Creationist who sued the Grand Canyon for religious discrimination

That is brutally unfair , there are very few rocks in the grand canon and they cant really spare any.

On a brighter note at least we know not to let our kids apply to college down under.
This is a story where everyone is wrong

Wonderful, now he can use these rocks as "proof" that his pseudoscientific bullshit is true. That degree was wasted on him.

>oh no muh rocks

Literally who gives a shit?

>>153646
>Literally who gives a shit?

Not me.

Creationists are what the USA and Australia deserve for the anti-science, ideologically driven choices they make.

>>153652
China will be world leaders in a few years.
Then we won't have to listen to fat white "christains" preach war for oil dollars.

>>153634
Stupid shit and what's wrong with it? The grand canyon is a sacred native American place no one is allowed to take rock "samples" from it and if you have ever been there and looked out on it you would understand why the native Americans believe it to be sacred stupid peace of shit idk why this has triggered me so bad the forcefully taking of something sacred from natives or just the stupidity of this mother fucker I'm not a moral fag or a sjw but something needs to be done about this mother fucker may the kek God bless anyone who agrees with me

I'm pretty sure there's no realistic way they can stop you from picking up a rock off the ground and stowing it in your pocket

Geologists get permits to take rocks from the Grand Canyon and all kinda other government lands all the time, including past visits by Snelling made with all the required Park Service documentation.

The guy may be a fundie kook, but the government can’t discriminate against him because of that, this was straight-up religious discrimination by a couple of other typical Leftist academics.

>>153703

(Also; the 2000 character limit on /news/ is fucking stupid.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_A._Snelling

Discrimination allegation lawsuit

On May 9, 2017, Snelling, with the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom, filed a lawsuit in a U.S. district court in Arizona against the United States Department of the Interior and the Grand Canyon National Park authorities, alleging that they discriminated against him by denying him a permit to collect 50-60 half-pound rocks from the park.

One of the three geologists who reviewed the proposal for the National Park service stated that the type of rock Snelling was trying to test could be found outside the park, and this reason was given to Snelling in the email rejecting his proposal. Another of the three stated that the proposal was not “well-written, up-to-date or well referenced” and that “Dr. Snelling has no scientific track record and no scientific affiliation since 1982.” One of the criteria used in evaluation of proposals by the park service is scientific validity, and all three reviewers made it clear that they did not consider the proposal scientifically valid.

In late June 2017, the National Park authorities relented an issued Snelling a permit to collect rock samples. McCaleb, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said, "We commend Park Service officials, Interior Secretary Zinke, and the Trump administration for understanding that specifically targeting Dr. Snelling’s faith as the reason to stop his research was both inappropriate and unconstitutional. ... the Park Service stated that, ‘Dr. Snelling’s proposal is well-stated with methods that are similar or equal to standard scientific practice to test the hypothesis provided,’ so it is the right choice to let the research go forward."

>>153685
it's because you're an atheist. and you want to be blind and ignorant

>>153685
>standing up for Native Americans

>meme magic

I don't know whether to love or hate you.

>>153703
>Geologists get permits to take rocks from the Grand Canyon and all kinda other government lands all the time

Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you can just take shit out of national parks whenever you want. There has to be a valid reason.

>>153675
China will be far worse then the US. At least when we fuck a country up we try to put it back together. The Chinese just outright exploit before abandoning the used carcass.

>Want to take a few rocks of the ground, specifically aiming NOT to take rocks specific to the Grand Canyon.
>Be denied to take them from nearby the Grand Canyon because he could take them from anywhere else.
Between you and me, it already sounds like this """"doctor"""" wants to cheat results by claiming he took rocks of the Grand Canyon when he actually took them from a park called like that.
>inb4, fake news when he publishes his """results""""

>>153732
> > Geologists get permits to take rocks from the Grand Canyon and all kinda other government lands all the time
> Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you can just take shit out of national parks whenever you want. There has to be a valid reason.

The valid reason is geological research and the guy has a doctorate in geology and has published all kinda peer-reviewed papers on the subject over the years and has legally taken rocks from the Grand Canyon and elsewhere with all necessary Park Service documentation in the past.

The ONLY reason he was denied this time, was complaints by typical anti-religious freedom Leftist academics on the Park Service advisory board, who wouldn’t have to pay the legal fees when (not if) the Park Service lost the court case for blatantly violating the guy’s 1st Amendment rights.

>>153785
Take a look at >>153704
It's clear that he doesn't intend to do any scientific research with these samples as he hasn't done any serious work in geology besides some time as a consultant. The bed he wants a sample from stretches on for miles, but for some reason he wants an ordinary sample specifically from the grand canyon area, why do you think that is? Could it possibly be because he wants to wave it around at a young-earth seminar to draw in a crowd and make more money off another's beliefs?

>>153808
> Take a look a

Both of those are my posts.

> he hasn't done any serious work in geology

That’s what his accusers claim but that’s typical of the hissy fit cat fights in academia, the guy is nonetheless a doctor of geology with numerous published and peer reviewed papers on the subject, not some random Joe Blow.

> because he wants to wave it around at a young-earth seminar

And if he does, so what? His religious views are insufficient to deny him access to the Grand Canyon.

>>153753
>At least when we fuck a country up we try to put it back together.
The delusion is strong is this one.

>>153652
>Creationists are what the USA and Australia
To be fair, Australia has it's creationist fuckheads, but to put them in the same sentence as the USA, the creationist fuckheads homeland, is just statistically wrong.

Most Austrlians, by far, are secular.

>>153854
"Try" as in we install a crap tier government which folds the second we leave.

>>153812
>His religious views are insufficient to deny him access to the Grand Canyon.
Do you believe his work represents scientific validity? Because that's the criteria they claimed he didn't meet. What exactly are his works?

>>153887
And profit from it right after it falls.
It's called "continuing to exploit said country", not "trying to put it back".
Not that USA is the only country doing that.

>>153785
He hasn't published in decades, and his samples could be taken from anywhere else.
Give me one reason to give him a rock NOT from the canyon when he could take the same rock from somewhere else without being able to falsely claim it is from the canyon.

>>153646
NPS didn't give him a permit because they didn't want to be associated with their bullshit. They've been burned in the past when creationist "researchers" come in and then claim that their crap study and results are endorsed by the National Park Service.

He showed em rite up

>>153897
>Give me one reason to give him a rock NOT from the canyon when he could take the same rock from somewhere else without being able to falsely claim it is from the canyon.
Because he would be required to excavate 100's of metres below the ground to get comparable samples to the layer effect and observe the different types of sediments that formed in the layers.

>>153675
China's a slow motion train wreck. Have you acutely looked at news coming out of the mainland or are you just saying things you heard twenty years ago?

>>153785
>The valid reason is geological research

Independent research isn't a valid reason. Nice try.

http://203.158.253.229/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf

Here's a paper he co-authored.

>We believe that the pre-Flood earth was
differentiated into a core, mantle, and crust, very much as it is today. We conclude this for two major reasons. The first is that under any known natural conditions, core/mantle differentiation would destroy all evidence of life on earth completely.

lol

How the hell do you become a geologist while believing in the young earth theory? Wouldn't those two conflict with each other?

>>153934
He wanted surface rock, only surface rock
He doesn't want to obverse any layer or sediment.

>>153961
He became an madman after being a geologist.

>>153961
same way people call themselves "scientists" and blame CO2 for a tiny fluctuation in the global temperatures and insist it's the catastrophic end of all things, and also think body dysmorphia is something to be praised

>>153939
>The first is that under any known natural conditions, core/mantle differentiation would destroy all evidence of life on earth completely.

can someone explain this to me?

>>154009
Braintlet who hasn't spent a minute in an actual research lab detected. Agree with the body dysmorphia part though

>>153890
> > His religious views are insufficient to deny him access to the Grand Canyon.
> Do you believe his work represents scientific validity?

I don’t, but his religious views are irrelevant, see; 1st Amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

>>153897
> He hasn't published in decades,

Irrelevent.

> and his samples could be taken from anywhere else.

Not according to him.

>>153936
> > The valid reason is geological research
> Independent research isn't a valid reason.

Of course it is, that’s how discoveries are made.

>>154139
They're not stopping him from practising his religion, unless his religion consist of saying bullshits.

>Not according to him.
Yes, according to him, since he don't want to take them in the canyon.

Just imagine his disappointment when he dates the rock and finds out the earth really is older than 2000

>>154056
If you can provide me with a model that actually accurately predicts climate change and makes sense if you project it both forwards and try to use it to make sense of previous ecological periods then sure, I'll agree that climate change as described by the globalists is really occurring.

The problem is, you can't, because there are none, because global warming is a hoax. We probably have some slight effect on the earth's climate, but literally nobody can create a model that accurately depicts it.

>>154159
I'm not certain what you're asking for; of course climatologists use proxy measures that exist today of past data on the climate and related variables to produce algorithms by which we make future predictions on climate behavior, and they look at observable trends to determine whether their models have predictive power. This is no different than any other scientific field.

And we're in a place where researchers world wide, from a spectrum of professional backgrounds and across multiple domains of research, are corroborating all the same results on the basis of decades of data collection, and we're seeing the trends come to fruition in real time.

What more could you add to the current dynamic to imrpove it? If your defense of your position is an unfalsifiable "scientists who support idea X are globalists and thus can't be trusted", you've already lost. Your own idea has 0 redictive power. As far as conspiracies go, what seems like a likely source of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to influence public discourse away from truth? Certai, it couldn't be... mextractive resource multinationals with hundreds of billions of dollars? It must be big solar. Because, you know, whether you're a scientist in Japan or India or Europe or the US, whether or not you have tenure, what you really want, what you really spent decades in school for, is all day sweet sweet grant money, to mislead the public by wrongfully taking on a hundred billion dollar industry that could crush your research like an ant if it were really unsound.

"Egyptian ruins in Grand Canyon"
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=cremo+egyptian+ruins+in+grand+canyon&qpvt=cremo+egyptian+ruins+in+Grand+Canyon&qpvt=cremo+egyptian+ruins+in+Grand+Canyon&qpvt=cremo+egyptian+ruins+in+Grand+Canyon&FORM=IGRE

>>154162
there is an enormous motive to trump up global problems as global problems involve global solutions which allows the power structures to be consolidated towards the top where they are easier to infiltrate. the individual scientists need not be corrupted; if you corrupt the data streams or output streams you can shift the narrative to be whatever you like.

see: the hockeystick, the over-representation of cities and corresponding heat island effect

there need be no actual conspiracy between scientists for a large scale (unintentional) fraud, only a corruption of the data, assumptions, and control of the money flow, along with virulent and hateful suppression of dissent. all of which you can hardly argue does not exist.

>>154139
>Of course it is, that’s how discoveries are made.

Not anymore. Stop shitposting, you know that the only reason this is news is because the creationist wanted it to be. He only applied for that permit because he knew it would be denied, so he could make a sob story about his "religious freedoms" are being infringed and creationist views are being persecuted.

>>154159
>nobody can create a model that accurately depicts it.

So?

>>154171
>see: the hockeystick, the over-representation of cities and corresponding heat island effect

>see: things that have been debunked a million times

>>154159

We're at a point where Exxon Mobil and Shell have done their own research and data analysis and their official statement is that significant anthropogenic climate change is real and moreover the serious medium-term risks include a positive feedback cycle that produces runaway warming, and that humanity has the power to feasibly and significantly reduce that risk.

If any, these are the parties that have the resources and the motivation to fight the above conclusion tooth and nail, and they've given up on that; now they've officially joined the cause to mitigate this risk, and they themselves have invested significantly toward developing carbon capture technology.

What more evidence could you possibly want? Are you going to wait until we're royally fucked before joining the rest of us is making sure human civilization and our precious ecology isn't destroyed?

>>153634
>University of Sydney
I could have gone there. So glad I didn't. A month ago the feminist-run student union banned a men's rights documentary from campus, and now they've got some nutjob religious creationist. They somehow managed to get the worst of both SJWs and biblefags

>>153715
Oh yes and you are so enlighten that you follow a 2000 year old tradition blindly and no I am not a atheist I just don't believe in that stupid dogma that has been twisted and reshaped over more than 2000 years I believe there is a god out there just not a white guy with a beard judging us from above

>>153724
Why hate because I called on the mighty kek god to smite this clearly deranged and idiotic man for fucking with native Americans? Hey maybe we could get together and call on there god or God's as well that right there would be some funny shit oooohhhh mighty kek god and native God's smite this man for he has disrespected you and your followers swallow this man with quick sand and drag him down to see the mighty dinosaurs which he calls demons to torture and torment him for all of eternity

>>154054
Umm no I'm sorry I don't think anyone on 4chan speaks that dialect of madness and that's saying alot but of I were to guess please note I only have a 5 years of 4chan gibberish degree ahhhhmme let's see that goes there carry the one bring that down and over mozel tov ok if there was any evidence of great flood it would have been destroyed due to it going the past the crust to the mantle and core aaahhhme wow that hurt my brain Abit what is sad is there has been real scientific studies done that proves there was a great flood due to the thawing and remelting of the ice caps why he doesn't just use those studies is beyond me oh wait no now I remember because it was done by Catholics if I'm not mistaken and even the modern day Catholics think that these creationists are bat shit crazy

>>153646
It's not about the rocks, it's who's taking them and what they're being used for.

A creationist will only use the evidence to say some stupid shit about how the grand canyon is only a thousand years old.

It IS discrimination but it's good discrimination because creationists are subhuman.

>>154162
I'm asking for the people who claim that we are having a definite effect on the earth and that we can change the course of the earth's climate via changing our carbon output to some set amount put together some sort of theory that actually is accurate. Thus far, literally none have been accurate moving forward, and if you project it backwards, for example back to the end of the dark ages when huge amounts of glacial ice melted, none of them make sense backwards.

What I'm asking for is proof, rather than what could very easily just be political maneuvering, especially with ungodly amounts of money in taxation and yes, like you said, grants on the table.

>>154176
This is science.
Step one, you make a claim that can be disproven
Step two, you do research and studies in order to do your very best to disprove said claim
Step three, gather your data, and look at what it says
Step four, create a conclusion based on what you have gathered.

Step 2 never ends.
What we have thus far from step 3 (as far as we have compiled) proves only that we have no idea what our actual effect, if any, is on the climate.

Mind you that when we're working on step three, most people's opinions are skewed in the way of human caused climate change being real, and even under this environment they cannot put together a model that actually accurately depicts what they are saying is going to happen, because of course that's important, but also they can't model what has happened in the long, long history of this planet, which if you're looking to create an accurate scientific theory, it needs to actually make sense no matter where you put it. Otherwise it's not science.

>>154180
Like those companies aren't investing massively in alternative energy for the grants and because they can see which way the wind is blowing?

You will never convince me by shouting "OH LOOK AT WHAT THESE GUYS THINK" unless you can provide me with an accurate model for man made climate change. All i care about is the data anon. That's it.

>>154157
> They're not stopping him from practising his religion, unless his religion consist of saying bullshits.

The government doesn’t get to decide if a religion is “bullshit” and they don’t get to violate an American’s civil rights based on that.

>>154157
> Yes, according to him, since he don't want to take them in the canyon.
>>154175
> He only applied for that permit because he knew it would be denied

The guy wanted to collect 50lbs of baseball sized rocks off the canyon floor, as he’d done in the past with Park Service permission.

The ONLY reason he was denied this time, was because some anti-religion, anti-free speech Leftist academics (but I digress…) were butthurt over his religious views and had no problem risking bazillions of American tax dollars in a law suit the Park Service was guaranteed to lose (since they wouldn't be held responsible).

>>154180
> now they've officially joined the cause

Oil ain't going away, as it's still the best source of energy and now they can make bazillions of dollars off the massive corporate / government “carbon credits” scam that's being forced down our throats.

>>154158
This will never happen, because the average creationist "scientist" starts from an assumed truth that the Bible is true, which means any conclusions they come to will be interpreted to support that idea regardless of the actual evidence.

Everyone here should go watch Is Genesis History? on Netflix. I'd be surprised if this guy doesn't make an appearance because they talk a lot about the grand canyon in that (and it's amazing how the host/"experts" manage to bring up God and God's will as explanations for certain phenomena, all of which they misrepresent severely).

Did you know the Grand Canyon was formed in about five minutes? I mean, it's obvious just from looking at it! Also the Bible says that's how it happened, so that checks out! Theory confirmed!

That's the kind of shit these people equate with actual scientific research.

>>153634
>Winning = settling
Man am I stupid. The Park settled because they don't have the funds for something so asinine. People talk and Money walks, especially in court.

>>154247

You republicans can't consistently go to bat for oil multinationals in your political platform and then complain that any solution to moderate greenhouse gas emissions is a scam because it's designed with oil companies in mind.

If you're serious about a solution that's both effective and fair, let's place a hard cap on what they can emit in a given period and cut their subsidies, get on board with us.

>still the best source of energy
Invest trillions of taxpayer dollars into solar or nuclear, just like oil multinationals cost us in wars to secure passage for oil tankers and then we can have a fair assessment of what the best source of energy is. Solar industry isn't like oil industry, it doesn't need to sell a product you have to keep using up in a short timespan, it doesn't sell fuel, it sells technology, it's only a matter of time and investment before it's preferable under all circumstances.

>>154313
"renewables" require the same supply chain you idiot. they STILL require oil to mine, ship, assemble, ship, transport and erect. probably more in fact than it would take to just power your house with pure oil.

you don't understand that those sorts of renewables are actually more energy inefficient than oil is. imperialism would still be required to sustain ourselves if we converted 100% tomorrow because all of that shit breaks and has to be maintained, repaired, assembled, erected, and torn down by gas-burning vehicles.

>>154318
Fucking obviously we have built our entire society on fossil fuel consumption but the mere fact that we're not going to transition instantly isn't an argument for not transitioning as rapidly as feasible.

If we're going to talk about the free market, then our goal should be to subsidize research, development, installation, and maintenance of renewable energy infrastructure to an equitable value at least as compared to what the fossil fuel industry has benefited from taxpayer subsidy of all sorts, including the wars in the mid east that secured safe passage and regimes that would continue the flow of oil and wouldn't nationalize oil companies.

Then we can argue that the playing field is truly level with respect to free market competition.

>>154292
You replied to the wrong anon, anon

>>154318
It produces way more energy than it uses to produce.
What the fuck is with people who think some gas contains more energy than an infinite amount of sun? It's not kriptonite or some magic shit, it's just some oil. It burns and goes into smoke, sun stays there all day, and comes back the next day.

>inb4 it only works due to gov pouring money into it
The gov pours more money into oil and gas industry than renewable.

>>154318
>And gas burning vehicles have been assembled in coil burning steam machines factories, and coil has been mined by slaves, who descended from monkeys, LET'S BURN APES.
Gas used in the making of renewable is still far less than what renewable produces. Do you think solar panels are the same as non-rechargeable batteries or something?

Why are people allowed to believe in God without 100% evidence but not global warming? What a bunch of hypocrites.

>>154009
>>153634
>There are still people who unironically believe in young earth creationism
>There are still people who unironically think the greenhouse effect is a myth
>There are still people who unironically think the earth is flat
Sometimes I forget how many idiots there still are in the world

>>154223
>It IS discrimination but it's good discrimination because Blacks are subhuman.

Glad we got that out of the way...

>>154406
>Why are people allowed to believe in God without 100% evidence but not global warming? What a bunch of hypocrites.

Because someone's belief in God doesn't cost you anything.

>>154497
BULLSHIT! How about all the tax dollars that are lost due to a tax-exempt churches? How about the wars that have been fought over religion? Someone's belief in God has a cost for everyone, more specifically, future generations.

I don't necessarily agree with the comment you were responding to. People are free to believe whatever the fuck they want.

>>154505

I'm talking about an individual's religious beliefs.

And tax dollars that were never yours to begin with, cannot be "lost".