Wednesday, July 31, 2013

extra notes I offered to the KY department of education

Greetings,
I am Matt Singleton. I wanted to provide some confirmation to the points made in my speech.



Inductive Fallacies)
  "Inductive reasoning consists of inferring from the properties of a sample to the properties of a population as a whole.
   For example, suppose we have a barrel containing of 1,000 beans. Some of the beans are black and some of the beans are white. Suppose now we take a sample of 100 beans from the barrel and that 50 of them are white and 50 of them are black. Then we could infer inductively that half the beans in the barrel (that is, 500 of them) are black and half are white.
    All inductive reasoning depends on the similarity of the sample and the population. The more similar the same is to the population as a whole, the more reliable will be the inductive inference. On the other hand, if the sample is relevantly dissimilar to the population, then the inductive inference will be unreliable.
No inductive inference is perfect. That means that any inductive inference can sometimes fail. Even though the premises are true, the conclusion might be false. Nonetheless, a good inductive inference gives us a reason to believe that the conclusion is probably true."
  Stephen's Guide to logical fallacies (Stephen Downes University of Alberta) www.onegoodmove.org

observation of history
"Civilization, as historians identify itfirst emerged between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago when people began to live in organized communities with distinct political, military economic and social structures.  Religious, intellectual, and artistic activities also assumed important functions in these early societies."
"Although Historians use documents to create their pictures of the past, such written records  do not exist for the prehistory of humankind.  Consequently, the story of early humanity depends on archaeological and more recently biological information, which anthropologists use t create theories about our early past. Although modern science has fostered the development of more precise methods, much of our understanding of early humans relies upon considerable conjecture."
 Comprehensive Volume WORLD HISTORY by William Duiker and Jackson J. Spielvogel 
     As far as Biblical history and the ancient texts the Bible...
"It is the most complete history of the ancient past that we possess" READING THE OLD TESTAMENT: An Introduction by Lawrence Boadt.
  It should be noted that the textbook quoted is by a Roman Catholic author who holds to form criticism.  Even in his theologically liberal approach he observes the Historical authority of the Judeo christian history.

The lack of authority of Geological Uniformitarianism 

"Whatever the method or approach, the geologist must take cognizance of the following facts... There is no place on earth where a complete record of the rocks is present....  To reconstruct the history of the earth, scattered bits of information from thousands of locations all over the world must be placed together.  The results will be at best only a very incomplete recordIf the complete history of the earth is compared to an encyclopedia of 30 volumes, then we can seldom hope to find even one comeplete volume in a given area. Sometimes only a few chapters, perhaps only a paragraph or two, will be the total geological contribution of a region; indeed, we are often reduced to studying scattering bits of information more nearly comparable to a few words of letters."  Brown Monnet and Stovel  Introduction to Geology


Remember this is not about including creationism as much as it is about the schools not teaching religion. Which is what evolution"as fact" is.  I am not protesting theories being taught.  Yet it is the darwinist that have suppressed scientific evidence from the academic community.
For instance, here is the story of a scientist who came forward and presented Peer reviewed evidenace for an instaneous creation with polonium halos.




Year 2000 Challenge



to the
National Academy of Sciences

  Earth Science Associates
P. O. Box 12067
Knoxville, TN 37912
March 22, 2000
Dr. Bruce Alberts, President
National Academy of Sciences
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20418
Dear Dr. Alberts:
On page ix of the 2nd edition, Science and Creationism, A View from the National Academy of Sciences, you state: "Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence." On page 7 of the 1st edition, we find: "The hypothesis of special creation has, over nearly two centuries, been repeatedly and sympathetically considered and rejected on evidential grounds by qualified observers and experimentalists."
I assume you and other prestigious Academy members are open to changing your views on this topic if you become aware of validated scientific evidence supporting the Genesis creation record. I am therefore inviting you, and as many of your Academy colleagues that you wish to bring or send, to my 7:00 pm. presentation, at Wichita State University on March 30. There I intend to review: (i) the scientific evidence for Earth's rapid creation, evidence which I published in Science, Nature, and Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science during my thirteen-year-long Guest Scientist position in the Chemistry Division at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, (ii) how the ACLU failed to refute this evidence during my testimony at the Arkansas creation trial in December 1981, (iii) how the highest echelons of America's scientific establishment have worked to suppress this evidence from further dissemination since that trial, (iv) the contradiction between, on one hand, the Academy's claims of having rejected the evidence for the Genesis creation on evidential grounds and, on the other hand, its deafening silence concerning my widely published and unrefuted scientific evidence for Earth's rapid creation, and (v) the fact that the Academy's silence about my results cannot be due to ignorance because some of the authors of both editions of the Academy's booklets were aware of my participation at the Arkansas creation trial.
I am genuinely hoping that you and your colleagues will respond positively to my invitation and do all in your power to come and explain exactly why the Academy has rejected the published scientific evidence for the Genesis creation, which has now stood unrefuted in the open scientific literature for over twenty-five years. With all the power of the world's most eminent evolutionists to call upon, you certainly shouldn't have any difficulty finding any number who would be most happy to do this, if it can be done. This will he a most opportune time to present your case and then see if I have a valid scientific response to your objections. Be assured that the Academy's absence will speak volumes. In that case I intend to challenge the media to arrange for the Academy to meet me on a live, prime-time TV special to settle this issue publicly. If, as I believe the evidence shows, God left irrefutable scientific evidence, in accord with the Fourth Commandment, that He created the Earth ex nihilo in six literal days (Exodus 20: 8-11), then it is also time that America's taxpayers ask Congress to determine why the Academy continues to suppress free and open scientific inquiry, into what may be the greatest scientific question of our time.
Cordially,
Robert V. Gentry




Another logical irrationality about "evolution as fact".

   Evolution is not given proper definition and so while we can get multiple version of evolution as the truth.  Any form of intelligent design or creationism is automatically censored in a world of ideas.
 one geologist testified that evolutionists should not be blamed for communism because Darwinist were oppressed in the soviet Union.
However, this goes back to bait and switch tactics.
 "In His Origin of Species, Darwin accepted the principle of the inheretance of acquired characteristics as one of the factors contributing to evolution." Encyclopedia Britannica 1969 lamarkism
   Darwin's Darwinism was a different theory than today
While the west went along with this ideological shift. lamarkianism was far from dead.  Karl Marx was entertained by the Lamarkist perspective and as a result the Soviet Union Became a lamarkian establishment in their institutions.
"In the Soviet Union for example, where the inheritance of acquired characteristics is accepted and where it has an official standing, it is presented as a part of the Darwinian theory and is referred to generally as "creative Soviet Darwinism" as distinct from the "reactionary Darwinism" of capitalistic countries."Encyclopedia Britannica 1969 lamarkism
The Soviet Union was evolutionary to the core. They reacted strongly to American Darwinists. But then again soviet Darwinism wasn't allowed in the USA either.



I have since learned how the new science standards are not going to be adequate in the areas of physics, electronics and chemistry.  Richard Innes should be producing a report on His findings of the topic.
Thank you,
Sincerely
Rev. Matt Singleton



3 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pastor Matt Singleton said...

Remember to keep the language clean and keep the name calling to yourself

Blogger said...

BlueHost is ultimately one of the best web-hosting company for any hosting plans you might require.