Park Service Can’t Say How Old Grand Canyon Is To Not Offend Creationists

[john_childs]

Originally Posted by skrobo

yet they do, teaching us about every religion EXCEPT the most popular christian religions.
what good does that do?

I should be more clear about what I mean. Educating about religions in public school is fine. That's like teaching history. You need to learn about the basics of the different major religions. It's part of being educated.

What I don't think is right would be to have the government educating people about religion in the way they educate the public about voting issues and candidates and other public policy issues (sending out voters pamphlets and other mailings, PSAs on TV and radio, etc.).

Public officials (school board officials, or any elected official) making public policy based on purely religious beliefs should be soundly voted out of office. Some of what goes on is just sheer dumbhattery. But it is not against the constitution or laws to vote in religious idiots who can't check their activism and dumbhattery at the door when they go to work.

[steveyo]

Originally Posted by john_childs

Not as an anti-liberal political dig. I'd call out a non-liberal activist group the same way if I was aware of a current story of them pulling the same stunt. There are kooks on all sides who are willing to spread intentional made up stories as news. They need to be called out when they do that sort of thing.

I found the gay ram story on the front page of Fark. It wasn't from an anti-liberal blog or talking points memo.

I know, but admit it, you enjoy it more if it's liberal falsities.

Anyway, the shoud've been

[BillyTheMountain]

YouTube - Faith and Evolution - A De-volutionary EncounterTwo unsuspecting Grand Canyon tour guides representing opposite beliefs about faith and evolution collide in a de-volutionary encounter that points beyond ...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXituFKj1Rs - 92k - Apr 17, 2007

[uni57]

If God created a bottle of French wine, the wine would appear aged. All wine is aged. And this presumably would be a damn good bottle of wine.

Same applies to the creation of Earth. Soil contains decomposed organic matter (think of a compost pile that makes fertile soil over time). Soil has in inherent "age" -- even if you are looking at the soil of the newly created Earth. Geological structures are created over time. A mountain would appear to have been pushed up via the action of plate techtonics. There is no reason to believe that the newly created Earth would be "unnatural" in any detectable way. Thus, it would appear to have age. Whether you examine the soil or a mountain ridge. There is no deception in this. It is as it must be.

Same applies to Adam and Eve. They were created as young adults? They appear to have age. If you looked at them, you wouldn't say, "yeah, they look to be about one day old".

Creationism does not conflict with an old Earth.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by uni57

If God created a bottle of French wine, the wine would appear aged. All wine is aged. And this presumably would be a damn good bottle of wine.

Same applies to the creation of Earth. Soil contains decomposed organic matter (think of a compost pile that makes fertile soil over time). Soil has in inherent "age" -- even if you are looking at the soil of the newly created Earth. Geological structures are created over time. A mountain would appear to have been pushed up via the action of plate techtonics. There is no reason to believe that the newly created Earth would be "unnatural" in any detectable way. Thus, it would appear to have age. Whether you examine the soil or a mountain ridge. There is no deception in this. It is as it must be.

Same applies to Adam and Eve. They were created as young adults? They appear to have age. If you looked at them, you wouldn't say, "yeah, they look to be about one day old".

Creationism does not conflict with an old Earth.

You're funny. Now you're arguing for creationism....

But I'd like to speak to thee Atheist in you, and get some help with teh Convocation.

[uni57]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

You're funny. Now you're arguing for creationism...

No! I'm NOT arguing for creationism. As you are fond of saying, "when did I ever say that?"

I'm simply saying that creationism does not conflict with an "old" Earth. Of course creationism is a load of crap! There's no one there to do any creating!

Thinking about this has provided valuable insight. If one believes in God and if one thinks about the freshly-created Earth exhibiting "age" -- then creationism does not conflict with an "old" Earth. Belief in creationism is therefore not as utterly "stupid" as I once thought. To me, it is on-par with belief in God. If you believe in God, then you are not a back-country, bible-thumping simpleton if you also believe in creationism. Creationists used to frighten me. Now I understand how they can arrive at that belief without being totally out of their mind (it is merely an extension of their God delusion). This has been an eye-opening and tempering exercise for me.

[cool-bananas]

Originally Posted by uni57

No! I'm NOT arguing for creationism. As you are fond of saying, "when did I ever say that?"

I'm simply saying that creationism does not conflict with an "old" Earth. Of course creationism is a load of crap! There's no one there to do any creating!

Thinking about this has provided valuable insight. If one believes in God and if one thinks about the freshly-created Earth exhibiting "age" -- then creationism does not conflict with an "old" Earth. Belief in creationism is therefore not as utterly "stupid" as I once thought. To me, it is on-par with belief in God. If you believe in God, then you are not a back-country, bible-thumping simpleton if you also believe in creationism. Creationists used to frighten me. Now I understand how they can arrive at that belief without being totally out of their mind (it is merely an extension of their God delusion). This has been an eye-opening and tempering exercise for me.

thats true but back to what the post was originaly about.....

It is totaly bulllshit that non creastionists should not be allowed to express their views when they are allowed to so freely

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by uni57

No! I'm NOT arguing for creationism. As you are fond of saying, "when did I ever say that?"

I'm simply saying that creationism does not conflict with an "old" Earth. Of course creationism is a load of crap! There's no one there to do any creating!

Thinking about this has provided valuable insight. If one believes in God and if one thinks about the freshly-created Earth exhibiting "age" -- then creationism does not conflict with an "old" Earth. Belief in creationism is therefore not as utterly "stupid" as I once thought. To me, it is on-par with belief in God. If you believe in God, then you are not a back-country, bible-thumping simpleton if you also believe in creationism. Creationists used to frighten me. Now I understand how they can arrive at that belief without being totally out of their mind (it is merely an extension of their God delusion). This has been an eye-opening and tempering exercise for me.

Excellent, my child.

I can see that through introspection and hard thinking, your Atheist Faith is strengthening.

[mark williamson]

Originally Posted by uni57

No! I'm NOT arguing for creationism. As you are fond of saying, "when did I ever say that?"

I'm simply saying that creationism does not conflict with an "old" Earth. Of course creationism is a load of crap! There's no one there to do any creating!

Thinking about this has provided valuable insight. If one believes in God and if one thinks about the freshly-created Earth exhibiting "age" -- then creationism does not conflict with an "old" Earth. Belief in creationism is therefore not as utterly "stupid" as I once thought. To me, it is on-par with belief in God. If you believe in God, then you are not a back-country, bible-thumping simpleton if you also believe in creationism. Creationists used to frighten me. Now I understand how they can arrive at that belief without being totally out of their mind (it is merely an extension of their God delusion). This has been an eye-opening and tempering exercise for me.

True, but I do think creationism requires more "faith" (as in belief without concrete evidence) than simple belief in God... e.g. long-lived ancient civilisations like the egyptians and friends... if we add up all the periods of recorded history in the world do they exceed the amount of time we're supposed to have been here according to the bible? I suspect so, although I've never verified this. There are plenty of data suggesting that the earth is jolly old.

Basically, as with the "fossils are placed there as a test of faith" argument it all depends how far you're prepared to bend things in order to reconcile your faith with the evidence. God could have created a whole load of red herrings (such as the fossil record, the grand canyon, etc) just to test our faith / mess with us. He'd be in a position to do this and he might have a good reason for it. But if you follow down the route of this thinking you eventually arrive at that fact that really everything you see, hear, or feel could be God testing you - how would you know what is real? Of course, taking things to such extremes isn't always a good idea and I'm not suggesting we're really in The Matrix

Anyhow my point was that creationism requires more elaborate reasoning to explain than a belief in God alone, therefore: belief in God + young earth creationism => more leaps of faith than belief in God alone.

The thing that bothers me here is that believing in young earth creationism requires God to be rather perverse - creating ancient dinosaur bones just to confuse us. It seems a lot more reasonable to me to believe that the Earth is as old as it looks, God isn't trying to plant fake evidence to confuse us and the Bible's account of the passage of time simply is not meant to be taken quite so literally.

[uni57]

Originally Posted by mark williamson

creating ancient dinosaur bones just to confuse us

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I've been meaning to reply to this and I almost forgot.

I thought about this issue in a hurry -- and I missed the boat entirely. I overlooked everything you talked about. Fossils! Duh. Analogy is a great tool, but it can be a double-edged sword. The bottle of wine that God creates (which exhibits age) is a grossly-oversimplified analogy. I extended it to the earth without careful thought.

Your application of Occam's Razor is correct, of course. The world is as old as it seems and "God" did not plant fake age evidence.

Thanks for straightening me out. I totally agree with everything you said. Except that now my creationist-phobia is back. Those people are nuts! (more nuts than simply believing in God, although you put it much more tactfully)

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by mark williamson

The thing that bothers me here is that believing in young earth creationism requires God to be rather perverse - creating ancient dinosaur bones just to confuse us.

Perverse??! I never thought of it that way.

Several weeks ago, I saw some adults with their children on a Easter Egg Hunt. wiht the younger children, as they excitedly handed over each egg they found, the parents would surreptitiously drop it into another hiding place, so this fun ritual was extended and the kids had a blast.

I didn't look at it as perverse at the time, but hey, maybe you have a point. Maybe it's jsut a part of the parent child relationship.

[lostconch]

What I definitely can see from everyone of you is nobody has any idea what the real scientific evidence is for claiming the true age of the Grand Canyon,, not a one of you has bothered to look at the otherside,, Truth is once you actually investigate what you are being fed as fact you find out they are not facts at all,, It isn't even operational science at all,, It all classifies as theoritical science which could very easily not be considered science at all..

Grand Canyon either came about due to a little water over a lot of time or a lot of water in a very short period of time,, The entire millions of years philosophy stems from evolutionary thinking,, Once you understand the statistical improbabilities that "nothing in nowhere exploded and created some where and things and order" you have to say it took unbelievable amounts of time.. Once all of your observations are based on a false assumption everything else is skewed to line-up with the original false assumption..

Anyone who is unbiased and would bother to look at the scientific evidence against evolution would no longer be so quick to think as you do.. I am curious can any of you give me your 2 best reasons for for being such evolutionary mind numbed robots,, I will try in short form to explain a creationist point of view..

[uni57]

Originally Posted by lostconch

Once all of your observations are based on a false assumption everything else is skewed to line-up with the original false assumption..

...

I am curious can any of you give me your 2 best reasons for for being such evolutionary mind numbed robots

I believe in evolution and an old Earth because that's the best science has to offer. I dismiss creationism because I'm an atheist. And I agree with your remark about false assumptions, except that I turn it around in your direction.

Sorry I don't have more time to answer better. It's 2 AM and I need sleep, so that's all for now...

[lostconch]

Appreciate your educated observation,, Saying that it is the best science has to offer isn't quite right,, it is the best that a scientist that starts with the assumption that there can be no Creator has to offer,, Right now it is the only theory they have to offer,, that is why it is stuck to and protected so religously no matter what the evidence shows,, I would propose to you that not going where the evidence leads isn't science at all,, The evidence for a Creator is overwhelming but people don't want to go there,, I even understand your being an agnostic that thinks he is an atheist,, I used to be there...

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by lostconch

The evidence for a Creator is overwhelming but people don't want to go there,,

A historical book, written by and later modified by kings is evidence?