PDA

View Full Version : Creationist "science" fair


quincyyyyy
05-08-2008, 12:56 AM
Fellowship Baptist Creation Science Fair 2001

Article by Dr. Richard Paley & FBCSF Staff


http://objectiveministries.org/creation/sciencefair.jpg
Students presented their projects in the Fellowship Baptist Church auditorium.
As a Creation Scientist, one of my greatest duties that I take great pleasure in is introducing the works of the Lord to the young generation. The sparkle of wonderment that fills their eyes in knowing the creative power of God fills my heart with the Lord's divine Love. It however saddens me greatly that the proponents of Evolutionism have corrupted this true purpose of science and are instead using it as a propaganda tool to spread Secularism. But what is education for if not to fight against ignorance such as that? Our children are the future face of Science and we must teach them to recognize the truth of the Word of the Lord so as to break the cycle of Evolutionism dogma that is paralyzing scientific development and making higher education a dumping ground for the excesses of materialistic philosophies.
To that end, the Fellowship Baptist Creation Science Fair was started. Its purpose is to get kids excited about Creation and motivate them to discover the truth of our Lord on their own. The Creation Science Fair is held annually and is open to homeschoolers and students from area Christian schools grades 1 through 12.
The 2001 Fellowship Baptist Creation Science Fair was held on April 16th and great fun was had by all in attendance. Fellowship is proud to be host to one of the largest Creation Science Fairs in the country, this year we had over 200 students present their projects. This is also the first year that Muslim students from the Al-Jannah Islamic school have been invited to participate; two of their students presented a project on human anatomy entitled "Allah (SWT) Created Me" which, while it was found ineligible for a prize due to a number of Biblical inconsistencies, did win a special Interfaith Outreach ribbon.
Below is listed the winners of the major prizes in the three age groups. Space doesn't permit us to list all the many projects presented, however they were all of high quality and academic excellence. Remember kids, just because you didn't win a ribbon, doesn't mean you lost: when it comes to studying the works of the Lord, there are no losers! My special thanks to the staff of the FBCSF who helped compile this report.
- Dr. Richard Paley
2001 Prize Winners:

Elementary School Level

http://objectiveministries.org/creation/unclesteve.jpg
Cassidy Turnbull and her uncle, Steve, who is not a monkey according to Cassidy's research.
1st Place: "My Uncle Is A Man Named Steve (Not A Monkey)"

Cassidy Turnbull (grade 5) presented her uncle, Steve. She also showed photographs of monkeys and invited fairgoers to note the differences between her uncle and the monkeys. She tried to feed her uncle bananas, but he declined to eat them. Cassidy has conclusively shown that her uncle is no monkey.
2nd Place: "Pine Cones Are Complicated"

David Block and Trevor Murry (grades 4) showed how specifically complicated pine cones are and how they reveal God's design in nature.
Honorable Mention:

"God Made Kitty" - Sally Reister (grade 3)
"The Bible Says Creation" - Aaron Kent (grade 5)
"Pokemon Prove Evolutionism Is False" - Paul Sanborn (grade 4)


Middle School Level

http://objectiveministries.org/creation/jarofnonlife.jpg
Patricia Lewis displays her jar of non-living material, still non-living after three weeks.
1st Place: "Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life"

Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.
2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"

Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.
Honorable Mention:

"Mousetrap Reduced To Pile Of Functionless Parts" - Kevin Parker (grade 7)
"Dinosaur & Man Walked Together" - Donny Findlay (grade 6)
"Rocks Can't Evolve, Where Did They Come From Mr. Darwin?" - Anna Reed (grade 6)


High School Level

http://objectiveministries.org/creation/ecoliprayer.jpg
Eileen Hyde (right) and Lynda Morgan (left), future Creation Scientists.
1st Place: "Using Prayer To Microevolve Latent Antibiotic Resistance In Bacteria"

Eileen Hyde and Lynda Morgan (grades 10 & 11) did a project showing how the power of prayer can unlock the latent genes in bacteria, allowing them to microevolve antibiotic resistance. Escherichia coli bacteria cultured in agar filled petri dishes were subjected to the antibiotics tetracycline and chlorotetracycline. The bacteria cultures were divided into two groups, one group (A) received prayer while the other (B) didn't. The prayer was as follows: "Dear Lord, please allow the bacteria in Group A to unlock the antibiotic-resistant genes that You saw fit to give them at the time of Creation. Amen." The process was repeated for five generations, with the prayer being given at the start of each generation. In the end, Group A was significantly more resistant than Group B to both antibiotics.
2nd Place: "Maximal Packing Of Rodentia Kinds: A Feasibility Study"

Jason Spinter's (grade 12) project was to show the feasibility of Noah's Ark using a Rodentia research model (made of a mixture of hamsters and gerbils) as a representative of diluvian life forms. The Rodentia were placed in a cage with dimensions proportional to a section of the Ark. The number of Rodentia used (58) was calculated using available Creation Science research and was based on the median animal size and their volumetric distribution in the Ark. The cage was also fitted with wooden dowels inserted at regular intervals through the cage walls, forming platforms which provided support for the Rodentia. Although there was little room left in the cage, all Rodentia were able to move just enough to ward off muscle atrophy. Food pellets and water were delivered to sub-surface Rodentia via plastic drinking straws inserted into the Rodentia-mass, which also served to allow internal air flow. Once a day, the cage was sprayed with water to cleanse any built-up waste. Additionally, the cage was suspended on bungee cords to simulate the rocking motion of a ship. The study lasted 30 days and 30 nights, with all Rodentia surviving at least long enough afterwards to allow for reproduction. These findings strongly suggest that Noah's Ark could hold and support representatives of all antediluvian animal kinds for the duration of the Flood and subsequent repopulation of the Earth.
Honorable Mention:

"Geocentrism: Politically Incorrect" - Richard Cody (grade 9)
"Young Earth, Old Lies" - Melvin Knuth & Glenna Reher (grade 11)
"Thermodynamics Of Hell Fire" - Tom Williamson (grade 12)

http://objectiveministries.org/creation/sciencefair.html

CanadianCowboysFan
05-08-2008, 01:22 AM
creation science is right up there with military intelligence as the biggest oxymorons in the Engliahs language

ScipioCowboy
05-08-2008, 01:29 AM
If you examine the top picture very closely, you'll find Al Gore and his global warming exhibit.;)

quincyyyyy
05-08-2008, 01:40 AM
If you examine the top picture very closely, you'll find Al Gore and his global warming exhibit.;)

Just another example of conservatives hating on science.

At least Al Gore is in line with scientific consensus.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

ScipioCowboy
05-08-2008, 01:47 AM
Just another example of conservatives hating on science.

Actually, I was "hating on" Al Gore. My comment was completely ambivalent towards science.;)

But given your penchant for completely unfounded generalizations, I'm hardly surprised that you jumped to such a conclusion.

In reality, I like science quite a bit. It, like many other modes of inquiry, has been instrumental in mankind's progress.

At least Al Gore is in line with scientific consensus.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

Consensus according to whom? I would never outright reject global warming, but scientists are split on the issue with a majority clamoring for more research before any conclusions can be drawn.

quincyyyyy
05-08-2008, 01:55 AM
Actually, I was "hating on" Al Gore. My comment was completely ambivalent towards science.;)

But given your penchant for completely unfounded generalizations, I'm hardly surprised that you jumped to such a conclusion.

In reality, I like science quite a bit. It, like many other modes of inquiry, has been instrumental in mankind's progress.



Consensus according to whom? I would never outright reject global warming, but scientists are split on the issue with a majority clamoring for more research before any conclusions can be drawn.

Consensus according to the unbiased IPCC that was established by the U.N. and was just recently awarded the Nobel Peace Price. The IPCC is made up of hundreds of leading scientists all over the world. There is no "split" over the issue. Respectable scientists now believe that there is at least a 90% chance that humans are responsible for climate change.

The only people who believe that there is a split in the scientific community are the same people who participated in the Creationist "science" fair.

ScipioCowboy
05-08-2008, 02:12 AM
Consensus according to the unbiased IPCC that was established by the U.N. and was just recently awarded the Nobel Peace Price.The IPCC is made up of hundreds of leading scientists all over the world.

Complete objectivity is a myth, especially where a political organization such as the UN is involved. The IPCC was established for the specific purpose of studying "human-induced climate changes." Its very existence is contingent upon such changes occuring on a massive scale, and as we all know, beauracracies have a strong self-preservation function.

There is no "split" over the issue.

Quite the contrary, there's rather wide chasm on this issue:

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jan/28/climatechange.internationalnews
And a myriad of other links that have been posted on this site.

The only people who believe that there is a split in the scientific community are the same people who participated in the Creationist "science" fair.

Once again, your poorly contrived generalizations fail you.;)

BBC: Evangelicals Split on Global Warming

quincyyyyy
05-08-2008, 02:28 AM
Complete objectivity is a myth, especially where a political organization such as the UN is involved. The IPCC was established for the specific purpose of studying "human-induced climate changes." Its very existence is contingent upon such changes occuring on a massive scale, and as we all know, beauracracies have a strong self-preservation function.



Quite the contrary, there's rather wide chasm on this issue:

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jan/28/climatechange.internationalnews
And a myriad of other links that have been posted on this site.



Once again, your poorly contrived generalizations fail you.;)

BBC: Evangelicals Split on Global Warming

But these are hundreds of the independent scientists who are very well respected in their field, and they are not paid by the U.N. to say or do anything. They get their funding from elsewhere.

And just because one person disagrees that doesn't take away from the fact that the vast majority of scientists think humans are to blame for global warming. You give me one article that talks about one scientist, and then you say there is widespread disagreement in the scientific community (which is patently untrue). You are just using really bad logic.

ScipioCowboy
05-08-2008, 02:48 AM
But these are hundreds of the independent scientists who are very well respected in their field, and they are not paid by the U.N. to say or do anything. They get their funding from elsewhere.

It's not only about money. Egos and reputations factor in quite prominently, perhaps even more so than money.

And just because one person disagrees that doesn't take away from the fact that the vast majority of scientists think humans are to blame for global warming.[quote]

One person?

Did you read any of the articles. The first line from the second article states, "Serious disagreement has broken out among scientists over a United Nations climate report's contention..."

Reading comprehension is fundamental.:D


[quote]You give me one article that talks about one scientist, and then you say there is widespread disagreement in the scientific community (which is patently untrue). You are just using really bad logic.

Even from my very limited interaction with you, it's quite apparent that you're poorly qualified to assess anyone else's logic.

And there's nothing "patently untrue" about my claim: There remains substantial disagreement within the scientific community about global warming.

burmafrd
05-08-2008, 02:53 AM
Kartr is just a fanatic like Osama, Gore, etc. Will never listen will never learn.

notherbob
05-08-2008, 09:03 AM
I wonder if there were any exhibits based on Hindu creationism or Bhuddist creationism or African Animist creationism or Mayan or inca creationism or natine North American tribal concepts of creationism? Or was only Biblical creationism allowed?

Just curious.

DFWJC
05-08-2008, 09:17 AM
I wonder if there were any exhibits based on Hindu creationism or Bhuddist creationism or African Animist creationism or Mayan or inca creationism or natine North American tribal concepts of creationism? Or was only Biblical creationism allowed?

Just curious.

Good question. From what I could see, it was universal creationism except for one Biblical topic.

Danny White
05-08-2008, 09:19 AM
You do realize that this whole thing is a goof, right?

It's not real. It's a joke.

The whole website that this is linked to is one elaborate parody/satire. It's very well done and doesn't really come right out and say that it's a parody, but if you read it carefully, you can see that it definitely is.

In fact, it does state clearly that the site was created in response to another supposed Baptist web page that is definitely a satire site as well. Everything about the site is a joke. The banner ads, the bios of the people supposedly who run the thing.

Maybe somewhere people are really having creationist science displays, but I assure you they're no where as absurd as the "experiments" featured on this joke site that you linked.

They're simply poking fun at Christians... and you took the bait.

quincyyyyy
05-08-2008, 09:42 AM
You do realize that this whole thing is a goof, right?

It's not real. It's a joke.

The whole website that this is linked to is one elaborate parody/satire. It's very well done and doesn't really come right out and say that it's a parody, but if you read it carefully, you can see that it definitely is.

In fact, it does state clearly that the site was created in response to another supposed Baptist web page that is definitely a satire site as well. Everything about the site is a joke. The banner ads, the bios of the people supposedly who run the thing.

Maybe somewhere people are really having creationist science displays, but I assure you they're no where as absurd as the "experiments" featured on this joke site that you linked.

They're simply poking fun at Christians... and you took the bait.


Oh I knew it was a joke, that was the whole point of me posting this. I've known about this website for years.

burmafrd
05-08-2008, 10:20 AM
Kartr, never kid a kidder. You just are not believeable. You bought that link hook line and sinker.