Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Creationism VS Science....The Weird Lies of Propaganda Dan......in the Courts...

Expand Messages
  • SH
    ... Tin: Absolutely true. No creationists ideas can be found in the peer reviewed journals. Creationism = NONscience. Creationists are forced to deny nearly
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 5, 2013
      > > > Laurie:
      > > > The evolutionists were obviously greatly disturbed
      > > >that the scientific facts
      > >
      > > Tin: Creationism doesn't have any scientific
      > > facts.
      > >
      > False!

      Tin: Absolutely true.

      No creationists ideas can
      be found in the peer reviewed
      journals. Creationism = NONscience.

      Creationists are forced to deny
      nearly all of the basic facts
      and principles from fields such
      as Astronomy, Geology and Paleontology.
      Creationism = ANTIscience.

      > >
      > >
      > > 1. The courts have consistently found
      > > that ID/creationism are non-science.
      > >
      > The courts have been consistently wrong about that too.

      Tin: The courst merely confirm the obvious
      scientific reality that creationist ideas
      have no standing whatsoever in the scientific

      Creationist ideas are totally absent
      in the primary scientific literature
      and only get a mention in the history
      of wrong ideas in most basic textbooks
      of the relevant scientific disciplines.

      In reality, creationism ANTI-science.
      Believers are not allowed to accept
      the basic finding in the scientific areas
      of Astronomy, Biology, Geology, and

      Creationist regress to the dark

      > >
      > > 2. The scientific community long
      > > ago rejected creationism by general
      > > consensus.
      > >
      > No it has not.

      Tin: Of course it has.

      > Evolutionism rejects creationism by
      > general consensus.
      > Creationism is science.

      Tin: Lack of contact with reality

      As one example here is a journal
      article from the primary scientific
      literature in astronomy confirming
      the date of sn1987a at 165,000 years
      based on trigonometry independently
      validiting the date known from other


      We have determined the distance to the SN 1987A by comparing the angular size of its circumstellar ring measured from an HST (Hubble Space Telescope) image ... with its absolute size derived from an analysis of the light curves of narrow UV lines ... measured with IUE (International Ultraviolet Explorer). Our analysis confirms that the observed elliptical structure is indeed a circular ring at an inclination of 42.8° ± 2.6°. and provides a determination of its absolute diameter (1.27 ± 0.07) x 1018 cm. Its ratio to the angular diameter of 1.66" ± 0.03" ... gives an accurate determination of the distance to SN 1987A ... = 51.2 ± 3.1 kpc.... This value agrees very well with the determinations obtained from light-curve analysis of variable stars

      Thanks to Pi for this reference.

      ....creationism require denial of standard

      Tin continues: ...here a few from Paleontology
      confirming 65 million years for the
      KT boundary.

      Alvarez, L.W. 1983. Experimental evidence that an asteroid impact led
      to the extinction of many species 65 million years ago. Proceedings
      of the National Academy of Science 80: 627-642.

      Kamo, S.L., and T.E. Krogh. 1995. Chicxulub crater source for shocked
      zircon crystals from the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary layer,
      Saskatchewan: Evidence from new U-Pb data. Geology 23: 281-284.

      Swisher, C.C., L. Dingus, and R.F. Butler. 1993. Ar-40/Ar-39 dating
      and magnetostratigraphic correlation of terrestrial Cretaceous-
      Paleogene boundary and Puercan mammal age, Hell Creek-Tullock
      Formation, eastern Montana. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 30:

      ...creationism requires denial
      of standard geology.

      Tin: ...below we have a specific scientific journal
      devoted human macro evolution.


      The Journal of Human Evolution is the premier forum in physical anthropology and palaeontology for publishing high quality, peer-reviewed research papers on all aspects relating to human and primate evolution. The central focus is aimed jointly at palaeoanthropological work, covering human and primate fossils, and at comparative studies of living species, including both morphological and molecular evidence. These include descriptions of new discoveries, interpretative analyses of new and previously described material, and assessments of the phylogeny and palaeobiology of primate species.

      Types of paper

      Research papers should be written as concisely as possible and contain the maximum density of information. Submitted manuscripts can be any length up to approximately 150 pages (including tables and references), subject to limitations on space. The Editors of JHE will also consider publishing special issues devoted to particular topics or themes that fall within the purview of the journal.

      ...here are a few scientific publications

      ----Human Macro Evolution----

      Abitbol, M.M. 1995. Lateral view of Australopithecus afarensis: primitive aspects of bipedal positional behavior in the earliest hominids. J. Human Evol. 28:211-229.

      Aiello, L.C. 1992. Allometry and the analysis of size and shape in human evolution. J. Human Evol. 22:127-147.

      Alonso, S., and J.A.L. Armour. 2001. A highly variable segment of human subterminal 16p reveals a history of population growth for modern humans outside Africa. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98:864-869.

      Ambrose, S.H. 2001. Paleolithic technology and human evolution. Science 291:1748-1753.

      Ankel-Simmons, F., and J.M. Cummins. 1996. Misconceptions about mitochondria and mammalian fertilization: implications for theories on human evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 93:13859-13863.

      Ambrose, S.H. 1998. Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans. J. Human Evol. 34:623-651.

      Anderson, D.J. 1990. On the evolution of human brood size. Evolution 44:438-440.

      Andrews, P. 1992. Evolution and environment in the Hominoidea. Nature 360:641-646.

      Armstrong, E., A. Schleicher, and K. Zilles. 1995. Cortical folding and the evolution of the human brain. J. Human Evol. 25:387-392.

      Arsuaga, J.L., I. Martinez, A. Gracia, J.M. Carretero, and E. Carbonell. 1993. Three new human skulls from the Sima de los Huesos Middle Pleistocene site in Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain. Nature 362:534-537.

      Arsuaga, J.L., J.M. Carretero, C. Lorenzo, A. Gracia, I. Martinez, J.M. Bermudez de Castro, and E. Carbonell. 1997. Size variation in middle Pleistocene humans. Science 277:1086-1088.

      Arsuaga, J.L., C. Lorenzo, J.M. Carretero, A. Gracia, I. Martinez, N. Garcia, J.M. Bermudez de Castro, and E. Carbonell. 1999. A complete human pelvis from the Middle Pleistocene of Spain. Nature 399:255-258.

      Asfaw, B., Y. Beyene, G. Suwa, R.C. Walter, T.D. White, G. WoldeGabriel, and T. Yemane. 1992.

      The earliest Acheulean from Konso-Gardula. Nature 360:732-735.

      Asfaw, B., T. White, O. Lovejoy, B. Latimer, S. Simpson, and G. Suwa. 1999. Australopithecus garhi: a new species of early hominid from Ethiopia. Science 284:629-635.

      ....so Dan your denials only
      show you to be grossly out of
      touch with reality.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.