Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.




A bill to allow Christian beliefs to be taught in Arkansas classrooms easily passed the state House Wednesday. House Bill 1701 now heads to the Senate side for a vote.

The bill will allow kindergarten through 12th grade teachers to teach students about the Christian theory of creationism, which claims that a divine being conjured the universe and all things in it in six days. The bill specifies that creationism can be taught not only in religion and philosophy classes, but “as a theory of how the Earth came to exist.”

As with so many pieces of legislation churning out of the Arkansas Capitol this session, if HB 1701 passes, a quick court challenge on this blatant mixing of church and state is all but inevitable. The United States Supreme Court already considered this issue in 1987 and ruled in no uncertain terms that teaching creationism in public school classrooms is unconstitutional. But blatant unconstitutionality hasn’t dissuaded Arkansas lawmakers so far this session. One Senate bill that passed recently, for example, declared all federal gun laws null and void within our state’s borders, in clear opposition to the Supremacy Clause that says federal laws take precedence over state laws.

Rep. Mary Bentley (R-Perryville), sponsor of House Bill 1701 “TO ALLOW CREATIONISM AS A THEORY OF HOW THE EARTH CAME TO EXIST TO BE TAUGHT IN KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE TWELVE CLASSES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND OPEN–ENROLLMENT PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS,” said she put forth the bill at the request of science teachers in her district.

“There are phenomena in our nature that evolution cannot explain,” Bentley said. She emphasized that science teachers may teach creationism under this bill, but they don’t have to.
source



Stupid beyond belief, but what's your opinion?

.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #61

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #61]
I certainly hope that your dog is more intelligent than mine is. But my dog and I bet your dog is not self-aware. A dog is never going to tell me how to solve a system of equations. Or make the correct change from a purchase. It cannot solve complex problems.
So when you use the phrase "intelligent life" are you referrring only to modern Homo sapiens? The intelligence level of a dog is higher than that of a bacterium, and I would argue the distance between those two levels of intelligence is greater than the difference between a human being and a dog. A dog certainly has some level of "intelligence" and can learn things. If life were discovered to exist on some other planet and it was (hypothetically ... of course this is highly unlikely) identical to that on Earth from the time of appearance of the first life forms on Earth some 4 billion years ago, to a measly 10 million years ago, would you say that no intelligent life had been found on another planet? There would be no members of the genus Homo in this case, but lots of life forms. Us "intelligent" human beings have only existed on this planet for a very short time in the scheme of things.
How did the stromatolites get here?
Good old Wikipedia is a start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite
How did they form into complex multicellular organisms?
They didn't (see above link). They are layered sedimentary formations that were created by the actions of bacteria, and fossilized (the very old examples ... they do still form today).
No, just that current cosmology is wrong.
All of it? I don't think so. It may be incomplete, but certainly not all of it is wrong.
But it does make accurate predictions.
By pure coincidence, but you've demonstrated many times that this is sufficient to convince you that his "theories" are true despite the premises being complete bunk and demonstrably false. I can come up with all kinds of similar theories to explain just about anything, if the only requirement is that it occasionally makes an accurate prediction by dumb luck.
The belief in cosmology is that we can look at the universe today and extrapolate back in time to the beginning. The only forces acting on the universe were the forces at the very beginning.
Do you have a better idea? We can't go back in time ourselves and relive the "beginning", but we can look at distant stars and galaxies and see directly how they existed millions and billions of years ago because the light they emitted took that long to reach Earth. We see them as the existed far back in time. This data provides information that is not extrapolated, but directly observed. We also can directly observe how things work in even more detail for closer objects and systems that are within range of our telescopes (eg. objects orbiting other objects, galaxies moving through space, the behaviors of black holes, neutron stars, supernovae, the radiation emitted and reflected by all of these objects (except black holes) and all kinds of other objects that we can study). It is the cummulative knowledge obtained from (now centuries) of such observations, along with ever improving understanding of physics, that has led to the current understanding of cosmology. So far, I don't believe there is any data to suggest that the laws of physics operating now were any different in the past. So that is a reasonable assumption to make until it is shown to be invalid.
Creation cosmology has solved the problem of dark matter and dark energy ...
Really (I left off the magnetic field comment as I assume that referred to more of Humphrey's total nonsense)? Do tell us what dark matter and dark energy are because the whole physics community would love to know this so they can stop wasting time and energy trying to figure it out and get on to the next unsolved problem. A Nobel Prize would certainly be waiting and I hear the award money is pretty good these days. Again, "creation cosmology" is an oxymoron just like "creation science."
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #62

Post by Difflugia »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:57 pmAre you talking about the dipole field or the quadrupole field?
Yes. :D

Multiple models consistent with the data were considered in that paper.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:57 pm
The best estimate for g10 (dipole field) is taken to be –195 T 10 nT (1-SD uncertainty), ~27% lower in magnitude than the centered-dipole estimate implied by the polar Mariner 10 flyby (9) https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/~cjohnson/CJPAPERS/paper48.pdf
If that's the number that you're cherry-picking, then it falsifies Humphreys' prediction:
The relatively fast decay implies that in its first flyby in January 2008 (after the final draft of this article), the Messenger spacecraft now on its way to Mercury should record a magnetic moment 4.4 (± 0.4) % lower than Mariner did in 1974.
27% is not between 4.0% and 4.8%.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:57 pmNow only when the quadrupole field and some creative math are applied does one get to the predetermined outcome, which is your "statistically insignificant" difference and only for certain Mercury models.
There are several models that fit the data. The one Humphreys made up with no other scientific constraints isn't somehow better, especially if he's evaluating it using the same numbers you are.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:57 pm
First, even if that's exactly what happened, that doesn't help your argument. If the well-known mechanisms of evolution (your attempted redefinition notwithstanding) can cause such changes in such a short period of time, then any creationist argument based on the "limitations" of evolution is invalid.
Your error is that you are not making a distinction between adaptation (natural selection) and evolution (genetic mutations).
You're the only one asserting (without evidence so far) that such a distinction even exists. You making up a definition doesn't constitute an error on my part no matter how good it sounds to you.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:57 pmAdaption causes a decrease in genetic information, animals lose function or abilities in order for other functions or abilities.
Can you quantify that? What is your unit of information? Can the information content be calculated for a particular gene?
EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:57 pmEvolution causes an increase in genetic information. Animals increase function and/or abilities. New organ, limb, or trunk.
Can you quantify that? That might increase the information of our discussion.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:57 pm
Second, you haven't established a pathway to an ostrich's ability to run and other adaptations to life without flying through "loss of information."
Wait a minute let's back up here a little bit. And I am going to change my position because I have never examined Ostrichs before. Your premise is that Genesis 1:20 becomes invalid if Ostrichs could not fly in at some point in the past is simply not ture.
No. My premise is that there is no reason for a designer to create an ostrich with nonworking wings. The presence of wings on a non-flying animal is evidence that it evolved from a flying animal with wings.

Your weird digression is that ostriches were created as flying animals with functional wings a few thousand years ago, but have since evolved into animals that don't fly, but it really wasn't evolution because of loss of information.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:57 pmSo it is very possible that God created the ostrich on day six with the other land animals and is actually one of the created kinds. Bats would have been created on the 5th day with the other flying animals like pterodactyls and what we call birds today.
Sure. It's "very possible," in the sense that since gods can do whatever they want, they can even do something that makes no sense whatsoever (or, as I put it previously, "a divine designer exists and her tastes simply never deviate from an evolotionary aesthetic"). It doesn't matter what day it was. If ostriches never flew, then they're birds that were created with nonfunctional wings, apparently to fit the "bird aesthetic." If they originally flew, they evolved amazingly quickly. You keep trying to sidestep and define these things away, but you're kind of stuck with one or the other.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:57 pmNo, those that endorse evolution just refuse to believe that information theory applies to living systems.
You haven't presented any "information theory" or how it applies to evolution. You've only asserted (without evidence) that not all evolution is evolution.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:57 pmThe whole idea of jumps is an evolutionary theory but it is based on morphology and I do believe that morphology can help arrive at the created kinds.
But it's based on differences in morphology that only appear as distinct when one accepts that sedimentary layers can be accurately dated. You're trying to pick out tiny wins by throwing out the best arguments (such as they are) for creationism. "Baby" and "bathwater" come to mind.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:57 pm
I thought not, but that's the only way your claim could be true ("Traits would cluster around the created kinds. And that is exactly what we observe in the fossil record and the reason why punctuated equilibrium has grown in popularity."), so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Since that's not what you're suggesting, your claim is false.
I am not seeing the logical connection you are trying to make here. Traits are clustered around created kinds that appear suddenly in the fossil record, which is what creation cosmology would predict.
Traits are clustered around much, much larger groupings than the largest "kinds" postulated by creationists. The mammalian and avian traits that we've been talking about "cluster" at the biological order level rather than just at genus or species (or wherever you're putting "kind"). There's no creationist reason for this to happen other than the ad hoc justification that the gods like it that way. On the other hand, it's exactly predicted by common descent and seeing bits of that pattern is what clued Darwin into the whole evolution thing in the first place.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:57 pm
Gradualism has totally been disproved by the fossil records. And since this is the case then evolution is in dire straits.
No.
Really?
Yes.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:57 pmDr. Gould even concedes...
You have no idea what "disproved" means. Do you remember when Dr. Gould said this in another thread?
It does not deny that allopatric speciation occurs gradually in ecological time
That's not "disproved."
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #63

Post by Kenisaw »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:42 am [Replying to Difflugia in post #8]
Or, to put it another way, how can we apply principles of creation science to one of these or any other problem and arrive at a testable solution where just plain science gets it wrong?
Well, this assumption is just plainly incorrect. In fact, in the cases, I listed above creation science has the answer for a problem that eventually I assume the rest of the scientific community will adopt. The problem is why is most of the radioactive material on the surface of the Earth is in granite and not in basalt. Uranium is always found in granite and not in basalt. If radioactive material is coming from the interior and has always existed in the interior of the earth then basaltic lava flows should contain equal amounts of uranium as granitic pyroclastic flows.
That is easily explainable actually. The Earth's mantle is pretty solid higher up and more like a soft plastic as you get closer to the core of the planet. Uranium is a big atom, and it does not fit into the crystalline structure of the rocks in the mantle. Uranium when unbounded or in salt form is very soluble in water as well. So uranium can move around in water in the upper mantle fairly easily. Magnesium in basalt has a melting point several hundred degrees less than uranium, so it is hard for magnesium rocks to form around uranium because the uranium will harden into something and precipitate out before the basalt hardens. Uranium and silicon have roughly the same melting point, so that when silicon hardens in granites it can trap uranium in the hardened rock.

Another feature of basalt is that it is, for a rock, pretty porous. So seawater gets forced through it and the water can migrate uranium out of the basaltic rocks. Because the basalt exists in a marine environment there is no chance for the uranium to collect in seams or niches, and it ends back at the top of the mantle layer. Granite is also porous, but since it exists above the bottom of the ocean the uranium can collect in seams as the water drops it or evaporates out of the rock.

Here are a couple of links for further info should you like to read them:
http://www.deepseadrilling.org/37/Volume/dsdp37_31.pdf
https://www.thoughtco.com/uranium-in-a-nutshell-1440949

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #64

Post by Kenisaw »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:53 am [Replying to benchwarmer in post #9]
What exactly is "creation science"? It seems to be an oxymoron if we mean an unobservable entity (likely the Christian God in this case) has given rise to the observable phenomenon around us.
Atheists make up 7% of the world's population. That means that 93% of the people in the world believe in some sort of supernatural being created the universe.

Creation science describes the worldview in which cosmology is being studied. As opposed to "atheist science" worldview of cosmology. I will point out that "atheist science" cannot make any predictions of what occurred before the creation of the universe.
I'd like to note that there is no belief or religion component of the scientific method. A person's religion or belief system, or lack of those things, has no bearing on whether or not a collected set of facts and data, rigorously tested and experimented many times over to verify the initial hypothesis results in a new scientific theory. Multiple studies, in the U.S., Taiwan, Turkey, Hong Kong, India, and Italy all showed that a majority of scientists considered themselves religious. 70-80% of all those scientists also though that there was no conflict between the science and religion.

The vast majority of those scientists however consider the theory of evolution and the billions of years date for the Earth to be well established fact.

There is no creation science or atheist science. Science is a process, nothing more. Creationism is, to this point, an unsubstantiated hypothesis which most religious AND atheist scientists reject.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #65

Post by Tcg »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:53 am
Atheists make up 7% of the world's population. That means that 93% of the people in the world believe in some sort of supernatural being created the universe.
These numbers are flawed. Not all religions teach of a creator god:
Jainism

Jainism is a transtheistic religion,[39] holding that the universe was not created, and will exist forever.[29] It is believed to be independent, having no creator, governor, judge, or destroyer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#God

Creator in Buddhism

Buddhism is a religion which does not include the belief in a creator deity, or any eternal divine personal being.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_in_Buddhism
Additionally, not all religious people believe in God:
A PORTRAIT OF JEWISH AMERICANS

Chapter 4: Religious Beliefs and Practices

Most Jews see no conflict between being Jewish and not believing in God; two-thirds say that a person can be Jewish even if he or she does not believe in God, as discussed in Chapter 3.

https://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/cha ... practices/
Even more important to note is that even if, "93% of the people in the world believe in some sort of supernatural being created the universe." this statistic isn't evidence of a creator god. Heck, 100% of the world's population could believe in a creator god and we could all be wrong.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #66

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Kenisaw in post #64]

I do have to thank you for the two articles, that you sort of quoted from. They were very fascinating and gave a great deal of support for Dr. Brown's hydroplate theory.
That is easily explainable actually. The Earth's mantle is pretty solid higher up and more like a soft plastic as you get closer to the core of the planet. Uranium is a big atom, and it does not fit into the crystalline structure of the rocks in the mantle. Uranium when unbounded or in salt form is very soluble in water as well. So uranium can move around in water in the upper mantle fairly easily. Magnesium in basalt has a melting point several hundred degrees less than uranium, so it is hard for magnesium rocks to form around uranium because the uranium will harden into something and precipitate out before the basalt hardens. Uranium and silicon have roughly the same melting point, so that when silicon hardens in granites it can trap uranium in the hardened rock.
Oh wow!! The chemistry is so bad in this statement it hurts my head.

Let's start with my favorite in the form of a quote from Hamlet. "To react or not to react that is the question." Not how large an atom is. Atoms today are considered a combination of waves and particles so size really has nothing to do with chemical reactions. But what does have a great deal to do with chemical reactions is the type of environment that an element exists in, whether it is oxidizing or reducing.

Uranium when it is in an oxidizing environment like water means it can move in solution and then when uranium is in a reducing environment it will precipitate out in its oxide form.
In solution, uranium travels in molecular complexes with carbonate, sulfate and chloride as long as the chemical conditions are oxidizing. But under reducing conditions, uranium drops out of solution as oxide minerals.

Because uranium moves in solution under oxidizing conditions and drops out under reducing conditions, it tends to gather where oxygen is absent, such as in black shales and other rocks rich in organic material. https://www.thoughtco.com/uranium-in-a-nutshell-1440949
This is exactly what we would expect to see in a flood situation in which uranium and all of its daughter elements were being made by a z-pinch in the crust. The uranium would be picked up by the water and carried along until a barrier was reached and all of the organic matter and debris especially fine particles would be dropped when the speed of the water decreased because of the barrier.
Another feature of basalt is that it is, for a rock, pretty porous. So seawater gets forced through it and the water can migrate uranium out of the basaltic rocks. Because the basalt exists in a marine environment there is no chance for the uranium to collect in seams or niches, and it ends back at the top of the mantle layer.
Ow!! This, like, pains me to read. Exactly how does it get back into the mantle? Are you trying to say that it drains down through a few miles of basaltic rock!!! Where does the oxygen come from to keep the uranium oxide from precipitating out? Did you actually read the papers that you cited? Because they say the following.

Your article describes how Uranium concentration increases as the silicon dioxide contraction increases. My assumption is because uranium is a stronger reducer than silicon is although the article does not say that. And how Uranium concentration decrease when Magnesium oxide concentration increases. Again I would assume because Mg is a better oxidizer than U.
Mafic and ultramafic rock types have consistently low concentrations of uranium rarely exceeding 1 ppm. Of all the common igneous rock types, granites have the highest average concentration, approximately 3.5-4.5 ppm U. In general, most igneous rocks contain from 0.003 to 5 PPm U.
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/7315 ... %20PPm%20U.
Mafic rock is the oceanic crust and ultramafic rock is in the mantle. So there is at least one order of magnitude difference between granite and mafic rock.
Granite is also porous, but since it exists above the bottom of the ocean the uranium can collect in seams as the water drops it or evaporates out of the rock.
I do love good fiction. To Hamlet again, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Here is what the article you quoted states where most of the uranium in the world came from.
As large bodies of granite solidify, the trace amounts of uranium become concentrated in the last bits of fluid left. Especially at shallow levels, these may fracture and invade surrounding rocks with metal-bearing fluids, leaving veins of ore. More episodes of tectonic activity can concentrate these further, and the world's largest uranium deposit is one of these, a hematite breccia complex at Olympic Dam in South Australia. https://www.thoughtco.com/uranium-in-a-nutshell-1440949
This does not say when water evaporated leaving behind uranium residue. It says that when large bodies of granite solidified, so it is referring to stellar evolutionary theory. You know the one that tries to describe the earth was at one time a molten ball of liquid rock. This theory has many problems and one of the greatest being the observations of liquid water in some of the oldest rocks found on this planet.

Now does anyone want to take a guess as to a mineral that could be in the hematite breccia rock? anyone?
Breccia fragments are composed of quartzite (metamorphosed quartz sandstone). Breccias are associated with mechanical weathering in regions of high tectonic activity, typically relatively close to the sourceland. Rocks such as this are often deposited in talus slopes or alluvial fans at the base of slopes. http://csmgeo.csm.jmu.edu/geollab/ficht ... ccia1.html

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #67

Post by Difflugia »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:33 pmOh wow!! The chemistry is so bad in this statement it hurts my head.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:33 pmOw!! This, like, pains me to read.
Unintentional irony via a lack of self-awareness is apparently a thing today.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #68

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Difflugia in post #68]
Unintentional irony via a lack of self-awareness is apparently a thing today.
I agree with you.

When a man's verses cannot be understood, nor a man's good wit seconded with the forward child understanding, it strikes a man more dead than a great reckoning in a little room. Truly, I would the gods had made thee poetical.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #69

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #67]
They were very fascinating and gave a great deal of support for Dr. Brown's hydroplate theory.
Bringing up these pseudoscience quacks like Brown and Humphreys and presenting their work as if it were to be taken seriously does not help your arguments (just the opposite). Don't you ever wonder why their creationist-supporting garbage is not published in actual scientific journals (easy answer).
Atoms today are considered a combination of waves and particles so size really has nothing to do with chemical reactions.
What? Chemical reactions between atoms has a great deal to do with their outer electron structure which creates covalent and ionic bonds. And their size has a great deal to do with how they can fit into crystal lattices (or not). The statement above really does deserve a "wow ... this hurts my head" and effectively destroys any credibility in subsequent statements concerning chemistry.
This is exactly what we would expect to see in a flood situation in which uranium and all of its daughter elements were being made by a z-pinch in the crust. The uranium would be picked up by the water and carried along until a barrier was reached and all of the organic matter and debris especially fine particles would be dropped when the speed of the water decreased because of the barrier.
Pure speculation, but also pure nonsense because (a) there is not nearly enough energy in the crust to create a z-pinch sufficient to create even a tiny fraction of the radioactive elements we observe on Earth (by orders of magnitude), and (b) there is no evidence of a global flood since humans have existed on this planet (which is far longer than creationists even think the universe has been around). Another head-hurting comment.
You know the one that tries to describe the earth was at one time a molten ball of liquid rock. This theory has many problems and one of the greatest being the observations of liquid water in some of the oldest rocks found on this planet.
And, as usual, you have no alternative theory that can't be shot full of holes (eg. creationism) with high school level science. Since you believe the universe is only about 6000 years old, presumably this is the age of the oldest rocks found on this planet. Or are you conveniently using a 4.6 billion year old Earth when it is convenient for an argument, then claiming elsewhere that it is impossible for the Earth to be this old?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

Post #70

Post by brunumb »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:15 pm What? Chemical reactions between atoms has a great deal to do with their outer electron structure which creates covalent and ionic bonds. And their size has a great deal to do with how they can fit into crystal lattices (or not). The statement above really does deserve a "wow ... this hurts my head" and effectively destroys any credibility in subsequent statements concerning chemistry.
I was going to post a reply along the same lines but then read yours. As someone with a background in chemistry, let me simply echo what you have said above. EarthScienceguy would do well to read up on steric hindrance in order to appreciate the effects of particle size in chemistry.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Post Reply