We were talking about posting etiquette not long ago. I don't see much here from you.

Would anything I said about Jeanie or her credentials here make a blind bit of difference? And what does it matter if she is subbing one class? If she were their regular teacher and was preparing to teach a unit about evolution, then I'd probably like to discuss the matter further; but at the end of the day I'm not going to bully anyone into doing anything and it's not my style to try.



I've never claimed that being a theist disqualifies anyone from teaching science. That's a pretty ridiculous misrepresentation and it shows you've not paid much attention to what I've been saying here -- or maybe that you only see what you want to see. I only recently said that a creationist might teach other areas of science very competently, but when it comes to teaching evolution they are going to be having problems with evidence there. It remains to be shown here how creationism is a legitimate science.

It's well known that Austin has had several attempts at "falsifying" radiometric dates by using the wrong procedural methods. For example, he was involved in an ICR project for dating the Grand Canyon. He took rock samples which were from disparate areas when he should have taken his samples from the same homogenous rock, e.g. one single volcanic deposit, and what he got was a date for the mantle from which the rock originally came, rather than a date for when the rock cooled in the Grand Canyon. Then he claimed that the radiometric dating method (Rb/Sr isochron to be specific) was flawed. It was actually his method of gathering samples which was flawed, among other things.

Now why would any geologist do these things? Shouldn't he know better? I'll leave it up to you to speculate on his motives.

It's interesting, by the way, that we are spending so much time chatting with creationists in threads like this. If you're not careful, people might get the impression that you are avoiding talking about any issues involving science.