Welcome..... Wissup??


Copyright (c) 2009 Ginny Maziarka. All rights reserved.

Monday, August 15, 2011

Local Resident Bullied for Participating in Dane County Fair

We would expect nothing less from liberal rag Wisconsin State Journal:

A part-time nurse from West Bend, Wisconsin, set up an interactive creation-based booth with a sign reading "Interpret the Evidence" at a local county fair. TheWisconsin State Journal reported on Mary Weigand's booth with the headline "Creationist seeks to debunk scientific fact at Dane County Fair."1 But was she actually trying to debunk "scientific fact," or was this headline just a mudslinging smear?

By examining fossils on display, booth attendees investigated for themselves whether or not fossils show a gradual transition between life forms, as Darwinism predicts. The booth presented an alternative scientific explanation that appears to fit the fossil data much better. Each visitor was left to discern whether fossils show discrete created kinds with no undisputed transitions between forms, as biblical creation predicts.


The claim that this booth is attempting "to debunk scientific fact" is apparently a shallow slander. Instead, it looks as though Weigand and her sponsors actually promote just the opposite approach: Encouraging people to do better science by interpreting hard evidence using common sense, instead of relying on the dogmatic propaganda that is necessary to prop up evolution's failed paradigm.


Unknown said...

Of course, if you arrange certain inconsistencies in scientific law in a certain way, you can attempt to prove anything. However, there is no true evidence to substantiate creationism. I once saw a booth similar to this at the Washington County Fair. The main evidence to prove creationism was that a cowboy boot had been found hardened in amber. However, this was clearly a hoax and the only instance of its kind, so I fail to see how sporadic and often false inconsistencies should trump scientific fact. Another problem with creationism is that it purports that the earth was created roughly 6000 years ago. This is a geological impossibility. There are numerous other examples against creationism, a principle that was clearly trying to be advanced in this case with very little evidence to support it.

Unknown said...

Also, Ginny, can I ask how theories created following the scientific method is "dogmatic propaganda" and how the Christian faith's stance on things like abortion and gay marriage based on the Bible is not?

Profile said...

Your comment is fallacious on several accounts:
1. No one ever tries to "prove" creationism. One cannot prove something that happened in the past. When we speak of origins we speak of the unprovable past whether it be creation by the LORD or the "big bang". We can look at evidences to make a guess about the past but we know origins cannot be proven like something that is testable, repeatable and observable. That is called operational science and is the science that helps make medical advances and builds a rocket to launch. Origins is not science but rather faith based-whether creationism or evolution.
2. Your comment about the "geological impossibility" of creationism is without basis. The topography of the earth, the sedimentary layers found expanding continents and the fossil record supports the Biblical flood much better than the uniformitarian idea of "long ages". Much has been written on this, so rather then me rewriting the scientific data, I'll link some articles:
A few interesting items that point to recent creation:
Many modern items have been found fossilized.
Carbon 14 has been found in dinosaur bones and diamonds.
The low salt content in the oceans.
The disintegration of comets that could not have lasted "billions or millions" of years.
Plus, re-read the posted article that mentioned just a few of the many dating methods and instances that undermine long ages.
A growing number of scientists, and the public, are not falling for the evolutionary spin any longer.

Unknown said...

While one cannot know with complete precision what occurred in ancient history, one can wisely chose to base their beliefs on something more than an ancient text such as the Bible that originated as oral tradition, was compiled by a biased and corrupt church at the Council of Nicaea, and has no scientific credibility. Unfortunately every single one of the sites you gave me are hopelessly biased. They contain no scientific evidence or reliable studies. They proclaim a creationist agenda, and yet they fail to support it with science. Most disturbing is the final one, which states that a cataclysmic volcanic eruption such as the one at Mt. St. Helens proves the occurrence of the Genesis Flood. This makes absolutely no sense. As a result of the poor nature of your sources, I can debunk all of these creationist lies with one comprehensive study - by the US Geological Survey.
Central to this article is this point: Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. So, the earth must be at least 3.5 billion years old. This means that recent creation is an impossibility. It didn't happen. It has been proven that the earth developed gradually from natural processes, not in 6 days by an all powerful deity.

Profile said...

As a Christian, I like to look at it this way. If the Bible is true, if I can base my eternal destiny in its message and salvation offered to me, and if the LORD God inspired it, wouldn't I see evidence for it in the world where I live?
So, with that in mind, let's take a look at the global flood documented in Genesis.
If there was a global flood, if all the high hills were covered with water, if every land animal with the breathe of life in it died during that flood, if the fountains of the deep were opened up, if the mountains pushed up after the flood as the valleys drained away, etc. what should I expect to find?
1. Sedimentary layers that expand entire continents
2. Billions of dead animals buried in those sedimentary layers-most showing catastrophic deaths
3. Sea shell fossils on top of Mt. Everest and the Andes Mountains
4. Fossils of soft bodied creatures like jelly fish, and fossils of animals buried alive such as a fish eating another fish or a reptile giving birth, all before any decomposition took place, or bones all jumbled up in huge graveyards
5. Sorting of layers such as limestone, sand, etc. all of different densities.

Mt. St. Helen's demonstrated just what happens in a catastrophic event. We've all been told that sedimentary layers get laid down over eons of time, but Mt. St. Helen's demonstrated just the opposite. The layers were observed in the process of being laid down!

As for the 3.5 billion years comment, that "age" was found via a dating method used by scientists to show "age" of rocks. We only know for certain how unreliable it is in this instance because we SAW it happen.
This demonstration lends understanding to the fact that when a scientist says something was "dated" to a certain age, his dating method is not completely reliable.
I hope this helps!

Anonymous said...

In my humble opinion, if you're going to put your faith on trial by placing yourself out there in the public eye with a consistently controversial topic that most Americans do not agree with, then you had better be ready to accept that defeat and move on. Sometimes, you just won't win. Devote your time to inner improvement and communion with God.

Unknown said...

In addition:

1. Sedimentary layers that expand entire continents

That's weird, it's like all the continents used to be connected...I think that was called Pangea.

2. Billions of dead animals buried in those sedimentary layers-most showing catastrophic deaths.

I'm not saying mass extinction didn't occur. However, the Bible states God sent the flood to kill humans, not dinosaurs.

3. Sea shell fossils on top of Mt. Everest and the Andes Mountains

Plate tectonics.

4. Fossils of soft bodied creatures like jelly fish, and fossils of animals buried alive such as a fish eating another fish or a reptile giving birth, all before any decomposition took place, or bones all jumbled up in huge graveyards

Such marine fossils are extremely rare. In the cases they have been found, they are generally carbon dated to around 500 million years ago, just a bit before your god was supposed to flood the earth.

5. Sorting of layers such as limestone, sand, etc. all of different densities.

Weathering and erosion combined with sedimentation sustained over varying topography and hundreds of millions of years.

I hope this helps distinguish the science from the mythology.

Profile said...

I sincerely hope you are taking my responses to heart. They are so easily answered.
That's right. Before the flood the land was most certainly one landmass.
Genesis 1:9-10
The land was divided after the flood.
Genesis 10:25
The sedimentary layers were laid down during the global flood.

2. Every land animal whose breath was in his nostrils also perished in the flood. Genesis 7:21,22

3. Mountains rose as the valleys drained away the water after the flood
Psalm 104 5-9

4. Soft bodied fossils are rare, but they do exist. Very special conditions need to fossilize something like a jelly fish.

Carbon dating can not be used to date for "millions of years". Carbon's half life cannot last that long. Look it up; it's a well known fact among scientists but is often used by those who don't really understand the issue to "throw off a creationist". Sorry, won't work. Come to a free seminar at the WB library on Nov. 8th to learn more. (Please)

5. Your claim of long ages for sedimentary layers formation is unsubstantiated. It is just a thought, but cannot be proven.
The evidence fits the creation model much better. A global catastrophe buried billions of creatures and plants. Several specimens have been found to be fossilized through many sedimentary layers (trees, bird's beak, etc), showing rapid catastrophic burial.
Also, there is a lack of erosion between the sedimentary layers you say were deposited over millions of years. And sedimentary layers are sometimes seen bent (not cracked) as the earth shifted and the still soft layers bent and still remain to this day.

Profile said...

Aaron, and anyone who cares to listen,

The Bible is not a science text. It touches on many scientific topics, but it does not go into great detail on them. The Bible can never contradict scientific data because God is the author of both.

I think it delights the Lord for man to study science and bring Him glory.