Creation Weekend in Edmonton! With Geologist Dr. Steven Austin! WOOT!
Posted on October 4, 2009 at 8:03 am by Dr. Jim
Saw this at the Creation Science Association of Alberta website:
Then I found this:
Found it at Ape not Monkey.
CLEAR YOUR CALENDAR!
Dr Austin of the Institute for Creation Research is coming to Edmonton on Nov. 6 and 7!
Friday November 6, Millbourne Alliance Church 8:00 p.m. Mt. St. Helen’s, Explosive Evidence for Creation
Saturday, November 7, ALL FREAKING DAY!!! Millwoods Assembly!
Where Darwin Went Wrong!
Geology and the Global Flood
The Search for Sodom and Gomorrah
According to Answers in Genesis Austin got a PhD from Pennsylvania State University in 1979 in Geology. AiG lists one publication,
“Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano” in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, reproduced at the AiG site.
CreationWiki lists a bunch more, nicely categorized into ‘Creationist” (by far the greater number) and “Secular”.
Here are the latter:
- Secular
Nice to see Austin is a hardworking scientist, and that ICR are implicitly recogonizing that creationism isn’t secular, i.e., it’s religion.










October 4, 2009 at 8:46 am
On the poster – now we know “where Darwin went wrong”. Argentina?!?
I wonder what his point could be. Darwin collected fossils there while the Brits surveyed their brand new (confiscated) Falkland Islands, and sailed around a bit. Darwin had weeks to explore, to collect fossils, plants, birds, etc.
Oh, now I get it! The creationists think Argentina is where Darwin “went wrong” because he did extensive field work and looked at evidence. The more facts and evidnece you have, the more you are wrong, according to the creationists.
October 4, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Do they need to have a point?
October 4, 2009 at 4:31 pm
If Dan’s hypothesis is correct, then Darwin REALLY screwed up in the Galapagos Islands and then when he got home things went from bad to worse. Darwin got involved with pigeon breeding and showed that the diversity of form that can quickly arise from a common ancestry in only a few generations.
Having nothing better to do, other than marking, etc., I checked out the CSAA website. There was very little science of course, a lot of whining about “…an attitude tolerant of multiple working hypotheses being desirable and ethical. This would allow minority viewpoints to argue their positions with a view to influencing science in general. “
The right of free speech applies to society and political discourse, not any endeavour requiring facts and evidence.
The Edmonton Journal had an article this weekend that said the vast majority of variation in dog coats is the result of mutations in three genes. Wow. Not much intelligent designing required for dogs. Most cat people knew that already anyway.