Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Real Science Radio: Fountains of MAGMA (?) of the Great Deep. Huh?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Real Science Radio: Fountains of MAGMA (?) of the Great Deep. Huh?

    Fountains of MAGMA (?) of the Great Deep. Huh?

    This is the show from Friday, October 14th, 2016

    SUMMARY:



    Before getting to the sad shocker of today's program, that creation groups are reinterpreting the "fountains of the great deep" to refer not to water but to volcanoes (?!), hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams report actually shocking science news about how far a hundred watts of energy will take your brain (and body), about our ability to see a single photon, and about crocodiles eating fruit! Real Science Radio today also airs audio from infamous anti-creationist Eugenie Scott to put the lie to the Junk DNA story, once again, now that some human retrovirus genes have been found to be, not junk but, essential to reproduction! But the big story today is that our beloved creation movement is headed down yet another tragic and obvious dead end, this one designed to save the failed creationist version of the secular Plate Tectonics theory, by claiming that the fountains of the great deep that flooded the globe were not water... but magma??? Oh boy! Here we go again...



    *
    RSR's List of Arguments Creationists Should Not Use: Bad arguments...
    - Historical "science" is not science. Historically, creationists backed into this position regarding the "Demarcation Problem", of what qualifies as science, to do an end run around the claims of paleontology, geology, and cosmology. For our rebual of this claim, please see rsr.org/forensics for our article and program titled, Historical & Observational Science Equally Good.
    - The Second Law of Thermodyanics began at the fall. This claim, popularized by the father of the modern creation movement, the beloved Henry Morris, is biblically and scientifically indefensible. See rsr.org/entropy.
    - When did unknown mechanisms become scientific concepts? This is an overtly unjustified criticism of a theory. For example, gravity itself is an unknown mechanism.
    - When did unobservable processes become scientific concepts? This is an obviously unjustified objection to a theory. Consider for example Einstein's physics thought experiments?
    - With the exception of the arguments that we judge that we SHOULD USE, listed just below, leading creation groups have an otherwise fine list of arguments to avoid, here and here.
    - And of course, from above: The fountains of the great deep were volcanic fountains of magma. (See above.) Thankfully, ordinary creationists haven't begun using that argument, and with God's help, RSR hopes to keep it that way! Please pray that the truth prevails among creationists on this matter!

    * Arguments Creationists SHOULD Use: Answers in Genesis has claimed, as late as 2014, that we should not use the argument that says:
    - Minimal dust on the moon indicates a young moon (see rsr.org/moon#dust).
    - Mammoths were rapidly flooded during the global flood (see rsr.org/mammoths)
    - The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures has a reliable chronology (see rsr.org/septuagint)
    - Human and dinosaur fossil footprints have been found together in Texas' Paluxy River Basin
    - The division in the days of Peleg refers just as the Bible says, to the "earth" (see rsr.org/peleg)
    WARNING: Graphic video here.
Working...
X