Top Ten Creation Science Discoveries 2007

Science has only itself to blame.

It should have stuck to atoms with orbiting electrons bumping into each other and forming molecules. Then science teachers could have carried on drawing pretty patterns on blackboards and setting exam questions where those who could remember the pretty patterns were given high marks. (Carbon being elided over in the main).

Now they can't draw any pictures at all although I have heard that some teachers continue to draw them because that's all they know or are capable of knowing given the number of teachers required and the wages they pay them.

All science can do now is say that "something" is causing an effect in their instruments although they don't know what it is but if they supply some labels and things they can give the impression that they do. So now they have some pretty word patterns, the up-to-date teachers I mean, and high marks are given to those who can remember them.

They know, for example, that the sperm wriggles its way into an egg. They have seen a movie of it doing so but they don't know what the process is which causes new life. They say it is "fertilisation" as if that explains it. It's a bit like saying that football is 22 men running around a field chasing a ball.

They know that an average healthy unattached young woman gets her pherenomes agitated, accompanied by physically measureable other things which ought not to be spoken of in a respectable forum, when she sees a millionaire with a hard on, as Miss Austen (1775-1817) explained in the very first sentence of Pride and Prejudice, but they don't know what causes the effect and if they speculate upon the cause they will likely get a demonstration of parents outside the school gates and very few young lady teachers would probably care to anyway as they are themselves, often to their embarrassment if they are well brought up, as most lady teachers are I gather, subject to the same biologically determined processes themselves. And that's the source of human life. The source of the very existence of teacher and student by the side of which what goes into meat pies and chicken curry is a rather minor matter to all but the most sensitive anorexics.

Everytime science looks at things better it discovers it understands them less. The measuring capacities get to the point where it is found that no two balls can ever roll down an incline plane at the same speed unless they are in the same place at the same time and that's impossible. Even the earth going around the sun in X days is tautological.

They replace one set of mumbo-jumbo with a slightly more refined set of mumbo-jumbo.

But it works eh? Great. But that's technology not science. Science is the playful, disinterested exercise of curiosity. Kids do it. They knock it out of you in schools goodstyle. The great writers give it you back. And I have never come across one of those who had anything derogatory to say about The Bible.

The problem with technology is that it is low status compared to science, being associated with work rather than predatory exploit, so all the technologists working the "monkey see-monkey do" principle like to pretend to be scientists as it flatters their self esteem and sometimes has it running amok as we can see on this and other threads where people who can't even use their own language properly have no compunction about setting the education system to rights for 50 million kids on whom all are hopes necessarily are pinned.

Science is disappearing up its own rectal orifice. Its great minds are confused and, as they are great minds, they are loathe to admit it for obvious reasons so they do what ladies do when they have difficulty admitting that they are getting on a bit. They go to extraordinary lengths (billions per year) to make the best of a bad job. A PR exercise.

The lipstick, the dye, the wrinkle cream, the tucks, the corsetry, the scent, the frillies etc are quite apparent to anyone who cares to apply a scientific mind to technology's make-over methods although the garish crudities one sees on here are, it has to be admitted, not to everyone's taste as they remind me of a Christmas hen party for fish gutters and chocolate box production line operatives.

Have you ever been on a sea fishing jaunt to the Isle of Man with two plant hire contractors, a demolition man and a local authority planning officer who placed a photograph of his wife on his locker before shaking the scented talc down the front of his trousers prior to going ashore for an evening of R&R.

Funny thing is science. The thought of 300 million people with an uncorrupted science education is enough to scare the **** out of anybody of even the meanest intelligence.

You made the mistake of not asking Google.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=3.5+meters+per+second+in+miles+per+hour

That's understandable in view of the fact that he doesn't know that "Top Ten Creation Science Discoveries 2007" translates into English as "Let's take the piss out of anybody not in our gang."

And he thus thinks that the bulletin he plugs, which doesn't always appear, is an opportunity for him to inform us of the fact that he goes on planes and makes sure his fellow passengers are aware of his importance and that he collects fossil art, whatever that is, and knows what proper science is and what is "pretty much current" blah,blah,blah and that he's not trolling despite their being no beef in his post of any interest and that anybody who has some beef is the troll.

Good innit? He should be on the stage.

The reference to Google prompted me to google "creationist contribution to science" and I came up with this answers in genesis missive. First I noticed upon reading this essay it was published in 2000, and second that the hyperbole is merely a response to a similar question in 2000 and that creationist rest upon the piety of many classic scientists (Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Mendel etal) and question the lack of personal piety of Darwin(?) and Dawkins in particular and question that of Kenneth Miller as a modern Catholic).

The bottom line is that this elegy nevertheless, rests upon arguments that would be familiar to Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan and except for the pseudoscientific concept of microevolution that creationism(?) has in effect progressed no farther than the Monkey trial.

As for Farmerman's arithmetic error, I might remind you that I was the one that first found the slip of the decimal. Personally I consider it minor error, one that is that is common in science and is facilitated satisfactorily under the concept of independent peer review. Another concept that seems to be lacking in creationism.

Rap

Re: Top Ten Creation Science Discoveries 2007
There are none Joe. Creation science is an oxymoron. And creationists just morons. But I guess you already know this.

rap-

Attacking creationism is easy if you proceed as you might if you wanted to attack organised top-flight male team games, as some feminists do, because of the shady deals or the use of drugs. Whilst both of those things are considered "wrong" by most beta minuses I'm not sure that the final product would be quite so popular without them.

One has to look at it overall from a scientific viewpoint. I think that the organisation of society for the benefit of the population is of rather more importance than the organisation of some fossils in glass cases or even the organisation of the energised dots in the lines of a TV screen which people believe is a picture of something moving. Which, as you know, is a trick not unlike that practiced in the one-sided game known as Find The Lady.

It seems to me that over-reliance on scientific facts represents some sort of loss of nerve.

And there was no need to remind me that you spotted fm's simple arithmetic error. That suggests that you are looking for another round of applause and you ought to be trying to inspire the next one. I would never have noticed myself as I know that all fm's posts have the same objective and the detail is neither here nor there.

He does seem to be an important chap though. It is congruent with loss of nerve to be continually reminding people of things like that. However subtly, and fm is rather average at subtlety.

I know a lady who when she hears an expression in a conversation such as "motorway" or "photograph" or "south" (and plenty more) will connect it up in such a way that within 30 seconds you will be informed that her son is at university doing post-graduate work in one of the ologies. It is because she's insecure about her social position. In fact she is the spitting image of one of those ladies on the school board in Polk which wande inspired me to have a blimp at. A picture tells a thousand stories they say. If you have had plenty of practice I mean.

Take your avvie for example.

Steve wrote-



We all know that Steve. That is why you can safely translate the thread title as I did and thus easily remain on topic. It is also why I compared Joe's witticism to asking for new discoveries in 2007 of ways of lying on the couch.

I dont know whether Im the only one , but I get a nasty knot in the side from chuckling at spendis non-sequiturs.

Keep trying ole girl, you may hit on something relevant yet. Youve still not filled out the full TOS agreements and I am required to in form you . You should go to your profile and check , merely undo the boxes with x marks and that will secure the proper forms.

Glad I could be of service. I realize Ive got a small window of sobriety with you so, operating on the premise that its not yet 5 oclock somewhere in your neighborhood, you have a few hours of relatively decent comprehension left.

'thems fightin words spends

you gonna lay down and take it like a man?

Aw shucks Steve. You shouldn't be so sensitive. It was nothing compared to what I have had to put up with in the past. It's tone is quite friendly really.

I have never heard of nasty knots in the side caused by chuckling though. farmerman's unusual chuckle knot syndrome a.k.a. *****.

Anything fm has no answer to he calls irrelevant. It constitutes an admission that he's stumped.

And I have no idea what he means by opening box x but I do know that proper forms should be avoided when possible.

His puritanical attitude to 3 pints of John Smith's Extra Smooth nightcaps is a personal matter for him.

Creation Science don't discover things; they take other peoples discoveries and put their interpretation on them.

Here's a good laugh;

Dinosaur Breath
by David M. Harris

New Dinosaur Findings support Creation Science
For many years Creation Scientists have had opinions about what happened to the dinosaurs. Some of these opinions have not exactly matched the evolutionary ideas. At the annual symposium of the Geological Society of America recently evidence was presented supporting Creation ideas. They did not intend nor realise this when they presented the evidence.

Creation Theory of Dinosaur ExtinctionThis would mean a total of 12 metres (40 feet) of water.

Where Was All This Water Stored?
As we go up in altitude, such as climbing a mountain, the temperature drops. At a certain height, currently 30-50 km (20-30 miles) the temperature starts to go up again until it climbs above the boiling point of water. At this altitude the boiling point of water is about 25 Celsius, (75º Fahrenheit). When we go higher still the temperature drops once again. If we put liquid water at this height it will remain as liquid water. If it falls to Earth, it will heat up, evaporate, then return to the higher altitude.

With all this weight of liquid water above the atmosphere the air will be compressed. It may reach a pressure about twice that seen today. We know that today humans need about one twelfth of a lung to live when healthy, and more when we get sick. Some creatures need a lot more, particularly reptiles. Some reptiles need more than one full lung to live, and they wheeze when they get very sick. Before the flood humans would have needed 1/24 of a lung to live. The reptiles I mentioned would need one half to three quarters of a lung.

The End of the Dinosaurs
If there were creatures that needed one full lung to live they would need two complete lungs when they were healthy after the flood. If they became sick they would suffocate. Many creation scientists believe that this is what did happen. Another benefit of an atmosphere twice the pressure of today is that it would be easier to fly. There are some flying reptiles that are obviously built for flight, but scientists cannot understand how they could fly, in the present-day atmosphere. In an atmosphere twice as dense as today's they would have found it quite possible to fly.

New Secular Theory of Dinosaur Extinction
On Wednesday 27th October 1993, in Boston, U.S.A. the Geological Society of America held a symposium. One of the theories put forward by a team of government scientists related to the extinction of the dinosaurs. The most popular theory held by evolutionary scientists states that the dinosaurs probably died out when a large asteroid crashed to Earth 65 million years ago. The exact result of this crash varies with the theory, but the idea was that it so changed the environment that the dinosaurs could not live in the new world.

The government group explained the result of their research indicates the dinosaurs did not die out due to this asteroid. They state the new evidence shows the atmosphere had much more oxygen in it at the time of the dinosaurs. According to their new proposal the oxygen level suddenly dropped at the time of great volcanic activity. This is exactly what creation scientists have been saying for years!

Does This Match the Creation View?
There are some differences, with the creation view, however. Their theory proposed that the oxygen level was about 35% of the air content, compared with 21% today. That causes some unfortunate side-effects. Increasing or decreasing the oxygen percentage substantially, on a long-term basis, causes unconsciousness, intoxication, hallucinations, and even death. Just imagine a world with drunken diplodoci, stoned stegosauri, and tipsy T. Rexes!?!

A far better explanation would be if the atmospheric pressure were greater than today's level, increasing the oxygen content without changing the ratio.

Conclusions
From this research we see that creation science can propose a scientific theory, and then evidence can be found to substantiate it. This is known as falsification, and is a valuable aspect of the scientific method. Creation science is real science, often at its best.

The Author
David M. Harris, B.Sc., chairman of the Creation Discovery Project, Professor of Computer Studies, the author of this article, graduated from Manchester University, England with an honours degree in Physics. He has given presentations many times on dinosaurs and other topics to various groups in the U.K., Canada and the U.S.A. These include home school, public school, private school, social clubs, church, youth, jail, birthday parties, and neighbourhood groups as well as radio and television.

http://www.creationdiscovery.org/cdp/articles/dinobrth.html

I claim one. The connections between Jesus , the Bishop of Brixen in the 15th century and modern science.

An evolutionary step beyond the prehensile grip. And selected "in" goodstyle.