Date of publication: 2017-08-25 06:39
His little blurb here leads those readers unfamiliar with CSF work to believe that creationists deny the normal laws of physics when they cast doubt on the results of &lsquo radoactive [sic] dating&rsquo . This is simply untrue. We never deny the physics involved, just question the underlying assumptions that cannot be proved, even by Plimer (who ignores them).
On the same page Wieland is accused of dismissing &lsquo the whole fossil record&rsquo just because he wrote that Archaeopteryx has none of the crucial transitional structures, like scale-to-feather or limb-to-wing &lsquo in-betweens&rsquo . Wieland certainly does not dismiss the whole fossil record he merely points out the lack of transitional forms between the major body forms in the fossil record, which even evolutionary palaeontologists admit is a problem for evolutionary theory. In fact, the paucity of transitional forms in the fossil record is the main reason for the saltation (jumps) theory put forward by Stephen Jay Gould.
Such an outrageous tactic sadly drew no concern from the university community, who seemed to see defeating creationism as of greater concern than ethics.
In Beale&rsquo s report, it seems as if all these problems Plimer was alleged to be facing were due to his actions in the debate. But the only things resembling these alleged &lsquo problems&rsquo were an understandable warning from Dr Gish that he would take action if Plimer published the outrageous libel about &lsquo little boys&rsquo in the United States. Similarly, the nearest thing to &lsquo pressuring Newcastle University&rsquo was the perfectly understandable protest against their letterhead&rsquo s being used to start this vicious smear, as explained on the previous page.
Furthermore, we challenge anyone to show how the general tone of the articles in Creation Ex Nihilo magazine in any way indicates &lsquo savage religion&rsquo .
Plimer criticizes the editors of Ex Nihilo for not having picked up a misquote by Setterfield. Again, this is not quite what it seems. Plimer is careful to omit the last part of the Setterfield quote, which reads &lsquo and so are relegated to being of mere &ldquo historical interest&rdquo .&rsquo Setterfield is actually quoting (though sloppily) from Cadusch (as shown by the quote marks) the rest, as becomes obvious once Setterfield&rsquo s full sentence is given, is his commentary/interpretation on Cadusch&rsquo s comments.
9. 'full stop' Don't refer to the punctuation mark (.) which comes at the end of a sentence as a 'point'. In British English, it is called a full stop. In American English, it is called a period.
We regret that someone used in one Grade 7 classroom in Victoria (presuming that the report is accurate) material which we would not endorse. Of course, Plimer is quite happy to leave the reader with the impression that we have &lsquo by stealth&rsquo introduced it into State schools. Regarding the Queensland issue, we know of no State school in which biology teachers have ever been forced to teach creationism. Neither would we want to see such a situation of compulsion, as already mentioned.
All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional.
It&rsquo s hard to tell what Plimer is trying to do by linking the Crystal Cathedral with creationism, because our information is that Robert Schuller is a theistic evolutionist. Plimer implies that creationism is divisive because we wrote about the evolutionist and anti-biblical views of the World Council of Churches. Yet it is presumably not divisive for prominent churchmen to write about our views in disagreement.