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 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.