Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...

Let me get this straight ... you want Congress deciding how religion is taught? ...

( ... wait for it ... )

There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the experts teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...

Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science. The students will be able to decide for themselves. It's creation vs. evolution. For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017. It can be proven by the scientific method. Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.

No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public. Thus, you are wrong. Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts. It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel. No afterlife.

Reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.

 

[james bond]

Forget the trivial horseshit ... skip straight to explaining the virgin birth, on the cellular level ... something I can test in a lab ...

Now, you are making a fallacy of mixing religion and creation science. What does a virgin birth have to do with Genesis? Only the science parts of Book of Genesis is presented.

"In the beginning, God created heaven and Earth" ...

How do we test this in a lab? ...

First, you are biased. There is nothing about evolution that one can test in a lab.

The evidence is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. Instead of God, we have Jesus as creator since there was a beginning. The Kalam Cosmological argument presents the creator since we know there was a beginning by the CMB. What is also presented is the big bang could not have happened because it defies the laws of physics. Only astronomers accept it for the most part.

I believe in Creation ... but I don't treat as science ... there's absolutely nothing in the Bible that requires me to treat Creation as science ... the main failure is that science requires that what we study be observable, be measurable and be able to repeat ... who was available to observe the Creation? ... the beast of the fields and Man was created days later ... how are we measuring Creation? ... what objective scale do we use for miracles? ...

The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible. That makes creation science a science. Nothing in evolution is observable while we can observe the 7 days of creation where one day = 24 hours.

Finally, the Creation was a unique event ... the Bible doesn't say God created a heaven and an earth and found it to be bad, destroyed it all and created a new heaven and earth and just kept trying until He found a Heaven and Earth that was good ... there's no reason to believe Creation can be repeated ...

Again I ask ... what experiment can we conduct to demonstrate the virgin birth? ...

None of what you said makes any sense.

 

[james bond]

Reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.

Got a link? How does one know?

Here's mine -- Duck ancestors roamed Earth with dinosaurs.

The reptiles came first before their egg. God created adult creatures including humans. The only baby was Baby Jesus. T

 

[ReinyDays]

The answer is, you use the same experiment that proves you can get something from nothing.

We have plenty of Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen and Nitrogen available to form life ... that's something from something ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.

Got a link? How does one know?

Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia - 2 billion year old cyanobacteria were setting the stage for egg development ... an interesting article if you're interested on where and when the development of eggs came about ... "Many protists reproduce sexually, as do the multicellular plants, animals, and fungi. In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1.2 billion years ago in the Proterozoic Eon. All sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms likely derive from a single-celled common ancestor. It is probable that the evolution of sex was an integral part of the evolution of the first eukaryotic cell. There are a few species which have secondarily lost this feature, such as Bdelloidea and some parthenocarpic plants." ... in-line citations can be found at the source linked to above ...

Eggs pre-date life on land by 700 million years ...

 

[Hollie]

Forget the trivial horseshit ... skip straight to explaining the virgin birth, on the cellular level ... something I can test in a lab ...

Now, you are making a fallacy of mixing religion and creation science. What does a virgin birth have to do with Genesis? Only the science parts of Book of Genesis is presented.

"In the beginning, God created heaven and Earth" ...

How do we test this in a lab? ...

First, you are biased. There is nothing about evolution that one can test in a lab.

The evidence is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. Instead of God, we have Jesus as creator since there was a beginning. The Kalam Cosmological argument presents the creator since we know there was a beginning by the CMB. What is also presented is the big bang could not have happened because it defies the laws of physics. Only astronomers accept it for the most part.

I believe in Creation ... but I don't treat as science ... there's absolutely nothing in the Bible that requires me to treat Creation as science ... the main failure is that science requires that what we study be observable, be measurable and be able to repeat ... who was available to observe the Creation? ... the beast of the fields and Man was created days later ... how are we measuring Creation? ... what objective scale do we use for miracles? ...

The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible. That makes creation science a science. Nothing in evolution is observable while we can observe the 7 days of creation where one day = 24 hours.

Finally, the Creation was a unique event ... the Bible doesn't say God created a heaven and an earth and found it to be bad, destroyed it all and created a new heaven and earth and just kept trying until He found a Heaven and Earth that was good ... there's no reason to believe Creation can be repeated ...

Again I ask ... what experiment can we conduct to demonstrate the virgin birth? ...

None of what you said makes any sense.

Science does not back up the Bible

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.

Got a link? How does one know?

Here's mine -- Duck ancestors roamed Earth with dinosaurs.

The reptiles came first before their egg. God created adult creatures including humans. The only baby was Baby Jesus. T

Even you started from an egg you moron!

 

[ReinyDays]

Now, you are making a fallacy of mixing religion and creation science. What does a virgin birth have to do with Genesis? Only the science parts of Book of Genesis is presented.

Cherry picking the Bible? ... shame on you ... but thank you for admitting that the Bible contains severe scientific mistakes ... who is to arbitrate? ... you? ... pride is a sin you know, sounds like you think far to highly of yourself ... are you God's equal to make such pronouncements? ...

What is the volume of water needed to raise sea levels 30,000 feet and flood all the lands? ... bonus questions: where did it come from and where did it go ... Noah's flood is in Genesis, please explain in detail the meteorology that caused it to rain 40 days and 40 nights a volume of water equal to what you calculated for us above ...

First, you are biased. There is nothing about evolution that one can test in a lab.

The evidence is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. Instead of God, we have Jesus as creator since there was a beginning. The Kalam Cosmological argument presents the creator since we know there was a beginning by the CMB. What is also presented is the big bang could not have happened because it defies the laws of physics. Only astronomers accept it for the most part.

Surprisingly ... you know less about astronomy than you do about Christianity ... the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to three people who discovered the Big Bang Theory was flat wrong, at least the current statement of the Big Bang Theory at the time ... we have a NEW Big Bang Theory today just waiting for someone to come along and disprove it again ... proper scientific method ...

If you take an Evolutionary Biology course (with lab) at some big university ... the teachers will let you perform experiments that demonstrate evolution ... I'm guessing you missed all the news about Covid-19, but this is a brand new species of virus that just evolved a few months ago ... just a random mutation that probably won't succeed, Coronaviruses rely on their victims surviving so they can be infected again ... Covid-19 is too deadly for it's own good ... if evolution cared about the victims, we wouldn't call them victims ...

The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible. That makes creation science a science. Nothing in evolution is observable while we can observe the 7 days of creation where one day = 24 hours.

26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
[spoiling verses 27-30]

Spoiler

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

What occurring during the first five days was non-observable ... Man wasn't created himself until Day 6 ... do you ever read the Bible in it's spiritual context? ... just curious is all ... you come across vexed by the flesh of this world ...

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...

Let me get this straight ... you want Congress deciding how religion is taught? ...

( ... wait for it ... )

There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the experts teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...

Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science. The students will be able to decide for themselves. It's creation vs. evolution. For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017. It can be proven by the scientific method. Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.

No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public. Thus, you are wrong. Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts. It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel. No afterlife.

"Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label. The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.

And yet real scientists disagree with you:

Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.

Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?

Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation. Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist. As for any "cult," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S. so I don't know. I didn't join anything to learn the material. Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?

If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion is unethical and announces a bias.

What peer reviewed journals has Lisle submitted to?

That is very dishonest. I don't know what "peer reviewed journals" Lisle has submitted to. The real issue is, does he have the education and experience to be called a scientist? That is more relevant than whether or not a clique group accepts his views.

Norman Bourlag was an agronomist that studied ways to make wheat produce bigger yields. His contemporaries tried to discredit him; the Rockefellers told him they would cut funding if he persisted in his studies. And so he went out on his own. Soon, the Rockefellers were back in. Bourlag made significant progress despite having been negatively reviewed by his peers. That is my answer to the value of your question.

There’s nothing dishonest about asking if Jason Lisle has submitted any work for peer review. It’s a completely fair question given his association with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith”. Such a condition presumes one is not going to be honest in any objective evaluation of the data and has a predefined conclusion. Such an objective is purely theological, not scientific.

Religious dogma does not gain currency in any scientific field merely because a creation ministry finds a “scientist” to promote the dogma. We have specific tools that allow us to discriminate between good theories and bad ones. And science is the single most powerful and productive human enterprise in the history of our species only because these tools actually work. While never providing “proof,” they demonstrably move us incrementally towards objective truth. If they did not, then science would not have changed our world as it has, for better or worse. My preference for objectivity and ethics is based (as has been repeatedly pointed out) on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference, and that of the creation ministries is based (as they admit) purely on which best fits a priori religious commitment.

A ”clique group” is hardly the correct label for the National Academy of Science, for example. Secondly, what is or is not science has nothing to do with personal biases and religious belief. For an idea to be considered scientific, it must run a continuous gauntlet of testing, replication, and peer review.

The member of a creation menistry who simply proposes ideas that are intended to conform with the Bibles, without any supporting evidence, reasoning or testing is at best a crackpot, at worst a charlatan.

So, help us understand which of these Jason Lisle claims to be.

Quite the joker you are. You simply do not want to recognize Lisle as being a scientist. You're scared. I get that. The National Academy of Science is just a clique group with a fancy name that has told more than one scientist that their work was "junk science" only to be proven wrong. In 1870 the National Academy of Science agreed with the proposition that there are specific races of mankind. Today, those who advocate that race is a "social construct" are not called out by those same scientists that found differences in races.

Profiling Humans from their Voice

This book is about recent research in the area of profiling humans from their voice, which seeks to deduce and describe the speaker's entire persona and their surroundings from voice alone. It covers several key aspects of this technology, describing how the human voice is unique in its ability...

books.google.com

See entry # 101

Lisle being a scientist doesn’t assume he is ethical. Being associated with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith” assures he is not ethical. I understand your revulsion for those who don’t unthinkingly accept your religious beliefs as true are categorized as “just a clique group with a fancy name…” but let’s be honest and admit that organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and similar organizations are the entities that further research. What actual research is done by the ICR?

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

The gods will punish those in the National Academy of Sciences for what happened in 1870. Hey, wasn't 1870 the time period after the civil war when those god-fearing Baptists lost their slaves?

LMAO. You are freaking hilarious. In grasping for straws you denounce Christians an unethical. My my. You got a monopoly on human virtue. How divine of you. My "revulsion?" Actually humor is hardly revolting. I could tell you didn't avail yourself of the videos which makes your ignorance even more comical. The Baptists lost their slaves??? Funny beyond words considering that over 92 percent of the people of that era never owned a slave. But, go ahead and share some more of that arrogant idiocy. Grasping at straws and trying to insult me because you cannot sustain a civil conversation is entertaining; in a debate context you would have forfeited on that post. So, we're down to insults and that is where I accept your concession of defeat and move on. Thanks for the laughs.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The answer is, you use the same experiment that proves you can get something from nothing.

We have plenty of Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen and Nitrogen available to form life ... that's something from something ...

No those are different elements... hardly nothing.

 

[Hollie]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...

Let me get this straight ... you want Congress deciding how religion is taught? ...

( ... wait for it ... )

There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the experts teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...

Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science. The students will be able to decide for themselves. It's creation vs. evolution. For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017. It can be proven by the scientific method. Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.

No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public. Thus, you are wrong. Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts. It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel. No afterlife.

"Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label. The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.

And yet real scientists disagree with you:

Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.

Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?

Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation. Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist. As for any "cult," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S. so I don't know. I didn't join anything to learn the material. Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?

If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion is unethical and announces a bias.

What peer reviewed journals has Lisle submitted to?

That is very dishonest. I don't know what "peer reviewed journals" Lisle has submitted to. The real issue is, does he have the education and experience to be called a scientist? That is more relevant than whether or not a clique group accepts his views.

Norman Bourlag was an agronomist that studied ways to make wheat produce bigger yields. His contemporaries tried to discredit him; the Rockefellers told him they would cut funding if he persisted in his studies. And so he went out on his own. Soon, the Rockefellers were back in. Bourlag made significant progress despite having been negatively reviewed by his peers. That is my answer to the value of your question.

There’s nothing dishonest about asking if Jason Lisle has submitted any work for peer review. It’s a completely fair question given his association with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith”. Such a condition presumes one is not going to be honest in any objective evaluation of the data and has a predefined conclusion. Such an objective is purely theological, not scientific.

Religious dogma does not gain currency in any scientific field merely because a creation ministry finds a “scientist” to promote the dogma. We have specific tools that allow us to discriminate between good theories and bad ones. And science is the single most powerful and productive human enterprise in the history of our species only because these tools actually work. While never providing “proof,” they demonstrably move us incrementally towards objective truth. If they did not, then science would not have changed our world as it has, for better or worse. My preference for objectivity and ethics is based (as has been repeatedly pointed out) on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference, and that of the creation ministries is based (as they admit) purely on which best fits a priori religious commitment.

A ”clique group” is hardly the correct label for the National Academy of Science, for example. Secondly, what is or is not science has nothing to do with personal biases and religious belief. For an idea to be considered scientific, it must run a continuous gauntlet of testing, replication, and peer review.

The member of a creation menistry who simply proposes ideas that are intended to conform with the Bibles, without any supporting evidence, reasoning or testing is at best a crackpot, at worst a charlatan.

So, help us understand which of these Jason Lisle claims to be.

Quite the joker you are. You simply do not want to recognize Lisle as being a scientist. You're scared. I get that. The National Academy of Science is just a clique group with a fancy name that has told more than one scientist that their work was "junk science" only to be proven wrong. In 1870 the National Academy of Science agreed with the proposition that there are specific races of mankind. Today, those who advocate that race is a "social construct" are not called out by those same scientists that found differences in races.

Profiling Humans from their Voice

This book is about recent research in the area of profiling humans from their voice, which seeks to deduce and describe the speaker's entire persona and their surroundings from voice alone. It covers several key aspects of this technology, describing how the human voice is unique in its ability...

books.google.com

See entry # 101

Lisle being a scientist doesn’t assume he is ethical. Being associated with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith” assures he is not ethical. I understand your revulsion for those who don’t unthinkingly accept your religious beliefs as true are categorized as “just a clique group with a fancy name…” but let’s be honest and admit that organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and similar organizations are the entities that further research. What actual research is done by the ICR?

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

The gods will punish those in the National Academy of Sciences for what happened in 1870. Hey, wasn't 1870 the time period after the civil war when those god-fearing Baptists lost their slaves?

LMAO. You are freaking hilarious. In grasping for straws you denounce Christians an unethical. My my. You got a monopoly on human virtue. How divine of you. My "revulsion?" Actually humor is hardly revolting. I could tell you didn't avail yourself of the videos which makes your ignorance even more comical. The Baptists lost their slaves??? Funny beyond words considering that over 92 percent of the people of that era never owned a slave. But, go ahead and share some more of that arrogant idiocy. Grasping at straws and trying to insult me because you cannot sustain a civil conversation is entertaining; in a debate context you would have forfeited on that post. So, we're down to insults and that is where I accept your concession of defeat and move on. Thanks for the laughs.

If you’re going to use the juvenile “I accept your concession of defeat and move on”, do move on. It’s a cowardly tactic but one I’ve seen from creationists when creationists dump silly YouTube videos in a thread and expect others to take that seriously.

 

[james bond]

We have plenty of Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen and Nitrogen available to form life ... that's something from something ...

Miller-Urey Experiment

www.millerureyexperiment.com

Give it a try with those gases you listed.

 

[james bond]

Cherry picking the Bible? ... shame on you ... but thank you for admitting that the Bible contains severe scientific mistakes ... who is to arbitrate? ... you? ... pride is a sin you know, sounds like you think far to highly of yourself ... are you God's equal to make such pronouncements? ...

What is the volume of water needed to raise sea levels 30,000 feet and flood all the lands? ... bonus questions: where did it come from and where did it go ... Noah's flood is in Genesis, please explain in detail the meteorology that caused it to rain 40 days and 40 nights a volume of water equal to what you calculated for us above ...

The Bible contains no mistakes. It's you who is wrong. It's you who is mistaken. I can tell by the way you talk.

What is the volume of water one needs to flood the lands? How do you get 30,000 feet? Why don't you tell us?

Anyway, the water came from above and below with 40 days and 40 nights of rain and water coming up from beneath the seafloor, magma, mountain ridges, and fountains of the deep.

Read it and weep. You were mistaken and not the Bible. Science backs up the Bible. Not your statements.

'Triggering of Deep Earthquakes

The authors also found that the pressure could reach as high as 200,000 atmospheres. The research team therefore suggested that this new water may be under so much pressure that it can trigger earthquakes hundreds of kilometers below the Earth’s surface, tremors whose origins have so far remained unexplained. “We observed the water to be at high pressure, which might lead to the possibility of induced earthquakes,” says Tse.7


The earthquakes could be triggered as the water finally escapes from the crystals. The occurrence of deep earthquakes in the uppermost mantle lithosphere beneath stable cratons (the foundational cores of continents) are known but remain enigmatic in their origin.8 For example, the 2013 Wind River (Wyoming) earthquake occurred at 75 ± 8 kilometers, well beneath the base of the crust, suggesting that it represented brittle failure at high temperatures in the rock of the mantle lithosphere. However, the triggering mechanism for such brittle failure in the stable mantle lithosphere remained a mystery.


These new computer simulations by this research team have now shown that the over-pressured water from the reaction between silica and hydrogen could be a possible trigger for initiating deep earthquakes in the mantle lithosphere below the continents. Other researchers agree, such as John Ludden, executive director of the British Geological Survey.9 But obviously further research is needed to quantify the amount of released water needed for triggering such deep earthquakes.

The Source of Earth’s Water?

However, what is even more significant is that this research team suggests that their findings may also inform us on how our planet got its water to start with. “As long as the supply of hydrogen can be sustained, one can speculate that water formed from this process could be a contributor to the origin of water during Earth’s early accretion,” says Tse. “Water formed in the mantle can reach the surface via multiple ways, for example, carried by magma in the form of volcanic activities.”10


And it is also possible that water is still being made this way deep inside Earth today. This “study highlights how the minerals that make up Earth’s mantle can incorporate large amounts of water, and how Earth is probably ‘wet’ in some sense all the way down to its core,” says Lydia Hallis at the University of Glasgow, UK.11

Not a New Discovery

However, this latest announcement is hardly new, considering numerous studies published over more than two and a half decades have found evidence of several oceans’ worth of water locked up in mantle rocks and minerals.


Even as recently as November 2016 there was news of the discovery of water in an inclusion within a diamond claimed to have come to the Earth’s surface from 1,000 kilometers down in the mantle.12 An international team had studied a diamond found in the São Luíz River system in Juina, Brazil, and found a sealed-off mineral inclusion that became trapped during the diamond’s formation.13


When the researchers took a closer look at this inclusion with infrared microscopy, they saw the unmistakable presence of hydroxyl ions (OH-), which normally come from water. They identified the mineral as ferropericlase, which consists of iron and magnesium oxide and can also absorb other metals such as chromium, aluminum, and titanium at the ultra-high temperatures and pressures of the lower mantle.

Water clearly has a role in plate tectonics, and we didn’t know before how deep these effects could reach.

According to team member Steve Jacobsen of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, the clincher was that, since the inclusion was trapped in the diamond the whole time, the water signature can only have come from the diamond’s place of formation in the lower mantle.14 “This is the deepest evidence for water recycling on the planet,” Jacobsen said. “The big take-home message is that the water cycle on Earth is bigger than we ever thought, extending into the deep mantle. Water clearly has a role in plate tectonics, and we didn’t know before how deep these effects could reach. It has implications for the origin of water on the planet.”15

Earlier Discoveries

Back in 2014 we reported on another similar study.16 In that instance, it was water found in the mineral ringwoodite discovered as an inclusion in another Brazilian diamond.17 In one news report, based on a relevant related study,18 it was even suggested that a reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans had thus been discovered 700 kilometers down beneath the Earth’s surface, which is good evidence that at least some of Earth’s water came from within.19


Furthermore, all these recently published studies are but the culmination of a long history of investigations of samples of mantle rocks and minerals brought to the Earth’s surface by volcanism coupled with studies of deep earthquakes.20 The collective conclusion is that there are vast amounts of water stored in the Earth’s mantle within its minerals. And not only does that water assist in mantle convection, plate movements, and volcanism, but that water can also be released onto the Earth’s surface via volcanic activity. “In fact, more than 400 kilometres inside the Earth there may be enough water to replace the surface oceans more than ten times”!21

The Implications

Yet Raymond Jeanloz of the University of California at Berkeley cannot fathom “a sudden outpouring of water, Noah-style . . . even if the balance does tilt to a greater outflow.”22 Thus it is only his evolutionary bias that precludes him accepting that a catastrophic outburst of water under pressure in the mantle could have occurred as “Noah-style” fountains, just as the Bible describes!


Therefore, it is plainly obvious that the Genesis account’s statement that the cataclysmic global Flood began with “the fountains of the great deep” being broken up (Genesis 7:11) is a vivid description of a catastrophic outbursting of water to the Earth’s surface. It is also obvious that water had been stored under pressure deep in the mantle during the pre-Flood era. Such outbursting of water would have accompanied an upwelling of plumes of mantle materials that melted as they rose to erupt and produce catastrophic volcanism. Under the oceans, the erupted lavas produced new ocean floor. On the continents, the humungous outpourings of lava flows and explosions of volcanic ash layers were deposited in between rapidly accumulating, fossil-burying sedimentary layers. The extra water that poured from the fountains added to rising sea level because of the upward push of the new, hot, buoyant ocean floor so that the ocean water was able to flood the continents. The earthquakes from these upheavals added tsunami-like surges of ocean waters to the rising flood, which deposited sediment layers right across the continents, burying critters as fossils.


Furthermore, the outbursts of mantle water through a vast global network of fractures split apart the original pre-Flood supercontinent into “tectonic plates.”23 The water inside the mantle lowered the viscosity of the mantle material (made the material less “thick”) so that it helped to move the tectonic plates across the Earth’s surface, producing the rapid-moving plate tectonics of the Flood event.24

The Bible’s description of that outbursting event is merely confirmed by the latest findings of the secular scientists.

So the waters that came from inside the Earth, combined with the waters in the original, created oceans to produce the Genesis Flood. The Bible’s description of that outbursting event is merely confirmed by the latest findings of the secular scientists. We can always absolutely trust the veracity of the Genesis account of the cataclysmic global Flood of Noah’s day and its history back to the creation in its very first verse. Thus the bulk of the Earth’s ocean waters did not originally come from the mantle, but were created by God already in place “in the beginning.”'

From Where Did the Earth’s Water Come?

“Planet Earth makes its own water from scratch deep in the mantle” was the article headline in the January 27, 2017, New Scientist’s Daily News.

answersingenesis.org

 

[james bond]

Reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.

Got a link? How does one know?

Here's mine -- Duck ancestors roamed Earth with dinosaurs.

The reptiles came first before their egg. God created adult creatures including humans. The only baby was Baby Jesus. T

Even you started from an egg you moron!

You need to pull you head out of your dumb ass. Before the egg had to be a man and woman you dipshit. I can figure these things out while you just have to sit on your dumb ass and listen.

 

[james bond]

Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia - 2 billion year old cyanobacteria were setting the stage for egg development ... an interesting article if you're interested on where and when the development of eggs came about ... "Many protists reproduce sexually, as do the multicellular plants, animals, and fungi. In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1.2 billion years ago in the Proterozoic Eon. All sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms likely derive from a single-celled common ancestor. It is probable that the evolution of sex was an integral part of the evolution of the first eukaryotic cell. There are a few species which have secondarily lost this feature, such as Bdelloidea and some parthenocarpic plants." ... in-line citations can be found at the source linked to above ...

Eggs pre-date life on land by 700 million years ...

There was no evolution of sexual reproduction. You can't believe that worthless biased atheist website called wikipedia. It was founded by a pornographer.

"Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,[32] consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg."

MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

Try this one. It's more accurate.

Counterexamples to Evolution - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com

 

[gtopa1]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools ...

Let me get this straight ... you want Congress deciding how religion is taught? ...

( ... wait for it ... )

There, see what a non-sensical idea this is ... the Catholic Church has more than enough money to bring creation science to fore-front of human advancement ... and when it comes to holding true the notions and ideas of long ago, Catholics have a proven track record ... let's let the experts teach creation science, in their own way and manner ... best to keep it away from government contamination ... "Government can only despoil and ruin, it's its only function" ...

Creation science isn't religion nor the fake science of evolution, but real science. The students will be able to decide for themselves. It's creation vs. evolution. For example, it found that the chicken came before the egg in 2017. It can be proven by the scientific method. Real science should be more than a creation vs. evolution forum on these message boards.

No, the Catholic Church can only teach it in parochial schools, not public. Thus, you are wrong. Creation science is the Book of Genesis in a literary context minus the religious parts. It includes Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel. No afterlife.

"Creation science" is not science at all but Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of a false label. The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.

And yet real scientists disagree with you:

Real scientists dont affiliate themselves with quacks from Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.

Tell us about the "statement of faith" one has to endorse in order to join the cult of AIG?

Blowing smoke like that doesn't lend itself to a very productive conversation. Lisle is a scientist - a REAL scientist. As for any "cult," if you have to join anything to learn some hidden truth, it's probably a lot of B.S. so I don't know. I didn't join anything to learn the material. Did you bother to watch it or do you just like to argue?

If you want to discuss real science, get someone who is credible and abides by the Scientific Method. Abiding by a statement of faith that requires one to meet a predefined conclusion is unethical and announces a bias.

What peer reviewed journals has Lisle submitted to?

That is very dishonest. I don't know what "peer reviewed journals" Lisle has submitted to. The real issue is, does he have the education and experience to be called a scientist? That is more relevant than whether or not a clique group accepts his views.

Norman Bourlag was an agronomist that studied ways to make wheat produce bigger yields. His contemporaries tried to discredit him; the Rockefellers told him they would cut funding if he persisted in his studies. And so he went out on his own. Soon, the Rockefellers were back in. Bourlag made significant progress despite having been negatively reviewed by his peers. That is my answer to the value of your question.

There’s nothing dishonest about asking if Jason Lisle has submitted any work for peer review. It’s a completely fair question given his association with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith”. Such a condition presumes one is not going to be honest in any objective evaluation of the data and has a predefined conclusion. Such an objective is purely theological, not scientific.

Religious dogma does not gain currency in any scientific field merely because a creation ministry finds a “scientist” to promote the dogma. We have specific tools that allow us to discriminate between good theories and bad ones. And science is the single most powerful and productive human enterprise in the history of our species only because these tools actually work. While never providing “proof,” they demonstrably move us incrementally towards objective truth. If they did not, then science would not have changed our world as it has, for better or worse. My preference for objectivity and ethics is based (as has been repeatedly pointed out) on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference, and that of the creation ministries is based (as they admit) purely on which best fits a priori religious commitment.

A ”clique group” is hardly the correct label for the National Academy of Science, for example. Secondly, what is or is not science has nothing to do with personal biases and religious belief. For an idea to be considered scientific, it must run a continuous gauntlet of testing, replication, and peer review.

The member of a creation menistry who simply proposes ideas that are intended to conform with the Bibles, without any supporting evidence, reasoning or testing is at best a crackpot, at worst a charlatan.

So, help us understand which of these Jason Lisle claims to be.

Quite the joker you are. You simply do not want to recognize Lisle as being a scientist. You're scared. I get that. The National Academy of Science is just a clique group with a fancy name that has told more than one scientist that their work was "junk science" only to be proven wrong. In 1870 the National Academy of Science agreed with the proposition that there are specific races of mankind. Today, those who advocate that race is a "social construct" are not called out by those same scientists that found differences in races.

Profiling Humans from their Voice

This book is about recent research in the area of profiling humans from their voice, which seeks to deduce and describe the speaker's entire persona and their surroundings from voice alone. It covers several key aspects of this technology, describing how the human voice is unique in its ability...

books.google.com

See entry # 101

Lisle being a scientist doesn’t assume he is ethical. Being associated with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith” assures he is not ethical. I understand your revulsion for those who don’t unthinkingly accept your religious beliefs as true are categorized as “just a clique group with a fancy name…” but let’s be honest and admit that organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and similar organizations are the entities that further research. What actual research is done by the ICR?

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

The gods will punish those in the National Academy of Sciences for what happened in 1870. Hey, wasn't 1870 the time period after the civil war when those god-fearing Baptists lost their slaves?

"Being associated with a Christian ministry that requires a “statement of faith” assures he is not ethical."

You have made one of the most stupid, arrogant and grossly wrong statements I have ever read. Congratulation; you have won the trifecta of ignorant!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.

Got a link? How does one know?

Here's mine -- Duck ancestors roamed Earth with dinosaurs.

The reptiles came first before their egg. God created adult creatures including humans. The only baby was Baby Jesus. T

Even you started from an egg you moron!

You need to pull you head out of your dumb ass. Before the egg had to be a man and woman you dipshit. I can figure these things out while you just have to sit on your dumb ass and listen.

WRONG!!! gametes predated humans by many millions of years...so the gametes came first.

Human Sperm Gene Traced to Dawn of Animal Evolution

Human Sperm Gene Traced to Dawn of Animal Evolution

The gene responsible for sperm in all sexual creatures dates to the beginning of animal evolution—and may be a key to the elusive male birth control pill, a new study says.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

This is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. Nonbelievers are still stuck with coming up with an ultimate origination point for the elements they say evolved into what we have today. You simply cannot get something from nothing.

That's why scientific theories, including evolution, are written in pencil ... as we learn new things, we can change the theory ... this is acceptable scientific method ...

I believe in Creation ... but I don't treat as science ... there's absolutely nothing in the Bible that requires me to treat Creation as science ... the main failure is that science requires that what we study be observable, be measurable and be able to repeat ... who was available to observe the Creation? ... the beast of the fields and Man was created days later ... how are we measuring Creation? ... what objective scale do we use for miracles? ...

Finally, the Creation was a unique event ... the Bible doesn't say God created a heaven and an earth and found it to be bad, destroyed it all and created a new heaven and earth and just kept trying until He found a Heaven and Earth that was good ... there's no reason to believe Creation can be repeated ...

Again I ask ... what experiment can we conduct to demonstrate the virgin birth? ...

The virgin birth??

Kaplan told the meeting of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 2 July that about half of the 725 eggs survived the injection procedure and 102 of them formed two polar bodies and two pronuclei, each with a half-complement of chromosomes. Of those "fertilized" eggs, 47 developed into clumps of cells called morulae and 13 went on to form blastocysts--a hollow ball of a few hundred cells that normally implant themselves in the uterus. None of the embryos were implanted into the uterus of a mouse, so the team doesn't know whether animals could be born from this technique.

The result is interesting from a cell biology perspective, says cloning pioneer Ian Wilmut of the Roslin Institute outside Edinburgh, Scotland. However, he notes, producing a blastocyst is a long way from producing live offspring--only a tiny percentage of implanted cloned blastocysts survive. "There could still be chromosome damage and breakage," he says, that would interrupt development at a later stage.

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

That's just for a start. However, I consider such experiments in humans as unethical.

Yes, in theory. However, a number of rare events would have to occur in close succession, and the chances of these all happening in real life are virtually zero. For a virgin to get pregnant, one of her eggs would have to produce, on its own, the biochemical changes indicative of fertilization, and then divide abnormally to compensate for the lack of sperm DNA. That’s the easy part: These two events occur in the eggs or egg precursor cells of one out of every few thousand women. But the egg would also need to be carrying at least two specific genetic deletions to produce a viable offspring.

Is it possible for a virgin to give birth?

During the holidays, Christians celebrate the birth of a human baby to his virginal mother. We know that female wasps, fish, birds, and lizards can...

slate.com

Theoretically yes.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Reptiles were laying eggs long before chickens existed.

Got a link? How does one know?

Here's mine -- Duck ancestors roamed Earth with dinosaurs.

The reptiles came first before their egg. God created adult creatures including humans. The only baby was Baby Jesus. T

Logically incorrect. You must understand that the "FIRST" of any species must have had mutations not the same as its parents. So a duck precursor was not a duck but its eggs and sperm genetically mutated pre-fertilisation or even post fertilisation but before cell division to form gametes or a zygote that was a duck.

Greg

 

[james bond]

WRONG!!! gametes predated humans by many millions of years...so the gametes came first.

Naw, you're wrong. We know before there were humans to produce the sperm and egg. The fact that you are flesh and BLOOD means you need a complete human first. Else what you CLAIM is true, then we'd see life just happen all over the place. National Geographic is not the greatest source to put one's afterlife on haha.