I think I disagree here … the five billion could find the evilushun powder easy enough … but it take a special kind of person to find God dust … very very special [giggle] …
I don’t think you’re the one that gets to make that determination. Earlier BPC described him as a “consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation and publishes in refereed scientific journals”.
And if there were a compelling argument to be made about determining the uranium value of the Grand Canyon, then his request would be relevant, and he could study the many samples that have already been removed from this area and are stored in universities around the country.
I think you’re wrong about this. In the OP, eschereal wrote “Very few people are officially allowed to disturb or remove things from national parks.” griffin1977 wrote “Any geologist wanting to remove rocks from a national park rightly has to jump through a lot of hoops” and Enginerd wrote a lengthy post about the process he went through to be able to remove material from a DoI facility. It sounds like it’s an in-depth process, but there is a process. If Snelling was the only scientist to ever ask to remove material from a National Park, his denial would have been easy and not created an issue. If you let some scientists do it, you’ve got to let others too, and in a content-neutral way.
His faith must not be very strong if he’s searching for proof. God is displeased.
Content neutral, but not scientifically valuable neutral. If there are valuable contributions that can be made to man’s understanding of the world that cannot be achieved through any means except for removing material from the grand canyon, then yes. As there was no scientific knowledge to be gleaned, and anything he needed to study could be studied by other rocks, either ones already removed and in universities, or in rocks that are outside the protected area but are of the same geological formations, then it would be a content neutral decision to deny his request.
If you have a thesis that aliens built the grand canyon, do you think that you should be able to take some rocks away to prove/disprove that?
“Young Earth Creationist.” That determination has already been made, and a scientist he ain’t.
Emphasis mine
Good good good … we’re making progress … we let every scientist apply to do field work in our NP, but we only let those who conform to the process to actually do the field work … and this restricted to only a few …
Snelling did apply to do his field work in the NP, and his application was found to be wanting … so it was denied … that should have been the end of story except Snelling lawyered up and the NPS caved …
I disagree 100% that the decision should be content-neutral … at a minimum the researcher must demonstrate the data can only be collected inside park boundaries … all the other researchers had to, so Snelling does too …
What next … fringe scientists extracting lava from Volcanoes NP in Hawai’i looking for people’s souls?
Great point … the Creation was a unique event, there’s no experiment we can perform to confirm or deny that God created Heaven and Earth … therefore it’s not science in any sense of the word …
It’s philosophy … and I think it’s wrong to desecrate our NPs for philosophical purposes …
Much in the same way one might describe Peter Duesburg as a cancer researcher, or Andrew Wakefield as a physician specializing in the lower intestine. The man has thoroughly disgraced himself and his profession in much the same way as those two “esteemed gentlemen” have. He is not worthy of the title of “scientist”. He’s a quack, a crank, and any resources offered to him are necessarily resources that are squandered.
He actually worked for CSIRO in Australia, which is a world-class research organization in earth science. I just don’t think the description of him as a scientist should be in the present tense. His last peer-reviewed publication was in 1987, but his articles at least look more or less legit to me (I’m in a related field). His published work is more than a bit ironic, since much of it is focused on the use of stable isotopes of lead in uranium exploration. [sup]206[/sup]Pb and [sup]207[/sup]Pb are daughter products of the decay of [sup]238[/sup]U and [sup]235[/sup]U, respectively… and the faster of those two pathways has a half life of 710 million years. Radiogenic lead can be used to date rocks, but only if they’re a million+ years old.
That didn’t seem to be a problem for Snelling when he was publishing in journals. Here’s an excerpt from his most recent paper (Dickson et al. 1987):
So no problem with rocks 1.5 billion years old when he was a consulting geologist working on mineral exploration… most likely because there was a lot of money at stake and applied science works better than praying for uranium.
His more recent “scholarly” work, though, is almost entirely in the form of conference presentations at the x[sup]th[/sup] Annual Conference on Creationism (apparently an annual deal hosted by Creation Science Fellowship Inc. in Pittsburgh). And he edited a book (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative) that was jointly published in 2005 by the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society. None of that is anything I’d call science.
Dickson, B.L., B.L. Gulson and A.A. Snelling. 1987. Further assessment of stable lead isotope measurements for uranium exploration, Pine Creek Geosyncline, Northern Territory, Australia. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 27: 63-75.
Wait … it’s okay if Snelling advocates alchemic transmutation … but God forbid he advocate young Earth?
“For Christ’s sake, Soddy, don’t call it transmutation. They’ll have our heads off as alchemists.” – Earnest Rutherford
Careful, though: the Big Bang was a unique event, and there aren’t any experiments we can perform regarding it. There are (fortunately!) lots of observations we can make regarding it.
The problem with Creationism as a scientific model is that it doesn’t really predict anything, so there aren’t any observations that can be made regarding it. There is no possible observation this jasper can make on these rocks that will confirm his idea of the origin of all things.
(There are quite a few geological observations that have been made, establishing the vast age of the earth, but, of course, this lump won’t accept those.)
Ah … but my understanding is that physicists readily admit that there are some “issues” with the assumed singularity that existed in the first instant of the universe … it’s not a proven fact that singularities can even exist … and that is something we can search for and hopefully find existing in today’s universe … we just need to build a bigger particle accelerator and create a black hole in the laboratory … alternately, we could drag, hang and quarter all the Quantum Mechanics …
“In the beginning, God created heaven and Earth” … that’s pretty cut and dry … either you believe it or not … there’s no mathematical way to describe it … Snelling can pop as many nukes as he can in Grand Canyon and still not find evidence of the Creation …
I wonder what method he will use to estimate the age of the rocks?
It was to test Christian faith that God deliberately created dinosaur fossils that appear to be hundreds of millions of years old. The whole cosmos, where the light from distant galaxies appears to have emanated more than 1000 years before even the birth of Methushaleh ben Enoch, is a tribute to God’s Intelligence and Ingenuity: the smartest astrophysicists have been unable to crack the Mystery of God’s Grandiose Deception.
No matter what tests they run, these “scientists” continue to insist that the world is very old. How awesome is the Intelligence of God! Look at how intricate His Intelligent Plan is. The purpose of this intricacy is so Man will know that Only Faith provides Truth.
And here comes Andrew Snelling, thinking he is smarter than God and can crack this Divine Plan, not with Faith but by playing with rocks. Snelling is a blasphemist unworthy to celebrate the Eucharist until he repents sincerely (and/or submits to exorcism). If the other Bishops won’t do it, I will:
Brother Andrew Snelling, by the infirmity of the flesh and craft of Satan, has fearfully fallen from the obedience of his God, by challenging God’s wondrous Deception, by pretending to be wiser than God; by the which he has offended against the Majesty of God, blasphemed his Holy Name, and offended his Church. We are compelled in the fear of God, to give the said Andrew Snelling into the hands and power of the Devil, to the destruction of the flesh.
O Lord Yeshu mac-Virgo, the only and eternal King of all the Chosen children of thine heavenly Father; we excommunicate and cast forth from the society of thy Holy Body, and from all participation with thy Church in sacraments and prayers, Andrew Snelling; which thing we do at thy commandment, and in thy power and authority, to the glory of thy Holy Name, to the conservation and edification of this thy Church, and to the Extreme Remedy of the stubborn obstinacy of the forenamed impenitent, knowing that whatsoever we in Thy Name do here pronounce on earth, that Thou wilt ratify the same in the Heaven. I, in the Name of the Lord, cut off, seclude, and excommunicate from Thy Body, and from our society, Andrew Snelling, as one person scandalous, proud, a contemner, and one member, for this present time altogether corrupted and pernicious to the Body.
We further give over into the hands and power of the Devil the said Andrew Snelling, to the destruction of his flesh, straitly charging all that profess the Lord Yeshu, to whose knowledge this our sentence shall come, to repute and hold the said Andrew Snelling accursed. I do this in the Name of our Almighty Lord, and of His only beloved son Yeshu mac-Virgo, and the Holy Spirit to whom be all praise, glory, and honour, now and ever. So be it.
Can we, just maybe, do it in orbit or on the moon? I want the experiment to be performed…but it scares the machuggins out of me!
There are many, many other groups of people I’d far rather see extirpated by violence… Tailgaters on the freeway long before quantum scientists. (And, since I’m writing Koko’s little list, YECs would have an honored place…)
Agreed: it’s a model that doesn’t have any predictive power. YECs practice circular logic, saying, “Creationism would lead to a world just like ours. So our world is evidence that our model is correct.” They have never succeeded in making a prediction based on their model and then having that prediction verified.
Meanwhile, we evolutionists get to rejoice in, just as one of ten thousand examples, the relatively recent discovery of the fossils of intermediate forms between land-animals and whales.
Our rock-head would like to make some breakthrough discovery, but he isn’t even able to publish, in advance, what he is looking for.
ETA: it is a joy to converse with a fellow ellipses addict!
I’ve found the older I get, the less important it is to me that we don’t annihilate the Earth …
I should apologize … just that it’s cheaper to buy a new Quantum than to have the old one repaired …
I see no conflict between Creationism and Evolution … the physical world is governed by physical laws and the spiritual world is governed by spiritual laws … and the Bible is a book on spiritual law … a Rasta Man once told me if we interpret anything in the Bible in the flesh, we’re wrong …
The insanity of this is that it would have been cheaper for him to publish than hire all them lawyers … but Snelling hates the hungry orphans and widows I guess …
Ellipses for Gender Equality … no one should be judged by their periods …
But creationism IS interpreting the Bible in the flesh! If you don’t think that creationism is about the physical world, then what is your definition of creationism?
I haven’t seen it mentioned yet in this thread. The government gave up and gave him a permit to collect rocks. He dropped the lawsuit.