Video: Jindal supports teaching of intelligent design
posted at 1:37 pm on June 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Qualified by the usual caveat, of course. He won’t say which theory he favors (beyond acknowledging some unknown role of the creator), but clearly he’s sufficiently sold on ID that he thinks it merits being laid in front of kids as an alternative to evolution. Which is a dodge, really, in the same way that the Truthers’ irritating “just asking questions” defense is a dodge: It uses the spirit of free inquiry as a way to avoid the threshold question of how credible any theory has to be to end up in the curriculum. Doubtless there are far left parents (and far right, per the Paulnuts) who wouldn’t mind seeing competing theories of 9/11 taught in history class so that kids can “make up their own minds,” but that ain’t likely to happen. Or actually, given the orientation of teachers’ unions, maybe it is. Stay tuned!
The politics of this issue are convoluted — majorities want both evolution and creationism taught, but roughly twice as many voters are less likely to vote for creationist politicians than more likely — so Jindal’s non-answer is the safe way to play it. But can we please, at least, lay off the federalist rhetoric he uses here until it’s settled whether ID violates the Establishment Clause or not? It’s a fine conservative idea that local school boards should have more power than state boards or the DOE, but constitutional violations are constitutional violations all the way down the chain, federalism or no. Jindal surely knows that too, which I guess makes that his second dodge.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11 Next »
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 9:07 PM
I can’t believe you are defending that guy. What happened to the rational MB4, where did you put him?
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 9:11 PM
I think that your
pet rockcollie may have fallen quite ill. Are you too cheap to take him/her to the vet?MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Than I am an oxymoron, although I don’t really call myself an ‘evolutionist.’ I believe in the theory of relativity, but I don’t call myself a relativitist either.
To be conservative does not mean all change is bad – change can be very beneficial, say, cutting back on government spending (it’s a change, but a good one). I’d call people who want no change at all fundamental, because they do not waiver from their views (not saying this is bad/good). I’m not sure that evolution is about constant change either, for that matter, but that is from my own personal research (I like to read) and is my opinion.
Other than the social mores aspect, I’m usually surprised to find so many religious people are on the right end of the political spectrum… but that’s a very grey area anyways.
Off to play Lego Indiana Jones. Have fun all. : )
Anna on June 16, 2008 at 9:13 PM
I don’t IC was sincerely racist but he threw around racist-sounding comments with wild abandon and insulted AP and several commenters repeatedly so I guess he had to go.
aengus on June 16, 2008 at 9:14 PM
I assume MB4 is arguing against the lie that dislike/criticism of Islam is racist, as I would do, and nothing more.
aengus on June 16, 2008 at 9:18 PM
unfortunately many are on the left. and I really wonder about that. how a ‘christian’ can support gay marriage, or abortion, for example…like those ‘red letter’ christians…I think they have the ‘red’ part right…
of course change from socialism is a good thing, I just wonder, since most evolutionists, like dawkins, are far left-wing.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Bzzt. Do you ever get tired of being wrong and/or stupid? Does it hurt when you beat yourself in the head with the moron bat?
I’m fine with teaching ID. Just not in a science classroom, since science class should be reserved for actual science, rather than Creationism in drag.
Centerfire on June 16, 2008 at 9:19 PM
I feel the same way about evolution…why teach atheism in drag?
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 9:20 PM
He is essentially a business mogul.
He went to the event thinking it was just some elite organization that world leaders and business moguls go to.
He was surprised to see that they literally worship Baal with “mock” human sacrifices.
Does it not bother anyone else that our leaders and world leaders, “relax” at the bohemian grove by performing “mock” human sacrifices to Baal?
I have already proven that Erasmus Darwin the founder of the religion of evolution was a top freemason and member of the illuminati.
If you still believe in evolution after knowing that, you are a fool.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 9:22 PM
The evidence that you are not of sound mind is what is piling up fast.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 9:22 PM
Where was that? Save me some time and tell me the timestamp.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Even the people who invented evolution do not believe in it.
Neither do it’s biggest proponents.
Here is Richard Dawkins(top atheist spokesman and evolutionist) explaining how mankind came from aliens(Baal’s theology)..
Go to about 2 minutes and 10 seconds in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o7OSNDqY9g
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 9:31 PM
is this the ‘Cremation of Care’? that Ron Jonson from the BBC and Alex Jones crashed and witnessed?
DaveC on June 16, 2008 at 9:31 PM
How many times does it have to be pointed out? There are so many scientific flaws with evolution that it does not qualify as a science. Too much has to be overlooked or taken on faith.
ID is not religion, it is not creationism. It simply states the obvious, that certain things in nature appear, for all purposes, to have been Engineered, such as the laws of physics, the DNA molecule, recurring organism body “themes”, etc. The obvious conclusion is, if something has been Engineered, it had been done so by someone, and someone with Intelligence. G-d is as good a description as any right now, but that is only descriptive.
Folks, this is not religion, it is recognition of evidence.
stonemeister on June 16, 2008 at 9:33 PM
In a lock box?
No not there.
I was not so much defending IC as defending free speech and not thinking it kosher for a mere commenter to try to get someone banned. Besides with IC you have got to know how to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Even with his worst chaff, I find him far less objectionable that some others like Saint “Send us all to burn in Hell for eternity” Olaf. But maybe that’s just me.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 9:35 PM
This fairly short thread. The comment seems to have been removed but is referred to near the end.
aengus on June 16, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Indy Conservative on June 16, 2008 at 5:15 PM
aengus on June 16, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Yes.
The idol they sacrifice the baby to is Molech..another name for Baal.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Chiming in for the first time on this thread–I strongly agree with those who emphasize that ID does not equal creationism.
And in my opinion, it is the anti-ID’ers who are being intellectually naive and/or blind–ultimately risking the quality of education and the life of the mind. Science and Philosophy have always been intertwined, emphasis on always-from the pre-Socratics to the present day. Deal with it. –That is, if intellectual integrity still means anything more than a slogan.
G. Charles on June 16, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Whatever you say, idiot.
Squid Shark on June 16, 2008 at 9:40 PM
What Scientific Journal does Gantry publish his Creationist BS.
Here are some journals that don’t exist apparently. Right there on the site. If you had made even cursory examination of it you would have seen the references at the bottom.
You were waiting for a “one” refutation and I give it to you and of course since you can’t deny it nor understand, you resort to smearing the source. Blind kool-aid drinkers.
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/pohalo/index.html
More
http://www.grisda.org/origins/15032.htm
Brawley, John, 1992, “Evolution’s Tiny Violences: The Po-Halo Mystery: An Amateur Scientist Examines Pegmatitic Biotite Mica”, Talk.Origins Archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html
Collins, Lorence G., 1997, “Polonium Halos and Myrmekite in Pegmatite and Granite,” http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm, 9 pgs.
Collins, Lorence G., 1999, “Equal Time for the Origin of Granite – a Miracle,” Reports of the National Center for Science Education, Volume 19, No. 2, pp. 20-28.
Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991, The Age of the Earth, Stanford University press.
Gentry, Robert V., 1968, “Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive halos” Science, Vol. 160, p. 1228-1230.
Gentry, Robert V., 1970, “Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Radioactivity,” Science, Vol. 169, pp. 670-673
Gentry, Robert V., 1971, “Radiohalos: Some Unique Lead Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity,” Science, Vol. 173, p. 727-731.
Gentry, Robert V., S.S. Christy, J.F. McLaughlin, J. A. McHugh, 1973, Nature, Vol. 244, p. 282.
Gentry, Robert V., 1974, “Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective”, Science, Vol. 184, pp. 62-66.
Gentry, Robert V., Warner H. Christie, David H. Smith, J.F. Emery, S.A. Reynolds, and Raymond Walker, 1976, “Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification,” Science, Vol. 194, pp.315-318
Gentry, Robert V., T.J. Sworski, H.S. McKown, D.H. Smith, R.E. Eby, W.H. Christie, 1982, “Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment,”Science, Vol. 216, p. 296-298.
Gentry, Robert V., 1992, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, Knowville, TN, 3rd Edition.
Henderson, G.H., 1939, A quantitatve study of pleochroic halos, V. the genesis of halos, Royal Society of London, Proceedings, Series A, v. 173, p. 250-264.
Hyndman, Donald W., 1985, Petrology of Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, N.Y., p. 75.
ICRP, 1983, Radionuclide Transformations, International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 38, Pergamon Press, New York, NY, 1250p.
Joly, J., 1917, The genesis of pleochroic halos, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, v. 217, p. 51.
Knoll, Glenn F., 1979, Radiation Detection and Measurement, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY
Lee, James K, Ian S. Williams, and David J. Ellis, 1997, “Pb, U, and Th diffusion in natural zircon”, Nature, Vol. 390, pp. 159-162.
Moazed, Cyrus; Richard M. Spector; Richard F. Ward, 1973, Polonium Radiohalos: An Alternate Interpretation, Science, Vol. 180, pp. 1272-1274.
Odom, L.A., and Rink, W.J., 1989, “Giant Radiation-Induced Color Halos in Quartz: Solution to a Riddle,” Science, v. 246, pp. 107-109.
Parrington, Josef R., Harold D. Knox, Susan L. Breneman, Edward M. Baum, Frank Feiner, 1996, Nuclides and Isotopes: Chart of the Nuclides, 15th Edition, General Electric Co. and KAPL, Inc.
Taylor, S. Ross, and McLennan, Scott, 1996, “The Evolution of the Continental Crust,” Scientific American, January, 1996.
Wakefield, J. Richard , 1988, Geology of Gentry’s “Tiny Mystery”, Journal of Geological Education, May, 1988.
[Return to the Polonium Halo FAQs]
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Sto laf
More “unscience”
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm
here are the references.
Bartlett, J.R., and DeKemp, E.A.,1987, Lithofacies, stromatoite localities, metallic mineral occurrences and geochemical anomalies associated with carbonate metasediments of the Burleigh Falls-Bancroft-Madoc Area: Southern Ontario: Preliminary Map P.3079, Geological Series. Scale 1:126,720
Bedell, R.L. 1985. Madawaska Mines, Bancron. Ontario: Deformation of the Faraday metagabbro complex and its influence on uraniferous pegmatite emplacement and ore deposition: Unpublished MS thesis, University of Toronto, 177 p.
Bedell, R.L and Schwerdtner. W.M., 1981, Structural controls of U-ore bearing pegmatite dikes at Madawaska (Faraday) Mine. Bancroft. Ontario, in Geoscience research grant program 1981-1982: edited by F.G. Pye, Ontario Geologrcal Survey. Miscellaneous Paper 103, p.1-11.
Bourque, M.S., 1981, Stratigraphy and sedimentation of carbonate metasediments within the Grenville Supergroup: p. 17-79 in J. Wood, O.L. White, R.B Barlow, and PI.C. Colvine, editors, Summary of field work, 1981: Ontario Geological Survey. Miscellaneous Paper 100, 255 p.
Bright, E.G., 1980. Precambrian geology of the Eel’s Lake Area. Haliburton and Peterborough Counties: Ontarioio Geological Survey, Map P.2205. Geological Series. scale 1:65-360,
Bright, E.G., 1981. Precambrian geology of the Anstruther Township, Peterborough County: Ontario Geological Survey, Map P.2423. Geological Series, scale 1:15,840,
Blight, E.G., 1983, Precambrian geology of the Centre Lake Area. Haliburton and Hastings Counties, Ontario Geological Survey. Map P2597 and P2598. Geological Series Preliminary Map, Scale 1:15,840
Block, B.S. and Moore, J.M. 1983, Chronology chemistry and tectonics of igneous rocks in terranes of the Grenville Province, Canada: Geological Society of America Program with Abstracts, V. 15, 533 p.
Brown, R.H., 1987, Radiohalos: (unpublished). available from the author at Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California 9235O
Brush, S.G., 1982, Finding the age of the earth – by physics or by faith: Journal of Geological Education, v. 30, p 34-58,
Bullis, A.R., 1965, Geology of metal mines limited (Bancroft Division): Canadian Institute of Mining and Metalurgy Bulletin. v. 58. No. 639, p. 713-720,
Chaudhuri, N.K., and lyer. R.H., 1980. Origin of unusual radioactive haloes: Radiation Effects, v. 53. p. 1-6,
Dalrymple, G.B., 1982. Radiometric dating and the age of the earth; A reply to ’scientific’ creationism, at Evolutionists Confront Creationism: AAAS Pacific Division Meeting, June 22-23, Santa Barbara, California.
Dalrymple, G.B., 1982, Letter to Kevin Worth. reprinted in Creation/Evolution Newsletter, v. 5, no. 3.
Demon, P.E., with replies by Gentry. R.V., and Kazmann, R.G., 1979, Time: Measured responses, EOS: v. 60, no. 22, p. 474.
Easton, R.M., 1986a. Geochronology compilation series: Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 5592. with Maps P.2840-2814. Compilation Series Preliminary Map, Scale 1:1,013,760.
Easton, R.M., 1986b. Paleoenvironment a facies of the Apsley Formation. Peterborough County, p. 141-151 in P.C. Thurston, O.L. White, R.E. Barlow, M.E. Cherry and A.C. Colvine, editors, Summary of Field Work, 1986: Ontario Geologlcal Survey, Miscellaneous Paper 132. 435 p.
Easton. R.M. 1986c. Geochronology of the Grenville Province. in J.M. Moore, A. Davidson, and A.J. Baer, Editors, The Grenville Province: Geological Assoclation of Canada, Special Paper 31, p 127-174,
Eichelberger, J.C., Lysne, P.C., Miller, C.O. and Younker, L.W. 1985. Research drilling at Inyo Domes, California: 1984 Results: EOS, v. 66, no. 17, p. 186-187
Eichelberger, J.C., Carrigan, C.R., Westrich, H.R., and Price. R.H.,1986. Nan-explosive silica volcanism: Nature, v. 323, p. 598-602.
Ellenberger, C.L., with reply by Gentry. R.V.. 1984. Polonium Halos Redux: Physics Today. December 1984. p. 91-92
Evens, A.M., 1964, Geology of Ashby & Denbigh Townships, Ontario: Ontario Geolcgical Survey, Report Survey 26, Accompanied by maps 2032 & 2049.
Feather, N., 1978. The unsolved problem of Po-halos in Precambrian biotite and other old minerals: Communications to the Society of Edinburough, no 11. p 147
Fremlin, J.H. and reply by Gentny. RV., 1975. Spectacle halos, Nature, v. 258, p. 269-270
Gentry, R.V., 1965. Pleochroic halos and the age of the earth: American Journal of Physics, v. 33 p. 878,
Gentry, R.V., 1966. Cosmological implications of extinct radioactivity from pleochroic halos: Creation Research Society Quarterly, no. 2, p. 17-20.
Gently, R.V., 1967. Cosmology and the earth’s invisible realm: Medical Opinion and Review. October, 1967, p- 79.
Gentry, R.V., 1968. Fossil alpha-recoil analysis of certain variant radioactive halos: Science, v. 160, P. 1228-1230.
Gentry, R.V., 1971. Radiohalos: Some unique lead isotope ratios and unknown alpha radioactivity: Science, v 173, p. 727-731.
Gentry, R.V., 1972. Radioactive halos: Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Physics, v. 23.
Gentry, R.V. 1974. Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective: Science, v. 184, p. 6266
Gentry, R.V., 1980. Polonium halos, EOS, v. 61. No. 27, p. 514.
Gentry, R.V. 1986, Creations tiny mystery: Earth Science Associates. Knoxville, Tennessee.
Gentry, R.V., Cristy. S.S., McLaughlin, J.F., and McHugh, J.A., 1973, Ion microprobe confirmation of Pb isotope ratios and search for isomer precursors in polonium radiohaloes: Nature, v. 244, p. 282-283.
Gentry. R.V., Hulett, L.D., Cristy, S.S., McLaughin, J.F. McHugh, J.A. and Bayard, M., 1974,’Spectade’ array of Po 210 halo radiocentres in biotite: A nuclear geophysical enigma: Nature, v. 252, P. 564-566.
Guilbert, J.M. and Park Jr. C.F. 1986. The geology of ore deposits: WH. Freeman and Company. New York. 985 p.
Hashemi-Nezhad, S.R., Fremlin, J.H., and Durrani, S.A., 1919, Polonium haloes in mice: Nature, v. 278. p 333-335
Hastings. R.J., 1987a, New observations on paluxy tracks confirm their dinosaurian origin: Journal of Geological Education, v. 35, p. 415.
Hastings, R.J., 1987b, Commentary on the polonium halos of R.V. Gentry, unpublished.
Henderson, G.H., 1939, A quantitative study of pleochroic haloes, V. The genesis of haloes: Royal Society of London Proceedings, p. 250-254.
Hewitt, D.F., 1956, Geology of Dungannan and Mayo Townships, Hastings County: Ontario Department of Mines Annual Report for 1955, v.64, part 8.
Hewitt, D.F., 1957, Geology of the Cardiff and Faraday Townships: Ontario Department of Mines, v. 66, part 3.
Hewitt. D.F., 1968, Geology of Madoc Township: Ontario Geological Survey Report 73, 45 p. Accompanied by Map 2154. scale 1 inch to 1/2 mile.
Hewitt, D.F., 1969. Geology and scenery, Peterborough, Bancroft. and Madoc area. Ontario: Ontario Department of Mines, Guide Book 3, 114 p. (reprinted 1974),
Hogarth, D.D., Moyd, L., Rose, E.R. and Steacy, H.R., 1972. Classic mineral collecting localities in Ontario and Quebec: edited by D.J. Glass, XXIV International Geological Congress, Montreal, Quebec, 79 p.
Joly, J., 1923. The age of the earth: Scientific Monthly, v. 16, p. 205-216.
Katzmann, R.G.,1979. Time: in Full Measure: EOS, v. 60, no. 2, p. 19-21.
Laakso, R.K., 1968, Geology of Lake Township, Ontario: Ontario Geological Survey Report 54, accompanied by Map 2106.
Lumbers, S.B., 1968, Geology of Cashel Township, Ontario: Ontario Geological Survey Report 71, accompanied by Map2142.
Lumbers, S.B., 1975, Geology at the Burwash area, districts of Nipissing, Parry Sound. and Sudbury: Ontario Geological Survey Report 116, 158 p. accompanied by Map 2271, scale 1 inch to 2 miles.
Lumbers, S.B., 1982. Summary of metallogeny, Renfrew County Area: Ontario Geological Survey Report 212, 58 p., accompanied by maps 2459 – 2462, scale I:100,000, and chart.
Kasameyer, P.W., Younker, L.W., Eichslbergsr, J.C., Lysne, P.C., and Vogel, T.A., 1985. Thermal evolution of Inyo magma (Abstract), EOS, v. 66, p. 385.
Mason, B., 1960, Principles of Geochemistry, John Wiley & Sons. New York
Masson, S.L., 1982. Geology and mineral deposits of the Bancroft area, western part, Southern Ontario: Ontario Geological Survey Map.2523, Geological Series- Preliminary Map. Scale 1:10,033.
Masson, S.L. and Garden, J.B., 1981. Radioactive mineral deposits of the Pembroke-Renfrew area: Ontario Geological Survey, Mineral Deposits Circular 23,155 p., accompanied by Preliminary Map P. 2210. scale 1:126,120.
Mehnert, K.R., 1968. Migmatites and the origin of granitic rocks: Elsevier, NewYork.
Meier, H., and Hacker. W., 1976. Radioactive halos as possible indicators for geochemical processes in magmatites: Geochemical Journal, v. 10, p. 185-195.
Melinick, J., 1982. The case for the polonium radiohalos: Origins Research, v. 5, no. 1, Winter-Spring 1982.
Meyn, H.D., 1985, Bancroft Resident Geologists Area, Algonquin Region, in Report of Activies 1985 Regional and Resident Geologist, Ontario Geological Survey. Miscellaneous Paper 128. p. 278-284,
Moazed, C., Spector, R.M. and Ward, R.F., 1973. Polonium radiohalos: An alternate interpretation: Science, v. 180, p. 1272-1274.
Morris, H.R., 1955. Surface geology of the Faraday uranium mine, Bancroft. Ontario: Unpublished MS thesis. University of Toronto.
Moyd, L., in press, Large nepheline, biotite and albite-antiperthite crystals in calcite-cored vein-dikes in nephelinized gneiss at Davis Hill near Bancroft, Ontario, Mineralogical Record.
Ontario Geological Survey, Geological Compilation Series. Maps 2161 (1968), 2166 (1969), 2202 (1971), 2205 (1973), 2220 (1972), 2232 (1973), 2361 (1977), & 2419 (1979), scale 1:253,440 and Maps 2392 (1978), 2393 (1978), & 2391 (1978), scale 1:1,013,760.
Osmon, P., 1986, Gentry’s pleochroic halos: Creation/Evolution Newsletter, Feser, Karl D., Editor, v. 6, no. 1, Concord College, Athens, West Virginia.
Pearson, D., 1973. Understanding the earth, 22 hour TV university geology credit: Penny Crompton, Producer, TV Ontario, Toronto.
Robenson, J.A., 1968. Geology of townships 149 and 150: Ontario Geological Survey. Report 57, 162 p., accompanied by Maps 2113 and 2114, scale 1 inch to 1/4 mile, and charts.
Sabina, Ann P., 1986. Rocks and minerals for the collector. Bancroft – Parry Sound and Southern Ontario, Geological Survey of Canada, Miscellaneous Report 39, 182 p.
Saga, R.P., and Breaks, F.W., 1982. Geology at the Cat – Lake Pickle Lake area. Districts of Kenora and Thunder Bay, Ontario Geological Survey Report 207, 238p. accompanied by Map 2218. scale 1.253,440, and charts,
Satterly, J., 1957. Radioactive mineral occurances in the Bancroff area: Ontario Department of Mines, Annual Report 1956, v. 65, part 6, p. 108-115.
Schadewald, R., 1987. Gentry’s tiny mystery, Creation/Evolution Newsletter, Fezer, Karl D, Editor, v. 4, no. 2 & 3. Concord College. Athens. West Virginia, p 20.
Shaw, D.M., and Hewin, D.F., 1962, Geology of Chandos and Wollaston Townships, Peterborough and Hastings Counties: Ontario Geologlcal Survey, Report 11. p. 29-59. accompanied by Maps 2019 & 2020, scale 1:31,360.
Thurston, P.C., Siragusa, G.M., and Sage. R.P., 1977. Geology of the Chapleau area, Districts of Algoma, Sudbury and Cochrane: Ontario Geological Survey, Report 157, 293 p., accompanied by Maps 2351 and 2352. scale 1:250,000, and Map 2221, scale 1:253,440.
Thurston, P.C., Siragusa, G.M, and Sage. R.P. 1979, Geology of the Winisk Lake area. Districts of Kenora, Patricia Portion: Ontario Geological Survey Report 193, 169p., accompanied by Maps 2287 and 2292. scale 1:253,440 and charts.
van de Kamp, D.C., 1968, Geochemistry and origin of metasediments in the Haliburton-Madoc areas Southern Ontario: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 5, p. 1337-1372.
Wagner, D., 1982, Evolutionists confront creationists at AAAS symposium: – An analysis: Origins Research, v. 5, no. 2, Fall/Winter 1982, p.5.
Wakefield, J.R., 1988, Gentry’s tiny mystery – unsupported by geology: Creation/Evolution, Issue XXII, v. 8, no. 1, Buffalo, New York. P. 15-33.
Whitcomb, J.C., and Morris, H.M., 1961, The Genesis Flood: Presbyterian and Reformed, 518 p.
Windley, B.F., 1986. Comparative tectonics of the western Grenville and the western Himalaya, in J.M. Moore, A. Davidson, and A.J. Baer, editors, The Grenville Province: Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 32, p. 341-348,
Winkler, H.G.F., 1976, Petrogensis of metamorphic rocks: 4th edition. Springer Verlag, New York.
Wynne-Edwards, H.R., 1972. The Grenville Province, p. 263-335 in R.A., Price and R.J.W. Douglas, editors, Variations in tectonic styles in Canada: Geological Association of Canada. Special Paper 11.
York, D., 1979. Polonium halos and geochronology: EOS, V. 60, p. 617-618.
About the Author
Richard Wakefield is a professional firefighter for the City of Scarborough, Ontario, Canada, a self-taught amateur geologist, and a software developer. He was the Liaison for the Ontario Committee of Correspondence (OASIS) and was on the Executive Committee for the Ontario Skeptics. His main interest is the Precambrian Canadian Shield. Currently he is studying the rocks of the complex Grenville Supergroup, not far from his home. Wakefield attended the University of Toronto part-time where he studied zoology and physics. He hopes to return to university to finish his degree and eventually get his PhD in geology. He lives, with his wife and four children, in Pickering, Ontario.
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it hard to believe that the universe was created in a flash with the one bit of evidence being the halo effect captured in zircon. This would mean that all the other “evidence” of the big bang, cosmic expansion, light having reached us over billions of years from great distances, etc., are a distraction, or a misinformation ploy.
G-d does not lie. He does not decieve. All this other evidence would have to have been put in place to appear as if the universe were over 13 billion years old. Why?
I’m a strong proponent of ID (not creationism), but this snippet seems to be a red herring to me.
stonemeister on June 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM
and he enjoys needlepoint..
DaveC on June 16, 2008 at 9:47 PM
So there you have it. One well known Creationist on one side and the Entire Scientific Community on the other.
So that leaves only one last question,
Grape or fruit punch?
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 9:49 PM
When I read the book, ‘Them’ by Ron Jonson.. I knew that would be the party to crash. :)
in the book, there is a reference to George W. being there and suggests that he could have made his choice for VP after meeting Cheney camping up there.
DaveC on June 16, 2008 at 9:51 PM
They used to publish Gentry’s research on polonium halos..
The ’scientific” community applauded his research and it was widely accepted.
Then they realized it destroys evolution and now..not only do they not publish him..they made sure he lost his tenure, smeared his name and ruined his career.
Frankly he’s lucky they didn’t imprison him.
But don’t worry,evolution is a proven theory.
Believe it…..or else.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 9:52 PM
I thank you for your intellectual honesty and conversational generosity.
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 9:52 PM
I’m late to this thread. Did you all settle the issue?
frankj on June 16, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Koan – What is the sound of one side folding?
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Sounds like you’re from the Al Gore scientific journal, making scientific decisions by popular vote. “The debate is over.” Hey, if it worked for Global Warming and astrology, then why not evolution?
stonemeister on June 16, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Hardly anyone addressed the issue.
RushBaby on June 16, 2008 at 9:54 PM
And now, having read a few more posts, my appeal to the anti-ID’er is to take your eyes off the weak arguments of the ID/IC/and/or Creationists posting on this thread–it’s easy to find weaknesses and flaws–I see them too. Of course there are some good supporting arguments too, but regardless, the big picture is that it is impossible to separate science from philosophy. You’ve got to understand your categories.
Do you want schools to stop teaching philosophy? No. Stop teaching science? No. Unless you’re a hypocrite, you want them to teach both, and do it very well. You want students (and teachers) to understand how they relate, how they overlap, and under what circumstances/categories they can be focused on separately. But again, they are ultimately intertwined and denying this, so many of us are killing our minds for the sake of political or personal prejudices. Championing ignorance and bifurcation of science from philosophy is intellectual idolatry, prejudice; a shame and a sham.
G. Charles on June 16, 2008 at 9:56 PM
we’re all going home now.. Ronsfi drank the rest of the jungle juice and now the alcohol is gone..
DaveC on June 16, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Oh, yeah, this is about Jindal. Sure, why not, he sounds good.
Now, back to the debate.
stonemeister on June 16, 2008 at 9:56 PM
good lord!
Micah on June 16, 2008 at 9:57 PM
From what all I’ve read and heard about him, I’ll vote for him as Pres.. I only hope he doesn’t attach himself to McCain as VP.. wouldn’t want the stench of Maverick on him..
DaveC on June 16, 2008 at 9:58 PM
A tactful, fair, and balanced call to harmony, with a reasoned approach to the debate. Well put.
Now blow me.
stonemeister on June 16, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Shouldn’t you be in your trailer combing out your eyebrow!
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Oh, how nice it is to see so many ad hominem fallacies. What purpose do they serve, really?
What is science? Two types: Operational and Forensic. Operational: testable in a lab; used to predict future behavior. Forensic: make observations of relics of the past and create a theory of how the world used to be (i.e. A cop at a crime scene. He wasn’t there when it happened, but makes observations of present relics of the past, which lead him to conclusions that can never be known with absolute certainty.) What is faith? To make an assumption based upon what we know. This assumption can be blind or based upon sound arguments (i.e. I know this chair will hold me based upon previous experience and my knowledge of physics.) What is evolution? A conclusion of what happened in the past based upon observations of present relics of the past. What is ID? A conclusion of what happened in the past based upon observations of what happened in the past. Which one requires faith? Because neither can be known with absolute certainty, because both are the results of forensic science, they both require faith. The degree, or level, of faith required is what is debated when one talks about whether macroevolution or intelligent design took place. This is based upon our knowledge of philosophy and scientific laws.
Evolution and intelligent design should not be taught in science classes, but rather in philosophy classes.
If I’m wrong, please tell me how.
Send_Me on June 16, 2008 at 10:01 PM
So now I must be some ugly white trash trailer mutt, huh? You win on points! Great debate!
stonemeister on June 16, 2008 at 10:01 PM
You’re wrong.
stonemeister on June 16, 2008 at 10:03 PM
sounds good to me.. i’m for it.. but some of the hard core darwinist will put you on a train for siberia for that solution.. hell, they made me bring my own shovel..:)
DaveC on June 16, 2008 at 10:06 PM
And after you set the bar so high.
Now go sand down your knuckle callouses.
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 10:08 PM
………………. Wine, please. Thank you.
Great Ceasar’s Ghost, I take a day to watch some golf and be with my son on Father’s Day, and I come back to this thread……..
Seven Percent Solution on June 16, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Is the intelligent design discussion a proxy fight for belief vs. atheism? The heart’s the real issue. We all must serve someone or something. Hostility to the living God leads inevitably to worse masters.
secretfire on June 16, 2008 at 10:10 PM
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 9:40 PM
I think all of those references you copied are merely references for various points of science made within the paper. Gentry’s claim was that Thomas A. Baillieul’s work was not published and of course it was Baillieul that is disputing Gentry on the page you first linked over at Talk origins.
So while that is a very impressive list of references, none of them are disputing Gentry, they are merely support for the overall paper…. right?
Or what are you implying this list is?
I see that your top link is to a paper written by W.T. Bridgman, is this published? I have no idea if it is published or not, do you? I did not discredit your original source, I simply replied with what Gentry had to say about it.
Frankly ronsfi, this stuff you have referenced is over my head and I don’t mind admitting it. I cannot verify that Gentry is correct, I don’t have the knowledge or the skills necessary to do so. I doubt that you do either.
This is something that will have to be decided by a fair scientific hearing, I don’t believe Gentry has got that yet. So we will see what becomes of it. But no matter what becomes of it, Gentry’s work is by no means the only work producing evidence for a young earth.
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 10:14 PM
I think Ronsfi is showing off his mad ‘cut and paste’ skillz..
DaveC on June 16, 2008 at 10:16 PM
I suppose someone as smug and self-important as yourself would have difficulty recognizing humor.
If the best you can do in debate is to name-call and assume your counterpart is mentally, financially, or genetically deficient, then I truly feel sorry for you. As for your argument, it must be incredibly weak.
stonemeister on June 16, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Ronsfi,
Have you no intellectual honesty man?
Are you the kind of evolutionist that just preaches your drivel to the masses or are you the kind of true sheep that really believes it?
Own up to the origin of your religion and embrace it!
Are you a true evolutionist or a fake one?
How often do you sacrifice humans to Baal?
Do you do it every saturday or just once every few months?
These are the kind of questions that you really need to ask yourself.
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 10:17 PM
I am not going to defend ronsfi, but don’t stray from the debate by trying to belittle or pigeonhole people here. You lose points for that.
stonemeister on June 16, 2008 at 10:20 PM
and now, the facts as best we know them according to real science – which is subject to change because of new evidence! something closeminded people don’t understand:
Wi-Fi does not cause migranes
vaccinations do not cause autism
you wont get a cramp and drown because you swim after eating
fire can melt steel
DDT is actually pretty safe for humans
altering the atmosphere by a few % with Co2 is not causing enviornmental chaos
breast implants have never been proven to cause illness
the plastic that has been used to make toys and baby bottles for decades is not toxic
evolution is not a conspiracy to attack christianity
On this topic I’m surprised how many on the right are so happy and quick to adopt liberal conspiracy theory type philosophy. Do you really want to be grouped with this level of intellectual integrity – all the people who claim to know things when there is no proof?
Resolute on June 16, 2008 at 10:24 PM
no its just atheism masquerading as science.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Look some troll screams “no one can refute this evidence” so I post many online sources offering detailed and referenced refutations and predictably the sources are not good enough. Shocker. I am not emotionally invested in the argument and most of the material is over my head as well but I can read the articles, examine the sourcing and judge for myself. I find New Earth claims at best unconvincing and at worst laughably outrageous. But hey, I’m late for my Illuminaughty cabal mixer. Manga!
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 10:27 PM
To which side of the debate do you refer? Both sides have more than just a little conspiracy theory applied.
stonemeister on June 16, 2008 at 10:28 PM
dude.. you are going to have to narrow that down.. there is like 500 posts here.. and each one claiming to be smarter than the other..
I have my suspicions on who is actually the smartest on here.. but that’s for another topic..
DaveC on June 16, 2008 at 10:28 PM
You have the final vote here, Dave. Don’t forget to tell us who wins!
stonemeister on June 16, 2008 at 10:30 PM
damn.. and I have to go too.. be back tomorrow.
DaveC on June 16, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Don’t worry about him, dude. He’ll get the axe all on his own. It’s inevitable.
Spirit of 1776 on June 16, 2008 at 10:37 PM
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Hey, it would do me no good to read it because I don’t know squat about rocks. It’s just way out of my field. Even if I formed an opinion with my meager understanding it, I couldn’t defend it.
And like I said before, I did not discredit or attempt to discredit your original link, I only posted what Gentry’s rebuttal was to it and allow him to speak for himself.
Smarter men than me are going to have to figure out if Gentry is right or not, I just don’t have the background for it. But I do know this, big science lies and lies to defend their pet evolution theory and I could give you one example after another of that.
So when Gentry says they are being dishonest just to defend their goofy pet evolution theory, that is very easy for me to believe.
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 10:38 PM
How and why?
Send_Me on June 16, 2008 at 10:49 PM
It is a list of things in which there were strong political or cultural movements which seek to influence science, and were proven wrong over time. They are preconceived ideas that people try to use science to justify. They all failed. ID is the same as everything else on that list.
Resolute on June 16, 2008 at 10:51 PM
The purpose of the universe is to display the Glory of God!
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 10:55 PM
right ID has failed, thats why the darwiniacs have to sue, harass, and silence those they disagree with. that they do, shows ID is very successful.
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Just messing with you. Your argument was so agreeable, I felt an urge to unjustifiably disagree.
stonemeister on June 16, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Wouldn’t be prudent.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 11:02 PM
There’s no need to. The most befuddling conceit of theists (which is even more befuddlingly frequently embraced by secularists) is that, to counter their scriptural assertsions, one must be not only an expert cosmologist, biologist, paleontologist, and whatever else have you, but have some perfected form knowledge in those disciplines that transcends the current level of achievements in those fields.
Clearly that is an absurd standard, and it isn’t the correct juxtaposition. The sufficient counter to scriptural assertions is not the unification of physics, initimate knowedge of genetics, intimacy with the geological strata, or any other conceivable body of scientific knowledge. The only counter needed is the willingness to utter the entirely non-contentious statement “I really don’t know.”
Blacklake on June 16, 2008 at 11:03 PM
evolutionists never admit they don’t know. and even if they did, evolution must be true, so they just blow it off, and think that someday they’ll have the secular/atheist/evolutionist answer. They always have some ’story’ to fit the evolutionary ‘narrative’
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Fair enough :)
Send_Me on June 16, 2008 at 11:11 PM
There’s no need to falsely demonize evolutionists with every negative complaint on earth. It is true that atheists see great value in evolution, as the theory eliminates the need for G-d to explain humankind’s creation. Because of this, evolution was fast-tracked to wide acceptance by adherents, even though there is scant evidence to support it, and a lot of evidence to debunk it.
ID has the opposite set of hurdles. While supporters tend to be theists, ID is mischaracterized as the equivalent of creationism, and supporters referred to as “knuckle draggers”, not worthy of a platform.
The debate is over on this one too, it seems.
stonemeister on June 16, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Thanks. This comment is the one that looks like calling AP names though to me.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 11:15 PM
asking a guy to “blow” you? Hmmm..
Not that anything is wrong with that, if you’re into to that sort of this.. but this probably isn’t the place to do it. Kinda like a restroom isn’t the place for a wide stance toe tapping..
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 11:19 PM
So what are you saying, this is some sort of a faux pas?
Noted.
stonemeister on June 16, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Just saying someone might get the wrong impression.. ;)
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Also, doesn’t look good as a whole.
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 11:23 PM
You mean someone besides you? Bam!
stonemeister on June 16, 2008 at 11:23 PM
This thread is dead…
Another victory for creationists!
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 11:29 PM
huh..???
No, pointing out stuff with my horrible engrish.. makes everyone look that much worse. :}
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 11:31 PM
I’m glad you escaped the lock box. Look MB4 I like it here, this is a great blog with smart people and great comments. We are for the most part civil and respectable of each other. I would like it to stay that way. We mere commenters need to speak up when we see something inappropriate.
I once saw some commenter post a sales ad for a gun on this blog. NO KIDDING, he had a link and a descriptions and everything, totally inappropriate, you shouldn’t let people get away with that kind of crap. I wrote to Allah about it, the guy was banned as he should have been.
Allah can’t be expected to see everything, but I was surprised he hadn’t seen IC post after post where he at least inferred racial slurs. Was Indy a racists? I don’t know, but he sure as heck should have known better than to posts what he did time and time again. Lefty blogs will dig those comments out and use them to show what a bunch of inane toothless racist we are.
At some point, if you don’t want HotAir to sink down into the dregs like the Kos kids, then you have to say something. Allah decides, not me or you or anybody else. But you do need to speak up sometimes.
You liked Indy, I didn’t. Sorry if my actions offended you, but I thought he was over the top. He never got my goat.
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 11:32 PM
7 pages.. OMG.. that should be enough for anyone.. :}
Chakra Hammer on June 16, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Let’s try this.
I strongly agree with those who emphasize that progressive does not equal liberal.
- or -
I strongly agree with those who emphasize that “Climate Change” does not equal “Global Warming”.
See how silly those two are? Well, they are not any sillier than guess what.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Of course He/She/It doesn’t. Things that do not exists can not lie or deceive. Elementary.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 11:41 PM
I appreciate the question, for I can see the genesis of it (no pun intended.) I’d ask you to consider this: at what stage of development do you think the people that God created were? That is, were Adam and Eve fully grown? Infants? Newborns? Zygotes? Were the trees saplings? Fully-grown oaks? I’d say that the universe was created fully functional, which we may assume to appear old, but is a misunderstanding on our part versus any intent by God to deceive. Why would we assume that God would have to wait so long for the light to get from distant stars to our planet rather than creating the stars with the light already reaching our planet?
Send_Me on June 16, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Looked to my like he got you goat and your cow.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Not a chance, I keep them in a lock box.
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 11:52 PM
How about looking at it this way, MB4:
You old Earth beleivers and us young Earth creationists hold the same evidence in our hands, but we weigh them on different scales. The evidence we (young earth believers) see all over the world fits perfectly with the Biblical narrative. The Biblical narrative is our one scale.
The evidence you old Earth believers gather needs to be weighed on multiple, different scales continually in order for your theory to make sense. Your multiple scales are the constantly discarded scientific theories, journals and textbooks.
Skidd on June 16, 2008 at 11:52 PM
This debate is probably too much for a blog, certainly this particular one. We differ on this. IMHO I believe some elements of evolution are probably true to some extent or another, but I doubt the universe was already created with light already on its way here from distant stars. That sounds just plain dumb to me.
stonemeister on June 16, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Sure they say “I don’t know,” when it comes down to the basic questions. How did life first form on the Earth? There are postulations and largely untested theories, but nobody I’m aware of pretends to know, anymore than any physicist or cosmologist pretend to understand what caused the Big Bang–another condition that theists insist one must be able to explain in full lest their scriptural proclamations inexplicably prevail.
Omniscience is not the rational alternative to scriptural stipulation. A simple recognition that there is no need for the scriptural stipulations is, and being unafraid to recognize the limits of human knowledge constitutes that recognition. A garbage collector who knows nothing whatsoever about evolution, genetics, or physics is in every bit as sound a philosophical position as the world’s most reknowned researchers to have no need for religious scripture, if in response to all these “origin” questions he’s willing to admit he does not know all the answers, and is comfortable with that.
Blacklake on June 16, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Evolution is a faith based theory every bit as much as ID, since neither can be proven.
Kjeil on June 17, 2008 at 12:00 AM
In your humble opinion, right?
Send_Me on June 17, 2008 at 12:02 AM
AP has asked repeated for people to point out the offensive/racist/etc comments to him as he doesn’t have time to police the threads. It’s part of common cause to keep the place respectable. Whether anyone drew attention to IC was not really relevant. When AP saw the pattern of IC’s behavior, he would have got the hammer w/out regard to any poster’s opinion.
Spirit of 1776 on June 17, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Very good point.
God also says numerous times in the Bible, that He SPREADS OUT THE HEAVENS!
The simple explanation is that He spread out the heavens.
That is why we see light from stars that are far away.
It is a false assumption to say that the stars were created at that distance and that their light traveled all the way here…how would anyone know that?
SaintOlaf on June 17, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Do I have any other kind?
stonemeister on June 17, 2008 at 12:05 AM
The evolution of life on Earth over a billion years or so is a fact; just look at the fossil record. The theory of natural selection attempts, more and more successfully, to explain how it happened. This research is very complex and constantly expanding. We do not yet know how life first originated.
People who study the evolution of life on Earth are biologists or paleontologists, i.e. scientists. Scientists may be conservative or liberal. They may or may not hold, or espouse, values derived from religion. These values do not necessarily conflict with their work.
So-called ‘Intelligent Design’ is not science, because it does not propose hypotheses that can be falsified. It is an appeal to the ‘God of the Gaps’, i.e. when we don’t know the answer, we say, “God did it.” The ancients didn’t understand thunderstorms, so they invoked the gods. So do the proponents of ‘Intelligent Design’.
Since ID is not science but theology, it should not be taught in science classes. It should be taught in classes on religion and theology.
When prominent and promising conservatives like Gov. Jindal support teaching theology in science classes, they make all conservatives look like fools.
End of discussion.
MrLynn on June 17, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Tell me exactly how ID being allowed to be taught is equal to Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion or the free practice thereof???
PLEASE TELL ME!!!
MechEng5by5 on June 17, 2008 at 12:07 AM
You are a good example of how this blog will entertain even the most uninformed of opinions! The door is open even to people, such as yourself, who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
Everyone is free to express themselves, whether they have studied the material or not, whether they passed or failed middle school science.
Good for you!
stonemeister on June 17, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Please read my previous comment on this.
Send_Me on June 17, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Reagan pretty much agreed with Jindal on this kind of theoscientific lore, and neither view, then or now, means much, and their type of meddling can be kept out of political trouble with reasonable oversight.
There are whales to fry, and this issue is plankton.
SCOTUS FIVE Unconstitutional move on habaes corpus in wartime.
For one.
profitsbeard on June 17, 2008 at 12:10 AM
I love these types of threads. I love that we can debate this type of subject and that so many comments are interesting, even informative.
But, I’m tired. Must go to sleep.
Good night, all.
Skidd on June 17, 2008 at 12:15 AM
Game, set, match Watson!!!
Holmes on June 17, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11 Next »