This truly makes me feel ill.
Jul. 17th, 2003 08:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gemfyrehttp://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html
"Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes."
That's just one example. Way to go for thorough scientific method. And bloody hell I can't find an article online but in the news yesterday I saw an article that she obviously has not seen. Scientists ARE now going for a second genesis in the labratory. They have an E. coli (useful because it's been entirely gene sequenced) in which they are destroying genes and seeing if the organism lives without it. If it does survive then the reasonable conclusion is that that gene is not required for basic life. So one by one they are going through the genes doing this. Eventually they will know the precise genes required for basic life and attempt to put them together. I seem to recall myself mentioning this before... But anyway, imagine if they succeed? That will be truly weird. To experience an entire second evolution. *freaks out*
"Jason Spinter's (grade 12) project was to show the feasibility of Noah's Ark using a Rodentia research model (made of a mixture of hamsters and gerbils) as a representative of diluvian life forms. The Rodentia were placed in a cage with dimensions proportional to a section of the Ark. The number of Rodentia used (58) was calculated using available Creation Science research and was based on the median animal size and their volumetric distribution in the Ark. The cage was also fitted with wooden dowls inserted at regular intervals through the cage walls, forming platforms which provided support for the Rodentia. Although there was little room left in the cage, all Rodentia were able to move just enough to ward off muscle atrophy. Food pellets and water were delivered to sub-surface Rodentia via plastic drinking straws inserted into the Rodentia-mass, which also served to allow internal air flow. Once a day, the cage was sprayed with water to cleanse any built-up waste. Additionally, the cage was suspended on bungie cords to simulate the rocking motion of a ship. The study lasted 30 days and 30 nights, with all Rodentia surviving at least long enough afterwards to allow for reproduction. These findings strongly suggest that Noah's Ark could hold and support representatives of all antediluvian animal kinds for the duration of the Flood and subsequent repopulation of the Earth."
This is just pure animal cruelty.
Conclusion - creationists make me sick. When they realise that creationism is NOT a fucking science and purely theology?
"Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes."
That's just one example. Way to go for thorough scientific method. And bloody hell I can't find an article online but in the news yesterday I saw an article that she obviously has not seen. Scientists ARE now going for a second genesis in the labratory. They have an E. coli (useful because it's been entirely gene sequenced) in which they are destroying genes and seeing if the organism lives without it. If it does survive then the reasonable conclusion is that that gene is not required for basic life. So one by one they are going through the genes doing this. Eventually they will know the precise genes required for basic life and attempt to put them together. I seem to recall myself mentioning this before... But anyway, imagine if they succeed? That will be truly weird. To experience an entire second evolution. *freaks out*
"Jason Spinter's (grade 12) project was to show the feasibility of Noah's Ark using a Rodentia research model (made of a mixture of hamsters and gerbils) as a representative of diluvian life forms. The Rodentia were placed in a cage with dimensions proportional to a section of the Ark. The number of Rodentia used (58) was calculated using available Creation Science research and was based on the median animal size and their volumetric distribution in the Ark. The cage was also fitted with wooden dowls inserted at regular intervals through the cage walls, forming platforms which provided support for the Rodentia. Although there was little room left in the cage, all Rodentia were able to move just enough to ward off muscle atrophy. Food pellets and water were delivered to sub-surface Rodentia via plastic drinking straws inserted into the Rodentia-mass, which also served to allow internal air flow. Once a day, the cage was sprayed with water to cleanse any built-up waste. Additionally, the cage was suspended on bungie cords to simulate the rocking motion of a ship. The study lasted 30 days and 30 nights, with all Rodentia surviving at least long enough afterwards to allow for reproduction. These findings strongly suggest that Noah's Ark could hold and support representatives of all antediluvian animal kinds for the duration of the Flood and subsequent repopulation of the Earth."
This is just pure animal cruelty.
Conclusion - creationists make me sick. When they realise that creationism is NOT a fucking science and purely theology?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 05:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 06:45 pm (UTC)Hmm don't be so hasty on the conclusions. Creationists are not basing themselves on scientific means are they? I wonder just how blurred the lines between creation theories and evolution theory really are.
We may, at some stage, be able to re-enact the springing of life from non life bases but we still aren't entirely sure what the 'life element' is. Consciousness.
Just be careful you don't turn into a narrow minded scientist who *needs* evidence, duplication and reproduction to merely contemplate lateral ideas.
The concept of monism or of a higher ordered consciousness (god) isn't necessarily precluded because we can reproduce the dynamics of life. I myself am not religious by the way. I am simply agnostic bordering on athiesm, but I am open minded enough to look beyond the rudimentary techniques we use to dissect the nature of life and the universe.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 07:12 pm (UTC)If you read the linked article (and I have also read the same thing in various other places), these people ARE insisting that creationism is a science and should be taught alongside evolution. Their scientific method is shocking if at all existant. In my eyes they just seem completely deluded to think it's a true science.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 12:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 05:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 12:00 am (UTC)If Creationism wants to be accepted as a credible science, it has to stand up to scientific methods.
As for the blurred lines between Creationism and evolution, that depends on how you define the two of them. It is certainly possible to produce a method of evolution that is acceptable to Creationism and vice versa.
However, the view of Creationism in this article states:
And, most importantly,
All this makes it it incompatible with evolution.
And before you say anything, I am not closeminded. The origins of the universe and the existence or non exisitence of a higher power mean little to me know, but they meant a lot as a kid. I made my decision after much reading and soul searching and I will not be condemed as narrow minded and closeminded for not agreeing with you.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 07:39 pm (UTC)Yes, he got life from non-life, but it usually takes God-like powers or at least a PHD to do that... not the 8th grade christian school education that she probably had ;)
Not to bash christians, I am one myself, but I dont buy into that whole creationist bullcrap.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 07:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 11:40 pm (UTC)Gettting actual life that quickly would be possible, but very, very unlikely.
Re:
Date: 2003-07-17 03:11 am (UTC)Still closer than a bottle full of water, charcoal, and a multi-vitamin.
Oy.
Date: 2003-07-16 07:45 pm (UTC)I don't know whether to laugh or cry, eeek. Let's just say, some people scare me greatly with their stupidity.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 08:37 pm (UTC)too many "proper" scientists are way too close-minded with insistence on proof and evidence of absolutely everything before acknowledging that it might exist. science came from being curious and open-minded and willing to accept that there are things they can't explain yet out there but can possibly be explored.
as for our little creationist scientist that proved beyond a measure of a doubt that life can't come from non-life -- i have no respect for them. i still dont know what stupid fuckwit came up with the idea that humans are better than other animals.
Re:
Date: 2003-07-16 10:44 pm (UTC)For a belief, it's fine. I have no problem with anyone who believes in creation. It's when they start touting it as a proper science that I get pissed off. If a creationist can show me one of their theories or experiments that is PROPERLY done and proves their point I will listen. Until then any creationist trying to prove that they are right via shoddy science gets no ear from me.
agreed this is disturbing
Date: 2003-07-16 11:05 pm (UTC)Also very unlikely this went under ethics approval... someone call the rspca or other group for illegal experimentation & animal abuse.
-Lisa
no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 11:43 pm (UTC)There is no word in the English language to describe the unique reaction of amusement and utter horror that a devote creationist can instill in me.
This article has to be fake!