Well, the "got wrong" or "doesn't square with the tale told in the rocks" seems mostly to be things of timing. Note the sketched idea Genesis has of a progressing development of things, and over time. Some insight, no? Was it sheer luck?

I know too much science to be a young-Earther or anything of the sort. Bishop Ussher's 17th-c. calculation of the Earth's age illustrates what the mind will try and do with the data it has. But that does not make me into some kind of nonbeliever, for I can always say to the fundie: "If you are capital-O Omnipotent and Eternal, and have literally all the time in the Universe -- where's the wrong in taking your time and doing it right? Is there no Divine Wisdom in a Creation that goes of itself? Think of the bother an automatic universe saves..." and I can go on.

Not just timing- order. Planets are made from ejected star material, but stars come after Earth in Genesis. The order of plants and various animals is all wrong, too. And that's just v1.0 of the creation story in the Bible. In v2.0, the order is human males, then all other species, then human females.

If they get a pass on timing and order, what are we applauding them for? Listing things that exist? Incompletely? Even then, you have to give them a metaphorical pass for "the waters above" that was split off from the oceans.

I could never figure that obscure phrase for anything but some metaphor anyway. Suppose it might have been from some legend about why we have rain?

Probably that combined with sky and sea color-matching and meeting at the horizon.

looks like it's HM's turn in the box. Give'em hell, Happy!

By coincidence, Conservapedia just got a mention at New Scientist. They (CP, not NS) not only deny evolution, but also deny relativity, the E = MC2 business.

Which is kind of true, although grossly misrepresented.. At the time, BHO was the editor of the journal, and thanks were SOP. The argument in the journal uses relativity as a metaphor or analogy for how every action affects things around it.

Classic, Lookout, even UG, are conservatives. These people are just idiots.

You won't get much disagreement here. :rolleyes:

But you're all vehemently "middle of the road" usually. :confused:

I think it's more we're such middle America.

It's all relative to your frame of reference, I guess... ;)

Well I'm on the right side of America so you're all left of me.
Geographically speaking

I could go 70 miles further left, but the family likes the PDX area.

From Scientific American of Aug 2010 entitled "Faith and Foolishness":
The article discussed why the National Science Foundation is now avoiding to discuss this.

I don't know what to make of these guys. Nearly everywhere, they equate science with atheism with lacks of morals.

I was born a Catholic. My own views over religion have changed significantly in 42 years. I'll say that I'm an atheist, maybe an agnostic.

I looked up their article on contraception and abortion (I know these are very controversial subjects in the USA).

My own position is the following :

Abortion is not a means of contraception and should be reseved for extreme cases (rape, foetus difformity, etc.)

Contraception should be teached in school along with the subject of human reproduction. The best way to have teenagers do something they should not is to tell them that it is not right. They'll go at it right away. Hence the rate of teenage pregnancy in the USA. I'll probably shock some people : the sex education I received was in a class of human biology when I was 14. My teacher was a NUN !!! It wasn't sex ed per se it was a class on the human anatomy. Following that class, she offered us advice on how to protect ourselves from STD or pregnancy.

It was in 1983. AIDS was making its debut in the media...

Since then I've always protected myself, and by doing it, my partners. Not that I'm profligate, even at 42, I can count them with less than my two hands.

That protection is not from pregnancy, but from death.