Amazon.com Widgets

« Gotta have faith? | Main | links for 2006-11-12 »

Not A Trivial Error

If you were told that Liberty University taught that San Francisco was twenty-eight feet from New York you wouldn't believe it. So when Richard learns that Liberty University teaches its students something equally absurd, that dinosaurs are a few thousand years old, he offers some sound advice.



Quicktime Video 4.7 MB : 4'31
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.


The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
You can download the entire program at Richard Dawkins website.

Additional clips from the program are here:
Christian Strangeness

Blind Faith


 

Comments

Fuckin' excellent!

If dinosaurs were around so recently, I would think that someone would have noticed. Its not as if there was no one around at the time.

Thanks Norm. The video from Dawkins' website was taking forever to load and this is the moment I wanted to see anyway. Thanks!

Oh, come now. Does Liberty University seem like the kind of place where they'd teach that dinosaurs are only 3000 years old? I mean, take a look some of the information on this page from their website about their Biology Department. http://tinyurl.com/ygfebn

"In addition to outstanding classroom instruction in our cutting-edge 'smart classrooms', our students receive training in state-of-the-art laboratory techniques like PCR, mRNA library screening, cloning, forensic DNA analysis, UV-visible-infrared spectrophotometry, preparative high speed ultracentrifugation, protein and DNA electrophoresis, light- and dark-phase photographic and video microscopy, and many more. For those who prefer using the world as their laboratory, field research opportunities are also available. And because our students train directly under their professors rather than graduate students or teaching assistants, they're exceptionally well prepared to succeed in professional school (e.g., medical or dental school) or graduate school."

Sounds like normal biology stuff to me.

And check this out: "The freedom and willingness to explore non-Darwinian explanations for the origin of life makes our faculty one of the most unique collections of university scientists in the world. We are committed to educating our students about the different types of scientific investigation (e.g., empirical vs historical) and teaching them to think critically. In this way, we aim to help our students fulfill the scriptural mandate to 'always be prepared to give an answer... for the hope that you have.' (1 Peter 3:15)"

See? Exploring non-Darwinian explanations...isn't this the kind of open-mindedness that one expects from biology?

My personal favorite part: "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

So true. So very true.

user-pic

A wonderful speech re. the age of dinosaurs and the Universe comp distance to Los Angeles! But how slippery the replies of Liberty 'University' are! Keep going, please, Prof. Dawkins. Could you get someone to write a sensible book on biology for schools?

I'm sure at the same time Richard Dawkins was speaking, there was a class room filled with people praying for the souls of the students listening to his "blasphomy". Though, listeing to those cheer is a good sign that atleast a handfull of all the students at that University are supporting science over dogma.

Haha, that was great! If you haven't picked up Dawkins' book, do so now.

Thanks! Dawkins mentioned his "proper university" comment in San Francisco recently. I think the surprising applause gave him a little more hope that, even in a relatively conservative American city, Americans are either not so foolhearty [sic] for Christ as many suppose or, if not, the few wise among them are not so afraid to affirm rational opinions.

user-pic

Oh, come now. Does Liberty University seem like the kind of place where they'd teach that dinosaurs are only 3000 years old?

Well, yes, actually....from the Liberty U website, faculty recruitment page:

Biology: Two positions. Rank open. Ph.D. and compatibility with a young-earth creationist philosophy required.

Interestingly, this position has been posted for many months now - my husband pointed it out to me when he was looking at the career listings in the journal Science (he is a biology professor, and no, not compatible with a young-earth creationist philosophy.) Made me wonder if perhaps they have a hard time finding people who have both a PhD in biology and the requisite mindset.....

God damn that's a large applause. Readily deserved of course, but man, that's an overwhelming applause.

SF to NY? Nice analogy! I had to calculate that for myself

My constants Earth age: 4,600,000,000 years NY to SF: 2582 miles

4,600 years = 13.6 ft

6,000 years = 17.8 ft

10,000 years = 29.6 ft

When did creationists start saying 6000 years? Didn't it used to be 4600?

Well, Usshers date for creation was 4004 BC. 23 October to be exact. That is a bit flexable depending on just how closely you follow the chronology.

Of course, if you use a different source then you can add another 1500 years to that. Catholics (pre-good sense) went with something in between, about 5199 BC. Or so.

user-pic

If it is only 28 feet from SF to NYC then why does it take several hours on a plane and, how the hell do the airlines get off charging the huge fee they do for a distance less than that of one wing of the plane. Screwed again!

Lesley Pettigrew, a few posts upthread, mentions Liberty University's requirements for its Biology Department openings.

Go here if you want to see it for yourself.

Charles,

It takes so long to "fly" the 28 feet because you aren't really flying. Surely you don't believe that men can fly, do you?

It takes a long time to get the dinosaurs out in front of the plane and harnessed up, then to tow the plane the 28 feet to New York. Dinosaurs may SEEM large, but that plane weighs tons. Also, there are a lot of planes and not that many dinosaurs.

Then you have to get the dinosaurs unharnessed and moved to where they won't see any people other than their handlers. Dinosaurs are extremely skittish around people which is why passengers never see them.

You see? It is easily explained once you know the facts.

It's interesting that the one comment on this thread that supports Liberty's position (that Darwinism does not fully explain evolution) contains numerous Biblical quotations. That seems to nicely sum up the problem with these people. If you can't EVER leave the Bible out of ANY aspect of your life, then you are just not thinking straight. Period.

This would be funny, if it weren't so pathetic...

uncchris says:

See? Exploring non-Darwinian explanations...isn't this the kind of open-mindedness that one expects from biology?

Er, actually, no. We expect a different kind of open-mindedness in biology: the kind based on science, rather than the Bible.

Biology students at Liberty U learn "preparative high speed ultracentrifugation"? Holy cow, they get to use the centrifuge? Ooooh, sciency!

That Timothy quote is excellent. It describes exactly what Libery "University" is doing: teaching mythology.

So it only takes about 4,000 years for mud to turn to stone?

How about oil? decayed plant matter to petroleum in a couple of thousand years?

Oh but of course! Who needs to worry about oil when we've got cold fusion generators!

oh come now, uncchris. the quote you gave characterises your position, not richard's:

'They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." (2 Timothy 4:3-4)'

what makes you turn your ears away? i have done honours in psychology, and lately i'm thinking a lot of it is to do with identity. there's more too though, - religion does so much for people, as was addressed in another question during the presentation. have a look, it might be the start of your enlightenment.

@Sam:

It doesn't matter what equipment they have. Even the fact that they are teaching such a bullshit as an alternative is reason enough to leave LU immediately. This has nothing to do with tolerance or freedom of speech. A university is meant to be an institution of highest education and should not teach something which is so ridiculous. Religion is entirely out of place at any university.

Outstanding. But maybe we shouldn't be so hard on the creationists, maybe they've just seen to many episodes of The Flintstones!

Flintstones, meet The Flintstones...

That was absurd. All you people who bought the "argument" Dawkins gave have been blindsided. Try to be a little objective here, fanboys...

Didn't anyone else notice that he never actually addressed the question OR the problem, but merely straw-manned the argument by diverting attention away from the actual question and onto the difference in the spans of time between them? He then tried to prove his argument by just saying an overly-complicated version of "there's a big difference in time between them." Well thanks a lot, genius, any idiot can see that there's a huge difference between 6,000 and a few billion. Pointing that out difference neither proves his point, nor disproves the opposing point.

If he had any intelligence knocking around in that withered head of his he would have stated some irrefutable facts which proved the age of the earth, but since he knows that no such facts exist, he had to resort to diversionary straw-manning. Even some evidences to prove his point would have been better than the "answer" he gave.

Seriously weak response.

Sounds to me like Cl clicked the video just to say he has heard the other side's argument. However, it's obvious that you didn't listen to what he said.

re posted by L.

sorry u stupid ass, but u r a moron. he gave exactly the ansewers as to why it is a perfect answer. the evidence for anyone with a scientific viewpint understands the overwhelming evidence that the earth is about 5 - 7 billions years old. what a twit u r.

Re: Post by Bill Henry.

Bill, I believe you were commenting on my post, not the post made by "L." I find it hilarious that you call other people "stupid ass," "moron" and "twit" despite the fact that you can't even bring together the few lonely braincells knocking around in your empty head for ten seconds to realize which poster you're commenting on. Combine your atrocious reasoning skills with your second-grade spelling and grammar and I believe you'll discover that to find a true "moron" you'd have to look no further than your bathroom mirror. Bravo.

Actually, CL is right. Dawkins never really did answer the question. He simply started with the illustration of the miles from NY to SF, based upon his GUESS of the "true age" of the earth, which he says is "a few billion" years old. I say 'guess' because that's exactly what it is. A true calculation would never leave us with a number that is 'give or take a billion or two'. I'm glad Dawkins didn't go into engineering! He then said one would have to date the rocks and of course if you did you would find them all to be 100's of millions of years old.' Again, a truly scientific calculation doesn't leave us wondering how many 100's of millions of years off we might be. Those are numbers used by someone who has a theory that he finds needs more and more and more years to work, so he just keeps adding millions. Obviously random chance requires as many millions of years as he can possibly give it to do its job, so he just throws a really big, impressive number out there, hoping it's big enough. He then closed with a few insults, which resulted in him receiving girly screams like I'm sure he hadn't heard since a Beatles concert. Once again, celebrity triumphs reason. His ego may have been bolstered, but I don't see how you can call that true science.

user-pic

3,000 year old dinosaur fossils:

Maybe the scientific answer given was beyond the intellect of those that believe in dinosaurs roaming the Earth at the same time as modern humans. Try referring to the Bible instead. I recall lots of mention of oxen, asses etc. Could there be an error in translation? Perhaps the commandment should read "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or T. Rex, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor"?

So maybe there are mis-translations in the bible? what an amazing idea. maybe when it said that mary was a virgin what it really meant was that she was just a young girl. or maybe when it said that it rained for 40 days and nights, it was supposed to say 4 days and nights in specific area and not globally. when will you people stop being sheep and become Human?

user-pic

Now I get it. I don't know why it took so long, I guess, Fundamentalists are just faster, mentally I guess Fundamenalists are just faster, mentally, I guess: We are NOT running out of oil because... the Earth is only 6000 yrs. old (+ or -): [4600 BC + 33 + 33 (2 Jesus lifetimes) + 2000AD = 666 ( the Beast number) X 10 - 33 - 33 ( 2 Jesus lifetimes), 6000, the age of the Earth]!

Oil is becoming oil at just the intelligently designed rate as it needs to. That is a Cure4discomfort, if nothing else.

But why do I have to wear glasses? Why do I only see one octave of the electro-magnetic spectrum, just enough to make out the ripe fruit that Apes need to see hanging in trees? Must be to see the Forbidden Fruit hanging in Eden, that must be it. How thoughtful. Wow. Seriously, Applause for the Applause! (Implause for the Implause!)

one evil axis, I don't think the human eye will never change in its capacity to see only one octave of the electro-magnetic spectrum.

If there's a need to see more than one octave, human evolution will take care of it in response to changes in our environment such as man developing a cpacity for drinking animal milk.

Perhaps you should check out how the eye can evolve from a single light-sensitive cell.

Researchers provide concrete evidence about how the human eye evolved 28 Oct 04

http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html

Zoologist Dan-Eric Nilsson of the University of Lund in Sweden explains how the complex human eye could have evolved gradually from a primitive light-sensitive eye-spot.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Eye_evolution

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_dwVGUTXJt4&search=eye%20evolution

Claim CB921.1:

What use is half an eye?

Source: Paley, Richard, 2000. The eye.

http://objective.jesussave.us/eye.html

user-pic

Thanx for the links kes, what fascinates me is how (leaving aside inscrutables such as the "color" brown, for the moment) is how the true colors, the rainbow colors, circle back around as they increase in energy/frequency, the so-called color wheel. Actually it is a color spiral: red to green then blue, purple grades right back into red, more perfectly than in the case of the musical sound-octave even. Amazing. Of course we will all have our brains connected up to the Net and be able to experience first hand "what it is like to be a Bat," and so on, virtually. None doubts biological evolution (hook 'em up to a polygraph), but how did the Universe evolve in the first place? By a bootstraping process of some sort surely, a circling back around on itself, mysteriously. Euclid's Fifth was presumptuous.

Hi one evil axis, no problem. You're welcome.

While we are on the subject of colours, I like to ask if its possible that there are more primary colours than the ones we know.

After all, if genetics can influence some people to block them from seeing some colours in the case of colour-blindness, how can we be sure that we have seen all the colours there are.

Btw, the colour blue is previously an unknown colour in the Chinese cultural context until 500 years ago.

We perceived blue as green and called it indigo instead.

Blue was a colour that came into common use only after the Chinese developed the Middle East market for Chinese Ceramics via importing the blue pigmentation favoured for such wares.

Btw, I'm sorry that I'm not that well-versed in science.

I lean more towards history, certain aspects of Chinese art as well as military strategies.

Blaine Buchanan and chromesnake, nice try on the straw-manning, but I'm afraid you'll have to study Dawkins some more to really get the hang of it.

one evil axis, dude, put down the crack-pipe, it isn't doing your braincells any favors. I've re-read what you've written a few times (a couple times unintentionally since you repeat yourself) and it still doesn't make any sense. It seemed like you were trying to pull a "girls=root of all evil" joke, but pretty much failed miserably. Better luck next time.

user-pic

I have to com-ment on the "Straw Man" straw man. A veritable wizard-of-oz scarecrow. . .

As a possible Pagan-in-spirit-only, Platonic or not, I take exception to narrowly focused "atheists," true believers in the Eric Hoffer-ian mode, acting as if Darwin, and Evolution (biological) were the only issue worth considering:

a) Eventually, science will answer all questions, I believe. But not if the questions are not even asked. Philosophy always makes the transition to "science" with an insight into Truth, verified, etc. even in heaven (astrophysics) as it is on earth. In dreams as it is in reality. In Iraq, Israel and Utah, as it is in Wherever I am "at".

b) Science is not even close in 99.9999etc.-some % of the really interesting realms. Psychology is barely scientific at all, experi-mental economics? Artificial Intelligence? String Theory? A tangled mess. The Creationist ignoramuses haven't a clue how much ammunition is lying around out there. They are very poor skeptics, even when they want to be ( Those who are skeptical, and have a clue aren't Creationsts, thank Nature/the Odds)!

c) If I came up with a theory, of Evolution, say and said it applied to mice, but not rats, rabbits but not reptiles, Life, but not (non-living) viruses, or Prions ,what kind of fool theory would I have?

Certainly not Darwin-Mendel-Crick-Watson-Margulis-E.O.Wilson, etc.'s!

Wake up, all I'm asking is to extend, amplify, progress, think outside the Simplex/Box. Where is the Darwin of Physics? The Mendel of the Mental? The Margulis of the Market?

Richard Dawkins?

If L I F E has evolved (it has), what about the rest?!

Straw man my asstrawlogy, astrollogy.

Oz-troll-o-pithecus bosfececus.

user-pic

Cl, i don't know what you mean by "strawman", or what side you're on, but all i was saying is that i find it comical that christians take the bible as the unquestionable word of their god. the FACT is, the bible we have today is a version of a compilation of STORIES, largley handed down by word of mouth for centuries until finally being written down by people that would be considered primative and uneducated by modern standards. the human race is at a point that can easily be compared to a person in his or her late teens. should we devote our lives and efforts to a belief system that originated in our "pre-school" years? this "god" character can just as easily be compared to a childs imaginary friend, which a child never seems to provide physical proof of. let me make another example that will be easily understood by small minds. if one were going to by a car, the first thing one would do is take it for a test drive. one would not invest a sum of money so small as $1000 in a car one had not asked questions about and made sure it was a good investment. yet the same person is willing to devote a lifetime to an idea based purely on faith. believe because we are told it's true? no thanks i'll ask questions. because i can. and as for the bible, it has survived not because it IS the word of "god" (because it isn't), but rather by luck. it happened to be popular at a point in history when TECHNOLOGY made it possible to make unlimited copies of a book. how many countless "holy books" have been destroyed and lost forever because the opposing religious group only had to destroy one copy and murder all the priests. someday evolution will weed out the weak of mind and religion along with them.

One evil axis: Wow, talk about pointless pontification. It seems to me that you just like to hear yourself talk, which is more than obvious with all your turgid clap-trap and endlessly incoherent yammering.

Here's a tip: If you want to try to make a point, MAKE it. Don't blather on and on while trying to make cute little quasi-literary comparisons. No one really cares if you were able to make a half-assed comparison between the logical fallacy of the "straw man" to the "scarecrow" in Wizard of Oz. If anything it only shows that you have attention deficit disorder, as opposed to an actual understanding of what is being discussed.

As for your lettered "points," I'd like to understand what you're trying to say, but honestly it seems more like you've written in a stream-of-consciousness fashion (using abhorrent punctuation, might I add) that only makes sense to you and reads more like verbal diarrhea than anything else.

chromesnake: So basically what you're saying in a nutshell is "I'm right because I say I am." Thanks, but I'd rather beat my head against a wall than try and argue with that kind of logic. It is more than obvious from what you say that you've done absolutely no research into the Bible, how it was passed down from age to age, and are merely parroting what you've hear or read on the Internet.

And since when pastors and evangelists are reliable sources for the Bible?

When their priority is to sell it, market it and use it to judge the inferiority of other religions and cultures?

The people at this blog is a lot more savvy and well-read in terms of both online and OFFLINE sources than you think.

user-pic

Cl, it seems as though you would rather say that YOU'RE right because you say you are, without giving any REAL proof, than to argue with ANY kind of logic. and it only displays your ignorance to say that you would beat your head against a wall. the truth is- i'm here to learn from others and hear their views. so please educate me as to what is wrong with my logic---now don't forget the PROOF. where is my proof? i don't have to prove anything. i'm not claiming there is some magical, all-knowing entity who is everywhere but can't be seen, touched, tasted, smelled or heard.

@ kes: Nice try. You claim the people replying on this board are well-read (which is an idiotic assertion since you have no idea how well-read the people replying are -- and of course it's supposed to be assumed that only the people arguing in FAVOR of Dawkins are well-read, which again is idiotic since I could make the same exact claim about the people arguing against Dawkins and it'd be just as valid, or actually invalid) and you also automatically assume my information comes from pastors and evangelist, which is a stereotype and completely unfounded.

The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of SCIENTIFIC questions that even Dawkins can't (or chooses not to) answer. One of which being the supposed 68 million-year-old T-rex femur that was found in '05 containing bone-marrow...the only problem is that bone-marrow (according to current scientific theory) WILL NOT preserve beyond 100,000 years (which happens to be a 67,900,000 year difference to the assumed age of the T-rex, to which I believe Mr. Dawkins would say is quite a significant error). So, according to science, where does that leave us concerning the age of this dinosaur bone? To me it seems that it leaves us with a completely erroneous dating method and a dinosaur that is no where near as old as scientists typically claim.

Cl, you are the one guilty of idiocy at this thread. And I cna prove it.

You are the one who made the idiotic statement that critics of the Bible "that you've done absolutely no research into the Bible, how it was passed down from age to age, and are merely parroting what you've hear or read on the Internet."

I responded with this:

"The people at this blog is a lot more savvy and well-read in terms of both online and OFFLINE sources than you think."

I made this claim in that all of us here have submitted research findings and links on a wide plethora of topics, not just evolution and religion.

==========

You responded to this with another idiotic statement that is in conflict with your original claim.

CL said: "...which is an idiotic assertion since you have no idea how well-read the people replying are..."

So why did you make your original claim if you can't be sure how well-read people are?

Here's an indication on just how well read critics of the Bible are on Christian claims.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/05/thesimpsonsan.html

My last few posts poked holes in Biblical claims and authenticity that you can drive a truck through.

Cl again shows his ignorance of previous posts and research findings at this thread with his use of the T-rex example, a topic we’ve covered

Cl tries to prove that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago with just 1 example.

“To me it seems that it leaves us with a completely erroneous dating method and a dinosaur that is no where near as old as scientists typically claim.”

Obviously, CL and his Christian peers are not as well-read as the proponents of evolution that they attack.

Mary Schweitzer, the person behind the T-rex discovery makes it clear that her research does not support the Biblical account of things.

Dinosaur Shocker By Helen Fields http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/2006/may/dinosaur.php

“The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” < < < Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.” Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” < < <

======

Kindly let us know just what readings Christians read to be considered well-read to debate both religion and science.

Want to bet that evolution proponents read more than any other Christians?

CL, let me sum up the T-rex discovery for you.

Simply put, some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors.

This was a new discovery as previously no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens i.e. digging it up and then destroying it in acid.

What was debunked was the text book claim that soft tissues would disintergrate with time.

The dating of the T-rex bones still date to millions of years ago.

Cl, kindly make sure your peers know what they are thinking before using the T-rex example.

Last thing you want is to strengthen the perception that Christians are not well-read people : >

A little heavy-handed on the "Post" key, are we? You do realize that simply because the scientist who "discovered" the T-rex bone claims that it doesn't support a young earth theory ,it doesn't automatically make her correct. Also, of course if you simply copy-and-paste from an already bias source it will say exactly what you want it to say. That's not exactly rocket-science there, genius.

Simply put, the discovery HAD to be debunked (or at least doubt had to be cast upon it) or else the entire scientific world would have been turned upside-down. You don't find it odd that scientists will admit to being incorrect when saying "We obviously don't understand decay" but will NOT say "we obviously don't understand the dating of fossils"? Why do you think that is? Obviously because as I said, it'd turn the entire scientific world upside-down if they admitted that their dating methods were possibly flawed.

Scientists who try hard enough will always find some way to try and make sure the THEORY of millions of years still stands -- even if it's admitting being incorrect in another lesser area of understanding. And I love how all you people claim "millions of years" as if it's a proven fact, even though anyone with half a brain would tell you that there really is no way to prove it, and the millions of years are all based on a system which could quite possibly be flawed. You all refuse to believe that though, and yet call creationists closed-minded, despite the fact that both parties are equally "closed-minded."

What amuses me most is that both the creationist AND evolutionist THEORIES depend on faith. There is no way to scientifically prove either theory, since neither are reproducible. You simply accept on FAITH that the measurements that are used to determine dinosaur's bones is infallible. What's even more ridiculous is that you claim that creationists have blind-faith and yet you blindly accept whatever comes down the "scientific" pike as pure truth (despite the fact that science is consistently updating itself and proving previous claims to be false). You obviously have an overly-inflated view of your peers.

Cl, your defense of Young Earth Creationists hijacking the T-rex discovery for their own beliefs are shallow and misleading.

And you are the one being ridiculous by distorting what I said. And I can prove that.

1] When did I say that “creationists have blind-faith?”

2] When did I say that evolution or pro-science people “you blindly accept whatever comes down the "scientific" pike as pure truth”

3] Your claims that Creationists have the right to use the T-rex discovery to justify their faith when the scientist who made the discovery said it doesn’t is ludricrous.

Cl, you show utterly no understanding of science when you said:

“What amuses me most is that both the creationist AND evolutionist THEORIES depend on faith. There is no way to scientifically prove either theory, since neither are reproducible.”

Unlike Creationism, evolution theories have been the subject of much research and testing as well as questioning for decades.

Science produce concepts and theories that any science student can reproduce via universal formulas and experiments at any place in the world, regardless of the student’s race, language or religion.

For Creationism, you have to believe in God and the Bible is literally true. You are unable to question your faith because you take everything on faith.

If I don’t believe that God created all this, I can’t work with Creationism any further. The thing about Science is that it still works even if you don’t have faith in it or even when you have more faith in any religion.

Scientists doesn’t share the same hubris as Creationists. Science does not lead people down the same road for it challenged people to find valid and credible experiments and facts that challenge existing assumptions.

Even if such existing assumptions are successfully challenged, they take place via credible and peer-reviewed experiments and research that was built on existing scientific knowledge. Science progresses as a result. And you yourself has noted that.

Let me recap for you. Creationists cannot use the T-rex example.

First thing, the carbon dating of the bone of the T-rex remains unchallenged i.e. dating to millions of years ago.

Second thing, the discovery simply points out that remnants of soft tissues could be hidden in fossils, not entire and complete structures of soft tissues as if they are still fresh. Even Wooly Mammoths can be preserved with their skin and hair still intact but that doesn’t change their time of death.

This was a new discovery as previously no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens i.e. digging it up and then destroying it in acid.

This challenged pre-existing assumption that soft tissues will distintegrate after millions of years, which is something no one did tests for.

That is the relevance of the discovery and the scientist who made the discovery has made it clear as such. “Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data.”

Your failure to accept that Creationists has distorted the T-rex discovery for their faith shows your intellectual arrogance and highlights the common view of Christians by people of other faiths or no faith.

This common view is that Christians and Creationists are not well-read for they read only within their religious tenets, cherry pick facts and bits of research to support their religious claims and will never admit mistakes or ignorance because of their inability to question the assumptions of their faith.

So far, your defensiveness and rants against science and evolution, rather than the prominent short comings of your beliefs, are supporting this common view.

Your inability to point out sources and references as well as proven research to support your points gives even more credibility to this view.

You claim that I have an inflated opinion when I said that “"The people at this blog is a lot more savvy and well-read in terms of both online and OFFLINE sources than you think." I made this claim in that all of us here have submitted research findings and links on a wide plethora of topics, not just evolution and religion, on a regular basis. We read both religious and secular sources, as compared to people who just the Bible or within the tenets of their religion.

Let me add to that. I do think that Creationists like you have an arrogant inflated view of your knowledge based on the writings of one religious text.

Did Jesus say that the world was 4004 years old? Not Jesus. Just a Bishop who did his calculations simply based on the chronology highlighted in the Bible, which is not seen as a factual or historical document by historians and academics.

Kindly note that civilizations has existed beyond the time-frame that Young Earth Creationist posited as the life span of the world, proving what they say as pure religious fantasy.

Your inability to accept this in humility merely shows just how well-read your Creationist peers are.

P.S. I double-posted once accidentally as there were some problems with Typekey yesterday. I apologised for that as I did not know you would kick up a fuss about this.

Btw, do enlighten us on what tests and research Creationists do to prove their theories beyond finding holes in science, which has never claimed to be perfect.

Using science to critique science only advances a scientific understanding of the world. It does not prove Creationism is correct.

P.S. The T-rex discovery does challenged pre-existing assumption that soft tissues will TOTALLY disintegrate after millions of years, which is something no one did tests for.

But the discovery does not mean that all fossils will have remnants of soft tissues. More tests have to be conducted before this can be considered a fact.

First of all, carbon dating isn't used to date dinosaur bones, genius. As any educated person knows (who isn't simply parroting what their Internet "buddies" have told them), carbon dating's maximum "accurate" age limit is understood to be between 58,000 and 62,000 years. You are obviously uninformed.

Incidentally though, while we're on the subject of carbon dating, it is interesting to note that there are two very different formulas used to determine the age of something - the Libby figure (the original figure) and the Cambridge figure (later determined to be more "accurate"). Each figure will yield very different calendrical dates, but laboratories still use the Libby figure so as to avoid inconsistencies. So basically we have laboratories across the country pumping out dates that they KNOW are incorrect, but they're using them to avoid inconsistencies with previous dates...how "scientific."

Here are your answers to your numbered points:

  1. It was inferred. Unless of course you'd like to state that you do NOT believe creationists operate on blind-faith?

  2. Due to the abhorrent grammar of this point, I'm not really sure what you were trying to say.

  3. Just because someone discovers something it doesn't mean they can make whatever claims about it that they want. If I were to have discovered the first pyramid in Egypt it wouldn't mean that I could claim that it was an alien spaceship and I'd automatically be correct, simply because I had discovered it. To suggest so would be ludicrous.

Where exactly do you get YOUR sources? You constantly reference "much research" and other such flim-flam without bothering to define or back up any of your claims. You claim creationists only base their beliefs on the bible while you spew nonsense such as, "Kindly note that civilizations had [sic] existed beyond the time-frame that Young Earth Creationist posited as the life span of the world, proving what they say as pure religious fantasy." without bothering to cite any sources or even a single reference to exactly WHAT civilizations you're talking about. Of course if you did cite sources no doubt the methods used to determine the time frame that these civilizations existed would be the same used to determine the age of dinosaur bones. Ah, circular reasoning...another "scientific" favorite.

Ok, so geologists determined that the Hell Creek Formation is 68 million years old. Um, of course they did. Because they're using the same dating method to determine the age of the Hell Creek Formation as they use to date everything else. What kinds of results did you think they'd get? If you consistently use a flawed method of dating you'll consistently get flawed (but consistent) results. Is it really that much to ask to question the validity of the dating method? No, let's not do that, let's just blindly accept that the dating method is infallible and 100% accurate. We'll question that the dating method of the bone-marrow is incorrect, because it doesn't line up with our other dating method that we don't want to question. Ah yes, how "scientific."

"...the Bible, which is not seen as a factual or historical document by historians and academics." Ok, you call me ignorant while making completely uneducated, un-researched, idiotic statements such as this? The Bible happens to be the only ancient book that provides exact details such as ancient geography and historical accounts that have been proven time and time again to be accurate. Many of the locations mentioned in the Bible have been discovered and many secular archaeologists use it as a source to discover the locations of ancient civilizations, and it has proven accurate on many accounts both historically and geographically. Only a complete moron would assert that that neither historians nor "academics" take it to be factual.

The truth of the matter is (as any educated person knows) that there are two schools of thought among academics -- Biblical maximalists and Biblical minimalists. The Biblical maximalist believes the Bible to be accurate on most accounts unless proven otherwise, while the Biblical minimalist believes the Bible to only be accurate on things that have already been proven to line up. Incidentally, No other ancient book (the book of Mormon, the Koran, etc.) comes close as far as factual ancient information is concerned. Of course, if you actually knew anything about this matter you'd already know that this is a huge debate in academic circles. But you didn't, which doesn't surprise me.

I could direct you to the publication Biblical Archaeology Review which provides opinions from both Biblical maximalists (Hershel Shanks) as well as Biblical minimalists (Israel Finkelstein), if I thought your intentions were to actually further your knowledge, as opposed to whipping nonsense out of your hat.

Hi CL, we are not on the subject of carbon testing.

Nor were we discussing Biblical maximalists and Biblical minimalists

Are you trying to change the subject because I have caught you trying to defend the Creationist attempt to distort or hijack the T-rex discovery to justify a young earth theory?

The scientist who made the discovery has made it clear that her discovery did not.

By the way, the dating I refered to for the dinosaur bones came from the geological age of the Canyon.

" Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it."

Unless you have more to add, kindly admit your mistake in MISUSING the T-rex example to justify Creationist claims.

===========

Since when did the T-rex discovery showed that the dating method of the bone-marrow is incorrect?

The scientist who made the dicovery did not make that claim!

Nor make that inference

Try to make claims by proving it.

Dinosaur Shocker By Helen Fields http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/2006/may/dinosaur.php

[Mary Schweitzer, the person behind the T-rex discovery makes it clear that her research does not support the Biblical account of things.]

=====

The T-rex discovery does challenged pre-existing assumption that soft tissues will TOTALLY disintegrate after millions of years.

This is something discovered only recently as no one did tests for this buntil Mary Schweitzer destroyed fossils with acid.

However, the discovery does not mean that all fossils will have remnants of soft tissues. More tests have to be conducted before this can be considered a fact.

=====

I have presented my sources to support my points while you haven't.

Fact. No point addressing this any further.

Btw, the Chinese civilisation has existed for about 5000 years with no knowledge of the Christian God and his teachings.

If you disagree, read it up for yourself.

By the way, the Bible is not as a historical or aceaological document by academics and scholars.

I have dealt with this in detail near the end of this thread:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/05/thesimpsonsan.html

Kindly stay on topic please

====

By the way, given the way Creationists cook up proof to justify their claims, I have no wish to engage in a debate on Biblical Archaeology Review.

Funny why Christians have to create a Biblical Archaeology Review unless modern archeaology do not support Christian claims

: >

Kindly produce real proof and facts that the T-rex discovery debunks carbon testing.

No more "wishful thinking" inferences or misleasing claims please.

Your last post provides no real sources and you went seriously off topic in our discussion.

Thank you for your quick (and two for the price of one) reply. One might assume that you don't have much else to do.

Hmm, I feel like I'm trying to debate with a five year-old on the existence of Santa Clause. Your comprehension skills leave much to be desired, which is making this discussion extremely difficult, since you seem unable to (or unwilling to) understand basic English.

Let me say this again. Maybe I'll use all caps so it'll get through (I'll have to say though, you're doing a fairly good job at proving that humans evolved -- or maybe still are evolving, from apes). JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE DISCOVERS SOMETHING, IT DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY MAKE THEM INSTANTLY 100% ACCURATE ON EVERY SINGLE CLAIM THEY MAKE ABOUT IT. Just because Mary Schweitzer claims that her findings don't provide evidence that the dating of bone-marrow or the bone itself is incorrect, it doesn't mean that they don't. Are you really that dense? That's like saying if you discovered a murder victim with a knife through their heart and said "This knife doesn't prove that the victim was stabbed" it'd make you automatically correct. Is that really that difficult to understand. Is it impossible for you to comprehend that just MAYBE Mary Schweitzer doesn't know absolutely EVERYTHING about her discovery and its ramifications?

"Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where T. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it." Ok, Einstein. Where does it say in that sentence that the scientists used carbon dating to determine the age of the Hell Creek Formation? Oh, that's right. It doesn't. Because carbon dating is known to give extremely inaccurate results beyond 58-62,000 years.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html (this particular article states 70,000 years as the limit -- but that's still no where near 68 million)

YOU brought up the supposed "fact" that no historians or "academics" believe the Bible to be accurate. Now you're trying to tell me I'm going off topic just because I responded to your ignorant claim and provided you with proof of your ignorance? As I said, you have some serious comprehension problems, my dear man.

Biblical Archeology Review is not created for and by Christians (thank you for proving exactly what I said about you pulling things out of your hat though -- bravo!) I stated that in my previous reply. Many of the contributing writers vary on their opinions of the Bible's accuracy -- Biblical minimalists hardly believe the Bible is accurate at all. Also it is important to note that just because someone is a Biblical maximist it doesn't mean they're a Christian or a Biblical innerant (believing everything in the Bible is true). Obviously another ignorant assumption by you.

There's really no point in discussing this with you further though. You've ignored almost everything I've written, are too completely closed-minded and brain-washed to challenge anything you've been taught (despite the fact that it's a proven fact that scientists knowingly use inaccurate dates all the time to avoid "inconsistencies" with previous date -- look up Libby vs. Cambridge figures for yourself if you want), and keep reposting the same tired tripe as in your first reply. Good luck on becoming a scientist though -- you've certainly got the circular-reasoning down pat.

user-pic

Cl. early you are a master of... stylistic criticism, endless footnoting, whatever, the fact remains, it is the case that , blah, blah ,blah, you've missed the point.

If your only answer to creationism is Darwin, you lose.

Wake up and smell the coffin.

The Universe we know is, what, about 13 billion years old? More or less. Life (Darwin's purview) begins LESS than 4 billion yrs. ago. That means "Evolution" doesn't explain diddly squat for the first 2/3rds of Time as we know it. It has Nichts, Zilch, One divided by infinity, to say about 99.99999... whatever percent of Space-time.

You act as if the Rubes' Bible stories, Tales of the Hebrews, etc. are the only competing alternative, very parochial of you(in many senses). Wake up and smell the rest of the world. From Plato's Timaeus the Christians derived their particular take, not the other way around. I would have thought I was "on your side" but you seem to be into stylistic crit. or whatever, go get a job as a grad. ass. in an English dept. if that tickles your pud so much. But when you are ready to quit beating around the (burning) bush, answer my "god"-damned question. If you can.

Life is an appendage. Made possible by various configurations of elements (which are themselves configurations of yet more elemental whatchamacallits, and so on) barfed out by second or third generation stars. Last time I checked the local community college had depts. like physics, chemistry, math, whatever, not just an English dept., and a Biology one.

And while you are at it: Remember Awatovi!

(Some of those conniving predators were even more Johnny come Latelies than the Apaches.)

Pardon my ignorance, one evil axis.

What do you mean by the following terms:

Rubes' Bible

Plato's Timaeus

Awatovi

I’ve read that the Church embraced the Aristotelian belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth and saw it as dogma. And that led to them prosecuting Galileo and Copernicus for postulating the opposite.

Are you referring to something like that i.e. borrowing from non-Christian sources and embracing it like Christian dogma?

user-pic

Um... since apparently no one else has seen fit to actually answer the question that Cl keeps asking...

You should listen to what Dawkins said in that video again. He spoke specifically of many different methods of radioactive dating. Not carbon, no - but we have many other methods that do work that far back. Because they all consistently show that the rock the dinosaur fossil was found in is 68 million years old, it's not just some one method that might happen to be inaccurate. And no, the calculation of the age from the substances found is not erroneous, because that is a matter of mathematics and while science is sometimes wrong, math never is.

Believe me, it is overwhelmingly more likely that we were wrong about how soft tissues decay than that all those self-evident mathematically-based, internally consistent radioactive dating methods are inaccurate. What reason do you have to suppose that our primitive understanding of decay should be valued above our very thorough understanding of radioactive dating? An old book? Sure, the Bible has some historically accurate things within it, but that quite plainly does not automatically make the nonsensical rest of it true.

antialiasis, CL was going off tangent from his argument on the T-rex discovery because the scientists who made the discovery stated that her discovery did not justify Creationist claims. That is contrary to what CL claimed.

I do not want to engage in any more circular reasoning based on Young Earth creationist tactics, which starts with an obsession that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years based on Biblical interpretation. From this, Young Earth Creationist then try to argue that the scientific dating of dinosaur fossils must be flawed to lead to the conclusion they want i.e. Earth is just a few thousands years old.

And that’s why after I’ve shown CL why the T-rex discovery does not support his Creationist claims, CL switched tack to attacking carbon dating, even though we were not discussing it with regards to the T-rex discovery.

======

I do understand that science is not perfect. That is why scientists are still asking questions and making new discoveries.

But do understand this.

Even if science is flawed and Creationists can prove that, it does not mean the Bible is automatically correct.

If any one claims that carbon dating is not perfect, no one is disagreeing here. But no one is agreeing that as a result this supports Young Earth Creationism. This is over-simplifying the issue.

If carbon dating is off, then by how many years? Cl says on January 21, 2007 10:04 AM “Because carbon dating is known to give extremely inaccurate results beyond 58-62,000 years.”

I see no attempt to prove this claim. Without the use of sources to prove this claim, how can anyone debate on this point? Note that Cl’s use of the T-rex discovery was already a misleading one.

Nor did CL clearly state whether such results are generally the case or is for just a few exceptions?

And will this continue to be the case 5 years from now? 10 years? 100 years from now?

Of course not, science continues to progress. A negative claim of science is hardly the final word on anything and should not be automatically used as a positive claim for Creationism.

To debunk carbon testing, Creationists simply conduct experiments to prove that dinosaur bones can be fossilized within the 6000 year time frame postulates by the Bible as the age of the world.

But why stop here?

Crude oil is also formed from the remains of dinosaurs and ancient fauna over millions of years. Creationists should also prove that is an inaccurate claim and that crude oil can be formed from animal and plant remains from a period of 6000 years.

It is important to prove your case by proving it with facts and proven research that clearly supports your case, rather than just by simply criticising your opposing views.

Otherwise, people will still not be convinced of the crux of your views.

No one says the scientist could not theoretically be wrong about what her discovery implies, although of course it is very logical to take her, being a professional, as a better authority on the subject than some random Young Earth creationists. (What creationists often need to realize is that scientists are not in some massive conspiracy against Christianity! Scientists would be even more thrilled at good evidence that the world is only 6000 years old than creationists would - but yet they maintain that the universe is some 13 billion years old and the Earth 4.6, and have been of that opinion for quite a while (what is it with calling it a random guess?), so clearly they haven't gotten much to indicate anything else. Come on! They know what they're talking about. They can be wrong, yes, but if the method they were using to date those rocks were fundamentally flawed, scientists would have absolutely no motive to keep using it!) As for Dawkins just talking about "a few hundred million years" (or whatever it was he said exactly), it's not like he has personally gone and dated those particular dinosaur fossils that Liberty University apparently has, and as dinosaurs supposedly lived (I might be slightly inaccurate on the exact numbers, but only slightly) around 235 million years ago to 65 million years ago, that makes perfect sense. Just knowing they're "dinosaur fossils" doesn't allow him to make any closer estimate than that.

antialiasis, why don’t Creationsts try to actively prove their position that the Earth is just 6000 years old based on Biblical claims?

Why don’t Creationists try to thrill scientists with this discovery, instead of expecting scientists to do it for the Creationists?

Surely Creationist do not believe that by proving science wrong, that means the Bible is right? The world is not black and white by the way.

A negative criticism does not prove a positive claim. You need proof and evidence to substantiate your claim directly.

Kindly note that scientists, geologists, paleothologists and professionals from all sorts of fields, not just science, agree that the Earth is billions of years old using different methods beyond just carbon testing.

They may be off by a few billion or million of years but not wrong to the point that the Earth is just 6000 years old.

There are cultural artifacts and civilizations that already existed at that point of time with no knowledge of God, Adam or Eve!!!!

And by the way, thanks for acknowledging that dinosaurs are around 235 million years ago to 65 million years ago makes perfect sense.

However, while you are defending Liberty University, you do know that a student from Liberty University says dinosaurs are a few thousand years old?

user-pic

Um, pardon me? I am not a creationist, and I am not defending Liberty University by any stretch of the imagination. I'm an atheist and a fan of Richard Dawkins and felt that no one was actually telling Cl properly why he was wrong, so I posted here. I also felt it was right, even though you were on my side, to point out that to be fair, the scientist herself thinking something about what her discovery implies does not by any means make it true. The scientist saying her discovery does not justify creationist claims does not automatically make it so that the discovery doesn't, although in this case (and in every case I've seen so far, for that matter) it indeed does not justify creationist claims for the reasons that I myself was stating in my first post where I spoke of all the different dating methods we have. I was arguing against Cl, creationism and Liberty University.

So I think you somehow majorly misunderstood my post.

antialiasis, if I misunderstood you, I apologise here.

However, understand that my source of confusion came from your defence of CL, who was making Creationist claims and you seemed to take the side of Libery University against Darwin in your second last post on January 25, 2007 11:53 AM

"As for Dawkins just talking about "a few hundred million years" (or whatever it was he said exactly), it's not like he has personally gone and dated those particular dinosaur fossils that Liberty University apparently has, and as dinosaurs supposedly lived (I might be slightly inaccurate on the exact numbers, but only slightly) around 235 million years ago to 65 million years ago, that makes perfect sense. Just knowing they're "dinosaur fossils" doesn't allow him to make any closer estimate than that. < <

It is easier to prove whether the Earth is older than just 6000 years.

Here's proof from 5000 years ago from a culture that existed more than 5000 years ago.

Ancient spell may be oldest Semitic text By LAURIE COPANS, Associated Press Writer Tue Jan 23, 6:42 PM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/aponsc/israelancientspell

A magic spell to keep snakes away from the tombs of Egyptian kings, adopted from the Canaanites almost 5,000 years ago, could be the oldest Semitic text yet discovered, experts said Tuesday...

In 2002 one of the Egyptologists e-mailed the undeciphered part of the inscription to Richard Steiner, a professor of Semitic languages at Yeshiva University in New York. Steiner discovered that the phrases are the transcription of a language used by Canaanites at some point in the period from 25th to the 30th centuries B.C...

user-pic

Ah, I was not defending Cl there - although I admit the post may have been confusing, I was actually in much of it referring to what DW said in a fairly early comment which I forgot to mention in my first post and thus added to that one instead:

Actually, CL is right. Dawkins never really did answer the question. He simply started with the illustration of the miles from NY to SF, based upon his GUESS of the "true age" of the earth, which he says is "a few billion" years old. I say 'guess' because that's exactly what it is. A true calculation would never leave us with a number that is 'give or take a billion or two'. I'm glad Dawkins didn't go into engineering! He then said one would have to date the rocks and of course if you did you would find them all to be 100's of millions of years old.' Again, a truly scientific calculation doesn't leave us wondering how many 100's of millions of years off we might be. Those are numbers used by someone who has a theory that he finds needs more and more and more years to work, so he just keeps adding millions. Obviously random chance requires as many millions of years as he can possibly give it to do its job, so he just throws a really big, impressive number out there, hoping it's big enough. He then closed with a few insults, which resulted in him receiving girly screams like I'm sure he hadn't heard since a Beatles concert. Once again, celebrity triumphs reason. His ego may have been bolstered, but I don't see how you can call that true science.

What I was saying was just that the fact he says "hundreds of millions of years old" doesn't mean he's just naming a random high number, as there is no way for him to be more specific about that number without having dated the fossils himself. Sorry about the confusion.

Dawkins did answer the question. "What would LU have to do to prove that the fossils were 3000-5000 years old." He replied that they would have to be dated, by several independent means, using different "clocks" using different principles and that these methods would all agree on 3000-5000 years. Such methods have been employed by other institutions, independently, for decades, and the scientific community agree on an age of millions of years. Now, science has been good to you and I, and you can put your faith in the pseudo-science of the LU paleontology department or you can put your faith in the hard nosed scientific method that dates fossils at 65+ million years and which has produced the computer you are reading this on. Science is just plain wrong? Maybe we should replace it with the ouija board method of finding things out. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that science is infallible, in fact it is the fallibility of science that defines it. It sets itself up to be proved wrong, failures to do so are what gives scientific theories their strength. This is the supposed "achilles heel" that LU and their ilk seek to exploit. Science operates within a paradigm at any given point in time. Sometimes, this paradigm changes and scientific theories reinvent themselves to accommodate the new data. Creationists also operate within a paradigm, but creationists do not adjust themselves to new data. In ideological terms there are dinosaurs still roaming the Earth, some of them go to Liberty University. We hope the rest of them come to their senses soon.

user-pic

I have been following this argument for a while. I a follower of Christ and well versed in scripture. I am not a evolutionist, nor am I a "Young Earth Creationist." Most of the scientific evidence I have read on all fronts reduces the "Young Earth" argument to absolutely silly. We must remember that there was a time not all that long ago that the church and state were one. At that time Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) Polish astronomer & mathematician has a book published upon his death due to the theories that went against the common beliefs (the Church) of the time. The book stated that the sun was the center of our solar system. His book was banned until 1835.

The Church condemned his work. http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/copernicus.htm Copernicus' De revolutionibus was not put on the list of forbidden books for decades, partly because the printer added a disclaimer to the work—"For these hypotheses need not be true nor even probable," stated the writer, Andreas Osiander, in the unauthorized preface, but merely a handy way to predict the movements of the planets. "Let nobody expect anything certain from astronomy, which cannot furnish it, least he accept as the truth ideas conceived for another purpose, and depart from this study a greater fool than when he entered it." However, in 1616 the church declared Copernicus' theory "false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture", and it took more than two hundred years before the works of Copernicus and of Galileo were removed from the Index.

So what is my point?

My instincts tell me that there are those in the "Young Earth Creationist Movement" that no very well what the facts are. Perhaps they have another agenda. I now find myself questioning what children that are home schooled are taught with respect to human history, early American history and Constitutional law. This may turn out to be a very scary proposition. There is a lot at stake here.

Is the Devil in the details?

My apologies, Absolutezero

Here is a clue that came to my mind There is much more to time than a line

I love the man's balls. To get such an applause at Liberty University is beautiful and should give humanity some collective hope.

I'm a headteacher of a state primary school in England. At the moment I am stuggling with the idea of 'preaching' to my children the ideals and home truths so well put in Dawkins' 'The God Delusion'. For the time being I am happy to teach them to base their opinions on evidence, to admit there are things we do not know and will not know for a long time but that the qust for answers should go on and on. Conversely, I will used my authority to convince the waivering belief amongst the seven year olds that father Christmas really does brings presents once a year.

I did say 'for the time being' as I have seen a general shift in grass roots practice in state education. It is rare now to hear a teacher say to a child, for example, "after three days Jesus rose from the dead... etc." Common practice today would be to precede the statement with "Christians believe..."

A small step, some might say, and it would be true to suggest that this change has come about due to fears of a multicultural backlash. Whatever the reasons behind it, it is a small step in the right direction. I look forward to the day, hopefully in my educational lifetime when we can all come out of the closet and teach our children the folly of the god delusion. (the delusion - not the book)

GW

Hi antialiasis, ochre, Absolutezero, rob, Gary Walker, welcome to the thread!!! I've seen rob and ochre at this blog before but not the rest. < <

antialiasis, no worries. No more confusion here and I'm glad for your input.

antialiasis, when was Darwin asked the question about the "true age" of the earth? And why should he answer for this is not his area of speciality or exploration? < <

I'm just curious for this topic is a little bit off from Darwin's theories on evolution which is about the changes in living species. Isn't Darwin risking a little by even attempting to answer.

=====

ochre, can you give us some details on what are the different "clocks" and different principles used to esyablish the age of the fossils. < <

Btw, thanks for shedding some light of Dawkins's postulations on how to calculate the age of the world!

Btw, please do not joke about the ouija board or even try to prove or disaprove it. Just some friendly advice as nothing good will come out of it.

Absolute zero, thanks for your impartial analysis of Church history, which clearly pointed out the need to seperate religion from state, as well as religion from education. I have a question here for you: < <

It is on your concerns with "what children that are home schooled are taught with respect to human history, early American history and Constitutional law. This may turn out to be a very scary proposition. There is a lot at stake here."

Doesn't the state have authority on the type of education a child or student is taught? Or is that authority violded in US when the parents or schools don't take money from the state in the education of children? < <

P.S. Nice sign-off line from you: Here is a clue that came to my mind There is much more to time than a line

Hi Gary thanks for sharing your education experience in UK.

Gary, what are the methods that you are using to preach the ideals and home truths so well put in Dawkins' 'The God Delusion'? What happens when they ask you i.e. Does that mean the Bible is wrong? Or God does not exist? < <

I get this all the time when I try to explain evolution to the kids that I look after once in a while.

I normally explain that the Bible is a collection of stories and tales from the past that was told from one indentified person to another until it was finally written down as the Bible in 384 AD.

You might also enjoy these funny clips on Creationism and evolution on South Park and The Simpsons. Do check out these threads at this website:

  • Simpsons and Evolution: May 15 from the May 2006 archives from this website

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/05/thesimpsonsan.html

  • 3 Nov thread titled: Evolution on South Park [From the Nov 2006 archives from this website]

  • 1 Oct thread titled: Simpsons: No God

On what education a child of god receives, please refer to this clip from Dec 20 titled: Freak Show

You need to be wary of Creationists even in UK. Check out this thread from December 6, 2006:

“Faithheads on the March”

Navigation

Support This Site






advertise_liberally.gif

Google Ads

Advertise Liberally Blogroll

All Spin Zone
AMERICAblog
AmericanStreet
ArchPundit
BAGNewsnotes
The Bilerico Project
BlogACTIVE
BluegrassReport
Bluegrass Roots
Blue Indiana
BlueJersey
Blue Mass.Group
BlueOregon
BlueNC
Brendan Calling
BRAD Blog
Buckeye State Blog
Chris Floyd
Clay Cane
Calitics
CliffSchecter
ConfinedSpace
culturekitchen
David Corn
Dem Bloggers
Democrats.com
Deride and Conquer
Democratic Underground
Digby
DovBear
Drudge Retort
Ed Cone
ePluribis Media
Eschaton
Ezra Klein
Feministe
Firedoglake
Fired Up
First Draft
Frameshop
GreenMountain Daily
Greg Palast
Hoffmania
Horse's Ass
Hughes for America
In Search of Utopia
Is That Legal?
Jesus' General
Jon Swift
Keystone Politics
Kick! Making PoliticsFun
KnoxViews
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Left Coaster
Left in the West
Liberal Avenger
Liberal Oasis
Loaded Orygun
MaxSpeak
Media Girl
Michigan Liberal
MinnesotaCampaign Report
Minnesota Monitor
My Left Nutmeg
My Two Sense
Nathan Newman
Needlenose
Nevada Today
News Dissector
News Hounds
Nitpicker
Oliver Willis
onegoodmove
PageOneQ
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
PinkDome
Politics1
PoliticalAnimal
Political Wire
Poor Man Institute
Prairie State Blue
Progressive Historians
Raising Kaine
Raw Story
Reno Discontent
Republic of T
Rhode Island's Future
Rochester Turning
Rocky Mountain Report
Rod 2.0
Rude Pundit
Sadly, No!
Satirical Political Report
Shakesville
SirotaBlog
SistersTalk
Slacktivist
SmirkingChimp
SquareState
Suburban Guerrilla
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
Tapped
Tattered Coat
The Albany Project
The Blue State
The Carpetbagger Report
The Democratic Daily
The Hollywood Liberal
The Talent Show
This Modern World
Town Called Dobson
Wampum
WashBlog
Watching the Watchers
West Virginia Blue
Young Philly Politics
Young Turks

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives

scarlet_A.png

Chess Tactics Training

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2014 Norman Jenson