BCSE critiques "Explore Evolution"

If there is one characteristic of ID/creationists that screams willful liars, it would be this constant repetition of misconceptions and misrepresentations for 40+ years despite repeated attempts by scientists to set these IDiots straight.

ID/creationists know they are lying; and they have known it form the beginning of their campaign back in the 1960s and 70s.

And now we see other fundamentalist and right wing organizations like Fox Noise and Glen Beck gleefully adopting the same shtick and applying it ruthlessly to the rubes that gobble up the crap they spew out.

Jon Stewart had it right on his program this evening; it’s what this country has become. Expecting that calm, rational presentations of facts will overcome such screaming hysteria might be too unrealistic. Demagogues who drive an ignorant populace into paralyzing paranoia have a strategic advantage as their followers cut their own throats while they sabotage every effort to fix things. All these demagogues have to do is pick through the chaos they create to get what they want while everything else goes to hell.

Here is the BCSE blog post with a bit more background and an open letter to UK school librarians.

http://bcseweb.org.uk/blog/explore-evolution-exposed/

psiloiordinary said: Here is the BCSE blog post with a bit more background and an open letter to UK school librarians. http://bcseweb.org.uk/blog/explore-evolution-exposed/

Its fine to contend with your critics but its not fine to censor them.
It always seems to me , and others that evolution believers have a spirit of censorship and advocate same.
Schools are places for education including education on subjects of great public disagreement.
Originally schools banned evolution etc and now they ban creationism(s).
The schools should simply allow full investigation and discussion, in science or origin class, and let the merits of each case to its own fruit.
I'm confident creationisms would always gain at he loss of evolution and company.
I suspect evolutionists do too.
So the strategy is a desperate attempt at censorship or general attack based other then on the merits.
Seems that way from Canada.

actually, it's a form of censorship when you swamp the debate by shouting established lies at people who don't know any better, waiting until more rational forces go away or, preferably, edging them out entirely. it denies people their rightful opportunity of hearing both sides.

winning in the scientific arena, on the other hand, isn't censorship. all it denies to those unqualified to judge is bad ideas, because both sides already got judged by the best available judge, which is the scientific process and community.

sorry it's not an absolute arbiter, but only the best available integration of the sum of human knowledge. maybe next time god will include a few chapters on physical laws

Robert Byers said: Its fine to contend with your critics but its not fine to censor them. It always seems to me , and others that evolution believers have a spirit of censorship and advocate same. Schools are places for education including education on subjects of great public disagreement. Originally schools banned evolution etc and now they ban creationism(s). The schools should simply allow full investigation and discussion, in science or origin class, and let the merits of each case to its own fruit. I'm confident creationisms would always gain at he loss of evolution and company. I suspect evolutionists do too. So the strategy is a desperate attempt at censorship or general attack based other then on the merits. Seems that way from Canada.

Robert Byers said: Its fine to contend with your critics but its not fine to censor them. It always seems to me , and others that evolution believers have a spirit of censorship and advocate same.

Robert Byers said: Its fine to contend with your critics but its not fine to censor them. It always seems to me , and others that evolution believers have a spirit of censorship and advocate same. Schools are places for education including education on subjects of great public disagreement. Originally schools banned evolution etc and now they ban creationism(s). The schools should simply allow full investigation and discussion, in science or origin class, and let the merits of each case to its own fruit. I'm confident creationisms would always gain at he loss of evolution and company. I suspect evolutionists do too. So the strategy is a desperate attempt at censorship or general attack based other then on the merits. Seems that way from Canada.

DS said:

Robert Byers said: Its fine to contend with your critics but its not fine to censor them. It always seems to me , and others that evolution believers have a spirit of censorship and advocate same. Schools are places for education including education on subjects of great public disagreement. Originally schools banned evolution etc and now they ban creationism(s). The schools should simply allow full investigation and discussion, in science or origin class, and let the merits of each case to its own fruit. I'm confident creationisms would always gain at he loss of evolution and company. I suspect evolutionists do too. So the strategy is a desperate attempt at censorship or general attack based other then on the merits. Seems that way from Canada.

Bull semen. Schools do not ban creationism and you know it. It is perfectly fine to teach it, along with other myths, in comparative religion class. What you can't do is lie and teach it as science in science class. You know this already so you are lying, that's much worse than imagined censorship. By the way, we don't teach astrology, basket weaving, ice cream making, voodoo, rock and roll music, tennis or football in science class either. Are they a victim of censorship? Schools already allow full investigation and discussion. What we have found is that creationism is crap, pure and simple. Deal with it you lying son of a woman.

Keelyn wrote:

"DS, I think that last sentence was a really cheap shot - at women."

Agreed. Sorry, it was just an assumption on my part. I could be wrong.

Robert Byers said: I'm confident creationisms would always gain at he loss of evolution and company.

The advocates of ID/creationism/whatever have plenty of opportunities to tell us what their "alternative" is to evolution. Yet they do not avail themselves of those opportunities, preferring to engage in self-censorship.

What is the theory of creationism?

The secular account of natural history is a bloody one. It is full of dead-end species and waste. Evolution, in the modern sense, consumes life upon life to allow the fittest to survive and adapt. It is wasteful. It is inefficient. It is “red in tooth and claw.”

Its fine to contend with your critics but its not fine to censor them.

A number of schools in Northern Ireland have received the book.I've been told Methodist College in Belfast got a copy. The science department actually had a look at it, and deemed it unsuitable for use as a science textbook.

that evolution believers.,

I’m confident creationisms would always gain at he loss of evolution and company.

I suspect evolutionists do too,

Robert Byers said: Its fine to contend with your critics but its not fine to censor them.

Another review of ID material:
Darwin’s Dilemma: I watched it so you don’t have to.
by Jerry Coyne

Robert Byers said: Its fine to contend with your critics but its not fine to censor them. It always seems to me , and others that evolution believers have a spirit of censorship and advocate same.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: Its fine to contend with your critics but its not fine to censor them.

Panda's Thumb, a science blog allows you all the airtime you can fill, regardless of content or coherence. Uncommon Descent, an ID blog, does not allow posts questioning ID. You tell me who has something to hide.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: Its fine to contend with your critics but its not fine to censor them.

Panda's Thumb, a science blog allows you all the airtime you can fill, regardless of content or coherence. Uncommon Descent, an ID blog, does not allow posts questioning ID. You tell me who has something to hide.

Yes, Paul Nelson, but secular gravitational theory is also bloody and red in crushed bodies. Just look at what happened in Haiti.

Karen S. quoting Paul Nelson: The secular account of natural history is a bloody one. It is full of dead-end species and waste.

I just find it ironic that a creationist claim that scientists censor conversation sparks one guy who was banned on another site to argue with others about why he was banned.

Yeah, clearly the scientists here at PT are into censorship. That is, if by "are into" you actually mean "oppose."

So is the BCSE pamphlet getting distribution to all the schools that got Jack McBrayer's Stephen Meyer's crap in the first place? Just askin'.

Most blogs moderate behavior but creationist blogs tend to eliminate ideas. This suggests that creationist ideas are fragile and cannot stand up to challenge. That was Stevaroni's point.

However, "censorship" is best used to refer to enforceable government action.

Private blogs have the right to "ban" and "delete" as they see fit; so what?

Unfortunately, creationists support censorship and religious persecution in a meaningful way.

They do NOT merely support deleting pro-science comments from creationist blogs. Rather, they agitate to have patently false narrow sectarian propaganda taught in public schools as "science", with actual science, and other religious views, being censored.

They also even tend to want censorship of all media, by a government they control, in a way that favors their sect as the "official" one and persecutes others.

It has no effect on me whatsoever if PZ Myers bans John Kwok from his blog. PZ Myers is not trying to violate my constitutional rights.

I must agree with John Kwok on one thing. In my view, it is ludicrous to refer to Ken Miller as a "creationist". No-one who fully accepts scientific reality is a "creationist", whatever their religious or political position may be. Whether or not being a Catholic is better or worse than being a secular humanist is a subjective and philosophical question. For the record I am an apatheist and basically a secular humanist, albeit perhaps an imperfect one.

Jesus Kwok, even a simple nod your way gets met with a flood of namedropping and controversy. I was making a point about censorship; namely the point that, as annoying and gnat-like as you may be, nothing you've done qualifies you for a ban.

Banning people from posting on blogs just because you don't like them is something lifted straight from UD. If Myers wants to be the science version of UD, so be it, but if Kwok is the harmless buffoon he is, there should be no reason to. Unless he posts child pornography or something, banning him for his views is a creotard activity.

Yes, Myers went off the deep end with the Ken Miller comment. He also went off the deep end in thinking none of us are big enough boys to handle Kwok's nonsense, to the point where he has to shield us from his comments.

Is it his blog? Yes. Can he do whatever he wants with it? Absolutely, I wouldn't have it any other way. But banning people he doesn't like gives blog readers - and those outside of our immediate circle - an idea of the kind of person he is, just like we all know what kind of people the circle-jerkers at UD are.

Don't be a circle-jerker.

While climing Mt. Cheam in Chilliwack one summer, I was beset with gnats. I can understand the desire to ban them if they get annoying enough.

You could outlaw all teaching of physics and geology and guess what? There would still be earthquakes and people would still get killed in them.

Karen S. said:

You could outlaw all teaching of physics and geology and guess what? There would still be earthquakes and people would still get killed in them.

Don't you understand? If our children are taught naturalistic, blind, purposeless gravitational theory it will make them go to overpasses and drop rocks onto the motorists below. I think that gravitational theory is responsible for most juvenile delinquency these days.

John Kwok said: You have only yourself to blame, RDK. May I suggest you don't criticize me in the future? You have become a recipient of what is one of my new year's resolutions, to remind some of my fellow supporters of evolution why they shouldn't attack me or especially, someone as prominent as Ken Miller for advocating the teaching only of sound, well-established, science in science classrooms:

RDK said: Jesus Kwok, even a simple nod your way gets met with a flood of namedropping and controversy. I was making a point about censorship; namely the point that, as annoying and gnat-like as you may be, nothing you've done qualifies you for a ban. Banning people from posting on blogs just because you don't like them is something lifted straight from UD. If Myers wants to be the science version of UD, so be it, but if Kwok is the harmless buffoon he is, there should be no reason to. Unless he posts child pornography or something, banning him for his views is a creotard activity.

I just have this to say:

Shut UP John.

for the love of all things, just SHUT UP.

nobody bloody cares what your interpretation of events is, nobody cares what your interpretation of PZ is, and nobody cares what you think of Miller.

seriously, get a clue.

Karen S. said:

You could outlaw all teaching of physics and geology and guess what? There would still be earthquakes and people would still get killed in them.

Don't you understand? If our children are taught naturalistic, blind, purposeless gravitational theory it will make them go to overpasses and drop rocks onto the motorists below. I think that gravitational theory is responsible for most juvenile delinquency these days.

It makes you look like a schizophrenic

no, it makes him look like he has a personality disorder.

which, he does imo.

Mike Elzinga -

I can tell you're being sarcastic, but is that based on something that someone actually did?

Ichthyic said: I just have this to say: Shut UP John. for the love of all things, just SHUT UP. nobody bloody cares what your interpretation of events is, nobody cares what your interpretation of PZ is, and nobody cares what you think of Miller. seriously, get a clue.

again, this is reflective of your personality disorder john, to think anyone cares what you are actually saying instead of just being endlessly irritated by the noise it makes.

you often compare your critics to creationists, well, this indeed is one of their most popular tactics, to claim that since so many criticize them for their stupidity, they must really be on to something.

think about that.

RDK said:

John Kwok said: You have only yourself to blame, RDK. May I suggest you don't criticize me in the future? You have become a recipient of what is one of my new year's resolutions, to remind some of my fellow supporters of evolution why they shouldn't attack me or especially, someone as prominent as Ken Miller for advocating the teaching only of sound, well-established, science in science classrooms:

RDK said: Jesus Kwok, even a simple nod your way gets met with a flood of namedropping and controversy. I was making a point about censorship; namely the point that, as annoying and gnat-like as you may be, nothing you've done qualifies you for a ban. Banning people from posting on blogs just because you don't like them is something lifted straight from UD. If Myers wants to be the science version of UD, so be it, but if Kwok is the harmless buffoon he is, there should be no reason to. Unless he posts child pornography or something, banning him for his views is a creotard activity.

You're either open to criticism or you're not. If you don't want to be criticized then you shouldn't say anything, which I know must be hard for you. In this case you're no better than Myers. My point was that it's not okay to censor. I never attacked Ken Miller, and I didn't attack you personally until you started up with your long-winded nonsense again. I was making a simple point about censorship in your favor, because I believe what happened to you was unfair despite how annoying you can be sometimes, and you come in here with your stories about high-school friends and how much of a lunatic Myers is. It makes you look like a schizophrenic, and it makes the rest of us look bad. You're like the Gordon Mullings of Panda's Thumb.

Ichthyic said: again, this is reflective of your personality disorder john, to think anyone cares what you are actually saying instead of just being endlessly irritated by the noise it makes. you often compare your critics to creationists, well, this indeed is one of their most popular tactics, to claim that since so many criticize them for their stupidity, they must really be on to something. think about that.

Again, you proved my point.

again, you missed mine totally.

you really need treatment, John.

harold said: Mike Elzinga - I can tell you're being sarcastic, but is that based on something that someone actually did?

OK, the Bathroom Wall was feeling neglected so I sent it some company. This is not the Myers v. Kwok thread.

Thanks.

Karen S. said: Don't you understand? If our children are taught naturalistic, blind, purposeless gravitational theory it will make them go to overpasses and drop rocks onto the motorists below. I think that gravitational theory is responsible for most juvenile delinquency these days.

The Pamplet said: Problems throughout Explore Evolution • Social controversy is misidentified as scientific dispute. • Basic terminology is misdefined. • Scientists are misrepresented. • Pedagogical principles are misunderstood. • The book's creationist agenda is misleadingly obscured. • Research papers are misrepresented • Government policies are described inaccurately. • Scientists are quoted out of context in a manner that grossly misrepresents their views.

eric said:

harold said: Mike Elzinga - I can tell you're being sarcastic, but is that based on something that someone actually did?

Yes. Read Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman. Feynman had a (somewhat overblown but not totally undeserved) reputation as a safe cracker.

Robert Byers said: Its fine to contend with your critics but it[']s not fine to censor them. It always seems to me , and others [,] that evolution believers atomic scientists have a spirit of censorship and advocate same. Schools are places for education including education on subjects of great public disagreement . Originally schools banned evolution, [atoms,] etc and now they ban creationism(s) [, continuitism, etc.]. The schools should simply allow full investigation and discussion, in science or origin class, and let the merits of each case to its own fruit. I'm confident creationisms continuitism would always gain at he loss of evolution and atomism and company. I suspect evolutionists atomists do too. So the strategy is a desperate attempt at censorship or general attack based other then on the merits. Seems that way from Canada wacko-land.

Dan said: [changed quote from Byers]

Robert Byers said: Its fine to contend with your critics but its not fine to censor them. It always seems to me, and others that Newtonists have a spirit of censorship and advocate same. Schools are places for education including education on subjects of great public disagreement. Originally schools banned gravity, etc and now they ban floatationism. The schools should simply allow full investigation and discussion, in science or origin class, and let the merits of each case to its own fruit. I'm confident floatationism would always gain at he loss of gravity and company. I suspect Newtonists do too. So the strategy is a desperate attempt at censorship or general attack based other then on the merits. Seems that way from my parent's basement.

Again, on behalf of all of Canada:

SORRY!

Robert, along with the rest of the creationist Yahoos, seems to have had his fingers in his ears the last 150 years while the investigation and discussion has been done.

No point wasting kids' time with neo-Paleyism when their time could be spent more constructively: skipping out, smoking dope, and going parking. Certainly better for the brain cells.

Claim: Phylogenetic trees should match molecular "family history" The authors do not understand phylogeny, and have a very limited understanding of the biological vocabular and issues. They propose that if common descent is correct, then the

A "family history" of organisms based on their anatomy should match the "family history" based on their molecules (such as DNA and proteins). Explore Evolution, p. 57

This is simply wrong. Genes and organisms are very different things; gene family trees and organism family trees can, and do, differ. Contrary to the book's statements, evolutionary biology does not expect these trees to match up exactly. Rather, the relationship between genes and organisms is an issue in biology that is under active research in a wide range of fields.

Robert Byers said: Its fine to contend with your critics but its not fine to censor them. It always seems to me , and others that evolution believers have a spirit of censorship and advocate same. Schools are places for education including education on subjects of great public disagreement. Originally schools banned evolution etc and now they ban creationism(s). The schools should simply allow full investigation and discussion, in science or origin class, and let the merits of each case to its own fruit. I'm confident creationisms would always gain at he loss of evolution and company. I suspect evolutionists do too. So the strategy is a desperate attempt at censorship or general attack based other then on the merits. Seems that way from Canada.

John Harshman said: I found something I consider problematic in the NCSE critique.

Robert Byers said: Its fine to contend with your critics but its not fine to censor them. It always seems to me , and others that evolution believers have a spirit of censorship and advocate same.

fnxtr said: Coincidentally, I think that was the same year we were all given pocket Bibles.

Yeah, the bibles land better and don’t tend to roll off.…

Yes. Read Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman. Feynman had a (somewhat overblown but not totally undeserved) reputation as a safe cracker.

RBH,

My apologies, I do admit to the tiny bit of trolling. I do respect Kwok's firm stance on science. I just wish he was a little more socially cognizant that I am.

Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.

British Leyland said: RBH, My apologies, I do admit to the tiny bit of trolling. I do respect Kwok's firm stance on science. I just wish he was a little more socially cognizant that I am. Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.

British Leyland said: RBH, My apologies, I do admit to the tiny bit of trolling. I do respect Kwok's firm stance on science. I just wish he was a little more socially cognizant that I am. Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.

Its fine to contend with your critics but its not fine to censor them.

— Possible Poe

It always seems to me , and others that evolution believers have a spirit of censorship and advocate same.

— Possible Poe

John,

I made a large effort at work yesterday to keep that box unchecked, particularly with the marketing area. It had to come out at some point.

British Leyland said: RBH, My apologies, I do admit to the tiny bit of trolling. I do respect Kwok's firm stance on science. I just wish he was a little more socially cognizant that I am. Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.

TomS said: What is the theory of creationism?

snaxalotl said: actually, it's a form of censorship when you swamp the debate by shouting established lies at people who don't know any better, waiting until more rational forces go away or, preferably, edging them out entirely. it denies people their rightful opportunity of hearing both sides. winning in the scientific arena, on the other hand, isn't censorship. all it denies to those unqualified to judge is bad ideas, because both sides already got judged by the best available judge, which is the scientific process and community. sorry it's not an absolute arbiter, but only the best available integration of the sum of human knowledge. maybe next time god will include a few chapters on physical laws

eric said:

Robert Byers said: Its fine to contend with your critics but its not fine to censor them. It always seems to me , and others that evolution believers have a spirit of censorship and advocate same.

You've shown many times that you don't understand the concept of censorship. Censorship would be not allowing the book to be published; it is not censorship when one chooses not to buy it - even if one is a school district. Look, there are many different textbooks published for each subject, each grade level. Schools have to choose which they think is the best. It's not "censorship" if a school chooses beginning French text A instead of beginning French text B, and in the exact same way it is not censorship if they choose Prentice Hall's "Biology" over the DI's "Explore Evolution." Moreover, the the BCSE has every right to self-publish their review/opinion of Explore Evolution. To stop them from doing so - THAT would be censorship.

Dave Lovell said:

Robert Byers said: I'm confident creationisms would always gain at he loss of evolution and company.

Robert, there is always the danger that that might happen, does it not bother you? Superstition triumphs over reason. People just like you, just as sure as you that their "creationism" is the only correct one, are in the ascendancy. How much tolerance do you think they would they show towards what they consider your heretical idea of creationism? (Hints: How much tolerance would you show towards theirs. See also Huguenots, Cathars, Crusades, etc,etc.)

TomS said: The advocates of ID/creationism/whatever have plenty of opportunities to tell us what their "alternative" is to evolution. Yet they do not avail themselves of those opportunities, preferring to engage in self-censorship. What is the theory of creationism?

Robert Byers waffles: Creationism is famous for its publications and best selling authors and more to come. I must remember the nature of the issue. It is about origins that all have a common stock in. politics , likewise, is for all and not just political science graduates. The merits of the case is what origin contentions are today about.

John Stockwell said: Dear Mr. Byers, If we wanted to find a paragraph that sums up exactly what students should not come out of school thinking, your paragraph is it.

Robert Byers said: Its fine to contend with your critics but its not fine to censor them. It always seems to me , and others that evolution believers have a spirit of censorship and advocate same.

1. Science is not a belief system, but rather an evidence based system of investigation. When scientists accept an idea strongly it is only because physical evidence points them in that direction. 2. In the course of scientific investigation some ideas are found to work, and others do not work. Science is not a free-for-all for stating opinions, but rather it is crucible whose fires burn away what is mere opinion, leaving a structure of knowledge that is reliable and provides a springboard to new results. It is not censorship to throw away stuff that does not work, it is part of the process of science.

Schools are places for education including education on subjects of great public disagreement. Originally schools banned evolution etc and now they ban creationism(s). The schools should simply allow full investigation and discussion, in science or origin class, and let the merits of each case to its own fruit.

3. No. Schools are places where quality information that is both true and useful are passed to students. In the case of science they need to learn what science is and what it is not, what they can and cannot trust. They need to learn to think. Because creationism is opinion and propaganda masquerading as science, it has no place in schools. Creationism is lightweight material that students can learn on their own, if they want to, but at no moment should students be given the idea that politics and opinion can trump real scientific investigation.

I'm confident creationisms would always gain at he loss of evolution and company. I suspect evolutionists do too. So the strategy is a desperate attempt at censorship or general attack based other then on the merits. Seems that way from Canada.

4. Creationism is nothing by nay-saying, misrepresentation, and an anti-science religion agenda masquerading as science. We would all gain if creationism were to disappear.

Byers is trying to say that creationism isn't an essentially religious belief, but at the same time he says that "biblical creationists" have an "actual witness" - Genesis. There are quite a few stories originating in ancient times that give various accounts of creation, but the only one that Byers accepts is Genesis.

The only reason why Byers wants to privilege Genesis in this way is because Byers thinks that Genesis is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. This is, of course, a religious belief.

Byers actually knows this, but then he turns around and denies it for political purposes. That is, he lies, and he knows he lies.

Byers is trying to say

I think you're on dangerous ground trying to make assumptions about what a madman is saying.

I haven't seen word one out of Byers that makes the slightest sense at all, really.

point and laugh, I say.

*laughs at Byers*

what a maroon.

It is of course tempting to reply to the moron but we should not. I suggest go hunting bigfoot instead.

Robert Byers said: Fine about science being evidenced based. Creationism(s) brings up opposite evidence and conclusions.

Creationism(s) brings up opposite evidence and conclusions.

— Robert Byers

Okay, tell us what conclusions you would teach in a biology class, the evidence you would teach that supports those conclusions, and the lab experiments you would use to demonstrate your evidence.

— eric

Robert wrote:

"Schools are to discuss, in origins, the truth. They don’t just teach conclusions based on science but instead make great conclusions about origins. The schools belong to the people and so where there is great difference then these differences must be given equal time on important issues here. Yes its about quality evidence but NO its not about one side deciding the other side doesn’t have quality evidence. The schools are about conclusions and inquiry. To censor one side, of a historic and common opinion, is plain old censorship. Origin issues are both believed in based on ones appreciation of evidence. The reason for contention is the origin are not witnessed or repeatable or testable in their great ideas. All that is done is interpretation of data long after processes have ceased. Save with biblical creationists claim of a actual witness and some record of this written down."

Right, the schools belong to the people and the people should decide what should be taught. Now listen closely Robert, what if the people decide that the flying spaghetti monster is responsible for creation? Should they be allowed to teach that in science class? If they are not is it censorship? You have provided absolutely no evidence for any of your ideas, so why should they have to? Are you for censorship Robert? Are you against inquiry? We have actual witnesses you know. Are you trying to suppress the discussion of origins? Just what do you have against the FSM, bless his noodlely appendage? Are you an anti spaghetti-O?

Rolf Aalberg said: It is of course tempting to reply to the moron but we should not. I suggest go hunting bigfoot instead.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: To a certain extent, I admire all of you who've taken the time to respond to Mr. Byers' intellectually challenged word salad, but at this point, I think Rolf's suggestion is likely to be more productive. I said this about another troll a while ago, but it certainly applies to Byers as well: "I just can’t imagine what it must be like to be that stupid. "

Rolf Aalberg said: It is of course tempting to reply to the moron but we should not. I suggest go hunting bigfoot instead.

Hey Robert! Here's a plan (from something I wrote long ago) that you should be eager to go along with:

A recent creationist plea is for "balanced treatment" in the classroom: "Let us present creationism along with evolution, so students can make an informed choice. That's only fair isn't it?" (The spirit of fairness doesn’t seem to prompt them to invite biologists to present a "balanced treatment” of evolution at revival meetings, though.)

OK, let's go along with it. In 9th grade biology let's do evolution on the first day of the school year--then we'll proceed to "alternative theories of origins" and "intelligent design theories." Tuesday we'll cover the Algonquin creation myth, Wednesday the Shinto, Thursday the Yoruba, Friday--Mayan. Next week it's Pawnee, Inuit, Mogollon, Hindu, and Zoroastrian. We'll get to the Hebrew adaptation of the Babylonian (as recorded in Genesis) the third Thursday in May (if we don't have a fire drill).

One of the Big Lies of creationism is that there are only two alternatives, and that by "defeating evolutionism" (sic), the only possible remaining alternative is the Genesis myth. (Those of us who have Seen the Truth know that the TRUE creation account is that preserved since the Beginning by the !kung Bushmen of South Africa.)

Robert Byers said: Censorship is easily understood. Its censoring things just because of opinions/conclusions. Censorship by power/government is wherever it happens despite places where it doesn't. These subjects are not about authors ablitities but about content. Its about conclusions on origin matters.

I suggest go hunting bigfoot instead.

— Rolf Aalberg

Bigfoot lives in the apartment directly above mine.

RDK said: Bubba has stooped to a new level of incoherence. I mean just take a look at this gem...

Henry J said: Bigfoot lives in the apartment directly above mine.

eric said: To be fair I don't think Byers is a native English speaker.

Paul Burnett said:

eric said: To be fair I don't think Byers is a native English speaker.

He doesn't seem to think in English, either.

Robert Byers said: Fine about science being evidenced based. Creationism(s) brings up opposite evidence and conclusions. In origin issues evidence is based seldom on science. Anyways we contend on the evidence fair and square.

Byers: Schools are to discuss, in origins, the truth. They don't just teach conclusions based on science but instead make great conclusions about origins. The schools belong to the people and so where there is great difference then these differences must be given equal time on important issues here. Yes its about quality evidence but NO its not about one side deciding the other side doesn't have quality evidence.

The schools are about conclusions and inquiry. To censor one side, of a historic and common opinion, is plain old censorship. Origin issues are both believed in based on ones appreciation of evidence. The reason for contention is the origin are not witnessed or repeatable or testable in their great ideas. All that is done is interpretation of data long after processes have ceased. Save with biblical creationists claim of a actual witness and some record of this written down.

In Byer’s muddled world, ID/creationism is an “alternative science.”

However, in the entire 40+ years ID/creationists have been politically aggressive, they have never gotten the science right, despite repeated attempts by scientists to correct their misconceptions and misrepresentations.

The reason creationism and its offspring intelligent design get the science wrong is that they have always had a prior commitment to sectarian dogma. Real science threatens that dogma; therefore they have constructed a “plausible” pseudo-science that permits sectarian dogma.

What this actually means is that this sectarian pseudo-science of ID/creationism is really a main pillar of their sectarian dogma; their beliefs fall without this support. It is the foundation of their religion.

Thus, teaching it in science classes in the public schools amounts to using the powers of secular institutions to promote a sectarian dogma and its supporting pseudo-science foundations.

This is not allowed by the Constitution. Sectarians have their churches; guaranteed by that same Constitution. They should stay in them and leave everyone else alone.

Mike Elzinga said: ... Thus, teaching it in science classes in the public schools amounts to using the powers of secular institutions to promote a sectarian dogma and its supporting pseudo-science foundations. This is not allowed by the Constitution. Sectarians have their churches; guaranteed by that same Constitution. They should stay in them and leave everyone else alone.

Not quite. He says that he wants creationism taught alongside science because many people are creationists, and that's democracy for you. That is to say, what (some? many?) people believe should be taught in science classes, and the question of whether it has any testable relation to observed reality is irrelevant to Byers.

Of course, he wants only his own set of beliefs privileged in this way, as many have pointed out, and would never apply his principle, nonsensical as it is, to other beliefs. This, of course, is hypocritical.

What he says he wants is not what he really wants, either. He really wants evolutionary biology eliminated completely, and replaced by biblical creationism. This dissimulation is also hypocritical.

He also claims that the separation of Church and State will not be violated by this because separate creation is verifiable fact, not religious belief. He refuses to disclose any evidence for separate creation, (not surprising, since there is none). Even more tellingly, he refers to creationism as "biblical", thus demonstrating that he knows perfectly well that it is a religious belief. Hence he is lying when he says it isn't.

Just Bob has reminded me of an episode of the Canadian sketch comedy radio show, Frantic Times. Few may be familiar with it, but more may be familiar with one of their more famous sketches, "Boot to the head", popularized by Doctor Demento and endless youtube videos that used it.

Anyway, the episode featured a science class where various types of creationism were being taught as alternatives to the results of scientific inquiry. It had a sort of stereotypical fundy preacher who's eager to get to telling the good word to the students, but the science teacher makes him wait while a number of representatives of other forms of mythology go first, telling their specific creation myths (since the fundies demanded that "all theories of creationism" get taught). We get ancient Egyptian, Norse mythology, and a specific native American story before the fundy can get to his preferred interpretation, and by then his story sounds a little dry and formulaic since it more or less mimics the pattern that the other mythologies already established. He runs out of steam in the middle of telling his story, and the punchline comes after one of the students says "I believe you" and he responds, despondently, "oh shut up".

It's worth stressing that the radio show is from the 80s. Episodes of it are filled with pop culture references from the era. Instead of global warming they occasionally refer to acid rain. Instead of Muslim Jihadists they poke fun at the Soviet Union.

Yet here we are in 2010 and the creationism gag is as relevant today as it was then.

So, word to Byers - if you want to get your book into classrooms, stop misrepresenting traditional science.

— eric

Yet here we are in 2010 and the creationism gag is as relevant today as it was then.

— Nomad

Frank J said: Back to the DI's strategy. It's goal is to only to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution. They figure that most students will do the rest...

I was hinting to Robert that as long as creationist publishing houses get the science wrong their books are going to continue to fail in the marketplace because they are crappy rather than because they are creationist.

— eric

Robert Byers said: Censorship is censorship when it comes from power. Saying you won this or that in "science' means nothing if its the great debate that its not settled. Creationism can say it won too.

Origin issues are unique because they are conclusions about matters not witnessed.

In fact creationism says origin issues are not science because testability is non existant or not sufficient for conclusions like actual sciences.

Finally in a free land , in public institutions held by the public, it is up to the people whether great ideas in common origins are settled or not. Thats right of home ownership.

"science origin subjects" can , I guess, keep opposition out of their turf but not the public turf.

Creationism(s) simply say the evidence doesn't support evolution and company and makes it case on the evidence.

You just can't say things are settled in a nation where they clearly are not and where the nation is possessed by all.

I believe a good majority agrees with equal time in the polls which must include many you agree with evolution since its about half.

Robert Byers said: Censorship is censorship when it comes from power. Saying you won this or that in "science' means nothing if its the great debate that its not settled. Creationism can say it won too. Origin issues are unique because they are conclusions about matters not witnessed. In fact creationism says origin issues are not science because testability is non existant or not sufficient for conclusions like actual sciences. Finally in a free land , in public institutions held by the public, it is up to the people whether great ideas in common origins are settled or not. Thats right of home ownership. "science origin subjects" can , I guess, keep opposition out of their turf but not the public turf. Creationism(s) simply say the evidence doesn't support evolution and company and makes it case on the evidence. You just can't say things are settled in a nation where they clearly are not and where the nation is possessed by all. I believe a good majority agrees with equal time in the polls which must include many you agree with evolution since its about half.

Robert's been reading the Bible, obviously.

"In the beginning was the Word", which Robert takes to mean that just using the same words (i.e. lies and ignorant wanking) over and over and over will somehow make them true.

Robert: it doesn't matter how often or how loudly you make your claims, they're still wrong. Suck it up, princess.

Bobby sez: "Origin issues are unique because they are conclusions about matters not witnessed."

So in your very small mind, teachers can only teach about things that they personally witnessed, right? so I can't teach about anything before 1956, when i was born? so how can teachers teach from the bible, they weren't around several thousand years ago either.

Bobby, I've been meaning to ask you a question: If the world is 6000 years old and the flood happened 4500 years ago, where did the limestone used in the egyptian pyramids come from 4500 years ago?
Enquiring minds want to know.

nmgirl said: Bobby, I've been meaning to ask you a question: If the world is 6000 years old and the flood happened 4500 years ago, where did the limestone used in the egyptian pyramids come from 4500 years ago? Enquiring minds want to know.

eric said: I was hinting to Robert that as long as creationist publishing houses get the science wrong their books are going to continue to fail in the marketplace because they are crappy rather than because they are creationist.

ID/creationism is getting to be known as a cult of pseudo-science, even though most of the rubes haven’t caught on yet.

— Mike Elzinga

Frank J said: The way I see it, the courts have one job (to show that anti-evolution strategies are religious and not scientific), and are doing it quite well, and we have another. Yet most of us insist on doing the courts' job, and doing it poorly.

Dave Luckett said: Byers is trying to say that creationism isn't an essentially religious belief, but at the same time he says that "biblical creationists" have an "actual witness" - Genesis. There are quite a few stories originating in ancient times that give various accounts of creation, but the only one that Byers accepts is Genesis. The only reason why Byers wants to privilege Genesis in this way is because Byers thinks that Genesis is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. This is, of course, a religious belief. Byers actually knows this, but then he turns around and denies it for political purposes. That is, he lies, and he knows he lies.

Frank J said:

Creationism(s) brings up opposite evidence and conclusions.

— Robert Byers

Thank you for the (s)! I wish my fellow "Darwinists" would be as cooperative. As you know, the various versions completely contradict each other before they even get to their long-refuted misrepresentations of evolution. The fact that creationists and "don't ask, don't tell" IDers increasingly cover up their irreconcilable differences instead of having healthy internal debates is reason enough to keep garbage like "Explore Evolution" out of science class. I do think however that students should read it, and NCSE's devastating critique of it outside of science class. Note that if the DI were truly interested in having students "examine all sides" they'd be touting NCSE's review as well as their book.

Just Bob said: Hey Robert! Here's a plan (from something I wrote long ago) that you should be eager to go along with: A recent creationist plea is for "balanced treatment" in the classroom: "Let us present creationism along with evolution, so students can make an informed choice. That's only fair isn't it?" (The spirit of fairness doesn’t seem to prompt them to invite biologists to present a "balanced treatment” of evolution at revival meetings, though.) OK, let's go along with it. In 9th grade biology let's do evolution on the first day of the school year--then we'll proceed to "alternative theories of origins" and "intelligent design theories." Tuesday we'll cover the Algonquin creation myth, Wednesday the Shinto, Thursday the Yoruba, Friday--Mayan. Next week it's Pawnee, Inuit, Mogollon, Hindu, and Zoroastrian. We'll get to the Hebrew adaptation of the Babylonian (as recorded in Genesis) the third Thursday in May (if we don't have a fire drill). One of the Big Lies of creationism is that there are only two alternatives, and that by "defeating evolutionism" (sic), the only possible remaining alternative is the Genesis myth. (Those of us who have Seen the Truth know that the TRUE creation account is that preserved since the Beginning by the !kung Bushmen of South Africa.)

John Stockwell said:

Robert Byers said: Fine about science being evidenced based. Creationism(s) brings up opposite evidence and conclusions. In origin issues evidence is based seldom on science. Anyways we contend on the evidence fair and square.

Dear Mr. Byers, Once again, you have made statements which really characterize a counterproductive attitude toward science and particularly science education. Creationism certainly is contrary but it is definitely not about evidence, nor is it about science. That is for sure.

Byers: Schools are to discuss, in origins, the truth. They don't just teach conclusions based on science but instead make great conclusions about origins. The schools belong to the people and so where there is great difference then these differences must be given equal time on important issues here. Yes its about quality evidence but NO its not about one side deciding the other side doesn't have quality evidence.

In a science class, the only things that matter is science . The science class is not about what parents would like to be true, or what teachers would like to be true, nor is it about what students have been told by people outside of the scientific community is true. Science classes are about the issue of the day as seen by the scientific community. Now, if a private school wants to teach students the anti-science dogma of creationism, or if parents want to homeschool kids in such a dogma, then they are free to do that. They are doing a disservice to the kids by filling their heads with pseudoscientific nonsense. Indeed, a number of those kids will grow up to be atheists because when they study the real thing, they will see what a line of bull they have been handed. In a public school environment, there should be no pandering to religion.

The schools are about conclusions and inquiry. To censor one side, of a historic and common opinion, is plain old censorship. Origin issues are both believed in based on ones appreciation of evidence. The reason for contention is the origin are not witnessed or repeatable or testable in their great ideas. All that is done is interpretation of data long after processes have ceased. Save with biblical creationists claim of a actual witness and some record of this written down.

Well, there you go, you have admitted that you have an agenda and have revealed that you suffering from some misunderstandings about how science operates. 1. Events do not have to be reproduceable to be scientifically studiable. One need only be able to study the evidence in a reproduceable manner. Finding a fossil is no different than a policeman finding a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. Each is a direct connection to a past event that can be studied by as many people as is necessary, and in as many ways as people can devise. 2. Alleged eyewitness accounts are the weakest form of evidence, particularly when they contain fabulous elements, are many times removed from an alleged originator whose very existence cannot be verified, and are countered by substantial physical evidence. 3. Again, science is not about belief, but about rational conclusions made by studying physical evidence. Attempting to invoke alleged "eyewitness accounts" simply does not work.

Robin said:

Robert Byers said: Censorship is censorship when it comes from power. Saying you won this or that in "science' means nothing if its the great debate that its not settled. Creationism can say it won too.

Absolute absurdity. A) There is no unsettled "great debate" - see Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) and Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688) (2005) and B) public schools setting *finite* curricula is not censorship by definition. In other words, regardless are your appeals to the contrary, Creationism is not science and cutting esoteric concepts that have nothing to do with given areas of study out of given curricula in public schools is not censorship by definition. Sorry Robert, your complaints have no validity.

Origin issues are unique because they are conclusions about matters not witnessed.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. See above.

In fact creationism says origin issues are not science because testability is non existant or not sufficient for conclusions like actual sciences.

The courts of the US (and most other countries - including Canada) disagree. Creationism can insist anything it wants, but it isn't science and cannot be treated as such.

Finally in a free land , in public institutions held by the public, it is up to the people whether great ideas in common origins are settled or not. Thats right of home ownership.

The US and Canada are not "free lands", whatever the heck that is anyway - the former is a constitutional republic with some representative democracy mixed in and the latter is a constitutional monarchy.

"science origin subjects" can , I guess, keep opposition out of their turf but not the public turf.

Silliness. Reality doesn't care one wit about public opinion, thus neither does science.

Creationism(s) simply say the evidence doesn't support evolution and company and makes it case on the evidence.

Well...creationists can believe and say anything they want, but unless they can demonstrate scientifically the evidence doesn't support evolution, their claims are moot, as are yours.

You just can't say things are settled in a nation where they clearly are not and where the nation is possessed by all.

False. Next.

I believe a good majority agrees with equal time in the polls which must include many you agree with evolution since its about half.

Tough. See above about public opinion vs reality.

Biblical creationists always clearly say we are in every way segregated from Id folks save for the general issue of design. It serves both interests to cooperate. Yet we are not the same at all. I.D. doesn’t believe in Genesis at all.

— Robert Byers

By the way its a cute point. In attacking I.D some evolutionists dishonestly, unless strangely ignorant, in order to discredit I.D. always present them and us as the same species. In doing this they actually fail to discredit I.D but do give credit gain to biblical creationism. This because more of the public knows from books or the general roar, about I.D and so are introduced to us and to a greater credibility just because the media covers it. Nothing like catching someone else’s wave.

— Robert Byers

nmgirl said: Bobby sez: "Origin issues are unique because they are conclusions about matters not witnessed." So in your very small mind, teachers can only teach about things that they personally witnessed, right? so I can't teach about anything before 1956, when i was born? so how can teachers teach from the bible, they weren't around several thousand years ago either. Bobby, I've been meaning to ask you a question: If the world is 6000 years old and the flood happened 4500 years ago, where did the limestone used in the egyptian pyramids come from 4500 years ago? Enquiring minds want to know.

Robert Byers said: The Egyptian limestone either came from the flood itself (pressure collecting and squeezing sediment into rock) or possibly from a post flood event about a century after the flood or so when a smaller but great smash of water overflowed parts of northern Africa. Likewise turning sediment into stone.

Robert Byers said: Origin issues are different as not just the event was not witnessed but the processes involved. This is not like human events. yet it is about evidence. The Egyptian limestone either came from the flood itself (pressure collecting and squeezing sediment into rock) or possibly from a post flood event about a century after the flood or so when a smaller but great smash of water overflowed parts of northern Africa. Likewise turning sediment into stone.

Robert Byers said: You keep saying that science is what this is about. It isn't. Its about conclusions on origins. Conclusions are being taught by the state/schools on origins and censoring the historical and well supported alternatives.

If science claims to have made the right conclusions on origins then it must stand against competition

Dan said: Robert has long claimed that we cannot discuss "origins issues" using science because it was in the past and no humans were around to observe it. Now he produces a scientific claim concerning the two possible ways that the limestone must have been formed.

Dan said: Robert has long claimed that we cannot discuss "origins issues" using science because it was in the past and no humans were around to observe it. Now he produces a scientific claim concerning the two possible ways that the limestone must have been formed. Will Robert realize that these two positions are contradictory? We'll see.

Robert Byers said: The Egyptian limestone either came from the flood itself (pressure collecting and squeezing sediment into rock) or possibly from a post flood event about a century after the flood or so when a smaller but great smash of water overflowed parts of northern Africa. Likewise turning sediment into stone.

Byers says (of the belief that Genesis is literal fact): Its not a religious belief. Religious must not be another word for another of denying something is true or not on its onw merits. It is rather a opinion written down by a claimed witness.

Robert Byers said:

Robin said: Apparently what I wrote was irrelevant, since Robert didn't bother to address my points, but went off on a tangent...again.

You keep saying that science is what this is about. It isn't. Its about conclusions on origins. Conclusions are being taught by the state/schools on origins and censoring the historical and well supported alternatives.

Yes its censorship.

Power is stopping what the public wants or would allow.

This is not of freedom but of tyranny. Its not going to last.

If science claims to have made the right conclusions on origins then it must stand against competition on whether this is true or even if science has been involved.

Anyways it all comes down to the law.

The law says there is to be no state interference with ideas touching on religion.

Teaching evolution etc does just this.

We say let freedom rule.

Yet instead when we come for rebuttal we are told WE are against the law because we(religion) are interfering in the state. Is it me? My logic tells me delete.

If you can't teach Genesis is true, because of a separation concept where neither party bugs the other, then you can't teach its not true. Teaching evolution does teach by clear inference that Genesis is not true. Its not just a aftereffect.

Its just stupid to censor great common historical ideas on contentious issues in a free land with common held public institutions.

But people who are driven to deny evolution at all costs, they find themselves denying lots of obvious things, even contradicting themselves.

— TomS

Dave Luckett said: I keep expecting Rod Serling to step out from behind a tree, and say, "Welcome to the Twilight Zone."

Robert Byers said: If you can't teach Genesis is true, because of a separation concept where neither party bugs the other, then you can't teach its not true. Teaching evolution does teach by clear inference that Genesis is not true. Its not just a aftereffect.

Bobby the boob wrote:

"You keep saying that science is what this is about. It isn’t. Its about conclusions on origins. Conclusions are being taught by the state/schools on origins and censoring the historical and well supported alternatives."

Right. Origins is not about science, that's why bobby boy wants it taught in science class. Got it.

Name a scientific alternative asshat. You can't. Piss off.

If you want to teach about origins in US public schools you will need three things:

1) Citizenship or at least a work permit or visa - are you working on that yet?

2) A teaching certificate with a minor in biology or at least science - how is that going for you?

3) A lesson plan explaining exactly what you are going to teach, preferably from an approved textbook - let me guess

when you have thing things booby boy we will be ascared till then piss off asshat

You are right on one point: A literal reading of Genesis is indeed NOT true.

— dale Husband

Dale Husband said: You are right on one point: A literal reading of Genesis is indeed NOT true. Now, if you want to teach outright lies and nonsense, that's your right, but you do NOT have the right to misrepresent those lies and nonsense as scientific truth to anyone, especially not school children and especially not within institutions supported by taxpayers' money! http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/its-not-just-evolution-that-discredits-genesis/ Time to grow up, Robert Byers!

Robert Byers said: Creationism makes no lies here. The point about equal time is a philosophical one. The reality is that the people, through their powers, should decide if the historic and popular ideas on origins where based on study can be allowed. The people would never agree to the obscure or unpopular list you bring up. This is a issue about truth and freedom of inquiry of truth. There is a chasm of difference between creation(s) held by the public in great strength and these other things. the public would never allow them in the schools as they are a waste of time. Creationism is not but rather a common convistion.

Just Bob said: But Byers, you keep saying this crap: Whatever a substantial portion of the public believes in should be taught as fact in tax-funded schools.

Beyers blithers blithely thus:

So [Genesis is] a starting point and then study and reason take it from there.

Already been done: "study ane reason" leads to the conclusion that: a) the book of Genesis was written at a time when understanding of biology, geology, and the age and origin of our Universe were simply not understood at all, therefore Genesis is simply not reliable as a source on the origin of the Universe or of any living things; b) the Genesis account, if taken literally, flatly contradicts literal mountains of evidence, therefore, again, it can't be considered reliable; c) Genesis is only one book, with no independent corroboration, therefore, again, it's not reliable; and d) when faced with such discrepancies between the Genesis account and observable reality, Christians have been insisting on NON-LITERAL interpretations of Genesis since the time of St. Augustine.

Raging Bee said: Beyers blithers blithely thus: So [Genesis is] a starting point and then study and reason take it from there. Already been done: "study ane reason" leads to the conclusion that: a) the book of Genesis was written at a time when understanding of biology, geology, and the age and origin of our Universe were simply not understood at all, therefore Genesis is simply not reliable as a source on the origin of the Universe or of any living things; b) the Genesis account, if taken literally, flatly contradicts literal mountains of evidence, therefore, again, it can't be considered reliable; [etc.]

Mike Elzinga said: I think that is basically correct. ID/creationists want to “debate” scientists in order to pump up their “credibility” in the eyes of their cohorts. If in addition to focusing on their own wars within sectarian religion, we also insist they explain their pseudo-science, I wonder if some of them might start becoming a bit skittish about admitting their sectarian beliefs are supported on the pillars of pseudo-science. The trolls around here certainly are skittish about explaining anything. All they do anymore is throw taunts around and fling feces. I see the same game-playing on other sites as well. These must be the ones who haven't caught on yet.

Dan said: Not to mention that Genesis contradicts not only mountains of independent evidence, but also contradicts itself

I have no idea what that first sentence means—uhh, or the last one either. Can someone help me here? Maybe someone with “convistion” (sic).

— Just Bob

I would confidently wager that fewer than 2% of Americans would sign on to your “origins” story, once they saw it laid out in all its silly particulars.

— Just Bob

Robert Byers said:

nmgirl said: Bobby sez: "Origin issues are unique because they are conclusions about matters not witnessed." So in your very small mind, teachers can only teach about things that they personally witnessed, right? so I can't teach about anything before 1956, when i was born? so how can teachers teach from the bible, they weren't around several thousand years ago either. Bobby, I've been meaning to ask you a question: If the world is 6000 years old and the flood happened 4500 years ago, where did the limestone used in the egyptian pyramids come from 4500 years ago? Enquiring minds want to know.

Origin issues are different as not just the event was not witnessed but the processes involved. This is not like human events. yet it is about evidence.

In the first place, Byers will simply ignore your question. He ignored mine, asking who was this 'witness' he says saw the events of creation.

In the second place, your question requires that he make up his mind between two conflicting ideas. He won't do that. You are expecting him to be consistent, or at least to recognise when he isn't. Byers doesn't do consistency, because he couldn't care less about it. Whichever idea suits him for the nonce is the one he'll use for the nonce.

Dave Lovell said:

Robert Byers said: The Egyptian limestone either came from the flood itself (pressure collecting and squeezing sediment into rock) or possibly from a post flood event about a century after the flood or so when a smaller but great smash of water overflowed parts of northern Africa. Likewise turning sediment into stone.

So you know the Pyramids must have been built post flood. Are you prepared to make a guess as to how long after. A workforce of 100,000 has been estimated to be required for their construction, requiring many times that number in the civilisation that supported and/or enslaved them. Surely there are limits to the amount of begat-ing the sons of Noah and their descendants could have done.

Dan said:

Robert Byers said: Origin issues are different as not just the event was not witnessed but the processes involved. This is not like human events. yet it is about evidence. The Egyptian limestone either came from the flood itself (pressure collecting and squeezing sediment into rock) or possibly from a post flood event about a century after the flood or so when a smaller but great smash of water overflowed parts of northern Africa. Likewise turning sediment into stone.

Robert has long claimed that we cannot discuss "origins issues" using science because it was in the past and no humans were around to observe it. Now he produces a scientific claim concerning the two possible ways that the limestone must have been formed. Will Robert realize that these two positions are contradictory? We'll see.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: You keep saying that science is what this is about. It isn't. Its about conclusions on origins. Conclusions are being taught by the state/schools on origins and censoring the historical and well supported alternatives.

You are welcome to teach biblical theories of origins in comparative religion or biblical studies classes. But in biology class we only teach the science of biology, so if you want to teach creationism in biology class, you are going to have to tell us why creationism counts as science.

If science claims to have made the right conclusions on origins then it must stand against competition

Okay, describe your competing claims. When did the earth form? How did it form? How did species form? When did they form? Tell us what you would teach in your "supported alternative" section.

Holy crap, this weasel loves this ball!

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said: The Egyptian limestone either came from the flood itself (pressure collecting and squeezing sediment into rock) or possibly from a post flood event about a century after the flood or so when a smaller but great smash of water overflowed parts of northern Africa. Likewise turning sediment into stone.

Where would the sediment to make limestone come from? IIRC the Pyramids were made from oolitic limestone. Do you actually know what this is? Why don't creation 'scientists' ever try to duplicate this process in a lab? They would gain a lot of credibility (well, some anyway) if they could produce one scrap of verifiable evidence to support their wild fantasies.

In fact the bible records the Hebrews growing from a few dozen into several millions in about four hundred years. The dates are always wrong in Egyptian things. The Pyramids were probably made later then thought. The population from Noah would of exploded since men lived hundreds of years until, I suspect, the earth was populated enough.Then it dropped to eighty or so. Its possible that within three hundred years after the flood there was 10-20 million people on earth. Egypt being fertile was one of the larger ones.

Yes one can investigate the past but no one can not apply, or seldom, the unique investigative method called the scientific method. This is why origin conclusions are not persuasive to people like scientific ones.

Creationism easily takes on conclusions in biology from evolutionism. We also take on whether science is done in biology that deals with past and gone processes. Biology is about living life. Evolution is about casts of former life and interpretations of a evolution from one thing to another. The latter is not biology nor science. Rather its a historical subject with the same problems that historians have about past events. Evidence is around but testing it seldom happens. History is not science because of a different methodology and therefore different confidence in conclusions. Histary does say this or that happened but the process for why is contentious. Different ‘ism’s have different interpretations even while using the same data.

Robert Byers said: The sediment if from the flood is easily the sediment churned about. If after the flood it was from the med sea overflowing or even infilling from a epiode. The med is admitted to have been suddenly infilled and this is probably the origin of the Northern African sedimentary layers if above the k-t line.

Robin said:

Robert Byers said:

Robin said: Apparently what I wrote was irrelevant, since Robert didn't bother to address my points, but went off on a tangent...again.

You keep saying that science is what this is about. It isn't. Its about conclusions on origins. Conclusions are being taught by the state/schools on origins and censoring the historical and well supported alternatives.

Sorry Robert, but it *IS* about what constitutes science and what does not. You can keep insisting that your 'origins' issue is relevant and valid, but it isn't on both counts. It matters not one wit that scientific conclusions imply a contradiction with some people's religious beliefs - see my previous comments on how much reality cares what you think ought to be true. Further, as courts in most countries and all English-based ones note, it is NOT censorship to ignore claims - any and all claims - that are not factually supported concepts that are part of the curricula. Again, you can disagree, but such is irrelevant - the facts don't care what you believe and neither do the courts or the schools since both require facts on which to base their assessments. As for your claim that there are "historical and well supported alternatives" you've yet to provide a single reference for such and not one item ever put forth by any other creationist has ever amounted to actual evidence - see my references to the court decisions on that. However, I and others would be MORE than happy to evaluate these "historical and well supported alternatives" you claim exist, so feel free to toss them out. However, I'm going to shred them if they aren't actual evidence.

Yes its censorship.

False. See the court decisions on such. You can keep claiming this and it will continue to be erroneous - by definition as well as court decision.

Power is stopping what the public wants or would allow.

That may well be, but power is not the same thing as censorship. You really need to look up the definition of the term 'censorship' some time because it is clear you do not understand what the term actually means.

This is not of freedom but of tyranny. Its not going to last.

Sorry, but as I noted previously, reality isn't defined by public opinion. You'll just have to accept that or be forever frustrated. Your call.

If science claims to have made the right conclusions on origins then it must stand against competition on whether this is true or even if science has been involved.

Not a problem. Science has stood up to 'competition' such as imagination and pseudoscience for the last 300 odd years. Rationalism and logic have stood up a lot longer than that. And reality...well...it's been here since the beginning and so far there is no competition for it. Since it is apparent that your claims are not actually competition to science, there's not going to be much of a contest. Science wins - by default.

Anyways it all comes down to the law.

Actually it really comes down to reality, but whatever...

The law says there is to be no state interference with ideas touching on religion.

False, at least here in the U.S. The law states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" In other words, here in the U.S., the State my not make a law that either highlights or supports a specific religion over another or prohibits the belief in and worship within a specific religion. The State CAN interfere with any idea touching a religion that is outside that religion itself. Further, in doing so, the State IS NOT inhibiting your religion's right to teach such a concept, so your claim is moot.

Teaching evolution etc does just this.

False. See above. If teaching evolution somehow prevented you or others of your religion from going to church, having churches, or teaching that man was created in your god's image, then you'd have case. As it stands however, teaching evolution, never mind geology, chemistry, physics, etc has no impact on your ability to assemble in your place of worship and believe whatever your religion teaches.

We say let freedom rule.

Your concept of 'freedom' sounds like 'tyranny' to me.

Yet instead when we come for rebuttal we are told WE are against the law because we(religion) are interfering in the state. Is it me? My logic tells me delete.

(how to suppress the giggling...hold nose...cover mouth...get some water...) Hate to break it to you, Robert, but you have consistly demonstrated that you do not engage in logic. But aside from that little quibble, you are NOT against the law because you are a religion - your concepts are religious and thus CANNOT be supported by the State. Your church can repeat the claims all it wants, but your claims CANNOT be presented or established by any State organization. End of story. You can whine about this all you want, but such is the basis of the concept "Freedom of Religion".

If you can't teach Genesis is true, because of a separation concept where neither party bugs the other, then you can't teach its not true. Teaching evolution does teach by clear inference that Genesis is not true. Its not just a aftereffect.

Hate to break it too you, Robert, but 1st Amendment here in the U.S. (as I quoted above) does not prohibit teaching that Genesis is not accurate scientifically. Once again, unless teaching evolution somehow prevents your religion from making the claims it makes about the bible stories, or prevents you from listening to those claims in church and choosing to accept them, you have no case. Sorry, but that's the facts.

Its just stupid to censor great common historical ideas on contentious issues in a free land with common held public institutions.

And once again Robert, you can claim it is censorship and you will continue to be wrong.

Just Bob said:

Robert Byers said: Creationism makes no lies here. The point about equal time is a philosophical one. The reality is that the people, through their powers, should decide if the historic and popular ideas on origins where based on study can be allowed. The people would never agree to the obscure or unpopular list you bring up. This is a issue about truth and freedom of inquiry of truth. There is a chasm of difference between creation(s) held by the public in great strength and these other things. the public would never allow them in the schools as they are a waste of time. Creationism is not but rather a common convistion.

I have no idea what that first sentence means---uhh, or the last one either. Can someone help me here? Maybe someone with "convistion" (sic). But Byers, you keep saying this crap: Whatever a substantial portion of the public believes in should be taught as fact in tax-funded schools. Really? How big a portion of the public? 50%? 20%? Around a third of American adults think the Sun orbits the Earth. Should that alternative be included in science classes? A significant fraction of Americans believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy or the like. Does your "logic" include teaching about those in schools? What fraction of the adult American population do you imagine believes in exactly your version of "origins," including ignoring all the parts of Genesis that even you admit aren't "literal," and accepting all your enhancements to God's Perfect Word (like post-flood creation of 100-meter-thick layers of limestone in Egypt, and, apparently, magical creation of a few million Egyptians to turn it into pyramids. I would confidently wager that fewer than 2% of Americans would sign on to your "origins" story, once they saw it laid out in all its silly particulars.

Stuart Weinstein said:

Robert Byers said:

nmgirl said: Bobby sez: "Origin issues are unique because they are conclusions about matters not witnessed." So in your very small mind, teachers can only teach about things that they personally witnessed, right? so I can't teach about anything before 1956, when i was born? so how can teachers teach from the bible, they weren't around several thousand years ago either. Bobby, I've been meaning to ask you a question: If the world is 6000 years old and the flood happened 4500 years ago, where did the limestone used in the egyptian pyramids come from 4500 years ago? Enquiring minds want to know.

Origin issues are different as not just the event was not witnessed but the processes involved. This is not like human events. yet it is about evidence.

So Mr. Byers, do you believe that criminals, convicted solely based on forensic evidence, should be released from prison? After all there were no witnesses to their crimes. If not, why not?

Dave Luckett said: In the first place, Byers will simply ignore your question. He ignored mine, asking who was this 'witness' he says saw the events of creation. In the second place, your question requires that he make up his mind between two conflicting ideas. He won't do that. You are expecting him to be consistent, or at least to recognise when he isn't. Byers doesn't do consistency, because he couldn't care less about it. Whichever idea suits him for the nonce is the one he'll use for the nonce.

Robert Byers said: Long post. It does matter if schools are teaching religious ideas are wrong if the law says that can't be done and by the very law which says religious ideas can'y be taught as right. This is about the present law. Its reasonable to allow schools to contradict religion on origins but also for religion to contradict evolution in the same class. Yet right now its a one way street with how the law is applied. It doesn't matter is its "scientifically" taught that Genesis is not true. Its still a public institution teaching the bible is false on some doctrines. This is illegal by the separation concept. It is the separation concept thats used to censor creationism. Yourtrying to say the 1700's Americans put in the constitution that origin ideas based on God or Genesis could not be taught but teaching that they are wrong could be. All this from law about mutual non interference. All this only discovered in the 1960's. All this will be overthrown in the twenty teens. Freedom of inquiry and conclusions shall return to American public institutions. I’m not saying what the public believes should be taught as faxct. I’m saying its the public’s right to decide whats taught since its their country. I am confident in the public to be reasonable about what is taught in origin classes. I am confident they see the historic and very common held ideas on God, Genesis, or criticisms of evolution as worthy topics for equal or so time.

Uh-huh. So we, what? Poll each school district to find out what the public wants to be taught in the schools? If it's their right to decide, that's what we have to do, right?

And what are they going to decide on...? Come on, let's not always see the same hands...

That's right, they're going to decide that they want their beliefs taught, not someone else's.

So ... if you come right down to it, Byers really is saying that whatever the public believes is what should be taught as fact. The reason he denies saying this is because Byers doesn't want to admit to it, and the contradiction doesn't mean squat to him.

Robert Byers said: The witness is clearly God. Then recorded by someone at Gods dictate later.

Robert Byers said: Histary does say this or that happened but the process for why is contentious.

Robert Byers said: The witness is clearly God. Then recorded by someone at Gods dictate later.

Dave Luckett said: Uh-huh. So we, what? Poll each school district to find out what the public wants to be taught in the schools? If it's their right to decide, that's what we have to do, right?

Robert Byers said: The witness is clearly God. Then recorded by someone at Gods dictate later.

OK Bobby, you win. You now officially has my permission to teached creationism in any school that wants its taught. Now how are you coming along on those three thingies? Do ya has a visa yet? Do ya has a teachin certificate yet? Do you have a lessons plans yet? We is all dying to see it. We will even help yas with it, ya knows in orders to makes sure it is scientifically accurate, religiosity wise.

I'm working up a plan for the FSM lesson. You don't want this to be a one way street do ya? Alls I gots ta do is finds me some rubes who will fall for it and I can pawn this off as sciencecy stuff. Those yokels will be in the darkest ages for years. Just wait till they try to get some jobs with that on their resumes!

Robert Byers said: All this from law about mutual non interference. All this only discovered in the 1960's. All this will be overthrown in the twenty teens.

Robert Byers said: Long post.

It does matter if schools are teaching religious ideas are wrong if the law says that can't be done and by the very law which says religious ideas can'y be taught as right. This is about the present law.

Its reasonable to allow schools to contradict religion on origins but also for religion to contradict evolution in the same class.

Yet right now its a one way street with how the law is applied.

It doesn't matter is its "scientifically" taught that Genesis is not true. Its still a public institution teaching the bible is false on some doctrines. This is illegal by the separation concept.

It is the separation concept thats used to censor creationism.

Yourtrying to say the 1700's Americans put in the constitution that origin ideas based on God or Genesis could not be taught but teaching that they are wrong could be.

All this from law about mutual non interference. All this only discovered in the 1960's. All this will be overthrown in the twenty teens. Freedom of inquiry and conclusions shall return to American public institutions.

Robert Byers said: I'm not saying what the public believes should be taught as faxct. I'm saying its the public's right to decide whats taught since its their country. I am confident in the public to be reasonable about what is taught in origin classes. I am confident they see the historic and very common held ideas on God, Genesis, or criticisms of evolution as worthy topics for equal or so time .

"You really ought to read a bit more than just your bible, Robert."

It wouldn't help. He apparently can't even read the Bible with any understanding. He takes literally things he likes, ignores things he doesn't, adds biblical "truths" that aren't even there, and makes up a whole lot of other "explanation" stuff to try to make "just-so" myths acceptable.

There are about six damnable sins there already.

And he really doesn't want to know or admit how today's Bible got cobbled together, and by whom.

Robert Byers said:

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said: The Egyptian limestone either came from the flood itself (pressure collecting and squeezing sediment into rock) or possibly from a post flood event about a century after the flood or so when a smaller but great smash of water overflowed parts of northern Africa. Likewise turning sediment into stone.

Where would the sediment to make limestone come from? IIRC the Pyramids were made from oolitic limestone. Do you actually know what this is? Why don't creation 'scientists' ever try to duplicate this process in a lab? They would gain a lot of credibility (well, some anyway) if they could produce one scrap of verifiable evidence to support their wild fantasies.

The sediment if from the flood is easily the sediment churned about. If after the flood it was from the med sea overflowing or even infilling from a epiode. The med is admitted to have been suddenly infilled and this is probably the origin of the Northern African sedimentary layers if above the k-t line.

You know the nice thing about having byers around: I always get to start my day with a laugh.

You know the nice thing about having byers around: I always get to start my day with a laugh.

nmgirl said: You know the nice thing about having byers around: I always get to start my day with a laugh.

nmgirl said: The geological k-t line is 60 million years old.

Henry J said:

You know the nice thing about having byers around: I always get to start my day with a laugh.

Really? I thought he was rather monotonous.

Just Bob said: "You really ought to read a bit more than just your bible, Robert." It wouldn't help. He apparently can't even read the Bible with any understanding. He takes literally things he likes, ignores things he doesn't, adds biblical "truths" that aren't even there, and makes up a whole lot of other "explanation" stuff to try to make "just-so" myths acceptable. There are about six damnable sins there already. And he really doesn't want to know or admit how today's Bible got cobbled together, and by whom.

Robert Byers said:

Stuart Weinstein said:

Robert Byers said:

nmgirl said: Bobby sez: "Origin issues are unique because they are conclusions about matters not witnessed." So in your very small mind, teachers can only teach about things that they personally witnessed, right? so I can't teach about anything before 1956, when i was born? so how can teachers teach from the bible, they weren't around several thousand years ago either. Bobby, I've been meaning to ask you a question: If the world is 6000 years old and the flood happened 4500 years ago, where did the limestone used in the egyptian pyramids come from 4500 years ago? Enquiring minds want to know.

Origin issues are different as not just the event was not witnessed but the processes involved. This is not like human events. yet it is about evidence.

So Mr. Byers, do you believe that criminals, convicted solely based on forensic evidence, should be released from prison? After all there were no witnesses to their crimes. If not, why not?

The processes are witnessed and in constant evidence everywhere. this is not the same thing as speculated processes with results from these processes also speculated on.

Robert Byers said: The witness is clearly God. Then recorded by someone at Gods dictate later.

Robert Byers said:

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said: The Egyptian limestone either came from the flood itself (pressure collecting and squeezing sediment into rock) or possibly from a post flood event about a century after the flood or so when a smaller but great smash of water overflowed parts of northern Africa. Likewise turning sediment into stone.

Where would the sediment to make limestone come from? IIRC the Pyramids were made from oolitic limestone. Do you actually know what this is? Why don't creation 'scientists' ever try to duplicate this process in a lab? They would gain a lot of credibility (well, some anyway) if they could produce one scrap of verifiable evidence to support their wild fantasies.

The sediment if from the flood is easily the sediment churned about. If after the flood it was from the med sea overflowing or even infilling from a epiode. The med is admitted to have been suddenly infilled and this is probably the origin of the Northern African sedimentary layers if above the k-t line.

The issue is not science but rather conclusions about origins. The issue of origins is a right of the people to force into schools if they are resisting. If origin issues are said to be settled by science then its the right to challenge the evidence "science" brings forth. Indeed to challenge if science is actually involved in origin issues. Anyways its about the evidence.

Byers continues: Its not the purpose to take science on but rather conclusions on origins. Science class is just presenting conclusions on origins and not actually doing science. Creationism(s) do so challenge the evidence behind evolution etc conclusions. We therefore are involved equally in the 'science' or lack of it.

OH NO. you are wrong. The scientific method only has merit to be claimed if testing is in the process. Not just bringing up the data. The scientific method is a method to sure up conclusions in a thorough way. Its not like ordinary methods of investigation. its special.

The fossil/fingerprint thing is wrong. The fossil is rather like the crimevictim. The fingerprint is like the process of evolution. Evolution has no fingerprints but only bodies in casts. Creationists have been waiting for centuries for fingerprints.

Maybe Byers and Brian should be gently guided away to a very special thread of their own...

Such a thread would probably either unravel or get tied up in nots.

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: The witness is clearly God. Then recorded by someone at Gods dictate later.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that. Are you claiming to speak for God?

Robin said:

Robert Byers said: Long post.

Quite so. I'm trying to be as explicit as possible to get the point through your apparently thick skull. You are as incorrect in your understanding of Constitutional Law as you are on the subjects of biology AND biblical understanding.

It does matter if schools are teaching religious ideas are wrong if the law says that can't be done and by the very law which says religious ideas can'y be taught as right. This is about the present law.

Here's the problem you have Robert - the law doesn't say that teaching religious claims are false scientifically is wrong. You can whine about this all you want, but in neither the U.S. nor in Canada (nor anywhere in Europe as far as I know) is it illegal to note that some religious claim if false scientifically. I already noted what the First Amendment actually states and what it means. You can ignore it all you want, but at this point your whining about it is just erroneous.

Its reasonable to allow schools to contradict religion on origins but also for religion to contradict evolution in the same class.

Sorry...but that's false.

Yet right now its a one way street with how the law is applied.

Yep - because your religious claims - and pay attention here Robert - have no supporting evidence on which to evaluate them against the scientic claims. None. Zero. Zip. Ziltch. When creationists can actually present some tangible evidence that can be evaluated against the scientific explanations, then we can talk about dealing with such in schools. Until then however you have no argument.

It doesn't matter is its "scientifically" taught that Genesis is not true. Its still a public institution teaching the bible is false on some doctrines. This is illegal by the separation concept.

False yet again for the reason I noted previously. It will still be false when you make this claim in the future.

It is the separation concept thats used to censor creationism.

False yet again as noted - by both legal verdict and common definition. Once again since it appears you are severely learning impaired, unless you can demonstrate that teaching evolution somehow inhibits your and other believers ability to go to church and listen to your priest, you have no case with the First Amendment. You'd know this if you actually bothered to read the verdicts in the cases I provided previously.

Yourtrying to say the 1700's Americans put in the constitution that origin ideas based on God or Genesis could not be taught but teaching that they are wrong could be.

False and a non-sequitur. What the Constitutional framers had specifically in mind regarding either science or religion has no bearing on the legal structure set in place by the ACTUAL Constitution. Apparently you don't know much about law or government theory either. You really ought to read a bit more than just your bible, Robert.

All this from law about mutual non interference. All this only discovered in the 1960's. All this will be overthrown in the twenty teens. Freedom of inquiry and conclusions shall return to American public institutions.

All of this drivel is just as false as the stuff above, but also highly esoteric and irrelevant. 1960s? LOL! Not even close. Try again Robert.

Stanton said:

nmgirl said: The geological k-t line is 60 million years old.

The K-T boundary is actually from 65-64 million years ago. 60 million years ago is in the early to middle Paleocene, back when the condylarths and mesonychians were just starting to party.

Uh-oh. So Bob thinks a subset of biblical creationists are wrong, too.

I wonder how many are right, in Bob's book. Could it be that there's only him?

Oh, and Bob? The strata marking the K-T boundary (now often called the K-Pg boundary, because nomenclature has changed) are between one and two orders of magnitude richer in iridium than other strata on Earth, which cannot be explained by a flood. The most reasonable explanation is an impact by an iridium-rich meteorite, most of which was pulverised and vapourised by the impact, making dust which was spread around the world by the giant storms caused by the same.

No, we know you can't see why your reasoning about teaching creationism is wrong. It has been patiently explained in detail to you a large number of times, and you still can't see it, because your fingers are stuck in your ears and you're going lalala at the top of your voice. We get that. We know you can't understand; that you're unteachable and invincibly, impregnably ignorant. I guess we'll all just have to live with that.

Stuart Weinstein said:

Robert Byers said:

Stuart Weinstein said:

Robert Byers said:

nmgirl said: Bobby sez: "Origin issues are unique because they are conclusions about matters not witnessed." So in your very small mind, teachers can only teach about things that they personally witnessed, right? so I can't teach about anything before 1956, when i was born? so how can teachers teach from the bible, they weren't around several thousand years ago either. Bobby, I've been meaning to ask you a question: If the world is 6000 years old and the flood happened 4500 years ago, where did the limestone used in the egyptian pyramids come from 4500 years ago? Enquiring minds want to know.

Origin issues are different as not just the event was not witnessed but the processes involved. This is not like human events. yet it is about evidence.

So Mr. Byers, do you believe that criminals, convicted solely based on forensic evidence, should be released from prison? After all there were no witnesses to their crimes. If not, why not?

The processes are witnessed and in constant evidence everywhere. this is not the same thing as speculated processes with results from these processes also speculated on.

What processes are those Bobby?

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said:

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said: The Egyptian limestone either came from the flood itself (pressure collecting and squeezing sediment into rock) or possibly from a post flood event about a century after the flood or so when a smaller but great smash of water overflowed parts of northern Africa. Likewise turning sediment into stone.

Where would the sediment to make limestone come from? IIRC the Pyramids were made from oolitic limestone. Do you actually know what this is? Why don't creation 'scientists' ever try to duplicate this process in a lab? They would gain a lot of credibility (well, some anyway) if they could produce one scrap of verifiable evidence to support their wild fantasies.

The sediment if from the flood is easily the sediment churned about. If after the flood it was from the med sea overflowing or even infilling from a epiode. The med is admitted to have been suddenly infilled and this is probably the origin of the Northern African sedimentary layers if above the k-t line.

You missed my point. This sediment would not be limestone. Even if it were shells, it would not form oolitic limestone.

John Stockwell said: Robert Byers wrote:

The issue is not science but rather conclusions about origins. The issue of origins is a right of the people to force into schools if they are resisting. If origin issues are said to be settled by science then its the right to challenge the evidence "science" brings forth. Indeed to challenge if science is actually involved in origin issues. Anyways its about the evidence.

You say that "it is not about the science", yet what are we talking about the science class. Origins issues, which to say in biology class, means "origin of species", are indeed "settled science". We have a standard model, it is called evolution . The process of evolution is decent with modification . That's about as "settled" as it gets in science.

Byers continues: Its not the purpose to take science on but rather conclusions on origins. Science class is just presenting conclusions on origins and not actually doing science. Creationism(s) do so challenge the evidence behind evolution etc conclusions. We therefore are involved equally in the 'science' or lack of it.

Creationism does not challenge scientific evidence, it misrepresents and manufactures evidence. Creationism is by no means "equal" to science, it is the opposite of science---a form of organized ignorance.

OH NO. you are wrong. The scientific method only has merit to be claimed if testing is in the process. Not just bringing up the data. The scientific method is a method to sure up conclusions in a thorough way. Its not like ordinary methods of investigation. its special.

We do not have to reproduce events to test the validity of the evidence that we use to study those events. The evidence, itself, contains the keys to testing its validity. Such notions are called "data driven". There are a myriad of overlapping tests for the consistency of the evidence for evolution.

The fossil/fingerprint thing is wrong. The fossil is rather like the crimevictim. The fingerprint is like the process of evolution. Evolution has no fingerprints but only bodies in casts. Creationists have been waiting for centuries for fingerprints.

On the contrary, what we have are fingerprints and hand prints, and knee prints, and toe prints, and prints from all other parts of the animal called "evolution". Right down to the DNA in your own body. Do we know everything about "evolution"? No, but we know that evolution is what we are studying. But, of course, for you "evolution" includes everything that discounts a young-earth global-flood view of the history of the world. In this case we have the tracks of an entire stampede of old earth non global flood evidence. You have to realize that just because you like what creationists say does not mean that they are right, or that they work with the same degree of competence and honesty as the mainstream scientific community. Indeed, part of the reason scientists do not like creationists is because of the unethical way in which creationists dishonestly pander to the public.

Robert Byers said:

Stanton said:

nmgirl said: The geological k-t line is 60 million years old.

The K-T boundary is actually from 65-64 million years ago. 60 million years ago is in the early to middle Paleocene, back when the condylarths and mesonychians were just starting to party.

This is accurate and famous in these subjects. In fact the k-t line is just something admitted to because of the fantastic segregation of dominance of divisions of creatures. Its dramatic and conclusive. It is of coarse in faxt the flood line. The (k) part is from the flood collections of that year and above it is from events of fossilization a few centuries after the flood or so. Not all biblical creationists however see it this way. Yet they are wrong.

Creationism does not challenge scientific evidence, it misrepresents and manufactures evidence. Creationism is by no means “equal” to science, it is the opposite of science—a form of organized ignorance.

— John Stockwell

Uh-oh. So Bob thinks a subset of biblical creationists are wrong, too.

— Dave Luckett

Robert Byers said:

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said:

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said: The Egyptian limestone either came from the flood itself (pressure collecting and squeezing sediment into rock) or possibly from a post flood event about a century after the flood or so when a smaller but great smash of water overflowed parts of northern Africa. Likewise turning sediment into stone.

Where would the sediment to make limestone come from? IIRC the Pyramids were made from oolitic limestone. Do you actually know what this is? Why don't creation 'scientists' ever try to duplicate this process in a lab? They would gain a lot of credibility (well, some anyway) if they could produce one scrap of verifiable evidence to support their wild fantasies.

The sediment if from the flood is easily the sediment churned about. If after the flood it was from the med sea overflowing or even infilling from a epiode. The med is admitted to have been suddenly infilled and this is probably the origin of the Northern African sedimentary layers if above the k-t line.

You missed my point. This sediment would not be limestone. Even if it were shells, it would not form oolitic limestone.

I don't know the composition of the rock layers. Yet it is from sedimentary or some processed material.

Just like he knows that creationism is fact, not religion, because God dictated Genesis, so it must be right.

Robert Byers said: The bible everywhere is consistent in its claims the words are from the spirit of god and the humans just recorders.

Robert Byers said:

Stanton said:

nmgirl said: The geological k-t line is 60 million years old.

The K-T boundary is actually from 65-64 million years ago. 60 million years ago is in the early to middle Paleocene, back when the condylarths and mesonychians were just starting to party.

This is accurate and famous in these subjects. In fact the k-t line is just something admitted to because of the fantastic segregation of dominance of divisions of creatures. Its dramatic and conclusive. It is of coarse in faxt the flood line. The (k) part is from the flood collections of that year and above it is from events of fossilization a few centuries after the flood or so. Not all biblical creationists however see it this way. Yet they are wrong.

Byers rambled: The issue is not science but rather conclusions about origins. The issue of origins is a right of the people to force into schools if they are resisting.

Robert Byers said:

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said:

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said: The Egyptian limestone either came from the flood itself (pressure collecting and squeezing sediment into rock) or possibly from a post flood event about a century after the flood or so when a smaller but great smash of water overflowed parts of northern Africa. Likewise turning sediment into stone.

Where would the sediment to make limestone come from? IIRC the Pyramids were made from oolitic limestone. Do you actually know what this is? Why don't creation 'scientists' ever try to duplicate this process in a lab? They would gain a lot of credibility (well, some anyway) if they could produce one scrap of verifiable evidence to support their wild fantasies.

The sediment if from the flood is easily the sediment churned about. If after the flood it was from the med sea overflowing or even infilling from a epiode. The med is admitted to have been suddenly infilled and this is probably the origin of the Northern African sedimentary layers if above the k-t line.

You missed my point. This sediment would not be limestone. Even if it were shells, it would not form oolitic limestone.

I don't know the composition of the rock layers. Yet it is from sedimentary or some processed material.

Its amazing how the flood just happened to deposit Iridium, the second densest substance known,and an ash layer at the same level.

Oolitic limestone is formed in warm, shallow seas, not in a rush of floodwater.

Robert Byers said: The bible everywhere is consistent in its claims the words are from the spirit of god and the humans just recorders.

The law, as now interpretated, does say ideas can’t be taught as true on origins if they are seen as religious. The law is about mutual non interference. So likewise ideas can not teach religion is wrong on origins. The law is about separation and not JUST separation of state FROM church.

Creationism is not censored because of lack of scientific support but because its seen as religious. True or not it still would be banned by the present interpretation of the law.Its not based on merit of scientific punch or not. OTHERWISE all would respond creationism can be taught in science class if its supported by science.! Which would make the separation concept as now used absurd. Its all about law and not about science. OTHERWISE creationisms only problem with getting into schools would be that, claimed, its not science. Being connected to religion would not be a issue. No one would ever say its a issue of church/state but only a issue of science/state. Therefore admitting its not a issue about religion but only about ideas from opinions with presumptions being of no concern to the law.

I can’t see where my reasoning is wrong.

By the way it does completly matter what the motives were of 1700’s folks who created the constitution. OTHERWISE it would have no force. Its not just a framework of words. Its force is from the intents and that the founders agreed to its intents and only those. Not stuff made up by later generations.

Robert Byers said: The (k) part is from the flood collections of that year and above it is from events of fossilization a few centuries after the flood or so. Not all biblical creationists however see it this way. Yet they are wrong.

Robert Byers said: Creationism is not censored because of lack of scientific support but because its seen as religious.

Dave Lovell said:

Robert Byers said: The (k) part is from the flood collections of that year and above it is from events of fossilization a few centuries after the flood or so. Not all biblical creationists however see it this way. Yet they are wrong.

Robert, which explanation for "The (k) part" would be taught if your schools' curriculum were ever to be implemented? What other explanations would be worthy of an exam pass?

Robert Byers said: I can't see where my reasoning is wrong.

Robert Byers said:

Stuart Weinstein said:

Robert Byers said:

Stuart Weinstein said:

Robert Byers said:

nmgirl said: Bobby sez: "Origin issues are unique because they are conclusions about matters not witnessed." So in your very small mind, teachers can only teach about things that they personally witnessed, right? so I can't teach about anything before 1956, when i was born? so how can teachers teach from the bible, they weren't around several thousand years ago either. Bobby, I've been meaning to ask you a question: If the world is 6000 years old and the flood happened 4500 years ago, where did the limestone used in the egyptian pyramids come from 4500 years ago? Enquiring minds want to know.

Origin issues are different as not just the event was not witnessed but the processes involved. This is not like human events. yet it is about evidence.

So Mr. Byers, do you believe that criminals, convicted solely based on forensic evidence, should be released from prison? After all there were no witnesses to their crimes. If not, why not?

The processes are witnessed and in constant evidence everywhere. this is not the same thing as speculated processes with results from these processes also speculated on.

What processes are those Bobby?

The procsses of having unique fingerprints and leaving them about and the need for using hands and so on. Evolution is ideas on processes with claims of practical evidence from past actions(fossils) etc.

Sorry Bobby, but evolution is observed. How life changed over geologic time is given by fossils. Just as fingerprints can tell you who, where and when.

And what evidence of process is involved in a crime, in this case? There were no eye-witnesses, nobody knows for certain what the process was, right?

Thats right Bobby. Only bare data, forensics, just like fossils and the geologic record, clues left in our DNA.. etc.

Thats right Bobby, We use fossils to test hypotheses of how life changed through time.

Dr. Morris wasn't close to great; he went to his grave a crackpot. And he is wrong. They are testable in the same way theories of how a crime was committed are testable. You didn't answer my question Bobby. Should criminals convicted solely on the basis of forensic evidence, be released from jail? If not why not?

Evolution is also based on observed processes.

Stanton said:

nmgirl said: The geological k-t line is 60 million years old.

The K-T boundary is actually from 65-64 million years ago. 60 million years ago is in the early to middle Paleocene, back when the condylarths and mesonychians were just starting to party.

I wonder what Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, if they were alive today, would think of your inane ramblings.

"Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of it's consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort & pleasantness you feel in it's exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you."
—Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr (August 10, 1787).

"The natural cause of the human mind is certainly from credulity to skepticism."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
-Thomas Jefferson

...

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”

-Darwin

Dave Luckett said: Just like he knows that creationism is fact, not religion, because God dictated Genesis, so it must be right.

John Kwok said: Stanton - The boundary is closer to somewhere between 66 and 65 million years (I have to check the latest stratigraphic charts when I have a chance.). I learned from a CUNY doctoral student in geology who is part of a CUNY - AMNH team sampling the boundary in New Jersey that the K - T boundary should be referred more accurately as the K - P boundary (For Cretaceous - Paleogene boundary):

Stanton said:

nmgirl said: The geological k-t line is 60 million years old.

The K-T boundary is actually from 65-64 million years ago. 60 million years ago is in the early to middle Paleocene, back when the condylarths and mesonychians were just starting to party.

Whatever it's called, this 66 or so by boundary is iridiumably complex.

The "by" was short for billion year old.

Henry J said: The "by" was short for billion year old.

GvlGeologist, FCD said:

Henry J said: The "by" was short for billion year old.

Then you're a thousand times too old!

Oops. Then make that "my" instead of "by". Or chop off three zeros. Dang.

Henry J said: Oops. Then make that "my" instead of "by". Or chop off three zeros. Dang.

Mike Elzinga said: But if a thousand years (Ky or kiloyear) is but a day, is a day a millimillennium (a microennium)?

Sheesh; now my head is spinning!

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry J said: Oops. Then make that "my" instead of "by". Or chop off three zeros. Dang.

Let’s see now; “my” would be milliyears, “My” would be megayears, “Gy” would be gigayears. I don’t know what “by” would be. Probably makes no difference anyway; a year is not a metric unit. But if a thousand years (Ky or kiloyear) is but a day, is a day a millimillennium (a microennium)?

"A thousand ages in Thy sight/Are like an evening gone."

So a Divine Evening (DE) is a Kiloage (Kage). If a day (divine or otherwise) were made up of equal periods of morning, afternoon and evening, that would make a Divine Day equal to 3 Kages.

But what is the length of an age? It must be less than a rock, because it is known that a rock can contain a plurality of ages; at least two. The lowest estimate for the length of an age is therefore one demirock age. How long is a demirock age?

Well, the current rock age began with Bill Haley and the Comets "Rock around the Clock" in 1953. That makes one rock age equal to at least fifty seven years, or one demirock age at least 28.5 years. Hence a Kage is greater than 28500 years, and a Divine Day is therefore greater than 85500 years.

But how much greater? The rock age, I am informed, continues, and its length is therefore indeterminate, as is the number of ages in a rock. We can therefore only make a determination of the lowest possible figure, and seek further data.

1 day = 1 milliBoleyn

Henry J said:

Sheesh; now my head is spinning!

Quick, somebody call an exorcist!!!111!!!one!!

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Actually, I think it's the K-Pg boundary. But you're right about 66.5 plus/minus as the current date.

John Kwok said: Stanton - The boundary is closer to somewhere between 66 and 65 million years (I have to check the latest stratigraphic charts when I have a chance.). I learned from a CUNY doctoral student in geology who is part of a CUNY - AMNH team sampling the boundary in New Jersey that the K - T boundary should be referred more accurately as the K - P boundary (For Cretaceous - Paleogene boundary):

Stanton said:

nmgirl said: The geological k-t line is 60 million years old.

The K-T boundary is actually from 65-64 million years ago. 60 million years ago is in the early to middle Paleocene, back when the condylarths and mesonychians were just starting to party.

John Kwok said: No, I have to trust this current Ph. D. graduate student of geology, when he told me that technically it has to be referred to now as the K - P boundary (which has been the convention used in Europe for decades. Apparently we've only started to use it when we replaced the "traditional" division of the Cenozoic Era as the Tertiary and Quarternary Periods for the more geologically signifcant Paleogene and Neogene Periods.). I think I have read one of his team's recent scientific publications, and, I believe, they use the term K - P boundary:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Actually, I think it's the K-Pg boundary. But you're right about 66.5 plus/minus as the current date.

John Kwok said: Stanton - The boundary is closer to somewhere between 66 and 65 million years (I have to check the latest stratigraphic charts when I have a chance.). I learned from a CUNY doctoral student in geology who is part of a CUNY - AMNH team sampling the boundary in New Jersey that the K - T boundary should be referred more accurately as the K - P boundary (For Cretaceous - Paleogene boundary):

Stanton said:

nmgirl said: The geological k-t line is 60 million years old.

The K-T boundary is actually from 65-64 million years ago. 60 million years ago is in the early to middle Paleocene, back when the condylarths and mesonychians were just starting to party.

John Kwok said: As of 1990, the geochronological date for the K/P boundary was 66.4 million years ago. However, I think I have seen references to recent publications that may point the actual date as one closer to 65 million years ago. Incidentally, this CUNY/AMNH research team has had its samples dated by geochemist Frank Kyte, who was a member of the Alvarez team that found the iridium anomaly at the K/P boundary. They have demonstrated that, at least in the nearshore waters of what is now New Jersey, some Cretaceous marine invertebrates - including at least one species of ammonite - persisted for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years - into the earliest Paleocene Epoch of the Paleogene Period of the Cenozoic Era:

John Kwok said: No, I have to trust this current Ph. D. graduate student of geology, when he told me that technically it has to be referred to now as the K - P boundary (which has been the convention used in Europe for decades. Apparently we've only started to use it when we replaced the "traditional" division of the Cenozoic Era as the Tertiary and Quarternary Periods for the more geologically signifcant Paleogene and Neogene Periods.). I think I have read one of his team's recent scientific publications, and, I believe, they use the term K - P boundary:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Actually, I think it's the K-Pg boundary. But you're right about 66.5 plus/minus as the current date.

John Kwok said: Stanton - The boundary is closer to somewhere between 66 and 65 million years (I have to check the latest stratigraphic charts when I have a chance.). I learned from a CUNY doctoral student in geology who is part of a CUNY - AMNH team sampling the boundary in New Jersey that the K - T boundary should be referred more accurately as the K - P boundary (For Cretaceous - Paleogene boundary):

Stanton said:

nmgirl said: The geological k-t line is 60 million years old.

The K-T boundary is actually from 65-64 million years ago. 60 million years ago is in the early to middle Paleocene, back when the condylarths and mesonychians were just starting to party.

ben said:

Robert Byers said:

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said:

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said: The Egyptian limestone either came from the flood itself (pressure collecting and squeezing sediment into rock) or possibly from a post flood event about a century after the flood or so when a smaller but great smash of water overflowed parts of northern Africa. Likewise turning sediment into stone.

Where would the sediment to make limestone come from? IIRC the Pyramids were made from oolitic limestone. Do you actually know what this is? Why don't creation 'scientists' ever try to duplicate this process in a lab? They would gain a lot of credibility (well, some anyway) if they could produce one scrap of verifiable evidence to support their wild fantasies.

The sediment if from the flood is easily the sediment churned about. If after the flood it was from the med sea overflowing or even infilling from a epiode. The med is admitted to have been suddenly infilled and this is probably the origin of the Northern African sedimentary layers if above the k-t line.

You missed my point. This sediment would not be limestone. Even if it were shells, it would not form oolitic limestone.

I don't know the composition of the rock layers. Yet it is from sedimentary or some processed material.

So you don't know what the layers are made of, but you know what they're made of. You don't know what the evidence is, but you know it supports your conclusions. Your thought processes are defective, Robert, as is your understanding of science, history, law, religion, spelling and grammar. You also seem to be confused as to which country you live in. Why should anyone listen to what you say?

Dale Husband said:

Robert Byers said: The bible everywhere is consistent in its claims the words are from the spirit of god and the humans just recorders.

And how are those claims to be verified?

The law, as now interpretated, does say ideas can’t be taught as true on origins if they are seen as religious. The law is about mutual non interference. So likewise ideas can not teach religion is wrong on origins. The law is about separation and not JUST separation of state FROM church.

If I founded a religion that taught that the Earth was flat, hollow, or was at the center of the universe, could I also get the opposing ideas that the earth is round, solid, or moves around the Sun tossed out of science class? No. Science is based on observation, experiment, and the development of theories to explain how the universe works. If a few false religious dogmas get debunked as a result, then that helps us find what may be true in religion, if anything.

Creationism is not censored because of lack of scientific support but because its seen as religious. True or not it still would be banned by the present interpretation of the law.Its not based on merit of scientific punch or not. OTHERWISE all would respond creationism can be taught in science class if its supported by science.! Which would make the separation concept as now used absurd. Its all about law and not about science. OTHERWISE creationisms only problem with getting into schools would be that, claimed, its not science. Being connected to religion would not be a issue. No one would ever say its a issue of church/state but only a issue of science/state. Therefore admitting its not a issue about religion but only about ideas from opinions with presumptions being of no concern to the law.

The law protects us from being forced to teach non-science as it it were science, because that is lying. Creationism is only such a big issue because of its association with some versions of God-centered religion. Palmestry is not, but it shouldn't be taught in science classes either.

I can’t see where my reasoning is wrong.

So you are blind. Big deal!

By the way it does completly matter what the motives were of 1700’s folks who created the constitution. OTHERWISE it would have no force. Its not just a framework of words. Its force is from the intents and that the founders agreed to its intents and only those. Not stuff made up by later generations.

I wonder what Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, if they were alive today, would think of your inane ramblings.

Byers is on his boobyhorse again.

Once more, Byers. The State may not teach a religion in the public schools. Not yours, not mine, not paganism, not buddhism, not freaking pastafarianism, not any, nil, nyet, nohow, not at all.

I know you think that God says Genesis is right, but any statement that begins with the words "I think God says..." is religion, Byers.

So it can't be taught in the public schools.

On the other hand, any statement that begins with the words "Here I have verifiable, physical, empirical evidence..." is, if true, not religion, and may be taught in the public schools.

I know you don't get this. I know you've got your fingers in your ears, your eyes shut tight, and you're going lalala. Nobody cares, Byers.

Stuart Weinstein said:

Robert Byers said:

Stuart Weinstein said:

Robert Byers said:

Stuart Weinstein said:

Robert Byers said:

nmgirl said: Bobby sez: "Origin issues are unique because they are conclusions about matters not witnessed." So in your very small mind, teachers can only teach about things that they personally witnessed, right? so I can't teach about anything before 1956, when i was born? so how can teachers teach from the bible, they weren't around several thousand years ago either. Bobby, I've been meaning to ask you a question: If the world is 6000 years old and the flood happened 4500 years ago, where did the limestone used in the egyptian pyramids come from 4500 years ago? Enquiring minds want to know.

Origin issues are different as not just the event was not witnessed but the processes involved. This is not like human events. yet it is about evidence.

So Mr. Byers, do you believe that criminals, convicted solely based on forensic evidence, should be released from prison? After all there were no witnesses to their crimes. If not, why not?

The processes are witnessed and in constant evidence everywhere. this is not the same thing as speculated processes with results from these processes also speculated on.

What processes are those Bobby?

The procsses of having unique fingerprints and leaving them about and the need for using hands and so on. Evolution is ideas on processes with claims of practical evidence from past actions(fossils) etc.

Evolution is also based on observed processes. Grow up Bobby. Evolutionary biologists use fossils just like a detective would use a smoking gun. We can reconstructs events that happened the past by using the clues that we can find in the present. The casts of life however is not evidence of processes but only predictions(or origins) of hypothesised processes.

Sorry Bobby, but evolution is observed. How life changed over geologic time is given by fossils. Just as fingerprints can tell you who, where and when.

There can be no evidence of process.its past and gone.

And what evidence of process is involved in a crime, in this case? There were no eye-witnesses, nobody knows for certain what the process was, right?

Only bare data remains.

Thats right Bobby. Only bare data, forensics, just like fossils and the geologic record, clues left in our DNA.. etc.

So interpretation of the data is king as in subjects like history. Science however is a process of methodology which demands not mere interpretation but important testing before conclusions can be pronounced.

Thats right Bobby, We use fossils to test hypotheses of how life changed through time.

Origin subjects, as the great Dr Morris said, are not science friendly because they are not, or largely, testable.

Dr. Morris wasn't close to great; he went to his grave a crackpot. And he is wrong. They are testable in the same way theories of how a crime was committed are testable. You didn't answer my question Bobby. Should criminals convicted solely on the basis of forensic evidence, be released from jail? If not why not?

Robert,

What is your estimated age for what scientists call the K-T boundary? And have you challenged anti-evolutionists who come up with very different ones?

Bobby, you can have the last word.

I learned a long time ago, that the fastest way to become a fool is to get into a protracted argument with one.

Robert Byers said: Please remember. its your side invoking the law to censor our side.

Frank J said: Robert, What is your estimated age for what scientists call the K-T boundary? And have you challenged anti-evolutionists who come up with very different ones?

Robert Byers said: The law, as now interpretated, does say ideas can't be taught as true on origins if they are seen as religious. The law is about mutual non interference.

So likewise ideas can not teach religion is wrong on origins.

The law is about separation and not JUST separation of state FROM church.

Creationism is not censored because of lack of scientific support but because its seen as religious.

True or not it still would be banned by the present interpretation of the law.Its not based on merit of scientific punch or not.

OTHERWISE all would respond creationism can be taught in science class if its supported by science.!

Which would make the separation concept as now used absurd.

Its all about law and not about science.

OTHERWISE creationisms only problem with getting into schools would be that, claimed, its not science. Being connected to religion would not be a issue. No one would ever say its a issue of church/state but only a issue of science/state.

Therefore admitting its not a issue about religion but only about ideas from opinions with presumptions being of no concern to the law.

I can't see where my reasoning is wrong.

By the way it does completly matter what the motives were of 1700's folks who created the constitution. OTHERWISE it would have no force. Its not just a framework of words. Its force is from the intents and that the founders agreed to its intents and only those. Not stuff made up by later generations.

Robin said:

I can't see where my reasoning is wrong.

Your "reasoning" is a based on inaccurate premises.

Paraphrasing Robert Byers: The process is what must be testable as a actual working, even biologically working, thing. Evolution Creation is all still pictures of conclusions from ideas on processes. Evolution Creation to be scientific must have moving pictures of at least important processes partway in action.

Robert Byers said:

ben said:

Robert Byers said:

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said:

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said: The Egyptian limestone either came from the flood itself (pressure collecting and squeezing sediment into rock) or possibly from a post flood event about a century after the flood or so when a smaller but great smash of water overflowed parts of northern Africa. Likewise turning sediment into stone.

Where would the sediment to make limestone come from? IIRC the Pyramids were made from oolitic limestone. Do you actually know what this is? Why don't creation 'scientists' ever try to duplicate this process in a lab? They would gain a lot of credibility (well, some anyway) if they could produce one scrap of verifiable evidence to support their wild fantasies.

The sediment if from the flood is easily the sediment churned about. If after the flood it was from the med sea overflowing or even infilling from a epiode. The med is admitted to have been suddenly infilled and this is probably the origin of the Northern African sedimentary layers if above the k-t line.

You missed my point. This sediment would not be limestone. Even if it were shells, it would not form oolitic limestone.

I don't know the composition of the rock layers. Yet it is from sedimentary or some processed material.

So you don't know what the layers are made of, but you know what they're made of. You don't know what the evidence is, but you know it supports your conclusions. Your thought processes are defective, Robert, as is your understanding of science, history, law, religion, spelling and grammar. You also seem to be confused as to which country you live in. Why should anyone listen to what you say?

I mean the origin of the limestone exactly. I know its from sediment deposited by water. other posters said a warm sea. I disagree. Rather it was from a sudden overflow from either the great flood or the later events that infilled the med sea. They wrongly conclude its from a warm sea but rather a shallow water body acting upon sediment collected. No need for time and action. Just a quick overflow will and did the trick.

Robert Byers said: A fossil is not a smoking gun. Its a picture.

They at best are predictions or data of process hypothesis. They are indeed just data points.

Evolution is all still pictures of conclusions from ideas on processes. Evolution to be scientific must have moving pictures

Fossils are not evidence of processes as I said. They at best are predictions or data of process hypothesis.

Yeah! They’re nothing but a vast pile of minutely examinable, empirically verifiable data points from a very long-term experiment. Now, What good is that!?! How could all that data possibly give us a clue as to how the machine has been running?!?

— stevaroni

Henry J said:

Fossils are not evidence of processes as I said. They at best are predictions or data of process hypothesis.

Those two sentences directly contradict each other. Anybody who understands English would know that.

Stanton said: Do remember that Robert Byers has demonstrated several times that he has, at best, a tenuous mastery of English.

Robert Lyers said: The law is the law. Its too bad if you must teach or not teach what one thinks is false. Please remember. its your side invoking the law to censor our side. Its not our idea to censor anyone. (well not anymore) I'm not advocating censorship but showing the law is being applied in only one direction when its presented as a mutual non-interfering law to justify its legitimacy. You can't make your case by the back door. If you say the state can not teach God/Genesis because of a constitutional law, (set up in the 1700's) based on a separation concept between both and not just one way then you can not teach God/Genesis is false. Teaching origin conclusions without God/Genesis and teaching evolution is doing just this. You invoke a law to ban us and so you must likewise be banned by the same law and reasoning behind it. The remedy is just to overthrow this 60's "law" and put bac the freedom of the people as it was for hundreds of years in the organization of their schools. The state doesn't need to control great ideas of mankind.

I often get the impression that people like Byers - and Brenda on the other thread - are deliberately attempting to provoke what they can construe as name-calling.

One tactic seems to be to say something grotesquely absurd and keep repeating the shtick. Another tactic appears to be making coy statements that provoke questions and speculations which the person doing the taunting can then construe into name-calling or rudeness or making unwarranted assumptions.

Apparently they can’t win the science game, but they can continue to provoke defenders of science into looking uncivil. Ergo, scientists are bad; just as their ID/creationist leaders always claimed.

But, again, this exposes the dishonesty of the ID/creationist supporters. They can never be forthright in their dealings with anyone who defends science. It they can’t make their case on honest, scientific grounds, they resort to demonizing in any diabolical way they can.

Stanton said: Do remember that Robert Byers has demonstrated several times that he has, at best, a tenuous mastery of English.

Robert Byers said:

I mean the origin of the limestone exactly. I know its from sediment deposited by water. other posters said a warm sea. I disagree. Rather it was from a sudden overflow from either the great flood or the later events that infilled the med sea. They wrongly conclude its from a warm sea but rather a shallow water body acting upon sediment collected.

No need for time and action. Just a quick overflow will and did the trick.

Its not like detective work. Detectives are not scientists. Check their degrees on their walls

Henry J said:

Fossils are not evidence of processes as I said. They at best are predictions or data of process hypothesis.

Those two sentences directly contradict each other. Anybody who understands English would know that.

I, too, have no idea of what Byers means by "process hypothesis". Possibly he means "hypothesis about how a process works". Yes, a fossil is data, or more precisely it yields data. But how on earth can he say that a fossil is a prediction?

Disregarding the meaningless words, and unpacking the rest of the second sentence, we have:

"They (fossils) are data supporting a hypothesis about how a process (evolution) works."

Why, yes. Yes, they are. So they are indeed 'evidence of a process', and the two sentences directly contradict each other.

That is to say, Byers' thought is as incoherent as his language. The one is a reflection of the other.

Mike Elzinga said: I often get the impression that people like Byers - and Brenda on the other thread - are deliberately attempting to provoke what they can construe as name-calling. One tactic seems to be to say something grotesquely absurd and keep repeating the shtick. Another tactic appears to be making coy statements that provoke questions and speculations which the person doing the taunting can then construe into name-calling or rudeness or making unwarranted assumptions. Apparently they can’t win the science game, but they can continue to provoke defenders of science into looking uncivil. Ergo, scientists are bad; just as their ID/creationist leaders always claimed. But, again, this exposes the dishonesty of the ID/creationist supporters. They can never be forthright in their dealings with anyone who defends science. It they can’t make their case on honest, scientific grounds, they resort to demonizing in any diabolical way they can.

Robert,

How are ya comin with them three thingies? Got that visa yet? Got that teachin certificate yet? Got that lesson planie yet? Look dude, if yous are serious about wanting to teach YEC in US pubic schools ya gots to get them three thingies. What, you want someone else to do the dirty work for ya? How knoble of yas. Ya know they gonna be goin to court right? Ya know they gonna be goin to jail right? Lookie here dude guy, if ya don't got the balls for it just says so. We be understandin.

Just for the record, my opinion is that Robert is one big fake. He has been told over one hundred times that he is wrong about teaching crap in public schools, he has never had an answer for one argument made and yet he keep repeating the same old bullshit as if no one will notice. He makes such glaring logical errors that no one could ever take him at all seriously, such as claiming that the past is unknowable and then claiming that archaeology can reconstruct the past history of the walls of Jericho! Hell, he even gets words wrong that he previously got right elsewhere in the same post! This guy is so full of shit that he has to have his septic tank pumped out just to be able to get out of bed in the morning! (Yea, I know, that didn't make any sense, but somehow it seemed appropriate).

DS said: Just for the record, my opinion is that Robert is one big fake.

stevaroni said:

DS said: Just for the record, my opinion is that Robert is one big fake.

I've wondered about this myself. But he's so damned tenacious, apparently not just on this board, but on several other science and religion blogs. If he's a Poe, he's a Poe with a truly unusual amount of energy on his hands.

Stanton said:

Robin said:

I can't see where my reasoning is wrong.

Your "reasoning" is a based on inaccurate premises.

That's because we're dealing with an idiot who conflates "I don't like it" with "illegal" and doesn't care about the ramifications.

Robin wrote:

"Clearly. That and he apparently just doesn’t know what the word “censor” actually means."

Well, at least he has helped to coin a new term. You've heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Well Robert has accomplished a self-defeating prophecy. What else can you call it when someone is allowed to scream one thousand times that they are being censored? This fool has falsified his own claims and doesn't even realize it!

If he were really serious about trying to convince anyone of anything he would have at least learned some English by now, just from reading responses to his posts if nothing else. Until he gets the visa, certificate and lesson plan, his incoherent ramblings can be safely ignored. Is there a writing test required to get a teaching certificate? If so, no worries.

DS said: Until he gets the visa, certificate and lesson plan, his incoherent ramblings can be safely ignored.

Robert Byers said: I mean the origin of the limestone exactly. I know its from sediment deposited by water.

Frank J said: Robert, What is your estimated age for what scientists call the K-T boundary? And have you challenged anti-evolutionists who come up with very different ones?

Dan said:

Robert Byers said: Please remember. its your side invoking the law to censor our side.

I can't remember that because it's not true. censor "a person who supervises conduct and morals: as a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter" Many books and films are published from the creationist viewpoint. No supervisor even tries to prohibit their publication. (Of course, we make fun of them, but it's just natural to laugh at a good joke.)

Robin said:

Robert Byers said: The law, as now interpretated, does say ideas can't be taught as true on origins if they are seen as religious. The law is about mutual non interference.

False as I already demonstrated.

So likewise ideas can not teach religion is wrong on origins.

False again.

The law is about separation and not JUST separation of state FROM church.

Which has nothing to do with whether the state can teach the truth as far as science goes when it contradicts some dopey person's beliefs. Sorry, but your beliefs are erroneous and the State has every right to teach that - as a specific product of science

Creationism is not censored because of lack of scientific support but because its seen as religious.

A) Creationism isn't censored no matter how many times you claim such. Can you go worship at your church? If so, it isn't censored by definition. B) Creationism cannot be taught in a science class because it has no scientific support. It doesn't matter at all that it is religiously based except that as such, it is (by definition) NOT SCIENCE

True or not it still would be banned by the present interpretation of the law.Its not based on merit of scientific punch or not.

False.

OTHERWISE all would respond creationism can be taught in science class if its supported by science.!

And indeed, that's exactly what the rulings on such note. But you'd know that if you actually bothered to read them.

Which would make the separation concept as now used absurd.

Incorrect. It is apparent that you don't know the function of the First Amendment. It isn't to keep religion out of science. It is to allow for the free expression of ALL religious views, not just yours. The reason your pet beliefs can't be taught in science is because they aren't science. That your pet beliefs can't be endorsed by the State only means that if your pet beliefs get taught in school, so does everyone else's.

Its all about law and not about science.

False again.

OTHERWISE creationisms only problem with getting into schools would be that, claimed, its not science. Being connected to religion would not be a issue. No one would ever say its a issue of church/state but only a issue of science/state.

Which is why the rulings note BOTH being at issue.

Therefore admitting its not a issue about religion but only about ideas from opinions with presumptions being of no concern to the law.

False again.

I can't see where my reasoning is wrong.

Your "reasoning" is a based on inaccurate premises.

By the way it does completly matter what the motives were of 1700's folks who created the constitution. OTHERWISE it would have no force. Its not just a framework of words. Its force is from the intents and that the founders agreed to its intents and only those. Not stuff made up by later generations.

You didn't read what I wrote and thus missed the point. Try again.

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said:

ben said:

Robert Byers said:

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said:

Richard Simons said:

Robert Byers said: The Egyptian limestone either came from the flood itself (pressure collecting and squeezing sediment into rock) or possibly from a post flood event about a century after the flood or so when a smaller but great smash of water overflowed parts of northern Africa. Likewise turning sediment into stone.

Where would the sediment to make limestone come from? IIRC the Pyramids were made from oolitic limestone. Do you actually know what this is? Why don't creation 'scientists' ever try to duplicate this process in a lab? They would gain a lot of credibility (well, some anyway) if they could produce one scrap of verifiable evidence to support their wild fantasies.

The sediment if from the flood is easily the sediment churned about. If after the flood it was from the med sea overflowing or even infilling from a epiode. The med is admitted to have been suddenly infilled and this is probably the origin of the Northern African sedimentary layers if above the k-t line.

You missed my point. This sediment would not be limestone. Even if it were shells, it would not form oolitic limestone.

I don't know the composition of the rock layers. Yet it is from sedimentary or some processed material.

So you don't know what the layers are made of, but you know what they're made of. You don't know what the evidence is, but you know it supports your conclusions. Your thought processes are defective, Robert, as is your understanding of science, history, law, religion, spelling and grammar. You also seem to be confused as to which country you live in. Why should anyone listen to what you say?

I mean the origin of the limestone exactly. I know its from sediment deposited by water. other posters said a warm sea. I disagree. Rather it was from a sudden overflow from either the great flood or the later events that infilled the med sea. They wrongly conclude its from a warm sea but rather a shallow water body acting upon sediment collected. No need for time and action. Just a quick overflow will and did the trick.

A 'quick overflow' will not do the trick. How would limestone get into the sediment in the first place? What would prevent the resulting deposits from being a mixture of sand, silt, gravel and a few shells? I predict you will never be able to find any supporting evidence to support your off-the-cuff suggestion. Care to prove me wrong?

Rahn said:

Robert Byers said:

I mean the origin of the limestone exactly. I know its from sediment deposited by water. other posters said a warm sea. I disagree. Rather it was from a sudden overflow from either the great flood or the later events that infilled the med sea. They wrongly conclude its from a warm sea but rather a shallow water body acting upon sediment collected.

Yeah, Robert.....SUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRREEEE! HOW did the shallow body of water act on the sediments to form the limestone?

No need for time and action. Just a quick overflow will and did the trick.

Oh goody! Robert finally proposed a Creationist experiment to prove geologists are wrong about formation of limestones! I can't wait to read about it in the Geologic literature! NOT!!!!!! I won't wait with bated breath for the experiment, Robert. As you can guess, yes, I DID study the formation of limestone when I got my degree in Exploration Geology and I can assure you, it isn't that simple...or quick...... In other words, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. As the wise old sage put it, "Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" Rann

Saying "false", however, is an accurate, pithy, and expressive description of Byers' assertions. They are also inconsistent, incoherent, confused, tendentious, erroneous, ignorant, foolish, confused and benighted, but "false" will do.

We are jumping around thread here. the k-P line is the flood line. The (k) being the flood deposits and above later post flood events. Not all biblical creationists however see it like this. They are wrong. So about 4500 B.C.

— Robert Byers

Robert Byers said:

Dan said:

Robert Byers said: Please remember. its your side invoking the law to censor our side.

I can't remember that because it's not true. censor "a person who supervises conduct and morals: as a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter" Many books and films are published from the creationist viewpoint. No supervisor even tries to prohibit their publication. (Of course, we make fun of them, but it's just natural to laugh at a good joke.)

Why do you say this? Its about censorship in public institutions like schools. Not in field and glen.

Dave Luckett said: Saying "false", however, is an accurate, pithy, and expressive description of Byers' assertions. They are also inconsistent, incoherent, confused, tendentious, erroneous, ignorant, foolish, confused and benighted, but "false" will do.

Robert Byers said: So being a legal issue one must ask if its accurate that the folks in the 1700's really did ban God/Genesis from schools in origin subjectsand so seriously as to put it in the constitution. I say FALSE. Why am i wrong???

Robert Byers said: Saying FALSE is not a conversation.

You seem to believe that creationism is only banned in schools because its claimed not to be science.

This is false.

Its banned because they say there is a constitutional law that bans religion as a answer or a option for origin subjects.

Perhaps some little judge said here or there creationism is not science. yet the constitution does not ban bad science or concepts erroneously though to be science. It only bans religion in science class. its not a science issue but a legal one.

So being a legal issue one must ask if its accurate that the folks in the 1700's really did ban God/Genesis from schools in origin subjectsand so seriously as to put it in the constitution. I say FALSE. Why am i wrong???

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: The bible everywhere is consistent in its claims the words are from the spirit of god and the humans just recorders.

1 Corinthians 7:12 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord" 7:25 "I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment". Several other places, the Bible quotes a source for what is written, sometimes a clearly secular source.

Robert Lyers vomited: Saying FALSE is not a conversation. You seem to believe that creationism is only banned in schools because its claimed not to be science. This is false. Its banned because they say there is a constitutional law that bans religion as a answer or a option for origin subjects. Perhaps some little judge said here or there creationism is not science. yet the constitution does not ban bad science or concepts erroneously though to be science. It only bans religion in science class. its not a science issue but a legal one. So being a legal issue one must ask if its accurate that the folks in the 1700's really did ban God/Genesis from schools in origin subjectsand so seriously as to put it in the constitution. I say FALSE. Why am i wrong???

Robert Byers said: its not a science issue but a legal one.

I don't see shallow water as involved. Rather I see a inrush of water gathering up and by pressure process turning elements of the sediment in to this kind of limestone. If this limestone is above the K-P line then its post flood as this creationist sees it.
We see all sedimentary rock as clearly from instant actions of water/sediment pressure on sediment with a sudden squeeze into rock. The same process as geology textbooks teach but just instant and not long time coming.

Holy Moly! I am no scientist, but damn there is a lot of wrong in that statement.

It seems to me that rationalizing, while a wonderful tool in the creationist toolbox, just does not work here. I have to wonder just how much freaking water would be needed to make "Byers" limestone? I have a funny feeling "if" your creation myth were true, that ark would have been floating somewhere near the orbit of Mars.

and... plate tectonics and erosion, look it up.

Blockquote fail. My apologies. That first paragraph was supposed to be highlighted and is of course authored by the Byers.

You have to remember that Byers doesn't need to address reality in any of his statements. Any time he requires it, God suspends the laws of physics and creates new miracles to order.

Thus, we have a supra-atmospheric hydrosphere, which is impossible, with life on Earth underneath it, which is also impossible, providing the water for a world-wide flood, which somehow rips out the ocean basins so that the water has somewhere to go. It does this in a year, and frictionlessly (because that much friction would generate enough heat to boil said oceans), both of which are impossible. The water drains away without leaving a sign of scour on the continents, which is impossible.

After we've done with all that, the idea that the water did a few more impossible things with rocks is trifling.

And the hilarious part of it is that Byers wouldn't know oolitic limestone from excelsior.

Bobby wrote:

"So being a legal issue one must ask if its accurate that the folks in the 1700’s really did ban God/Genesis from schools in origin subjectsand so seriously as to put it in the constitution. I say FALSE. Why am i wrong???"

i tells ys bobby boy yous is absolutely rightly so gets ya them three thingies and yous can teach ta yous heart contented go fer it mad man show all them high fillutin scientistes a thingie or twoses all yous gots to do is passes the writin testes

Shelldigger said: It seems to me that rationalizing, while a wonderful tool in the creationist toolbox, just does not work here. I have to wonder just how much freaking water would be needed to make "Byers" limestone?

Game, set, match: Stevaroni.

Of course the Byers pigeon will just crap all over the board and claim victory. ;-)

stevaroni said:

Shelldigger said: It seems to me that rationalizing, while a wonderful tool in the creationist toolbox, just does not work here. I have to wonder just how much freaking water would be needed to make "Byers" limestone?

It gets even dumber than that. There are so many problems with Byer's "explanation" that it's tough to know where to even begin.

And he isn't even attempting to explain where the windows in the firmament went, and why God had to open them, or why He needed to engineer a flood.

Or why He can't wrestle very well.

Just Bob said: Or why He can't wrestle very well.

I thought He had that guy Atlas to hold up that there firmament thing?

Byron, if some group held the view that the second World War was started by Franklin Roosevelt's ordering of an unprovoked attack on Berlin and attempted to get that into the public schools, and the court ruled that it wasn't allowed, would that be censorship?

Alex H said: Byron, if some group held the view that the second World War was started by Franklin Roosevelt's ordering of an unprovoked attack on Berlin and attempted to get that into the public schools, and the court ruled that it wasn't allowed, would that be censorship?

Dan said:

Robert Byers said:

Dan said:

Robert Byers said: Please remember. its your side invoking the law to censor our side.

I can't remember that because it's not true. censor "a person who supervises conduct and morals: as a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter" Many books and films are published from the creationist viewpoint. No supervisor even tries to prohibit their publication. (Of course, we make fun of them, but it's just natural to laugh at a good joke.)

Why do you say this? Its about censorship in public institutions like schools. Not in field and glen.

I say this because it's true. Clearly creationism is not censored from US institutions like the Presidency: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html Nor is creationism censored from the US schools. This forum has established many times that the US school curricula can be summarized as "Creationism was the dominant scientific idea in the early 19th century. Much evidence was accumulated (Smith, Hutton, Lyell, Darwin, Wallace, Hooker, Huxley) and the dominant idea was overturned." I've previously mentioned that Robert doesn't seem to know the definition of "science". Now he seems to trumpet his ignorance of the word "censor" -- not to mention "field" and "glen".

Dale Husband said:

Robert Lyers vomited: Saying FALSE is not a conversation. You seem to believe that creationism is only banned in schools because its claimed not to be science. This is false. Its banned because they say there is a constitutional law that bans religion as a answer or a option for origin subjects. Perhaps some little judge said here or there creationism is not science. yet the constitution does not ban bad science or concepts erroneously though to be science. It only bans religion in science class. its not a science issue but a legal one. So being a legal issue one must ask if its accurate that the folks in the 1700's really did ban God/Genesis from schools in origin subjectsand so seriously as to put it in the constitution. I say FALSE. Why am i wrong???

We say false because you keep making false statements, including that embarrassing one above. Creationism is not science because it does not rely on scientific methods, but religious dogmatism. Religious dogmatism does not belong in science classes. And if there was any scientific merit to Creationism, including Intelligent Design, it wouldn't need state legislation to try to ram it down the throats of science classrooms. It is in reaction to the improper legislation that the courts are summoned to look at the matter and make a ruling. A simple question, Byers: Why should FRAUD be forced into science classes just because it is used to prop up phony religion???

stevaroni said:

Shelldigger said: It seems to me that rationalizing, while a wonderful tool in the creationist toolbox, just does not work here. I have to wonder just how much freaking water would be needed to make "Byers" limestone?

It gets even dumber than that. There are so many problems with Byer's "explanation" that it's tough to know where to even begin. First, he imagines the pre-flood Mediterranean as a 5000 foot deep valley that gets filled in by sediment from a global flood. Well, he's partially right, the Med probably was initially filled by flooding about 5 million years ago. Of course, then it was a much smaller, shallower basin. The big issue for Beyers is that the med isn't silting up, it's getting deeper. Far from being a shallow bathtub filled mostly with sediment, the average depth is now over 4900 feet So, if that limestone did form in the Med, it's under almost a mile of water right now, which is going to make it difficult to build pyramids out of it. Of course, the limestone in the pyramids (which is where Byers started) wasn't quarried in the Med in the first place, it was quarried in the Giza Plateau, which is abut 300 feet above sea level. So, um, Byers, in your flood "washdown" model, sediment gets carried away from Giza down to the empty Mediterranean basin. Of course, wash-down into basins does produce rock. But it's not going to make oolythic limestone. It's not going to make any limestone at all. Limestone is mostly calcium carbonate, a mineral that's largely formed by being precipitated out of water, either by evaporation or as the shells of mollusks. The detritus you'd get from flushing the Mediterranean basin would be largely silicatious material, a conglomerate of igneous and metamorphic rocks from the north side, and lots of sand and silt from the south side. (I'm pretty sure that's how it would go, help me out on this you geologist guys) Of course, in an event as violent as a biblical flood, you'd also entrain all sorts of plant and animal remains which could be carbon dated. And don't give me any crap about fossils, Byers. Fossils are largely mineralized bone, a proscess that takes a long, long time, and all the precious few organic fragments ever recovered from true fossils would fill a thimble. Conversely large living things buried in the flood have been hermetically sealed in silt for 4000 years. They would be expected to have consistently large amounts of organic material left. We know this because we have found plenty of mortal remains from Biblical times and they do have plenty of organic material. Material from the flood could be readily carbon dated, seeing as it would be only 10% older than ancient pharonic remains, which are regularly dated with ease.

Robert Byers said: You say no religious dogmatism in science class. Well the law is the law. there can not be in science teachings against religious dogmatism. Thats the law. This law is what is invoked to stop the party of the good guys.

Don't you just love it when Robert Byers pulls moronic, nonsensical crap out of his hole in order to justify his inanity?

Robert Byers said:

stevaroni said:

Shelldigger said: It seems to me that rationalizing, while a wonderful tool in the creationist toolbox, just does not work here. I have to wonder just how much freaking water would be needed to make "Byers" limestone?

It gets even dumber than that. There are so many problems with Byer's "explanation" that it's tough to know where to even begin. First, he imagines the pre-flood Mediterranean as a 5000 foot deep valley that gets filled in by sediment from a global flood. Well, he's partially right, the Med probably was initially filled by flooding about 5 million years ago. Of course, then it was a much smaller, shallower basin. The big issue for Beyers is that the med isn't silting up, it's getting deeper. Far from being a shallow bathtub filled mostly with sediment, the average depth is now over 4900 feet So, if that limestone did form in the Med, it's under almost a mile of water right now, which is going to make it difficult to build pyramids out of it. Of course, the limestone in the pyramids (which is where Byers started) wasn't quarried in the Med in the first place, it was quarried in the Giza Plateau, which is abut 300 feet above sea level. So, um, Byers, in your flood "washdown" model, sediment gets carried away from Giza down to the empty Mediterranean basin. Of course, wash-down into basins does produce rock. But it's not going to make oolythic limestone. It's not going to make any limestone at all. Limestone is mostly calcium carbonate, a mineral that's largely formed by being precipitated out of water, either by evaporation or as the shells of mollusks. The detritus you'd get from flushing the Mediterranean basin would be largely silicatious material, a conglomerate of igneous and metamorphic rocks from the north side, and lots of sand and silt from the south side. (I'm pretty sure that's how it would go, help me out on this you geologist guys) Of course, in an event as violent as a biblical flood, you'd also entrain all sorts of plant and animal remains which could be carbon dated. And don't give me any crap about fossils, Byers. Fossils are largely mineralized bone, a proscess that takes a long, long time, and all the precious few organic fragments ever recovered from true fossils would fill a thimble. Conversely large living things buried in the flood have been hermetically sealed in silt for 4000 years. They would be expected to have consistently large amounts of organic material left. We know this because we have found plenty of mortal remains from Biblical times and they do have plenty of organic material. Material from the flood could be readily carbon dated, seeing as it would be only 10% older than ancient pharonic remains, which are regularly dated with ease.

I think the limestone here is post flood. Not from the biblical flood. The depth of the Med basinRational thought and evidence means nothing to me. Hence, I see the whole thing as carved out by the inrush of water and overflowing the banks. So laying a limestone over Northern Africa etc and digging up the present med sea. Biblical creationists Nitwits like me need dry land everywhere on earth so as to quickly refill the earth with fauna/flora. Only later was the med sea created. In fact one needs a way to fossilize the creatures in Northern africa (which I see as a post flood )above k-p line) event. The limestone is from instant actions in some recipemy irrational imagination.

Robert Byers said: I think the limestone here is post flood. Not from the biblical flood. The depth of the Med basin means nothing to me. I see the whole thing as carved out by the inrush of water and overflowing the banks. So laying a limestone over Northern Africa etc and digging up the present med sea. Biblical creationists like me need dry land everywhere on earth so as to quickly refill the earth with fauna/flora. Only later was the med sea created. In fact one needs a way to fossilize the creatures in Northern africa (which I see as a post flood )above k-p line) event. The limestone is from instant actions in some recipe.

Bobby wrote:

"Again about this. Yes creationism was taught in the old days. Yet today its censored illegally and inconsistently. It is censored in public institutions like schools museums etc etc. Even if some President talks about it. This is about state schools censorship. Its al most as if you are ashamed and smell your on the wrong side of history in your consent to the present censorship.! Otherwise your points make no sense. Please indeed stop censorship and as another poster said Let the chips fall where they will. We are confident. Are you guys?"

Go fer it Bobby boy. Get yea them three thingies and teaches it to yours hearts contented. Till then, go al most screw yourselfs into light sockets. Your cow chipies already falled. What, ain't yous confidents?

DS said: What, ain't yous confidents?

Stanton said:

Robert Byers said: I think the limestone here is post flood. Not from the biblical flood. The depth of the Med basin means nothing to me. I see the whole thing as carved out by the inrush of water and overflowing the banks. So laying a limestone over Northern Africa etc and digging up the present med sea. Biblical creationists like me need dry land everywhere on earth so as to quickly refill the earth with fauna/flora. Only later was the med sea created. In fact one needs a way to fossilize the creatures in Northern africa (which I see as a post flood )above k-p line) event. The limestone is from instant actions in some recipe.

So how do you plan to test your claim that the Mediterranean basin filled up after the Flood? And how did fauna and flora return to the Earth in less than four thousand years? Common sense would suggest that a life-destroying flood of saltwater would prevent life from returning. How did koalas make it from Mount Ararat to Australia in less than four thousand years? How did tree sloths make it to South America or i'iwi make it to Hawaii in less than four thousand years?

Robert Byers said:

stevaroni said:

Shelldigger said: It seems to me that rationalizing, while a wonderful tool in the creationist toolbox, just does not work here. I have to wonder just how much freaking water would be needed to make "Byers" limestone?

It gets even dumber than that. There are so many problems with Byer's "explanation" that it's tough to know where to even begin. First, he imagines the pre-flood Mediterranean as a 5000 foot deep valley that gets filled in by sediment from a global flood. Well, he's partially right, the Med probably was initially filled by flooding about 5 million years ago. Of course, then it was a much smaller, shallower basin. The big issue for Beyers is that the med isn't silting up, it's getting deeper. Far from being a shallow bathtub filled mostly with sediment, the average depth is now over 4900 feet So, if that limestone did form in the Med, it's under almost a mile of water right now, which is going to make it difficult to build pyramids out of it. Of course, the limestone in the pyramids (which is where Byers started) wasn't quarried in the Med in the first place, it was quarried in the Giza Plateau, which is abut 300 feet above sea level. So, um, Byers, in your flood "washdown" model, sediment gets carried away from Giza down to the empty Mediterranean basin. Of course, wash-down into basins does produce rock. But it's not going to make oolythic limestone. It's not going to make any limestone at all. Limestone is mostly calcium carbonate, a mineral that's largely formed by being precipitated out of water, either by evaporation or as the shells of mollusks. The detritus you'd get from flushing the Mediterranean basin would be largely silicatious material, a conglomerate of igneous and metamorphic rocks from the north side, and lots of sand and silt from the south side. (I'm pretty sure that's how it would go, help me out on this you geologist guys) Of course, in an event as violent as a biblical flood, you'd also entrain all sorts of plant and animal remains which could be carbon dated. And don't give me any crap about fossils, Byers. Fossils are largely mineralized bone, a proscess that takes a long, long time, and all the precious few organic fragments ever recovered from true fossils would fill a thimble. Conversely large living things buried in the flood have been hermetically sealed in silt for 4000 years. They would be expected to have consistently large amounts of organic material left. We know this because we have found plenty of mortal remains from Biblical times and they do have plenty of organic material. Material from the flood could be readily carbon dated, seeing as it would be only 10% older than ancient pharonic remains, which are regularly dated with ease.

I think the limestone here is post flood. Not from the biblical flood. The depth of the Med basin means nothing to me. I see the whole thing as carved out by the inrush of water and overflowing the banks. So laying a limestone over Northern Africa etc and digging up the present med sea. Biblical creationists like me need dry land everywhere on earth so as to quickly refill the earth with fauna/flora. Only later was the med sea created. In fact one needs a way to fossilize the creatures in Northern africa (which I see as a post flood )above k-p line) event. The limestone is from instant actions in some recipe.

John Kwok said: Hey Booby, common sense would tell you that daily depositional rates for sediment wouldn't result in the creation of vast limestone formations of the kind you see not only in the Mediterranean, but, believe it or not, even here in the Mid Atlantic region of the United States. If the Earth is only 4,000 years old, why hasn't anyone seen rapid accumulation of sediments of the kind you are suggesting:

Stanton said: That, and it seems so terribly odd that Robert Byers comes up with the conclusion that the Mediterranean filled up only after the Flood, even though not a single piece of evidence suggests that anyone or anything living in that area from 4,000 years ago ever saw it as a dry basin being flooded with water.

eric said:

Stanton said: That, and it seems so terribly odd that Robert Byers comes up with the conclusion that the Mediterranean filled up only after the Flood, even though not a single piece of evidence suggests that anyone or anything living in that area from 4,000 years ago ever saw it as a dry basin being flooded with water.

What, you've never heard of the massive Minoan land barges, pulled by bulls and used to wage war on the Myceneans and Egyptians? They're kept in the same wing of the museum as the T-rex saddles. :P

John Kwok said: He doesn't need to. It's all wand and magic, courtesy of Gandalf, Dumbledore or some other wizard of the moment (Would you prefer if I said the Klingons did it?):

Robert Byers said: I think the limestone here is post flood. Not from the biblical flood.

The depth of the Med basin means nothing to me.

John Kwok said: He doesn't need to. It's all wand and magic, courtesy of Gandalf, Dumbledore or some other wizard of the moment (Would you prefer if I said the Klingons did it?):

Robert Byers said:

Dale Husband said: We say false because you keep making false statements, including that embarrassing one above. Creationism is not science because it does not rely on scientific methods, but religious dogmatism. Religious dogmatism does not belong in science classes. And if there was any scientific merit to Creationism, including Intelligent Design, it wouldn't need state legislation to try to ram it down the throats of science classrooms. It is in reaction to the improper legislation that the courts are summoned to look at the matter and make a ruling. A simple question, Byers: Why should FRAUD be forced into science classes just because it is used to prop up phony religion???

No this is not true. Legislatures, on behalf of a majority of the people, take on the prohibition of creationism in the schools because its banned by law. Not because of the merits of its claims to science. Its a legal issue at the moment. Not a science one. You say no religious dogmatism in science class. Well the law is the law. there can not be in science teachings against religious dogmatism. Thats the law. No interference of one party with the other. This law is what is invoked to stop the party of the good guys.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: I think the limestone here is post flood. Not from the biblical flood.

Sigh. Slowly, Robert. You were originally talking about limestone in the pyramids, remember? The "authorities", such as they are, put the flood @ 2348 BCE. Any rational chronology of Pharonic pyramid building has to start around 2630 just to make all the dynasties fit, but let's be generous and say Djoser held off till January 1st, 2347 BCE. There is no "after the flood" for new limestone to form. Pyramid building has to start immediately.

The depth of the Med basin means nothing to me.

Lot's of things mean nothing to you, Rob. reality, for example.

Robert Byers, please provide research to support your moronically preposterous claims, or please, shut the hell up.

Dale Husband said: You are an outright liar, Byers.

Biblical archeology has never accepted these Egypt dates.

They are too confused and incomplete for a stand against biblical chronology.

?The pyramids were started suddenly and each king after had to do likewise.

Only about 2100 B.C. did Egypt get settled.

for example there is a famous kind in Egypt who turned suddenly to a single SUN God. Now people who read the bible would simply see this as the Pharoah who dealt with Abraham or possibly with Joseph. These dates are after 200oB.C. Yet Egyptian timelines today , I understand, record this King as living earlier. Case in point.

The Pharoah that Byers is babbling about is Akhenaten, a Pharoah of the eighteenth dynasty whose death is dated to 1334 BCE. You can't get anything right, can you, Byers?

And then, of course, I hadda go and misspell "Pharaoh". Twice.

Hey Byers, why can't God wrestle?

And why would nearly all the humans on Earth, having recently learned the very hard way (a flood, a blasted tower and magical language changing) completely give up belief in that obviously powerful god and start worshiping all those false gods in Egypt and all over the rest of the world?

Just Bob said: Hey Byers, why can't God wrestle?

John Kwok said: (Would you prefer if I said the Klingons did it?):

Stanton said:

Robert Byers said: I think the limestone here is post flood. Not from the biblical flood. The depth of the Med basin means nothing to me. I see the whole thing as carved out by the inrush of water and overflowing the banks. So laying a limestone over Northern Africa etc and digging up the present med sea. Biblical creationists like me need dry land everywhere on earth so as to quickly refill the earth with fauna/flora. Only later was the med sea created. In fact one needs a way to fossilize the creatures in Northern africa (which I see as a post flood )above k-p line) event. The limestone is from instant actions in some recipe.

So how do you plan to test your claim that the Mediterranean basin filled up after the Flood? And how did fauna and flora return to the Earth in less than four thousand years? Common sense would suggest that a life-destroying flood of saltwater would prevent life from returning. How did koalas make it from Mount Ararat to Australia in less than four thousand years? How did tree sloths make it to South America or i'iwi make it to Hawaii in less than four thousand years?

Dave Luckett said: The Pharoah that Byers is babbling about is Akhenaten, a Pharoah of the eighteenth dynasty whose death is dated to 1334 BCE. You can't get anything right, can you, Byers?

I really do recommend googling Byers + Marsupial. I'm still laughing.

Gist (you won't believe this): Marsupials are the same as placental mammals, except for fiddling details of bone structure and reproduction. Some of them are shaped like placental mammals, so that proves it.

So, no problemo. Koalas - which are bears, see, just like all the other bears, 'cause they look a lot like bears - walked and swam to Australia. From Mt Ararat. And became marsupials because, because, um, well, look how much like bears they are.

Dave Luckett said: I really do recommend googling Byers + Marsupial. I'm still laughing. Gist (you won't believe this): Marsupials are the same as placental mammals, except for fiddling details of bone structure and reproduction. Some of them are shaped like placental mammals, so that proves it. So, no problemo. Koalas - which are bears, see, just like all the other bears, 'cause they look a lot like bears - walked and swam to Australia. From Mt Ararat. And became marsupials because, because, um, well, look how much like bears they are.

Robert Byers said: Miss the point entirely.

TomS said:

Dave Luckett said: I really do recommend googling Byers + Marsupial. I'm still laughing. Gist (you won't believe this): Marsupials are the same as placental mammals, except for fiddling details of bone structure and reproduction. Some of them are shaped like placental mammals, so that proves it. So, no problemo. Koalas - which are bears, see, just like all the other bears, 'cause they look a lot like bears - walked and swam to Australia. From Mt Ararat. And became marsupials because, because, um, well, look how much like bears they are.

They're of the same "kind"? Because if koalas can "micro"evolve from bears, then what prevents humans from micro-evolving from other mammals?

Robert Byers said: The dates are so wrong in Egypt stuff that anythings possible.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: The dates are so wrong in Egypt stuff that anythings possible.

I'm surprised you say that, given that Egyptian records follow the biblical pattern of counting years since prior person (years of reign in the Egyptian case, vice biblical 'begats'). I was under the impression you fundamentalists thought that was a very accurate system.

The major difference between the two is the presence of independent evidence in the Egyptian case. Stuff like radiocarbon dating and letters between the Egyptian Pharaohs and other rulers which help Egyptologists correct the timeline. No such corrections are possible in the biblical case as there appears to be no independent evidence the stated list of (early) begats ever existed.

Byers, you keep dodging my question. This must be the 5th thread now. WHY CAN’T GOD WRESTLE? Surely your pastor or some fundamentalist website can provide you with a made-up story to explain away the LITERAL story in Genesis, where God can’t get out of Jacob’s grasp, even by cheating with magic, until He “says uncle” by blessing Jacob.