGHHHH!!!!!!!!

Ok, I've held out for as long as I can. Look, my evangelical conservative creds run as deep as anybody here, but pushing intelligent design into the science curriculum is wrong.

wrong, wrong, wrong.

Can I say it any plainer? This is why - the real question at stake here is Theism vs. Naturalism, and that's not a question for a science class, it's a question for a philosophy class. Science is a methodology for accumulating and correllating natural data; of course it starts with a presumption of naturalism. It has to! To say that science should present non-natural conclusions is like saying that 2+2=Orange. It's not that Orange is untrue, it's just that it's an inappropriate answer to the question.

Intelligent design is a schema for answering the why question - the scientific process answers the how question. So here's the compromise. Take creationism out of the science curriculum, but let the discussion of theism, and it's twin Intelligent Design, take place in the philosophy curriculum. It belongs there.

-sm



Clodfobble  Wednesday May 11 06:05 PM

I wish they would start offering philosophy in high school. You'd end up with a lot fewer college students having their minds blown by Descartes.



jaguar  Wednesday May 11 06:06 PM

Quote:
Because it's ALREADY BEEN PROVEN WRONG and HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED.
Er. No. It hasen't. Maybe is crazy-topsy-turvy creationist world is has but here in reality, the modern scientific community, it hasn't. The conspiricy talk to amusing too. You've just stated some fairly amusing stuff, I challenege you to back up one of those claims with a paper published in a reputable scientific journal. Not some wacky creationist one but a real scientific paper supporting one of those points that has been perr reviewed and published.

Lets have a closer look at AiG then shall we? Why not look at the top? Persident Ken Ham, who, according to his bio:
Quote:
Ken’s bachelor’s degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) was awarded by the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia.
Impressive! An undergrad degree from a second rate uni! Ken's writings demonstrate perfectly the kind of logical silliness the AiG is based on and OnyxCougar is so ready to accept without question:
Like this gem:
Quote:
Ken Ham: Question: Remember being taught that coal formed slowly in swamps over millions of years? How can we say that coal is the result of Noah's Flood just thousands of years ago?

Answer: The theory that coal formed in swamps over millions of years just doesn't fit with the evidence. Peat swamps that we observe today are totally different in composition and texture from coal deposits. In these swamps we find mainly roots and a texture like mashed potatoes.

However, coal deposits have trees, bark and other material giving it a totally different texture.

In my homeland of Australia, many of the coal deposits consist largely of pine trees that don't grow in swamps. Some of these trees are enormous - many feet in diameter. And these trees are in coal deposits that are hundreds of feet thick.

The only explanation that fits what we observe in coal deposits is that enormous quantities of plant material, including massive trees, were washed into place. This would require a lot of force and a lot of water. The event of Noah's Flood makes sense of this evidence - and gives us the real answers!
Sounds convincing if you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Sadly Diluvial models of coal formation are inconsistent with a wide variety of observations, and can be dismissed as untenable. Criticisms of autochthonous models made by AiG and other creationists are based largely on factual errors, misleading statements, and failure to consider all data. Moreover, since there exists strong evidence for many autochthonous coals in the geologic record, and since peats in the modern world accumulate at rates less than or equal to about 5mm/yr (Diemont and Supardi 1987), the presence of numerous thick autochthonous coals is good evidence that the earth is older than YECs typically allow."

This is typical of AiG arguments, fudge a bit there, ignore something when it doesn't fit and claim that all of science is an evil conspiricy to keep you down. I could go on for pages but why bother? It's not needed, nothing will move those that cling to their silly misconceptions and lies and everyone else thinks they're worrying at worst and hilarious at best.


OnyxCougar  Wednesday May 11 06:18 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by lumberjim
actually, i think it was 5. and i thought you'd pick up on the sarcasm. guess you're too fired up right now about The Lord. That's okay. it happens. zeal seems to obscure many senses including humor.
No, I don't mind if people think I'm full of shit, but I have valid, solid reasons for my beliefs, not because I was indoctrinated in them, but because I looked and reserched lots of different points of views and made a personal decision on what's right for me.

Then people who are severely closed minded for whatever reason think that because I fall under one huge umbrella of a label that I'm an extremist fundie and call me intolerant, irrational and basically imply I'm a freaking idiot.

I'm tired of all the Christian bashing. I'm *not* stupid because I believe in Jesus' saving grace. I'm *not* intolerant of other people's rights and opinions. I'm *not* irrational.

Dammit!


OnyxCougar  Wednesday May 11 06:19 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothmoniker
ARRRRGHHHH!!!!!!!!

Ok, I've held out for as long as I can. Look, my evangelical conservative creds run as deep as anybody here, but pushing intelligent design into the science curriculum is wrong.

wrong, wrong, wrong.

Can I say it any plainer? This is why - the real question at stake here is Theism vs. Naturalism, and that's not a question for a science class, it's a question for a philosophy class. Science is a methodology for accumulating and correllating natural data; of course it starts with a presumption of naturalism. It has to! To say that science should present non-natural conclusions is like saying that 2+2=Orange. It's not that Orange is untrue, it's just that it's an inappropriate answer to the question.

Intelligent design is a schema for answering the why question - the scientific process answers the how question. So here's the compromise. Take creationism out of the science curriculum, but let the discussion of theism, and it's twin Intelligent Design, take place in the philosophy curriculum. It belongs there.

-sm

I AGREE!!! and take the evolutionary origins out too!!!


OnyxCougar  Wednesday May 11 06:23 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaguar
Er. No. It hasen't. Maybe is crazy-topsy-turvy creationist world is has but here in reality, the modern scientific community, it hasn't. The conspiricy talk to amusing too. You've just stated some fairly amusing stuff, I challenege you to back up one of those claims with a paper published in a reputable scientific journal. Not some wacky creationist one but a real scientific paper supporting one of those points that has been perr reviewed and published.

Lets have a closer look at AiG then shall we? Why not look at the top? Persident Ken Ham, who, according to his bio:
Impressive! An undergrad degree from a second rate uni! Ken's writings demonstrate perfectly the kind of logical silliness the AiG is based on and OnyxCougar is so ready to accept without question:
Like this gem:


Sounds convincing if you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Sadly Diluvial models of coal formation are inconsistent with a wide variety of observations, and can be dismissed as untenable. Criticisms of autochthonous models made by AiG and other creationists are based largely on factual errors, misleading statements, and failure to consider all data. Moreover, since there exists strong evidence for many autochthonous coals in the geologic record, and since peats in the modern world accumulate at rates less than or equal to about 5mm/yr (Diemont and Supardi 1987), the presence of numerous thick autochthonous coals is good evidence that the earth is older than YECs typically allow."

This is typical of AiG arguments, fudge a bit there, ignore something when it doesn't fit and claim that all of science is an evil conspiricy to keep you down. I could go on for pages but why bother? It's not needed, nothing will move those that cling to their silly misconceptions and lies and everyone else thinks they're worrying at worst and hilarious at best.

Hmm...what about:

Quote:
Are there scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation?
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite communications Specialist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Prof. John Lennox, Mathematics
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer , Physiologist
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W, Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr Andrew Snelling , Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark , Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology
I suppose all of them are from second rate unis too?


OnyxCougar  Wednesday May 11 06:39 PM

Quote:
Austin, Steven A., Ph.D.
Creationist Geology Professor
(USA)
Education
B.S. (Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970
M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979
Publications
See his online (off-site) paper on Mt St Helens 'dating' from the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal
Quote:
Dr Donald James Batten
Creationist Agricultural Scientist
(Australia)
Research Projects Funded by External Agencies
Study tour of India and Taiwan on lychees and mangoes, 1980 (CESG)

Provision of controlled-temperature glasshouse for propagation of tropical/subtropical fruit 1983–84 (RCDF).

Control of fruit set and retention in lychee, 1987–91 (RIRDC)—with C.A. McConchie, CSIRO Div. Horticulture, Brisbane.

Overcoming problems related to poor root health in custard apple and lychee, 1990–92 (RIRDC)

Regulation of cropping in lychee, 1991–1994 (RIRDC)—with C.A. McConchie, CSIRO Div. of Horticulture, Brisbane.

Education
1969–72: B.Sc.Agr.(First Class Honours)—University of Sydney

1973–76: Ph.D.—University of Sydney, Department of Agronomy and Horticultural Science. Thesis: Induction of adventitious root formation in mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek)

Employment/Positions
1976–90: Research Horticulturist, NSW Agriculture, Tropical Fruit Research Station, Alstonville.

1991–1994: Senior Research Horticulturist, NSW Agriculture, Tropical Fruit Research Station, Alstonville (resigned January 1994).

1994–: Creation Science Foundation, Brisbane, Australia + private horticultural consultant.
Publications
Scientific Journals for which Papers have been Refereed
Annals of Botany, Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture
Australian Journal of Agricultural Research
New Zealand Journal of Crop Science
Scientia Horticulturae
Tree Physiology (Canada)
Advances in Horticultural Science
Indonesian Journal of Crop Science.
Refereed Papers Published in Science Journals
Batten, D.J. and Mullins, M.G. (1978). Ethylene and adventitious root formation in hypocotyl segments of etiolated mung-bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) seedlings. Planta 138(3): 193–8.

Batten, D.J. and Goodwin, P.B. (1981). Auxin transport inhibitors and the rooting of hypocotyl cuttings from etiolated mung-bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) seedlings. Annals of Botany 47(4):497–505.

Peak, C.M., Fitzell, R.D., Hannah, R.S. and Batten, D.J. (1986). Development of a microprocessor-based data recording system for predicting plant disease based on studies on mango anthracnose. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 1:251–62.

Batten, D.J. (1989). Maturity criteria for litchis (lychees). Food Quality and Preference 1(4/5):149–55

Batten, D.J. (1990). Effect of temperature on ripening and post-harvest life of fruit of atemoya (Annona cherimola Mill. x A. Squamosa L.) cv. ‘African Pride’. Scientia Horticulturae 45:129–36.

McConchie, C.A. and Batten, D.J. (1991). Fruit set in lychee (Litchi chinensis Sonn). Variation between flowers, panicles and trees. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 42:1163–72.

Batten, D.J., Lloyd, J. and McConchie, C.A. (1992). Cultivar differences in stomatal responses in lychee (Litchi chinensis Sonn.). Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 19:317–29.

McConchie, C.A., Batten, D.J. and Vithanage, V. (1994). Intergeneric hybridisation between litchi (Litchi chinensis Sonn.) and longan (Dimocarpus longan Lour.). Annals of Botany 74:111–118.

Batten, D.J., McConchie, C.A. and Lloyd, J. (1994). Effect of soil water deficit on gas exchange characteristics and water relations of orchard lychee (Litchi chinensis Sonn.) trees. Tree Physiology 14:117–1189.

Batten, D.J. and Lahav, E. (1994). Base temperatures for growth processes of lychee, a recurrently flushing tree, are similar but optima differ. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 21:589–602.

Fitzell, R.D., Batten, D.J. and Vimpany, I. (1994). Investigation into the cause of poor root health in custard apple. Plant Protection Quarterly 9(1):2–5.

Batten, D.J. and McConchie, C.A. (1995). Floral induction in growing buds of lychee (Litchi chinensis Sonn.) and mango (Mangifera indica L.) Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 22(5):783–791.

Duret, P., Waechter, A.-I., Hocquemiller, R., CavÇ, A. and Batten, D. (1996). Annotemoyin-1 and -2: two novel mono-tetrahydrofuranic-lactone acetogenins from the seeds of Annona atemoya. Natural Product Letters 8:89–95.

Postgraduate Theses, Books and Book Chapters
Batten, D.J. (1976). Induction of adventitious root formation in mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney.

Batten, D.J. and Goodwin, P.B. (1978). Phytohormones and the induction of adventitious roots. In Letham, D.B., Goodwin, P.B. and Higgins, T.J.V. (eds.). Phytohormones and Related Compounds—A Comprehensive Treatise Vol. II pp 137–145. (Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press).

Batten, D.J. (1982). Litchi. Crop No.550 in Hackett, C. and Carolane, J. (Eds). Edible Horticultural Crops—a Compendium of Information on Fruit, Vegetable, Spice and Nut Species 3 Vols. Academic Press, Sydney

Batten, D.J. (1984). Fruit Crops. In J.R. Cook (Ed.). Jojoba, Guayule or What? New Crops—Factors for Survival Aust. Inst. Agric. Science Occasional Publication No.16.

Batten, D.J. (1984). Myrtaceae–guava (Psidium guajava L.). In Tropical Tree Fruits for Australia pp. 113–20. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.

Batten, D.J. (1984). Myrtaceae—feijoa (Pineapple guava) Feijoa sellowiana O. Bert. In Tropical Tree Fruits for Australia pp. 121–24. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.

Batten, D.J. (1984). Rutaceae—white sapote (Casimiroa edulis Llave). In Tropical Tree Fruits for Australia pp. 171–4. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane

Batten, D.J. and McConchie, C.A. (1991). Is lychee particularly drought sensitive? In Smith, M.M (ed.) Australian Lychee Yearbook Vol. 1 pp. 108–110. (Australian Lychee Growers Association, Brisbane).

McConchie, C.A., Batten, D.J. and Vivian-Smith, A. (1991). Pollination in lychee. In Smith, M.M (ed.) Australian Lychee Yearbook Vol. 1 pp. 93–96. (Australian Lychee Growers Association, Brisbane).

Proceedings of Society Meetings and Other Technical Conferences
Batten, D.J. (1977). Rootstock improvement. Proc. Aust. Avocado Research Workshop, Binna Burra, Oct. 1977, pp.46–48.

Batten, D.J. (1980). Tropical/subtropical fruit and nuts. Proc. Conf. on the Development of Coffs Harbour Botanic Gardens, Coffs Harbour Technical College, May 1980. (University of New England Press). (Invited paper)

Moncur, M.W., Rattigan, K., Batten, D.J., and Watson, B.J. (1984). Mangoes in Australia—where? Proceedings of the First Australian Mango Research Workshop, Cairns, Nov. 26–30, 1984 pp.71–76.

Batten,D.J. (1986). Towards an understanding of reproductive failure in lychee (Litchi chinensis Sonn.). Acta Horticulturae 175:79–83.

Batten, D.J. (1986). Lychee Harvesting. In The Potential of Lychee in Australia (Proc. 1st National Lychee Seminar, Nambour, February 14–15th, 1986). pp. 73–76 (Invited paper).
more...
Quote:
John Baumgardner, Ph.D.
Education
B.S., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 1968
M.S., Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1970
M.S., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1981
Ph.D., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1983
Quote:
Dr Jerry Bergman
Ph.D., Biology
Education
M.P.H., Northwest Ohio Consortium for Public Health (Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio; University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio; Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio), 2001.

M.S. in biomedical science, Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio, 1999.

Ph.D. in human biology, Columbia Pacific University, San Rafael, California, 1992.

M.A. in social psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, 1986.

Ph.D. in measurement and evaluation, minor in psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1976.

M.Ed. in counseling and psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1971.

B.S., Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1970. Major area of study was sociology, biology, and psychology.

A.A. in Biology and Behavioral Science, Oakland Community College, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, 1967.

Honors/awards/certifications
Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation, 1983
Who's Who in America
MENSA
Ohio certification to teach both elementary and high school levels
Quote:
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin
Creationist Biologist
Education
He is a graduate of the University of Illinois and North Texas State University, and his Ph.D. is from the University of Texas.
Quote:
Associate Professor of Statistics
Linn E. Carothers
(United States)

B.S., University of Southern California, University Park, 1973
M.S., California State University, Northridge, 1979
Ph.D., University of Southern California, University Park, 1987
and so on...

Of course, all of these people are obviously fucking idiots from second rate universities.

*rolls her eyes*


OnyxCougar  Wednesday May 11 06:57 PM

Thought this was relevant here:

Quote:
‘Creation scientists aren’t real scientists and don’t do real research.’
by Dr Terry Mortenson

15 August 2003

Such statements are often heard from evolutionists when confronted with creationist objections against their theory. It is a classic ad hominem argument—in other words, attack the person in lieu of refuting his argument. But besides that, it is simply false. And the International Conference on Creationism (ICC) held near Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 3–9 August, is one piece of evidence of that fact.

Attended by 325 people, this was the fifth ICC. The Creation Science Fellowship in Pittsburgh has been organizing and hosting this conference about every four years since 1986. Its purpose is to stimulate the development and refinement of a scientifically detailed model of the origin and history of the world consistent with the truths of Genesis 1–11. Most of the 55 papers at this year’s ICC were in the Technical Track. The twelve papers in the Basic Track were designed for people wanting an introduction to the creationist view at a relatively non-technical level. Each presenter had one hour for the lecture followed by 30 minutes of Q&A.

Some of the most well attended technical papers (which were all peer-reviewed) were from the scientists in the RATE group. RATE stands for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth. This international group of seven scientists (with PhD’s in physics, geology, atmospheric physics and geophysics) is in the fifth year of an 8-year research project involving theoretical, laboratory and field studies. For many years creationists have cited plenty of evidence that these dating methods are not reliable, but this current research is trying to establish just what these decay processes are telling us. The RATE scientists presented some very exciting research results that will strengthen Christians’ confidence in the literal truth of Genesis and put evolutionists on the defensive on this issue.

Besides the RATE papers, there were presentations on the place of caves in the post-Flood world, Fibonacci numbers in nature, tree-ring dating, worldwide myths about Creation and the Flood, creation of elements from water, cutting edge research on nautiloid fossils in Grand Canyon, the 19th century origin of old-earth geology, Hebrew and geological analysis of Genesis 7–8, the historical roots of the idea of progress, biological classification of the original created kinds and many other interesting topics.

In addition to papers during the day, evening sessions were open to the public. On the first night Dr John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research, addressed the necessary future of creation science. Later in the week, Ken Ham, founder/president of AiG–USA, gave a powerful message to about 600 people on the foundational importance and practical relevance of the origins issue, and in particular the significance of scientific research in the ‘big picture.’

At least one staunch evolutionist attended the conference. He was so impressed with the scientific excellence of the papers that he admitted to one of the presenters that he was going to have to do some hard thinking about what he heard. He also lamented the fact that more evolutionists were not there to hear the results of creationist research.
There is one other strange thing about the evolutionists’ charge that creation scientists are not real scientists doing real research. That is the fact that all these creation scientists obtained their PhDs under the tutelage of evolutionists, in some cases quite prominent evolutionists. So by labeling creationists as non-scientists the evolutionists are actually attacking the scientific and teaching competencies of their fellow evolutionists!


jaguar  Wednesday May 11 06:58 PM

ohh I'm impressed, a long list of names!
easier than a rebuttal.

i randomly picked a name. Dr Kurt Wise. For reference I he was the first I picked, totally at random. Well lookey here, he got is 'doctorate' from Bryan, a college that 'puts christ above all'. Well well. There was Dr Harold Coffin, at the presdigious and well known 'Southwestern Adventist University'. Hmmm. Theme emerging here. Dr James A. Huggins, Union University - A Southern Baptist University that seems to have gone under to boot. I tried a few others, the only information was more and more copies of this oh-so-impressive list. For none could I actually find their dissertation paper. Tried the ATHENS system for accessing papers, nothing. I didn't bother checking out the plain old medical doctors which you amusingly seem to think is the same. Or the plastic surgeons. Or dentists. Despite it being common knowledge that plastic surgeons are all experts in palaeontology and geology.

A list of doctors and doctorates doesn't make you any more wrong, it just doesn't mean you're quite as alone. Anyone that's attented a major university knows they all have a fair share of kooks and oddities, I associate with a fair few people particularly from Cambridge and some of the strange characters they know of.... The point is that this list doesn't make any difference. Creationism has no scientific basis and the arguments against evolution either rely of falicies or on gaps on the fossil record.



jaguar  Wednesday May 11 07:03 PM

oh boy...you just keep banging on. An article from Dr Terry Morton, who got is masters from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School! Talking about Ken Ham! Who doesn't understand geology! peer-reviewed! Impressive. By who?

Also worth noting two of the guys I checked out converted long after they had their PH.Ds. I could find no evidence that any had obtained a PH.D in areas relevent to that gorgeous oxymoron, 'creationist science'.



jaguar  Wednesday May 11 07:05 PM

At any rate, I'm out, too much work over the next few days to waste this much time waxing lyrical about the silliness of of this debate. I hope I've at least demonstrated to some that despite the pretty website and big words sites like AiG are as scientific as they are objective.



Happy Monkey  Wednesday May 11 07:08 PM

Quote:
Its purpose is to stimulate the development and refinement of a scientifically detailed model of the origin and history of the world consistent with the truths of Genesis 1–11.
Someone doesn't know how science works...


OnyxCougar  Wednesday May 11 07:09 PM

and this:

Quote:
Q: Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?
We referred this question to Dr D. Russell Humphreys (pictured), a nuclear physicist who works at Sandia National Laboratories. Dr Humphreys says he has often had this question put to him. He writes:


‘When people ask me this, I feel a certain amount of frustration because of the evolutionist brainwashing in our society which it reveals.

‘Firstly, it shows that the questioner is unaware of the large number of published professional scientists who are creationists. Where I live and work (Albuquerque, New Mexico) there are large numbers of scientists, and I know many who happen to be biblical creationists. Using a simple statistical approach, I would conservatively estimate that in the United States alone, there are around 10,000 practising professional scientists who openly believe in six-day recent creation.

‘Secondly, it suggests that the questioner doesn’t understand what the day-to-day life of a scientist is all about. One could almost say that publication in professional journals is the essence of being a scientist. So asking a man who says he is a scientist if he’s published in secular journals is like asking a man who says he’s married if he’s got a wife!

‘I would therefore reply to such a question ‘Are there any who don’t?’ Every one I know does publish. Even scientists who are full-time in creationist organisations usually have a few such publications, despite the serious disadvantage their institutional connections give them. Although there is strong discrimination against high-profile creationist scientists, most creationist scientists publish non-creationist scientific articles frequently. Moreover, many of them have published data with important creationist implications—but without explicit creationist conclusions, which would point out the significance of the data to the average non-creationist scientist.

‘What about creationist scientists publishing articles, in secular journals, which specifically come to creationist conclusions? The bitter experience of a number of us has made it clear that there is almost no chance that such articles will pass the review process, no matter what their quality. I have also had repeated correspondence with the letters editors of major journals, having submitted brief, well-written items which critiqued published conclusions favourable to long-agers or ‘big-bangers’. These contained no explicit creationist connotations, but I have concluded that, now that I am known as a creationist, such items have virtually no chance of publication.’

That’s why creationists have had to develop their own peer-reviewed journals, such as the Creation Research Society Quarterly and the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. Some creationist scientists are world leaders in their field, like geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner of Los Alamos Laboratories, in the field of plate tectonics [see interview Creation 19(3):40–43, 1997].

For a more detailed answer see Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? For details on some creationist scientists and their publication records, check out the Biographies section of the website.



OnyxCougar  Wednesday May 11 07:11 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaguar
ohh I'm impressed, a long list of names!
easier than a rebuttal.

i randomly picked a name. Dr Kurt Wise. For reference I he was the first I picked, totally at random. Well lookey here, he got is 'doctorate' from Bryan, a college that 'puts christ above all'. Well well. There was Dr Harold Coffin, at the presdigious and well known 'Southwestern Adventist University'. Hmmm. Theme emerging here. Dr James A. Huggins, Union University - A Southern Baptist University that seems to have gone under to boot. I tried a few others, the only information was more and more copies of this oh-so-impressive list. For none could I actually find their dissertation paper. Tried the ATHENS system for accessing papers, nothing. I didn't bother checking out the plain old medical doctors which you amusingly seem to think is the same. Or the plastic surgeons. Or dentists. Despite it being common knowledge that plastic surgeons are all experts in palaeontology and geology.

A list of doctors and doctorates doesn't make you any more wrong, it just doesn't mean you're quite as alone. Anyone that's attented a major university knows they all have a fair share of kooks and oddities, I associate with a fair few people particularly from Cambridge and some of the strange characters they know of.... The point is that this list doesn't make any difference. Creationism has no scientific basis and the arguments against evolution either rely of falicies or on gaps on the fossil record.
OK, so the ones from the "better" universities are kooks, and the ones from "less than top rate" univerisities are well...less just say they aren't qualified.

Riiiiiiight.


jaguar  Wednesday May 11 07:20 PM

No. There are literally millions of PH.Ds globally, a list like this is meaningless. If they believe this crap they're no doubt kooks of one sort or another. It's just amusing that so many come from funny little religious indoctrination centres masquerading as unis.



xoxoxoBruce  Wednesday May 11 09:13 PM

UT, I'd like to apologize for sending you that picture.



warch  Wednesday May 11 10:34 PM

There are dinosaur tracks on the University of Texas, Austin's campus, near the natural history museum. You can go stand in them.

If we dont teach science, and by that I mean evolution, we are risking our economic future.



mlandman  Wednesday May 11 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
No, I don't mind if people think I'm full of shit, but I have valid, solid reasons for my beliefs, not because I was indoctrinated in them, but because I looked and reserched lots of different points of views and made a personal decision on what's right for me.
It is those last 10 words that sum up the situation here. Faced with a controversial topic, you have chosen what is right for you and your beliefs and your value system.

You are also wrong about carbon dating and other methods that clearly put human bones thousands and thousands of years before the Bible says man came to be. You can say that these methods are inaccurate, clearly you have made another personal decision on the matter.

-mike


wolf  Thursday May 12 02:18 AM

I don't know whether to be impressed by or fearful of OC's single minded devotion to this topic.

And her ability to cut and paste.



jaguar  Thursday May 12 04:50 AM

Bruce - I started it, if anyone is to blame, it's me. The cutting and pasting is impressive but it's a poor substitute for knowing what you're talking about. The conspirital tone is the real giveaway 'the evil atheitest scientific journals are keeping us down!', what a fucking joke. The kind of journals he's talking about are if anything, the paragon of understanding and fairness.

I've got a friend that works doing x-ray crystallography at a research lab attached to Cambridge, they usually publish in smaller more topic-specific journals but one paper was important enough to be submitted to Nature. It got rejected, along with the 99% of papers submitted to Nature each month. 2 months later they got a letter from Nature and a full apology for overlooking it, the paper was published the following month. They are always on the lookout for sensational new work, if it was, it'd be published.

To suggest these institutions are involved in some kind of vast conspiricy to keep all this 'scientific' evidence of 'intelligent design' (for not-very-intelligent people) down is frankly, beyond the pale. If the paper is coming to non-scientific conclusions (therefore...GOD MADE THE EARTH IN 6 DAYS!) or is clearly pushing an agenda of course it's going to be rejected, such rubbish falls well outside what the conclusion should contain. This is commonplace from papers for all sorts of lobbies, from mobile phone safety to GM.



Beestie  Thursday May 12 09:44 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar
[My methodology for arriving at the conclusion that the theory of evolution is incorrect is just as scientific, just as objective and just as valid as the methodology used by those who have adopted the theory]
Given that, I would like you to provide an example of a peice of evidence that would be sufficiently convincing so as to lead you to conclude that the theory of evolution is undoubtedly correct. Or, I would like you to indicate that there is nothing under the sun that could lead you to accept the theory.


wolf  Thursday May 12 10:59 AM

I honestly don't think God coming down and telling her "Yes, evolution is correct. It's the way I did it. The chapter was too long, lacked punch, and got edited" would convince her.



mrnoodle  Thursday May 12 11:07 AM

Wow. Had to skim over most of this. That's as close to a yellin' match as I've seen here. Good show! OC, you're holding your own, don't let em get ya down. Someday we'll have all the answers, either because God tells us, because we all float around in the universal consciousness, or because we cease to exist upon physical death and don't get a chance to find out. Or we turn into rabbits, butterflies, and in rare cases, Buddha.

That last is actually the most depressing to me. Never getting a chance to jump off this friggin ride. Man.



Happy Monkey  Thursday May 12 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnoodle
That last is actually the most depressing to me. Never getting a chance to jump off this friggin ride. Man.
Is the alternative "turn on the peasure center of the brain and veg out for all eternity?"


mrnoodle  Thursday May 12 12:34 PM

I've never liked peas, that would be worse. are there other eternal veggies?



Beestie  Thursday May 12 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnoodle
Good show! OC, you're holding your own, don't let em get ya down.
No one is trying to "get OC down." Neither is anyone bashing OC for believing in the saving grace of Jesus. So while the persecution card is temptingly convenient (martyrs are never self-proclaimed), it has no application here. Besides, I don't think it spells armageddon when Christians disagree. How many branches of Christianity are there again???

What OC is getting clobbered about isn't her devotion to Jesus, its claiming that anyone with a lick of objectivity who examines all available evidence would quite simply conclude that the earth is but a few thousand years old. And to be clear, she also would have reached that exact conclusion if she had gone her entire life unaware of the Bible or its contents.


xoxoxoBruce  Thursday May 12 08:02 PM

Quote:
Bruce - I started it, if anyone is to blame, it's me. ...
I was just kidding, I'm glad I sent UT that picture. Glad, hear me GLAD, Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha


lookout123  Thursday May 12 08:23 PM

bruce - could you look around for the next IOTD...something for everyone.

how about some PETA protesters standing next to a warm grill, with a guy preparing to stab a dog for dinner, and the dog is simultaneously peeing on the evolution chapter of a science book while eating chapters 1-20 of genesis, maybe teddy kennedy could be there trying to tax the dog, and GW could be there planning the invasion of canada...i think that should about cover it.



xoxoxoBruce  Thursday May 12 09:13 PM

That may take a day or so.



Sun_Sparkz  Friday May 27 01:51 AM

Good GOD! they certainly dont look like dinosaur tracks to me, its all cracked and ruined.. ahh - it must have been that big bang.



Catwoman  Friday May 27 06:26 AM

A question for any long-term dwellars:

Has there ever been such a disparate discussion as this where one party actually conceded to the other person's point? Or has it always been an emotional flaming row like when mother-in-law comes to stay?

Just wanted to know if there was any hope for the open and rational among us, or if we should just shut up, stop wasting time and accept we aren't going to get through to a large segment of the population.



jaguar  Friday May 27 07:51 AM

there has been shifting of ground on the past, I've moved around on gun control but I can remember of late. Many of the really good posters like Xugumad & hubris boy left long, long ago & things seem to have become more polarised.



Undertoad  Friday May 27 09:38 AM

It happens often, it's just not quite that visible.



Lady Sidhe  Friday May 27 01:16 PM

Quote:
it's not about love thy neighbour it's about trying to stop thy neighbour marrying his same-sex partner or forcing my religion down the throats of thy neighbour's son in public-funded schools or stopping thy neighbour having an abortion.


Unfortunately, that seems to be true in re Christianity lately. Not all of them, mind you, but the ones that do do this are friggin LOUD. Churches and religions should simply stay out of politics. Or be taxed. Now, THAT would go a long way towards paying off the national debt....

Also, I do agree with OC that if one religion is going to be referred to, or taught in schools, they ALL should be. Like I said before, the only difference between religions is the name the Creator is called by, and how the Creator is worshipped.

However, I don't think religion has a place in schools at all. That's what church is for, and that's what parents are for. School is for readin', ritin' and 'rithmatic...and philosophy and science, and recess....


I personally believe in a Creator. And I believe that the Creator decided to create the world through evolution. One big science project. Stir the soup and see what happens. I see no conflict between religion and science...course, I'm one of those crazy Pagans...

I don't think that believing in a Creator is illogical, either, as TS implies. Stating that something does not exist, when you have no proof either way, is illogical. TS says, "I don't know, and you don't either," but what he's really saying is, "Prove the existence to me, otherwise I do not believe in the existence." So in effect, he is saying that he doesn't believe, not that he doesn't know, when in fact he has no proof either way.

I think those Crazy Christians(tm) who say that evolution is bullshit are, whether they know it or not, actually saying that the omnipotent, omnicient god they believe in actually has limits. They are saying that the Creator cannot create the world in the way that the Creator wishes to.

Merely because a story was told to people (who were ignorant of science) way back in the day to explain how we came to be, does not mean that it should be taken literally. It's like telling a story to a child. A child isn't yet able to grasp the mechanics behind the truth, so you tell them a story to illustrate the idea simply.

I think that Evolution should be taught in schools as the theory it is. There is evidence and proof of its existence. As yet, there is no proof of "Creationism" as told of in Genesis. Doesn't mean there isn't a Creator...but Evolution doesn't mean there isn't a Creator, either.


Sidhe



xoxoxoBruce  Saturday May 28 12:31 AM

Quote:
Has there ever been such a disparate discussion as this where one party actually conceded to the other person's point?
Not unless it's a sane and rational point that hasn't been heard a hundred times before.


lookout123  Saturday May 28 01:12 PM

Quote:
Just wanted to know if there was any hope for the open and rational among us, or if we should just shut up, stop wasting time and accept we aren't going to get through to a large segment of the population.
in your phrasing you've pointed to the problem more clearly than you know. if your mind (and mine) isn't somewhat open to the idea thatYOU might be the wrong one, why would you expect anyone else to either?

too often people mistake their beliefs and ideas for themselves. there is a very fine line between believing your ideas to be superior, and believing you are superior. once your self-image is wrapped up in your ideas, admitting your idea might not be superior means you might be somehow inferior.

er, something.


Lady Sidhe  Saturday May 28 02:31 PM

Lots of sense in that post, Lookout.

We all hold our opinions, and we all think we're right...almost as if admitting that there may be other possibilities or opinions (whether we agree with them or not), would somehow diminish us, or something.

And so, in response, I will pledge to try as hard as I can to be more diplomatic in the future, and to make more of an effort to understand opinions that wildly differ from my own.



**Disclaimer: this does not mean I will suddenly become a bleeding-heart, or agree with said opinions; merely that I will make more of an effort to understand where the other person is coming from and WHY they believe so strongly in what they're saying, and I will try to reply in such a way that my differing opinion, if it differs, will not sound like a personal attack.



Thank you for your support. We now return you to our regular programming...




Sidhe



Your reply here?

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: a bunch of interesting folks talking about everything. Add your two cents to IotD by joining the Cellar.