Pharyngula

Science of Watchmen

Jim Kakalios says the new Watchmen movie is going to be good…and we can trust Jim.

Comments

  1. #1 Rae
    February 24, 2009

    Heeeeeeey! I had him as my physics prof last spring! Biggest. Geek. Evar.

    (That’s a complement for Dr. Kakalios.)

  2. #2 Grumpy
    February 24, 2009

    Still halfway through his book.

    Now we know who to blame for Rorshach’s improbable grapple gun.

  3. #3 Andyo
    February 24, 2009

    Any spoilers in the video?

  4. #4 Richard Wolford
    February 24, 2009

    No spoilers, but he does explain the origins (to a degree) of Dr. Manhattan. Didn’t ruin anything for me, but keep your mouse on the pause button just in case you feel apprehensive.

    Oh, BTW, his book is awesome! I’d love to have this guy as a physics prof. I’m 34 and have been reading comics since I was 10 with no plans to stop. I’m dying to see this film next week.

  5. #5 NewEnglandBob
    February 24, 2009

    Not only does this movie look like bad science but it also looks to be bad science fiction too! At > $10/person for a movie ticket, I will pass on this one.

  6. #6 terrylong
    February 24, 2009

    But we covered all this when we studied the “Infinite Improbability Drive.”

  7. #7 Veovis
    February 24, 2009

    Bob @ #5, read the graphic novel first to get an idea of what this movie is trying to accomplish, then decide whether or not to go see it. The GN really is something that transcends the stereotypes of the medium, and if (albeit this is a big ‘if’ at this point) the film succeeds in living up to the depth of the novel, it will be WELL worth watching. Whatever the case, I don’t think calling it “bad science fiction” is fair or informed.

  8. #8 Ken Cope
    February 24, 2009

    How can there be any spoilers if you’ve read the book by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons?

    With Wondercon on in San Francisco, on Friday night the 27th, Dave Gibbons, he who creates the world will be at the Cartoon Art Museum along with a display of his original art for the books, along with actual props, paintings and costumes from the film. As you can see from clicking on my name, I already geeked out at a preview of the show last Friday. The level of detail in the framed newspaper clippings recreated with “photos” of the Watchmen, to a lithograph of Moloch as a magician with whispering imps, a “Vargas” painting of The Silk Spectre’s mother, details crafted down to the torn left epaulet on Rorschach’s trenchcoat, even Rorshach’s improbable grapple gun; badges from Veidt Industries, copies of The Black Freighter, and every feather on the Nite Owl’s costume next to a yellow and black latex number; the Comedian’s weapons, a certain trophy presented to Hollis “In Gratitude,” various magazines and books, even an ad for Nostalgia perfume.

  9. #9 jherazob
    February 24, 2009

    NewEnglandBob: Don’t knock it right away, Dr. Manhattan is 90% of the suspension of disbelief needed for this movie. Do expect comic book physics, but in general the focus is on the characters and the situations, this is not your typical “hollywood superhero movie”.

  10. #10 TigerHunter
    February 24, 2009

    That whoosh sound you heard was everything he said going over my head.

  11. #11 Scott
    February 24, 2009

    I’m a colossal comic geek, and I’ve never been able to bring myself to read the “Physics of Superheroes” book.

    I think it’s cool that he’s found a way to use superheroes to make physics more interesting, but I just can’t bring myself to take seriously anything that claims that Superman, Spider-Man, or the Flash make scientific sense.

    Am I off-base here?

  12. #12 Ken Cope
    February 24, 2009

    I just can’t bring myself to take seriously anything that claims that Superman, Spider-Man, or the Flash make scientific sense.

    Am I off-base here?

    Not really. I think it’s kind of interesting that a physics professor has offered some sort of scientific blessing by inventing a post hoc rationale for what Alan Moore chose to do, essentially anthropomorphizing Nixonian nuclear Super Power. The only “whoosh” sound is the point of it all being missed by the scientist, who did no worse really than Deepak Chopra would have done for the same money, but ultimately, no better. At least our side knows how to use an oscilloscope, explaining how the essence of sound is separated from noise-reducing headphones, while Deepak would have cashed his check after having used the word “quantum” many more times.

  13. #13 Rae
    February 24, 2009

    @Scott: I took his spring intro physics class last year and pretty much what he did with superheroes and physics:

    1) Spiderman for tension problems- and show that it *can be* possible for Spiderman to swing using spider’s silk because of how strong it is (it is a physics course for pre-med and biology students).

    2) Superman for gravity/force- for example, we found how much force it would take for Spiderman to leap over a building, and then we figured out how much gravity he’d have to work against to have muscles that strong, and we “calculated” the gravity on Krypton. From there, we also calculated the size of Krypton if it had a certain density, and what not…only to find that the only way Krypton could be solid and have that gravity (at the size we calculated it should have been a gas giant), would be that Krypton had a neutron star (or something) to produce that kind of gravity on a planet roughly the size of the earth.

  14. #14 GAZZA
    February 24, 2009

    To add my voice to the chorus for NewEnglandBob@5 – if the movie is a faithful adaption of the comic book it will be at least twenty seven different kinds of awesome.

    I don’t really see how it could be, really – there are bits of the comic that I don’t think will translate well (such as the juxtaposition of the pirate comic stories) – but differences are to be expected; it certainly will be worth at least giving it a chance.

  15. #15 Ken Cope
    February 24, 2009

    there are bits of the comic that I don’t think will translate well (such as the juxtaposition of the pirate comic stories)

    Tales of the Black Freighter is reportedly due out animated, direct to DVD. Just presume that in every theatrical venue, there will be somebody who pirated it on their portable device and watching it in the theater during the Watchmen film.

  16. #16 Theo
    February 24, 2009

    Sold me a ticket!

  17. #17 Geoff
    February 25, 2009

    Amongst the many reasons I keep coming here is this: The creationist baffelgarb may make me laugh, but before I become overwhelmed with the stupidity, there is a welcome cure of science, passion and intelligence.

  18. #18 Kitty'sBitch
    February 25, 2009

    The lovely goddess and I will be there opening day playing a game we call nerd denial. It’s where we scan the line waiting to get in, say snarky things about everyone we see, and pretend we’re not just as sad as them.
    We invented the game at the first showing of Lord Of The Rings.

  19. #19 Jason Dick
    February 25, 2009

    I was just excited how in the short clip shown that when the person was thrown back, they weren’t thrown straight back, but actually followed a parabolic path!

  20. #20 Daniel
    February 25, 2009

    His students have a very shitty attitude. I would think that students in a university-level physics course would have some interest in the subject or would be planning to work in a physics-related field but apparently not. “Physics is boring. When am I going to use this in real life?” Physics IS real life. Can’t something be insightful and useful without necessarily affecting one’s day-to-day decisions? Isn’t the nature of reality interesting and beautiful enough? Do we really need to dress it up with juvenile fantasies?

  21. #21 Ken Cope
    February 25, 2009

    Isn’t the nature of reality interesting and beautiful enough? Do we really need to dress it up with juvenile fantasies?

    Dressing up juvenile fantasies with physics faithfully acknowledging the nature of reality with sufficient verisimilitude to withstand the scrutiny of nerds, geeks, and assorted snarking ne-er-do-wells is a practical use of physics in real life.

  22. #22 Ken Cope
    February 25, 2009

    juvenile fantasies

    Oh, and if you’d read the original graphic novel (which was close enough to actually being the original graphic novel), you’d get that the deconstruction of juvenile fantasies was rather the point of Watchmen.

  23. #23 Daniel
    February 25, 2009

    Ken, please read my original post more closely. I wasn’t criticizing Kakalios’s involvement with Watchmen. I was criticizing his students’ apathy towards physics and the presumed need to dress physics up by applying it to superheroes to make the subject interesting.

  24. #24 Ken Cope
    February 25, 2009

    to make the subject interesting

    We agree that bored people are boring, but is it necessary to dump on fiction just because it isn’t real? I don’t know how much more the film can accomplish than mere illustration, dimensionalizing the obsessive detail found in the books, but if you had any familiarity with the Moore/Gibbons work, you would not have taken such a cheap shot.

  25. #25 Daniel
    February 25, 2009

    Ken, I get the feeling that you haven’t watched the actual video. Towards the end of the video, Kakalios talks about how his students think physics is boring because it doesn’t apply to real life so he teaches physics by applying it to superheroes. In my original post, the phrase “juvenile fantasies” was referring to precisely this. It wasn’t referring to Moore’s/Gibbons’s work and it certainly wasn’t referring to fiction in general. I am familiar with Moore’s and Gibbons’s work and Watchmen is one of my favourite graphic novels. You’re arguing against a position that I don’t hold.

  26. #26 Pierce R. Butler
    February 25, 2009

    I don’t think Alan Moore troubled himself to bring in a physics consultant when scripting the original Watchmen – so why would a production intent on recreating Moore’s work seek out an advisor from such a different perspective?

  27. #27 Daniel
    February 25, 2009

    Actually, I think it might be towards the beginning, not the end.

  28. #28 Ken Cope
    February 25, 2009

    Daniel, you should be able to see why I would infer an attitude toward the book that it took your eventual caveats to dispel by re-reading your posts yoiurself. I’m actually not that impressed by what Kakalios offers as an explanation for Osterman’s transformation–he adds nothing to an appreciation for the material and indeed distracts from the role played by the character. To me, Kakalios sheds as little heat as light, providing little more than Treknobabble that verges on woo. Outreach is great, but I prefer Larry Gonick.

  29. #29 clinteas
    February 25, 2009

    Daniel,

    it would seem a bit naive to deny that in this 21st century to interest children/students for physics,it might take a little bit of what you call “juvenile fantasies” to get them hooked.

    Cant see whats so wrong with it,to be honest.

  30. #30 Daniel
    February 25, 2009

    Ken,

    Actually, I don’t. I made it quite explicit that it was his students’ attitudes that I was criticizing. The first sentence of my post reads “[h]is students have a very shitty attitude.” I even went so far as to paraphrase his characterization of his students’ disposition towards physics. Whatever, though: I’m not here to argue. I just hate being misunderstood.

    clinteas,

    Keep in mind that he’s a university professor. His students would be university students, not young teens/children. But since you brought it up: I wouldn’t deny using superheroes to teach children physics if it gets them hooked but I still think it’s pretty shitty to not be interested in the nature of the universe.

  31. #31 Priam
    February 25, 2009

    Oh man, now I’m going to cringe every time I see an unnecessary Oort ring in that movie. Not that I’m going to refrain from seeing it, though.

    I’m not sure what the Professor’s discussion has to do with…well, either the movie OR good science. Okay, so electrons have properties of waves. So does light. Got it. And sine waves placed half a wavelength out of phase cancel eachother out when combined. This is some elementary stuff, I mean, really–and it would be fine, if it actually had relevance to the movie or the character of Dr. Manhattan.

    As it stands, as terrylong said, he’s basically the Infinite Improbability Man. A comic book has to have a superhero with ridiculously nonsensical abilities, and Dr. Manhattan is it–do you really need a reason? I ask the world that accepted Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls way more than it really ought to have, do we really need science behind Dr. Manhattan?

  32. #32 Ri-chan
    February 25, 2009

    Daniel,

    You forget that not every college student in physics is there because they *want* to be there but they’re there because they *have* to be there. Many of these students are only in physics because it’s required for their degree- and a lot of students are less than enthused when it comes to taking required classes that don’t have directly obvious connections to other coursework. Especially calc-based physics when you’re doing a degree that rarely uses calculus.

  33. #33 rrt
    February 25, 2009

    To those interested in the film and who know the novel, the early reviews are promising, but not perfect, and yes, there are the inevitable problems. Thus the hardcore purists will not be satisfied, and that’s without considering the changes (such as not including the Black Freighter in the theatrical cut.)

    To those who’re interested but don’t know the novel, all I can say is…since it is VERY close to the novel, check your expectations at the door. I think this is going to be a tough movie for a lot of people to digest. I’m seeing Blade Runner mentioned a lot (in terms of possible public reaction.)

  34. #34 Ri-chan
    February 25, 2009

    And by “rarely”, I mean “never”.

  35. #35 Chris Davis
    February 25, 2009

    Ugh. ‘Science Fiction films’ continue their downward lurch, plundering yet more obscure comics, FFS, for material.

    Can it be a good sign that the studios are sufficiently embarrassed about the crap science in their fiction that they pay real scientists to act as their apologists? I fear it’s just a little lubricant on the thin end of the wedge.

    Makes me wish there were a Hell, where Spielberg and Lucas could swing by their thumbs for eternity for what they’ve helped to do to the queen of literary genres.

  36. #36 Twin-Skies
    February 25, 2009

    @Chris Davis

    Ugh. ‘Science Fiction films’ continue their downward lurch, plundering yet more obscure comics, FFS, for material.

    Oh, I wouldn’t say that.

    Bandai’s planning to release a new Mobile Suit Gundam series, one that’s finally set back in the Universal Century timeline (UC 81 to be exact). Hajime Katoki’s also been signed on as the show’s mecha designer, so it should be all good :3

    …so sue me, I’m a Gundam otaku who’s disgruntled with 00

  37. #37 Bachalon
    February 25, 2009

    NewEnglandBob,

    First, you shouldn’t be reading something like Watchmen for the science.

    Second, superheros and their exploits, despite some overtures made towards scientific explanations, are not science-fiction, but more of a fantasy (though both SF and F are fantastic literature, I dislike that distinction). In many instances, the trappings of science are used in the same way that westerns use their scenery.

  38. #38 GAZZA
    February 25, 2009

    Chris@35: Watchmen isn’t exactly obscure. It’s true that the comic isn’t as iconic as Superman or Batman for the lay audience, but it’s a classic of the genre.

    I mean, Hellboy got made, and it got a sequel – I doubt too many non-comic book fans were familiar with Hellboy (I hadn’t heard of him myself; while I’m not a huge comic fan, I’m probably more well versed that the average movie going public). And that was several years ago.

    But really, even if it is obscure, that doesn’t make it bad. It has less automatic name recognition so a smaller automatic audience – which might mean, in the best of all possible worlds, that they make sure it’s a good movie in its own right to ensure that they get more people to see it than just comic book fans. That’s got to be a good thing, right?

  39. #39 rrt
    February 25, 2009

    Um. Chris…no offense, man, but I don’t think you’re all THAT well informed there. This thing’s been lurching around in various stages of production for over two decades, as various studios, directors and writers have tried and ultimately given up. This is not a recent effort to mine “obscure” material…the comic’s generally regarded as among the finest and most important written. That’s partly why it was so hard to make, since there are a lot of very strong opinions about how to adapt it, or if it’s even possible.

    But I will concede that it probably would still be in limbo if not for a number of recent coincidences, among them the continued interest in comic adaptations. So yeah, I’m sure for some of the studio execs, “Another comic movie! Fresh material!” were the main motivators to pushing the button on this particular version.

  40. #40 Andyo
    February 25, 2009

    I still haven’t seen the whole movie, but one of the things that struck me about 2001 was the rotating space station. I’d seen much newer documentaries and whatnot pondering what would be like if humans lived in space for many generations, and they talked about atrophied limbs, weaker bones, etc. due to lack of gravity. I still don’t understand why a rotating spaceship like that could not replicate gravity with centrifugal force so there’s no side effects like that. That was a genius idea whoever had it.

    Richard Wolford #4,

    Thanks. I’m trying not to watch anything on the movie yet, I’m trying to read the comic first.

  41. #41 shonny
    February 25, 2009

    Ugh, another Hollywood movie best ignored!
    Why the hell do they always have to be so UNREALISTIC?
    Sci-fi is fun and interesting when it is at least 50% plausible, not when it’s only 0.05%.
    And who needs guns, explosions and pyrotechnics to cover for lacking story-line?

    As to spoilers for Hollywood movies, just look at the title and the ‘actors’, and if you haven’t spent the last 30 years under a tree-stump you know the story and the outcome. Just mix a few of the similar ones, and the number of permutations are rather limited.

    Has there been a Hollywood movie in the last 30 years that after having seen 5 seconds of it, you didn’t know the whole ‘story’?

    As for sci-fi, Dr. Who piss on anything Hollywood from great height!

  42. #42 Andyo
    February 25, 2009

    Has there been a Hollywood movie in the last 30 years that after having seen 5 seconds of it, you didn’t know the whole ‘story’?

    I heard The Passion of the Christ has a good surprise ending.

  43. #43 PlaydoPlato
    February 25, 2009

    Notes from a Watchmen Virgin:

    I never heard of Watchmen until last year, so I decided to find out what all the fuss was about. I bought the graphic novel a few days ago. I should note that I’ve never been a big reader of comics and have only been familiar with the big name brands (Bat/Super/Spider: Man.) My impressions:

    1. Watchmen does more than just deconstruct the super hero, it destroys the entire concept. I would even go so far as to say Watchmen hates super heroes.

    2. In some ways the whole thing was too real. I found it pessimistic, depressing and populated with super narcissists and super losers.

    3. All of the characters were so deeply flawed that I found I couldn’t really care about any of them.

    4. It was thought provoking. I couldn’t get it out of my head for a couple of days.

    I may go see the movie, if for no other reason than to see how well this story transitions to film.

  44. #44 Chris Davis
    February 25, 2009

    Re comment on my #35. I have no specific beef with Watchmen. I’m sure it’s a perfectly good let’s-make-a-fairytale-with-lasers-instead-of-wands-so-people-will-think-it’s-science movie and comic.

    My objection, as one who has loved real SF since the 50s, is that there has been no more than a handful of hard science SF movies since 2001. I’d cite Terminator, The Abyss, Scanner Darkly and Primer. There are others. The bulk, however, are silly fairy-stories with CGI to make them at least look realistic, largely aimed at those whose disbelief suspenders need new elastic. Small wonder they’re mining media aimed at children.

    Back in the day we dreamed of the time when the world would recognise SF, and it would become mainstream. Had I known that it would do so by dint of lowered standards I’d have stuck to my Ace paperbacks.

  45. #45 Stephen Wells
    February 25, 2009

    @45: er, the whole point about the Watchmen mythos is that the costumed heroes in it are human, not magical or superpowered. There is only one character who has actual “powers”, they’re as physics-based as anything in hard SF (certainly at least as hard-SF as Terminator) and a major theme is the way that this separates him from thsoe around him and his own humanity. Ironically, it seems that you’ve avoided one of the few graphic novels that would actually suit your tastes in SF.

  46. #46 John S. Wilkins
    February 25, 2009

    The person who thought up the rotating space station in 2001 was Wernher von Braun.

  47. #47 Jim Irvine
    February 25, 2009

    I don’t really think Watchmen should be classified as science fiction at all! Have any of the people accusing it of being another bad science fiction hollywood superhero movie, plundered from an obscure list of old comics actually read Watchmen?

    Please, make sure you are at least a little familiar with what you are commenting on before assuming it will be more terrible Hollywood rubbish…

  48. #48 Robert Maynard
    February 25, 2009

    @Chris Davis

    I love Terminator as well, but if you can count a movie with evil robots travelling through time as hard sci-fi, you can count the Alien movies. Jee-sus.

    Also, you should check out Sunshine. Had it’s share of small mistakes and silliness, but it was restrained, level-headed, basically no “oh that is total bull” moments, a sci-fi(horror) treat.

  49. #49 SEF
    February 25, 2009

    @ Jason Dick #19:

    actually followed a parabolic path!

    Ah, but for a school-book parabolic trajectory one has to be a flat-earther! Seriously. Go back and look at the maths and think about it carefully. Plus of course it’s necessary to be in an atmosphere-free zone too, since any surrounding medium means friction opposing the motion. Then there’s the additional tweak for being on a rotating planet (which I’m not unreasonably guessing applies to this Watchmen thing).

  50. #50 Mike Haubrich, FCD
    February 25, 2009

    There is fantasy, sci-fi and then there is the movie-fication of graphic novels.

    The reason that Kakalios makes this video is not as apologetics for the bad science in the film, but to use the film to illustrate through correction the real physics as “Manipulated” by the film. Phil Plait, who has not been a guest on our radio show, started out on this whole internet thing by pointing out the bad science in science fiction films and through badastronomy.com and the Discover blog has drawn many people who would not otherwise be interested in science into learning more about science.

    If the movie doesn’t inspire viewers to learn about physics, then Jim Kakalios will use videos like this to draw them in by showing them “The rest of the story.”

    One of my favorite essays of Isaac Asimov’s was the one in which he explains how he had to shoehorn physics in order to write the novel Fantastic Voyage. He did his best to keep it real, but had to fudge a great deal in favor of sticking to a storyline. That’s what movie producers often have to do.

    For more of Kakalios, he was a guest on the Atheists Talk radio show back in June of 2008.

    Now, if Phil Plait would find time in his busy schedule…..

  51. #51 Fernando Magyar
    February 25, 2009

    Ri-chan @32

    Many of these students are only in physics because it’s required for their degree- and a lot of students are less than enthused when it comes to taking required classes that don’t have directly obvious connections to other coursework. Especially calc-based physics when you’re doing a degree that rarely uses calculus.

    Which is probably why the majority of the people in this country live in a La La fantasy land of delusion… witness our current crop of politicians and especially the pseudo scientists (economists)that are our financial wizards. Their complete divorce from reality and lack of understanding of basic science, physics, chemistry, biology, ecology etc… is the root cause of our current predicament. Party on dudes!

    That our children, (sorry college students are *NOT* children) are less than enthused about understanding and learning about reality doesn’t exactly elicit much sympathy from me. Sigh!

    BTW, before someone misunderstands, I do enjoy fantasy and science fiction. In a college level physics class, not so much.

  52. #52 Yair
    February 25, 2009

    I’m disappointed in the professor’s “explanations”. Analyzing superhero powers to show that, e.g., Krypton must be a neutron star is solid scientific thinking and is fine. Mumbling about quantum interference and waving his hands does not magically make being at several places at the same time remotely possible. He knows it perfectly well, of course – he even says “not strictly correct”; strictly my… ehmm…. yeah.

    These kinds of apologetics only promote bad science and bad appreciation of science in the public. He should have said ‘There is no way to do that that I can think of. Sorry”. The power was better left unexplained, than poorly explained by bad science.

    I’m perfectly fine with superhero powers that defy physics. I’m less thrilled when pseduscientific nonsesne speak is tacked on to explain it. I’m even less thrilled when physicists, who definitely know better, are the ones spouting off the pseudoscience.

  53. #53 Sigmund
    February 25, 2009

    I agree with Yair here.
    There are bound to be discoveries in physics in future years that will allow us to do things that would look miraculous today. At the moment we cannot anticipate what these physical phenomenon are but we can speculate about the application of these discoveries (i.e. flying cars, cheap energy, teleportation etc). Its far better to keep the physics behind these applications a mystery than to go all Deepak Chopra on it when to anyone with the slightest knowledge of modern physics its obvious you are simply pulling explanations out of your ass.

  54. #54 MH
    February 25, 2009

    Dr Manhattan is an unconventional superhero. His story is really an explanation of what happens to a person’s humanity when they acquire god-like powers. I’m sure Moore didn’t consider the physics behind his creation because it’s really not important.

    In other news, that parasite called religion has burrowed deep into Tony Blair’s brain.

  55. #55 NewEnglandBob
    February 25, 2009

    Yair @53 express my thoughts exactly about even thinking about this in terms of science.

    As far as this not being good science fiction, my opinion of this kind of story is that it is fantasy and not science fiction. This kind of story as well as horror stories try to pass as science fiction and they are far from it.

    To me, science fiction is represented by Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke. Most comic book fiction is fine for the kids but is not serious literature.

    Well written science fiction uses possible future technology as a stage for a human story and does not rely on it as a major basis of story telling.

  56. #56 Cruithne
    February 25, 2009

    Man I hate the term Graphic Novel. It’s a comic people, not a ‘Graphic Novel’.
    Graphic Novel is a term invented for people too embarrassed to admit they like comic books, and in my opinion that means they don’t deserve to enjoy them.
    Sorry to be so fundamental and absolutist on this point but some of us stuck with comic books long before they were fashionable.
    By the way, Alan Moore says he doesn’t write Graphic Novels, he writes big comic books.

  57. #57 PGPWNIT
    February 25, 2009

    It’s….a….movie.

    Boy, I hope it’s a good one.

    Has anyone analyzed the physics of Old Yeller yet?

  58. #58 N
    February 25, 2009

    It’s fun to watch a spiel on physics stemming from the soon-to-be-released movie, but science was not a huge part of the book, so I hope no one is going to start whining about how the quantum mechanics are all wrong and whatnot when the Watchmen do come out. By all means, take issue with the professor’s explanations, but let’s not comment on the movie based on “bad science”. It is a Hollywood movie, after all. We’re lucky if they get gravity right.

    That being said, I hope they won’t completely destroy the comic book. I’m a big fan of the Watchmen.

    @45:”…mining media aimed at children”. Please, that gets old. I suggest you explore comic books a little more before passing these kinds of judgment. If a child can pick up something like, say, Dave Sim’s Cerebus, I’d be pretty impressed (and if Hollywood turned Cerebus into a cuddly aardvark, I’d cry for weeks).

    @52: I do think that a good grasp on reality is greatly aided by knowledge of science. But in the end, I think it’s a person’s lack of intellectual curiosity that creates the La La land effect (I shamefully confess that I doodled during physics class, including a pretty awesome portrait of Rutherford eating raisin bread).

    @57: I’ve used the term ‘graphic novel’ a few times, and I’m trying to remember in which context. I think I tend to use it as shorthand for ‘limited-run series that’s been condensed into one big hardcover and now they’ve made a collector’s edition and I hear the rights to the movie have been sold’. Otherwise, it’s all comic books to me.

  59. #59 Andyo
    February 25, 2009

    Ha! I purposely wrote “comic” to see if I could fish out one of those “it’s not a comic, it’s a GRAPHIC NOVEL!” people. Anyone else has seen the Star Wars movies (the “good” ones) and found them entertaining, but meh? I can’t fathom what goes in the head of hardcore fans.

  60. #60 Matt Heath
    February 25, 2009

    MH@#55:
    Agreed on Dr. Manhattan. Any physics talk behind how he got his powers is just Phlebotium; It may as well be “a wizard did it”. The point is all about how a ordinary person would cope with being made God.

    re Blair: that particular parasite was living in his brain for decades (IIRC correctly it pushed out Marxist historical determinism as his ideology of choice while he was still at Oxford).

  61. #61 rrt
    February 25, 2009

    Chris, shonny:

    Yeah, you definitely don’t have a clue what you’re talking about–but in this case I truly mean that in a non-nasty way. No, seriously. Theriouthly. :) Your assumptions about the Graphic Novel/Big Comic Book/whatever are so far off…but that’s the nature of this book. It’s as much aimed at children as your average porno, as much a formulaic Hollywood pic as 2001 (though again, this is barely sci-fi).

    You’re missing out on a real treat in not having read this one, I think, especially given how tired you seem of the same ol’ same ol’.

  62. #62 DGKnipfer
    February 25, 2009

    I love the people on the board here decrying Watchmen as just a kid?s story or just a comic book. Always good to see people who have not read this Hugo Award winning story trashing it as just another juvenile fantasy.

  63. #63 Norman Doering
    February 25, 2009

    Ken Cope wrote:

    … kind of interesting that a physics professor has offered some sort of scientific blessing by inventing a post hoc rationale for what Alan Moore chose to do, essentially anthropomorphizing Nixonian nuclear Super Power. The only “whoosh” sound is the point of it all being missed by the scientist, who did no worse really than Deepak Chopra would have done for the same money, …

    Actually, Deepak Chopra probably would have charged more.

    And you know what, as wrong as Deepak is about science, a world that worked the way he thinks ours does would make for an interesting bit of science fantasy.

    I wonder what PZ would have to tell the makers of “The Thing” when it comes to biology. Maybe he could hire himself out to the new group filming the prequel…

  64. #64 Matt Heath
    February 25, 2009

    Anyone saying it’s “just” fantasy and therefore inferior Real Science Fiction which explores Possible Future Worlds is a Very Serious Way, is missing the point on an epic scale. The weird stuff requires a suspension of disbelief but the story is about human reactions to it

    You might as well say that Márquez, Saramago and Kafka should be taken less seriously than Azimov because they don’t give scientifically plausible reasons as to why weird stuff happens in their novels.

  65. #65 Tom
    February 25, 2009

    Prof. Kakalios is the man. I had him last year.

  66. #66 Phoenix Woman
    February 25, 2009

    O/T, but fun:

    You, too, can be a mermaid (or merman, as the case may be)!

    Nadya Vessey lost her legs as a child but now she swims like a mermaid.

    Ms Vessey’s mermaid tail was created by Wellington-based film industry wizards Weta Workshop after the Auckland woman wrote to them two years ago asking if they could make her a prosthetic tail. She was astounded when they agreed.

    [...]

    Weta costumer Lee Williams, who worked on the suit between film projects with seven other staff, told Close Up she “wanted [Nadya] to be beautiful and sexy”.

    After seeing Ms Vessey test the tail in Kilbirnie pool then frolic in the harbour, Ms Williams was stoked. “It was absolutely amazing. It’s beautiful to watch Nadya swim and to see that dream come true and to be a part of that. I feel quite blessed.”

  67. #67 Andyo
    February 25, 2009

    Are some (well, one) of you really comparing Watchmen to Kafka?

    I am reading it from all the hype, and I’m a bit interested. I am starting the third volume, but till now it’s just a good enough comic. Should I be expecting a mind-blowing experience later on? There were parts where I kind of cringed, cheesy stuff but I guess that’s an 80′s side effect.

  68. #68 BlueIndependent
    February 25, 2009

    Nice little interview. I had the opportunity to work on optic science classes a couple years ago, and I must say the material held my curiosity very well. I have done experiments similar to his diffraction with the laser for my work on those, and that phenomena can be demonstrated very cheaply using a few handy tools and a laser pointer.

    Thanks for posting this.

  69. #69 Frank Snow
    February 25, 2009

    Those decrying Watchmen as “not proper Sci-Fi” are technically correct but also missing the point spectacularly. The original comic book was not intended as a deconstruction of comics and superhero comics in particular, and any sci-fi elements in it are there merely in service to that goal.

    I suspect this is one of the main reasons it’s taken so long to get made, and why so many people have had such strong opinions on it. What I’d like to see from the movie is a shift to a deconstruction of films based on comic books. I reckon that’s probably the best recipe for success in the new genre whilst staying true to the spirit of the original work. It would be pretty interesting too, especially given the large number of superhero films we’ve seen recently.

  70. #70 Frank Snow
    February 25, 2009

    Sorry, that’s was intended as a deconstruction of comics. Was.

    Dammit.

  71. #71 Marco
    February 25, 2009

    @45 Sci-fi movies…

    Time Crimes is a wonderful time travel movie, much more so than Primer which was a big deception to me (includes a lot of non-sense pseudo-technical speech btw.)

    Wall-E, Serenity, Aliens, Blade Runner (not exactly recent movies, but not much older than Terminator or The Abyss)

  72. #72 Steve_C
    February 25, 2009

    From what I’ve heard the movie is very dedicated to bringing the graphic novel to life and that fans of the book will be quite pleased.

  73. #73 Matt Heath
    February 25, 2009

    @Andyo. I suspect you meant me (since I mentioned Kafka re Watchmen). I was comparing them as such, just doing a reductio on the view that hard SF fans sometimes have of “mere” fantasy. Not explaining all the fantastic elements doesn’t make something childish.

    OTOH, I am prepared to compare them though. “Watchmen” is a less significant work of art than “Metamorphosis”. That’s a comparison. I never understood why people talk as though you you just “can’t compare” certain things. It’s easy; I suspect you where implicitly doing yourself when you objecting to me linking the two.

    As for your other question, I thought Watchmen got pretty awesome as it went on but tastes differ.

  74. #74 Matt Heath
    February 25, 2009

    DOH! “wasn’t comparing as such”. @Frank Snow: Can I borrow your spare “not”.

  75. #75 rrt
    February 25, 2009

    Andyo: Yeah, I’d say it continues to improve as you move on, but I can’t say if you’ll find it mind-blowing or not. I guess I did. It bears re-reading, though. I’m still noticing new things years later. And the absurdities are usually deliberate–the characters themselves constantly point out how silly they were/are. If the movie is close enough, then I wonder how many people will think it was being unintentionally cheesy in those parts. But silk spectre’s costume is SO obvious, I have to think many will get it.

    Frank: actually, one review claimed the movie WAS deconstructing hero films, but I have no idea not having seen it, and I ddn’t see other reviewers make that comment.

  76. #76 Franz
    February 25, 2009

    rrt@62:

    The comic book medium is designed for children and ADD-riddled dimwits.

  77. #77 rrt
    February 25, 2009

    Franz:

    I see what you did there. ;)

  78. #78 E.V.
    February 25, 2009

    The comic book medium is designed for children and ADD-riddled dimwits.

    Generalize much? What’s that crack about ADD supposed to mean, huh? Look you prejudiced, condescending ass, those of us with ADD have to… Wow, look at that. I need to rearrange my desk top.

  79. #79 KI
    February 25, 2009

    @77
    “Maus” by Art Spiegelman
    “Persepolis” by Marjane Satrapi
    Any of Larry Gonick’s “History of…” books.
    Comics are a superior form of communication, blending the depth of image with the explanations afforded by the words. You are a stuffed shirt snob who needs a buttstickectomy.

  80. #80 Robyn Slinger
    February 25, 2009

    “Logicomix”, by Apostolos Doxiadis et al.

  81. #81 Andyo
    February 25, 2009

    So what were we talking about?

    Oh yeah… Matt, I wasn’t saying you can’t compare things, you can compare an apple to the moon, but it’s just that I found it a little exaggerated. But I haven’t finished it, and I’m looking forward to some entertainment at work.

  82. #82 E.V.
    February 25, 2009

    KI: I believe Franz was doing a little “chain-yanking”. ; )

  83. #83 KI
    February 25, 2009

    Not the first time I’ve been played.

  84. #84 Ken Cope
    February 25, 2009

    Priam @31, I’m going to cringe every time I see an unnecessary Oort ring in that movie.

    Oort Cloud? How do you get Oort Cloud out of a Big Dumb Ring? BDR’s aren’t cold–nor are they Kuiper belts.

    Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post.

    And as for whether it’s Comics, Komix, superheroes or underwear perverts, Will Eisner calls it sequential art.

    “Worst thread ever.” –Comic Book Guy

  85. #85 Franz
    February 25, 2009

    KI@80:

    I suggest you take a look at my chosen name, and the context in which I posted. I was taking the piss, dude.

    Someone disses comic books and you get all uppity? You’re the one who needs the stick pulled out of his/her ass.

  86. #86 Ken Cope
    February 25, 2009

    Soz, worst link ever: Big Dumb Ring

  87. #87 KI
    February 25, 2009

    Yeah, I’m touchy about it, my bible-thumper mom burned a bunch of my comics when I was young so I overreact.

  88. #88 Frank Snow
    February 25, 2009

    Matt Heath: Please take it. It’s making me look foolish.

    rtt: That certainly keeps me cautiously optimistic about the film. Do you have a link to the review?

  89. #89 Thunderbird5
    February 25, 2009

    Koyaanisqatsi music. yessss!

  90. #90 DGKnipfer
    February 25, 2009

    Franz@77,

    If you don?t like comics, that?s fine; don?t read them. And don?t watch the movies that are produced from comics. That’s your choice. If you want to insult to people that do like comics or the movies just to make you feel superior then Fuck Off you self-righteous ass hat.

  91. #91 Matt Heath
    February 25, 2009

    Andyo: Fair enough; it was exaggerated, deliberately so. If people talking about broad Hollywood comedies were saying that penis jokes are only tool of inferior writers I’d have cited the porter in Macbeth. It’s possible that I tend to make points in a slightly overblown way.

  92. #92 Matt Heath
    February 25, 2009

    Wait. Rereading, you probably mean that the comic was exaggerated not my mentioning Big Literature in relation to it. If so, carry on.

  93. #93 rrt
    February 25, 2009

    Frank Snow:

    I’m stuck on iPhone so can’t easily link, but if you go to Ain’t It Cool News, then sort through the news items to find the post from Monday where the reviewer says he can’t yet review due to a gag (which was lifted yesterday anyway), he links within that post to several other reviews. ‘Twas one of those. Sorry I couldn’t give the actual link. Note too that only one of those reviews was a major newspaper, the rest were just film sites. The big reviews haven’t landed yet.

  94. #94 Bill Dauphin
    February 25, 2009

    Chris:

    My objection, as one who has loved real>/b> SF since the 50s, is that there has been no more than a handful of hard science SF movies since 2001.

    Actually, there have never been more than a handful of occasions when motion pictures (i.e., including both movies and television) have relatively successfully captured literary SF… but that, IMHO, is OK: You just have to think of movie SF and literary SF as fundamentally different genres, even when they share fans and themes and even plotlines. The same is true between SF and comics. Movies probably do a better job of capturing comics than literary SF, because the former is an inherently visual, action-oriented medium. In fact, you can almost look at comics as storyboards for cinematic presentations. But at the end of the day, movies are movies and comics are comics and books are books; it’s not really fair to judge one by the standards of another.

    BTW, I do think there’s a valid distinction to be made between comic books and graphic novels, not based on some snobbish desire to project an air of greater seriousness, but based on form: A graphic novel is a self-contained work, equivalent to a novel or a feature film (and this is true even when it’s part of a shared universe, in the same way that multiple novels or feature films can tell stories of the same characters in the same universe, yet be self-contained works); a comic book is an open-ended narrative, more comparable to a TV series. I don’t look at “graphic novel” as a high-falutin’ term intended to (unnecessarily) legitimize comic-book art and writing, but as a distinct form within the comics genre.

  95. #95 Ken Cope
    February 25, 2009

    Bill Dauphin @95,
    Far too many points in your post to underline and shout agreement with, but especially this:

    you can almost look at comics as storyboards for cinematic presentations. But at the end of the day, movies are movies and comics are comics and books are books; it’s not really fair to judge one by the standards of another.

    Watchmen as filmed storyboard appears to have really happened, based on the props and art I saw at the Cartoon Art Museum and on these lines from this review:

    I don’t think I realized how close I was to the original book until I saw such a loving, detail-rich, almost obsessive recreation of that universe. It had my heart pounding and head swimming. I barely slept that night. Someone took the most special personal thing of my adolescence and put it on a movie screen. That doesn’t happen every day.

  96. #96 Bachalon
    February 25, 2009

    In my way of thinking comics are to graphic novels as sci-fi is to SF. Indiscriminately grouping the hackwork with the stuff on which care was clearly taken (no matter how good or bad the results may be) because they share a medium is insulting.

  97. #97 Alan Kellogg
    February 25, 2009

    For those thinking ‘typical crap’ whereto Watchmen consider this; Rohrsharch in an atheist.

  98. #98 Ken Cope
    February 25, 2009

    Rorschach isn’t just an atheist, he’s an intentional sendup of a Randroid, inspired by both Spiderman artist Steve Ditko, and one of his characters, according to Alan Moore.

  99. #99 Bill Dauphin
    February 25, 2009

    Bachalon (@97):

    In my way of thinking comics are to graphic novels as sci-fi is to SF. Indiscriminately grouping the hackwork with the stuff on which care was clearly taken…

    Unless I’m misunderstanding you, you’re calling “regular” (i.e., episodic) comic books “hack work.” If that’s what you mean, I strenuously disagree.

    First, I reject the pervasive social prejudice that “big” works are inherently superior (e.g., that novels are better art than short stories, feature films better than TV episodes, etc.)… and in particular, plenty of episodic comics have artistic and literary sophistication that easily the match of their graphic novel cousins. I also reject the notion that “commercial” and “artistic” are mutually exclusive.

    Second, even if we stipulate that traditional comic-book-style art has lower artistic aspirations than the more fully realized, painterly art of some graphic novels, don’t confuse that with a lack of craft. There’s true hack work to be found in any artform or genre, of course (including, BTW, the highest-minded of artistic forms), but the best of “regular” comic books are crafted with every bit as much care as the best of anything else.

  100. #100 Cruithne
    February 25, 2009

    Sadly for those who live in the USA or the UK, comics are mostly tied to the superhero genre, which really doesn’t make much sense. Imagine if ninety nine percent of radio dramas were historical romances and you get a sense of the absurdity.
    One of the great things about living in mainland Europe is that comics are regarded as just another artistic medium, open to everyone.
    Just as you’ll see people of all ages on trains listening to iPods, so will you see them reading comics, and rarely are they superhero comics.
    Of course the UK and the USA have some rather notable exeptions with Love and Rockets or Maus, not to mention the whole underground scene, but they are far from mainstream.
    For a lot of people Watchmen is the pinnacle of the medium, when in fact it is only the pinnacle of one particular genre within the medium.

  101. #101 Bachalon
    February 25, 2009

    Bill, you do, but I don’t have access to a computer for the length of time necessary for a substantive reply at the moment. I hope you don’t mind, but I’ll leave a comment at your blog later so we can talk more.

  102. #102 MH
    February 25, 2009

    Sadly for those who live in the USA or the UK, comics are mostly tied to the superhero genre…

    You’re right. A wonderful exception is Adrian Tomine.

  103. #103 Franz
    February 25, 2009

    DGKnipfer@91:

    You’re not doing winning graphic novel fans any credit for their literary taste when you get angry at “Franz” for hating comic books in a thread where someone has compared comic books and Kafka.

    Franz. Kafka. Get it?

    “If you want to insult to people that do like comics or the movies just to make you feel superior then Fuck Off you self-righteous ass hat.”

    Yeah, *I’m* the self-righteous one.

  104. #104 Naked Bunny with a Whip
    February 25, 2009

    I read “Watchmen” as a hard-bound book featuring a self-contained story with a beginning, middle, and end. How is that not a graphic novel? Should I stop calling “Great Expectations” a novel since it was first published as a series of magazine articles?

  105. #105 Ken Cope
    February 25, 2009

    Should I stop calling “Great Expectations” a novel since it was first published as a series of magazine articles?

    What? They’re calling penny dreafuls novels now?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_novel collects some funny objections to the term, including these two:

    Writer Alan Moore believes, “It’s a marketing term … that I never had any sympathy with. The term ‘comic’ does just as well for me. … The problem is that ‘graphic novel’ just came to mean ‘expensive comic book’ and so what you’d get is people like DC Comics or Marvel comics ? because ‘graphic novels’ were getting some attention, they’d stick six issues of whatever worthless piece of crap they happened to be publishing lately under a glossy cover and call it The She-Hulk Graphic Novel….”

    Writer Neil Gaiman, responding to a claim that he does not write comic books but graphic novels, said the commenter “meant it as a compliment, I suppose. But all of a sudden I felt like someone who’d been informed that she wasn’t actually a hooker; that in fact she was a lady of the evening.

  106. #106 rrt
    February 25, 2009

    Ken: Beverage, nose, etc. Damn I like Gaiman!

  107. #107 Blake
    February 25, 2009

    I genuinely hope that Jim Kakalios received an enormous sum of money for making this big of an absolute fool of himself. How does superhero Y make himself disappear and reappear magically? Ohhhh, he’s “a wave” and out of phase waves cancel don’cha know *handwave*handwave*handwave* presto! Magic pawahs! Oh but how does he appear in more than one place at a time? *handwave*handwave*handwave*, diffraction patterns! presto, magic pawahs! Kakalios is a physicist and obviously knows better, but he apparently want’s me to believe that he’s doing a Feynman fandango to reel people in with pop culture and then teach them real physics, but it’s plainly obvious he’s actually just doing a Chopra cha-cha to sell to the woo-addled masses who won’t know or don’t care about the actual difference between real science and comic books. It’s time for people like him to stop peddling this stupid BS and say something like “look, this is a fantasy story, physics (and for that matter all rationality) don’t apply in the land of FICTION”.

  108. #108 Dan L.
    February 25, 2009

    Can we just agree that the comic book/graphic novel argument is semantic bullshit and that it doesn’t really matter what we call them?

    The reason I tend to use “graphic novel” is that “comic book” implies that the book is somehow funny or intended to be so, which is actually pretty uncommon among comic books. “Comic books” is just a label, and one I don’t think is particularly apt. I don’t have any problem with anyone using it though, so please stop stepping on my (more accurate) “graphic novel” descriptor. And I don’t see why Moore’s and Gaiman’s cultural discomfort with the term should determine my vocabulary.

    Though it does create a dilemma for American Splendour and other non-fiction works in the comic book milieu. Graphic non-fiction?

    For those of you hating on the medium, please read Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud. For those of you insisting that Watchmen itself is juvenile, try reading the goddam thing with an open mind.

  109. #109 E.V.
    February 25, 2009

    And I thought theists were defensive…

  110. #110 Ken Cope
    February 25, 2009

    Can we just agree that the comic book/graphic novel argument is semantic bullshit and that it doesn’t really matter what we call them?

    I suppose asking so politely is one way to find out.

  111. #111 Blake Stacey
    February 25, 2009

    Dr. Manhattan is also atheist/agnostic.

    “I mean, I don’t know what you are. Nobody does. You were disintegrated, you put yourself back together… They say you can do anything, Jon. They say you’re like God now.”

    “I don’t think there is a God, Janey. If there is, I’m not him.”

  112. #112 Colin
    February 25, 2009

    Franz,

    So let’s get this straight: you make a pathetic attempt at humour, a couple of people take you seriously, you get the kind of reaction you were aiming to get in the first place and then you get all offended at that reaction.

    Yep, I think you’re right. You are definitely the self-righteous one.

  113. #113 Ken Cope
    February 25, 2009

    a couple of people take you seriously, you get the kind of reaction you were aiming to get in the first place

    This is a variety of interaction where context matters a lot. Because of context, before a couple of people took Mr. K. seriously, a couple of people didn’t, and played along. What makes you think that wasn’t the reaction Franz was looking for? And speaking of context, it wouldn’t have taken a lot of reading for #91 to have skimmed enough to learn that Franz K had already copped to taking the piss, so I’ve got no sympathy. Fuses are so short…

  114. #114 Colin
    February 25, 2009

    Come on. It’s a thread about Watchmen. He was being a stirrer and some people got stirred – a completely predictable reaction. Franz is out of line snapping back at them.

    Me, I’ve got no sympathy for stirrers (even if I do indulge on occasion?).

  115. #115 Porky Pine
    February 25, 2009

    I’ve never heard of the movie till a few months ago and have never read the comi…I mean graphic novel but, I’m already as sick of the hype surrounding this movie as I was for “Snakes on a Plane”.

  116. #116 Stephanie W.
    February 26, 2009

    #33-
    I know there’s no way it’ll make it, but from what I recall, most of the stuff that initially struck me about The quote correction with the whole “There is a God, and he’s American,” thing re: Dr. Manhattan, and the “supportive” New Frontiersman article that permanently annihilated my desire to be a superhero (I was in middle school at the time)… So it’s rather sad to know that that’ll be left out.

    That said, I’m loving the Keene Act PSA and false news report, since that seems like a good way to try to pull in some of the depth of worldbuilding found in the original sup stuff.

    To all those considering picking it up: try it, really. It’s not a nice comic, but it’s fun, it’s complicated, and Nixon is still president in 1985. So it probably crosses into the horror genre, too.

    #99-
    Rorschach started off as a Question expy, but ended up having a lot more in common with the notably crazier Mr. A. Ditko loves him some Objectivist author mouthpieces.

  117. #117 Bill Dauphin
    February 26, 2009

    Can we just agree that the comic book/graphic novel argument is semantic bullshit…

    No.

    A comic book is a periodical publication, usually saddle-stitched and relatively inexpensive, that relates a single episode of a long, usually open-ended, story (or sometimes such episodes in two or more different long, usually open-ended stories), or tells a relatively brief story that’s part of an open-ended series of brief stories about the same characters.

    A graphic novel is a single unified work, usually a perfect-bound softcover book (but sometimes hardbound) and often printed on higher quality paper (and thus more expensive) than comic books, that tells a single unified story that may or may not be related to other stories in comic books or other graphic novels.

    These definitions stand regardless of the genre of story the work is telling (humor, romance, personal memoir, superhero, SF, classic adventure, etc.) or your general attitude about the artistic worthiness of illustrated storytelling.

    Words have actual meanings; I’m reluctant to “just agree” that they’re “semantic bullshit.” YMMV.

  118. #118 Alan Clarke
    February 26, 2009

    SCIENCE FICTION & SCIENCE
    Aliens finally reach Earth in 8600 A.D.. Unfortunately, man annihilated himself in 2050 A.D. and no record of his existence remains except for the presidents on Mt. Rushmore. The challenge for the aliens is to explain how the heads were formed in the mountain using only naturalistic causes. Any attempt to attribute their origin to fairies, gods, humans, etc. will not be accepted as science. The aliens define ?science? by those things which are observed or have naturalistic explanations, thus, fairies, gods, and humans have been discounted. The aliens believe themselves to be unique and more complex than anything they have observed in the universe. The president?s heads are admittedly complex in appearance but are not understood since the aliens have no similar appendages or sensory organs. The aliens decide to perform a surface scan of the presidents? heads and perform a computer analysis. In-depth mathematical computations are performed using integral calculus, frequency probability, and Bayesian probability. The conclusion is thus: The stone faces are less complex than the aliens by many orders of magnitude. The faces were likely formed by wind and rain erosion. This deduction seems reasonable since the aliens have adopted ?naturalistic science? to explain their own origins. Some aliens have disagreed with the conclusion realizing that their opponents are threatened by the idea of fairies, gods, or humans supplanting their uniqueness and intelligence. Also, they realize that even though the faces are less complex than themselves, they are sufficiently complex to discount mechanisms of random rain and wind erosion. Attributing the stone faces to fairies, gods, or humans seems more reasonable but this opposing theory is soon quenched since it incorporates non-scientific ?mythical? entities. Besides, the dissenters are ignorant of the finer nuances of true naturalistic science.

  119. #119 E.V.
    February 26, 2009

    Allan Clarke:
    You are precious.
    You just love to hear the wind rattling between your ears, don’t you? And your straw men don’t even have the decency to be clothed in anything resembling a coherent or intelligent argument. You use Bayesian in a sentence and it gives you the impression you’re a smart guy.

    You would be wrong but keep it up, there’s comic gold coming from your posts.

  120. #120 E.V.
    February 26, 2009

    The challenge for the aliens is to explain how the heads were formed in the mountain using only naturalistic causes.

    So all traces of art, bones, detritus or structures except Rushmore have magically disappeared?
    You are the MASTER of cogent arguments. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah… whooh.

  121. #121 E.V.
    February 26, 2009

    Allan:
    Um, I have to ask… have you decided which high school you’re going to next year? *snort*

  122. #122 Alan Clarke
    February 26, 2009

    E.V.: Thanks so much for your comments. The post is a rough draft so any suggestions on how I can make the analogy more pertinent for atheists is appreciated. You didn’t seem to care for the “Bayesian” logic so what would be better? Keep in mind that I’m trying to reach the broadest atheist audience, so even if the “logic” is “illogical”, don’t rule it out. But didn’t I hit the nail on the head with the “naturalistic science” bit? It’s a narrow way of looking at things, the box office potential is unlimited, and it’s the current craze!

  123. #123 Owlmirror
    February 26, 2009

    Aliens finally reach Earth in 8600 A.D.

    Aliens who have evolved naturally, of course.

    Unfortunately, man annihilated himself in 2050 A.D. and no record of his existence remains except for the presidents on Mt. Rushmore.

    Because a malevolent supernatural entity has erased all remnants of humanity? Indeed, this malevolent supernatural entity has erased all signs that any vertebrate life ever existed on Earth?

    The challenge for the aliens is to explain how the heads were formed in the mountain using only naturalistic causes. Any attempt to attribute their origin to fairies, gods, humans, etc. will not be accepted as science.

    “Humans” are the equivalent of “fairies” and “Gods” because you say so, right?

    The aliens define ?science? by those things which are observed or have naturalistic explanations, thus, fairies, gods, and humans have been discounted.

    Right. Because of course, hypothesizing humans — a natural species that evolved naturally, just like the aliens themselves — cannot possibly be naturalistic.

    Knowing how demented you are, there’s not much point in going into further detail.

    blah blah blah, misuse of logic; blah blah blah, zero knowledge of geology and how erosion works; blah blah blah, zero knowledge of probability and statistics; blah blah blah, assume stupid conclusion because hypothetical aliens are as ignorant of math, logic, archaeology, and geology as Alan Clarke is, blah blah

    Say, Alan, what kind of crap did your grandfather come up with when shown biographies of Truman? Did he claim that it was a typographical error, or that there was an actual conspiracy to make it look like Truman died at a different date, or what?

  124. #124 Stephen Wells
    February 26, 2009

    So, aliens are stupid in Alan’s head; therefore God.

    Right.

  125. #125 Bachalon
    February 26, 2009

    You don’t read much SF do you, Alan?

    Go read “Seven Views of Olduvai Gorge” and then we’ll talk (maybe).

  126. #126 Bill Dauphin
    February 26, 2009

    Allan:

    The post is a rough draft…

    WTF? A blog comment is a rough draft?? Do you also ramble on with your friends (if any) in real-life conversation… only to let them know that your chat was just a “rough draft” for a talk you’re planning to have with someone else?

    If you want someone to proofread/edit your half-baked SF, hire someone. I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I don’t do that sort of work for free unless I’m asked real nicely.

  127. #127 Owlmirror
    February 26, 2009

    You don’t read much SF do you, Alan?

    Alan Clarke is a hardcore no-compromise biblical literalist creationist. I doubt he’s read much of anything outside of the bible and creationist apologetics.

    Go read “Seven Views of Olduvai Gorge”

    He’s been asked to read an essay by a Christian on the real science of radiometric dating, geology, and an old earth. The author of the essay is obviously devout, and is possibly even an old-earth creationist. Did Alan read it? He did not, and came up with ever more ridiculous assertions that a global flood a few thousand years ago must have really happened.

    He refuses to read or think about anything that challenges his belief system.

  128. #128 Owlmirror
    February 26, 2009

    If you want someone to proofread/edit your half-baked SF

    No, I think he meant a rough draft of a Christian Creationist apologetic, with an SF theme.

    He no doubt thinks that SF as a genre is all lies of the devil, anyway.

  129. #129 Bill Dauphin
    February 26, 2009

    Owlmirror:

    No, I think he meant a rough draft of a Christian Creationist apologetic, with an SF theme.

    Ah, you caught me: I didn’t actually read his “rough draft” beyond the first sentence or so. Still, I couldn’t stop myself from commenting on the sheer effrontery of calling a comment here a “rough draft,” as if the hallowed halls of Pharyngula were some sort of out-of-town tryout for his little show. ;^)

  130. #130 Bachalon
    February 26, 2009

    Bill, are you still interested in talking?

  131. #131 Alan Clarke
    February 26, 2009

    E.V.: So all traces of art, bones, detritus or structures except Rushmore have magically disappeared? You are the MASTER of cogent arguments.

    E.V., your objections to the believability of my story are valid. Some of these will be tough to overcome but I really have looked ahead. I just didn?t want to disclose everything in one post because too much text might raise some eyebrows ? like I?m trying to hijack the thread.

    When the aliens ?die?, their bodies sublime into the atmosphere, so the idea of fossils is completely ?alien? to them. What?s more, their planet never experienced a global flood! Because of their pre-conceptions, they would never think of diverting their attention from the atmosphere and start looking for evidences of human origins in the ground. Didn?t the silly pre-conceptions of the humans cause them to overlook the soft tissue (or biofilm??) in dinosaur bones? Now the stuff seems to be in every museum! Traces of art? The Mt. Rushmore visitor center is buried deep under sand and dust just like those pyramids in the Valley of the Kings. The aliens have a limited amount of time before their energy sources run out just like NASA?s Phoenix Mars Lander. They are headed due north toward the polar cap but Saskatchewan looks like a wasteland! It?s so sad. Even if they found art how would they recognize it as such? In 8600 A.D., ?Piss Christ? will have dissolved itself in its own uric acid. A cow might have pissed it into existence. On the trek to the pole, a few cemetery statues were discovered. They seem to be of the same material and form as the faces on Mt. Rushmore leading to the belief that all such objects were created by wind and water erosion. The mystical creative properties of wind and water are now the focus of attention.

    In another chapter I want to address the ?silly pre-conceptions of the humans?. The ideas for my drama come straight from the history books so I don?t want to claim too much credit.

  132. #132 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    February 26, 2009

    Watchmen is the new Titanoboa.

  133. #133 'Tis Himself
    February 26, 2009

    Shorter Alan: Really weird, off-the-wall, nonsensical, farfetched, makes-no-sense, propped up at every turn analogy. Therefore god exists.

    The analogy is .33 Rooke.

  134. #134 Kel
    February 26, 2009

    What?s more, their planet never experienced a global flood!

    So their planet is just like earth then…

    If you are going to make a story for atheists, the least you can do is remove all traces of mythology. There was no global flood, we’ve looked 4.4 billion years back through time and there has never been any global flood in the rocks… there are however instances of localised flooding, and global markings of a comet impact ~65MYA.

    Also it would help to stop thinking that scientists put us above all other life in the universe. It’s the creationists who do that, not the scientists.

  135. #135 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    February 26, 2009

    Also it would help to stop thinking that scientists put us above all other life in the universe. It’s the creationists who do that, not the scientists.

    Amen brother. We humans are just another primate.

  136. #136 Ken Cope
    February 26, 2009

    Click on my name for my Alan Clarke impersonation (although he probably doesn’t drink bottled Guinness).

  137. #137 Owlmirror
    February 26, 2009

    I just didn?t want to disclose everything in one post because too much text might raise some eyebrows ? like I?m trying to hijack the thread.

    Too Fucking Late. We See What You Did There.

    When the aliens ?die?, their bodies sublime into the atmosphere, so the idea of fossils is completely ?alien? to them.

    Sublime into the atmosphere? Dude, are you high?

      “Hey, Volatile Alien Leader, some of the xenoarchaeologists think this structure was carved by intelligent beings.”

      “Impossible, Volatile Alien Egghead! How could there be intelligent beings that formed such a structure and yet utterly disappeared????”

      “Um, maybe they sublimed into the atmosphere when they died, just as we do?”

      “Oh! How stupid of me! Too bad we either evolved (or, as some of the weird cultists think, were created by that monumental demented moron Alan Clarke). If we had been created by a truly Intelligent Designer, I’m sure I would have thought of that monumentally obvious explanation!”

    The aliens have a limited amount of time before their energy sources run out just like NASA?s Phoenix Mars Lander.

    Because of course, Volatile Aliens can travel the galaxies but are incapable of coping with dust, just like our Landers?

    Seriously, dude, what drugs are you taking when you type this shit up?

    So, what did your grandfather say when he saw NASA moon mission stuff? Scream “Fake!” at the top of his lungs? Babble on about sound stages and conspiracies? What?

  138. #138 Wowbagger
    February 26, 2009

    Alan, haven’t you learned anything from L Ron Hubbard? You don’t use woeful sci-fi to defend an existing religion, you use it to create a whole new one.

  139. #139 windy
    February 26, 2009

    Because of course, Volatile Aliens can travel the galaxies

    I was just going to comment on that – naturalistic science gave them interstellar travel, but he’s worried that they can’t figure out Mt Rushmore? Oh no, their race is surely doomed.

  140. #140 Ragutis
    February 27, 2009

    Oh my… that has to be the most ham-fisted, inane bit of allegory I’ve ever seen. Well, outside of the Bible or Comfort’s blog at least. There is just so much wrong with that. Pyramids in the Valley of the Kings? Sublime? Have you ever taken a chemistry class? FFS.

    For those of you that haven’t met Alan, search for his posts on the now closed Titanoboa thread. Hilarity and headdesking in bountiful measure await you.

    You might want to review it too, Alan. There’s a few questions, rebuttals and a certain link that you’ve left unacknowledged.

  141. #141 Alan Clarke
    February 27, 2009

    Purpose
    To illustrate that much supposed ?scientific objectivity? is subjective. Science is often tainted by ?silly human pre-conceptions?. One cannot pursue science while disconnecting themselves from presuppositions, experiences, and an a priori belief system.

    What is Science?
    AIG isn’t science.
    Science is real, God isn’t.
    Science does not use god for anything.
    Kent Hovind doesn’t understand science.
    What you think of science is not science.
    our livelihoods do depend on science being taken seriously
    that idiot gloated that science doesn’t know everything yet.
    Get a science education before you talk on matters science please!
    Science gets rid of the false stuff and only keeps that which works.
    try actually perusing even popular science magazines once in a while
    Creationism isn’t science. only science gets taught in science class.
    learn some science by say, taking courses and actually reading textbooks.
    peer reviewed scientific literature is the only place where real science is done.
    with such a basic misunderstanding of how science works you will never be able to grasp…

    A man sees a brown rabbit at 50 meters in a field of brown dead grass but a 2-year-old fails to locate it. A man sees a green frog on a lily pad but a 2-year-old fails to locate it. Even though the child may have 20/20 vision, the child fails to locate the hard-to-see animal. Why? An adult has knowledge that the child does not. The adult has learned and memorized attributes of the rabbit and frog that the child has not. The adult has learned to differentiate between near-same colors. The adult has learned to be more patient and persevering than the child. The varying theories of cognitive development illustrate that the actual mechanisms are little understood. For example, the following link explains how multiple theories are supplanting Piaget?s traditional theory of cognitive development:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development

    Instead of a child simply knowing where to look because the rabbit was previously in ?that place?, the child may have a built-in ?core knowledge? which gains them success in locating any object where previously first discovered. What has this got to do with an evolutionist deciding that men and monkeys have a common ancestral relationship because of homological and sequential similarities? It has everything to do with it. The Wikipedia link states: ?Recently Piaget’s theory has been falling out of favour for a new theory called Ecological Systems Theory. This is based on the contextual influences in the child’s life like his/her immediate family, school, society and the world, and how these impact the child’s development.? If this is true, and I believe it is, then we can readily see that one?s interpretation of a fossil or DNA sequence is HIGHLY dependent upon family, school, society and the world.

    A recent PBS news documentary on North Korea interviewed several Koreans. They referred to Kim Jong Il as ?The Great Leader?. Children worked to excel at acrobatics so they could one day please ?Our Dear Father? in a national pageant. All adults expressed incredulity at why America wanted to attack them since ?The Leader? had nothing but good intentions. No scientist on this forum would want to be grouped as such, but no North Korean or human being for that matter would want to be thought of as incapable of making objective decisions because of pre-conditioning. Look at Owlmirror?s simple matter-of-fact, indisputable, foundational belief on ?Titanoboa? post #762: ?There was no global flood.? Most if not all of his scientific world-view stands or falls on this supposition. Fortunately, he can relax knowing that his ?science? has elevated him to a position where he is incapable from making such fundamental blunders. His objectivity which brought him to this conclusion could not possibly be ill-affected by family, school, society or the world. He is his ?own man?, gifted (or evolved??) with insight and faculties untainted by family, school, society and the world. Unfortunately, his own theory contradicts this. Fruit flies with non-beneficial mutations are more likely to be rejected by others of their society. To what extent would Owlmirror exert himself to be ?received? back to society if the minutest imperfection were noticed by another societal member? Again, Owlmirror need not worry about such trivia clouding his scientific objectivity because such imperfections are isolated from his psyche.

    Is looking at a fossil and drawing a conclusion a simple matter? The required mental processes are far more complex than what many assume:

    Congitive Learning Theory
    Information Theory

    Is it possible for an adult to behold an object without drawing upon previous experience? If one thinks he is objective and free from prejudices when evaluating evidences, then that person is blind to his own inner-workings. I often hear the amusing words, ?My interpretation is based solely on the evidence.? Something must be learned before one can analyze an object. Some people have a knack for finding 4-leaf clovers while others do not. Some can see the hidden objects in 3-D art prints whereas others cannot. People who suffer brain damage in an accident are more apt to understand that previous mental faculties were taken for granted.

    Is it possible that current-day science is on the same misguided path as those pitiful aliens searching for the origins of Mt. Rushmore?s granite president heads? By discounting ?humans? as a possible mechanism for carving the heads, science is led astray.

    Who is more ?scientific??
    Theists will consider natural causes.
    Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.

    Conclusion:
    If God is exchanged, ignored or denied prior to pursuing ?science?, then one?s interpretation of evidences may be far removed from the actual truth, if God indeed exists. Reality as seen through naturalistic science alone may be nothing more than an illusion.

    ?Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.? – Richard Dawkins

    ?Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.? – William Provine

  142. #142 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    February 27, 2009

    All of those words tossed onto the wall but this was the only thing that made sense.

    Who is more ?scientific??
    Theists will consider natural causes.
    Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.

    It must have been an accident.

  143. #143 Owlmirror
    February 27, 2009

    Look at Owlmirror?s simple matter-of-fact, indisputable, foundational belief on ?Titanoboa? post #762: [... blah blah blah, Alan Clarke psychoanalyzes little ol' me ...]

    You’re obsessed with me, aren’t you?

    Do I need to take out an Internets Police restraining order?

    If God is exchanged, ignored or denied prior to pursuing ?science?, then one?s interpretation of evidences may be far removed from the actual truth, if God indeed exists.

    And yet there are devout God-believers who accept the age of the earth and of the universe; devout God-believers who accept the common descent of all life; devout God-believers who accept evolution.

    Since they do not “ignore” or “deny” God prior to pursuing science, then their interpretation of the evidence is clearly not far removed from the actual truth, even if God exists.

    Your conclusion is falsified. Too bad you wasted all that time typing up such easily-refuted word salad. Ha ha!

    Reality as seen through naturalistic science alone may be nothing more than an illusion.

    Only if God is a liar. Are you calling God a liar?

  144. #144 Ragutis
    February 27, 2009

    So what you’re saying Alan, is that we should stop looking at the world with through the filter of our preconceptions, and instead use yours?

    It’s not science unless it can be mangled and twisted into conforming with a Bronze Age book of folktales?

    Does this guy sound like he’s ignoring or denying your God?

    http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

    How about Ken Miller?

    http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

    You’ve been talking about jumping to conclusions based on what one’s experienced, been raised thinking…

    What do you think the Stone Age Hebrews knew of geologic time? How big do you think they thought the world was? Did they know about the oceans, or was the Mediterranean the biggest body of water they had any contact with (and of that only the edges). Did they know about any of the other continents? Did they know anything about penguins or bacteria or narwhals or platypus? Did they know that some of those “stars” at night were actually galaxies or nebulae? Did they understand anything about how traits were passed from parents to child, or even what a spermatozoa or ovum were? (I seem to remember something about goats and sticks. Is that correct, Alan? Have the world’s biologists really screwed up on the genetics thing? If that’s the case, shouldn’t we be releasing a lot of inmates who were convicted on the basis of DNA evidence? Shouldn’t we be re-arresting those who were exonerated by it?)

    The Biblical writers described a world tinted by their presuppositions, prejudices, politics, and perspective. We’ve learned just a little more about things since, Alan. You don’t have to squint through that pinhole anymore.

  145. #145 Bill Dauphin
    February 27, 2009

    Bachalon (@131):

    I saw your comment at my recently-too-neglected blog; I’ll respond this weekend (and restart posting there, for whatever that’s worth). The short answer is that I’m always interested in talking, but I don’t care that much about arguing over the artistic merits of comic books in particular. I think some folks write them off too easily (and perhaps I was in error in thinking you were part of that group), but I don’t lay awake at night over it. ;^)

  146. #146 Ken Cope
    February 27, 2009

    Alan Clarke can start spewing creationist graphomania (if cutting and pasting is writing) on yet another thread completely unrelated to his particular flavor of bug-shit crazy, and everybody is OK with that?

  147. #147 Bachalon
    February 27, 2009

    Bill, thanks for getting back to me here. I’d love to get a chance to explain myself (I think I was a bit vague with my original post), as I’m in complete agreement with you, but figured you deserved clarification for your response, y’know?

    Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you.

  148. #148 Alan Clarke
    February 27, 2009

    Ragutis: So what you’re saying Alan, is that we should stop looking at the world with through the filter of our preconceptions, and instead use yours?

    I don?t recommend that you emulate another fallible human. I?ve degraded myself in posting photos of sagging butts. What you need is a standard higher than all of that. If you join a Catholic church you might end up yanking on beads or praying to the Queen of Heaven. In your current fallen state, you might have an affinity for churches that preach on 101 ways to get rich, win friends and influence people. Hopefully you can discern falsity when you shop. I don?t know your exact case but I?d like to refresh your memory:

    Theists will consider natural causes.
    Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.

    If you continue on your present course, you have only a 50% chance of being right. My personal belief is that your scientific foundation is 100% wrong but I?m trying to appeal to your mind which currently can only comprehend natural causes. How else can I communicate to you? For each and every natural cause, there is a natural explanation. Even if the explanation is wrong or unknown, you have faith that the answer will always lie within the realm of ?natural causation?. Even though perhaps 50% of the people on this planet are telling you it?s not so, you continue in faith. Here is something else to consider: I have a distinct advantage over you. I have lived on both sides of the divide. My father came from a long-line of engineers who were largely atheists. Everything had a naturalistic answer. In my stupidity, I once swallowed 4 barbiturate tablets during an evening of pleasure-seeking. I miraculously managed to drive home, slept two days while thinking only one had transpired, then was greeted by my father with the question of who had ran over the mailbox. Seeing my tire tracks running straight through the middle of the yard, I confessed that I had taken some pills. My father?s only comment is forever seared into my mind, ?If you took some sleeping pills, then why did you drive the car instead of going to bed?? His question was completely void of any spiritual insight to the turmoil of my life at that time. Everything had a naturalistic answer. I know all about ?naturalistic? answers, because I was pre-conditioned by my father to think this way for the first 22 years of my life. Why do placebos have a beneficial effect? What is your ?naturalistic? answer? Why do hopeful POW?s survive whereas those who lose hope cease to survive? How much does hope weigh? How much does information weigh? Where does information come from? Newtonian physics explains things quite nicely to a certain point. After that point, another science is necessary. Scientific ?naturalism? explains things nicely to a certain point. After that point, it completely fails and something else is needed. I never ?invented? my answers when my father?s answers ceased to explain. Rather than me finding the answer, the answer found me.

    John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

    A lot of people on this forum admit that they?re not looking for any answers. Life holds no perplexities and they are quite satisfied with their current state.

    ?The unexamined life is not worth living.? – Socrates

  149. #149 Ken Cope
    February 27, 2009

    “Dear Jesus, in your name I pray. Please have 5 or 6 of your thugs take Alan Clarke into a dark alley and beat some smegging sense into him, then leave him trussed up on some church altar somewhere wearing nothing but a ball gag and some tassels. Failing that, would you please leave him in a prison cell with Walter “Rorschach” Kovacs until he can learn how to stay on topic, or STFU. Since you’re both fictional characters, this shouldn’t be a problem.”

  150. #150 tony
    February 27, 2009

    Ken@150: ROFL!

  151. #151 Owlmirror
    February 27, 2009

    I don?t recommend that you emulate another fallible human.

    All religion comes from fallible humans.

    I?ve degraded myself in posting photos of sagging butts.

    And you do it again… because why? Is there something about degrading yourself that you actually enjoy?

    What you need is a standard higher than all of that.

    Science has the higher standard of empirical skepticism, which on the one hand acknowledges fallibility, and on the other, has the external natural world as the final test of all truth claims.

    Theists will consider natural causes.
    Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.

    All I’ve seen you (and other Creationists) do so far is deny natural causes.

    My personal belief is that your scientific foundation is 100% wrong

    How do you know?

    How would you know if you were wrong?

    but I?m trying to appeal to your mind which currently can only comprehend natural causes.

    Try to define a non-natural cause in a way that is in any way coherent.

    How else can I communicate to you? For each and every natural cause, there is a natural explanation. Even if the explanation is wrong or unknown, you have faith that the answer will always lie within the realm of ?natural causation?.

    No demonstration that anything outside of “natural causation” is real, or even coherent, has ever been made.

    Even though perhaps 50% of the people on this planet are telling you it?s not so, you continue in faith.

    Who cares what 3 billion (or even all 6 billion) people say, if they have no way of demonstrating that what they say is true, or even coherent?

    My father?s only comment is forever seared into my mind, ?If you took some sleeping pills, then why did you drive the car instead of going to bed?? His question was completely void of any spiritual insight to the turmoil of my life at that time.

    Because he was supposed to magically understand that you were having serious emotional problems?

    Say, is that why you keep arguing here? To get back at your own father for not being warm and caring and understanding enough?

    Skipping through your questions about placebos and hope… I’m just curious how you get from “Placebos work, and hope keeps people alive” to “The bible is literally true.” Again, people can and do believe in God without getting to that level of fanatical devotion.

    Scientific ?naturalism? explains things nicely to a certain point. After that point, it completely fails and something else is needed.

    Sorry, your say-so is not good enough. You will need to demonstrate that “something else” in the real world.

    John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

    And yet asking for a real-world demonstration and empirical validation of God’s knowledge and power is always, eternally, denied.

    Sorry. Your bible is simply not good enough.

    A lot of people on this forum admit that they?re not looking for any answers.

    We’re certainly not looking for your answers, since they are self-evidently wrong and contradictory.

    Life holds no perplexities and they are quite satisfied with their current state.

    Who, indeed, has said that? We, or you?

    Do you agree with this statement:

    We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief.

    If you do, then why do you bother coming here to argue?

    If not, why do you not actually educate yourself in the sciences which you so continually get wrong in your arguments?

    ?The unexamined life is not worth living.? – Socrates

    Who lived and died and never heard of Jesus Christ. He certainly would not have agreed that the bible was infallibly true.

    Is he burning in hell? If so, why do you cite him as a guide to life?

    If not, what does anyone need with the bible or Jesus Christ? All one needs is a philosophy which includes the examination of life. There are quite a few of those, most of which existed centuries before Christianity.

    Many of the early philosophers were not atheists… but their philosophies had small or nonexistent roles for the Gods, or God. The natural philosophers and the early scientists did not deny the existence of God; they studied the natural world. Science does not deny God; it simply refuses to ignore anything in the real world — even if that which is in the real world contradicts some prior alleged religious dogma or alleged revelation.

    And by the way, what exactly are you examining about life?

  152. #152 Alan Clarke
    February 28, 2009

    Owlmirror: You’re obsessed with me, aren’t you? Do I need to take out an Internets Police restraining order?

    There is something unique about your character that draws my attention to you:

    ?All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.? ? William Shakespeare

    What has inspired you to play the part of God?s nemesis? Is it for fame, recognition, or to have a gold star pasted on your homework lesson? (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/molly.php) Your posts are usually a rich array of scripture texts with attempts to expound the meaning of God?s words. Those who teach bear a greater responsibility than those who listen. When a country is conquered, to insure that an internal revolt doesn?t develop, those who are in higher authority with greater influence and education are usually executed, imprisoned, or watched more closely. Even if your character is a pretense, the victor won?t waste his time in interpreting you to the contrary, so your demise will be of your own choosing. I don?t know if your choice of ?Owlmirror? for your anonymous identity was intentional, accidental, or fateful:

    ?In general, owls are viewed as harbingers of bad luck, ill health, or death.?source

    You seem to take pleasure in resisting Bible scripture at every turn as did Elymas the sorcerer:

    Acts 13:6-10

    And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name [was] Barjesus: Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then Saul, (who also [is called] Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, and said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, [thou] child of the devil, [thou] enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

    Often, one?s character is a microcosm of society, a nation, or a popular philosophical science or a globally accepted world-view. The character of Nero exemplifies a society that is drunk on pseudo-reality. Nero is true to Shakespeare?s drama of life but plagues the play by ?overacting? his part:

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero

    ;====== beginning of text =======
    Nero’s father was described by Suetonius as a murderer and a cheat who was charged by Emperor Tiberius with treason, adultery, and incest.

    He (Nero) is known for a number of executions, including those of his mother and adoptive brother, as the emperor who “fiddled while Rome burned”, and as an early persecutor of Christians.

    To diffuse blame [arson of Rome], Nero targeted a sect called the Christians. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

    Nero returned to Rome and spent the evening in the palace. After sleeping, he awoke at about midnight to find the palace guard had left. Dispatching messages to his friends’ palace chambers for them to come, none replied. Upon going to their chambers personally, all were abandoned. Upon calling for a gladiator or anyone else adept with a sword to kill him, no one appeared. He cried “Have I neither friend nor foe?” and ran out as if to throw himself into the Tiber.

    Returning again, Nero sought for some place where he could hide and collect his thoughts. An imperial freedman offered his villa, located 4 miles outside the city. Travelling in disguise, Nero and four loyal servants reached the villa, where Nero ordered them to dig a grave for him. As it was being prepared, he said again and again “What an artist the world is losing!”.

    At this time a courier arrived with a report that the Senate had declared Nero a public enemy and that it was their intention to execute him by beating him to death. At this news Nero prepared himself for suicide. Losing his nerve, he first begged for one of his companions to set an example by first killing themself. At last, the sound of approaching horsemen drove Nero to face the end. After quoting a line from Homer’s Iliad (“Hark, now strikes on my ear the trampling of swift-footed couriers!”) Nero drove a dagger into his throat. In this he was aided by his private secretary, Epaphroditos. When one of the horsemen entered, upon his seeing Nero all but dead he attempted to stanch the bleeding. With the words “What an artist dies in me.”, Nero died on June 5th 68AD/BC.
    ;======== end of text =========

    Owlmirror, why don?t you drop the charade and run from your character as quickly as possible before it envelopes you? If your childhood was miserable, why bring everyone else down with you? If your former church was full of phonies, why should you paste your exposé of falsity on every healthy church? If your parents or former wife said you were a loser, then why don?t you make this disclosure before continuing your parade of ?godless science?? Or is it no one?s business because you have achieved what no human before has achieved: pure ?science? based on pure ?objectivity?, free from all social ills.

    Owlmirror: …[Socrates] lived and died and never heard of Jesus Christ. He certainly would not have agreed that the bible was infallibly true.

    “I decided that it was not wisdom that enabled poets to write their poetry, but a kind of instinct or inspiration, such as you find in seers and prophets who deliver all their sublime messages without knowing in the least what they mean.” – Socrates

    Socrates might as well have quoted 2 Peter 1:21. A person who doesn?t profess to ?know it all? has a much greater chance of grasping knowledge lying in uncharted territory. Socrates often stated, ?I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.? He believed that honest men had child-like attributes.

    I wouldn?t give up in despair because at least you don?t profess to ?know it all? as did the Pharisees, right? Christ had no pity on them.

  153. #153 Owlmirror
    February 28, 2009

    What has inspired you to play the part of God?s nemesis?

    What inspired you to play the part of a crazy person?

    When a country is conquered, to insure that an internal revolt doesn?t develop, those who are in higher authority with greater influence and education are usually executed, imprisoned, or watched more closely.

    Yes; the Maoists under Pol Pot executed all intellectuals. Stalin murdered or exiled those who disagreed with him. Hitler exiled and killed “non-Aryan” scientists.

    Who is this conqueror of whom you speak? Christian soldiers with whom you have allied yourself, committed to a holy civil war until all non-Christians are dead, and all Christians who are not like you are also dead? Why are these conquerors committed to act like the worst monsters of the previous century? Is it just that they are certain that God grants them permission to behave their worst?

    Even if your character is a pretense, the victor won?t waste his time in interpreting you to the contrary, so your demise will be of your own choosing.

    A death threat? Of course. You would rather commit murder than admit that you might possibly be wrong. Murder is in your heart; murder infects your mind; you would commit murder for your faith.

    You seem to take pleasure in resisting Bible scripture at every turn

    Why should I accept the lies of murderous madmen like you?

    The character of Nero exemplifies a society that is drunk on pseudo-reality.

    Yes, a pseudo-reality like your Christianity. How are you different from Nero?

    Owlmirror, why don?t you drop the charade and run from your character as quickly as possible before it envelopes you?

    Alan Clarke, why do you not seek psychiatric help? Commit yourself to an asylum before you truly hurt someone, or yourself.

    Or is it too late for that?

    Is there something that you have done that you might want to confess to? Or rather, might not want to confess to?

    If your childhood was miserable, why bring everyone else down with you?

    You’re the one whose childhood was miserable, by your own admission — and you are the one who is now making death threats; who speaks of conquest and killing.

    If your former church was full of phonies, why should you paste your exposé of falsity on every healthy church

    Since you are manifestly mentally unhealthy, I am proving only you, yourself, to be false in your defiant declarations of happiness and completion in Christ. You lie to yourself, and you lie to us, and you make death threats, and then you dare call yourself “healthy”?

    Socrates might as well have quoted 2 Peter 1:21. A person who doesn?t profess to ?know it all? has a much greater chance of grasping knowledge lying in uncharted territory. Socrates often stated, ?I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.?

    Exactly the opposite of you, who arrogantly thinks he has direct and specific certain knowledge of God.

    He believed that honest men had child-like attributes.

    And you yourself are not honest. Nor do you have a child-like curiosity, or sense of wonder, or awareness of the limits of knowledge. You do not emulate Socrates. For you to offer him as an example is nothing but hypocrisy.

    I wouldn?t give up in despair because at least you don?t profess to ?know it all? as did the Pharisees, right? Christ had no pity on them.

    And yet you yourself arrogantly claim to “know it all”. You know what God did do and did not do; you don’t need to learn; you don’t don’t need intellectual humility; you don’t need to be uncertain; you don’t need to be merciful.

    PS: Don’t be so sure you know anything at all about God.

    Matthew 7:16-23:

    Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

    Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    There may be a Hell. I may be going there. But if there is a God of Justice, you will go to Hell yourself; you and all the ravening wolves like you.

  154. #154 Alan Clarke
    February 28, 2009

    Owlmirror: There may be a Hell. I may be going there. But if there is a God of Justice…

    These are some heavy admissions to post on an atheist site, but I will not ridicule you. You may be closer than you realize. My hope is that if we would meet one day by chance, I would serve you as a fellow human. I wish you only the best.

    Alan Clarke

    John 3:17 “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” – Who spoke these words? Jesus or someone else?

  155. #155 Wowbagger
    February 28, 2009

    John 3:17 “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” – Who spoke these words? Jesus or someone else?

    Answer: b) Someone else.

    We have no reliable evidence to say that the Jesus of the bible existed – and we know for sure that he did not do any of the miraculous things attributed to him, since magic doesn’t exist. So, while there may have been a person corresponding to some of the stories about Jesus, we’ve no reason to believe that the words in a book are any more likely to have come from his mouth than the words attributed to Odysseus in The Odyssey.

    The best way to describe it would be to say that it was written by someone who thought that that’s what Jesus, had he existed, would have wanted.

    More importantly is the question that verse raises: why didn’t God just forgive humanity? What can possibly restrain an omnipotent being in such a way that he would be forced to order the torture and execution of his son in order to achieve it?

  156. #156 Kel
    February 28, 2009

    Jesus obviously spoke those words, there’s a habit of major figures in the bible speaking in the 3rd person. For instance, author of Torah – Moses spoke almost exclusively in the 3rd person when it came to events surrounding him. So much so that he even wrote about his own death and burial in the 3rd person.

  157. #157 Ragutis
    February 28, 2009

    Alan’s like the Superman of creationists or something. Contrary points and refutations either just whiz right by him or bounce off of his impenetrable skull. I’m not kidding, watch:

    Your god is a monster, Alan. No rationally thinking person would worship or serve a cruel dictator like that out of anything but sycophancy and fear. I don’t know what says more about you, Alan, that this is the type of god your imagination yields, or that you gleefully prostrate yourself to a genocidal bastard like that. There’s some messed up stuff in your subconscious, son. Most folks could benefit from some therapy, but I’d say it’s an imperative for you.

    BTW, Alan, have you ever thought about “eternity”? I mean, really examined what that word means? It’s longer than you think the universe has been around. It’s longer than the orders of magnitude longer that the universe actually has been around. It’s longer than a hundred billion years, or a hundred trillion. If you type a 1, then put your finger on the 0 and leave it there for the rest of your life, the resulting number would, in years, still be a fraction of a splinter of “eternity”. The universe will fizzle out, and you’ll still be left with… “eternity” to go. Do you see how utterly ridiculous the very concept of it is? And is there anything that one wouldn’t tire of after a few quadrillion years? And without sex, drugs, alcohol, or rock n roll, I’d guess heaven would get boring a lot sooner than that.

    A lot of us would like to live longer than we are likely to. As curious people, we here, and countless others would love to have more time to learn, to see, to live, to love. But we have what we have and that’s it. Wishing for more and wasting time bargaining with a figment of ancient Hebrew imagination is time you won’t ever get back, time that could have been productive. Time that could have been spent living, instead of wasted being afraid of death. If you’re scared of death, eat right, exercise, check regular check ups. That’s the best you can do.

  158. #158 Alan Clarke
    March 1, 2009

    Wowbagger: We have no reliable evidence to say that the Jesus of the bible existed?

    No one can accuse Wowbagger of diverting from the original ?science fiction? thread.

    The Bible was written by over 40 different authors over a span of about 1600 years, which makes conspiracy theories concerning its origin hardly believable. Prior to Christ, his coming was foretold. After his coming, the account of his earthly life is recorded in great detail. We have secular historians such as Josephus that wrote about Christ. We have numerous early Christian writers. Secular history coincides with the Biblical record of Jesus. Just recently, Herod?s tomb was discovered. My previous post which described Nero?s demise was largely recorded by the Roman historian, Tacitus. Tacitus, who lived during the first century, wrote this of Jesus:

    ?Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.? (source)

    Something else to consider is the fact that current-day Jews, who discount Jesus as being the true Messiah, seldom argue that he didn?t exist:

    “While there is no particular view of Jesus mandated by Judaism some Rabbis have speculated about his life. Maimonides in his Epistle to Yemen writes that Jesus was a heretic who sought to annul the Torah. American rabbi and author Milton Steinberg (1903 ? 1949) wrote that Jews saw the historical Jesus as a noble and loving Jewish teacher.”Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (b. 1966) sees reason to believe that Jesus was a rabbi based on some of the statements in the Christian scriptures.” (source)

    Likewise, the Islam religion which opposes the fundamentals of the Christian faith, view Jesus as a ?prophet?. Yassar Arafat visited Bethlehem yearly to commemorate Jesus’ birth.

    Why have none of the above taken the easier route by simply stating Jesus didn?t exist? The argument will only fly on an atheist website.

  159. #159 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 1, 2009

    The Bible was written by over 40 different authors over a span of about 1600 years, which makes conspiracy theories concerning its origin hardly believable.

    um

    wait

    What?

  160. #160 Ragutis
    March 1, 2009

    The Bible was written by over 40 different authors over a span of about 1600 years, which makes conspiracy theories concerning its origin hardly believable.

    Alan, the one man FSTDT.

    Alan, there is no good evidence that your Jesus existed. Certainly none for the words and actions attributed to him. Yes, there likely was a historical figure around whom these stories coalesced, but there’s no real evidence for it, nor any way to tell what is correctly attributed to him, what should be attributed to other mystics, rabbis or “messiahs” of the time, and what is complete fabrication.

  161. #161 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 1, 2009

    These are some heavy admissions to post on an atheist site, but I will not ridicule you. You may be closer than you realize. My hope is that if we would meet one day by chance, I would serve you as a fellow human. I wish you only the best.

    Alan Clarke

    What a creepy, creepy person.

  162. #162 Alan Clarke
    March 1, 2009

    Ragutis: Alan, there is no good evidence that your Jesus existed. Certainly none for the words and actions attributed to him.

    If Jesus didn?t exist, then who was his imposter? He created a huge number of pity sayings and stories:

    1) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (The Golden Rule)

    2) A house divided against itself cannot stand. (Quoted by Abraham Lincoln)

    3) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Hypocrisy)

    4) Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Overcome evil with good)

    5) Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Sin is universal)

    The imposter devised even more sayings so as to make himself the #1 most quoted person in history. Some nations and states have founded their governments and laws on the premise of his existence. He must have been a very humble person to deny credit for any of his works. Actually, I can?t think of any imposter in history who equaled the magnitude of this feat. Can you provide any links to studies that provide clues to who this mischievous fellow might be?

    I like quoting Wikipedia on this forum because of Wikipedia’s EXTREME bias in FAVOR of evolutionism. Just locate the following subjects on Wikipedia and tell me if they don’t give you a warm & fuzzy feeling of assurance:

    Biological Evolution
    Human Evolution
    Solar System Formation

    When my objective is to provide a meeting place that affords philosophical comfort to those who oppose my views on origins, I choose Wikipedia since it is a haven of rest for evolutionists, uniformitarianists, atheists, etc. The contributors of Wikipedia are world-wide and reflect a ?majority viewpoint? of university scholars. So please kick back, relax, and drink in the full content of Wikipedia’s Jesus. Scroll midway down and feast upon the heading, “Mythical View”:

    “A few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure.”

    Notice how the section concludes:

    Nevertheless, non-historicity has been rejected by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.

    The theory of Jesus’ nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question…

    Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it [mythical view] as effectively refuted.

    …standard historical criteria prevent one from rejecting Jesus’ existence.

    But don?t despair because there is a way out! Submit your historical revisionist views to Wikipedia. Your chances of being accepted will increase if you eliminate ?Pharyngula? from your vocabulary, otherwise they may think you have an axe to grind. Others have failed in time past to revise history, but they didn?t know what you know now.

    John 19:19-22 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

  163. #163 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 1, 2009

    But don?t despair because there is a way out! Submit your historical revisionist views to Wikipedia. Your chances of being accepted will increase if you eliminate ?Pharyngula? from your vocabulary, otherwise they may think you have an axe to grind. Others have failed in time past to revise history, but they didn?t know what you know now.

    Alan, Nurse Ratched is coming.

  164. #164 Wowbagger
    March 1, 2009

    Alan Clarke,

    If Jesus didn?t exist, then who was his imposter? He created a huge number of pity sayings and stories:

    You really have to learn what the expression ‘attributed to’ means, Alan. Then you mightn’t sound quite so ignorant – though only slightly less so. Many – if not all – of the pithy (note spelling) phrases attributed to (see how easy that was?) Jesus appear in the literature of other cultures well before his time, indicating that humans develop morality, compassion etc. without needing and magic sky-fairy to hand it to them.

    Anyway, regarding your fictitious man-god: here’s a link to an excellent site (not Wikipedia) that covers much of why many historians doubt the historicity of Jesus – Jesus Puzzle.

    But, before you’re done, perhaps you can explain why, if the Jews accepted that Jesus existed, why didn’t they believe he was Messiah? That’s always struck me as a little strange.

  165. #165 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 1, 2009

    5) Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Sin is universal)

    A man being attracted to a woman proves that sin in universal?

  166. #166 Alan Clarke
    March 2, 2009

    Wowbagger: But, before you’re done, perhaps you can explain why, if the Jews accepted that Jesus existed, why didn’t they believe he was Messiah? That’s always struck me as a little strange.

    Actually, a bunch of Jews DID believe he was the Messiah. But I?ll address the ones who didn?t believe. If you read the book, the reason becomes obvious why he was rejected among those in authority:

    John 11:47-48 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

    Jesus was a threat to their job security. Not only that, but he insulted them in practically every verse of Matthew 23.

    BTW, are you going to submit the ?Jesus Puzzle? to Wikipedia? You could be at the brink of a breakthrough.

    Mat 5:28 Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Sin is universal)

    Janine: A man being attracted to a woman proves that sin is universal?

    Janine, your whole live would change course if you could differentiate between these:
    1) Lust after a woman
    2) Attracted to a woman
    3) Love a woman
    I resisted #1 when I first met my wife to-be, and now she loves me for it.

  167. #167 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 2, 2009

    Alan, you have given me no reason to take any advice from you. And if I did follow them, I would be worse off.

  168. #168 Owlmirror
    March 2, 2009

    if the Jews accepted that Jesus existed, why didn’t they believe he was Messiah?

    Because the real Messiah was supposed to fix things (kick out the Romans and unite the struggling factions of Jews) and rule in God’s name, not get himself killed.

    And because one particularly aggressive faction of the Jesus cult started claiming that Jesus was the only begotten son of God — blasphemy against the idea of God as a pure spirit. And then a later and even more aggressive faction of what the cult had become claimed that Jesus was exactly the same as God — a huge blasphemy against the pure monotheism espoused in the bible.

    Not all of the “Early Christian writers” were members of the latter faction (since it did not exist when they wrote).

    See also:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism

  169. #169 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    if the Jews accepted that Jesus existed, why didn’t they believe he was Messiah?

    The answer is obvious. Jesus is not the messiah. He’s a very naughty boy.

  170. #170 Alan Clarke
    March 2, 2009

    Wowbagger:many historians doubt the historicity of Jesus”

    Wikipedia:A large majority of biblical historians and scholars are dismissive of the theory.”

    (a large majority) > (many historians)

    If you read Wikipedia’s entire “Christ Myth Theory” you will see that the “Jesus Puzzle” has little originality: “Authors such as Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price and George Albert Wells have recently re-popularised the theory.”

  171. #171 SC, OM
    March 2, 2009

    My hope is that if we would meet one day by chance, I would serve you as a fellow human.

    Here’s hoping he doesn’t mean that in the “To Serve Man” sense. I’m really not too sure.

  172. #172 Alan Clarke
    March 2, 2009

    Owlmirror: ?Because the real Messiah was supposed to fix things (kick out the Romans and unite the struggling factions of Jews) and rule in God’s name, not get himself killed.

    Only the most blind could misinterpret Jesus this way. Certainly you?re aware that your views are esoteric.

    John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

    Matthew 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

    Owlmirror, when are you going to disclose your anonymity? Were you at one time studying for the priesthood? You obviously hate phony Christians, as we all do. What, when, and where was your first encounter that instilled this hate?

  173. #173 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 2, 2009

    Owlmirror, what ever you do, do not give Alan Clarke any clues about who and where you are. I would hate to have Alan try to cure you of your “hate”.

  174. #174 Wowbagger
    March 2, 2009

    Alan Clarke wrote both this:

    A large majority of biblical historians and scholars are dismissive of the theory.

    and this:

    Jesus was a threat to their job security.

    Can anyone see where I’m going?

  175. #175 Owlmirror
    March 2, 2009
    A large majority of biblical historians and scholars are dismissive of the theory.

    and this:

    Jesus was a threat to their job security.

    Can anyone see where I’m going?

    *Waves hand in the air* I know! I know!

  176. #176 Owlmirror
    March 2, 2009

    Owlmirror, what ever you do, do not give Alan Clarke any clues about who and where you are.

    No fear. I’ve seen the sheepshape mask slip and reveal the yellow teeth of the ravening wolf; heard the hungry snarl, covered up by the loud bleating as the mask is readjusted.

  177. #177 John Morales
    March 2, 2009

    Eh?

    Alan Clarke @173 quotes the propaganda of the sect that broke away and became more successful at memetic infectiousness to support that cult’s contentions…

    Unreal.

  178. #178 Ragutis
    March 2, 2009

    Imposter? WTF are you on about, Alan?

    There probably was a historical figure that was the basis for Jesus. And yes, few historians disagree. But that’s a far cry from saying that this person said and did everything (or even, anything) that the Bibles describes. Sure, there probably was some charismatic rabbi that acquired a decent following with a new message. Probably said and did some of the things attributed to him in the Bible. But, as the story grew, as word spread, it’s foolish to think that exaggerations did not creep in, details were not confused, or that the words or deeds of other mystics and rabbis weren’t accidentally credited to Jesus. Didn’t you ever play Post Office or Chinese Whispers? And there’s the problem, with no eyewitnesses or even contemporary accounts, there’s simply no way to judge the accuracy of the biblical account. No small number of teachings and aphorisms are attributed to Confucius, but since they weren’t recorded at the time and only compiled after his death, there’s no way to know how many and which were actually his. Misattributions and exaggeration are the foundation of thousands of folktales and legends.

    Yes, there likely was a rabbi named Jesus, Alan. The problem is, the biblical portrayal of him is probably about as accurate as Geoffrey’s depiction of King Arthur.

  179. #179 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    It’s amazing to comprehend that anyone could believe that a 2nd hand eyewitness testimony written decades later is enough to substantiate the extraordinary claim of divinity – let alone any of the other miracles written there.

  180. #180 Alan Clarke
    March 2, 2009

    Ragutis: And there’s the problem, with no eyewitnesses or even contemporary accounts, there’s simply no way to judge the accuracy of the biblical account.
    Evolution happens so slowly and occurred such a long time ago, with no eyewitnesses or even contemporary accounts, there’s simply no way to judge the accuracy of the evolutionist?s account.

    Ragutis: But, as the story grew, as word spread, it’s foolish to think that exaggerations did not creep in, details were not confused, or that the words or deeds of other mystics and rabbis weren’t accidentally credited to Jesus.

    Your entire premise falls apart here: ?as the story grew, as word spread? and ?exaggerations? crept in. Just because Owlmirror can bend and twist the story into illegible meanings, does that mean the original story isn?t true? Does his bending and twisting negate the fact that we have thousands of agreeing manuscript copies dating to the first and second century? (click here) All of your ?exaggerations? will have to fit into a very narrow historical time lapse. How can the stories grow and become exaggerated when the museums have already put a lock on these 1st and 2nd century manuscript evidences? The only way we can test your hypothesis is for you to produce manuscripts A, B, and C, which show the progression of degradation. If you can?t, then your theory is nothing but thoughts in your brain. If you think that the corruption of Christ?s story began as a fabrication before he arrived on Earth, then would you please direct everyone to manuscripts A, B, and C which pre-date 0 B.C.?

    Evolutionists frequently correct me whenever I criticize their theory?s hypothesis that life arose randomly from non-living matter without the assistance of outside intelligence. They always counter, ?Darwinian evolution describes only living things! It says nothing about planet or star formation. Darwin never speculated on how the first living cell arose. He was a true scientist in the sense that he drew upon only what was observed!? The problem with biting into the ?forbidden fruit? is once that first swallow is taken, then one?s entire world-view is changed. The new world-view is not ?evolution? but ?evolutionism?. Every piece of evidence that follows is viewed afresh with the new ?ism?. Planet and star formation is explained harmoniously with the new ?ism?. All of history can be interpreted as having nothing original but each event has ?evolved? from something prior. Every music composer ?borrowed? from the previous. Plato borrowed from Socrates. Aristotle borrowed from Plato. There is some truth to this but every once in a while some new information gets injected from outside the closed system. Where is this new information coming from? Socrates provides some insight:

    “I decided that it was not wisdom that enabled poets to write their poetry, but a kind of instinct or inspiration, such as you find in seers and prophets who deliver all their sublime messages without knowing in the least what they mean.”

    When Jesus came to Earth, he brought with him some new information:
    Mark 1:22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.

    John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

    John 7:45-46 Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.

    If you think that Jesus had nothing original but ?borrowed? everything from someone else, then why is he the most quoted person in history? Why isn?t Jesus? teacher the most famous? Whether Jesus existed or not, there must be a source for the information falsely attributed to him. Can you provide me with the original source material for Jesus? ?Sermon on the Mount?? It is true that Jesus would often quote the Old Testament and he encouraged others to read it, but his ideas were unheard of. They were completely original and outside the current realm of knowledge:

    John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

    John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

  181. #181 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    Evolutionists frequently correct me whenever I criticize their theory?s hypothesis that life arose randomly from non-living matter without the assistance of outside intelligence. They always counter, ?Darwinian evolution describes only living things! It says nothing about planet or star formation. Darwin never speculated on how the first living cell arose. He was a true scientist in the sense that he drew upon only what was observed!? The problem with biting into the ?forbidden fruit? is once that first swallow is taken, then one?s entire world-view is changed. The new world-view is not ?evolution? but ?evolutionism?. Every piece of evidence that follows is viewed afresh with the new ?ism?. Planet and star formation is explained harmoniously with the new ?ism?. All of history can be interpreted as having nothing original but each event has ?evolved? from something prior. Every music composer ?borrowed? from the previous. Plato borrowed from Socrates. Aristotle borrowed from Plato. There is some truth to this but every once in a while some new information gets injected from outside the closed system. Where is this new information coming from? Socrates provides some insight:

    Yes it’s called rationalism. View the evidence presented rationally.

    Scientists tend to try and do this. It helps keeping with the scientific method and keeps one from straying over to irrational though such as creationism. A thought process that does not alter no matter what evidence is presented.

  182. #182 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    Alan, you need to understand the definitionfalse equivalencies – of why they are false. Then you need to understand scientific method and the incredibly sophisticated and complex ways we can determine dates for things, that anyone using the same methods can determine also. Until then STFU. Seriously.

  183. #183 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    I see Alan is still trying to push his imaginary god and fictional bible as anything other than garbage. Neither is needed to explain the real world. Science ignores god because it is a meaningless concept. Which makes everything Alan proposes meaningless.

  184. #184 Steve_C
    March 2, 2009

    It must drive the orderlies nuts that Alan keeps slipping out of his straight jacket.

  185. #185 Watchman
    March 2, 2009

    Evolution happens so slowly and occurred such a long time ago, with no eyewitnesses or even contemporary accounts, there’s simply no way to judge the accuracy of the evolutionist?s account.

    Bullshit.

    It’s called “evidence”.

    The new world-view is not ?evolution? but ?evolutionism?.

    Bullshit.

    Slapping an “ism” onto everything isn’t a very convincing rhetorical device.

    There is some truth to this but every once in a while some new information gets injected from outside the closed system.

    Closed? Did you say closed? LOL.

    Alan offers many words, but little content. Sorry, Alan, you can’t quote the Bible to prove the truth or accuracy of the Bible.

    Can you provide [...] the original source material for Jesus? ?Sermon on the Mount??

    LOL….. Can YOU?

  186. #186 CJO
    March 2, 2009

    No, click here

    That table Alan linked to is deeply dishonest. If you compare the claims made in it to the site I linked to, you can see that the earliest dates on Alan’s table are tiny fragments of papyrus. Note also that my source is actually very pro-Christian and conservative. Most scholars now utterly reject the ludicrous claims that fragments of Mark were found at Qumran cave 7.

    Furthermore, Alan’s table clearly implies, by listing 5500 as the number of extant original manuscripts, that those fall into the ridiculously early dates given in that row. But, again, compare with my linked source. Those are almost entirely 4th and 5th century Greek manuscripts.

    we have thousands of agreeing manuscript copies dating to the first and second century

    No, we have a few scraps dated that early. (And nobody denies that the synoptics were composed by the early 2nd century anyway, because that fact alone proves nothing other than that a tradition existed.)

    Why the lies, Alan? Are you insecure about something?

  187. #187 Watchman
    March 2, 2009

    That table Alan linked to is deeply dishonest.

    How very, very shocking. And yet, I suppose this is the kind of dishonesty we must expect from these wild-eyed adherents of Christianism.

  188. #188 Alan Clarke
    March 2, 2009

    CJO: That table Alan linked to is deeply dishonest.

    Thanks so much CJO for clearing things up. I’ll refer to your “improved” link for future postings:

    There are over 5,300 known ancient Greek manuscript copies (MSS) and fragments of the New Testament in Greek that have survived until today. Counting an additional 10,000 Latin Vulgate and over 9,300 other early manuscript versions in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic, totaling over 24,000 surviving manuscripts of the New Testament. Small changes and variations in manuscripts affect none of the central Christian doctrines, nor do they change the message.

    I’m still waiting for the A, B, and C manuscript evidences showing the gradual degradation of the first century texts. Is Owlmirror out there? Owlmirror! By now John 3:16 should look like, “Fer born thinks rear long time put jebus half she her hers at evolution lust yes single die must therefore Daughter which which De anybody mundo.”

    The latest manuscript discoveries push the interpretations in my favor, not yours:

    The earliest manuscript of the New Testament was discovered about 50 years ago. P52 is a small papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John (18:31-33 on the front; 18:37-38 on the back), and it has been dated to about 125 AD. This makes it a very important little manuscript, because John has been almost unanimously held by scholars to be the latest of the four gospels. So if copies of John were in circulation by 125, the others must have been written considerably earlier. Moreover, the Gospel of John’s greater theological development when compared with the other three gospels has led some scholars to conclude it was written as late as 120 or even 150 AD. The P52 fragment seems to make such late dates impossible. (source)

  189. #189 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    Alan, still delusional if you think quoting your fictional bible means anything to us. And your god is imaginary, existing only between your ears.

  190. #190 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    Even if they were eyewitness accounts who wrote down the events as it happened, it’s still anecdotal evidence supporting an extraordinary claim. The fact that the gospels have changed little is irrelevant, the fact that it claims the fantastic yet has not left a single archaeological or historical artefact to support those claims is.

  191. #191 Alan Clarke
    March 2, 2009

    BigDumbChimp: A thought process [rationalism] that does not alter no matter what evidence is presented.

    I thought the ?thought processes? of big chimps altered over time:

    Charles Darwin: “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, [if developed by evolution], are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” [Letter to W. Graham, July 3rd, 1881]

  192. #192 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    If Jesus were God, surely he would have had some foresight into genetic testing. “My children. Here is a vial of my blood, I give this to you in a sealed container that must not be opened for 2000 years. For when the time is at hand, those will know what to do with it to show my divinity.” Nope, none of that. Just the distinct impression he would come back down from heaven any day now…

  193. #193 windy
    March 2, 2009

    Owlmirror:

    No fear. I’ve seen the sheepshape mask slip and reveal the yellow teeth of the ravening wolf; heard the hungry snarl, covered up by the loud bleating as the mask is readjusted.

    I would have guessed something more like the smug but clueless grin of a Wile E Coyote.

  194. #194 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    BigDumbChimp: A thought process [rationalism] that does not alter no matter what evidence is presented.

    Alan, dishonesty is not a trait your god supposedly approves of.

    Creationists are the ones who’s minds can not be changed by evidence. You have proven this over and over and over.

  195. #195 CJO
    March 2, 2009

    Thanks so much CJO for clearing things up. I’ll refer to your “improved” link for future postings

    Good. It serves mainly to illustrate just how fragmentary are all papyri prior to the 3rd century. No reliable evidence for congruence between whole texts can be derived from such paucity of evidence. Your little table implies that whole manuscripts are preserved from those early dates. It’s dishonest.

    Small changes and variations in manuscripts affect none of the central Christian doctrines, nor do they change the message.

    Refer to the writings of Bart Ehrman. Your assertion is the standard line, but the fact remains: there are more discrepancies in our ealiest manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. While it’s true that most of them are trivial copying errors that do not impinge on core Christian doctrines, some of them are in fact quite significant for the interpretation of the texts.

    I’m still waiting for the A, B, and C manuscript evidences showing the gradual degradation of the first century texts.

    You’re missing the point by obtusely repeating this challenge. Even if we had clear evidence of near-perfect transmission of the tradition, the fact remains that the tradition begins late in the first century; at a minimum, forty years after the supposed events of Jesus’ life. Plenty of time for the kind of mythmaking that is clearly in evidence when we examine the gospels with the same critical methods we would use for any other ancient text.

  196. #196 Owlmirror
    March 2, 2009

    Hark! I hear the wolf, growling and snarling again, mixed with his plaintive, oh-so-sheeplike bleatings. Do we need a muzzle for the wolf? Perhaps a cage is called for?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

    The style of the script is strongly Hadrianic, which would suggest a date somewhere between 125 and 160 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows for a range of dates that extends from before 100 CE past 150 CE.

    [...]
    Skepticism about the use of P52 to date the Gospel of John (not about the fragment’s authenticity) is based on two issues. First, the papyrus has been rather narrowly dated based on the handwriting alone, without the support of textual evidence. Secondly, in common with every other surviving early Gospel manuscript, this fragment is not from a scroll but from a codex; a bound book not a roll. If it dates to the first half of the second century, this fragment would be amongst the earlier surviving examples of a codex (around 90 CE, Martial describes the codex form as then new to Rome).

    Did that citation previously posted say “125 AD”? The earliest date in a range derived solely from handwriting style is asserted to be the definite, absolute, no-questions, no-doubts, no-uncertainties date the text was written?

    Interesting, indeed.

  197. #197 Ragutis
    March 2, 2009

    *sigh*

    Evolution happens so slowly and occurred such a long time ago, with no eyewitnesses or even contemporary accounts, there’s simply no way to judge the accuracy of the evolutionist?s account.

    Alan, this is like comparing forensic evidence to hearsay testimony. Actually, very much like it. Also, scientists don’t and have never claimed to have the entire picture of the evolutionary record or the ultimate TRUTH ?. Scientists are saying (and have evidence to support) “Tiktaalik lived about 375 myo”, not that “Jebus the Tiktaalik, The Great Tiktaalik in the Sky Made Flesh, had this for breakfast then went over here to sun on this rock before trying to score with Mary the slutty Tiktaalik and he got turned down so he and his 12 tiktaalik buddies went on a road trip to here where Jebus got into trouble with the tiktaalik hierarchy and ended up nailed to a giant fern, ascending to the Swamp Eternal, and thereby absolving all Devonian fauna of their sins.”

    Mark, the first gospel to be recorded, wasn’t compiled and written down for between 30 and 50 years after Jesus’ death, and John closer to 70 years. You really think that in all those years these stories were orally spread, that no embellishments or mistakes got in? No misinterpretations? No distortion?

    Speaking of distortion, you seem to have done a good job with my post (as you have many others (and others’)). I never said Jesus “borrowed” his teachings, although he may have. I said that others’ words and deeds may have been attributed to Jesus. Again, there’s no way of knowing since there’s no contemporary account.

    Oh, and one more thing…

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html

    Why are you so adamant about avoiding that link?

  198. #198 Owlmirror
    March 2, 2009

    there are more discrepancies in our ealiest manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. While it’s true that most of them are trivial copying errors that do not impinge on core Christian doctrines, some of them are in fact quite significant for the interpretation of the texts.

    The Wiki article on the P52 also notes that the words “??? ?????” appear to be missing from the text; “and it is suggested that these words were inadvertently dropped through haplography.”

  199. #199 Alan Clarke
    March 2, 2009

    Kel: The fact that the gospels have changed little is irrelevant, the fact that it claims the fantastic yet has not left a single archaeological or historical artefact to support those claims is.

    Kel, you are posting faster than you are thinking. ?The fact that the gospels have changed little? is extremely relevant (or refuted) by many individuals on this forum. Please don?t be calloused to their beliefs. It may be their last hope. You have intellectualized an answer for yourself but they may not have attained to your level of understanding. Your concession is like handing the ?holy grail? to the enemy. In deference to your colleagues, I won?t hold you to your statement. It was probably a mistake. Here is my recommendation for the wording:

    The fact that the gospels have changed little is unknown to my colleagues. The Bible claims things that I have not experienced in my 50 year life span, so they seem fantastic to me. To my knowledge, there is not left a single archaeological or historical artifact to support those claims. If I was made aware of evidences, then I could interpret them so as not to damage my theory.

  200. #200 CJO
    March 2, 2009

    I’ve got some questions for you, Alan.

    To whom was the impending birth of Jesus announced, Mary, or Joseph?
    Did Mary and Joseph travel to Bethlehem for a Roman census?
    Did Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt after the birth of Jesus?
    Did John the Baptist baptize Jesus?
    Did Jesus’ ministry last one year, or over three?
    How many times did Jesus go to Jerusalem?
    What, exactly, did Jesus say on the cross, immediately before he died?
    Did Pontius Pilate agree to establish a guard at Jesus’ tomb?

  201. #201 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    Kel, you are posting faster than you are thinking. ?The fact that the gospels have changed little? is extremely relevant (or refuted) by many individuals on this forum.

    Honestly I could not give a shit what anyone else here believes on matters of the gospel. The fact remains that you are pushing impossible tales on the veracity of the anecdotal; and second-hand anecdotal evidence written decades after the alleged events took place. Mistranslations, copying errors, these things are irrelevant to the fact that there’s not a shred of archaeological evidence that supports the fact that God walked on this earth in human form. You are believing something incredulous and impossible on 2nd hand anecdotal information, and putting that above all empirical inquiry to the contrary.

    You fail on even the slightest notion of critical thinking.

  202. #202 Alan Clarke
    March 2, 2009

    Ragutis: Scientists are saying (and have evidence to support) “Tiktaalik lived about 375 myo”.

    The latest evidence is leading scientists to believe that Tiktaalik is related to Barney. Notice the homological similarities between their faces: (click here)

    Notice also how the inconvenient discovery of a living coelacanth forced the artist to remove its legs.

  203. #203 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    Notice also how the inconvenient discovery of a living coelacanth forced the artist to remove its legs.

    Do you even know how evolution works Alan? If dogs came from wolves, why are there still wolves? A living coelacanth does not even in the slighest break the notion that tetrapods could have formed from fish like that.

  204. #204 Wowbagger
    March 2, 2009

    Alan Clarke,

    The fact that the gospels have changed little evolution is still occurring today is unknown to my colleagues. The Bible ToE claims demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt things that I have not experienced closed my eyes to in my 50 year life span, so they seem fantastic to me. To I willfully limit my knowledge, so I may continue to lie to myself and claim there is not overwhelming evidence from numerous scientific fields not left a single archaeological or historical artifact to support those claims. If I was made aware of stopped lying to myself and accepted the evidences, then I could interpret them so as not to damage would abandon my theory nonsensical, archaic religion which I, deep down, know is false; hence why I fight the losing battle – because I need to convince myself my god is real and thinks I’m special.

    Fixed it for you. No, no – that’s okay.

  205. #205 Alan Clarke
    March 2, 2009

    Until Owlmirror comes clean, all of his philosophizing is nothing more than the ravings of an embittered old man who was lied to when he was a child. Either his ?Christian? parents abandoned him or the nuns made him kneel on cinders as a punishment. Now it?s PAYBACK! If I was in Janine?s shoes, I would at least want Owlmirror to PM me privately to explain why he is so full of hate and revenge. Until then, the impetus and choice of direction for his ?scientific? research, ?Did that citation previously posted say “125 AD”?? are symptoms of an earlier disease. Janine came out of the closet and no one berated her for it. I don?t even use a pseudonym for my identity. I was forthcoming about my life?s experiences that COULD and DO have influence on my interpretation of evidences. I don?t hide anything in this respect. Owlmirror is supposed to be truly objective but this is becoming as believable as Hitler?s objectivity after being convicted of treason and spending nine months in Landsberg prison.

  206. #206 Watchman
    March 2, 2009

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAH! Oh, I love this.

    …the inconvenient discovery of a living coelacanth….

    What was that dull, hollow crashing sound?

    Why, it was the sound of Clarke’s credibility dropping through the floor.

  207. #207 Ragutis
    March 2, 2009

    Alan, if you were any dimmer, you’d go out. Have you been able to make a career in point dodging, or do you just do it as a hobby?

    Why are you avoiding this link?

  208. #208 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    The fact that the gospels have changed little is unknown to my colleagues. The Bible claims things that I have not experienced in my 50 year life span, so they seem fantastic to me. To my knowledge, there is not left a single archaeological or historical artifact to support those claims. If I was made aware of evidences, then I could interpret them so as not to damage my theory.

    I’ll reword it:
    Although there have been some copying errors, mistranslations, and a few instances of deliberate fraud, large parts of the new testament have at their base still the heart of what was first written down ~1900 years ago. Through comparative studies of the text and through archaeological and historical observation, we are able to give a chronological order by which the bible was written. Markian priority is the current accepted means, where the two other synoptic gosleps (Matthew and Luke) were both derived from Mark, with John being a collaborative effort written much later. As Mark came first, we are able to put a timeframe on when the gospels were first written down – around 70CE after the destruction of the temple. From there Luke and Matthew were written within a few decades, and Jon was written down early in the 2nd century.

    As for historical artefacts, there currently exists not a single artefact belonging to Jesus. No property, no relics, not even the location of his tomb. Nothing physical that can tie Jesus to this world exists. Secular historians of the time don’t mention him, but there are two references to Christ by later secular historians – one around 20 years after the first gospel was written and the other about 45 years after. Even Paul did not mention anything about Jesus’ life in his letters, only about his death and resurrection.

    But all of this is quite irrelevant. Even if there the gospels were really written by the apostles, even if they were written as the events were happening, it still wouldn’t change that it’s anecdotal evidence. And the mind is prone to fallibility. For this was not only meant to be a prophet, but God-incarnate yet nothing remains to this day except a few 2nd-hand eyewitness accounts? If you have any evidence to the contrary, bring it. Show the historical artefacts. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Alan, and Jesus being God-incarnate is damn extraordinary.

  209. #209 Watchman
    March 2, 2009

    (Clarke then jumps through the hole, lands feet-first in a rank puddle on the basement floor, and delivers a sloppy ad hom back up through the hole. Hey, it’s all he’s got left.)

  210. #210 Owlmirror
    March 2, 2009

    Hark at the ravening wolf! Hear it snarl and growl! See, the sheepshape mask falls off; its sharp stained teeth are bared for all the world to see, as the snarl furrows its muzzle. Now the jaws bite empty air; hear the snap and click of the meat-lusting teeth.

  211. #211 Watchman
    March 2, 2009

    (Chapter 211, in which Owlmirror proves himself to be significantly more poetic than The Watchman.)

  212. #212 E.V.
    March 2, 2009

    the inconvenient discovery of a living coelacanth….

    Dammit! You Aussies were supposed to HIDE the living fossil.

    (Oh Alan. What a fucking moron. hahahahahahahahahahahhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa)

  213. #213 Wowbagger
    March 2, 2009

    Oh, Alan Clarke’s really lost it now – he’s foaming at the mouth! Fall to the floor and chew that carpet, Al!

    Hee hee hee. We broke his brain.

  214. #214 Ken Cope
    March 2, 2009

    We broke his brain.

    While there was some settling of contents during shipment, it was already fractured before we ever got a look at it. RMA that sucker.

  215. #215 Wowbagger
    March 2, 2009

    Alan’s ranting screed at Owlmirror in #206 is a demonstration of just how differently religionists think from us – he’s trying to hold him up as our spiritual leader, someone who we revere in the same way he reveres his own personal preacher/priest/snake-handler.

    Which is stupid. We accept what Owlmirror writes because he backs it up with evidence. Yes, it helps that he’s extremely intelligent and writes well, but that’d count for nothing if he didn’t have what’s needed to back those claims up.

    I mean, what the fuck does this:

    Owlmirror is supposed to be truly objective but this is becoming as believable as Hitler?s objectivity after being convicted of treason and spending nine months in Landsberg prison.

    even mean?

    And some wonder why many of us don’t use our real names. Heck, with people like Alan around I’m not sure anyone here shouldn’t be using a handle, just in case.

  216. #216 Alan Clarke
    March 2, 2009

    E.V. Then you need to understand scientific method and the incredibly sophisticated and complex ways we can determine dates for things, that anyone using the same methods can determine also.?

    Wikipedia ?Radiocarbon Dating?: Natural diamond samples from different sources within rock formations with standard geological ages in excess of 100 my yielded 14C apparent ages 64,920±430 BP to 80,000±1100 BP as reported in 2007

    Why don?t you just accept the scientific data? Instead of 100 my, the diamonds are 70K years old. Diamonds because of there hardness provide little opportunity for contamination. Why would you doubt the data? Is it because you have a PRE-SUPPOSITION that the Earth must be older so you search for alternative interpretations which allow your theory to remain viable? What is driving further inquiry? The data or the theory? I think your theory is the driving force behind you interpreting the excessive presence of C14 as ?background radiation?. How about isotopes of greater half-lives for determining ages of rocks? Your assumptions reach ?religious faith? proportions when you date something you are ASSUMING to be a billion years old.

    Shouldn?t scientists be EXTREMELY concerned about possible dating errors originating from ASSUMPTIONS that could be wrong when using radioisotopes? Why is it that the possible errors from these ASSUMPTIONS are reported almost exclusively on Christian websites? Shouldn?t they be in every school textbook? My suspicion is that funding and education of evolutionism have more influence on ?science? than you acknowledge. If fantastic ages for fossils are not reported, then National Geographic and Nova halt filming and the checks stop flowing.

    Are you aware of the contradictory age dating methods for The Great Barrier Reef? Which one do you go with? Do you go with the data or with the theory? Why don?t we have existing reef systems with 15,000 year ages and older? The only thing ?incredible? about your ?incredibly sophisticated? systems is how incredibly incapable they are. We have detailed genealogical evidences that tell us the Earth is about 6000 years old but you have chosen to discard that data in favor of data that contradicts itself given sufficient time. You probably prefer the phrase, ?improves itself over time?. How do you know it?s improving rather than worsening? If the theory has preeminence in determining which data is accepted or rejected, then one would expect the data to fit the theory ?better over time?. So it all boils down to which data one prefers. Have you ever heard of the phenomenon which plagues scientific inquiry called ?finding what you are looking for?? All data can be interpreted and parsed so as to fit one?s theory.

    ?The Great Barrier Reef is around 18 million years of age in the north and 2 million Years old in the south, with the existing reef system being between 10,000 and 6000 years old.? (source)

    ?In a paper in the journal Geology, scientists say the GBR started to grow as a result of sea level changes about 600,000 years ago. This is considerably younger than the 20 million years some had previously estimated.? (source)

  217. #217 Wowbagger
    March 2, 2009

    Seriously, Alan – calm down. All that froth and spittle can’t be good for your keyboard.

    In your madness you probably haven’t realised you’re quoting from a tourism flyer for a resort. Obviously, a well-respected source of scientific data; perhaps you’d also like to refer us to the indepth tests they’ve done on preferred scents of tanning oil or measurements into optimum bikini sizes.

    It’s worth a read, though. Port Douglas is a pretty nice place. Haven’t been there for a few years, though. If Bride of Shrek shows up she can tell you more about it; it’s more her neck of the woods than mine. She’s amongst the small proportion of Australians who can refer to where I’m (originally) from as ‘down south’.

  218. #218 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    Why don?t you just accept the scientific data? Instead of 100 my, the diamonds are 70K years old.

    Alan, the diamonds cannot be used to date their formation because all the carbon-14 has decayed. We have been telling you that for days. Diamonds are found in certain volcanic dykes, which can be dated with proper isotopes. For example:
    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1324313051.html

    4.25 Billion year old diamonds. So you lie Alan. You lie through your teeth. Your belief in your bible is blinding you to reality. You have to stop lying to yourself before you can stop lying to us. Which you need to do.

  219. #219 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 2, 2009

    In your madness you probably haven’t realised you’re quoting from a tourism flyer for a resort. Obviously, a well-respected source of scientific data; perhaps you’d also like to refer us to the indepth tests they’ve done on preferred scents of tanning oil or measurements into optimum bikini sizes.

    snicker

  220. #220 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    Alan, do you think the hundreds of thousands of geologists and nuclear physicists trained to be able to date rocks would be ignorant of the assumptions and trappings of the method? That it’s only those good Christian websites exposing a truth that for almost a century those happening to use the techniques are vastly ignorant of?

    You credulous fool, Alan. You have no idea about how science works and what goes into discovering information. You have no idea how these techniques work and how to properly apply them – and from that you assume that everyone who uses them must not know either. And from that you extrapolate that because a few dates have been wrong on various items that all dates must be wrong. You are saying that geologists who date the earth are wrong by a factor of 700,000! And why? Because of your own selection bias in finding information in order to discredit something you don’t understand.

  221. #221 Kel
    March 2, 2009

    What does conflicting reports on the age of the GBR have to do with radiometric dating of ancient rocks through several different techniques that through blind testing in different laboratories all give the same date? It seems like Alan just wants to create unreasonable doubt – find one example where there’s seemingly contradicting information in a semi-relevent field and then conclude that ALL data is unreliable and not even consider it’s admissibility.

  222. #222 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 2, 2009

    Alan, on something as big as the GBR, we would expect to see different ages for different parts since it wasn’t made overnight. We have brought far more doubt to bear on your god and bible than you ever will be able to do to science. Science has already thought about any feeble attempt of yours to throw doubt on it, and the answers are already in place. You need to stop posting here, as we will continue to cast doubt on your god and bible, while you can’t touch science unless you are a scientist. And you don’t know science, nor how to do it.

  223. #223 Owlmirror
    March 3, 2009

    Gosh, maybe we do have a presupposition! Maybe we have this presupposition of a billions-year-old Earth because we’re all just atheists.

    Oh, wait. What does Radiometric Dating : A Christian Perspective say?

    For example, most people don’t realize that carbon dating is only rarely used on rocks. God has called us to be “wise as serpents” (Matt. 10:16) even in this scientific age. In spite of this, differences still occur within the church. A disagreement over the age of the Earth is relatively minor in the whole scope of Christianity; it is more important to agree on the Rock of Ages than on the age of rocks. But because God has also called us to wisdom, this issue is worthy of study.
    [...]
    12. There are only a few different dating methods

    This article has listed and discussed a number of different radiometric dating methods and has also briefly described a number of non-radiometric dating methods. There are actually many more methods out there. Well over forty different radiometric dating methods are in use, and a number of non-radiogenic methods not even mentioned here.

    Maybe we “presuppose” that the evidence speaks for itself!

    Sheesh.

  224. #224 Alan Clarke
    March 3, 2009

    Nerd of Redhead: Alan, the diamonds cannot be used to date their formation because all the carbon-14 has decayed.

    The Earth must be millions of years old to allow sufficient time for Darwinian evolution to work. If the Earth is indeed many millions of years old, diamonds should not have ANY carbon-14 remaining since the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years. Nerd concurs with this hypothesis by stating, ?all of the carbon-14 has decayed?. This indicates to me that he and many others may be unaware of the current debate:

    If there is no carbon-14 in diamonds, then why is this uninformed evolutionist trying to explain why there is?
    https://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17280&start=0

    The reason he is trying to account for it is because carbon-14 in diamonds has been confirmed by non-creationists:

    Confirmation that there is in situ carbon-14 in diamonds has now been reported in the conventional literature.3 R.E. Taylor of the Department of Anthropology at the University of California?Riverside and of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at the University of California?Los Angeles teamed with J. Southon at the Keck Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the Department of Earth System Science at the University of California?Irvine to analyze nine natural diamonds from Brazil. All nine diamonds are conventionally regarded as being at least of early Paleozoic age, that is, at least several hundred million years old. So, if they really are that old they should not have any intrinsic carbon-14 in them. Eight of the diamonds yielded radiocarbon ?ages? of 64,900 years to 80,000 years. The ninth diamond was cut into six equal fragments, which were each analyzed. They yield essentially identical radiocarbon ?ages? ranging from 69,400 years to 70,600 years. This suggests the carbon-14 was evenly distributed through this diamond, which is consistent with it being intrinsic carbon-14, and not contamination. Interestingly, samples of Ceylon graphite from Precambrian metamorphic rock (conventionally around 1 billion years old) were analyzed at the same time and yielded radiocarbon ?ages? of from 58,400 years to 70,100 years. (source)

    Whether or not carbon-14 in diamonds is from contamination or not is not the point of my argument. I previously argued:

    ?If the theory has preeminence in determining which data is accepted or rejected, then one would expect the data to fit the theory ?better over time?. So it all boils down to which data one prefers. Have you ever heard of the phenomenon which plagues scientific inquiry called ?finding what you are looking for?? All data can be interpreted and parsed so as to fit one?s theory.?

    An evolutionist cannot claim, ?Our theory is supported purely by the evidence.? since in actuality, their theory is supported by their ?interpretation? of the evidence.

    Kel: Alan, do you think the hundreds of thousands of geologists and nuclear physicists trained to be able to date rocks would be ignorant of the assumptions and trappings of the method? … You have no idea about how science works and what goes into discovering information.

    I can see that you have a GOOD idea about how ?science? works. Go with the majority! This ?sure win? method has been proven to fail countless times in practically every branch of science, including political science.

    Wowbagger: In your madness you probably haven’t realised you’re quoting from a tourism flyer for a resort.

    I was very well aware of it. The tourism site is a perfect example to illustrate accepted word-views that may be disconnected from the ?top?. It?s like interviewing 1 million Catholics who say that praying to a statue of Mary is okay but when the Pope is asked, he responds, ?Certainly not!? The poor guy that designed the travel website probably thought, ?Okay? when I was in school, I was taught the Earth is very old. So I can safely publish the reef is 18 million years old without offending too many potential tourists.? It?s hard to reverse one?s thinking when it has never been exercised but one way.

  225. #225 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    I can see that you have a GOOD idea about how ?science? works. Go with the majority! This ?sure win? method has been proven to fail countless times in practically every branch of science, including political science.

    It’s not about going with the majority, it’s about what constitutes basic training. Again, do you think that the hundreds of thousands of scientists in that particular field are oblivious as to the trappings and limitations of the tools they use?

    Yes, science is fallible. But that’s how progress is made. We learn more when things fail, and the scientific means of going about failure is why the process is so successful. When C14 was found in coal and diamonds, they sought to find out why. And they did find a source – the decay of uranium underground contaminated the material. ANd geologists know this, nuclear physicists know this, and they show wherever possible the trappings and limitations of their data. It’s why science is a tentative enterprise; something which the likes of you will never understand.

  226. #226 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    Alan, considering the problems associated with carbon dating, and the appropriate limit of about 50,000 years, it appears that contamination of the sampes is occuring. This is not unknown in any measurement, and must always be taken into consideration. Carbon dating is not meaninful at this limit, so your use of it is not appropriate, and it really doesn’t say what you want it to. In no way, does the carbon dating make the other methods inaccurate, and the 4.5 billion year old age of the earth stands.

  227. #227 Alan Clarke
    March 3, 2009

    Nerd of Redhead: Alan, considering the problems associated with carbon dating?

    Now we are getting somewhere. What is a good dating method that does not suffer from contamination, possible false assumptions of the initial amount of parent isotope and assumed steady decay rate?

    Nerd of Redhead: and the appropriate limit of about 50,000 years

    Your statement is a perfect example illustrating that you have exercised your thinking heretofore in only one direction. Have you ever thought of the other direction? Carbon-14 fails at old ages but it may succeed at younger ages, remember?

    Nerd of Redhead: it appears that contamination of the sampes is occuring.

    Interpretation: ?It appears that contamination of the samples is occurring because my theory demands it.? Can?t you see that your theory is in the driver?s seat? The data has been hijacked and is being driven wherever the theory wants to take it.

    Nerd of Redhead: ?the 4.5 billion year old age of the earth stands.

    Stands on what? It stands on the same shaky inefficiencies for long-age isotopes that you complained about for carbon-14. It stands on the assumption that a global flood never occurred which would COMPLETELY change the atmospheric C14 content if a large portion of the Earth?s ecosystem was destroyed. It stands on the assumption that the Earth?s declining (or reversing, or bouncing??) magnetic field has been properly predicted. There are so many assumptions that the only thing we can be certain of is your 4.5 billion year ASSUMPTION will change in your lifetime. It?s changed so many times in my lifetime that I stopped counting. The current atmospheric C14 content is not even in equilibrium as predicted by old Earth theories. Nerd, I’m not doubting your ability to derive an explanation for each and every failure of your theory. I’m just saying a theory becomes less viable when one has to over-exercise their mouth every time new data becomes available.

    Q: How can one use less energy in defending their theory?
    A: Move to the right side of the equation.

    E = m C ^2

    E = energy required to defend Evolution(ism)

    C = energy required to defend Creation(ism)

    m = number of mouth opening and closings for speech

    The energy required to defend evolutionism rises exponentially when discussing the formation of granite or the first primordial cell.

  228. #228 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    Stands on what? It stands on the same shaky inefficiencies for long-age isotopes that you complained about for carbon-14. It stands on the assumption that a global flood never occurred

    Actually it stands on the assumption of constant decay rates, and that several radiometric tests which involve different decay rates all happen to show the same. Again, there was no global flood. There’s no evidence of a global flood, all you can talk about are isolated structed that exhibit localised flooding. A global flood would have the same geological evidence worldwide, just as we see global evidence of a comet impact at the K-T boundary.

  229. #229 Watchman
    March 3, 2009

    I’m just saying a theory becomes less viable when one has to over-exercise their mouth every time new data becomes available.

    P.R.O.J.E.C.T.I.O.N.

  230. #230 Watchman
    March 3, 2009

    My dear Mr. Clarke, you’re a fool and a hypocrite. The “theory” of Creationism has always relied on either a) ignoring virtually all the new data as it comes int, or b) going through contortions to reinterpret the data to fit the assumed conclusion. Starlight has taken millions of years to reach earth? Well then! The speed of light must have been slower 6,000 years ago! It must have been!

    What a crock. Creationism relies on the ASSUMPTION that the laws of physics must be malleable, subject to the conditions and constraints of a single, arbitrarily-chosen bronze-age mythology. Ridiculous.

  231. #231 Alan Clarke
    March 3, 2009

    Watchman: What a crock. Creationism relies on the ASSUMPTION that the laws of physics must be malleable, subject to the conditions and constraints of a single, arbitrarily-chosen bronze-age mythology. Ridiculous.

    Evolutionism relies on the ASSUMPTION that the laws of physics must be malleable, subject to the conditions and constraints of a single, arbitrarily-chosen big-bang mythology. Eternal non-intelligent matter? The laws of entropy are malleable and life arose from an explosion? Ridiculous.

  232. #232 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    Alan, boy are you into some funny mushrooms. The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. That is a cosmological/physics argument. And you fail at that too.

    Evolution is totally biological, and you must stick to that or you show your ignorance. You are doing a fine job of cutting and pasting arguments you don’t understand, which makes you look pathetic and stupid. You chances of changing our minds is zero with that tactic. Either cite the peer reviewed primary scientific literature or give up.

  233. #233 E.V.
    March 3, 2009

    Whoah – Alan, you are all sorts of bat-shit crazy. If you’re looking for affirmation here, you took a wrong turn somewhere in Magicville.

  234. #234 Alan Clarke
    March 3, 2009

    Kel: Actually it stands on the assumption of constant decay rates, and that several radiometric tests which involve different decay rates all happen to show the same.
    Your logic is thus: Paper, wood, and plastic all burn at different rates, but they are known rates. Using the combination of them, we have corroborating evidence supporting the belief that a fire has burned x hours. I?m saying that if you remove 50% of the oxygen from the room, the x hours may become 10x hours. They may all maintain their proportionality, but they all lead to the wrong conclusion of x hours. How about the half-lives of nuclides that don?t suffer from external factors such as temperature, pressure, chemical environment, or presence of a magnetic or electric field? Read from Wikipedia?s ?Radiometric Dating?:

    The basic equation of radiometric dating requires that neither the parent nuclide nor the daughter product can enter or leave the material after its formation. The possible confounding effects of contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created.

    You act as if radiometric dating is a ?closed case? for determining the Earth?s age, but as you can see from the above statement, it is NOT a ?closed case?.

    Alternatively, if several different minerals can be dated from the same sample and are assumed to be formed by the same event and were in equilibrium with the reservoir when they formed, they should form an isochron.

    The above sentence has (3) assumptions:
    1) the sample is the same
    2) samples formed by the same event
    3) were in equilibrium with the reservoir when they formed

    Willard Libby, the inventor of C14 dating, minimally failed in assumption #3.

    Kel: Again, there was no global flood. There’s no evidence of a global flood, all you can talk about are isolated structed that exhibit localised flooding. A global flood would have the same geological evidence worldwide, just as we see global evidence of a comet impact at the K-T boundary.

    You are exactly right in stating, ?A global flood would have the same geological evidence worldwide?. I would expect all of the highest mountains to show evidences of sedimentary strata. I would expect all continents to have far-inland water-laid sedimentary strata like limestone (crushed skeletons of sea life). I would expect all continents to have fossil fuels like coal and oil deposits. I would expect oil deposits under the ocean floors. I would expect mass extinction of animals (dinosaurs!!) world-wide. I would expect fossilized graveyards worldwide. I would expect sea shells, corals and clams on the highest mountain ranges worldwide. I would expect to find evidences of HUGE buried forests in Antarctica. I would expect LIVING coral reefs not to exceed 6000 years in age. I would expect practically every culture to have flood legends.

    The above evidences are not ?isolated? or ?localized? by any means. They are strewn about randomly as one would expect with flood deposition. Conversely, if uniformitarian theory were true, I would expect the ?geologic column? to be uniform throughout the entire world. Instead, the question arises, ?Where in the world can one find a complete, undisturbed ?geologic column??? Answer: In the textbooks.

    You seem to think that all of the data is slowly converging to one conclusion. Your theory has converged on one conclusion with selected data and interpretations following it.

  235. #235 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 3, 2009

    Alan, still lying to yourself that your god exists and your bible is not fiction. So you keep twisting real evidence to fit your delusions rather than looking at the evidence and letting that lead you to conclusions, which is what science does.
    All scientific data leads to two things. Radioactive dating is accurate, and a worldwide flood never occurred. So, thems the facts. How you deal with those facts is up to you. So far, you have presented nothing to alter those facts. Quit copying and pasting from creationist web sites. They have already been refute by TalkOrigins.

  236. #236 Kel
    March 3, 2009

    Your logic is thus: Paper, wood, and plastic all burn at different rates, but they are known rates.

    Bad analogy there as fire is dependant on oxygen. How is a global flood going to change decay rates, and different rates at that?

    You seem to think that all of the data is slowly converging to one conclusion.

    Was this meant to be ironic?

    You act as if radiometric dating is a ?closed case? for determining the Earth?s age, but as you can see from the above statement, it is NOT a ?closed case?.

    No, I act as if it’s corroborating evidence. Remember that we can date stars by an entirely different means, and we can date the universe by the distance of stars. A 4.5 billion year old earth corroborates with meteorites that have not been subjected to your damn flood, moon rocks – which again not subjected to your damn flood, the age of the sun, and the age of the universe. All together they form a picture, and your pathetic objection is not supported by geology, it’s not supported by genetics, it’s not supported by anything outside of your damn mythology. Alan Clarke, you have nothing but a book of old myths. Do you really think that if God exists, he would make the universe to fool almost every single person who propely looks at it? Or do you think that God might be more powerful and creative than your petty mythology suggests?

  237. #237 Owlmirror
    March 4, 2009

    The ravening wolf has his sheep clothes back on and buttoned up, and is bleating and baaing loudly. “Oh, look what a good sheep I am, proudly casting out devils (or rather, casting out truth), and working wonders (or rather, proclaiming nonsense and falsehood) in God’s name! I am such a good sheep! Baa, baa!”

    Should we heed the ravening wolf in sheep clothes? It bleats so sheeplike. The teeth are hidden now; all is covered by soft white wool. It looks so innocent… except for the eyes. And the lies.

    What does Radiometric Dating : A Christian Perspective say?

    Some of the oldest rocks on earth are found in Western Greenland. Because of their great age, they have been especially well studied. The table below gives the ages, in billions of years, from twelve different studies using five different techniques on one particular rock formation in Western Greenland, the Amitsoq gneisses.

    Technique		Age Range (billion years)
    ------------		------------------------------
    uranium-lead 			3.60±0.05
    lead-lead 			3.56±0.10
    lead-lead 			3.74±0.12
    lead-lead 			3.62±0.13
    rubidium-strontium 		3.64±0.06
    rubidium-strontium 		3.62±0.14
    rubidium-strontium 		3.67±0.09
    rubidium-strontium 		3.66±0.10
    rubidium-strontium 		3.61±0.22
    rubidium-strontium 		3.56±0.14
    lutetium-hafnium 		3.55±0.22
    samarium-neodymium 		3.56±0.20
    -----------------------------------------------------
    (compiled from Dalrymple, 1991)

    and also:

    We will digress briefly from radiometric dating to talk about other dating techniques. It is important to understand that a very large number of accurate dates covering the past 100,000 years has been obtained from many other methods besides radiometric dating. We have already mentioned dendrochronology (tree ring dating) above. Dendrochronology is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of non-radiometric dating methods. Here we will look briefly at some other non-radiometric dating techniques.

    Ice Cores. One of the best ways to measure farther back in time than tree rings is by using the seasonal variations in polar ice from Greenland and Antarctica. There are a number of differences between snow layers made in winter and those made in spring, summer, and fall. These seasonal layers can be counted just like tree rings. The seasonal differences consist of a) visual differences caused by increased bubbles and larger crystal size from summer ice compared to winter ice, b) dust layers deposited each summer, c) nitric acid concentrations, measured by electrical conductivity of the ice, d) chemistry of contaminants in the ice, and e) seasonal variations in the relative amounts of heavy hydrogen (deuterium) and heavy oxygen (oxygen-18) in the ice. These isotope ratios are sensitive to the temperature at the time they fell as snow from the clouds. The heavy isotope is lower in abundance during the colder winter snows than it is in snow falling in spring and summer. So the yearly layers of ice can be tracked by each of these five different indicators, similar to growth rings on trees. The different types of layers are summarized in Table III.

    Ice cores are obtained by drilling very deep holes in the ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica with specialized drilling rigs. As the rigs drill down, the drill bits cut around a portion of the ice, capturing a long undisturbed “core” in the process. These cores are carefully brought back to the surface in sections, where they are catalogued, and taken to research laboratories under refrigeration. A very large amount of work has been done on several deep ice cores up to 9,000 feet in depth. Several hundred thousand measurements are sometimes made for a single technique on a single ice core.

    A continuous count of layers exists back as far as 160,000 years. In addition to yearly layering, individual strong events (such as large-scale volcanic eruptions) can be observed and correlated between ice cores. A number of historical eruptions as far back as Vesuvius nearly 2,000 years ago serve as benchmarks with which to determine the accuracy of the yearly layers as far down as around 500 meters. As one goes further down in the ice core, the ice becomes more compacted than near the surface, and individual yearly layers are slightly more difficult to observe. For this reason, there is some uncertainty as one goes back towards 100,000 years. Ages of 40,000 years or less are estimated to be off by 2% at most. Ages of 60,000 years may be off by up to 10%, and the uncertainty rises to 20% for ages of 110,000 years based on direct counting of layers (D. Meese et al., J. Geophys. Res. 102, 26,411, 1997). Recently, absolute ages have been determined to 75,000 years for at least one location using cosmogenic radionuclides chlorine-36 and beryllium-10 (G. Wagner et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 193, 515, 2001). These agree with the ice flow models and the yearly layer counts. Note that there is no indication anywhere that these ice caps were ever covered by a large body of water, as some people with young-Earth views would expect.

    (emphasis mine, of course.)

  238. #238 Owlmirror
    March 4, 2009

    Here’s another interesting bit from Radiometric Dating : A Christian Perspective:

    Can We Really Believe the Dating Systems?

    We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing. Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records. Consider the following:

    • There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
    • All of the different dating methods agree–they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
    • Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
    • Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
    • Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
    • The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.

    The last three points deserve more attention. Some Christians have argued that something may be slowly changing with time so all the ages look older than they really are. The only two quantities in the exponent of a decay rate equation are the half-life and the time. So for ages to appear longer than actual, all the half-lives would have to be changing in sync with each other. One could consider that time itself was changing if that happened (remember that our clocks are now standardized to atomic clocks!). And such a thing would have to have occurred without our detection in the last hundred years, which is already 5% of the way back to the time of Christ.

  239. #239 Alan Clarke
    March 4, 2009

    Nerd of Redhead: Alan, still lying to yourself that your god exists and your bible is not fiction.

    The last time I mentioned the word ?Bible? was two days ago. The last time I used the word ?God? without quoting someone else (Owlmirror loves the word) was four days ago in post #153. The words ?God? and ?Bible? could be flashing in your mind. Get some rest.

    Nerd of Redhead: So you keep twisting real evidence to fit your delusions rather than looking at the evidence and letting that lead you to conclusions, which is what science does.

    We are both working with the exact same evidences, lizard guts, DNA, Grand Canyon, diamonds, etc. The differences are not the ?evidences?. The differences are the interpretation of those evidences. Do you think that ?looking at the evidence and letting that lead you to conclusions? will allow you to grasp the truth? You?ve got it all backwards. If you know the truth first, you can work backwards in understanding yourself and the things around you. Jeremiah 17:9 ?The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?? Until you come to that understanding, your opinion of yourself and your surroundings will be one big delusion.

    Nerd of Redhead: All scientific data leads to two things. Radioactive dating is accurate, and a worldwide flood never occurred.

    Thanks for proving my point.

    Nerd of Redhead: Quit copying and pasting from creationist web sites. They have already been refute by TalkOrigins.

    In post #225, I copied some NON-CREATIONIST radio carbon data results performed at University of California (which I learned through answersinenesis.org). Other than that, during the course of this thread, I haven?t copied & pasted from one single creationist website. I’m beginning to wonder if you can articulate anything for yourself beyond what TalkOrigins has fed you. Maybe I missed it. Please refer me to your post #.

  240. #240 Alan Clarke
    March 4, 2009

    Matthew 24:37-39 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

  241. #241 Owlmirror
    March 4, 2009

    Wicked, wicked“, bleats the sheep-costumed wolf. “I know the truth”, bleats the wolf dressed like a sheep. “My truth is the true truth; you atheists are deluded”, bleats the wolf, forgetting himself and licking his chops.

    Hm.

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm

        Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth position. Baumgardner and the RATE team are to be commended for tackling the subject, but their ?intrinsic radiocarbon? explanation does not work. The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry. The RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ. RATE?s processed diamond samples were probably contaminated in the sample chemistry. The unprocessed diamond samples probably reflect instrument background. Coal and diamond samples have been measured by others down to instrument background levels, giving no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon.

        While some materials, e.g., coals and carbonates, often do show radiocarbon contamination that cannot be fully accounted for, resorting to ?intrinsic radiocarbon? raises more questions than it answers. Why do only some materials show evidence of this intrinsic radiocarbon? Why does some anthracite and diamond exist with no measurable intrinsic radiocarbon? Why is its presence in carbonates so much more variable than in other materials, e.g., wood and graphite? Why is it often found in bone carbonates but not in collagen from the same bone? Since intrinsic radiocarbon would be mistakenly interpreted as AMS process background, why do multi-laboratory intercomparisons not show a much larger variation than is observed? Why does unprocessed diamond seem to have less intrinsic radiocarbon than processed diamond?

        These and many other considerations are inconsistent with the RATE hypothesis of ?intrinsic radiocarbon? but are consistent with contamination and background. ?Intrinsic radiocarbon? is essentially a ?radiocarbon-of-the-gaps? theory. As contamination becomes better understood, the opportunities to invoke ?intrinsic radiocarbon? will diminish. Most radiocarbon measurements of old materials, including many of shells and coal, can be accounted for by known contamination mechanisms, leaving absolutely no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that ?all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible … level of 14C?

    Say, who are these ASA people?

    The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science. In matters of science and Christian faith, we offer Christian scholarship, education, fellowship and service to ASA members, churches, educational institutions, the scientific community, and society.

    Well. I don’t know about anyone else, but I like that “commitment to integrity in the practice of science.” That beats ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing all hollow.

  242. #242 Ragutis
    March 4, 2009

    Jeremiah 17:9 ?The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it??

    Alan, I’m seeing it out of context, but I’m thinking that you should reflect on this quotation a little more. This is precisely why the scientific method is so valuable, because it does a remarkable job of taking preconceptions and prejudices out of the equation.

    Would you prefer that people were sentenced for crimes and then the forensics guys and detectives went out to dig up some evidence that justified the verdict and punishment?

  243. #243 Steven Sullivan
    March 4, 2009

    re: Watchmen (the movie)

    FWIW, Anthony Lane of the New Yorker (who I usually find to be right on the money) pretty much called it godawful pretentious violent crap. He doesn’t seem to be much of a fan of the graphic novel either.

  244. #244 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 4, 2009

    Alan, still quoting your fictional bible. Bad form.

  245. #245 Ichthyic
    March 4, 2009

    The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.

    sounds like a recipe for cognitive dissonance and mucho rationalization to me.

    Is the result of this affiliation the likes of Francis Collins?

    If so, better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but not much; the stick and the eye are still dangerously close.

    …and eventually one has to get rid of the stick or still risk being poked in the eye.

    meh, always the ideological strategist here on Pharyngula, I tend to overlook the tactical value of such organizations in the short term.

  246. #246 Ichthyic
    March 4, 2009

    I copied some NON-CREATIONIST radio carbon data results performed at University of California (which I learned through answersinenesis.org)

    ROFLMAO

    can’t see through the denial, can ya Alan?

    so funny, just how fucked up you religionauts are.

  247. #247 Ichthyic
    March 4, 2009

    The differences are the interpretation of those evidences.

    as usual, the easy answer to this is to ask you what color glasses you are wearing, because the sky is BLUE, ok?

    We have the exact mechanism showing how light scatters in blue wavelengths to provide independent corroborating evidence (that coincidentally agrees with how our eyes interpret the color of the sky).

    what do you have on your side to support the sky is actually a different color?

    fucking nothing, that’s what.

    take off the damn glasses, Alan. See the world the way it REALLY is.

  248. #248 Ken Cope
    March 4, 2009

    Thank you, Steven Sullivan, for posting on topic, even if Lane did not use any of those adjectives you cited.

    Having just finished reading the review, I’d call that resounding “whoosh,” as the point of the novel and film went past the critic’s head, the most ringing endorsement Snyder and company could possibly hope for. The work Moore and Gibbons poured into Watchmen changed comics; I suspect cinema is safe. I’ll pay to see it in the best theater I can find, something I do only every couple of years or so, despite the fact that I don’t expect to expect to encounter climactic cephalocalypse, an issue that is of some sensitivity to our host PZ.

    Having read Anthony Lane on Watchmen, I can imagine how some rabid and cretinous theists feel about Dawkins and his reading of their holy book, were it not for the fact that, unlike Lane, Dawkins was actually informed and coherent.

  249. #249 Ken Cope
    March 4, 2009

    Oh dear. I’ve misspelled cephalopocalypse.

    While I’m here, I’ll note that Visit W3Schools.com!“>Roger Ebert’s review concludes with this:

    The film is rich enough to be seen more than once. I plan to see it again, this time on IMAX, and will have more to say about it. I?m not sure I understood all the nuances and implications, but I am sure I had a powerful experience. It?s not as entertaining as ?The Dark Knight,? but like the ?Matrix? films, LOTR and ?The Dark Knight,? it?s going to inspire fevered analysis. I don?t want to see it twice for that reason, however, but mostly just to have the experience again.

    But enough about Anthony Lane and Roger Ebert. I’m sure we’re all on tenterhooks about what Alan Clarke has to say about the science of Watchmen, or about Watchmen the film or Watchmen the graphic novel.

  250. #250 Ken Cope
    March 4, 2009

    “Hrrmm.” Roger Ebert’s review

  251. #251 Ken Cope
    March 4, 2009

    Bonus blockquote: Fanboy response to Anthony Lane’s review:

    Not to question what is, I am certain, the vibrant and thrilling sex lives of film critics, but I’m not so sure that “film critic” is much higher than “comic book geek” on the social spectrum. Moreover, what exactly do Lane’s thoughts on comic book nerds have to do with the quality of the film? What does the reviewer grant the reader by insulting the film’s intended audience?

  252. #252 Owlmirror
    March 5, 2009

    The differences are the interpretation of those evidences.

    as usual, the easy answer to this is to ask you what color glasses you are wearing, because the sky is BLUE, ok?

    Fair warning: You’re shouting into the wind, here.

    He’s been posting since, what, a month ago in the Titanoboa thread, and had it explained to him, again and again, that science starts with the evidence, not the conclusion; the conclusions that we have are from the evidence, the same for believer and atheist.

    He doesn’t want to hear it.

    He ignores everything, and occasionally goes on violent psychotic/schizophrenic rants (NB: not a professional diagnosis), such as #153 and #206 above. #287 on Titanoboa was also like that, digressing into bodies being wrapped around truck axles, and probably a few others as well.

    Just so you know.

  253. #253 Alan Clarke
    March 5, 2009

    Can you imagine a news company hosting a presidential debate, but they choose to broadcast only their favorite candidate? Welcome to the Owlmirror network. At least I had the courtesy in post #225 to link a pro-evolutionist argument from richarddawkins.net so readers can think and decide for themselves. Owlmirror has some serious problems in his ?wall? of radiometric dating posts. Why not just provide links instead of filling up the thread? Much of the posted information is Dr. Kirk Bertsche?s attack on Dr. John Baumgardner whose work has brought attention to the presence of 14C in diamonds and coal which neither should have if they are indeed millions of years old. Bertsche argues that the 14C presence is due to ?background radiation? or ?contamination?. Baumgardner defends his work as follows:

    If Bertsche had fully understood the very papers to which he refers, he would immediately realize that his first claim that laboratory contamination is responsible for the high 14C levels routinely measured in ?old? biological samples is unsustainable. To highlight the issues he is failing to grasp, I point to the paper by Brown and Southon [1997] who state

    Several ?14C-free? background materials were used in obtaining these data: 1) Coal (supplied by Beta Analytic), 2) Calcite (TIRI sample F: Icelandic doublespar), 3) QL4766 wood (> 56.6 ka BP), 4) QL1428 wood (>55 ka BP), and 5) Yale Anthracite (YA-13; no measurable 14C activity). The latter three samples, and their 14C contents, were supplied by the Quaternary Isotope Laboratory, University of Washington (Stuiver, pers. comm., 1996). In our measurements there were no significant differences between the results obtained for these background materials, and the data from all these materials were used.

    You can read Baumgardner?s entire defense here as well as Bertsche?s original criticisms. The debate is far from over as Owlmirror would want readers to believe in his censored reporting. Evolutionists think radiometric dating is immutable since it is set in stone. I can appreciate your desire for permanency and tangibleness, but your 10 Commandments are a cheap imitation.

  254. #254 Janine, Ignorant Slut
    March 5, 2009

    Owlmirror, I am shocked, Just shocked to find out you have such power over all information.

    How did you get to be so powerful? And could I somehow be able to share in the reflected glory?

  255. #255 Owlmirror
    March 5, 2009

    Janine, clearly my informational omnipotence was granted to me by higher powers — cosmic rays. Yes, I have a superpower from cosmic rays.

    And as for sharing in the glory — You might try changing your epithet to “Sassy Smartypants”. And wear a costume (no capes!). And beat up bad guys.

    PS: I mean it about the no capes!

  256. #256 Matt
    March 5, 2009

    Im semi-bummed this movie sucks. I enjoyed re-reading the GN recently.

  257. #257 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 5, 2009

    Alan, your attempts to find C-14 dating older than 50,000 years as anything other than contamination is laughable. You don’t know what you are talking about, but it sounds like it might hurt science. So you cut and paste irrelevancies. YAWN. Nothing like that hurts science or radiometric dating. Until you understand your god doesn’t exist, and your bible is fiction, you will always have trouble with the real world. Give up. You have nothing.

  258. #258 Alan Clarke
    March 5, 2009

    Nerd: Alan, your attempts to find C-14 dating older than 50,000 years as anything other than contamination is laughable.

    What true objective scientist would limit himself with an a priori SUPPOSITION that the sample being studied is more than 50,000 years old, or worse yet, millions of years old? We saw were the same faulty SUPPOSITION prevented scientists (for an entire century!!) from looking inside dinosaur bones for soft tissues.

    Never put too much credence in another human. They are known to FAIL:

    Although Bertsche styles himself as an ?accelerator physicist, formerly at a leading radiocarbon AMS laboratory,? it is clear from his post that, as far as radiocarbon measurement procedures and issues are concerned, he is a novice. If he were truly an insider, he would be fully aware of the history I [Baumgardner] just outlined and that fossil material throughout the Phanerozoic record routinely displays 14C levels hundreds of times above the intrinsic AMS measurement threshold.

    Baumgardner is six years senior in his doctorate than Bertsche and has spent much more time outside the world of academia at Berkley. (see for yourself) Which scientist has preoccupied himself at a THEOLOGICAL CEMETERY SEMINARY?

    Dr. Bertsche received a PhD in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley in 1989 under the direction of Prof. Richard A. Muller, the inventor of radiocarbon AMS. Dr. Bertsche?s thesis involved the design and testing of a small cyclotron for radiocarbon AMS. He subsequently received a postdoctoral appointment in the AMS laboratory of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where he was involved with accelerator design and operation and also with sample preparation and analysis. In 2005, he received an MA in Exegetical Theology from Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon. He is the author of 25 publications and 13 patents, primarily dealing with particle accelerator and electron microscope design.

  259. #259 Owlmirror
    March 5, 2009

    Religion is built on nothing but humans, and that is why all intelligent and non-delusional scientists, including the religious ones, will reject religion as a source of knowledge about the real world.

    Anyone who has the a priori SUPPOSITION that the bible must be literally correct as a description of the world cannot therefore be both intelligent and non-delusional.

    Science, including the science of the age of the Earth, derives from the evidence first, and the humans who found and described the evidence only secondarily, as their observations were confirmed multiple times all over the world, including by religious scientists.

    But I repeat myself. Oh, well. The wind of deluded WRONGness just keeps on blowing hard.

    Just like a big bad wolf (in sheep’s clothing).

  260. #260 Alan Clarke
    March 5, 2009

    Owlmirror: Anyone who has the a priori SUPPOSITION that the bible must be literally correct as a description of the world cannot therefore be both intelligent and non-delusional.

    In that case, you can scratch me from your paranoia list because my a priori SUPPOSITION was that the Bible was a fable. How did you start?

  261. #261 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 5, 2009

    Alan, you C-14 data does not do anything for you. Why do you persist in repeating contamination problems as meaningful? Do you have any idea on how C-14 is formed? The earth is 4.5 billion years old by much more reliable methods not at the edge of their measurement. So, if you want a younger earth, you need to concentrate on those methods. Until you do, you have nothing. And I’m speaking as a scientist of 30+ years.

  262. #262 Alan Clarke
    March 6, 2009

    Nerd: The earth is 4.5 billion years old by much more reliable methods not at the edge of their measurement.

    Dr. John Baumgardner: ?This dilemma is that samples they expect to be 14C-free because of their supposedly old age (>100,000 years according to the standard geological time scale), instead routinely display significant and reproducible 14C levels, typically two orders of magnitude or more above the threshold sensitivity of the AMS system.?

    Measurements ?two orders of magnitude or more above the threshold sensitivity? should be discarded? As objects approach nearer the speed of light, their length becomes less. For all practical purposes, the amount is insignificant and immeasurable. Years ago, I suppose you would have been in the group to argue the length difference didn’t exist or should be discarded. For understanding the relationship between energy and mass, the difference is indispensable. By the same token, you are trying to understand something on the ?outer fringes? of human understanding: the origin of man and his environment. If you think it?s solely wrapped up in a single INTERPRETATION of long-age isotopes, then I suspect your 30+ years of experience may very well become a casualty when science moves forward. The methodology which ultimately discovered Pluto was to systematically image the night sky in pairs of photographs taken two weeks apart, then examine each pair and determine whether any objects had shifted position. Pluto looked like an infinitesimal dot produced by light leaking into a defective camera body. I have good reason to think that your old-age Earth theory will collapse by a dot.

    The least movement is of importance to all nature. The entire ocean is affected by a pebble. ? Blaise Pascal

  263. #263 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 6, 2009

    Posted by: Owlmirror | March 5, 2009

    Janine, clearly my informational omnipotence was granted to me by higher powers ? cosmic rays. Yes, I have a superpower from cosmic rays.

    Wait a second, are you Dr. Manhattan? (That is about all I know about The Watchmen.)

    Trust me, you do not want to see me in a skin tight outfit>
    ‘snark’

    So, is Alan moving on to the “I used to be an atheist’ argument?

  264. #264 Ken Cope
    March 6, 2009

    …all I know about The Watchmen
    You didn’t watch the Watchmen on Saturday Morning in the eighties? The cartoon in that link ought to catch you up with the whole gang of costumed crime fighters.

  265. #265 Owlmirror
    March 6, 2009

    No, I am not Dr. Manhattan. Dr. Manhattan was in a paracosmic thermonuclear quantum-collapse explosion caused by an Intrinsic Field subtractor inside of an unobtanium cage with handwavium shielding.

    That is completely different from being bombarded by cosmic rays. Really.

    Alan is using the “radiocarbon levels no different from background levels is more important for dating the age of the Earth than all of the other dating methods combined” argument.

    Presumably because he now has the a priori supposition that the Earth cannot possibly be 4.5 billion years old.

  266. #266 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 6, 2009

    Ken, you are a very odd person. And that is meant as a compliment. That was funny. But the only super hero cartoon I watched in the eighties was The Tick.

    Owlmirror, it seems I get my comic book science as wrong as my real world science. Just say it can be done with a sonic screwdriver. I can handle that.

    In that case, you can scratch me from your paranoia list because my a priori SUPPOSITION was that the Bible was a fable. How did you start?

    Alan likes to use all sorts of bad arguments.

  267. #267 Ken Cope
    March 6, 2009

    Thank you Janine. I’m a big Tick fan myself. I take it you know that Ben Edlund, after creating The Tick, worked on Firefly and Angel. I worked on more cartoons in the eighties than I watched. I got a kick out of seeing Bubastis as He-Man’s green and orange talking cat Cringer.

    The graphic novel means a lot to me. I’d been giving a ride to work to a staff writer for the studio who was mostly writing early cyberpunk fiction in his office, and in lieu of gas money he gave me a copy of Neuromancer and the first three issues of Watchmen. I was finally sitting down to learn how to use computers to animate spaceships for syndicated strip, so the book marked a pretty big moment for me.

  268. #268 Alan Clarke
    March 6, 2009

    NEW KEPLER SPACE TELESCOPE

    “Kepler’s designed to find hundreds of Earth-size planets if such planets are common around stars; dozens of these planets if they’re in the habitable zone,” Borucki said. “If we find that many, it certainly will mean that life may well be common throughout our galaxy, because it’s an opportunity for life to have a place to evolve.”

    “If on the other hand, we don’t find any, that will be another profound discovery. It will mean that Earths must very rare, we may be the only extant life in our universe,” Borucki added. “It’ll mean no ‘Star Trek.’”

    Borucki emphasized that no matter what Kepler finds, it won’t find little green men.

    “Although Kepler will not find E.T., it’s helping to find E.T.’s home,” he said. (source)

    SCIENTISTS? ?A PRIORI? ASSUMPTIONS
    1) life can ?evolve?
    2) ?little green men? won’t be found
    3) E.T.’s home exists

    Q: How can one know ?little green men? won?t be found?
    A: One can?t, but don?t talk about it otherwise credibility is lost.

    Science is held captive by ?family, school, society and the world?. ?Objectivity? is only in the mind of the beholder.

    We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. – Richard Lewontin, evolutionary biologist

  269. #269 Owlmirror
    March 6, 2009

    Uh-huh.

    Because the a priori adherence to immaterial causes that do no ever demonstrate themselves materially is … delusional.

    It’s certainly not science.

  270. #270 Knockgoats
    March 6, 2009

    Alan Clarke,
    Still trying the old creationist crap of argument by quotation I see. Lewontin, fine biologist though he is, is just wrong in your quote, if it’s accurate. Science no longer postulates supernatural or immaterial entities simply because doing so has never explained anything, or led to any discoveries whatsoever. If you can demonstrate sufficient evidence that gods, ghosts, souls or leprachauns exist, science will acknowledge and study them.

  271. #271 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 6, 2009

    Alan, keep it up the the irrelevant information. By the way, I am looking for ET as we speak. My computer at home is chugging through Seti-at-home workunits.
    So far you have presented absolutely no information to make me think we are special in the universe, and that the earth is not 3.5 billion years old. It will take more than a cut/paste expert who doesn’t really understand what he is cutting/pasting to sway my confidence in science.

  272. #272 Knockgoats
    March 6, 2009

    If you think it?s solely wrapped up in a single INTERPRETATION of long-age isotopes, then I suspect your 30+ years of experience may very well become a casualty when science moves forward. – Alan Clarke

    Clarke, don’t you know your creationist buddies have been predicting the imminent collapse of old-Earth geology and evolutionary theory ever since they were developed, by scientists who were mostly Christians, in the early-to-mid 19th century? All that time, they have gone from strength to strength, explaining more and more. WAKE UP! The collapse you expect is not going to happen!

  273. #273 Alan Clarke
    March 7, 2009

    Knockgoats: Lewontin, fine biologist though he is, is just wrong in your quote, if it’s accurate.

    Each generation experiences a ?generation gap?. Sometimes young people are ashamed of their parents or grandparents. Knockgoats, please don?t discard ?grandpa Lewontin?. He was a professor of Zoology and Biology at Harvard for 30 years. For you to say ?he is just wrong?, leads me to believe that he knows something that you don?t.

    A marathon runner nearing the finish line may vomit, collapse, urinate or defecate on himself. All attempts at trying to remain ?photogenic? are discarded when the one true goal is in view. So much can be learned if one discards ?Sports Illustrated? and watches the actual finish. Relish in it:

    “I don’t wanna die like that. I want to shoot myself in the head long before then. I’m gonna do something different.” ? Evolutionist Professor William Provine, Cornell

    “Any creationist lawyer who got me on the stand could instantly win over the jury simply by asking me: ‘Has your knowledge of evolution influenced you in the direction of becoming an atheist?’ I would have to answer yes.” ? Richard Dawkins

    “The strain told, and by June he was being laid up for days on end with stomach problems, headaches and heart symptoms. For the rest of his life, he was repeatedly incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, palpitations, trembling and other symptoms, particularly during times of stress such as attending meetings or making social visits. The cause of Darwin?s illness remained unknown, and attempts at treatment had little success.” Wikipedia ? Charles Darwin

    Ichthyic: take off the damn glasses, Alan. See the world the way it REALLY is.

    Thanks for the idea Ichthyic. I can see better now. Clarification: Don?t ?relish? in someone?s failure. Relish in the fact that God has given man the ability to “see” what is good and what is to be avoided. But, this ability can be lost if it is suppressed too long.

  274. #274 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 7, 2009

    For you to say ?he is just wrong?, leads me to believe that he knows something that you don?t.

    And yet you don’t apply that same critique to the mountains of evidence produced by scientists that supports the ToE which you claim are wrong.

    interesting.

  275. #275 Alan Clarke
    March 7, 2009

    SETI – Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence

    Nerd of Redhead: By the way, I am looking for ET as we speak. My computer at home is chugging through Seti-at-home workunits. So far you have presented absolutely no information to make me think we are special in the universe?

    This is quite rich. How about open your eyes and tell me what you see on your at-home SETI computer monitor?

    Throughout all the years of SETI?s existence, nothing has ever been found. The universe is big, but that the purpose of SETI ? to take advantage of radio waves that go where we cannot. Beyond the many Earth-based SETI probes, the accumulation of non-Earth-based probes, such as Mars’ Phoenix, has located nothing.

    Italian physicist Enrico Fermi suggested in the 1950s that if technologically advanced civilizations are common in the universe, then they should be detectable in one way or another. (According to those who were there, Fermi either asked “Where are they?” or “Where is everybody?”)

    The Fermi Paradox
    The size and age of the universe incline us to believe that many technologically advanced civilizations must exist. However, this belief seems logically inconsistent with our lack of observational evidence to support it. Either the initial assumption is incorrect and technologically advanced intelligent life is much rarer than we believe, our current observations are incomplete and we simply have not detected them yet, or our search methodologies are flawed and we are not searching for the correct indicators.

    Possible explanations for the paradox suggest, for example, that while simple life may well be abundant in the universe, intelligent life may be exceedingly rare. In 2000, Peter Ward, professor of Biology and of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington authored a book claiming the Rare Earth hypothesis. In short, the theory claims that the emergence of complex multicellular life (metazoa) on Earth required an extremely unlikely combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. This hypothesis contradicts the principle of mediocrity, which SETI takes as an assumption.

    Scientific Pursuit Ends Up at Religion
    SETI has also occasionally been the target of criticism by those who suggest that it is a form of pseudoscience. In particular, critics allege that no observed phenomena suggest the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and furthermore that the assertion of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence has no good Popperian criteria for falsifiability. Science fiction writer Michael Crichton, in a 2003 lecture at Caltech, stated that “The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion.”

  276. #276 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 7, 2009

    Ahh, poor idiot Alan thinks SETI is unscientific. As a scientist, I can categorically state you are WRONG. It is science, because is investigating the possibility in a scientific fashion. Science is a method. SETI is a method. Another lie for Alan, the godbot liar.
    Back tracking a little, Alan, I asked you did you know how carbon 14 was formed?
    Here is how it is formed.
    (1) 13C(n,hv)14C
    (2) 14N(n,1H)14C
    (3) 15N(n,2H)14C
    (4) 16O(n,3He)14C
    (5) 17O(n,4He)14C
    (6) Various heavy nucleotide fission.
    Except for nuclear fission, all are forms of what is known as neutron activation. A neutron collides with a nucleus, and is either absorbed or kicks out a particle. All well known processes. Now, for the carbon-14 found in plants and animals, equation 2 is dominant process, since the supply is atmospheric. When we consider coal and petroleum, things that have been in the ground a long time, equation 1 is the main method. There are cosmic neutrons that penetrate the ground, and also some neutrons from nuclear decay of uranium and other heavy radioactive elements in the rocks. So the level of carbon-14 is being maintained, albeit at a very low, but measurable level. Another lie for Alan the godbot Liar. Welcome to real science.
    Your batting record is pitiful Alan. Your god doesn’t exist and your bible is a work of fiction.

  277. #277 Kseniya
    March 7, 2009

    Oh, but Nerd, AGW denialist Michael Crichton said SETI is “unquestioningly” a religion, and he’s famous, so he must be right!

  278. #278 Alan Clarke
    March 7, 2009

    Nerd of Redhead:

    Post# 219: Alan, the diamonds cannot be used to date their formation because all the carbon-14 has decayed.

    Post # 277: So the level of carbon-14 is being maintained, albeit at a very low, but measurable level.

    Now that Nerd has firmly established himself, let us proceed?

    The presence of Helium in rocks far below the Earth?s surface is an indication that they aren?t millions of years old. The entire uniformitarian theory collapses with this evidence, so alternate theories must be invented to explain the unusual presence of helium:
    1) Primordial, undegassed reservoir deep in the Earth’s mantle are the source.
    2) Cosmic dust settles to the bottom of the sea, then is ?recycled? into the magma.
    3) Cosmic rays penetrate the ground? blah, blah, blah

    On the other hand, Kurz et al. (1987) and Sadnik et al. (1987) measured 3He/4He ratios as high as 1.4 X 10^-3 in diamonds mined directly from kimberlite pipes at depths of about 26 and 200 m, respectively. Since cosmic rays cannot penetrate to such depths, these helium signatures were attributed to nucleogenic production. – “Radiogenic Isotope Geology” ? Dickin, 1997

    The theories for explaining the unusual presence of Helium are numerous and varied. When a theory expends too much energy in ?explaining? then the theory becomes less attractive when contrasted to an alternate theory that requires jumping through fewer hoops. ?Johnny, how did you procure that $100 bill?? If ?Johnny? expends one hour in explaining how he got that $100 bill, then we might conclude he is lying. A 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham, stated that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is known today as ?Occam’s Razor?, or “law of economy”, or “law of succinctness”. When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. The creationist theory explains the presence of helium by postulating, ?the rocks aren?t that old?, whereas the uniformitarian theory patches itself with additional lengthy theories.

    Often, theories are mistakenly thought to be ?laws?, whereas they are only ?theories?. For example, many scientists believe the Earth?s magnetic field is induced and maintained by the convection of liquid iron in the outer core (dynamo theory). But this theory consistently fails to explain the existing magnetic fields of celestial bodies within our solar system. Why are these ?caveat emptors? so often omitted from science textbooks?

    Apply Occam?s Razor to theories explaining these anomalies
    1) Sun & Moon are exact same size from Earth?s perspective.
    2) Genetic load (accumulation of lethal mutations) would be lethal if Homo sapiens was 200K years old.
    3) Why did dinosaurs suddendly become extinct?
    4)(current human population) >> (6.7B) if Homo sapiens procreated for 200K years.

  279. #279 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 7, 2009

    The presence of Helium in rocks far below the Earth?s surface is an indication that they aren?t millions of years old.

    WRONG! I read no further, as anything you said beyond that point is a lie. You ever heard of thorium and uranium? You know how they decay? They decay through ejecting alpha particles, which are helium nuclei. So, one would expect, and one does, find helium in old rocks. Not all rocks are permeable, and alpha particles are constantly be emitted. Only idiots don’t understand these facts. Why do you keep lying to yourself Alan? The earth is 3.4-3.5 billion years old. Until you prove otherwise, and your feeble attempts so far show you are only a cut/paste specialist, who should be banned for stupidity.
    You are not showing the ability to overthrow science due to your stupidity and the stupidity of the sites you are copying and pasting from. You have presented nothing that has not already been refuted. Your stymied before you ever do anything.
    PZ Banning time for this cut/paste idiot.

  280. #280 Kel
    March 7, 2009

    Oh, but Nerd, AGW denialist Michael Crichton said SETI is “unquestioningly” a religion, and he’s famous, so he must be right!

    But he’s also dead. So if he was so right, why isn’t he immortal?

  281. #281 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 7, 2009

    1) Sun & Moon are exact same size from Earth?s perspective.

    and?

  282. #282 Kel
    March 7, 2009

    1) Sun & Moon are exact same size from Earth?s perspective.

    Except when they aren’t. We are on an elliptical orbit around the sun and the moon is on an elliptical orbit around the earth. They don’t always line up.

  283. #283 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 7, 2009

    Kel, I’m running seti-at-home, but I really don’t expect ET will be found anytime soon. Part of me runs seti due to the canceling of funding by congress years ago. Also, the present receiver at Arecibo has a limited view. So some prime candidates are missed. There has been talk of piggy-backing SETI on to the Allen array, but nothing concrete to date has come of that. Still, the bandwidth they are looking at is increasing, and future plans will include some visible light frequencies. SETI is science, even if it is unlikely to succeed science.

  284. #284 Owlmirror
    March 7, 2009

    LOL! A creationist invokes Ockham’s Razor! Funny!

    2) Genetic load (accumulation of lethal mutations) would be lethal if Homo sapiens was 200K years old.
    4)(current human population) >> (6.7B) if Homo sapiens procreated for 200K years.

    Hahahaha! Creationists claim that there are both too many and too few humans simultaneously!

    Ockham’s Razor: Natural selection means that death, including death from famine, disease, and war, have kept the human population relatively low until recently… and lethal mutations, plural, cannot possibly accumulate. Because those with even one lethal mutation die.

    How hard is this to understand?

    Oh, and the recent modern spike in population growth is because of technology, not magic. You’re eating food which ultimately depends on the discovery of chemical nitrogen fixing and the role of nitrates, phosphorus, and potassium in plant growth. Funnily enough, God never revealed that little piece of information.

  285. #285 Kel
    March 7, 2009

    How hard is this to understand?

    Stimpy seems to make the same mistake. Surely it’s not hard to see that if someone inherited a deadly trait that prevented them from reproducing that that deadly trait would not get passed down.

  286. #286 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 7, 2009

    Addendum to post #280. Uranium and thorium are considered ubiquitous elements, which mean they are distributed throughout most rocks is small quantities. There are only a few minerals that concentrate these elements.

    Alan, if I respond further, I will always stop at your first lie like I did today. I will not read and respond to any later points in your posts. Your cut/paste techniques make it not worth any further effort, as it is the equivalent of a Gish Gallop.

  287. #287 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 7, 2009

    The whole sun and moon comment leads me to believe that Alan is also one of those types that thinks when he hears a song on the radio that has a thin connection to something he was thinking recently that it is a sign from above.

  288. #288 Owlmirror
    March 8, 2009

    one of those types that thinks when he hears a song on the radio that has a thin connection to something he was thinking recently that it is a sign from above.

    Dude, the universe, is, like, talking to me. You know? I can hear it all the time. Because we’re all connected to the One, only some of us can pull in a stronger signal, you know?

    And the drugs, man, that’s just to open up the doors of perception in my mind. Really. Word up.

    Wow, man, your aura is getting really bright blue and glowing. And you’re growing, like, a hundred feet tall. Wow. I didn’t know you could do that.

  289. #289 Wowbagger
    March 8, 2009

    Alan Clarke,

    Throughout all the years of SETI?s my Christian god’s supposed existence, nothing has ever been found.

    Fixed it for you. No, no – that’s okay.

  290. #290 Kseniya
    March 8, 2009

    I wonder if Alan Clarke knows Nat Weeks.

  291. #291 Alan Clarke
    March 8, 2009

    Owlmirror: ?death from famine, disease, and war, have kept the human population relatively low until recently.

    We can see from data provided by Wikipedia, that the effects from ?death, famine, disease and war? have not hindered world population growth. Why? The exponential growth rate overrides the ill effects that Owlmirror is assuming is dominant. Also, countries with the highest population growth rates are not necessarily affluent. Click here. You?ll need to look for another explanation. Maybe Homo sapiens didn’t enjoy sex much until about 4400 years ago? 200,000 years of Homo sapiens population supression presents a serious blow to your theory.

    What has kept the population “low until recently”? A $100 savings account with daily compounded interest will be low at the beginning, but have a huge balance at the end.

    It’s time to apply Occam’s Razor to a theory that needs TOO MUCH EXPLAINING.

  292. #292 Kseniya
    March 8, 2009

    Alan, even if we assume that the re-population of the post-Flood world started at 2400 BC, we still see a pronounced increase in the population growth rate starting about 200 years ago. This is obvious even from the data you yourself have provided in the interest of trying to make your point. You scoff at Owlmirror for asserting that human population remained low until recently, but your hypothesis also needs to explain why population growth was so nearly flat for the 4000 years following the flood. Do you even THINK about what your objects imply about your own claims? Are you suggesting that mankind didn’t much enjoy sex until some 30 years after Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence?

  293. #293 Kel
    March 8, 2009

    This is yet another case of modern science working against the foundations on which it’s built. Thanks to scientific advancements, more offspring born than ever before are surviving to reproduce, and life expectancy has doubled in a very short space of time. Take away medicine, take away sanitation, take away electricity and modern agricultural farming practices, and suddenly humans are thrust into a far less sustained environment. Get some Malthus in ya Alan.

  294. #294 Owlmirror
    March 8, 2009

    I wonder if he knows Ray Comfort. That “accumulation of lethal mutations” is almost, but not quite, as stupid as Ray’s “males and females evolving separately” idiocy.

    The only factors that have affected human population growth have been non-supernatural ones, such as the agricultural revolution, the discovery of hygiene, and the reduction of infant mortality resulting from childhood disease inoculation, and better nutrition.

    Occam’s Razor does not say to reject “too much explanation”. It says to not multiply entities unnecessarily. But when there is something that is obviously very complicated ? such as the weather, or life on earth, including population changes, or the functioning of the brain ? of course there is going to be a lot of explanation necessary, and many “entities” that will affect the explanation.

    Of course, theists don’t really understand what Occam’s Razor really does.

    Occam’s Razor destroys superstitions. There is no point in positing effects from incoherent causes ? such as the supernatural.

    Occam’s Razor destroys religions. Most religions posit unnecessary supernatural hypotheses to account for the natural world.

    Occam’s Razor slices God into nothingness, or meaninglessness. There is not a supernatural God with the attributes claimed by religions.

  295. #295 Alan Clarke
    March 8, 2009

    Nerd of Redhead: They decay through ejecting alpha particles, which are helium nuclei. So, one would expect, and one does, find helium in old rocks.

    I?m not saying all rocks lack parent isotopes for explaining possible helium presence. I?m saying many do not, which is what gives rise to alternative theories for explaining helium?s presence. And these alternative theories are bulky and ugly: Cosmic dust settling to the sea floor is ?recycled? into the Earth?s magma during the theoretical ?sea floor spreading? phenomena. When theory is built upon theory, upon theory, upon theory, you end up with a stack of blocks that will probably topple.

    ?Scientific naturalism? always seeks a natural cause for every phenomenon: If God exists then who created God?

    Q: Where did life come from?
    A: It came from random particle motion.
    Q: Where did the particles come from?
    A: We don’t know but we are seeking natural causes.

    There is an a priori ASSUMPTION that only the physical world exists. The ancient Greeks had this philosophy in what we know as ?materialism?. Look at the statement made by evolutionist Carl Sagan:

    ?The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be.?

    Sagan cannot possibly know for certain what he is talking about because his experiences were confined to a small envelope of time. Is he a prophet of the future? Sagan?s finite mind has miraculously managed to encompass the ?infinite? in making his bold projections. Hopefully, his philosophy grasped the fact that he would die.

    Someone stated: “As for historical artifacts, there currently exists not a single artifact belonging to Jesus.” Atheists despise Catholic churches that collect relics of Christ?s cross, holy grails, drops of Christ?s blood, burial shrouds, etc., but they demand these same relics if they are to believe. How can God win with such impossible demands? Only a person looking for an excuse would create such a blockade.

    What is the ?naturalistic? explanation for our human-centric universe? From our perspective, the Sun and Moon are the exact same size. What are the odds of a random asteroid crashing into the Earth and breaking off a chunk which becomes our illuminated moon at a proper distance so as to make it appear the same size as our Sun? The Moon serves like a ?night light?. It also happens to be a highly reflective white instead of a composition like a black basalt which would be non-reflective. If the Moon had a heavy atmosphere it could absorb the Sun?s light. The Moon?s orbit is sufficient to keep it from crashing to Earth during the entire period of recorded history. The Moon is perfectly round (from a human perspective) as opposed to an odd-shaped asteroid. The Moon provides humans with a method for keeping time with it?s predictable phases. If our Moon had a constant shadow then its benefit would have been negated.

    Human?s take too much for granted. Atheists are the most unthankful people in the world. They thank one another. They love their pets. They love their families. They hate their enemies. But so did Hitler. By setting one?s standard to minimally equal Hitler, man justifies himself.

    Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

  296. #296 Wowbagger
    March 8, 2009

    Alan Clarke wrote:

     I?m not saying all rocks lack parent isotopes for explaining possible
    helium presence. I?m saying many do not, which is what gives rise to
    alternative theories for explaining helium?s presence

    Such as what, exactly? Invisible helium pixies? The thing is, Alan, is even if we didn’t have all the scientific explanations for why the earth and the universe is as old as is it, you still don’t have anything even approaching evidence for your god’s existence. The fact that we can explain everything else is just a bonus. 

    Atheists despise Catholic churches that collect relics of Christ?s
    cross, holy grails, drops of Christ?s blood, burial shrouds, etc., but
    they demand these same relics if they are to believe.

    I think the main problem we have with such relics is that, gathered together, you’d have enough timber to build a frigate, enough grails to fill the frigate, enough blood to float the frigate on, and enough shrouds to build sails to catch the wind to sail the frigate on the veritable sea of blood. Relics are the invention of the opportunistic to extract money from the credulous; none has shown to be anything resembling what it is claimed to be. 

     The Moon serves like a ?night light?.

    You’ve obviously never lived very far north of the equator, have you? Why would your god hate the Icelandic so much that he casts their country into darkness for so much longer than the people in the rest of the world? Did they do something to anger him?

    Human?s take too much for granted. Atheists are the most unthankful
    people in the world. They thank one another. They love their pets. They
    love their families. They hate their enemies. But so did Hitler. By
    setting one?s standard to minimally equal Hitler, man justifies himself.

    This incoherent babble is a sign you’re starting to lose the plot again, Alan. Time for your medication.

  297. #297 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 8, 2009

    Alan, you are lying to yourself in attempting to force fit your non-existent god and fictional bible to fit the facts of a 3.5 billion year old earth. . You are WRONG. Period, end of story. There is no alternative explanation except that you lie. We see this. Quit lying to yourself, so you quit lying to us. So far, Alan zero, Pharyngual, all. And the score will never improve for you using the method of trying shove an intellectually untenable theory into the facts.

  298. #298 'Tis Himself
    March 8, 2009

    Atheists despise Catholic churches that collect relics of Christ?s cross, holy grails, drops of Christ?s blood, burial shrouds, etc., but they demand these same relics if they are to believe.

    Do you mean relics like the Shroud of Turin?

    In 1988, the Vatican allowed the shroud to be dated by three independent sources–Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology–and each of them dated the cloth as originating in medieval times, around 1350.

  299. #299 Kel
    March 8, 2009

    Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

    The moon is as much a light as a mirror is. Not to mention the moon isn’t always up at night.

  300. #300 Kel
    March 8, 2009

    Alan, you are lying to yourself in attempting to force fit your non-existent god and fictional bible to fit the facts of a 4.5 billion year old earth. .

    Fixed

  301. #301 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 8, 2009

    Thanks Kel.

    Alan, here is the heart of the matter. Can you show physical evidence for your alleged god that can pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin? If such evidence doesn’t exist, how can the bible be the word of god? If the bible is not the word of god, because god doesn’t exist, then there is no need for a young earth. So, you whole theory rests on proving god. We are waiting for your evidence. An eternally burning bush would be good. If you don’t have the physical evidence for your alleged god, you need to stop arguing and go away until you have the evidence.

    The alternative is that you are a delusional fool. Your choice cricket. Choose wisely.

  302. #302 Owlmirror
    March 8, 2009

    Catholic relics, now? Dude. You’re not Catholic. The KJV that you worship was created by Protestants.

    Oh, and for that matter… would these be the same Catholics who have no problem with a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth? Catholics, as in the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître whose study of astrophysics led to the theory of the expanding universe currently called the Big Bang? The same Catholics who have no problem with the theory of evolution?

    [So familiar.... ]

    And it’s theists who have the a priori ASSUMPTION that there is more than the physical world and yet never provide the evidence for anything more. That’s why Occam’s Razor eliminates the supernatural.

    The only one I see hating here is you, Alan Clarke. And your religion isn’t helping. All it’s doing is giving a direction to your psychotic impulses…

  303. #303 Kel
    March 8, 2009

    If catholics do have Christ’s blood, surely it can be tested. Hell, there even may be some of that blood on that crown or the bits of the cross. If they hasn’t melted the nails down, there may have been blood on that too. Let’s see the perfect DNA of Jesus.

    Though I’m guessing the Catholics are reluctant to have their artefacts tested since the Shroud was shown to be a fake, and believers don’t care about testing.

  304. #304 Alan Clarke
    March 9, 2009

    Nerd of Redhead: Kel, I’m running seti-at-home, but I really don’t expect ET will be found anytime soon. ? SETI is science, even if it is unlikely to succeed science.

    Nerd, I don?t think SETI is science because it fails the ?falsifiable? test. Your own statement is of the nature, ?Evolution is expected to occur on other celestial bodies. I expect my enquiries will return no supporting evidence but I still believe evolution occurs.? In other words, it is not falsifiable. Please explain how your hypothesis is falsifiable.

    Click here to brush up on your science:

    Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is “falsifiable” does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. … Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, “it will be raining here in one million years” is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically.

    After reading Wikipedia?s ?Falsifiability?, test your ability to recognize non-falsifiable hypotheses:

    1) One million years from now, evolution will make many species barely recognizable.

    2) All cats have claws.

    3) ?We know for sure that Jesus did not do any of the miraculous things attributed to him.? ? Wowbagger

    4) ?The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be.? – Carl Sagan

  305. #305 Owlmirror
    March 10, 2009

    First Occam’s Razor, now falsifiability. YEC tries to do science! What next? Flying pigs? The zombie apocalypse?

    Number 1 is a prediction. It will be falsifiable. Just wait a million years, then examine many species. Are they recognizable? Note that the prediction is rather sloppy (“recognizable” is not a well-defined term), so you will need to lock down what exactly you mean.

    Number 2 is a statement about the present. On the one hand, it is trivially falsified (declawed cats). On the other hand, some minor modifications to the statement (“Almost all cats are born with claws; many domestic cats have their claws removed”) is both falsifiable (examine many cats; study claw development) and true.

    Number 3 is a statement about the past. That’s a bit trickier, but note that changing it to “We know for sure that it is the most reasonable parsimonious inference that Jesus did not do any of the miraculous things attributed to him” applies Occam’s Razor to a statement about alleged supernatural claims without evidence. It can be falsified… by God providing evidence.

    Number 4 is a definition. You may not like the definition, but hey, it can be “falsified” by providing evidence that there is, was, or will be something more, and asserting that “the cosmos” does not apply to this “something more”. Lots of luck with that one.

    And finally, SETI is also indeed falsifiable. Again, it’s something that will take a long amount of time to falsify, but you know what? Too bad. There’s nothing in the concept of falsifiability that has a time limit…. And Occam’s Razor does not rule it out, because it’s a completely natural hypothesis, not supernatural.

    Meanwhile, the God hypothesis is trivially falsified… unless you go with some sort of never-intervening Deist-like God, which is not falsifiable at all. Which one do you think it is?

  306. #306 Wowbagger, OM
    March 10, 2009

    Wouldn’t my statement (“We know for sure that Jesus did not do any of the miraculous things attributed to him.”) also be falsified if anyone in the present could be shown to walk on water, raise the dead, turn water into wine and be dead for three days before rising again?

    I feel the invalidity of the biblical claims is less to do with it’s having occurred in the past (where we can’t test it) than it is with the fact we know people can’t do magic. If they could then the historicity of Jesus would become important.

  307. #307 Kel
    March 10, 2009

    Surely with the artefacts of Jesus that there’s at least one we can test for genetic lineage. If God’s the father and Mary is the mother, then we should only see a mother’s dna. There are 7 foreskins that are all claimed to be Jesus, correct?

  308. #308 Owlmirror
    March 10, 2009

    Wouldn’t my statement (“We know for sure that Jesus did not do any of the miraculous things attributed to him.”) also be falsified if anyone in the present could be shown to walk on water, raise the dead, turn water into wine and be dead for three days before rising again?

    Well… Philosophers of science might argue it. I think it might depend on if the hypothetical miracle-performer claimed to be the same Jesus who did those miracles in the past.

    I would also suggest that the miracles be very carefully scrutinized … more carefully than this, at any rate.

    Hm. Assuming that the miracle-worker was legit, I think you would be correct inasmuch as the “We know for sure” part would indeed be falsified. OK, point granted.

  309. #309 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 10, 2009

    Posted by: Kel | March 10, 2009

    Surely with the artefacts of Jesus that there’s at least one we can test for genetic lineage. If God’s the father and Mary is the mother, then we should only see a mother’s dna. There are 7 foreskins that are all claimed to be Jesus, correct?

    Does this mean that Jesus had seven penises? What a man!

  310. #310 RogerS
    March 10, 2009

    #295 Owlmirror: The only factors that have affected human population growth have been non-supernatural ones, such as the agricultural revolution, the discovery of hygiene, and the reduction of infant mortality resulting from childhood disease inoculation, and better nutrition.

    If we apply the population growth calculator to find a requred population growth rate to account for 200,000 years of homosapien evolution, the numbers hardly look believable.
    http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias/population.php

    Evolutionary model numbers: Beginning with a population of 2 over a period of 198,000 years to arrive at a given population of 200M during ?0? AD, a growth rate of .0093% or .000093 yields exactly 198,498,277 or nearly 200M.

    This rate is so low that the populace is on the knife?s edge of extinction but this circus balancing act keeps the plates spinning for 100?s of thousands of years!
    I doubt that early man was on the edge of starvation or death for this period of time. Are you forgetting that powerful engine of adaptation and natural selection or were they temporarily suspended? Low populations would mean low human competition for food. If one tribe was threatened by another then increasing the tribe?s population = greater safety! Tribal leaders must have understood the math pretty quick. Neighbors could also avoid deadly conflict by moving since there was plenty of room on a sparsely populated earth. Erosion and desertification would not be as extensive as today. Many American Indians simply followed the buffalo. Agriculture was not necessary for those willing to live a nomadic life style since 1,000 lbs of buffalo meat was a spear’s throw away.
    Currently, world population growth rate is 1.2% or .012.
    Niger has the 2?nd highest growth rate of 3.68% and the Gaza Strip is #5 at 3.35%, great places to plan your next vacation. The highest growth rates appear to coincide with the most backward nations while the most technologically advanced are at the lowest.
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2002rank.html

    Conclusion:
    The biblical account of a starting point of 8 people 4400 years ago after the flood, coincides with an overall population growth rate of only .467% or .00467 to yield a calculated population close to today?s 6,400,300,740. Some may even question if a .467% rate is too low being 2.6 X less than today?s rate of 1.2%. However, the evolutionary model as calculated above requires a much lower population growth rate of .0093% or 129 X less than today?s rate since a long duration of time is required for man to evolve. Which of the two requires the greater faith to believe, man having survived with a population growth rate of 2.6 X or 129 X less than the current growth rate?

  311. #311 aratina
    March 10, 2009

    2? Roger you dumbass.

  312. #312 Owlmirror
    March 11, 2009

    Beginning with a population of 2 [...]

    There’s your problem. The population of humans has never been down to “2″. Populations of ancestors have varied as our species evolved, but have never dropped as low as that.

    The biblical account of a starting point of 8 people 4400 years ago after the flood,

    There was no global flood. Zero evidence. None. Look, could you please read the entire web-page (or PDF article) of Radiometric Dating : A Christian Perspective, just to get a sense of why it cannot be the case that there was ever a global flood; why it cannot be the case that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old; why science does indeed say that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old? It’s a bit long, but can you at least make the effort to read and understand?

  313. #313 Alan Clarke
    March 11, 2009

    One million years from now, evolution will make many species barely recognizable.

    Owlmirror: It will be falsifiable. Just wait a million years, then examine many species.

    This is falsifiable only in theory, but not in practicality. Such is the theory of evolution. The stipulation of long periods of time required for evolution to happen makes if impractical to falsify. Any true scientist should at least be cautious before accepting such a theory.

    We know for sure that Jesus did not do any of the miraculous things attributed to him.

    Owlmirror: ?alleged supernatural claims without evidence.

    Sorry, but there is evidence. We have multiple documents containing eye-witness accounts. Obviously, there are varying interpretations on the validity of those documents and the accounts contained therein, but to say the claims are ?without evidence? is totally false.

    The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be. – Carl Sagan

    Owlmirror: ?it can be “falsified” by providing evidence that there is, was, or will be something more, and asserting that “the cosmos” does not apply to this “something more”.

    To falsify this statement, Carl Sagan would need a cosmos-sized brain and equal-sized insight into the past, present, and future.

  314. #314 Alan Clarke
    March 11, 2009

    Kel:As for historical artefacts, there currently exists not a single artefact belonging to Jesus.

    There is a fine line between genius and madness; pleasure and pain; theism and atheism. I?m wondering if there is some connection between Catholics who cherish relics and evolutionists who cherish icons of physical proof.

    Please describe at least three artifacts that you feel would be the best evidence for Jesus? existence and/or for his alleged miracles. Keep in mind that Jesus owned little property other than the clothes on his back. Those who crucified him gambled for his garments.

  315. #315 Owlmirror
    March 11, 2009

    And around and around and around, just like a carousel… or a broken record…

    This is falsifiable only in theory, but not in practicality. Such is the theory of evolution. The stipulation of long periods of time required for evolution to happen makes if impractical to falsify.

    Wrong. We have the methods to give dates for fossils, and we have ways to measure changes to the DNA between generations. This gives us an at least approximate and falsifiable way to test for changes in different species over time, and make approximate and falsifiable predictions for changes in DNA that can occur in the future.

    Indeed, it was a similar falsifiable prediction that led to the discovery of Tiktaalik. They knew the approximate age of what they were looking for; they knew the age of the rocks they were going to search in. Lo and behold, they found the transitional fossil in the rocks of the right age.

    We have multiple documents containing eye-witness accounts.

    We have no such thing.

    We have writings that claim to be records of certain events, most of which are based on each other, and one which is obviously an independent work, and each of which have points that contradict each other.

    Obviously, there are varying interpretations on the validity of those documents and the accounts contained therein, but to say the claims are ?without evidence? is totally false.

    Wrong. The accounts are not evidence of miracles, they are nothing more than evidence of accounts of miracles.

    You know what would be evidence of miracles? God coming down and performing genuinely supernatural miracles himself for everyone to see, today. And performing them on such a broad scale, and determinable to not be frauds, that there can be no doubt that they are indeed supernatural miracles.

    Nothing else is evidence of miracles. Not stories, not “eye-witness” accounts; heck, not even video recordings can be taken at face value — or are you going to start worshiping Criss Angel? You can even see him walking on water… but can you believe what you see?

    To falsify this statement, Carl Sagan would need a cosmos-sized brain and equal-sized insight into the past, present, and future.

    Nonsense. Sagan was offering a definition. You are the one who has to falsify it, if you can. The fact that you can’t doesn’t mean it’s not falsifiable… just that you are not up to doing it.

    I?m wondering if there is some connection between Catholics who cherish relics and evolutionists who cherish icons of physical proof.

    So… now you agree that there are no such relics, and that the Catholics are wrong? What, you needed me to remind you that you’re not Catholic and don’t accept their claims?

    *snrk*

    Please describe at least three artifacts that you feel would be the best evidence for Jesus? existence and/or for his alleged miracles.

    Obviously, Jesus himself would be the best evidence for Jesus’ existence.

    Hey, you’re the one claiming that he isn’t dead and buried. You bring us this alleged living Jesus and have him perform some miracles.

  316. #316 'Tis Himself
    March 11, 2009

    Sorry, but there is evidence. We have multiple documents containing eye-witness accounts. Obviously, there are varying interpretations on the validity of those documents and the accounts contained therein, but to say the claims are ?without evidence? is totally false.

    I keep seeing goddists trotting out this statement but it always boils down to the Bible (not written by eyewitnesses) and commentaries on the Bible (written years after the various books of the New Testament were written). Since the main branches of Christianity can’t even agree on what’s in the Bible, its authenticity is highly suspect.

    And please, don’t give me Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews. There is good reason to think that the passage that mentions Jesus was a forgery written by a Christian apologist to provide historical evidence of Jesus’ existence. Historian Michael L. White argues against authenticity, citing that parallel sections of Josephus’s Jewish War do not mention Jesus, and that some Christian writers as late as the third century, who quoted from the Antiquities, do not mention the passage.

  317. #317 Kel
    March 11, 2009

    Please describe at least three artifacts that you feel would be the best evidence for Jesus? existence and/or for his alleged miracles. Keep in mind that Jesus owned little property other than the clothes on his back. Those who crucified him gambled for his garments.

    The cross, the crown of thorns, and an item of clothing. Surely at least one would contain something we can take some DNA from, and if the J-man was who we attribute him then surely we should see only see a mothers’ genetic heredity.

    Beyond that there isn’t much we can do, any artefact should carbon date back to ~1980 years ago for it to even have a chance to be valid.

  318. #318 Kel
    March 11, 2009

    There is a fine line between genius and madness; pleasure and pain; theism and atheism. I?m wondering if there is some connection between Catholics who cherish relics and evolutionists who cherish icons of physical proof.

    God is alleged to have walked on earth – started his own cult then sacrificed himself. Have you seen the nature of humanity? We are hunter-gatherers, we collect things that have significance. Are you honestly trying to tell me that his followers both genuinely believed he was God-incarnate and did not try to collect every little thing that God touched?

  319. #319 'Tis Himself
    March 11, 2009

    Are you honestly trying to tell me that his followers both genuinely believed he was God-incarnate and did not try to collect every little thing that God touched?

    There are at least three Sacred Spears (the one that stabbed Jesus on the cross) and if all the splinters of the Holy Cross were gathered together we’d find the cross was about 30 meters long and a meter thick.

  320. #320 Kel
    March 11, 2009

    That’s it. There are plenty of supposed relics of Jesus; half a dozen foreskins, a few spears, lots of pieces of cross, bits of the crown of thorns, at least 4 holy chalices, among others – and that’s just the surviving relics to this day. Imagine how many there have been in history. Curiously enough the only relic ever to go under proper scientific investigation turned out to be a fake… big surprise there.

  321. #321 RogerS
    March 11, 2009

    Owlmirror # 313 There’s your problem. The population of humans has never been down to “2″. Populations of ancestors have varied as our species evolved, but have never dropped as low as that.

    Sorry, but I believe that ?2? ball is in your court. Increasing the starting population number (from 2) with a known fixed ending population (200M @ ?0? AD) for a given amount of time (198,000 yrs) requires REDUCING the population growth rate figure. The evolutionary model example with the .000093 population growth rate figure would be reduced further favoring extinction.

    There was no global flood.

    I am pointing out that the data is a better fit with the flood model, requiring less ?explaining?.

  322. #322 Kel
    March 11, 2009

    I am pointing out that the data is a better fit with the flood model

    Almost every single geologist would disagree with you on that one. The evidence simply doesn’t fit the flood model at all.

  323. #323 'Tis Himself
    March 11, 2009

    Roger A. Moore’s The Impossible Journey of Noah’s Ark raises many problems both with the ark and with the flood.

  324. #324 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 11, 2009

    Alan, the burden of proof is upon you. Show us your evidence. So far, you have shown us nothing, because you have nothing except your testament, which is worthless.
    RogerS, the same applies to you.
    To both, your god only exists between your ears. The only way out is if you have physical evidence for your imaginary god that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin. Failure to show such evidence means you are tacitly acknowledging that your god doesn’t exist and your bible is a work of fiction. And saying “look around you” or “look in the mirror” won’t cut the mustard, as we have natural explanations for both.

  325. #325 RogerS
    March 11, 2009

    Were they trying to communicate a noteable event?
    Did they all receive text message talking points?
    Why is there common agreement of preservation in a “vessel” when heading for higher ground is how you survive local floods?

    D = Destruction by Water
    G = (God) Divine Cause
    W = Warning Given
    H = Humans Spared
    A = Animals Spared
    V = Preserved in a Vessel

    D . . H A V 01 Australia- Kurnai
    D . W H A V 02 Babylon- Berossus’ account
    D G W H A V 03 Babylon- Gilgamesh epic
    D G W H . V 04 Bolivia- Chiriguano
    D . . H A V 05 Borneo- Sea Dayak
    D . . H A V 06 Burma- Singpho
    D G . H A V 07 Canada- Cree
    D G W H A V 08 Canada- Montagnais
    D G . H A V 09 China- Lolo
    D . W H A V 10 Cuba- original natives
    D G W H A V 11 East Africa- Masai
    D G W H . V 12 Egypt- Book of the Dead
    D G . H . V 13 Fiji- Walavu-levu tradition
    D G W H A . 14 French Polynesia- Raiatea
    D . . H A V 15 Greece- Lucian’s account
    D G . H A V 16 Guyana- Macushi
    D G . H . V 17 Iceland- Eddas
    D G . H . V 18 India- Andaman Islands
    D . W H A V 19 India- Bhil
    D G W H . V 20 India-Kamar
    D . W H A . 21 Iran- Zend-Avesta
    D G . H . V 22 Italy- Ovid’s poetry
    D G . H . V 23 Malay Peninsula- Jekun
    D . W H . V 24 Mexico- Codex Chimalpopoca
    D . W H A V 25 Mexico- Huichol
    D G . H . V 26 New Zealand- Maori
    D . W H A . 27 Peru- Indians of Huarochiri
    D . W H . V 28 X . Russia- Vogul
    D . W H A V 29 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Kolusches
    D G . H A V 30 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Tlingit
    D . W H A V 31 U.S.A. (Arizona)- Papago
    D G . H A V 32 U.S.A. (Hawaii)- legend of Nu-u
    D . . H A V 33 Vanualu- Melanesians
    D . . H A V 34 Vietnam- Bahnar
    D . . H A V 35 Wales- Dwyfan/Dwyfan legend
    35 18 17 35 24 32 Total Occurrences out of 35

    BTW, they wrote or told the event, not me.

  326. #326 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 11, 2009

    YAWN, nothing of interest as no dates were involved. What a loser. You have no idea of what is required for evidence. And still no physical evidence for your imagainary god. Double loser.

  327. #327 SteveM
    March 11, 2009

    Re. 326:

    Wherever there is water, there are floods. Even where there isn’t water there will be floods. Show that all those floods occurred simultaneously.

  328. #328 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 11, 2009

    It would seem that if there were such “similarities” in having flood myths around the world that there would be similarities in the names of the survivors.

    This is more of a case of human societies setting up bases near water fronts and one of the main drawbacks is the chance of floods. Yet floods do not deter humans from the benefits of living on water fronts.

  329. #329 Owlmirror
    March 11, 2009

    Sorry, but I believe that ?2? ball is in your court. Increasing the starting population number (from 2) with a known fixed ending population (200M @ ?0? AD) for a given amount of time (198,000 yrs) requires REDUCING the population growth rate figure.

    Dude, the population change curve is an estimate. I know that “estimate” is a big, hard word, maybe too hard for a creationist to understand… but no evolutionary biologist will ever assert that the population of humans was ever only “2″, since unlike in your fairy-tale, the earliest human population is not asserted to have been *poofed* from out of nothing.

    Learn what you’re talking about before spouting off nonsense about it, will you? Or is that just too damn hard for a creationist to do, so you would prefer to spout nonsense for years rather than learn?

    I am pointing out that the data is a better fit with the flood model, requiring less ?explaining?.

    Since there was no global flood, the data obviously cannot fit with it.

    Why is there common agreement of preservation in a “vessel” when heading for higher ground is how you survive local floods?

    Those that headed for lower ground in a flood died for their self-destructive perversity. Those that had no vessel and could not get to higher ground drowned because of their misfortune.

    How smart do you have to be to understand this?

    How stupid do you have to be to not understand this?

  330. #330 Alan Clarke
    March 11, 2009

    Owlmirror: LOL! A creationist invokes Ockham’s Razor! Funny!

    You shouldn?t discount the utility of Occam?s Razor too readily. Wouldn?t Darwinian evolution require its mechanisms to be efficient for it to be viable? In nature, there are various examples of the straightest and most efficient path being taken. For all practical purposes, light travels in a straight line in a vacuum. If this principle were violated, then I suspect that our current universe would cease to exist. The same holds true for living things. If neural transmission couldn?t find an efficient path from the brain to the fingers, then the organism would undoubtedly be naturally selected out for extinction. The universe indeed looks as if it has been designed by a designer. Without design, the principles and laws that we take for granted, such as the shortest distance between two points being a straight line, might cease to be a straight line.

    “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.? – Sir Isaac Newton

  331. #331 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 11, 2009

    Alan, you are still looking for gaps that aren’t there. And still no physical evidence for your imaginary deity. We don’t care if you don’t like evolution. But you are incapable of coming up with anything we would consider a palbable hit to the theory. Because you don’t understand how science works.
    Until you show acceptable evidence for your god will will remain a lying loser.

  332. #332 Alan Clarke
    March 11, 2009

    Owlmirror: LOL! A creationist invokes Ockham’s Razor! Funny!

    You shouldn?t discount the utility of Occam?s Razor too readily. Wouldn?t Darwinian evolution require its mechanisms to be efficient for it to be viable? In nature, there are various examples of the straightest and most efficient path being taken. For all practical purposes, light travels in a straight line in a vacuum. If this principle were violated, then I suspect that our current universe would cease to exist. The same holds true for living things. If neural transmission couldn?t find an efficient path from the brain to the fingers, then the organism would undoubtedly be naturally selected out for extinction. The universe indeed looks as if it has been designed by a designer. Without design, the principles and laws that we take for granted, such as the shortest distance between two points being a straight line, might cease to be a straight line.

    “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.? – Sir Isaac Newton

  333. #333 Tulse
    March 11, 2009

    The universe indeed looks as if it has been designed by a designer.

    If so, the designer really likes a vacuum at 3 degrees above absolute zero, since that’s what most of creation is. The material bits are, of course, almost all hydrogen and helium (at least the stuff that isn’t dark matter and dark energy). It is profoundly absurd to claim that the trillions of cubic light-years of cold emptiness sprinkled with bits of hydrogen and helium was somehow “designed” to produce humans.

  334. #334 Alan Clarke
    March 11, 2009

    I think RogerS’ post on flood legends is interesting from the point that the majority of legends aren’t “fire” legends or “plague” legends. Legends often connect to a source of reality, such as the legend of “Annie Oakley” or “St. Nicholas”. When a legend is universal, as opposed to a local leprechaun legend, then science should indeed take note.

    Secondly, the argument against a global flood is often reduced to an admission that the Earth indeed bears the characteristics of flooding, but the “floodings” where not simultaneous. I often hear, “This continent, or plain, was once under water millions of years ago.” This fine line of denial makes me wonder how uniformitarianists maintain their faith.

  335. #335 Owlmirror
    March 11, 2009

    Without design, the principles and laws that we take for granted, such as the shortest distance between two points being a straight line, might cease to be a straight line.

    LOL! Occam’s Razor slices that incoherent (and unevidenced) assertion into nothingness.

    It’s funny because you invoke Occam’s Razor only to completely and explicitly violate it by asserting an unnecessary entity in order to “explain” the self-evident.

  336. #336 rogerS
    March 11, 2009

    Owlmirror #330 Dude, the population change curve is an estimate. I know that “estimate” is a big, hard word, maybe too hard for a creationist to understand… but no evolutionary biologist will ever assert that the population of humans was ever only “2″, since unlike in your fairy-tale, the earliest human population is not asserted to have been *poofed* from out of nothing.

    I apologize for my inaccuracy in modeling the Evolutionary account pertaining to population growth rate of homosapien with a starting figure of only 2. Since we are dealing with an estimate here (thanks for clarifying that to) we will need a starting population number, ending population number, and elapsed time in years. I had used 2, 200M, and 198,000 respectively which resulted in .000093 for a growth rate. Please provide what you would consider as more accurate numbers, remember, I only expect a rough estimate result. Thanks for your participation. Others with a differing opinion and reasonable support for another set of numbers ?please jump in, this can be a collaborative effort.

  337. #337 Owlmirror
    March 11, 2009

    When a legend is universal, as opposed to a local leprechaun legend, then science should indeed take note.

    Not unless there’s actual evidence of a local flood. The Earth is a more reliable witness than human beings.

    Secondly, the argument against a global flood is often reduced to an admission that the Earth indeed bears the characteristics of flooding, but the “floodings” where not simultaneous. I often hear, “This continent, or plain, was once under water millions of years ago.”

    Because there should be no floods whatsoever on a planet that is three-fourths water with a constant hydrological cycle, complex weather patterns, and a changing climate?

    This fine line of denial makes me wonder how uniformitarianists maintain their faith.

    Maybe if you ever actually studied geology, you might figure it out!

    But that’s just crazy talk, right? No creationist would ever study geology without the a priori ASSUMPTION that the Earth was created from nothing 6000 years ago and then subjected to a global flood.

    You never did answer whether the God hypothesis was falsified or non-falsifiable. Guess your creationist brain just shuts down when it sees that sort of question.

  338. #338 Matt Heath
    March 11, 2009

    Without design, the principles and laws that we take for granted, such as the shortest distance between two points being a straight line, might cease to be a straight line.

    O right, I see now. There must be a God because otherwise the universe might have been no-Euclidean and… o right. The nineteenth century called; they want their physics back.

    I think RogerS’ post on flood legends is interesting from the point that the majority of legends aren’t “fire” legends or “plague” legends. Legends often connect to a source of reality, such as the legend of “Annie Oakley” or “St. Nicholas”. When a legend is universal, as opposed to a local leprechaun legend, then science should indeed take note.

    If only there was some large, natural event that could form the basis large numbers of flood stories in different places and was consistent with the geological evidence (which a truly global flood isn’t): something like the end of an ice-age causing local flooding to be common…

  339. #339 Owlmirror
    March 11, 2009

    I apologize for my inaccuracy in modeling the Evolutionary account pertaining to population growth rate of homosapien

    Write that as Homo sapiens. Two separate words, genus name (“Homo”) capitalized, species name (“sapiens”) lowercase, italics often preferred. That’s the current taxonomic standard.

    Since we are dealing with an estimate here (thanks for clarifying that to) we will need a starting population number, ending population number, and elapsed time in years.

    No, no, no. The only reason you brought up the population change was in support of the “global flood”. Since there is no global flood recorded in the global geology, we don’t need to fiddle with population estimates.

    For that matter, there’s no “global flood” recorded in the human population or animal population. Read any archaeology or anthropology textbook. There is no instance of humanity (and all other life) disappearing 4400 years ago and starting back up again, in all the places where human settlements are studied.

    If you have a problem with radiometric dating, note that Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective also discusses non-radiometric dating systems. Although it’s funny how Alan was fine with carbon dating when he thought it supported a 100,000-year-old Earth — a couple of orders of magnitude off from what the bible says. What’s up with that, anyway?

    But please don’t spout nonsense like the Earth being “repopulated” 4400 years ago from a population of 8 humans. It didn’t happen. We have the evidence.

  340. #340 Tulse
    March 11, 2009

    Alan Clarke:

    the argument against a global flood is often reduced to an admission that the Earth indeed bears the characteristics of flooding, but the “floodings” where not simultaneous. I often hear, “This continent, or plain, was once under water millions of years ago.” This fine line of denial makes me wonder how uniformitarianists maintain their faith.

    The argument against a global orgy is often reduced to an admission that people indeed have had sex, but not simultaneously. This fine line of denial makes me wonder how monogamatarians maintain their faith.

    Matt Heath:

    There must be a God because otherwise the universe might have been no-Euclidean

    According to some, our universe is non-Euclidean, but you really don’t want to meet the designers…

  341. #341 Feynmaniac
    March 11, 2009

    When a legend is universal, as opposed to a local leprechaun legend, then science should indeed take note.

    Indeed, it should. It should also consider what is more likely:

    (1) A global flood occurred, even though all empirical evidence contradicts this.

    (2) That early civilizations arose along river banks and ocean shores. There likely were many independent floods that did a great deal of damage(hell, even with all our modern technology Katrina still caused a lot of damage). These legends then spread to other cultures.

    Now RogerS copied and pasted #326 (without attribution). There appear to be many sites with this info ( here is one) that also don’t give attribution. It seems like to be a creationist you must complete a checklist of intellectual dishonesty.

    Anyway, the lists gives 35 sources of flood myths. Now, what they don’t say is that some of these myths aren’t independent. “The Epic of Gilgamesh” influenced Berossus’ account and very likely Lucian and Zend-Avesta.

    It also gives “Divine Cause” as part of the check list. The fact that Ovid, the Eddas and others gave polytheistic causes isn’t really mentioned. That aside, people blame “Divine Cause” to pretty much all natural events. To volcanoes, earth quakes, droughts, famines, epidemics, etc. That really proves nothing.

    Another category given is “Warning Given”. Again, prophecies are very common in myths. Too see problems with “prophecies” go see Postdiction.

    Now I don’t quite understand the usefulness of the category “Humans Spared”. If every single human died how the hell are we here? If it was just a regional flood, then someone must have survived to tell the tale.

    We know that word of mouth is a HORRIBLE way to figure out what really happened. Why try and use other ancient myths to prove your particular ancient myth? Why not look at the geological evidence? Is it because it shows absolutely no evidence of a global flood?

    Besides, how would you get 2 of every single animal on a fucking boat?

  342. #342 'Tis Himself
    March 11, 2009

    the argument against a global flood is often reduced to an admission that the Earth indeed bears the characteristics of flooding, but the “floodings” where not simultaneous. I often hear, “This continent, or plain, was once under water millions of years ago.” This fine line of denial makes me wonder how uniformitarianists maintain their faith.

    Noah was not involved in the Great Flood of 1993 (Jefferson City, MO in the picture).

  343. #343 Kel
    March 11, 2009

    Localised flooding is very different to global flooding. Localised flooding is not only possible but has been observed countless times. A global flood is physically impossible. Multiple local floods explain the flood mythology in other cultures, as well as explaining why the genetic evidence in our species and others, the geographical distribution of animals and their ancestral fossil records, the non-uniform geology, etc.

    This argument is the equivalent of saying: evolution posits that more advantageous mutations will arise. Wings are an advantageous mutation. Humans don’t have wings. Therefore evolution is false.
    Natural disasters happen, a global flood hasn’t.

  344. #344 Josh
    March 11, 2009

    Late to the party, I am.

    Alan wrote:

    It stands on the assumption that a global flood never occurred which would COMPLETELY change the atmospheric C14 content if a large portion of the Earth?s ecosystem was destroyed.

    An assumption that is:

    1. Supported by NO geological evidence.
    2. Contradicted by the entirety of the geological record*.

    I think we can safely throw this assumption out. Oh wait, we did. A couple of hundred years ago when we figured out 1 and 2 above.

    *Not to mention the science of physics.

  345. #345 Matt Heath
    March 11, 2009

    Tulse: :)
    But this universe is non-Euclidean too; that was my point. It’s just the curvature of space time is pretty small except near black holes and the big bang.
    Saying euclidean space implies god therefore god is like saying phlogiston implies god therefore god.

  346. #346 Stu
    March 11, 2009

    In nature, there are various examples of the straightest and most efficient path being taken.

    …reading this, with my inside-out laid-out eyes…

    *facepalm*

  347. #347 Watchman
    March 11, 2009

    Since when has it been assumed that the human population growth rate has ever been linear? And what;s the use of an average growth rate? The rates were lower when the survival rate was lower, when the infant mortality rate was higher, when life expectancy was lower. The rates have been higher in recent times, for a wide variety of reasons. It’s absurd to apply (or to compute) a single growth rate across across hundreds of thousands of years, and then reject it as being either too high or too low.

    Plague.

    Famine.

    War.

    Get it?

  348. #348 Alan Clarke
    March 11, 2009

    Tis Himself: ?it always boils down to the Bible (not written by eyewitnesses)?

    When was the New Testament written? Jesus predicted the destruction Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D. Jesus? words were recorded with slight differences by three individuals concerning the destruction of Jerusalem:

    Matthew 24:1-2 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to [him] for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

    See the variations as recorded by Mark and Luke: Mark 13:2, Luke 21:6 Why isn?t there any boasting by the Bible?s authors that Jesus properly predicted the destruction? Answer: The New Testament was written before it happened. Nowhere does the Bible gloat over its successful predictions.

    Who are we to trust? Tis Himself? Owlmirror? Jesus’ closest friend, John? It?s a no-brainer.

    1 John 1:1-3 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
    (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
    That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

    John knew mankind inside and out:

    1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

  349. #349 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 11, 2009

    What a stupid godbot. Quoting the fictional bible impresses us not, and is meaningless. YAWN. Still not evidence for your imaginary deity. Double YAWN.

  350. #350 Kel
    March 11, 2009

    Answer: The New Testament was written before it happened.

    According to almost all biblical scholars, you are wrong.

  351. #351 Feynmaniac
    March 11, 2009

    Jesus predicted the destruction Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D.

    Postdiction contains several problems with “prophecies”.

    Let’s see how this “prophecy” does:

    -Vague
    -Open ended: doesn’t give an exact date of when it will happen
    -Catch-all: Many ways a city destroyed. Jesus doesn’t specifically say how it’s going to happen. It could have been by fire, by earthquake, etc.
    - Unavailable until after the fact: Like Kel points out it’s likely that most of the Gospels were after 70 AD .

  352. #352 Owlmirror
    March 12, 2009

    *snort*

    Why isn?t there any boasting by the Bible?s authors that Jesus properly predicted the destruction? Answer: The New Testament was written before it happened.

    Funnily enough, not a single goddamn scrap of parchment or papyrus with this supposed prediction exists that can be dated to before the destruction.

    Nowhere does the Bible gloat over its successful predictions.

    LOL. The entire NT is a huge extended gloat over how Jesus and his followers interpreted the various scattered verses in the bible correctly as predictions, and no-one else did, nyah-nyah.

    1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

    LOL. What was the Christ cult supposed to say about those who called them blasphemers and/or liars and/or misguided fools? “Ooh, yup, you got us. We were wrong, but now we have to come clean.”

    Of course they’re going to deny all charges and reverse them against those making them — just like any cultist today. Go to the Moonies and say that Sun Myung Moon is not the second coming of Jesus. Go to the Scientlologists and say the L. Ron was a fraud and a con-man. See what kind of response you get.

    Sheesh.

    PS: Take your meds. You’re going psychotic again.

  353. #353 Kagato
    March 12, 2009

    RogerS @ 326:

    Why is there common agreement of preservation in a “vessel” when heading for higher ground is how you survive local floods?
    D = Destruction by Water
    G = (God) Divine Cause
    W = Warning Given
    H = Humans Spared
    A = Animals Spared
    V = Preserved in a Vessel
    D . . H A V 01 Australia- Kurnai [...]

    Wow, you really nailed it with that very first example. (Pity you put Australia first, it made me curious enough to look it up.)

    I found it in Folklore in the Old Testament Studies in Comparative Religion, which seems a likely source for this list itself (but I didn’t spent time investigating). Can’t cut & paste from Google Book Search, so here’s a similar passage from talkorigins:

    Long ago, a great flood covered the country. All drowned except a man and two or three women who took refuge on a mud island near Port Albert. Pelican came by in his canoe and went to help them. He fell in love with one of the women. He ferried the others to the mainland, but left her for last. Afraid of being alone with him, the woman dressed a log in her opossum rug so it looked like her, left it by the fire, and swam to the mainland. The pelican returned and flew into a passion when the log dressed as a woman wouldn’t answer him. He kicked it, which only hurt his foot and made him angrier. He began to paint himself white so that he might fight the woman’s husband. Another pelican came up when he was halfway through with these preparations, but not knowing what to make of the strange half black and half white creature, pecked him and killed him. That is why pelicans are now black and white.

    That’s not a historical record, it’s a (convoluted and weird) just-so story about how a bird got its colouring!

    (I’m not quite sure how the flood covered the country while still leaving a “mainland” to swim to, or why the dead pelican determined the colouring for the surviving species, but that’s creation myths for ya!)

    Do you know how the flood supposedly occurred in this story?

    Tiddalik the giant frog was thirsty, and drank all the water in the world; so the animals conspired to make him laugh so he would release the water again.

    You want to try and work that into the biblical setting for me?

  354. #354 Alan Clarke
    March 12, 2009

    Owlmirror: Hey, you’re the one claiming that he isn’t dead and buried. You bring us this alleged living Jesus and have him perform some miracles.

    Professor George McNelly at Purdue University once told me that he would accept a gift Bible from me under the condition that I would receive a Bible from him that described how each miracle attributed to Jesus was performed by natural means. Jesus knew how temporal and useless miracles were for long-lasting relationships. Each time Michael Jackson steps on stage, his fans want him to win them over with another ?miraculous? performance. The problem is, the fickle crowd becomes progressively immunized by multiple performances, and the ?miraculous? becomes commonplace. Eventually, the charm wears off completely to the point that those who were once charmed become those who most abhor their idol. John Lennon died at the hands of disenchanted idolizer Mark David Chapman.

    Owlmirror, I fear that your choice to have Jesus appear before you to perform a miracle would leave you as miserable as King Midas. The reason I know so is because you are a prisoner to your ?naturalistic? mind. If Jesus did appear, your mind would reject him as an imposter. If he walked on water, you would immediately look for stones under his feet. If there were no stones, you would think a sheet of ice was submerged about 1 inch below the surface to support his feet. Your naturalistic mind would play tricks on you to no end. If your time for studying the miracle came to an end, you would forever torment yourself for not having investigated your latest idea of a natural cause. Where science would normally be an asset, you would be cursed under a delusion of ?naturalism?.

  355. #355 Alan Clarke
    March 12, 2009

    Owlmirror: Go to the Moonies and say that Sun Myung Moon is not the second coming of Jesus. Go to the Scientlologists and say the L. Ron was a fraud and a con-man. See what kind of response you get.

    Go to Owlmirror and say that he is inferior to Jesus Christ. See what kind of response you get.

  356. #356 Kel
    March 12, 2009

    Go to Owlmirror and say that he is inferior to Jesus Christ. See what kind of response you get.

    lol, thou cracketh me up Alan.

  357. #357 Ichthyic
    March 12, 2009

    If he walked on water, you would immediately look for stones under his feet.

    the real question is…

    why wouldn’t YOU?

    did you think somehow you would just “know”?

    how does that work?

  358. #358 brokenSoldier, OM
    March 12, 2009

    Your naturalistic mind would play tricks on you to no end.

    Searching for valid explanation of extraordinary claims is somehow a mental illusion? Lemme guess…perpetrated by the devil to lead the flock astray, no doubt.

    And if the excuse for being unable to verify, or even see, a miracle is that it would somehow cheapen the experience of something that no one has experienced in the first place is a weak one indeed.

  359. #359 Owlmirror
    March 12, 2009

    Jesus knew how temporal and useless miracles were for long-lasting relationships.

    Then why perform any miracles at all?

    Why do you have a “relationship” with Jesus, if not for a miracle or miracles?

    The problem is, the fickle crowd becomes progressively immunized by multiple performances, and the ?miraculous? becomes commonplace.

    Funny how you imply that Jesus was nothing more than a traveling illusionist, always careful to leave to rubes wanting more. I wouldn’t disagree with that at all.

    John Lennon died at the hands of disenchanted idolizer Mark David Chapman.

    Mark David Chapman was a religious Christian psychotic who hated Lennon because Lennon dared to suggest that he was more popular than Jesus Christ. Mark David Chapman thought that God wanted him to commit murder.

    Gee, who does that sound like?

    If Jesus did appear, your mind would reject him as an imposter.

    And you would just accept anyone who claimed to be Jesus, or performed a few magic tricks. Or you wouldn’t, because you have some standards of belief and skepticism.

    You’re either utterly gullible… or you are no different from me, and would want to be sure that you were not being deceived.

    Which is it?

    If he walked on water, you would immediately look for stones under his feet. If there were no stones, you would think a sheet of ice was submerged about 1 inch below the surface to support his feet.

    Did Criss Angel really walk on water, or did he fake it? If you believe, why don’t you worship him as the returned son of God? If you don’t, how are you any different from me in being skeptical?

    If your time for studying the miracle came to an end, you would forever torment yourself for not having investigated your latest idea of a natural cause.

    Why should the “time for studying the miracle” come to an end? If it’s really Jesus, he wouldn’t need to stop. He should be performing miracles left and right to convince people that he’s for real.

    Go to Owlmirror and say that he is inferior to Jesus Christ. See what kind of response you get.

    If I’m inferior to Jesus Christ, why are you so obsessed with me? Stop wasting your time posting here, and go to church.

  360. #360 the truth
    March 12, 2009

    Criss Angel aka Christopher Nicholas Sarantakos aka Nicolae Carpathia has real magic powers but they do not come from God they come from his father the devil

  361. #361 Satan
    March 12, 2009

    Criss Angel aka Christopher Nicholas Sarantakos aka Nicolae Carpathia has real magic powers but they do not come from God they come from his father the devil

    Which means they come from God. All power comes from the Creator of all things. I have no power but the power that God grants.

  362. #362 Kagato
    March 12, 2009

    Alan @355:

    If Jesus did appear, your mind would reject him as an imposter.

    A question for you, Alan. Or indeed for anyone else who believes in the divinity, resurrection and return of Jesus.

    A man approaches you in the street, and declares that he is Jesus Christ, Son of God, returned to Earth. Would you believe or reject his claim? And on what grounds?

    What if the person is of caucasian, or middle eastern appearance? Black? Asian? A woman? A child?

    Does your answer change, and why?

  363. #363 Tulse
    March 12, 2009

    Criss Angel aka Christopher Nicholas Sarantakos aka Nicolae Carpathia

    Using the name from the Left Behind novels? C’mon, this has got to be a Poe.

  364. #364 DaveL
    March 12, 2009

    The problem is, the fickle crowd becomes progressively immunized by multiple performances, and the ?miraculous? becomes commonplace

    Yeah, because there’s no reason to heal the sick and feed the hungry, if not for the PR benefits.

  365. #365 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 12, 2009

    Poor Alan, those of us who respect the scientific process will require the proper evidence from Jesus to confirm his status. This would include his walking on water at a venue of our choosing, and doing so in the presence of other scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers. And a unanamous decision would be need for proof of divinity. Anything less means we can be conned. Like you have been. There is no evidence that your imaginary god exists, or that your bible is anything other than fiction. But you want to believe, so you do. We see no need to believe, and don’t. You’ve been wasting your time and ours with your stupid posts. Time to call it quits.

  366. #366 RogerS
    March 12, 2009

    Kagato #354 I found it in Folklore in the Old Testament Studies in Comparative Religion, which seems a likely source for this list itself (but I didn’t spent time investigating). Can’t cut & paste from Google Book Search, so here’s a similar passage from talkorigins:

    Long ago, a great flood covered the country. All drowned except a man and two or three women who took refuge on a mud island near Port Albert. Pelican came by in his canoe and went to help them. He fell in love with one of the women. He ferried the others to the mainland, but left her for last. Afraid of being alone with him, the woman dressed a log in her opossum rug so it looked like her, left it by the fire, and swam to the mainland. The pelican returned and flew into a passion when the log dressed as a woman wouldn’t answer him. He kicked it, which only hurt his foot and made him angrier. He began to paint himself white so that he might fight the woman’s husband. Another pelican came up when he was halfway through with these preparations, but not knowing what to make of the strange half black and half white creature, pecked him and killed him. That is why pelicans are now black and white.

    That’s not a historical record, it’s a (convoluted and weird) just-so story about how a bird got its colouring!

    Flood Legends reference: http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html
    Sorry, the omission was an oversight (you can relax now and have an M&M).

    An actual event that occurred over 4400 years ago is likely to have embellished accounts with some folklore sprinkled in among various cultures spread throughout the world, I get that. Get 35 eyewitnesses to a traffic accident that occurred in 2008 and hand the accounts to an Evolutionist and I am sure he could find adequate inconsistency to disprove the event. He would pull out one that said the car was ?flying down the road? and conclude cars do not fly, therefore false. On the other hand, a professional investigator could conclude the event happened by looking for correlations among all the accounts.
    Even the ?folksy? Australian account you cite begins with a number of interesting elements all contained within the first two sentences:
    1. great flood
    2. covered the country
    3. all drowned except
    4. two or three women
    5. refuge on a mud island

    Genesis 8:4-5 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

    When the solution is simple, God is answering.
    Albert Einstein

  367. #367 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 12, 2009

    RogerS, still no physical evidence for your imaginary god, which means your bible is fiction. And nobody but Noah and his family survived the fictional flood. What part of that don’t you understand. You trashed your own claim with your own ignorance by using a flood claim with survivors. BWAAAHAAHAAHAA You godbots sure are stupid when it comes to evidence.

  368. #368 aratina
    March 12, 2009

    So let me get this right:
    Not only do YEC (like RogerS) think humanity began from two people (Adam and Eve), but that it happened twice (second time with Noah + seven family members) within the last several thousand years?

  369. #369 Josh
    March 12, 2009

    RogerS, there are basically two possibilities:

    1. There was NO global deluge ~4400 years ago.
    2. Whatever deity was responsible for said event erased all evidence of it after the event was over and then created a rock record that screams very loudly THERE WAS NO FLOOD.

    In short, there is no geological evidence supporting the idea of a worldwide deluge ~4400 years ago and all of the evidence that we do have indicates that it never happened. The flood hypothesis is long dead and we have been continually stomping on its rotting carcass for more than 200 years.

  370. #370 Owlmirror
    March 12, 2009

    An actual [flood] event that occurred over 4400 years ago

    all over the world would have left evidence all over the world.

    There’s no evidence all over the world of this supposed flood event, therefore the flood event did not happen.

    Get 35 eyewitnesses to a traffic accident that occurred in 2008 and hand the accounts to an Evolutionist

    Show a little kid playing with toy cars to a Creationist, and he will immediately assert that crashing the toy cars together means that a real accident happened in the real world. This is voodoo, not science.

    When the solution is simple, God is answering.
    Albert Einstein

    Yes, and the simple solution is that the bible is false in describing a global flood.

    Einstein was neither a YEC, a Christian, nor a follower of any organized religion. And he would have utterly rejected the folly of asserting that a book of primitive myths should trump actual evidence-based science.

    “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.” – Albert Einstein

  371. #371 RogerS
    March 12, 2009

    The evidence is before us all, we just differ with the interpretation.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limestone
    Limestone often contains variable amounts of silica in the form of chert and/or flint, as well as varying amounts of clay, silt and sand as disseminations, nodules, or layers within the rock. The primary source of the calcite in limestone is most commonly marine organisms.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Limestone_and_Chemical_Company
    Why are huge deposits of marine organisms (limestone calcite) in the middle of continents?
    1. Simple answer: a global flood shocking and amassing vast quantities at the same time. The flood covered all continents.

    Why are sea shells found in sands in the Midwest and fossilized clams in the closed position found as high as Everest?
    2. Simple answer: a global flood carried sands over continents and rapid burial of clams prevented them from dying in the natural open position. Both halves of the shell would not be together given long periods of time.

    Why are life forms from sea life to dinosaur bones (with soft tissues) all well preserved in sedimentary layers throughout the world? Why was the American buffalo not preserved?
    3. Simple answer: rapid burial by a global flood preserved pre-flood life forms in clay, silt and sand and forever altered the pre-flood climate.

    Why are sedimentary layers laid down in vast uniform thicknesses when erosion would have cut grooves and washed away uniform thickness according to terrain?
    4. Simple answer: a global flood laid them down at the same time avoiding erosion.

    Why do evolutions not have similar conclusions?
    5. Simple answer: Their presuppositions automatically filter and reject all answers that conflict with their belief. Observe the mindset in response posts.

    John 8:31-32 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
    Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. ? Denis Diderot (Atheist)

  372. #372 Kel
    March 12, 2009

    Why are sea shells found in sands in the Midwest and fossilized clams in the closed position found as high as Everest?

    plate tectonics… Changing earth and all that.

  373. #373 Ichthyic
    March 12, 2009

    Jesus fucking christ! we’ve been deluged with fucknutters this week, eh?

    This HAS to be from the “I Love Ray Comfort” banana squad.

  374. #374 Ichthyic
    March 12, 2009

    Yeah, because there’s no reason to heal the sick and feed the hungry, if not for the PR benefits.

    LOL

    reminds me of the Dishonesty Institute, who if pushed would most likely say:

    “there is no benefit to doing any science outside of the PR benefits.”

    and actually believe it.

  375. #375 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 12, 2009

    RogerS, do you have any idea of how many layers of limestone are under Michigan, along with brine layers, shale, sandstone, etc.? They couldn’t have been formed in one flood, but would require repeated comings and goings of the sea as the laurentian shield migrated over the earth. Again, you are your own worst enemy by not finding out the truth, versus the little bit you want to hear. True stupidity requires a godbot.

  376. #376 Watchman
    March 12, 2009

    Roger:

    2. Simple answer: a global flood

    LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO

    No. Wrong. It’s not that simple, and it’s not an answer. You’ve overlooked something critical:

    The volume of water required to cover the globe to the height of Everest is several times the volume of water contained in all the world’s bodies of water combined.

    Answer me these questions, then, and provide some evidence that your answers have any validity at all:

    1. Where did all that extra water come from, and
    2. Where did all that extra water go?

  377. #377 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 12, 2009

    The evidence is before us all, we just differ with the interpretation.

    Perhaps, but your interpretation sucks compared to the combined weight of the entire geological community and all of the eduction and experience contained with in.

    You interpretation is just that. The interpretation of a highly biased individual that no evidence what so ever will change his predetermined conclusion that the Bible is inerrant.

  378. #378 Josh
    March 12, 2009

    *reads #372*

    Oh for fucks sake.

    Where do I even begin? This one might take a minute.

  379. #379 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 12, 2009

    Where do I even begin? This one might take a minute.

    I think that pile of excrement will take several minutes. Of course, our fundie idiot also forgot about the nasty glaciers from the ice ages (4 IIRC) which created the unique shape of Michigan.

  380. #380 Alan Clarke
    March 12, 2009

    brokenSoldier: Searching for valid explanation of extraordinary claims is somehow a mental illusion? Lemme guess…perpetrated by the devil to lead the flock astray, no doubt.

    I remember a psychology teacher?s story about a monkey sent into outer space. (NASA or Soviets??) The monkey received extensive training to flip certain switches on a control panel at appropriate times to augment the flight. During the flight, the control panel?s actuator lights failed to operate which confused the monkey. The monkey, being outside the familiarity of its training, went mad and destroyed the entire panel by pounding on it. The monkey survived its return to Earth but suffered from extreme psychosis.

    brokenSoldier, God has no ill-intention toward you nor is it his goal to deceive you. He has provided a complete training manual that should suffice even if the analogous control panel fails. Life is full of ?unexpected? failures. Your problem is not that you fail to see the value of training. You love how science affords you to better interpret your environment. But you are not prepared for a control panel failure which takes you outside your comfortable capsule of expectations. I?ve attempted to inform people that a second phase of training is necessary for reaching the destination but I?m labeled as a lunatic for suggesting that another dimension exists. Is it any wonder that people can?t detect this dimension since it is non-physical? I must confess that I have failed miserably in communicating because I keep receiving responses that indicate people are looking for ?scientific? answers. Doesn?t it stand to reason that ?scientific? answers will not apply to spiritual problems? If you can?t get along with people or you perceive that your every problem is actually ?the other person’s fault?, then aren?t we entering into a realm that ?science? begins to fail? Not only does ?science? fall short, but the human mind falls short as evidenced by psychologists who can?t fix themselves:

    In 1899 Sigmund Freud got a new telephone number: 14362. He was 43 at the time, and he was profoundly disturbed by the digits in the new number. He believed they signified that he would die at age 61 (note the one and six surrounding the 43) or, at best, at age 62 (the last two digits in the number). He clung, painfully, to this bizarre belief for many years. Presumably he was forced to revise his estimate on his 63rd birthday, but he was haunted by other superstitions until the day he died — by assisted suicide, no less — at the ripe old age of 83.

    That’s just for starters. Freud also had frequent blackouts. He refused to quit smoking even after 30 operations to correct the extensive damage he suffered from cancer of the jaw. He was a self-proclaimed neurotic. He suffered from a mild form of agoraphobia. And, for a time, he had a serious cocaine problem.

    Neuroses? Superstitions? Substance abuse? Blackouts? And suicide? So much for the father of psychoanalysis. But are these problems typical for psychologists? How are Freud’s successors doing? Or, to put the question another way: Are shrinks really “crazy”? (source)

    If you can?t sustain meaningful relationships or you suffer from an extreme physical or mental addiction, don?t you see that ?science? is not your deliverer? If a person is fearful of their future, what is the greatest consolation ?science? has to offer? If a person can?t stop treating people in a way that he/she knows is destructive, what will ?science? offer to change this behavior? I?m trying to describe an apple in 3D color and I?m rebuked at every sentence that exceeds two dimensions and black & white. You have set pre-determined constraints on what you perceive as ?reality?. You have seen so many frauds that you are immediately conditioned to categorize every ?religious? person as such. In doing so, you have identified yourselves among those who you disdain as ?narrow-minded?. Ask yourself, ?What social environments am I most uncomfortable in??, then ask whether the relentless pursuit of ?science? has improved your social confidence level. You are using the wrong tool because you have no other.

    1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

  381. #381 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 12, 2009

    Alan, that post was nothing but proselytization. That will get you banned. You have failed miserably in showing us your imaginary god. Give it up.

  382. #382 Ichthyic
    March 12, 2009

    The monkey survived its return to Earth but suffered from extreme psychosis.

    let me guess:

    You ARE that monkey, and they taught you how to type as well?

  383. #383 Owlmirror
    March 12, 2009

    The evidence is before us all, Creationists just make up lies about the interpretation.

    Fixed.

    [snip a bunch of Creationist made-up lies about the interpretation of the geological evidence]

    Why do those who accept evolutions not have similar conclusions?
    5. Simple answer: Creationist presuppositions automatically filter and reject all answers that conflict with their belief. Observe the mindset in Creationist posts.

    Fixed.

  384. #384 Feynmaniac
    March 12, 2009

    The monkey survived its return to Earth but suffered from extreme psychosis.

    let me guess:

    You ARE that monkey, and they taught you how to type as well?

    LOL! Thanks Ichthyic for the good laugh.

  385. #385 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 12, 2009

    Also, it appears Barb has made FSTDT !

    Woot! I submitted that during that whole thread hilarity.

  386. #386 Kel
    March 12, 2009

    brokenSoldier, God has no ill-intention toward you nor is it his goal to deceive you.

    So when results for the speed of light are constant, that makes it’s God’s intention to be constant right? So when we use this constant speed of light to measure distant galaxies, it’s God’s intention that the galaxies be measurable? So when we see over a hundred billion galaxies ranging anywhere from a few hundred thousands light years away to over 10 billion light years away, it’s God intention for us to conclude that the universe is at least as old as the time it took for the light from those galaxies to reach us?

    So when nuclear physics shows decay rates of certain particles, that’s God’s intention too? So when a variety of dating techniques that correspond with relative dating, it’s God’s intention to show that those techniques are valid for ageing the earth? When multiple techniques show certain rocks to be over 4 billion years old, does that make it God’s intention for us to see that the earth is over 4 billion years old?

    When we look at the fossil record, we see a clear progression of life. So is it’s God’s intention that in rocks billions of years old we see nothing more than traces of bacteria? That in rocks older than 600 million years we see no macroscopic organisms? Is it God’s intention that we see a gradual emergence of life over the last 500 million years? That in rocks older than 380 million years we see no land vertebrates, and in younger than 370 we do? That when we look at rocks 375 million years old and find a transitional form, surely that’s God’s intention. Just as when we see avian features on dinosaurs, just as we see man-like apes before man. Surely the fossil record is God’s intention; after all he’s not trying to deceive us.

    This is what I find absurd about Young Earth Creationists. All signs point to both the universe and this earth being old. All signs point to the notion that life has evolved over time, and that we share a common ancestor with all life on this planet (certainly animal and plant life.) This is what the evidence tells us, this is what the overwhelming evidence tells us. What does this tell you about God? That God made the natural world look ancient and interconnected, yet it’s really young because of a book ascribed to him says otherwise? It just shows that your faith is in the bible and not God.

  387. #387 Owlmirror
    March 12, 2009

    I?ve attempted to inform people that a second phase of training is necessary for reaching the destination but I?m labeled as a lunatic for suggesting that another dimension exists.

    No, you’re labeled as deluded for asserting another dimension. You’re labeled as a lunatic for frothing at the mouth and wanting to murder people.

    Is it any wonder that people can?t detect this dimension since it is non-physical?

    So what if it is “non-physical”? If it were real, it would still have real, physical effects. Heck, the bible even claims it has real, physical effects.

    Mark 16: 17 ?These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.?

    Where are the hospitals with no Christians in the sickbeds but only on the staff; curing all and sundry by laying on hands alone? Where are the Christians demonstrating the truth of their belief by drinking bleach, rat poison, strychnine, and cyanide? Where are the Christian linguists who automatically understand every language.

    They don’t exist, because the “spiritual dimension” has no real effect, and therefore — by Occam’s Razor — can be eliminated as not really existing.

  388. #388 Josh
    March 12, 2009

    Limestone often contains variable amounts of silica

    If we’re talking about the limestone fabric itself, then this should be edited to: “limestone occasionally contains variable amounts of silica.” I don’t think that “often” is any way defensible if we’re talking about the bulk fabric of the rock and integrating across all limestones (which is what your sentence implies).

    …in the form of chert and/or flint, as well as varying amounts of clay, silt and sand as disseminations,

    How are you defining “dissemination” in this context? Are you thinking of it as a formational sedimentary structure or as some sort of weird fluid infill analogous to a mineralization (by far the more traditional use of this word)? Regardless, I presume that you’re thinking of a syndepositional feature and not something diagenetic, yes?

    nodules, or layers within the rock.

    This is a false statement. You shot yourself in the foot by using “layers” in combination with the clastic rocks. Chert beds–fine whatever. But if there are actual layers of clastics like clay, sand, or silt, then we’re talking about clay, sand, or silt, not limestone. What you have in that case are different rock types interbedded with each other in a sequence. Just referring to the package of material as limestone in this case is imprecise enough to be wrong. Limestone covers a vast suite of rock types, but the word does not refer to the same formational history as any of those other three materials. You can say “sequences of limestone often contain layers of blah, blah, blah,…” and be fine, but bear in mind that you are referring to different rock types that have different formational histories (which is rather the entire point if we’re postulating that they’ve all been laid down in a single worldwide event).

    I also don’t really like the use of layers. It’s not precise enough for me to understand what you mean given your imprecise use of limestone. I presume you’re not talking about lamina I’m sure, but are you referring to bedding planes or entire formations? The difference is hugely important here (beds vs. formations). You’re trying to talk about sedimentology. Word choice matters.

    The primary source of the calcite in limestone is most commonly marine organisms.

    This is broadly accurate, but it really depends on what kind of limestone you’re referring to. Several varieties of limestone are almost entirely the result of direct precipitation of calcite via inorganic processes.

  389. #389 JFK, hypercharismatic telepathical knight
    March 12, 2009

    When the solution is simple, God is answering.
    Albert Einstein

    Interesting that you would quote a socialist who denied your god.

    “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

    Albert Einstein, letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

    “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

    - Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

    “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere…. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

    - Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930

    “I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation.”

    - Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

  390. #390 AnthonyK
    March 12, 2009

    Woah Alan Clarkehyper-dimensional christian fuckwittery! Fascinating, fascinating – though I must admit to a feeling of guilt. Sometimes Pharyngula is like the Bedlam of the 18th century – an afternoon out, in which the well-to-do saunter past a line of cages. In each, a slavering wreck of humanity resides, some sad and reflective, others screaming and throwing excrement. Here a “cretin” there a “half-wit”, this one’s “melancholic” that manic. Most talk to themselves; many, many are self-arguers. Here we see, stark in its effects, the true consequences of religion, and its sad victims.

    Am I cruel to want to look?

    But what’s this – a new cage, with an inmate they say has the wit of fully half a human, a gurning, self-confident fellow, of an instructorial bent. We lean forwards to listen, but the words, once English, make no sense – for drawn from the all the pits of humans idiocy, mixed with the grammar of fact, they twist and turn like smoke plumes in a draughty room. Such eloquence, and all for nothing! We turn away, embarrassed. The keeper stands unsmiling.

    “Was that…?”

    “Yes,” he nods gravely, “that was – Alan Clarke”

  391. #391 'Tis Himself
    March 12, 2009

    Alan Clarke #381

    I?m trying to describe an apple in 3D color and I?m rebuked at every sentence that exceeds two dimensions and black & white. You have set pre-determined constraints on what you perceive as ?reality?.

    You’re right, we do have predetermined constraints on reality. They’re called “evidence.” You’ve been rebuked and your posts ridiculed because you fail to provide this evidence. What’s more, you’ve been told this more than once but, quite obviously, fail to heed our admonitions.

    Ask yourself, ?What social environments am I most uncomfortable in??, then ask whether the relentless pursuit of ?science? has improved your social confidence level.

    Personally, I am most uncomfortable in situations where I have to deal with people who have oddball, ridiculous beliefs. Creationists, flat earthers, 9/11 truthers, the “Obama was born in Nigeria” wackos, folks like that. Also I feel really uncomfortable when religious proselytizers tell me that I “need to find Jesus” and I’ll “be going to Hell because I don’t believe.” Actually the worst goddists are the people who have the strange idea that I’ve never, in my entire life, ever heard of Jesus. Dealing with these people is painful. Oh yes, I also really dislike discussing economics and politics with looneytarians.

    You are using the wrong tool because you have no other.

    I sure don’t need religion as a psychological tool. I prefer to think for myself. I don’t need a professional virgin wearing a dress telling me that a nine year old shouldn’t have an abortion. I don’t need some homophobic preacher telling me that gay people shouldn’t get married because god thinks “taking it up the ass is icky.” And I really don’t need some wackaloon fundie trying to tell me that the Earth is only 6000 years old, Jebus rode a dinosaur around Galilee, and this nonsense should be taught in schools instead of science.

  392. #392 Kagato
    March 12, 2009

    An actual event that occurred over 4400 years ago is likely to have embellished accounts with some folklore sprinkled in among various cultures spread throughout the world, I get that.

    So why don’t you apply that thinking to the bible as well? I guess a giant frog belching forth water is just silly, but a boat holding a representative of every extant lifeform is hunky-dory?

    The flood in the Noah myth, if it happened at all, was written down centuries after the event supposedly occurred. Why is it not more reasonable to assume it too is an embellished story? Maybe a localised flood, with a farmer saving his livestock on a boat?

    Anyway. Let’s ignore the complete lack of any evidence for a global flood event, and the fact that indigenous Australians have probably been here for over 100,000 years, and just move on:

    Even the “folksy” Australian account you cite begins with a number of interesting elements all contained within the first two sentences:
    1. great flood
    2. covered the country
    3. all drowned except
    4. two or three women
    5. refuge on a mud island

    1: How many massive floods have occurred in your lifetime alone? Imagine a small village in the midst of one, with no other settlements out to the horizon; don’t you think in a more primitive culture, they might think the whole world might be flooded?
    2: The place they supposedly took refuge was coastal — to cover the country, they would be under hundreds of metres of water! But let’s ignore that too, huh?
    3,4: So Noah’s family weren’t the only ones saved after all?
    5: How does “evading a big flood on a mud island” fit with “drowning every living thing on earth except Noah’s boat”?

    oh, and you forgot 6: They were rescued by a pelican in a boat, who ferried them to the mainland.

    This is not the same story. For the tale to make much sense at all (and Dreamtime stories are quirky & cool, but most don’t), the flood would have to be like a tidal-wave, sweeping across the whole country but not submerging the whole thing. That fits with the frog-barf imagery, but not the biblical flood.

    But sure, this is just the first myth off your list.
    Maybe among those stories there are a couple of closer matches, but I’d bet the majority are just generic ‘big flood’ stories. Consider:

    * Virtually every culture on earth will have experienced major flooding at some point. It’s probably the most universal natural disaster, and is easily attributable to supernatural cause (water falls from the sky!)
    * People tend to imagine what-ifs (“what if it were bigger?”), and make up stories about it.

    Stories of “divine retribution via massive flooding” really don’t seem that surprising to me.

  393. #393 Alan Clarke
    March 12, 2009

    Watchman: The volume of water required to cover the globe to the height of Everest is several times the volume of water contained in all the world’s bodies of water combined.

    Answer me these questions, then, and provide some evidence that your answers have any validity at all:

    1. Where did all that extra water come from, and
    2. Where did all that extra water go?

    Pre-flood Everest wasn?t as high.

    The water is still here, it covers 71% of the Earth.

    There is good evidence that the pre-flood world atmosphere could have contained a portion of the water (not all). The evidences are larger than existing land animals (dinosaurs) and forests in Antarctica. Creationists and evolutionist agree that Earth?s current atmosphere and ecosystem is not what it was. The second water source for the flood was sub-terrestrial:

    Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

    If Mount Everest, which is the tallest point on earth at 8,850 meters (29,035 feet), were set in the Mariana Trench, there would still be 2,183 meters (7,166 feet) of water left above it.

    Re-arranging existing land masses could cover the entire Earth with water. Without cracks in seafloors (Mariana, Mindanao, etc.) oceans would be higher.

    If the Earth?s land masses were completely flat, (i.e. no Everest or Mariana trench) then the globe would be covered by 1.7 miles of water. I believe the pre-flood Earth had hills and shallow ocean basins. Thus, through tectonic plate shifts, the highest mountain was easily covered by ?15 cubits? as described in Genesis 7:20. Where did all of the energy come from? May I suggest the same energy that evolutionist use to raise and lower vast plateaus as needed for their model to evade the global flood.

  394. #394 Sven DiMIlo
    March 12, 2009

    I unkilled Alan juuuust for a little peek, and my reward was badly sprained eye-rolling muscles. Learned that lesson.

  395. #395 AnthonyK
    March 12, 2009

    You see? Something about a flood and Antartica which…no, nothing…Oh, energy – that’s always there…pleateaus..?

  396. #396 Josh
    March 12, 2009

    I sure don’t need religion as a psychological tool. I prefer to think for myself. I don’t need a professional virgin wearing a dress telling me that a nine year old shouldn’t have an abortion. I don’t need some homophobic preacher telling me that gay people shouldn’t get married because god thinks “taking it up the ass is icky.” And I really don’t need some wackaloon fundie trying to tell me that the Earth is only 6000 years old, Jebus rode a dinosaur around Galilee, and this nonsense should be taught in schools instead of science.

    OH MY FUCKING GOD THAT WAS AWESOME

  397. #397 rogerS
    March 12, 2009

    Hi Josh, (#389)
    Try the link I provided, you must have missed it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limestone

    Go to the second section titled “Description” and begin reading. You will see your dispute is with my source. If you think your points are valid, you may want to notify them. I acknowledge wikipedia is not without error.

    Best wishes,
    RogerS

  398. #398 Owlmirror
    March 12, 2009

    Pre-flood Everest wasn?t as high.

    Because of course mountain ranges can form in a year or so, showing all the evidence of being millions of years old, despite being only a few thousand years old. Because Creationism isn’t just pseudoscience, it’s voodoo science. Big Juju do water magic and make big mountain!

    There is good evidence that the pre-flood world atmosphere could have contained a portion of the water

    Big Juju do magic and put water into air, and water not fall down as rain until Big Juju make Big Flud!

    I believe the pre-flood Earth had hills and shallow ocean basins.

    Believer in Big Juju not need no stinking evidence for geological dreamworld! Believer in Big Juju know that Big Juju create flat world make world all bumpy after Big Flud!

    Thus, through tectonic plate shifts, the highest mountain was easily covered by ?15 cubits?

    Ooga Booga! Big Juju make much water and move much earth around!

  399. #399 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 12, 2009

    I see both our liars and bullshitters are still lying and bullshitting.
    Still no physical evidence for their imaginary god. Which makes their bible a work of fiction, and anything quoted therein worthless. Welcome to real science boys, and you are both intellectually boys.

    First you have to show evidence for your god. Evidence that will pass muster with with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural origin. Not done. Without that god, you have nothing but your imagination, versus the facts of science. Science 100, your imagination 0. Game called for humanitarian reasons. At the moment, we are laughing at your feeble, and I mean feeble, attempts to lie.

  400. #400 Owlmirror
    March 12, 2009

    http://whatever.scalzi.com/2007/11/12/your-creation-museum-report/

    Here?s how to understand the Creation Museum:

    Imagine, if you will, a load of horseshit. And we?re not talking just your average load of horseshit; no, we?re talking colossal load of horsehit. An epic load of horseshit. The kind of load of horseshit that has accreted over decades and has developed its own sort of ecosystem, from the flyblown chunks at the perimeter, down into the heated and decomposing center, generating explosive levels of methane as bacteria feast merrily on vintage, liquified crap. This is a Herculean load of horseshit, friends, the likes of which has not been seen since the days of Augeas.

    And you look at it and you say, ?Wow, what a load of horseshit.?

    But then there?s this guy. And this guy loves this load of horseshit. Why? Well, really, who knows? What possesses someone to love a load of horseshit? It?s beyond your understanding and possibly you don?t actually want to know, even if you could know; maybe it?s one of those ?on that path lies madness? things. But love it he does, and he?s not the only one; the admiration for this particular load of horseshit exists, unaccountably, far and wide. There are advocates for this load of horseshit.

  401. #401 Josh
    March 12, 2009

    Hi Roger. I did actually read the link. I found it to be typical Wikipedia…

    The reason I asked you the questions that I did, and dissected the Wikiblabia text in the detail that I did, is that you used that obviously flawed text to support your retort to my assertion that the geological evidence does not support a worldwide, Noachian-type deluge.

    If you’re going to use a source to support a point, then you should know enough about the subject you’re arguing about to be able to assess the validity of the sources you’re using. If you can’t, then you have no business telling a professional geologist that “The evidence is before us all, we just differ with the interpretation” when talking about geology. You haven’t shown me that you’re qualified to form an interpretation of the data.

  402. #402 Feynmaniac
    March 12, 2009

    Anyone else find it hilarious/ironic that these Creationists are using myths to prove their claims?

  403. #403 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 12, 2009

    I acknowledge wikipedia is not without error.

    I’ll take colossal understatements for 1000 Alex.

  404. #404 Kel
    March 12, 2009

    Anyone else find it hilarious/ironic that these Creationists are using myths to prove their claims?

    Not really. What I find hilarious is that they’ll cherry pick some very specious evidence (fossils on mountainsides, localised flood-formed geological structures, fables from other tribes) as proof; ignore all evidence against such possibilities (ice cores, tree rings, progressive fossil record); then bring the kicker – make up a fantasy world where the impossible becomes infinitisimally less so.

    When they say stupid shit like “I believe the pre-flood Earth had hills and shallow ocean basins.” you know that they have no fucking clue whatsoever. They are their own argument to absurdity.

  405. #405 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 12, 2009

    Honestly the

    Everest wasn’t as high

    comment sent me screaming.

    While technically correct, he is off my many orders of magnitude on how quickly Everest has been rising and working backwards how much “shorter” Everest would be.

    It really is amazing how fucking stupid that is and what kind of incredible mental contortionism one has to undertake to even put forth such a ridiculous claim.

    Everest is around 29,028 feet (8,848- meters). Measurements suggest that it is rising about 5 mm per year (at the high end of the range) because of the forces of the Indian subcontinent smashing into Asia and pushing the Himalayas upward (yay tectonics).

    So lets take that back 6000 years, just to be kind.

    5 mm per year x 6000 years – 300 meters. Shorter than the height of the empire state building (381 meters)…. except it’s 8000 meters higher than the base of the empire state building.

    8848 – 300 = 8548 meters.

    K2, the world’s second highest peak is currently 8611 meters.

    300 meter difference. That’s a HUGE difference that of course means that the flood is correct.

    Idiots.

  406. #406 Josh
    March 12, 2009

    Alan wrote

    Pre-flood Everest wasn?t as high.

    That’s true in the strict sense depending on when the flood took place. But if we’re talking about a flood that happened ~4400 years ago, then we’re talking about a few dozen feet of elevation difference probably. Not such a big deal.

    What’s the evidence that Everest was significantly lower in elevation 4400 years ago? Lower enough for it be covered by a worldwide deluge. What elevation are we talking about here? Please provide a citation for this.

    The water is still here, it covers 71% of the Earth.

    Calculations that the water in the ocean basins is enough to cover the world’s landmasses? If the water is still here, then why doesn’t it currently cover the world’s landmasses?

    There is good evidence that the pre-flood world atmosphere could have contained a portion of the water (not all).

    Please provide a citation for this.

    The evidences are larger than existing land animals (dinosaurs) and forests in Antarctica.

    I don’t know what this sentence means.

    Creationists and evolutionist agree that Earth?s current atmosphere and ecosystem is not what it was.

    When is “was?” 4400bp? Okay, I guess that’s true for the atmosphere in a strict sense, but the statement about ecosystem is meaningless. The world possesses numerous ecosystems today. Are you trying to assert that your pre-flood Earth consisted of one ecosystem?

    The second water source for the flood was sub-terrestrial:

    Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

    Where is the physical evidence of this water? Again, if we’re going to talk about “evidences for the flood,” then you don’t get to invoke miracles. If you’re going to invoke miracles, then do it and move on. In that case, evidence is irrelevant and you can stop acting like you’re doing science.

    If Mount Everest, which is the tallest point on earth at 8,850 meters (29,035 feet), were set in the Mariana Trench, there would still be 2,183 meters (7,166 feet) of water left above it.

    Okay–and? Everest isn’t in a trench situation. Everest sits upon the Tibetan Plateau. It’s, broadly speaking, the result of a collision between India and Asia. What does your hypothetical statement matter in this discussion?

    Re-arranging existing land masses could cover the entire Earth with water.

    Support for this? A landmass reconstruction? Isostatic analysis?

    Without cracks in seafloors (Mariana, Mindanao, etc.) oceans would be higher.

    Why? Do you have evidence that subduction zone trenches accommodate a significant fraction of the Earth’s seawater? If they don’t, then who cares?

    If the Earth?s land masses were completely flat, (i.e. no Everest or Mariana trench) then the globe would be covered by 1.7 miles of water.

    Evidence for this figure of 1.7 miles? And evidence that Earth’s landmasses were ever completely flat? And how flat is completely flat? How much topography are we talking about here?

    I believe the pre-flood Earth had hills and shallow ocean basins. Thus, through tectonic plate shifts, the highest mountain was easily covered by ?15 cubits? as described in Genesis 7:20.

    Can you show me some sort of calculations that support this assertion?

    Where did all of the energy come from? May I suggest the same energy that evolutionist use to raise and lower vast plateaus as needed for their model to evade the global flood.

    No. You may not. What model for evading the global flood do you think geologists have? We don’t have “a model to evade the flood,” whatever the hell that means. What we’re doing is asserting that you don’t know how to read the geological evidence, and that you don’t care, and that the rocks don’t say what you’re trying to insist they say. We don’t have a model to “evade” your hypothesis. We’re saying that your hypothesis doesn’t make any sense and that we falsified it 200+ years ago and moved on.

    And please stop calling us evolutionists. Evolution is a biological theory. We use it, but to call us evolutionists is just weird. Your doing it because you’ve been conditioned to this us versus them view of the world, but the over simplicity of labeling everyone who doesn’t accept your position on Earth history is absolutely symptomatic of your entire problem.

  407. #407 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 12, 2009

    bah shit

    I conversion fail

    nevermind the moron chimp

  408. #408 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 12, 2009

    Anyway. That’s 30 Meters shorter not 300 (missed a zero on the calculator, sheesh too many hours staring a a computer today).

    But anyway, it even more makes my point.

    …and yes I admit my mistakes, something that Alan will refuse to do.

  409. #409 Ichthyic
    March 12, 2009

    When I saw Roger’s “thesis” re daflud, I got reminded of something another pharyngulite wrote the other day:

    “On another note, not doing your homework and asking poor questions in a blog filled with atheists & scientists is kind of like going into a bar where all the cops hang out to ask if anyone can help you catch the guy who stole your drugs.”

    -calladus

  410. #410 'Tis Himself
    March 12, 2009

    Anyway. That’s 30 Meters shorter not 300

    But Rev BDC, that was before the Marianas Trench migrated from underneath the Tibetan Plateau 5,000 plus miles to east of the Mariana Islands.

  411. #411 JFK, hypercharismatic telepathical knight
    March 12, 2009

    You folks are way more patient than me.

    I truly cannot understand how anyone could be a young earth creationist. It’s so stupid. It ought to be embarrassing to say “I don’t understand anything about anything and I don’t care to.” Yet they seem to think it’s admirable to be ignorant.

  412. #412 Ichthyic
    March 12, 2009

    Yet they seem to think it’s admirable to be ignorant.

    yes, there appears to be a whole section of the American (at least) populace that seems to have taken 1984 to be an instructional manual instead of a warning.

    War IS peace
    Freedom IS slavery
    Ignorance IS strength

    fucking, fucking, sheep.

  413. #413 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 12, 2009

    But Rev BDC, that was before the Marianas Trench migrated from underneath the Tibetan Plateau 5,000 plus miles to east of the Mariana Islands.

    And in such a short time frame too.

    It’s AMAZING.

    /still kicking self for using calculator to ensure accuracy and then fat fingering the 1000

  414. #414 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 12, 2009

    fucking, fucking, sheep

    John 10:11-18

    The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc creationism.

    Double Plus good.

  415. #415 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 12, 2009

    Boys, and I mean boys, it is time to leave. It should be obvious to you by now, that nothing you say will convert us to creationism. You have no evidence to persuade us. And we are much smarter than you, so you can’t bullshit us. You can simply cease posting and fade into the bandwidth. This is the smart, face saving way out. Take it.

  416. #416 Alan Clarke
    March 12, 2009

    According to Evolutionist/Uniformitarian theories, where did the Earth get its water?

    “It is assumed the water was derived from impacting comets that contained ice.”

    “If all water in the Earth’s oceans was derived from comets alone, a million impacting comets are required to explain the oceans.”

    Source: Wikipedia ? ?History of the Earth?

    Evolutionists/Uniformitarians often criticize creationist explanations for a global flood, but their explanations for Earth?s origin of water is more incredible. If a theory can’t explain the origin of life, then a cheap way out is to bring it in on an asteroid or comet. When a theory can’t explain the origin of the Earth’s moon, then a cheap explanation is to say an asteroid broke off a chunk of the Earth and put it into perfect orbit! When a theory can explain how the Earth got its water, then a cheap way out is to say a comet brought it in. If a single comet doesn’t suffice and one is really desperate, then say a million comets brought it in! Through random explosions, crashes, and catastrophes, a system conducive for life is built! The Moon is perfectly distanced from the Earth to provide ocean tides, an evening “night light” and a timepiece for the Earth’s inhabitants. From man?s perspective, the Moon just so happens to be the exact same size as the Sun. We can thank the miracle of collisions! When the mechanisms for the formation of the first primordial cell can?t be explained then say the ocean?s tidal action mixed it up like a blender and out came life!

    The weakest and most non-credible component for evolutionism is the origin of life. If the laws of science were ever violated, this is it.

  417. #417 AnthonyK
    March 12, 2009

    This is the smart, face saving way out. Take it.

    Hear hear! But they never do, do they? Alan Clarke though…no, get thee behind me Moroni…

  418. #418 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 12, 2009

    Alan, time for you to either prove your theory to shut the fuck up. First, show the physical evidence for your creator. We are waiting.

  419. #419 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 12, 2009

    Bah, bed time. First sentenc in #418 should end..toor shut the fuck up.

    What a stupid little boy Alan is.

  420. #420 tony
    March 12, 2009

    fucking, fucking, sheep.

    I thought we’d done that already on another thread (and wasn’t it goats that Louis preferred?)

    (sorry Louis)

  421. #421 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 12, 2009

    Alan.

    Existing, easy to provide evidence for comets and asteroids

    vs.

    magical poof-in-to-existence God.

    Humm.

  422. #422 Kel
    March 12, 2009

    Fucking hell Alan Clarke is stupid. Evolution = diversity of life. Abiogenesis – origin of life. Nebula hypothesis – formation of the solar system. “Evolutionism” as you put it does not exist, it’s jsut a straw-man argument in order to cast doubt on the otherwise overwhelming evidence for evolution.

    When we see galaxies billions of light years away, how is that not a testament to how the universe is ancient? When we date rocks and see huge geological columns, again how is that not a testament to the earth being ancient? When we see a gradual emergence of life in the fossil record and so many indicators of common ancestry, how is that not a testament to evolution? You say that God is not trying to deceive us, but it seems that either God has deceived over 99% of scientists the majority of whom believe in god in some form or that the holy book is wrong. Again, I put it to you that your faith is in the word of man rather than the actuality of God.

    Though I guess that’s no surprise, Christians love to lie for Jesus, so much so they lie to themselves and convince themselves that the millions of scientists are wrong / lying rather than their holy book being the work of man.

  423. #423 Kel
    March 12, 2009

    The weakest and most non-credible component for evolutionism is the origin of life. If the laws of science were ever violated, this is it.

    Evolution does not even seek to explain the origin of life, evolution only happens on life that is already there. So once you have life (no matter what the cause) you have the ability to evolution to occur. And that’s what we see in nature, it’s what we see in the morphology of species, it’s what we see in the fossil record, in labratory experiments and out in the wild.

    Your argument is analagous to saying “the biggest argument against gravity is the big bang. All the universe coming from a singularity? That sounds like magic to me.” You are denying a well observed and documented phenomenon by the absence of knowledge on a precursor to said phenomenon. If we did find out how life began, would your argument then switch to how the planet formed? And if we found how planets formed, would it then switch to how the universe formed? Evolution happened, it’s well supported by evidence. by complaining about the origin of life, it’s clear that you don’t even understand what evolution is. Get an education you old fool!

  424. #424 Owlmirror
    March 12, 2009

    Evolutionists/Uniformitarians often criticize creationist explanations for a global flood, but their explanations for Earth?s origin of water is more incredible.

    Hm.

    Explanation 1: Water comes from outside the Earth several billion years ago in the form of comet impacts. We know that comets exist, are composed of a large percentage of water ice, and can hit planets. We know this from direct observation of the evidence of their existence.

    Explanation 2: Water is *poofed* into existence by a magical God (who never provides physical evidence of his existence because he’s so spiritual) for the purpose of drowning every single living being except for a boat full of humans and two of every animal, 4400 years ago. However, there are no geological signs of a global flood 4400 years ago, no sign of any population bottlenecks 4400 years ago, no sign of of interruption of human settlements 4400 years ago, no sign that this supposed flood ever happened… except in the fevered imaginations of voodoo scientists and their superstitious brainwashed followers who know nothing of biology, oceanography, hydrology, archaeology, anthropology, zoology or geology including the science of geological dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, despite the fact that the article on said geological dating methods was written by a Christian and has been offered to them a couple of thousand times over the past month or so.

    Gee, which explanation is more incredible? What a difficult choice there is…

    When the mechanisms for the formation of the first primordial cell can?t be explained then say the ocean?s tidal action mixed it up like a blender and out came life!

    No. Chemical abiogenesis hypotheses are quite a bit more complicated and detailed than that. Not that you would know, because you know nothing whatsoever of organic chemistry.

    And of course, your explanation is… a magical God (who never provides physical evidence of his existence because he’s so spiritual) *poofing* life into existence out of dirt, or nothing (depending on which chapter of the bible you read), either before *poofing* man into existence out nothing or after *poofing* man into existence out of dirt (depending on which chapter you read).

    Yah-huh.

    So, as long as you’re spouting of about how great your book of mythology is in describing the origin of life, which chapter is true and which chapter is false? Is chapter 1 true, or is chapter 2 true? Pick one, since you know so much. Explain how you know.

  425. #425 Kseniya
    March 12, 2009

    It just shows that your faith is in the bible and not God.

    Kel FTW.

    Beautiful.

  426. #426 Kseniya
    March 13, 2009

    Flood Geology: A discipline characterized by delusional practitioners who have no qualms about making whatever batshit-crazy assertions are necessary to support the stories in their book of ancient mythology, regardless of what the physical evidence actually suggests.

    Alan and Roger, don’t you ever tire of being comic relief? Of being buffoons who garner, and deserve, no respect whatsoever for your opinions? Do you not ever have a single moment of clarity and wonder what non-stop spewing of lies and absurdities is doing to your minds and your souls?

  427. #427 tony
    March 13, 2009

    Kseniya: I know your question was rhetoric, but it was also a little confusing for the likes of Alan and Roger (based on evidence). So I’ll answer:

    No, we don’t have any moments of clarity. We only lie for Jesus. That means it’s good. we’re goin’ to heaven. you’re goin’ to hell! nyah nyah nyah nyah!

  428. #428 Kagato
    March 13, 2009

    According to Evolutionist/Uniformitarian theories, where did the Earth get its water?

    What the bloody hell does the source of water on Earth have to do with evolution? It could have arrived in buckets carried by pixies and it wouldn’t affect the theory.
    (Though you’d need to explain those darned pixies somehow)

    And I’ll assume you’re using the scientific form of “uniformitarianism”, basically saying “things happened in the past the same way they happen today”. Seems reasonable in a broad sense to me; if what worked yesterday had no guarantee of working today, science & technology would be impossible, and we’d all be living in terror of flying off into space at any moment. Again. (Or turning into pudding or whatever)

    You could just say “science”, you know.

    “It is assumed the water was derived from impacting comets that contained ice.”

    “If all water in the Earth’s oceans was derived from comets alone, a million impacting comets are required to explain the oceans.”

    Source: Wikipedia ? ?History of the Earth?

    Next line: “Computer simulations show this is not an unreasonable number.”
    Astrophysics of the changing early solar system aside (of which I personally know very little), think about it — even if most of the comet impacts happened in the first 1 billion years of Earth’s 4.5 billion year history, that’s only one impact every thousand years or so.

    Evolutionists/Uniformitarians often criticize creationist explanations for a global flood, but their explanations for Earth?s origin of water is more incredible.

    Creationist explanation: Miracle.

    If a theory can’t explain the origin of life, then a cheap way out is to bring it in on an asteroid or comet.

    It is a possibility that the organic compounds for abiogenesis came from comets rather than forming on Earth, because organic compounds have been detected on the surface of comets. (It doesn’t necessarily mean they couldn’t have formed here, though.)

    Creationist explanation: Miracle.

    When a theory can’t explain the origin of the Earth’s moon, then a cheap explanation is to say an asteroid broke off a chunk of the Earth and put it into perfect orbit!

    Not a comet, but another protoplanet as the Earth was still forming. The entire reason for the hypothesis is that the moon has a weird composition (low density, no metal core, material closely resembles combined mantle/crust), which the impact would explain. This is all on the same goddamn Wikipedia page, for crying out loud!

    Creationist explanation: Miracle.

    The Moon is perfectly distanced from the Earth to provide ocean tides, an evening “night light” and a timepiece for the Earth’s inhabitants.

    You know what would happen to the tides if the Moon had a different orbital distance? We’d have different tides. Life is adapted to the tides we have, the tides aren’t optimised for life.

    And a night light & clock? Seriously? That’s right up there with Ray’s Banana Theory in the goofy stakes. How convenient that the night light is only intermittent, and the clock is not really in sync with anything else except the biological systems that adapted to be in sync with it.

    From man?s perspective, the Moon just so happens to be the exact same size as the Sun. We can thank the miracle of collisions!

    Yep. Sometimes flukes happen. That lucky happenstance meant eclipses that helped scientists study the sun’s corona and figure out stuff about it… like how it’s a massive nuclear furnace about 5 billion years old. If God hadn’t placed the Moon so conveniently, it would have been much harder to discover such facts contradictory to biblical teaching.

    When the mechanisms for the formation of the first primordial cell can?t be explained then say the ocean?s tidal action mixed it up like a blender and out came life!

    Nice mocking summary you have there, which doesn’t bear any resemblance to what I’ve heard (no reference to tides on Wikipedia’s abiogenesis page — apart from peptides & nucleotides). But even if tides were part of the explanation… they would be part of the explanation! Read what you’re writing, man!

    And, of course, the creationist explanation: Miracle.

    The weakest and most non-credible component for evolutionism is the origin of life. If the laws of science were ever violated, this is it.

    And again, the old canard. Evolution explains the diversity of life, not its origin. Darwin’s book was the On the Origin of Species.

    Abiogenesis is an independent, if closely related, field. Similar processes were probably in place for early inorganic replicators; but if some other unknown process started life, evolution still took place on what came after.

  429. #429 RogerS
    March 13, 2009

    Displacement Force of Water
    Average ocean depth is 12,340 ft. At that depth, 5,364 psi or 386 TONS per sq. ft. is exerted on the floor. Current ocean crust thickness ranges from 3 to 6 miles. Considering that magma is virtually incompressible, it is conceivable that the added water weight from collapsing waters ?above the firmament? during the Biblical flood account could cause tremendous displacement forces and rapid continental uplifts on a global scale. Ever step on a water bed, what happens to a person sitting on the edge? The crust would have been more fluid during and immediately following a global flood.
    The Bible states that it had never rained and describes a mist from subterranean sources as the water cycle. The crust thickness and characteristics was evidently nothing that resembled what we have today. There is ample evidence of past climatic differences with a more temperate climate in today?s Polar Regions. Could this radically different ?original design? system of water above & below the firmament create a more ideal environment producing greater growth for both plant and animals? (rhetorical)

    Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

    Genesis 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

    Rev.BigDumbChimp #406 applying uniformitarism principals and extrapolating Everest?s height differences back thousands of years is like measuring weekly shore line sand depths and ignoring “catastrophic changes” from hurricanes.

  430. #430 tony
    March 13, 2009

    Alan Clarke is proof that evolution is dumb and unguided. Nothing that stupid would ever pass QA in any design process.

  431. #431 tony
    March 13, 2009

    RogerS:

    There is ample evidence of past climatic differences with a more temperate climate in today?s Polar Regions.

    Where is this so called ample evidence? Care t provide any citations?

    Of course not. It doesn’t exist!

    Fucking brain-dead ‘tards!

  432. #432 RamblinDude
    March 13, 2009

    The Moon is perfectly distanced from the Earth to provide ocean tides, an evening “night light” and a timepiece for the Earth’s inhabitants.

    You do realize the moon is not in a static orbit, don’t you? It’s receding due to tidal friction more than 3 cm per year. It used to be much closer, tides used to be higher, and life has adapted to the gradual change because, you know, life evolves.

  433. #433 Alan Clarke
    March 13, 2009

    Owlmirror: We know that comets exist, are composed of a large percentage of water ice, and can hit planets. We know this from direct observation of the evidence of their existence. ?Water is *poofed* into existence by a magical God (who never provides physical evidence of his existence because he’s so spiritual)

    Comets are *poofed* into existence by an Oort cloud. Your theory has a face only a mother could love.

    “The Oort cloud is a hypothetical spherical cloud of comets which may lie roughly 50 000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun.” ? Wikipedia ? ?Oort Cloud?

  434. #434 Kagato
    March 13, 2009

    RogerS, that was such a slippery pile of gibberish I couldn’t find a single logical point to get a grip on. You seem to be saying something about “lots of water making the Earth all differenty”, but that’s all I got.

    I’m not sure you know what “firmament” refers to though. Maybe you think it means “solid ground” (I used to before I read up on it more, it seemed logical); it’s hard to tell from your ramblings.

    But no, the firmament is supposed to be the solid dome that forms the sky over the flat Earth, to which the stars are fastened.

    So by all means, try and use The Firmament in a scientific argument! I’m keen to see where this goes…

  435. #435 RamblinDude
    March 13, 2009

    Hey, where did my tags go?

    Tony,

    There is ample evidence of past climatic differences with a more temperate climate in today?s Polar Regions.

    Where is this so called ample evidence? Care t provide any citations?

    It’s my understanding that this is correct. The Polar Regions were at various climatic cycles more temperate than today and ice free. There is evidence that this happened . . . millions of years ago. No evidence at all that it happened within the last few thousand years.

  436. #436 Owlmirror
    March 13, 2009

    it is conceivable

    …I don’t think that word means what you think it means…

    Well, OK, if you think it means “make up stories, fantasies, dreams, and other lies that have nothing to do with reality”, then maybe it does.

    that the added water weight from collapsing waters ?above the firmament? during the Biblical flood account could cause tremendous displacement forces and rapid continental uplifts on a global scale.

    Only if the Biblical flood happens inside your own imagination.

    Ever step on a water bed, what happens to a person sitting on the edge? The crust would have been more fluid during and immediately following a global flood.

    Only inside your own imagination.

    The crust thickness and characteristics was evidently nothing that resembled what we have today.

    Now, “evidently” definitely does not mean what you think it means. Because you have no evidence of this fever-dream of voodoo geology.

    There is ample evidence of past climatic differences with a more temperate climate in today?s Polar Regions.

    Not in the past 740,000 years for which we have Polar ice cores. Let me repeat that: We have ice cores dating back seven hundred forty thousand years. What part of “seven hundred forty thousand years” does your tiny little brain not understand?

    Could this radically different ?original design? system of water above & below the firmament create a more ideal environment producing greater growth for both plant and animals?

    Since it never existed in reality, NO. Absolutely NOT.

    Sheesh. The stupid, it burns strong in this one.

  437. #437 rogerS
    March 13, 2009

    Tony @ 432 responding to: There is ample evidence of past climatic differences with a more temperate climate in today?s Polar Regions.

    Where is this so called ample evidence? Care t provide any citations?

    Of course not. It doesn’t exist!

    Fucking brain-dead ‘tards!

    http://www.palaeobiology.org.uk/publications/ijfr6-181.pdf
    Ancient polar forests experienced the extreme seasonality of high latitude daylength, but flourished in a warm, temperate climate.
    (I just disagree with their time line and dating assumptions.)
    Tony, don’t fall for mirroring what “everone else” thinks, take the time to find out for yourself. Sincerely, RogerS

  438. #438 Owlmirror
    March 13, 2009

    Comets are *poofed* into existence by an Oort cloud.

    No, we know comets exist because we see them. With our eyes.

    Where is the visible evidence for God; for a global flud; for a 6,000 year-old-Earth? Nowhere.

    Science has the evidence. Science wins.

  439. #439 brokenSoldier, OM
    March 13, 2009

    Considering that magma is virtually incompressible, it is conceivable…

    No it’s not. You know what’s really not conceivable? That someone could still be claiming that a global flood event took place, considering that it has been completely and utterly proven that no such thing occurred.

  440. #440 brokenSoldier, OM
    March 13, 2009

    RogerS:

    Tony, don’t fall for mirroring what “everone else” thinks, take the time to find out for yourself. Sincerely, RogerS

    Dammit…my irony meter just broke again…

  441. #441 Kseniya
    March 13, 2009

    (I just disagree with their time line and dating assumptions.)

    LOL! What an interesting way of claiming “the science is on my side”!

    This stuff is priceless, just priceless.

  442. #442 Owlmirror
    March 13, 2009

    Ancient polar forests experienced the extreme seasonality of high latitude daylength, but flourished in a warm, temperate climate.

    Sorry, you don’t get to cite science on a single point in your favor. You can only have a temperate pole if you take the whole thing as dated, hundreds to tens of millions of years ago.

    No magical firmaments and magically warping crusts. You can’t have them. Because they don’t fucking exist.

    (I just disagree with their time line and dating assumptions.)

    Because it disagrees with your voodoo magical geology that you pull out of your imagination.

    Because you have an a priori ASSUMPTION that the earth is 6,000 years old.

    Because you prefer the horseshit of creationism to evidence-based science.

    Because you prefer a delusion to the truth.

  443. #443 Kagato
    March 13, 2009

    Comets are *poofed* into existence by an Oort cloud. Your theory has a face only a mother could love.

    “The Oort cloud is a hypothetical spherical cloud of comets which may lie roughly 50 000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun.” ? Wikipedia ? ?Oort Cloud?

    Again, it helps if you actually read the pages you’re referencing.

    [O]ver the course of the Solar System’s existence, the orbits of comets are unstable; eventually, dynamics dictate that a comet must either collide with the Sun or a planet, or else be ejected from the Solar System by planetary perturbations. Moreover, their volatile composition means that as they repeatedly approach the Sun, radiation gradually boils off the volatiles until the comet splits or develops an insulating crust that prevents further outgassing. Thus, reasoned Oort, a comet could not have formed on its current orbit, and must have been held in an outer reservoir for almost all of its existence.

    And comets aren’t “poofed into existence” in the cloud, they’re already out there:

    The Oort cloud is thought to be a remnant of the original protoplanetary disc that formed around the Sun approximately 4.6 billion years ago.

    You’ll also notice there aren’t any alternative hypotheses mentioned on that page. Probably because, as far as I’m aware, there aren’t any.

  444. #444 rogerS
    March 13, 2009

    Kagato # 435: I’m not sure you know what “firmament” refers to though. Maybe you think it means “solid ground” (I used to before I read up on it more, it seemed logical); it’s hard to tell from your ramblings.

    If you read further in Genesis we learn that fowl fly in the open firmament.

    Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

    FYI, the first “heaven” is where the birds fly, second heaven would be outerspace, the third heaven is God’s domain as told by Paul.
    2 Corinthians 12:2-4 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

  445. #445 brokenSoldier, OM
    March 13, 2009

    RogerS:

    FYI, the first “heaven” is where the birds fly, second heaven would be outerspace, the third heaven is God’s domain as told by Paul.

    The bible does not speak to the existence of outer space at all, and any claim to the contrary is simply revisionism in the pursuit to maintain an untenable claim on the truth concerning scripture.

    And FYI, because it is written in the bible is not proof of anything, especially not when the claims it makes are so roundly refuted by the observation of the natural world – i.e., science.

  446. #446 aratina
    March 13, 2009

    RogerS, what makes you think we give 2 hoots (hah, 2 again!) about what it says in Genesis or 2(!!)nd Corinthians? The Bible has worn its welcome. Time to wipe your ass and flush that piece of crap down the toilet, giving it the all-encompassing deluge it deserves.

  447. #447 Alan Clarke
    March 13, 2009

    Do ice cores show many tens of thousands of years?

    Owlmirror: We have ice cores dating back seven hundred forty thousand years. What part of “seven hundred forty thousand years” does your tiny little brain not understand?

    Meteorologist Michael J. Oard doesn’t buy it and neither do I. Click here. There are a lot of factors in ice core dating that make the calculated age non-absolute and highly dependent upon one’s choice of assumptions.

    Education:
    B.S. Atmospheric Science, 1969, University of Washington
    M.S. Atmospheric Science, 1973, University of Washington

    Employment:
    1964?1966 U.S. Navy
    1966?1969 Research Assistant (part time), University of Washington
    1969?1970 Research Assistant (full time), University of Washington
    1970?1971 Meteorologist, National Weather Service, Great Falls, MT
    1972?1973 Research Assistant (part time), University of Washington
    1973?2001 Meteorologist, National Weather Service ? lead forecaster, Great Falls, Montana from 1981 to 2001 ? now retired.

  448. #448 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 13, 2009

    Posted by: JFK, hypercharismatic telepathical knight | March 12, 2009

    You folks are way more patient than me.

    I truly cannot understand how anyone could be a young earth creationist. It’s so stupid. It ought to be embarrassing to say “I don’t understand anything about anything and I don’t care to.” Yet they seem to think it’s admirable to be ignorant.

    JFK, what you have to keep in mind is that everyone that are ripping up the statements of Alan Clarke and RogerS are having fun. I doubt that patience has much to do with it because it is obvious that the two jokers are not here to learn.

    But the good news is that people like me can follow along and learn from the exchanges so something good is coming from this. And being on the geeky side, I find all of the chaff that the twosome are tossing about to be screamingly funny.

  449. #449 JFK, hypercharismatic telepathical knight
    March 13, 2009

    That makes sense. It wouldn’t be fun for me, but hey, different strokes. I find Alan depressing. It’s like, I know how cool science is, you know? I’ve experienced awe at how everything fits together. The universe is beautiful to me, because I can take the universe at its word. It doesn’t lie about its age.

    But Alan can’t have that same opportunity. Every scientific fact is a demonic threat to be fought. There’s never a moment to just take it all in, without trying to fight off a vast evilutionist conspiracy. It must be so tiring. He must wonder why his god is so determined to test him, why the universe couldn’t have just been created to be obviously 6000 years old, so that he could relax. I just feel sorry for him.

  450. #450 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 13, 2009

    Ooh, gee whiz, a research assistant (paid hands) thinks stupid things. Who would have thunk it. Alan, when people like yourself go off the deep end into delusions, their word becomes meaningless. Just like yours. Still waiting for evidence for your imaginary creator, which is absolutely required for you to show proof positive for your theory. Still batting zero.

  451. #451 Kel
    March 13, 2009

    If you have a large enough population, you’ll eventually find some qualified fool to agree with you. Alan cherry picks every single oddball out there on a range of different topics yet still comes up with fantastical bullshit to justify his faith in the bible.

  452. #452 Josh
    March 13, 2009

    Rev.BigDumbChimp #406 applying uniformitarism principals and extrapolating Everest?s height differences back thousands of years is like measuring weekly shore line sand depths and ignoring “catastrophic changes” from hurricanes.

    But it’s okay for Alan to just assert (with any support at all) that Everest was at a lower elevation in the pre-flud world? You go after Rev because he attempted to see if Alan’s statement made sense. You seem to be trying to use scientific reasoning to disagree with Rev’s method of verifying Alan’s statement, but nowhere have I seen you apply that same criticism to Alan’s statement itself. Alan can just make any ridiculous assertion he wants, without critique, because he’s on “your side,” is that it? That’s terrific reasoning there, Roger.

    I don’t personally agree with Rev’s method of extrapolating an average tectonic rate of rise back in time. I don’t think we can really do that because there are too many variables involved that we just don’t know. He ignores weathering rates and assumes that the rate of rise doesn’t change (thus altering the average). But, it was just a quick rough figure, and getting a more precise answer than his quick back-of-the-envelope calculation would require way more work (if it can be done at all without real research) than is justified for a blog comment. Moreover, even with the technical issues I have with his method of calculation, I don’t think his 30 meter figure is actually probably far off from whatever the “real” number is. Given the rate of rise and the type of rock involved, it’s very likely to be within the same order of magnitude of the “real” number, which thus serves to make his point. What’s more important, though, is that he did some work. He applied some reasoning to Alan’s statement.

    You, on the other hand, haven’t provided any evidence what-so-ever that Rev’s calculations are off. Nor have you provided anything to support Alan’s original statement. You certainly haven’t provided any justification for your shore-line sand depth comparison. Your comparison strongly implies the existence of sudden pulses of tectonic activity on Everest that are severe enough to alter the average rate of rise to the point of damaging Rev’s calculations. I suppose asking you to provide some justification for presuming the existence of those tectonic pulses is completely unreasonable, right?

  453. #453 Alan Clarke
    March 13, 2009

    HOW OLD IS THE UNIVERSE?

    JFK: The universe is beautiful to me, because I can take the universe at its word. It doesn’t lie about its age.

    The universe isn?t ?lying?, it is your interpretation of its age that is fallible. Please explain how it is impossible for your ASSUMPTION to be infallible. When something is ?stretched?, at the moment of creation (?big bang? time t=0 ??) the rate of ?stretching? may be where your calculations are off by a huge factor. The entire ?big bang? theory has huge assumptions and problems that make many scientists (creationist and non-creationist) dubious. Before making grandiose statements of the universe?s age, at least become educated. Click here for top 30 problems of big bang theory.

  454. #454 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 13, 2009

    YAWN, more non-evidence by Alan the creobot. Still no physical evidence for your imaginary deity. You are such a disappointment and abject loser. Here’s your chance to really convert people. All you have to do is to produce an eternally burning bush. Go find one.

  455. #455 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 13, 2009

    I don’t personally agree with Rev’s method of extrapolating an average tectonic rate of rise back in time. I don’t think we can really do that because there are too many variables involved that we just don’t know. He ignores weathering rates and assumes that the rate of rise doesn’t change (thus altering the average)

    Oh I fully admit I was only taking the 5mm rise and not taking into account many other factors. It was as you say purely a back of the envelope calculation.

    But we are talking about 6000 years here. Or in the case of the flud, 4400.

    That is an eye blink in geologic time (as you well know). It was my non-geologist way of making a simple point. I leave the more complicated aspects of it to people like you who actually know what they are talking about on a much deeper level on this subject. And no I’m not arguing with you, I’m agreeing if the fog of the internet keeps that from being clear :)

    Rev.BigDumbChimp #406 applying uniformitarism principals and extrapolating Everest?s height differences back thousands of years is like measuring weekly shore line sand depths and ignoring “catastrophic changes” from hurricanes.

    See above. 4400 years is a mouse fart in the grand scheme of things. And if there was some massive disaster that would cause everest to be much shorter than it is now or to rise so suddenly that it gains thousands of meters in height in just 4.5 mellenia then you’d need to show some evidence for that.

    You have not and you can not.

  456. #456 Kel
    March 13, 2009

    The universe isn?t ?lying?, it is your interpretation of its age that is fallible. Please explain how it is impossible for your ASSUMPTION to be infallible. When something is ?stretched?, at the moment of creation (?big bang? time t=0 ??) the rate of ?stretching? may be where your calculations are off by a huge factor.

    Alan, you are a massive fool. We aren’t looking at when time = 0. We are looking at when time = 500,000,000 years. You can’t avoid the observation by appealing to an unknown which was resolved 500,000,000 years in advance. When the universe came to be: e=mc² became mathematical law. So when we look at a galaxy that is 13.2 billion light years away, we are using the equation that Einstein provided. The speed of light is constant because it can be no other way. You increase the speed of light, you have to compensate. c = (e/m)1/2, just make the value c higher and see what happens to the relationship between matter and energy in the universe…

    Your ignorance is really showing Alan. You have no idea of astrophysics or cosmology, nor what astronomy entails. This is why people laugh at creationists, they have no fucking clue whatsoever.

  457. #457 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 13, 2009

    Humm. Meant to say something after this sentence

    So the 5mm may be a simple average rate based on a small sample but there is little to suggest that is is off by such a magnitude that would make the conclusion I was shooting at any different (as Josh said above).

    so there

  458. #458 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 13, 2009

    Sweet, starting the day off with some formatting fail.

    Today is going to be great.

  459. #459 Josh
    March 13, 2009

    And no I’m not arguing with you,

    I know. I was actually pretty damn impressed that you got a figure of 30 meters from that little exercise. I would have predicted it was gonna be a larger number. And for the record (though I suspect you’ve already figured this out), I wouldn’t have nitpicked that back-of-the-envelope at all except that I wanted to show RogerS that those of us here who are trying to have a reasoned discussion will publically disagree with each other when have disagreements. I saw it as yet another way to bang my head against the wall of demonstrating to these people the process of what we do. I took the risk that you would understand what I was going for, but I’m still glad that it didn’t annoy you.

  460. #460 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 13, 2009

    Heh no problem. I easily admit my novice position in these matters but it’s pretty easy, even as a novice, to see that there would have to be some massive event to make even my hamhanded calculations to be off by a difference that would support the flud.

    I’ll be waiting patiently for some evidence of that event from RogerS and or Alan.

  461. #461 Kel
    March 13, 2009

    More on galaxies: the galaxy observed 13.2 billion light years away is only 1 of more than 100 billion galaxies that have been observed in our known universe. There are plenty more galaxies in our close neighbourhood where our observational point is t = 13,700,000,000. Yet we can see dwarf galaxies orbiting our own a couple of hundred thousand light years away. See nearby galaxies only 2.5 million light years away, then there is a whole host of others the further we look out into space. These galaxies can contain somewhere between 1010 and 1012 stars in each, with black holes and the centre that is millions of times heavier than our sun.

    And on the note of weight, if the stars were closer to us, we’d feel the gravitational effects. Move 1011 galaxies each containing ~1011 stars close enough to us and we are going to end up tearing this solar system and galaxy apart. Galaxies are big, they are full of stars, there’s simply no physical way those galaxies could be nearer to us. The only real options are that God is trying to trick us, or that the universe is indeed old. (and very big) It’s simply unavoidable Alan, parading your ignorance is not arguing against the fact.

    Are you going to admit that your belief is not in God, but in the bible? Or are you just going to keep denying evidence exists that shows you know absolutely nothing on the subject at hand?

  462. #462 tony
    March 13, 2009

    Shit! Went to bed before I got a chance to respond…

    Regarding temperality of polar regions — I know that they were so, tens to hundreds of millions of years ago (heck – the land masses weren’t even in the same place, geographically speaking)

    I was looking for dickwad to provide some of his ample evidence for such in the recent past – say 4000 to 6000 years ago.

    But hey – If I don’t make myself clear, and leave assumptions (like the evidence) unvoiced, then I’m gonna get trampled!

    That’s why I love you guys so much! :D

    On the other brainfart: I don’t know about you, but I would not want to be anywhere nearby (like in the same solar system) when tectonic movements as described by dumbass (aka I want to be RogeredSobad) are taking place.

    Seriously — he expects us to believe that Everest rose more than 8000 meters above sea level (which in reality means it rose significantly higher, since the trenches don’t make up for the volume of land above water) in a couple of weeks? That’s what he says.

    pre-flood… flat a a pancake.
    post-flood… huge frackin’ mountain ranges.

    All in 40* days.

    Fucking. Dumb. Ass. Creo. Tard.

    * Ol’ Yahweh must really love that number – turns up everywhere. Or maybe it is just story-allegory for way longer than anyone would believe was sensible, but not so long it’s truly out-there.

  463. #463 DaveL
    March 13, 2009

    c = (e/m)1/2, just make the value c higher and see what happens to the relationship between matter and energy in the universe…

    There’s also c^2 = 1/(?0?0), which relates the speed of light to fundamental electric and magnetic field constants. Dramatically increasing c would mean decreasing ?0 or ?0, increasing the strength of EM fields.

    Which, of course, govern things like electron shell structure and therefore chemistry.

  464. #464 Anne Hedonia
    March 13, 2009

    entertainment panders to emotion and is therefore irrelevant.

  465. #465 RogerS
    March 13, 2009

    Sorry Josh to agree with Alan’s #448 ice core date skepticism, but in risk of your displeasure, here goes.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_Girl
    “Glacier Girl is a Lockheed P-38 Lightning World War II fighter plane that was recently restored to operable condition after being buried beneath ice on the remote Greenland Ice Sheet for nearly fifty years.
    Glacier Girl, along with five other P-38 fighters and two B-17 bombers, was eventually buried beneath 270 feet of ice.”

    From Glacier Girl we learn that 270 ft of acculumated ice in 50 years is a significant rate.

    Josh- Time to unleash Rev.BigDumbChimps extrapolations?

    (BTY There were HUNDREDS of layers above the plane, not 50.)
    Layer count with photo of the “Bird” upside down, great story:
    http://www.detectingdesign.com/Presentations/Ancient%20Ice.ppt#7

  466. #466 Kel
    March 13, 2009

    What’s the point of continuing this RogerS? No matter what we bring up, you are either going to cast it with unreasonable doubt or make shit up to justify your position. Remember that in science, it’s not just one piece of evidence that leads us to conclusions; all you are doing is casting doubt on individual examples. rather in science, it’s about exploring what the full picture tells us. So when astronomy shows the universe to be old, when geology and nuclear physics show the earth to be old, and when genetics (among several other things) show life to have evolved gradually – that’s the picture of science. Instead, your faith in the bible means that you’ll dismiss piece after piece of evidence without realising that putting it together could solve the puzzle.

    Do you have anything constructive at all to add here?

  467. #467 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 13, 2009

    RogerS, still no physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Boy, are you and Alan a pair of wimps. Here you are, with an audience of atheists, and you fail to bring out the only evidence that would sway us to creationism? Or is it because there is no physical evidence for your imaginary deity, and you are simply lying to both yourself and to us? All available evidence point to the latter.

  468. #468 Kel
    March 13, 2009

    They have to have an imaginary deity for them to show evidence for it. All they have is faith in the bible, and a means to dismiss every single piece of scientific evidence one by one. If they lost their bible stories, they’d have nothing. Of course God isn’t tricking them, they don’t believe in God. They believe in an old myth and are doing everything they can to pretend that the myth is valid.

  469. #469 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 13, 2009

    RogerS and Alan, you are free to keep your infantile, delusional beliefs. All you have to do is to stop posting. But you will not be able to convince us that we should also believe your delusions. The physical evidence just isn’t there. You know it. And we know it. So why are you continuing?

  470. #470 tony
    March 13, 2009

    Fucktard RogerS

    Trying to equate snowfall on Greenland with Antarctica is like equating snowfall on Ben Nevis (Scotland) with Everest.

    Their climactic ranges are completely different.

    Try citing some actual peer reviewed science, instead of some tardistic crap cobbled together out of kitchen middens.

    Wikipedia is not a reliable citation (reasonable for general commentary – but only truly valid when the actual article has been itself critically verified through multiple unrelated reliable citations)

    You really do need to try harder.

  471. #471 Josh
    March 13, 2009

    RogerS wrote

    Considering that magma is virtually incompressible, it is conceivable that the added water weight from collapsing waters ?above the firmament? during the Biblical flood account could cause tremendous displacement forces and rapid continental uplifts on a global scale.

    What? Magma isn’t “virtually incompressible.” Where did you get that impression?

    Magma is molten. It occurs in various viscosities and it flows. It contains various combinations of minerals that are crystalizing out of the melt, actual melt (not always of uniform composition), and varying amounts of gases (e.g., water vapor). Even fricken Blabbapedia manages to get magma fairly correct:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma

    And magma can be compressed. Just a quick google search, with very little sorting of the results, returns:

    URL LINK: rimg.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/1/25
    URL LINK: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997…/96RG03263.shtml
    URL LINK: geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/5/459
    URL LINK: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m15215k1872486jt/
    URL LINK: adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFM.V41C1740M
    URL LINK: http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU05/04327/EGU05-J-04327.pdf
    URL LINK: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032521.shtml
    URL LINK: sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/213/1/5
    URL LINK: http://www.springerlink.com/content/nq86t682683v3713/
    URL LINK: http://www.itg.cam.ac.uk/people/heh/Paper176.pdf

    So, no, I don’t think you can use water weight added to magma to support the idea of post-deluge rapid tectonics.

  472. #472 Josh
    March 13, 2009

    Josh- Time to unleash Rev.BigDumbChimps extrapolations?

    It could be that time. That, however, is for Rev to decide. Not me.

  473. #473 David Marjanovi?, OM
    March 13, 2009

    Why does anyone still reply to Alan Clarke when he still hasn’t read Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective? Why?

    We tried to get him to read it for eight hundred comments on the Titanoboa thread before PZ closed the thread for having become too repetitive.

    Owlmirror has some serious problems in his ?wall? of radiometric dating posts. Why not just provide links instead of filling up the thread?

    The chutzpa is incredible.

    Eight hundred comments last time, and two hundred more here, and all the time we’ve tried to take your head and push your nose against the link… and now you deny we ever did it?

    Are you just trying to drive us insane?

  474. #474 RogerS
    March 13, 2009

    Kel #467 What’s the point of continuing this RogerS? No matter what we bring up, you are either going to cast it with unreasonable doubt or make shit up to justify your position. Remember that in science, it’s not just one piece of evidence that leads us to conclusions; all you are doing is casting doubt on individual examples.

    Kel,
    You have a point as well as many others and you all deserve an honest answer so I will give it. I have not been totally fourth coming in information I know of and experiences I have encountered. I am withholding information. This is the missing puzzle piece that you instinctually recognize in trying to make sense of my persistence. You will just need to take my word for now that the persistence of my positions is overwhelmingly justified.
    You will understand one day why I have taken this path because you will realize that if I disclosed certain things to you at this time you would not be able to ?metabolize? it.
    Introducing a new food and removing it can cause allergic reactions later and I would not want that to happen to anyone. So you are just going to have to receive it at the rate you appear to be metabolizing it. (What I know is not way out there somewhere beyond knowledge and experiences of others I know, so you can calm down.)
    With all Sincerity, RogerS

  475. #475 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 13, 2009

    Is this the “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!” defense?

    ‘I am afraid my eye will remain locked in staring at my frontal lobe position.’

  476. #476 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 13, 2009

    You will just need to take my word for now that the persistence of my positions is overwhelmingly justified.

    What a reeking pile of bullshit. Either put up or shut up. We are smarter than you. Your persistance is caused by stupidity. And you have no evidence. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a fool.

  477. #477 tony
    March 13, 2009

    Ah
    RogerS admits that he is not your garden-variety wingnut.

    What I know is not way out there somewhere beyond knowledge and experiences of others I know

    Arghhh!

    And I was almost drawn into a conversation with him. I feel the need for a shower.

    How do I shower my brain, please?

    One good thing – Alan: RogerS agrees with you, and he has just demonstrated his unequivocal insanity. What say you, oh wingnut of the first degree?

  478. #478 Josh
    March 13, 2009

    Why are huge deposits of marine organisms (limestone calcite) in the middle of continents? 1. Simple answer: a global flood shocking and amassing vast quantities at the same time.

    It’s a simple answer. But it’s one that A., doesn’t explain the evidence (see below), and B., requires it to be physically possible to produce enough water to cover all of the world’s landmasses with water. Where did the water come from? Where did it go? Can you provide answers to those questions?

    Me asking you to answer these questions is not unreasonable. Not if you’re going to continually try to talk about evidence. If you’re going to use the evidence that exists on Earth to try and support your flood hypothesis, then you need to provide explanations for the data that are congruent with our current understanding of science (specifically physics, geology, chemistry, and biology). You do not get to simply assert that we?re interpreting the data wrong unless you can back it up. And you do not get to cite only those datapoints that support your a priori assumption that there was a flood. For example, you cannot just blanket accept the data that indicate that the polar regions were warmer in the past, while at the same time blanket dismissing the age data for those same deposits. That?s just retarded. And it?s retarded because you?re accepting the data for warm poles because you want to and you?re dismissing the age data for those same rocks because you want to. You?re not evaluating either set of data. You?re just dismissing that with which you don?t agree without having any evidence. That?s simply stupid.

    But, you don’t have to do any of this. You can simply rely on miracles and be done with it. You don?t need evidence. As I said in a previous comment, you can just explain the world by god erasing all evidence of the flood and creating a deceptive rock record. I can accept that and we can move on to something else. But if so, then stop talking about “evidence” and leave the rocks, and the science, alone. If you’re going to bring the rocks into it, then you need to be accurate about what the rocks actually say. Otherwise you’re being dishonest.

    So yes, there are huge piles of limestone veneering parts of the continents. That’s an accurate statement at one level of precision. Unfortunately, that level of precision doesn’t really describe what the rock record is like at all (the reality is much more complicated than that). In fact, it?s inaccurate enough that this level of precision is, well, just wrong. But, even if we leave our discussion at this level of precision (i.e., we presume that portions of the continents are simply covered with ?piles of limestone?), then you still have to explain how receding flood waters can deposit massive piles of carbonate. Because that flies in the face of all of the evidence out there.

    It’s not like we don’t know how limestone forms. We’re watching it form in numerous environments across the world today (the Bahamas and the Red Sea just to name two).

    For example:

    URL LINK: www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119587573/abstract

    Bono et al. 2002. Inorganic calcite precipitation in Tartare karstic spring (Lazio, central Italy): Field measurements and theoretical prediction on depositional rates. Environmental Geology 41(3-4):305-313.

    Lein et al. 2003. Nature of carbonates in the Gulf of Cadiz. Geochemistry International 41(2):168-181

    Harney & Fletcher 2003. A budget of carbonate framework and sediment production, Kailua Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. Journal of Sedimentary Research 73(6):856-868

    Taborosi et al. Speleothem-like calcite and aragonite deposits on a tropical carbonate coast. Cave and Karst Science 30(1):23-32.

    Sutula et al. 2003. Factors affecting spatial and temporal variability in material exchange between the Southern Everglades wetlands and Florida Bay (USA). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science v57 n5-6 (2003 08 01): 757-781

    Much of geology is historical. Much of sedimentary geology is not. Thousands of geologists are studying the lithologic record of carbonate rocks, but hundreds of other geologists are also studying modern carbonate deposition around the world right now. Limestones that are growing before our eyes. They grow in fairly quiet conditions. It?s also not like we don?t understand flood deposits and high energy sedimentary deposits. Floods happen all the bloody time, as do high energy depositional events. Again, there are thousands of people studying these deposits, around the world. Receding flood waters do not deposit massive piles of carbonate. They simply don?t. These are not gray areas within sedimentology any more than how volcanoes deposit ash is a gray area.

    You have made the decision to bring the sedimentary record into this. You have asserted that limestone deposits in the middle of the continents support the idea of a global deluge of water. Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that these continental deposits are not just simply piles of limestone, it is now your responsibility to provide evidence that fairly high energy receding flood waters can deposit large piles of carbonate. For right now, we can even ignore the source of the water and where it went. As a starting point, I will even accept evidence that any receding flood water can generate actual demonstrable deposits of carbonate that resemble the limestones that you’re asserting are evidence of the flood. You have erected a hypothesis. Now, show me that it’s plausible.

  479. #479 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 13, 2009

    How do I shower my brain, please?

    I use mental floss. Very good at removing those little pieces of idiocy.

  480. #480 Stanton
    March 13, 2009

    RogerS, if your position really had overwhelming justification, then you could instantaneously produce and explain supporting evidence for your position.

    Given as how you’re reduced to stalling for time for something that will never happen, we are forced to conclude that your position is bereft of any fact or worth.

  481. #481 RogerS
    March 13, 2009

    Nerd of Redhead #477
    You will just need to take my word for now that the persistence of my positions is overwhelmingly justified.

    What a reeking pile of bullshit. Either put up or shut up. We are smarter than you.

    Nerd, I believe you have prejudged me.

    I don’t disagree with you that “we are smarter than you” may be true, but scientific knowledge should not be considered more valable than truth. They do not equate in the past, present, or future. Don’t make the mistake of dismissing those you consider “inferior” to yourself, the simplest of persons may be benefiting from “truths” that elude your grasp and personal life. Sometimes we can learn from the simplest.
    The best tools for dealing with the bigger questions of life are not science and knowledge, but truth, wisdom, and love. Ask any physiologist which of the two prescriptions he would prefer for his patients (most of which may be pretty brainy).
    Best wishes for your journey, RogerS

  482. #482 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 13, 2009

    RogerS, Here is the truth. Your god doesn’t exist and your bible is work of fiction. Until you can show physical evidence otherwise, those are the default positions.
    Any metaphysical nonsense is just that, nonsense.
    Welcome to science.

  483. #483 KI
    March 13, 2009

    Looks as if we have another acid casualty disseminating his Intuitive Truth to destroy our evil facts.

  484. #484 RogerS
    March 13, 2009

    My Post #482: Sorry, substitute psychologist for physiologist.
    Proves my point -my spell checker lied to me!

  485. #485 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 13, 2009

    Now RogerS is using the “Foolishness Of God” gambit.

    ‘My eyes will never be able to see straight again.’

  486. #486 Stanton
    March 13, 2009

    So, RogerS, given as how you consider “truth” to be more valuable than “scientific knowledge,” would you prefer to trust your life and the lives of your loved with a doctor who values “scientific knowledge” or a doctor who values “truth” over “scientific knowledge”?

  487. #487 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 13, 2009

    Posted by: RogerS | March 13, 2009

    My Post #482: Sorry, substitute psychologist for physiologist.
    Proves my point -my spell checker lied to me!

    Your spell checker did not lie, it is merely a tool. You are just a poor composer of words. The fault lies with you.

  488. #488 Alan Clarke
    March 13, 2009

    Kel: you are either going to cast it with unreasonable doubt or make shit up to justify your position.

    Kel, welcome to the world of ?science?. All theorists look for data that supports their positions. Do you seriously think you are exempted? Dale Carnegie exploited a known fact: the most interesting words a person can hear is their own name. People tend to cheer for the team that they picked from the beginning. You?ll inevitably lean toward the theory that you subscribed to early on which bears ?your name? (i.e. the one that you told your friends about). The whole idea of ?pure objectivity? espoused on this forum ad nauseum is laughable.

  489. #489 rogerS
    March 13, 2009

    Stanton, truth encompasses what is true about our physical universe, what science strives to achieve but never totally arrives at. But knowledge is on a more focused and limited course and therefore does not encompass the largeness of truth.

  490. #490 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 13, 2009
    Josh- Time to unleash Rev.BigDumbChimps extrapolations?

    It could be that time. That, however, is for Rev to decide. Not me.

    I’m not really even sure what you’re asking Josh here RogerS.

  491. #491 Alan Clarke
    March 13, 2009

    Kel: you are either going to cast it with unreasonable doubt or make shit up to justify your position.

    Kel, welcome to the world of ?science?. All theorists look for data that supports their positions. Do you seriously think you are exempted? Dale Carnegie exploited a known fact: the most interesting words a person can hear is their own name. People tend to cheer for the team that they picked from the beginning. You?ll inevitably lean toward the theory that you subscribed to early on which bears ?your name? (i.e. the one that you told your friends about). The automobile that you most often notice others driving is the one you own! The whole idea of ?pure objectivity? espoused on this forum ad nauseum is laughable.

  492. #492 rogerS
    March 13, 2009

    Stanton, truth encompasses what is true about our physical universe, what science strives to achieve but never totally arrives at. But man’s pursuit of knowledge is on a more focused and limited course and therefore does not encompass the larger subset of truth.

  493. #493 rogerS
    March 13, 2009

    Janine, Insulting Sinner #488
    Thanks Janine, I knew you had it in you. You got that one totally right.
    LOL RogerS

  494. #494 DaveL
    March 13, 2009

    Enough PoMo nonsense, Roger. You said you had overwhelming support for the positions you hold in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Put up or shut up. Don’t tell us science is imperfect. Don’t quote Hamlet. The failure of anyone else to know everything does not in any way imply that you know anything.

    I’m guessing Roger will either:

    1) Continue to ignore demands he show his work;
    2) Disappear; or
    3) Relate to us how Jesus, Batman, and Elmer Fudd appeared to him in a dream and laid out The Truth to him.

  495. #495 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 13, 2009

    Alan, if you think you are a theorist, you are sadly mistaken. You are a deluded fool. You can call yourself what you want, but your actions and evidence speak otherwise. Until you show the physical evidence for your imaginary deity that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin, you will have nothing scientific to present. Trying to disprove geology, biology, chemistry, physics, and other sciences does not prove your theory one iota. Proof negative for other theories will never prove yours. Proof positive is required, and that starts with your deity. We await your evidence for your deity.

  496. #496 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 13, 2009

    Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 13, 2009

    Kel: you are either going to cast it with unreasonable doubt or make shit up to justify your position.

    Kel, welcome to the world of ?science?. All theorists look for data that supports their positions.

    And the intelligent theorists will change their theories if their gathered data does not support their original theories. All you have done is quotemine in order to make it seem the legitimate scientists could support your believe in a biblical flood. And let’s just say that if I can find you mining works, you are doing a piss poor job of it. Welcome to science.

    And in case you have not noticed, you have been blown out of the water every time you make a statement. Do you enjoy hitting you head on brick walls?

  497. #497 Josh
    March 13, 2009

    The whole idea of ?pure objectivity? espoused on this forum ad nauseum is laughable.

    Alan, please don’t put words into our mouths. Who “on the science side” here has asserted anything more than we try as hard as possible to be objective? Show me the comment where one of us has asserted that we are objective.

    Oh, and while I have you here: Any thoughts on any of the questions that I asked you in #407?

  498. #498 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 13, 2009

    Alan, please don’t put words into our mouths. Who “on the science side” here has asserted anything more than we try as hard as possible to be objective? Show me the comment where one of us has asserted that we are objective.

    And rest assured, if you are not objective someone else will sure come along and call you on it.

    That is one way to make your name in science. Correcting another scientists work.

    That’s why overall, science is objective. Because it is competitive and scientists will always be checking other scientists.

  499. #499 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 13, 2009

    Poor Roger, he has his head up his ass since he thinks his shit smells so good. I heard the same crap from the hippies back during my undergraduate days. At least they had the excuse of using drugs. Roger is just deluded.
    Come over to the reality of atheism Roger, where without the delusion of god and religion everything is clear.

  500. #500 Josh
    March 13, 2009

    Come over to the reality of atheism Roger,…

    The water is great, Roger.

  501. #501 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 13, 2009

    Posted by: rogerS | March 13, 2009

    Janine, Insulting Sinner #488
    Thanks Janine, I knew you had it in you. You got that one totally right.
    LOL RogerS

    So what? It was not a particularly deep insight on my part. You just make it very clear that you have many short comings.

  502. #502 rogerS
    March 13, 2009

    Will Athiesm take you further than you want to go?
    This is long but you need to learn about your forefathers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher
    Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, FRS (17 February 1890 ? 29 July 1962) was an English statistician, evolutionary biologist, and geneticist. He was described by Anders Hald as “a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science”[1] and Richard Dawkins described him as “the greatest of Darwin’s successors”.[2]

    He famously showed that the probability of a mutation increasing the fitness of an organism decreases proportionately with the magnitude of the mutation. (An argument opposing punctuated equilibrium?)

    In 1911 he was involved in forming the Cambridge University Eugenics Society with such luminaries as John Maynard Keynes, R. C. Punnett and Horace Darwin (Charles Darwin’s son). The group was active, and held monthly meetings, often featuring addresses by leaders of mainstream eugenics organizations, such as the Eugenics Education Society of London, founded by Charles Darwin’s half-cousin, Francis Galton in 1909.[4]
    In 1933 he left Rothamsted to become a Professor of Eugenics at University College London.
    Between 1929 and 1934 the Eugenics Society also campaigned hard for a law permitting sterilization on eugenic grounds.
    Fisher played a major role in this movement, and served in several official committees to promote it.

    [What is the UNESCO Statement?]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Race_Question
    The Race Question is a UNESCO statement issued on 18 July 1950 following World War II. Signed by some of the leading researchers of the time, in the field of psychology, biology, cultural anthropology and ethnology, it questioned the foundations of scientific racist theories which had become very popular at the turn of the 20th century, alongside eugenics.
    The statement included both a scientific debunking of race theories and a moral condemnation of racism. It suggested in particular to “drop the term ‘race’ altogether and speak of “ethnic groups.”

    Ronald Fisher was opposed to the UNESCO Statement of Race. He believed that evidence and everyday experience showed that human groups differ profoundly ?in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development? and concluded that the ?practical international problem is that of learning to share the resources of this planet amicably with persons of materially different nature,? and that ?this problem is being obscured by entirely well-intentioned efforts to minimize the real differences that exist.?

    Fisher was opposed to the conclusions of Richard Doll and A.B. Hill that smoking caused lung cancer.
    To quote Yates and Mather again, “It has been suggested that the fact that Fisher was employed as consultant by the tobacco firms in this controversy casts doubt on the value of his arguments. (-Alan may be on to something about objectivity)

  503. #503 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 13, 2009

    Roger with more irrelevant posts. Gee, what a loser. Get a grip on reality by tossing your god and religion. See the real world without imaginary sky-clods.

  504. #504 DaveL
    March 13, 2009

    I see Roger has chosen option 1. Not very honest, but then again he is a creationist.

    So you’ve dug up a proponent of evolutionary theory who held some distasteful personal views. Big deal. As an evolution denier, do you really want to play that game? Think about it.

  505. #505 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 13, 2009

    RogerS,

    Do you intend to continue to play the game of logical fallacies or to actually answer the scientific criticisms of your assertions?

  506. #506 Kel
    March 13, 2009

    Alan Clarke condescendingly blathered:

    Kel, welcome to the world of ?science?. All theorists look for data that supports their positions. Do you seriously think you are exempted?

    Earlier Alan Clarke spewed: I believe the pre-flood Earth had hills and shallow ocean basins.

    Listen you condescending shit, when you start doing science you can talk. Instead all you are doing is denying evidence and claiming fantastical unsupported nonsense. That isn’t science, nor should you even pretend it to be.

    This brings me back to what you said earlier about the galaxies. If you are right, then those distant galaxies we have observed are wrong by a factor of 2 million times. Plug that into e=mc² and see what happens. Unless of course you believe Einstein is wrong, and the world of theoretical physics is waiting for your input. But I digress, you complained about an irrelevancy to dismiss solid science. The speed of light as been shown to be experimentally constant, so the only problem when measuring distant objects is the accuracy of measurement. And are you saying that all those astrophysicists, all those cosmologists, all those astronomers, they are all off by a factor of 2 million? That when we observe the andromeda galaxy that is 2.5 million light years away, our measurements of that are off by a factor of ~500? That the large magellenic cloud when measured absolutely was 168,000 light years away was off by a factor of ~28? Do you have any idea what happens when we put 1011 galaxies containing ~1011 stars all sitting 6,000 light years away? We wouldn’t have a solar system now.

    We need a large universe in order to survive. A large universe means an old universe because of Einstein’s famous equation. That is doing “science” and that is why your attempts to dismiss it as “We don’t know what the speed of light was at t=0″ to explain everything thereafter is fucking pathetic. Are you going to admit that all you do is have faith in your bible rather than in your God? Because to all of us to actually look at what science is, to all of us who have had to do the mathematics – what you are proposing is nothing short of complete absurdity.

    So be a condescending shit all you want, when you dismiss all scientific data the way you do, you create unreasonable doubt on data you should be paying more attention to. You aren’t doing science, science is about following the evidence to whatever conclusions it may push. Instead you have your conclusion, you have faith in your bible story and you are willing to grossly distort anything you can to support that. You are a liar, another Liar for JesusTM

  507. #507 Kel
    March 13, 2009

    The whole idea of ?pure objectivity? espoused on this forum ad nauseum is laughable.

    And in that you show just why you’ll never get the point. Of course people can’t be truly objective, but what is great about the scientific process is that it’s so strongly based on evidence. When we see galaxies 13 billion light years away, we have to base any theory we have to take account that information. In only the last 100 years we have seen the world go from euclidean space-time in an infinite universe to a finite expanding relativistic universe. And why? Because the evidence supports it. You won’t get anywhere denying the facts of distant galaxies, nor will you get anywhere denying the reality on Einstein’s equation from your computer chair. If you think Einstein’s formula is wrong, then demonstrate it!

  508. #508 David Marjanovi?, OM
    March 13, 2009

    And who needs guns, explosions and pyrotechnics to cover for lacking story-line?

    So you mean you didn’t enjoy Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

    Or the line in Demolition Man (retranslating from German): “Hey! We’re in the future here! Where are the phaser guns!?!”

    Or Django, which shows us what the Wild West ought to have looked like?

    One of the great things about living in mainland Europe is that comics are regarded as just another artistic medium, open to everyone.
    Just as you’ll see people of all ages on trains listening to iPods, so will you see them reading comics, and rarely are they superhero comics.

    Nah. In the German-speaking countries, comics are automatically regarded as “for children” by practically everyone at least before my generation. It’s horrible. Even the translations are sometimes dumbed down. TSIB.

    It is true, however, that superhero comics are very rare over here. The first thing you’ll see are Disney comics (mostly produced in Italy and then translated).

    homosapien

    Homo sapiens. Two words, the first with a capital letter, in italics, and the whole thing is a singular — that -s is not a plural ending (it’s not English).

    1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

    Who is a liar but he that denieth that Luke Skywalker is a Jedi? He belongs to the Dark Side, that denieth?

    Need I go on?

    the fact that indigenous Australians have probably been here for over 100,000 years

    Less than 60,000, but still?

    Hi Roger. I did actually read the link. I found it to be typical Wikipedia…
    [?] Wikiblabia [?]

    It is immoral to complain about Wikipedia. You find a mistake, you click on “edit”. Simple.

    Hey, if you have time to talk to somewhere between the ears of two creationists, you have time to edit Wikipedia, too :-)

    Do ice cores show many tens of thousands of years?

    Owlmirror: We have ice cores dating back seven hundred forty thousand years. What part of “seven hundred forty thousand years” does your tiny little brain not understand?

    Meteorologist Michael J. Oard doesn’t buy it and neither do I. Click here.

    Wow.

    Just? wow.

    This moron of a meteorologist (?note how he’s not a glaciologist??) doesn’t even know that the annual layers are visible. You can just put your fucking finger on them and fucking count them!

    Instead, he believes they are calculated into a completely uniform block of ice!

    The ignorance! It burns!!!

    Note to Mr Oard: That the annual layers get thinner and thinner toward the bottom is not an assumption. It is an observed fact.

    Morons.

    It’s incredible what morons exist!!!

    Concerning the Oort Cloud, do try to keep in mind that “hypothetical” does not mean “speculative”. “Hypothetical” means that an idea is testable, and that there is evidence for it.

    No further replies to you, Alan, as long as you haven’t read the article on radiometric dating and demonstrated that you’ve understood it.

  509. #509 'Tis Himself
    March 13, 2009

    From man?s perspective, the Moon just so happens to be the exact same size as the Sun. We can thank the miracle of collisions!

    Not always. There’s a phenomenon called an annular eclipse.

    An annular solar eclipse occurs when the Moon’s apparent size (angular size in astronomy-speak) is slightly less than the Sun’s apparent (angular) size. Therefore, when the Moon is directly in front of the Sun, the edges of the Sun are still visible. The angular sizes of the Sun and Moon change slightly because the Moon’s and Earth’s orbits are both elliptical.

    BTW, the linked photograph is my present desktop wallpaper.

  510. #510 'Tis Himself
    March 13, 2009

    rogerS #503

    An imminent biologist had some racist views. So what? Does that shed the least bit of doubt over evolution? The famous equation e=mc² explains how the Sun shines and how nuclear weapons make really big bangs. Does that mean that relativity is wrong because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

  511. #511 Alan Clarke
    March 13, 2009

    Josh: The flood hypothesis is long dead and we have been continually stomping on its rotting carcass for more than 200 years.

    “The Tell-Tale Heart” is a short story by Edgar Allan Poe first published in 1843. It follows an unnamed narrator who insists on his sanity after murdering an old man with a “vulture eye”. (source)

    Josh adds a new twist to the story. He stomps on the carcass for 200 years (if a carcass can last that long) while insisting on his sanity.

    Biblical flood theory has NEVER died and it is in full force to haunt you. Notice how it permeates to the core this uniformitarian explanation of mountain formation:

    Mountains aren’t just big piles of dirt, they’re made of solid rock. Believe it or not, the rocks that make up the Himalayan mountains used to be an ancient sea floor. Over millions of years, rivers washed rocks and soil from existing mountains on the Indian subcontinent and nearby Asia into a shallow sea where the sediment was deposited on the floor. Layer upon layer of sediment built up over millions of years until the pressure and weight of the overlying sediment caused the stuff way down deep to turn into rock. Then about 40 million years ago, in a process called “uplifting”, the sea floor began to be forced upward forming mountains. (source)

    The only piece missing from the above narrative is the author looses track of time while he is stomping on the carcass.

  512. #512 Owlmirror
    March 13, 2009

    Ice cores:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

    More ice cores:

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf

    Citing from the PDF (boldface below is mine; italics are in original):

    Michael Oard published a paper in 2001 attempting to show that the annual layers in the GISP2 and GRIP ice cores are subannual
    [...]
    Oard?s statement that the hoar frost, LLS, and ECM methods of dating the annual layers are dependent upon an assumption as to the thickness of the annual layers, is false and should be retracted.
    [...]
    Oard?s confusion of melt-layers with hoar frost layers and his failure to understand that the latter are due to seasonal differences invalidates his second argument.
    [...]
    Oard?s third argument is that storms have warm and cold sectors that could produce oscillations on the order of just several days; and he cites glaciologists Grootes and Stuiver to document this fact.
    This third reason is false, however, because the warm and cold oscillations of storms are too weak to either cause or disrupt the sharp differences in the ice that the radical differences between the seasons cause.
    [...]
    Oard?s fourth argument is that snow dunes can occur and add sub-annual layers. This is true, but it is evident from the accuracy of the counting of the first 2,000 years that the sub-annual layers added by snow dunes can normally be distinguished from true annual layers because they have different characteristics. In addition, a weak summer signal can subtract an annual layer. The sum effect of these rare events, therefore, is zero. Consequently, snow dunes do not constitute a logical basis for arguing that radically fewer years have passed than the 110,000 years counted in the GISP2 core.
    [...]
    Oard?s fifth argument is that cold or warm weather patterns can run in cycles as low as a week or as long as a month or even a season; so they could make a problem for estimating the number of annual layers. Perhaps they could, but the estimation of the number of annual layers, as noted above, is not relevant to the 110,000 annual layers of the GISP2 core. The estimation was, in fact, corrected by the actual counting of the layers. In addition, the accuracy of the counting of the annual layers in the last 2,000 years of the core shows that this problem is neither insurmountable nor serious enough to serve as a basis for denying the substantial accuracy of the dating of the GISP2 core.
    [...]
    In addition, Oard?s young-earth model is essentially just speculation. It does not have the extensive empirical foundation that underlies the dating of the GISP2 ice core. As explained and documented above, there is good empirical evidence showing that the light bubbly hoar layers, the heavier dust concentrations, and the greater electrical conductivity of the summer layers are indeed annual, and not from storms or sub-annual differences. If they had not been annual, they would not have correlated chronologically with the dates of historically known volcanic eruptions. And there is no objective evidence indicating that they changed from being annual to being sub-annual indicators.

    …and we’re done with Michael J. Oard.

    In his 1992 paper, Larry Vardiman mentioned the surprising burial depth of the Lost Squadron planes, but he admitted that their depth of burial could not be simplistically used as evidence that the ice cores are being misdated. Some young-earthers have not been as wise and have argued from the depth of the WWII planes to the rejection of the age of the ice cores.
    [...]
    But let?s make this perfectly clear: The 110,000 layers of the GISP2 ice core are not due to melting. They are definitely not melt layers. Even if melting had occurred more often in the past, layers due to melting are readily recognized and would certainly not be counted as annual.
    [...]
    So, the area in which the Lost Squadron landed, which is southern Greenland c. 10 miles from the east coast, with its high rate of snow accumulation (c. 7 feet/year) vs. the area of GISP2 in central Greenland with its comparatively low rate of snow accumulation (1 foot or so/year) is why 250 feet of snow represents just 50 years for the Lost Squadron but around 250 years for the GISP2 ice core.

    … and that’s the damn airplanes under the snow.

    In conclusion we see that creation science has offered little more than speculation as evidence to disprove the validity of the dating of the GISP2 ice core. Opposing this speculation is solid empirical evidence that the layers of hoar frost, dust, and electrical conductivity are seasonal, not from storms, melting, different climate conditions or any other such supposition. Although one of the methods of counting annual layers may fail on rare occasions, the other methods fill in and sustain the accuracy of the counting; and the three methods regularly and repeatedly corroborate each other.In addition, the validity of the dating is established by the fact that there is a dovetailing of the dates of GISP2 with the dates of solar cycles, sea cores, tree rings, volcanic events, and more. The GISP2 ice core thus provides clear, scientific proof that there was no global flood any time in the last 40,000 to 110,000 years.

  513. #513 Josh
    March 13, 2009

    Yeah, that’s terrific reasoning there, Alan. Use the evidence that supports the idea you had before looking at the evidence, but ignore those data that argue against the idea you walked in the door with before looking at the evidence.

    Let me ask you this–how do you know that the rocks high on Mt. Everest are ancient seafloor? Have you seen them? Have you personally held a hand sample of this rock in your hand? Why do you believe those rocks are ancient seafloor? On what basis do you make your decision?

  514. #514 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 13, 2009

    The only piece missing from the above narrative is the author looses track of time while he is stomping on the carcass

    You idiot. You quote a source for what it tells you then you deny the very thing that explains it. Namely the 40 million years.

  515. #515 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 13, 2009

    Alan, a completely irrelevant post, but what else is new. You had nothing, have nothing, and you will never have anything. YAWN. Fool, tool and bore. And still no physical evidence for your imaginary god. TSK, TSK. Any true theorist would have given up creationism due to lack of evidence by now.

  516. #516 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 13, 2009

    So Alan lets say you ignore the 40 million years. What catastrophic event in the geologic history can you point to that would raise the sea floor 8000 meters in 4400 years?

  517. #517 Owlmirror
    March 13, 2009

    Biblical flood theory has NEVER died and it is in full force to haunt you.

    Yes, like a zombie or a ghost or any other fake, fraudulent thing that only exists in the imaginations of the superstitious and gullible.

    Notice how it permeates to the core this uniformitarian explanation of mountain formation:

    No. That’s not the Biblical flood. That’s geology, using the radiometric dating systems that you hate so much.

    The only piece missing from the above narrative is the author looses track of time while he is stomping on the carcass.

    The only ones losing track of time are the liars and morons who claim that the Himalayas were formed by magic practically instantaneously … with no evidence whatsoever.

    Voodoo science!

  518. #518 Alan Clarke
    March 13, 2009

    Owlmirror, you are violating Nerd?s Law:

    You are doing a fine job of cutting and pasting arguments you don’t understand, which makes you look pathetic and stupid.

    Quit copying and pasting?

    It will take more than a cut/paste expert who doesn’t really understand what he is cutting/pasting to sway my confidence in science.

    You are not showing the ability to overthrow science due to your stupidity and the stupidity of the sites you are copying and pasting from.

    What I want to know is this: Was Nerd traumatized as a child by Elmer?s glue?

  519. #519 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 13, 2009

    No Alan, you cut and paste. Owlmirror finds real evidence. Not fake evidence like you do. More avoidance by the man who has nothing.

  520. #520 Owlmirror
    March 13, 2009

    This is long but you need to learn about your forefathers.

    Whose forefathers? Certainly not mine. I repudiate and reject Fisher’s racism. I repudiate and reject his tobacco denialism, which is actually much like Creationist denialism of science.

    How about your forefathers? How about all of the Christians who claimed that the curse of Ham in the bible gave them the right to enslave human beings and treat them like animals?

    How about God, who cursed all the world, murdered a world full of people using the flood you love so much, murdered children in Egypt, explicitly permitted the torture of Job and the murder of his children, and gave clear and repeated instructions to kill and murder and show no mercy to innocent children?

    I repudiate and reject the murderous God of the Old Testament, and I repudiate and reject the parent-hating, anti-family Jesus, who also called for the death of all who did not accept him as king.

    Do you accept and approve of them, in all their bloody and bloodthirsty cruelty?

  521. #521 Alan Clarke
    March 13, 2009

    Josh: Let me ask you this–how do you know that the rocks high on Mt. Everest are ancient seafloor? Have you seen them? Have you personally held a hand sample of this rock in your hand? Why do you believe those rocks are ancient seafloor? On what basis do you make your decision?

    Josh, the website that I used for my source of the Himalayan mountain formation is endorsed by the following organizations:

    CNN
    BBC
    Brittanica Online
    Discover Magazine
    National Geographic Society
    NOAA
    NASA
    National Science Teachers Association
    National Science Foundation
    Schools of California Online Resources for Education (SCORE)
    UC Berkeley
    USDA
    US Dept. of State
    USGS

    If you don?t agree with them, then perhaps you?re on the wrong side. Looking at all of those names and thinking of the money involved? Never mind.

  522. #522 Wowbagger, OM
    March 13, 2009

    What’s this? Alan doesn’t know the difference between citing and cutting-and-pasting?

    Colour me unsurprised.

    Here’s a hint, Alan – one is done by someone who understands the content of what they’re posting; the other is done by someone who doesn’t understanding anything other than the sentence at the top of the page they’re plagiarising from.

    Which of the two do you think you’re doing?

  523. #523 'Tis Himself
    March 13, 2009

    Alan Clarke,

    Did you even look at that source you praise so highly and which you brag has been endorsed by Uncle Tom Cobley and all? Here’s a sample quote:

    They’ve also determined that the Himalayan Mountains are still growing higher, at a rate of about 2.4 in/6.1cm per year. That’s twice as fast as previously thought. A growth rate of 2.4 in/6.1cm per year doesn’t sound like very much. If you think about it, that means in the last 26,000 years the Himalayans have risen almost a mile into the upper reaches of the earth’s atmosphere! [emphasis added]

    The source says that the Himalayas have risen over tens of thousands of years. Not your piddly 4400 years but a whole lot longer. But wait, it gets worse:

    The Himalayas are growing, but only about 2 inches a year. That’s not very much in human terms, but imagine how much that would be over millions of years! You may be thinking, “That would have been kinda cool to be here on earth [b]40 million years ago to be able to watch the Himalayas forming[/b]“. You would have been really bored, though. The movement that took many millions of years to form the mountain range is still taking place today, and I doubt you would stake out a camp at the foot of the mountains just to watch them grow. You’d be waiting a LONG TIME. [emphasis added]

    That’s right, Alan. The article you like so much says that the Himalayas started rising 40 million years ago. Your miniscule 4400 years is off by a factor of almost 10,000. Explain that, flood boy.

  524. #524 John Morales
    March 13, 2009

    Alan @522:

    Josh, the website that I used for my source of the Himalayan mountain formation is endorsed by the following organizations:
    [uncited list]
    If you don?t agree with them, then perhaps you?re on the wrong side.

    Well then, why does not Alan agree with this:
    “It is theorized that the true age of the earth is about 4.6 billion years old, formed at about the same time as the rest of our solar system. The oldest rocks geologists have been able to find are 3.9 billion years old.
    [...]
    When did “life” first appear and how did it happen? It is estimated that the first life forms on earth were primitive, one-celled creatures that appeared about 3 billion years ago.” (my bold)

  525. #525 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 13, 2009

    Josh, the website that I used for my source of the Himalayan mountain formation is endorsed by the following organizations:

    They very source you quoted also said 40 million years.

    Alan what geologic event cause the Himalayas to rise 8000 meters in 4400 years

  526. #526 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 13, 2009

    Explain that, flood boy.

    Bushmills Black>nose>monitor

  527. #527 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 13, 2009

    Alan are you going to quote a website that says that that there are for sure areas of the world that were underwater but then explain that it was Katrina, the great flood of the Mississippi 1927 and the Tsunami of 2004 as sources that support your claim of awesome fludness?

  528. #528 Kel
    March 13, 2009

    Come on Alan, enough bullshit about the speed of light. Show empirically or mathematically that Einstein’s formula is wrong, and that the farthest galaxies measured are off by a factor of over 2 million!

  529. #529 Ichthyic
    March 13, 2009

    Biblical flood theory has NEVER died and it is in full force to haunt you.

    shouldn’t you have posted that in the “Creationists in Denial” thread, Alan?

    I sure think so.

  530. #530 RamblinDude
    March 13, 2009

    You will understand one day why I have taken this path because you will realize that if I disclosed certain things to you at this time you would not be able to ?metabolize? it.

    I’m still cracking up over this.

    Thanks Rog, that was a good one

    ROTFLMAO!!

  531. #531 Alan Clarke
    March 13, 2009

    Greatest Quotes from Nerd of Redhead

    God?s Existence
    First you have to show evidence for your god.
    Get a grip on reality by tossing your god and religion.
    And your god is imaginary, existing only between your ears.
    Here is the truth. Your god doesn’t exist and your bible is work of fiction.
    Until you understand your god doesn’t exist, and your bible is fiction, you will?
    Until you show acceptable evidence for your god will will [sic] remain a lying loser.

    Lying to One?s Self
    Why do you keep lying to yourself Alan?
    Quit lying to yourself, so you quit lying to us.
    Alan, still lying to yourself that your god exists
    You have to stop lying to yourself before you can stop lying to us.
    Alan, you are lying to yourself in attempting to force fit your non-existent god?

    I?ve never met Nerd in person but here are two of his outstanding features:

    1) He never gives up on demanding evidence for God’s existence.

    2) He has an unwavering concern, almost like a mother, that I don?t ?lie to myself?.

    Nerd, I?ll try to accommodate you but you must describe the type of evidence you are looking for. Secondly, before I can be assured that you really care about me, I need to know more about you. What could be worse than receiving advice from one who ?lies to himself? also? Can you give me a brief autobiography? Childhood, teens, college, marriage, goals, successes, failures, etc. The more you can provide the better.

  532. #532 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 13, 2009

    Alan, very simple, and it had been explained to you numerous times. You are really avoiding the question with your post. Physical evidence for god that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin. In other words, something equivalent to Moses’ eternally burning bush. Not some stupidity like “look in the mirror” or “look around you”. Or some silly philosophical only god. Your god must interacts with the real world, so traces of him must be present.

    And Alan, you lie to yourself on what is evidence. For example, quote-mining is not evidence, but a falsehood (lie). You have presented quote-mines, which means you lied to yourself before posting them by not checking the their authenticity and accuracy, and by posting them you lied to us. Simple concept. Make yourself the gatekeeper for the accuracy of what you post. That is something real scientists like Josh, David Marjanovi?, and myself are trained to do, and the other posters on the thread understand this too.

  533. #533 phantomreader42
    March 13, 2009

    So, Alan, you’re utterly incapable of responding to countless substantive criticisms. You flee in abject terror from the fact that YOUR OWN SOURCE contradicts you. Revealed as a fraud, a nutcase, and an utter, dismal failure, you retreat to demanding personal information and making baseless attacks in a desperate attempt to throw up a smokescreen and hide your shame. It’s not going to work. It doesn’t matter what idiotic demands you make. They won’t change the facts. The fact that you have not the slightest speck of evidence for your imaginary god. The fact that every scrap of evidence is against your flood bullshit. The fact that you keep quote-mining and citing known frauds. The fact that your precious faith is so weak and worthless it cannot survive an encounter with the evidence, so you must run, hide, and lie.

    Fuck off and die, asshat. You have nothing worthwhile to say. You are a worthless parasite, denying science while typing on a computer, stealing the fruits of learning that you despise.

  534. #534 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 13, 2009

    Alan, there is no shame is just ceasing posting at this blog. Just remove us from your bookmarks and forget about us. Think about it.

  535. #535 Ichthyic
    March 13, 2009

    You will understand one day why I have taken this path because you will realize that if I disclosed certain things to you at this time you would not be able to “metabolize” it.

    simon said it better:

    “Your Jellimeat is not big enough!”

  536. #536 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 13, 2009

    Ichthyic, my sincere apologies for not including you with the scientists. I will say five “hail ramens” for penance. May the FSM forgive my transgression.

  537. #537 RamblinDude
    March 14, 2009

    Secondly, before I can be assured that you really care about me, I need to know more about you. What could be worse than receiving advice from one who ?lies to himself? also? Can you give me a brief autobiography? Childhood, teens, college, marriage, goals, successes, failures, etc. The more you can provide the better.

    No Nerd! Don?t do it! It?s a trap!

    He?ll get you alone with him and his bible, and he?ll look all patient and kind and full of compassion and understanding and gentle good humor and then . . . he won?t talk about science at all! He?ll tell you about his friend Jesus, and how the bible is the word of God if only you will believe, and then he?ll try to get you to feel bad about yourself and get you to cry and feel lonely?and then he?ll talk about Jesus some more!

    IT?S A TRAP!!!!!

  538. #538 Alan Clarke
    March 14, 2009

    There seems to be a gross misunderstanding of my reason for using texts from evolutionist/uniformitarian websites:

    Mountains aren’t just big piles of dirt, they’re made of solid rock. Believe it or not, the rocks that make up the Himalayan mountains used to be an ancient sea floor. Over millions of years, rivers washed rocks and soil from existing mountains on the Indian subcontinent and nearby Asia into a shallow sea where the sediment was deposited on the floor. Layer upon layer of sediment built up over millions of years until the pressure and weight of the overlying sediment caused the stuff way down deep to turn into rock. Then about 40 million years ago, in a process called “uplifting”, the sea floor began to be forced upward forming mountains. (source)

    The reason I quote this stuff is so people won?t experience their usual knee-jerk reaction when they see the source is jesus.org. How else can I communicate on such a forum? For me it is actually quite challenging and interesting because I?m looking at the exact same evidences as you but I?m coming up with a different interpretation. I am juggling two theories whereas you seem to think in only one dimension: your theory. And I know this for a fact because of Josh?s following questions which are elementary to young-earth creationism: Where did the water come from? Where did it go? What seems so absurd about this is that uniformitarianists can?t come up with a believable answer themselves for how the Earth got its water. One million comets? There are some features to both theories which intersect which I yellow highlighted in the above text. I posted the text for this reason only despite my disagreement with the extremely old ages.

    What is scaring me about Josh is he doesn?t seem to know his own theory: Let me ask you this–how do you know that the rocks high on Mt. Everest are ancient seafloor? Maybe I shouldn?t criticize Josh because he might be a true independent thinker who doesn?t swallow the hype from every Nova or National Geographic episode. Josh, in one of your posts, you wondered why if a single global flood accounted for most of the Earth?s sedimentary strata, then why isn?t there one single layer of deposition instead of many multiple layers? Because of the water?s height, the continents didn?t act as barriers to the tides. Each tidal shift could result in unabated tidal waves. It has been hypothesized that the sea shifts in some places may have achieved cataclysmic harmonic oscillation. From Genesis 8, we learn that the flood water assuaged for 4 months. The wave motion accompanying 4 months of residing waters can create many layers of deposition. The major limestones were created far inland during this period by the amassed quantity of dead sea fauna. Hydrologic sorting would occur but it would be interrupted by a multitude of local gigantic back washes during the four month period. Yellowstone Park?s Specimen Ridge is such an area that appears as multiple forests, one on top of another. The multiple layers are explained by multiple tidal actions and/or backwashes during assuaging flood waters. Why are the trees vertical? The uprooted trees were floating in vertical positions with the heavier rooted ends down, so they look as if they were ?planted?. This exact same phenomenon occurred during the Mt. St. Helen?s eruption where a million trees were washed into Spirit Lake:

    Sinking Logs Look Like Many Aged Forests in Just Ten Years. A million trees were washed into Spirit Lake the day of the main eruption. As the years go by one by one they become waterlogged and sink to the bottom. Dense root wood is still a part of 10% of the logs. Those logs sink to the bottom in an upright position and their roots quickly become covered by the continuing sedimentation washing into the lake. They give the appearance they grew and died where they are deposited, one forest on top of another over long periods of time. (source)

  539. #539 Kel
    March 14, 2009

    Where did the water come from?

    When two hydrogen atoms inside a star love each other very much, they fuse into higher elements. Some of these elements are unstable – as what happens when the daddy isn’t around so they join to other atoms. When two hydrogen atoms come across an oxygen atom, they form water.

    So to answer your question, the water came from stars.

  540. #540 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 14, 2009

    I am juggling two theories whereas you seem to think in only one dimension: your theory empirically supported science based in reality

    fixed

  541. #541 Wowbagger, OM
    March 14, 2009

    Maybe I shouldn?t criticize Josh because he might be a true independent thinker who doesn?t swallow the hype from every Nova or National Geographic episode.

    Ah yes, two organisations well known for their sensationalism and dubious scientific credentials. Just like that headline- grabbing, glory hound hack David Attenborough, huh?

    If you could only turn this energy of yours to the side of good, Alan – you could achieve so much.

  542. #542 Owlmirror
    March 14, 2009

    For me it is actually quite challenging and interesting because I?m looking at the exact same evidences as you but I?m coming up with a different interpretation. I am juggling two theories whereas you seem to think in only one dimension: your theory.

    LOL! Yeah, science has to stick with the real world, while YECs get to make shit up and ignore the fact that their made-up shit would have effects in the real world if they had actually happened and YECs ignore real world science at the same time!

    YEC: Voodoo science from out of the fourth dimension!

    And I know this for a fact because of Josh?s following questions which are elementary to young-earth creationism:

    Of course it’s elementary — because YECs don’t have to provide any evidence or apply any sort of logic to constrain their imagination.

    I posted the text for this reason only despite my disagreement with the extremely old ages.

    Because you have an a priori ASSUMPTION that the Earth cannot be old, and an a priori ASSUMPTION that there was a flood.

    What is scaring me about Josh is he doesn?t seem to know his own theory:

    LOL. Josh knows the geology because he’s a geologist. He wasn’t using “you” as in the universal “you”; he was asking you, a moron who wouldn’t know schist from shinloa, how you know anything at all about the real science of geology.

    All you want to do is cherry-pick little phrases from the hard work of real scientists. There’s no sanity or reason invovled, just voodoo. Cargo-cult science. Ooga booga!

    Case in point:

    Because of the water?s height, the continents didn?t act as barriers to the tides. Each tidal shift could result in unabated tidal waves.

    For example, YECs are so utterly ignorant of oceanography that they have no idea that “tidal waves” have nothing to do with tides.

    It has been hypothesized that the sea shifts in some places may have achieved cataclysmic harmonic oscillation.

    Wow! That sounds scary — just like all the made-up science of YECs. Magic voodoo harmonic oscillation! Magic voodoo tidal waves! Ooga booga! Big Juju drown world and wreck it, like tiny child throwing big temper tantrum!

    From Genesis 8, we learn that the flood water assuaged for 4 months.

    Because of course a sentence in a made-up story is just as good voodoo science as evidence in the real world. Oooga-booga, Big Juju!

    The major limestones were created far inland during this period by the amassed quantity of dead sea fauna.

    No. They weren’t. Because in the real world, the world outside the imagination of YECs, the limestone formed slowly over millions of years, millions of years ago.

    Hydrologic sorting would occur

    No. It would not. Because in the real world, the world outside the imagination of YECs, there is no evidence for “hydrologic sorting”.

    Yellowstone Park?s Specimen Ridge is such an area that appears as multiple forests, one on top of another.

    Oh, hell NO. Most of the forest fossilized in place millions of years ago.

    Fritz has repeatedly pointed out that it is only the relatively short, abraded stumps within the Eocene conglomerates that he suggested were transported, not the numerous, tall upright trees rooted in the underlying sediments and buried by the overlying conglomerate.
    [...]
    Yuretich (1984) presented additional petrographic and stratigraphic evidence that the upright trees at Specimen Ridge were in place. He concluded that “field and petrographic data indicate that most, if not all, of the upright Eocene tree stumps preserved at Specimen Ridge were buried in place and were not moved long distances by mudflows and floods”

  543. #543 scooter
    March 14, 2009

    The Jesus, Food, Zombie, Grilled Cheese Sandwich Connection

    cool I was wondering how yall were doing that, nice shameless self promotion, huh?

  544. #544 RogerS
    March 14, 2009

    Josh #472 RogerS wrote
    Considering that magma is virtually incompressible, it is conceivable that the added water weight from collapsing waters ?above the firmament? during the Biblical flood account could cause tremendous displacement forces and rapid continental uplifts on a global scale.

    What? Magma isn’t “virtually incompressible.” Where did you get that impression?

    Hi Josh,
    I was wanting to keep the displacement analogy simple as an estimate, as others have done in their assumptions:
    http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/NEWSV2N1/martha1.html
    “However, consequences of H2O and CO2 in silicic magmas during transport and ascent through the crust have been ignored in most fluid dynamic and heat transfer treatments of the problem. Instead, these models usually assume constant magma properties, and the volume of the system is also assumed to be constant. This article describes efforts to evaluate the assumption of constant volume during ascent of granitic magma using a model based on the albite-H2O and albite-H2O-CO2 systems.”
    Actually, taking compression into account would favor my displacement analogy.
    Consider the total volume of water in comparison to volume of land above sea level today:
    mean continental height = .840 km
    land area = 148.94 million sq km
    land volume = 148.94 million sq km x .840 km = 125.11 million cu km
    Oceans volume = 1.3-1.5 billion cu km = 1.4 billion cu km (using average)
    Ratio of volumes, ocean : land = 1.4 billion cu km / 125.11 million cu km = 11.2

    As we can see, we have 11.2 times more water or only 8.9% land volume as a comparison. If we take in account the compressibility of magma, the average ocean depth pressure is 5,364 psi while magma being displaced on the land would be at 14.7 psi (neglectable) creating a greater amount of uplift or land volume for the same volume amount of displaced ocean water. After a hyphotized flood, a 8.9% of magma displacement from under the oceans to under the land area (sorry for leaving out compression, that would be UNDER 8.9%) to account to the entire continental land volume. Now I know the water was above the highest mountain (elevation unknown) and terrain was not all an average level so let?s go back to OVER 8.9%. Now we agree that mountains are formed by plate tectonic action, I just disagree with gradual formation and favor rapid geological changes during and after catastrophism which then slowed as things settled.
    Conclusion:
    Considering there is currently unknown volumes of subterranean water and also the information above, I would conclude that an inadequate amount of water today as “proof” against a global flood is a fallacy.

  545. #545 Owlmirror
    March 14, 2009

    After an hyphotized flood, a 8.9% of magma displacement from under the oceans to under the land area (sorry for leaving out compression, that would be UNDER 8.9%) to account to the entire continental land volume.

    Not only is that terrible garbage fake science, it’s terrible garbage fake grammar as well. You’re even less coherent that usual.

    Now I know the water was above the highest mountain (elevation unknown) and terrain was not all an average level so let?s go back to OVER 8.9%.

    Really, this is completely confused sentence construction.

    Now we agree that mountains are formed by plate tectonic action, I just like to pretend that there’s no such thing as gradual formation and like to pretend that there were rapid geological changes during and after the magical tantrum by Big Juju which then slowed as things settled.
    Conclusion:
    Considering there is currently unknown volumes of subterranean water and also the information above, and also Big Juju can do magic, I would conclude that an inadequate amount of water today as “proof” against a global flood is a fallacy, because I like make-believe about Big Juju more than your “evidence” and “reality”, which are just too hard to understand..

    Fixed, more or less.

  546. #546 Josh
    March 14, 2009

    I knew I shouldn’t have gone to bed. I have a couple of drinks, chill for a bit at the end of a long week, and look what happens.

    *sigh*

    Alan wrote:

    What is scaring me about Josh is he doesn?t seem to know his own theory:

    What’s scaring me about Alan is that he doesn’t seem to know how to read.

    Others have jumped on this already, but since the majority of Alan’s most recent blithering was addressed to me I feel compelled to respond. My apologies for lengthening the thread with what might be seen as a redundant contribution. Nevertheless, that contribution is coming.

  547. #547 'Tis Himself
    March 14, 2009

    Alan Clarke wrote:

    For me it is actually quite challenging and interesting because I?m looking at the exact same evidences as you but I?m coming up with a different interpretation.

    You come up with a different interpretation by ignoring most of the evidence. Here’s a quote where you highlighted certain parts (I’ve bolded rather than highlighted because I don’t know the code for yellow):

    Over millions of years, rivers washed rocks and soil from existing mountains on the Indian subcontinent and nearby Asia into a shallow sea where the sediment was deposited on the floor.

    You’re ignoring the first phrase in this sentence: “Over millions of years”. Sediment wasn’t deposited for just a few months but for millions of years. The reason you come up with a different interpretation is that you’re quote mining. The sentence says something completely different from what you’re pretending it says.

    In short, you’re using a fradulent argument. How can you possibly expect us to accept what you’re trying to sell if you’re being blatantly dishonest?

  548. #548 Kel
    March 14, 2009

    Alan says he’s looking at evidence, but he’s ignoring the ~1023 stars that have been observed in the known universe. Just imagine if all those stars were within 6000 light years what effect that would have on the earth…

  549. #549 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 14, 2009

    As usual neither Alan nor RogerS provided anything remotely resembling evidence. And still no evidence for their imaginary creator. Ignorant wimps.

  550. #550 Josh
    March 14, 2009

    My reply to Alan here gets a bit repetitive to try to get some stuff to sink in–bystanders might want to move on.

    Alan copied my question (from #514) to him (this is me writing):

    Let me ask you this–how do you know that the rocks high on Mt. Everest are ancient seafloor? Have you seen them? Have you personally held a hand sample of this rock in your hand? Why do you believe those rocks are ancient seafloor? On what basis do you make your decision?

    The following text is Alan’s reply to me (notice that he didn’t actually answer my questions (apparently they’re too elementary to bother with)):

    Josh, the website that I used for my source of the Himalayan mountain formation is endorsed by the following organizations:

    CNN
    BBC
    Brittanica Online
    Discover Magazine
    National Geographic Society
    NOAA
    NASA
    National Science Teachers Association
    National Science Foundation
    Schools of California Online Resources for Education (SCORE)
    UC Berkeley
    USDA
    US Dept. of State
    USGS

    If you don?t agree with them, then perhaps you?re on the wrong side. Looking at all of those names and thinking of the money involved? Never mind.

    MY REPLY TO ALAN:

    Wow, Alan. Reading comprehension really isn’t your strength, is it? Or at the very least, you seem a little weak on the whole attention to detail bit. Perhaps, instead of you spending time on Pharyngula, we could suggest an online course that might help you improve those skills? Of course, doing something like that would fall into the general area of learning and, as we are repeatedly seeing, learning apparently makes the baby Jesus cry.

    Did you just happen to completely miss the first paragraph of that same comment (#514)? Let me remind you if you did. I wrote:

    Yeah, that’s terrific reasoning there, Alan. Use the evidence that supports the idea you had before looking at the evidence, but ignore those data that argue against the idea you walked in the door with before looking at the evidence.

    What? That wasn’t clear enough? Did I write that paragraph in language that was too complicated for you to understand? Well then let me clarify:

    I wasn’t disagreeing with the content in that website. I was pointing out to you, Alan, that you, Alan, had cherry-picked information in that website to agree with while simultaneously ignoring other information in that same website that you didn’t agree with. This isn’t something you get to do when you’re trying to make a scientific point (like assert that we haven’t falsified the flud hypothesis).

    Clear? No? Well, okay, then, let’s recap one more time:

    In comment #512, you posted a link (and also copied text) from a more or less responsible source that discusses specific aspects of the geological history of the Himalayas. You then did two things, using both text and highlighting.

    1. You used information that you took from that source to support your position.

    2. You denied information from that same source (indeed, in part from the same paragraph that you copied) that didn’t support your position (specifically, the age relationships of the rocks and events involved).

    You made the decision about which data to accept and which data to ignore based on the assumption that you had formed before you read the text. Cherry-picking data based on an a priori assumption is terrible reasoning in science (and I can call you on this because comment #514 was supposed to refute my assertion that we have falsified the flud hypothesis–a scientific discussion).

    Given that, and given that you have consistently demonstrated little to no understanding of geology in your comments on this blog,* I asked you if you had ever seen Himalayan geological samples first hand. I asked you this to try and get you to SEE that:

    You are deciding which geological evidence to accept and which to ignore based on your assumption that the flood happened. BUT YOU ARE NOT USING ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT ASSUMPTION TO MAKE YOUR CHOICES. You can’t do that. Not if you’re going to run around telling everyone that the flood hypothesis hasn’t been falsified while using our data to try and make your case. Cherry-picking the data you like and ignoring those you don’t isn’t playing by the rules of science. You are doing this while insisting that your argument about the flud is a scientific one. You’re being dishonest.

    The simple facts are:
    -You didn’t collect any of these data.
    -You haven’t seen the rocks, and you don’t know how to study them systematically anyway (would you even be able to identify a graywacke if I put a hand sample of it in front of you?).
    -You haven’t compared sequences to each other (Hell, do you even know how to read a strat column? How about a geological map? Seismic profile?).

    You’re sorting information that you didn’t collect and saying that “you guys are right over here, but you’re wrong over there” all the while ignoring that it was all done using the same methodology. And what’s more, you have shown us NO EVIDENCE that you have any basis what-so-ever in making the judgment in the first place. You say that you’re juggling two theories at once, but you’ve shown us over and over again that you have no idea what the hell you’re even talking about. Unless you can show us some valid evidence to support your rejection of radiometric age dating that is separate from your general assumption that it just can’t work, then your just being dishonest in your argument.

    As I’ve said before though, you don’t have to do any of this. You can simply rely on miracles and be done with it. You can explain the world by having god erase all evidence of the flood and create a deceptive rock record that indicates no flood happened. But if so, then stop talking about “evidence” and leave the rocks, and the science, alone. If you’re going to bring the rocks into it, then you need to be honest about what the they actually say. And you must play by the rules of science in making your case. So far, you’re not doing this. You’re cherry-picking data to support an assumption and calling it science. That’s fraudulent and it’s dishonest.

    *which is further demonstrated by this blurb of word salad from comment #539:

    Josh, in one of your posts, you wondered why if a single global flood accounted for most of the Earth?s sedimentary strata, then why isn?t there one single layer of deposition instead of many multiple layers? Because of the water?s height, the continents didn?t act as barriers to the tides. Each tidal shift could result in unabated tidal waves. It has been hypothesized that the sea shifts in some places may have achieved cataclysmic harmonic oscillation.

  551. #551 Josh
    March 14, 2009

    Alan wrote:

    Josh, in one of your posts, you wondered why if a single global flood accounted for most of the Earth?s sedimentary strata, then why isn?t there one single layer of deposition instead of many multiple layers? Because of the water?s height, the continents didn?t act as barriers to the tides. Each tidal shift could result in unabated tidal waves.

    You refer to tides. I presume this means that you’re talking about the local rise and fall of sea-level related to the gravitational attraction going on within the Earth/Moon/Sun system? And you’re relating this to “tidal waves?” You do realize, right, that we don’t really use “tidal waves.” The word is tsunami. And you also realize that tsunamis are not generated by this same Earth/Moon/Sun gravitational attraction that results in things like “high tide” and “low tide,” right? These are two very different animals.

    See perhaps:
    URL LINK: http://www.tsunami.noaa.gov/
    URL LINK: http://www.geophys.washington.edu/tsunami/general/physics/physics.html

    You also might realize that tsunamis produce a pretty distinct type of sedimentary deposit.

    See perhaps:
    URL LINK: unit.aist.go.jp/actfault/english/nature.pdf
    URL LINK: http://www.springerlink.com/content/t61530243j5065p1/
    URL LINK: http://www.springerlink.com/content/r081w3g4m7531qg4/
    URL LINK: geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/4/347-a
    URL LINK: http://www.nioz.nl/public/mcg/publications/van_den_bergh_2003.pdf

    If the hypothesis is that unabated “tidal waves” (=tsunamis) were responsible for lots of intracontinental deposition from a major worldwide deluge, then we should find ample evidence of tsunami deposits spread across the interiors of all of the continents. Indeed, you seem to be offering this up as a major mechanism of generating the sediments that veneer the continental interiors, so then we should expect to see a whole heck of a lot of these tsunami deposits.

    Can you provide citations for the reports describing numerous/vast/abundant tsunami deposits in the continental interiors? We can start with just North America if you like.

    It has been hypothesized that the sea shifts in some places may have achieved cataclysmic harmonic oscillation.

    Where were those hypotheses written down? Citations?

  552. #552 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 14, 2009

    Wow, a tsunami laying down an nice fine layer of sediment with no foreign inclusions. Wishful thinking at best, delusional thinking most likely. These guys don’t get it. There was no flud. Your feeble attempts to even demonstrate that there was one is both amusing and irritating. Amusing because of the comic value, irritating because of the way you lie about the evidence you present. As I said, quit lying to yourself that the evidence you cite supports the flud, and by not presenting that non-evidence you don’t lie to us.

  553. #553 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 14, 2009

    I’m still curious if RogerS and/or Alan can point me to the great geological even that took place sometime between 4400 years ago and at least recorded history in the Himalayas that caused the range to rise 8000 or so meters.

    Anything would be nice.

  554. #554 Kseniya
    March 14, 2009

    In short, you’re using a fradulent argument.

    Imagine that.

    With all the talk about how “OMG – a flood!” stories permeate all cultures, there’s been very little talk about how “Holy crap, look at that mountain range! That wasn’t there yesterday! Where the heck did THAT come from?” stories don’t.

    Just sayin’.

  555. #555 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 14, 2009

    One can only imagine the first guy that tripped over K2 while out walking his yak.

    “Holy shit, that wasn’t there last week. Someone have that removed.”

  556. #556 rogerS
    March 14, 2009

    Owlmirror #546, Not only is that terrible garbage fake science, it’s terrible garbage fake grammar as well. You’re even less coherent that usual.

    I actually welcome your comment and one by Janine that my grammer is lacking and that higher standards are expected when conversing with people of your caliber.

    I acknowlege my wife is also right that I should wear my glasses more often. Being up until 3:53 is unacceptable as well. I basically know what is required, but I sometimes just fail to do it, similar to a sinful nature. Striving against it requires constant vigilance.

  557. #557 Alan Clarke
    March 14, 2009

    Owlmirror: Not only is that terrible garbage fake science, it’s terrible garbage fake grammar as well. You’re even less coherent that [sic] usual.

    Terrible grammar? Less coherent that [sic] usual? This is the most extreme case of a cracked pot calling a kettle black that I have ever witnessed:

    Owlmirror: Ooga Booga! Believer in Big Juju know that Big Juju create flat world make world all bumpy after Big Flud! the magical tantrum by Big Juju and also Big Juju can do magic because I like make-believe about Big Juju more than your “evidence” and “reality”, which are just too hard to understand..

    My father lived through the depression, lost his mother at age 7 to tuberculosis, saved money carrying newspapers, paid for his own university education, became an officer in the Navy, paid 50% of the cost for sending every one of his four sons through the university. He died early from lung cancer even though he never smoked, probably from radiation during the atomic bomb development. Why do I know Owlmirror?s above paragraph would never have registered with my father? No science, no sense, no honor.

  558. #558 Brownian
    March 14, 2009

    paid 50% of the cost for sending every one of his four sons through the university.

    What a dishonor you are to him and the education he paid for.

  559. #559 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 14, 2009

    Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 14, 2009

    Owlmirror: Not only is that terrible garbage fake science, it’s terrible garbage fake grammar as well. You’re even less coherent that [sic] usual.

    Terrible grammar? Less coherent that [sic] usual? This is the most extreme case of a cracked pot calling a kettle black that I have ever witnessed:

    Owlmirror’s typo verses your avalanche of bad ideas. Yeah, that’s on equal footing.

    Owlmirror: Ooga Booga! Believer in Big Juju know that Big Juju create flat world make world all bumpy after Big Flud! the magical tantrum by Big Juju and also Big Juju can do magic because I like make-believe about Big Juju more than your “evidence” and “reality”, which are just too hard to understand..

    My father lived through the depression, lost his mother at age 7 to tuberculosis, saved money carrying newspapers, paid for his own university education, became an officer in the Navy, paid 50% of the cost for sending every one of his four sons through the university. He died early from lung cancer even though he never smoked, probably from radiation during the atomic bomb development. Why do I know Owlmirror?s above paragraph would never have registered with my father? No science, no sense, no honor.

    The facts of your father’s life does not distract from your abysmal use of facts, knowledge and ideas.

  560. #560 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 14, 2009

    Still avoiding the physical evidence for their imaginary god. TSK, TSK. Boys, there is a lot of avoidance going on, and no real evidence being presented to back up your inane assertions. Since no real evidence has been presented, we can’t even call it a hypothesis. So Alan, you are not a theoretician, but rather an assertician.

  561. #561 Ken Cope
    March 14, 2009

    My father lived through the depression, lost his mother at age 7 to tuberculosis, saved money carrying newspapers, paid for his own university education, became an officer in the Navy, paid 50% of the cost for sending every one of his four sons through the university. He died early from lung cancer even though he never smoked, probably from radiation during the atomic bomb development.

    And you, Alan Clarke, reward reward your father’s sacrifice by verbally pissing your pants in public here every day, pooting and pasting and drooling and burbling reams of cut and pasted fucktardery in order to leave no doubt in anybody’s mind about what a deeply demented fuckwit you are, you thread-jacking, god-botting waste of human life. Piss off and pollute somebody else’s blog, you insane, reality-denying moron.

  562. #562 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 14, 2009

    My father lived through the depression, lost his mother at age 7 to tuberculosis, saved money carrying newspapers, paid for his own university education, became an officer in the Navy, paid 50% of the cost for sending every one of his four sons through the university. He died early from lung cancer even though he never smoked, probably from radiation during the atomic bomb development.

    Which is a nice story, not un-similar to ones in my family.

    Now tell me again what that has to do with anything?

  563. #563 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 14, 2009

    Hey Alan and RogerS.

    Where’s that catastrophic geologic event that caused the rapid rising of the Himalayas to their current elevation that happened post “grat flud”?

  564. #564 Josh
    March 14, 2009

    Alan wrote:

    The wave motion accompanying 4 months of residing waters can create many layers of deposition. The major limestones were created far inland during this period by the amassed quantity of dead sea fauna.

    Like RogerS, you need to demonstrate that receding “flood” waters can deposit thick piles of carbonate (see my comment #479 above). We know how limestone forms. We’re watching it happen. We’ve been studying it for hundreds of years. You need to show evidence that four months of receding water can deposit thick sequences of carbonate rocks. You can’t just say that it did; you have to show that it can. Otherwise, our explanation for those thick limestone sequences wins and you’re back to a miracle (which, as I said, is fine–but if so then stop talking about evidence because then you’re being dishonest again).

    Then we have the problem that what we actually see veneering the continental interiors, in those places where there is limestone, is not just thick piles of limestone. Rather, we have interbedded sequences of precipitated carbonates (one flavor of limestone), bioclastic limestones, and clastic rocks (sandstones and mudrocks).

    For example, check out the photographs here (although first read this so the photos make sense http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/e/jea4/differential.html):

    URL LINK: snr.unl.edu/Data/images/kiewitz.jpg
    URL LINK: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/photogallery/geohammer.aspx
    URL LINK: http://www.uga.edu/~strata/sequence/monteagle10.jpg
    URL LINK: http://www.lakeneosho.org/King1Pic31-Tech.html
    URL LINK: http://www.geospectra.net/lewis_cl/geology/geology.htm
    URL LINK: http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/169/Imbrie/index.html
    URL LINK: http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Extension/fieldtrips/guidebooks/NEKS/figs/Heebner1.jpg
    URL LINK: http://www.geology.pitt.edu/GeoSites/site%20CANON%203-1new.htm
    URL LINK: astro.temple.edu/~andy/Contents/Research/Dorsetphotoimages/SHtop4th-in-3rd.jpg
    URL LINK: astro.temple.edu/~andy/Contents/Research/Dorsetphotoimages/DBcinder5th.jpg
    URL LINK: http://www.gsi.ie/NR/rdonlyres/BFB48D85-4F58-481B-8511-BF8B14EBE70D/0/doonbristy.jpg

    These aren’t the best pictures, I will freely admit (the intertubes are pretty crap for trying to do anything serious). If you want better ones, I’ll hunt around and find some. The point is, however, that limestones tend not to occur by themselves, so you need to explain how four months of receding flood waters can produce these kinds of interbedded sand, silt, and carbonate deposits.

    I’m also curious–is this deposition of carbonate a separate process from the “tidal waves” or is it the same one? Happening at the same time or at different times? Are we expecting to see mostly tsunami deposits overlain by carbonates or are we supposed to be seeing them together?

    Hydrologic sorting would occur but it would be interrupted by a multitude of local gigantic back washes during the four month period. Yellowstone Park?s Specimen Ridge is such an area that appears as multiple forests, one on top of another. The multiple layers are explained by multiple tidal actions and/or backwashes during assuaging flood waters. Why are the trees vertical? The uprooted trees were floating in vertical positions with the heavier rooted ends down, so they look as if they were ?planted?.

    I’ll address Specimen Ridge separately (as this is getting long), except to say that you do realize that any flud explanation you propose for Specimen Ridge needs to explain the geology in terms of the high percentage of volcanically derived sedimentary rocks and actual volcanic rocks that comprise that deposit, right? This isn’t new, either. It’s something we’ve known for a while…

    URL LINK: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1303535
    URL LINK: http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1130%2F0091-7613(1984)12%3C159%3AYFFNEF%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1
    URL LINK: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2422124

  565. #565 Alan Clarke
    March 14, 2009

    Janine: The facts of your father’s life does not distract from your abysmal use of facts, knowledge and ideas.

    This could very well be true. Nevertheless, regardless of whether I attain to my father?s example, or the greatest example ever, Jesus Christ, the latter example, as the former, indeed exists for all to partake.

    John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

  566. #566 Brownian
    March 14, 2009

    Actually, you’ve provided a warning against the dangers of life constructed around appeals to authority.

  567. #567 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 14, 2009

    Alan Clarke, in all honesty, when a person uses Scripture in order to justify their actions, I just move on past it. You may believe it is the last words in any situation but I see that as a sign the person has nothing to offer.

  568. #568 Ken Cope
    March 14, 2009

    Nevertheless, regardless of whether I attain to my father?s example, or the greatest example ever, Jesus Christ, the latter example, as the former, indeed exists for all to partake.

    I can’t figure out whether Alan Clarke, the cannibal cultist, is inviting us to partake of his father’s corpse, or partake of the corpse of zombie Jesus.

  569. #569 Alan Clarke
    March 14, 2009

    Janine, the scripture has condemned my actions many times and perhaps now. I’ll think about it. But what is your standard for living? Yourself? By your own admission you identify yourself as an “insulting sinner”. I know you take it as a joke, but a joke isn’t funny unless it is mixed with truth.

  570. #570 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 14, 2009

    Alan, we are atheists. You quoting the bible is just as authoritative as us quoting The Journal of Irreproducible Results. It says I have nothing, and I am trying to be funny.

  571. #571 Janine, Vile Bitch
    March 14, 2009

    The names I have used are insults that people have used for me. Do not try to imply that the names used by me is any reflection of any TRUTH you are fixated on.

  572. #572 Brownian
    March 14, 2009

    In either case Ken, Alan’s merely demonstrating his belief in sympathetic magic.

    He believes his proximity to the traits in those individuals (whether real or fictionalised is irrelevant) entail them in himself.

    It’s one of the reasons so many Christians fail to demonstrate any of the behaviours they themselves claim are integral to the religion. They don’t feel they need to.

    It’s the world’s largest high school clique in which everyone draws their status from being BFFs with Jesus, who they see as the coolest kid in school.

    Why bother being a good and decent human being when you’re tight with JC and can claim his rep as your own?

  573. #573 Rev. BigDUmbChimp
    March 14, 2009

    It’s the world’s largest high school clique in which everyone draws their status from being BFFs with Jesus, who they see as the coolest kid in school.

    Why bother being a good and decent human being when you’re tight with JC and can claim his rep as your own?

    Ahem,

    1″Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2″So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.5″And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

  574. #574 Ken Cope
    March 14, 2009

    And to amplify NoROM’s point, quoting from Moore’s graphic novel Watchmen would be more authoritative and truthful here than anything from your barbaric book, and would have the advantage of actually being on topic for this thread.

  575. #575 RamblinDude
    March 14, 2009

    Alan, was your father a creationist? Is that the problem here? You’re still trying to register with your father by tearing down science? Is that the reason you jump up and down pretending that you’re “juggling two theories” when all you’re doing is waving your hands about wildly?

    You have any idea how odd your non-sequitur was?

  576. #576 Janine, Queen of Assholes
    March 14, 2009

    But Ken, I would not understand what was going on.

  577. #577 Feynmaniac
    March 14, 2009

    My father was born in a third world country, eldest in a family of 9. He was very bright and went to medical school. During his studies a civil war erupted. His father and 8 month pregeant mother were killed. At the age of 19 he became the head of his family. He saw his homeland ruined from the war and his hometown suffered greatly from an earthquake. He later went to the United States as a war refugee.

    The US did not recognize his medical degree so he had to do medical school all over in Canada. During his time at medical school he had to also work enough hours to provide for his four kids, his 2 youngest brothers who lived with us and his wife. He eventually became a successful practicing physician.

    Since my appeal to emotion is more moving than yours the Great Flood never happened.

  578. #578 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 14, 2009

    Since my appeal to emotion is more moving than yours the Great Flood never happened.

    win

  579. #579 Ken Cope
    March 14, 2009

    He believes his proximity to the traits in those individuals (whether real or fictionalised is irrelevant) entail them in himself.

    That’s true, Brownian. It’s primate pack behavior, a beta animal hoping to obtain any leftover status, food and sexual partners, by finding the biggest bully and ingratiating himself in various humiliating ways.

    Rev. BigDUmbChimp, why do these Christains never, ever, get how to Matthew 6:6 it and clamp their piehole?

  580. #580 Matt Heath
    March 14, 2009

    Alan Clarke wrote

    the scripture has condemned my actions many times and perhaps now

    I do hope so. The Christian scripture is so hideous from a moral perspective that anyone who consistent acted in accordance with it would have to be a monster. Of course nearly no Christians do so and so they are able to be good people.

  581. #581 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 14, 2009

    Rev. BigDUmbChimp, why do these Christains never, ever, get how to Matthew 6:6 it and clamp their piehole?

    a la carte bible.

    It’s the new rage old hat.

  582. #582 CosmicTeapot
    March 14, 2009

    To the young earth cretinists

    From the Answer in Genesis web page – “Finally, to reiterate, while there are many kinds of trees that grow more than one ring per year, there is no evidence that adult bristlecone pines can ever do this.”

    When Prometheus, a bristle cone pine was cut down, 4,844 rings were counted on a cross-section of the tree, making Prometheus at least 4,844 years old, predating the date of the biblical flood by 500 years which occured in 2348 BC, according to James Ussher. Methuselah, another bristle cone pine is about the same age.

    And according to the AIG quote, they could not be younger due to multiple growth of rings in a year!

    So how did they survive a flood lasting over 100 days?

    When Noah let the dove out of the arc, it came back with an olive branch. How did the olive tree survive the flood?

    The 5th Egyptian dynasty lasted from 2465 BCE until 2323 BCE. The last pharoah of the dynasty, Unas, lived from 2356 BCE until 2323 BCE. 2348 BCE, the year of the biblical flood happened in the middle of his reign. What did he do for 100 days, tread water?

    So let me get this clear, history, geology, common sense, ice core dating, common sense, dendrochronology, cosmology, astronomy, common sense, physics, common sense, etcetra, etcetra all say the biblical account of the flood is wrong. And yet you still insist on believing these bronze age myths?

  583. #583 Ken Cope
    March 14, 2009

    But Ken, I would not understand what was going on.

    Wouldn’t that be because of what it says in the rulebook of the monster AC wants us to grovel at with him, that you wouldn’t understand because you’re onlyjustagurl?

  584. #584 Brownian
    March 14, 2009

    But what is your standard for living? Yourself?

    The problem that Christians fail to see with this line of attack is that they’d have to demonstrate that they actually possess the standard of living they claim to strive to.

    It’s easy to demonstrate (and has been done so ad nausea) that the Bible cannot provide such a standard, as it’s self-contradictory. Thus, at some point any believer has to choose which prescriptions to keep and which to discard. But what possible criteria can they use to make these decisions in a manner that’s consistent with the concept of a standard? You can’t use the Bible, because it’s already the source of inconsistency your’re trying to reconcile. (What do you do, play a numbers game? “OK, Jesus made forty-three “turn the other cheek”-like statements, but only twenty-two “I have come to set brother upon brother”-like statements, so “turn the other cheek” it is. Gee, thanks, Tome of Absolute Guidance!” Yet, amazingly, most Christian do exactly this when they make their vague references to the core tenets of Christianity.)

    There are two other possibilities. One can assume divine revelation, or one can assume some personal and wholly material source of revelation. The former is a nearly universal claim among theists, and it is its universality that weakens it. As Dawkins and others have pointed out, the strongest predictor of what you feel to be God’s own Truth is what your parents think it is. A fool can and does mistake his own certainty for Divine certainty in a world of conflicting Divine certainties, but only the truly out-of-touch are perplexed when their Divine certainty isn’t compelling to others. So without anything else to corroborate it, the claim that something is true because one feels it so certainly that God (or angels, or saints, or witches or demons or sprites or nymphs) must have put it there is incredibly unlikely to be true (and how could anyone know) and utterly meaningless as an argument.

    Thus we’re left with the most likely source of morality, the very one that Alan described as if to insult Janine, but is in fact the very same one he uses himself, namely one’s material self.

    How this is possible is an active field of study, with much evidence from the social and natural sciences to be analysed and tested, and is the subject of Hauser’s book “Moral Minds”. Since at this point Alan is ponderously studying his belly button, wondering to himself “but I gave them John 5:19. Those words are magic. Why aren’t they working?” and I’m just preaching to the choir, as it were, I’ll stop now.

  585. #585 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 14, 2009

    No. Because Elfquest, Buffy and Angel are the only comics I have followed regularly. And the last two was because of the shows. Let’s just say that went the geeks and Xander went off on comics, I had no idea what was going on.

  586. #586 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 14, 2009

    Brownian, I have tried to point out to some christians that on the issue of morality, plenty of people from non christian societies have lived moral lives. If that is the case, is it not possible that ethics is not connected to Jesus? It has been unsatisfactory. But I do thank you for going after the question. I took it as an insult and left it alone.

  587. #587 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 14, 2009

    Oh Elfquest. Damn I hadn’t heard that name in years.

  588. #588 RamblinDude
    March 14, 2009

    Brownian, nice.

  589. #589 Brownian
    March 14, 2009

    Well, it’s an argument that bears repeating, as it was an integral component aspect of my faith that I struggled with for two decades before it triggered my full-blown apostasy.

    Even as a whelp of single-digit age, I thought it suspicious that I believed in the one true religion because I was born to the right family. No amount of apologetic hand-waving can turn an arbitrary god into a just one, and what system of ethics worth following can be derived from serving an unjust god, other than to hope to curry favour for oneself at the expense of others?

  590. #590 RamblinDude
    March 14, 2009

    I read ElfQuest when it came out.

    (Hey, I’m complex, okay?)

  591. #591 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 14, 2009

    I read ElfQuest when it came out.

    Me too.

  592. #592 Ken Cope
    March 14, 2009

    I still have some Elfquest I inherited from an ex-girlfriend. As for Watchmen, it had been perhaps 15 years since I’d paid serious attention to a comic book when it came out and a co-worker gave me the first three issues and got me hooked again on comics for awhile. Watchmen really ought to be at your public library, and copies are certainly clogging the big chain bookstores now. It doesn’t require any familiarity with any particular universe of superheros, just an awareness of what the cliches are. I’m guessing though, that you’d probably have more fun starting with Neil Gaiman’s trade paperback collections of his Sandman run. Before committing to reading the series in order, you might look at Dream Country, collected independent stories, before you decide if you’d like to start at the story’s beginning.

  593. #593 Alan Clarke
    March 14, 2009

    Janine: The names I have used are insults that people have used for me. Do not try to imply that the names used by me is any reflection of any TRUTH you are fixated on.

    Janine, I assume you realize that words mean things, right? I assume you understand that when you type, there is information contained therein. You seem to abhor the idea that anyone can read between your lines. Don?t you do the same? Just look at what you?ve written: You?ve disclosed the fact that people in your environment, (whether by your choice or not) have hurled at you the following insults:

    Ignorant Slut
    Insulting Sinner
    Vile Bitch

    You used the word, ?insults?, so I take it that all of the above are interpreted by you as negative connotations. At least we agree on that. Presently, you adorn yourself with a placard hanging from your neck with no fewer than three names. My impression of my first psychology teacher (university level 101) was formed when I noticed each time he taught, he came with a different brand of cigarettes. He was unsettled in his choices but confided in me later that he was trying to stop smoking. As a young Christian, I was highly impressionable and immediately tuned to one particular contradictory cigarette brand he had chosen, ?True?. During the same period of time, I had a roommate from Chicago who lived in a continual state of debauchery. Illegal use of drugs required his father?s presence to bail him out of jail. Unrestrained sex resulted in his girlfriend having at least two abortions. I benefited by his life because he was always asking me to leave the room which left me with no options other than studying. When I became a Christian, I saw for the first time his untenable position when he justified himself by describing everything wrong with his girlfriend. After praying for strength to confront him, I did so and he retorted, ?You think you?ve got me figured out? You don?t. Nobody?s got me figured out. I hide myself so that nobody understands me.? You probably think I am paraphrasing or exaggerating his statement, because it almost sounds too childish or unbelievable, especially the admission of, ?I hide myself?? I couldn?t believe it either and thought perhaps my prayer had something to do with uncovering him completely.

    Janine, as much as you hate it, you are revealed by your words. Perhaps you can assemble something fancier than, ?I hide myself??, but why bother? If you take pleasure in insults, then please don?t take my words as such because that is not my intention. If you insist upon receiving me that way, then you can add ?Hidden Behind a Mask? to your list of identifying names.

    Rev 2:17 …To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

    Rev 3:12 …and I will write upon him my new name.

  594. #594 Janine, Disingenuous Jackass
    March 14, 2009

    Alan Clarke, I am revealing that fact that insults from fools do not bother me.

    I have no idea what the story about your roommate has to do with anything. And than ending with more scripture. Congratulations, you just gave me a pile of nothing.

    Nothing new there.

  595. #595 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 14, 2009

    For fuck’s sake Alan. Go back to mangling science. Your little parables you think are imparting some sort of lesson are not. They aren’t even really addressing anything.

    If anything they’re just allowing you to feel smugly self important.

    Plus shut up on these and get back to showing us how wrong you are on the science.

    Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.

  596. #596 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 14, 2009

    plus should be please.

    As In Please shut the fuck up with these lame ass personal stories that go no where and mean less.

  597. #597 Ken Cope
    March 14, 2009

    Even as a whelp of single-digit age, I thought it suspicious that I believed in the one true religion because I was born to the right family. No amount of apologetic hand-waving can turn an arbitrary god into a just one, and what system of ethics worth following can be derived from serving an unjust god, other than to hope to curry favour for oneself at the expense of others?

    That was part of my unease with it. When I was learning to read, I read the Bible almost as much as I read Silver Age comic books, and the moral minefield of the Bible made less sense to me than comics did. What really alarmed me was how few adults could read aloud in church from their holy book, much less profess to understand what they read. I was ready to abandon it until I discovered the woo section of the public library, became obsessed with ESP and Eastern Religions, and, just in time for 60′s psychedelic mysticism, stifled any nascent skepticism by deciding that the only problem with theism was that mainstream fundamentalist Xtianity had just gotten it all wrong. By the time my theism got sophisticated enough to prefer Zen to Vedanta, where I wouldn’t want any mental concept to blind me to an apperception of reality, it finally occurred to me that models and simulations built from the best scientific consensus had to be worth considering too. Getting them from Carl Sagan and his books and TV, and Richard Dawkins’ Selfish Gene and Blind Watchmaker was almost enough to snap me completely out of the woo, but once I started actually growing a brain and learning how to think for myself, apostasy was inevitable.

  598. #598 Josh
    March 14, 2009

    Brownian, #585 was well said. I enjoyed reading that. Thank you for it.

  599. #599 RamblinDude
    March 14, 2009

    Ken Cope,

    I was ready to abandon it until I discovered the woo section of the public library, became obsessed with ESP and Eastern Religions, and, just in time for 60′s psychedelic mysticism, stifled any nascent skepticism by deciding that the only problem with theism was that mainstream fundamentalist Xtianity had just gotten it all wrong.

    I?ve noticed this pattern in many others, including myself.

    Even after admitting what deep down I had figured out years before but was too afraid to think out loud?that Christians had tripped themselves up over Jesus, and that it was mostly bullshit, I was still saturated with supernatural thinking. I still lived in a world where Edgar Cayce could go into a trance and transmit information from the astral plane, and if he said that reincarnation happened then maybe reincarnation actually happened. And maybe his information on Atlantis and all the other goofy stuff he said should be looked at seriously because, you know, he was connected to the astral plane and all. And what about the Himalayan yogis, those guys that float in the air while they meditate and are guiding the spiritual progress of the world? Every New Age advocate knows there?s something to that?even though not one of them has ever, ever seen it.

    Religion inculcates one in a world of magical thinking that is very difficult to get out from under?even when you grow up with a deep appreciation of science!

    And now, even more years later, I?m finally realizing that the real world, with all it?s natural laws?and without all the supernatural, whimsical crap?is still just as mysterious as anything religion has ever come up with. Why existence? Why anything?

    There is one reality, and you either want to know what it is, and you love truth for its own sake?whatever it is?or you don?t. If you love the truth, and if you love the process of being as alert and aware as possible in order to be as perceptive as possible then watching people like our pals Alan and Roger here discard intellectual integrity in order to feel the emotional comfort of acquiescing to other people?s beliefs is incredibly disturbing.

  600. #600 Alan Clarke
    March 14, 2009

    Janine: Congratulations, you just gave me a pile of nothing.

    Where is your pile of “something”?

  601. #601 Reginald Selkirk
    March 14, 2009

    Baumgardner is six years senior in his doctorate than Bertsche and has spent much more time outside the world of academia at Berkley

    Right. Because in science, such questions are settled by seniority, not by the weight of the data, adherence to good technique, and replication of results.
    Odd that you should mention Baumgardner’s seniority, though. His career is based on doing computer models which support the standard scientific claim of an old moon. I don’t see how that necessarily prepares one for doing hands-on radio-isotope dating. As Larry Vardiman states, “there are no young-earth geochronologists in the world.” And Baumggardner’s time outside of academia does not seem to have helped him in being able to distinguish one type of rock from another, which seems a crucial capability for someone who aspires to overturn the entire field of geochronology.

  602. #602 Feynmaniac
    March 14, 2009

    Alan,

    Pharyngula isn’t here so people can read about your personal life. It’s here so so people can read about Walton’s. Stop telling your stories.

  603. #603 Alan Clarke
    March 14, 2009

    Owlmirror: Mark David Chapman was a religious Christian psychotic who hated Lennon because Lennon dared to suggest that he was more popular than Jesus Christ. Mark David Chapman thought that God wanted him to commit murder. Gee, who does that sound like?

    I?m surprised you go to such great lengths to find ?natural? explanations for every cause, but stop short in your inquiries of a person?s character as soon as your goals are reached. How can you call yourself a ?scientist? if your modus operandi is so obviously flawed? What did Chapman have in his possession at the murder scene besides a gun? What was his foundation for life? Jesus? The Bible? Or something else?

    Wikipedia ? ?Mark David Chapman?

    Chapman has been widely associated with the book The Catcher in the Rye, which he carried with him at the time and claimed would explain his perspective.

    A friend recommended The Catcher in the Rye to Chapman, and the story eventually took on great personal significance for him, to the extent that he reportedly wished to model his life after its protagonist, Holden Caulfield.

    Chapman developed a series of obsessions, including artwork, The Catcher in the Rye, music, and John Lennon, and started hearing voices again. In September 1980, he wrote a letter to a friend, Lynda Irish, in which he stated, “I’m going nuts”, and signed it “The Catcher in the Rye”.

    He reports having reenacted scenes from The Catcher in the Rye.

    Chapman bought a copy of The Catcher in the Rye from a New York bookstore, in which he wrote “This is my statement”, and signed “Holden Caulfield”.

    [Chapman Murders John Lennon with a Gun]

    Chapman remained at the scene, took out his copy of The Catcher in the Rye and read it until the police arrived.

    In February, Chapman sent a handwritten statement to The New York Times, urging everyone to read The Catcher in the Rye, calling it an extraordinary book that holds many answers.

    The defense lawyer said Chapman did not even appreciate why he was there. When Chapman was asked if he had anything to say, he rose and read a passage from The Catcher in the Rye.

    What could be more disingenuous and devious than to place Jesus Christ (?religious Christian psychotic?) at the root of Chapman?s disintegration? In a court of law, you would be referred to as a ?false witness?. This is what gives me confidence that the Bible is true. The same people who collaborated against Jesus 2000 years ago with false witnesses and accusations are among us today. Why would an innocent person be so maligned? Why is the image of Jesus? torn body hanging from a cross so despised? Answer: For unbelievers, his presence is a reminder of their failure. He was unwelcomed 2000 years ago. He is unwelcomed today. Half the world loves him. Half the world hates him. He is the most divisive character in human history.

    Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

  604. #604 Alan Clarke
    March 14, 2009

    Reginald Selkirk: Right. Because in science, such questions are settled by seniority, not by the weight of the data, adherence to good technique, and replication of results.

    Your cutting sarcasm has truth in it so I will withdraw my foolish appeal to “credentials” and “seniority”. After all, Jesus was only 33 years old when he had turned Palestine upside down. His formal education was nothing like the apostle Paul’s yet his teachings resound throughout the world after 2000 years. Why was he so different? His parents didn’t seem extraordinary.

  605. #605 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 14, 2009

    Alan, still irrelevant posts, and still no evidence for you deity. PZ is probably getting very bored with your avoidance, and potential banning is in store for such behavior. Either show your evidence or shut up. That is how science works. If you can’t put up the evidence or shut up, you are a liar and bullshitter. Right now you are lying and bullshitting. You need to stop lying to yourself that you have evidence, so you can stop lying to us with your continued avoidance.

  606. #606 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 14, 2009

    Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 14, 2009

    Alan,

    Pharyngula isn’t here so people can read about your personal life. It’s here so so people can read about Walton’s. Stop telling your stories.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Feymaniac winz the intertoobz!

  607. #607 Owlmirror
    March 14, 2009

    My father lived through the depression, lost his mother at age 7 to tuberculosis, saved money carrying newspapers, paid for his own university education, became an officer in the Navy, paid 50% of the cost for sending every one of his four sons through the university. He died early from lung cancer even though he never smoked, probably from radiation during the atomic bomb development.

    And yet he was also an atheist, according to you. You rejected his naturalistic outlook because he didn’t understand the emotional crisis you went through when you were younger and took barbituates with alcohol and then drove over your yard. Or something like that, according to you @#149 above.

    Of course, the last time you brought up your father, you had a psychotic breakdown a few posts later. Are you going to do that again?

    Why do I know Owlmirror?s above paragraph would never have registered with my father? No science, no sense, no honor.

    I absolutely agree that Creationism has no science, no sense, no honor. That’s why I wrote that mockery of it. That’s why it deserves to be mocked.

    Assuming you described him truthfully and correctly earlier, I’m pretty sure your father would have agreed that Creationism has no science, no sense, no honor — regardless of whether he would have openly mocked it or not.

  608. #608 brokenSoldier, OM
    March 14, 2009

    Alan Clarke:

    After all, Jesus was only 33 years old when he had turned Palestine upside down. His formal education was nothing like the apostle Paul’s yet his teachings resound throughout the world after 2000 years. Why was he so different? His parents didn’t seem extraordinary.

    Despite both his and all his followers’ (including you) claims to the contrary, his parents weren’t anything special. Just a carpenter and a lady.

  609. #609 RamblinDude
    March 14, 2009

    Alan:

    What could be more disingenuous and devious than to place Jesus Christ (?religious Christian psychotic?) at the root of Chapman?s disintegration?

    On the very same Wikipedia page that you cited was this:

    [?] Chapman was a fan of the Beatles, particularly Lennon, but was reportedly angered by Lennon’s infamous 1966 remark that the Beatles were “bigger than Jesus.” Jan Reeves, sister of one of Chapman’s best friends, reports that Chapman “seemed really angry toward John Lennon, and he kept saying he could not understand why John Lennon had said it. According to Mark, there should be nobody more popular than the Lord Jesus Christ. He said it was blasphemy.

    And this from ?Simple English Wikipedia?:

    “Chapman grew up in Georgia, and was a fan of The Beatles when they first became famous. He learned to play guitar and wanted to become a musician. He later became a Fundamentalist Christian, and his values changed. He came to believe the Beatles were a bad influence on people, John Lennon in particular, because of Lennon’s views on God and religion. When Lennon released his song “Imagine” in 1971, many Fundamentalists did not like it. Chapman parodied the song, singing it as “Imagine John Lennon dead.” And this: Chapman did not try to get away, and was reading a book, The Catcher in the Rye, when police came to the scene. They arrested Chapman, who later pled guilty to Lennon’s murder, telling the court God had told him to do so.

    What exactly was your point again about being ?disingenuous and devious? and being a ?false witness??

    You?re not used to dealing with people who actually do investigation, are you? You don?t even really get the concept of getting to the truth through investigation, do you?

  610. #610 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 14, 2009

    On the very same Wikipedia page that you cited was this:

    Wait, are you suggesting that Alan cherry picks bits of info from sources ignoring the rest of it and the actual conclusions to be formed correctly from it?

  611. #611 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 14, 2009

    Wait, are you suggesting that Alan cherry picks bits of info from sources ignoring the rest of it and the actual conclusions to be formed correctly from it?

    And he wonders why we don’t believe him. Alan, this is exactly what I mean when I said your should be the gatekeeper. Your failed in not looking at the bigger picture, which negated your idea. Hence you lied. That is called quote-mining, and is only used by liars and bullshitters. Guess what you own actions showed you to be?

  612. #612 Owlmirror
    March 14, 2009

    I?m surprised you go to such great lengths to find ?natural? explanations for every cause, but stop short in your inquiries of a person?s character as soon as your goals are reached.

    Hypocrite. Look what you left out:

    At age 16, Chapman became a born again Christian, and distributed Bible tracts.

    Chapman said God had told him to plead guilty and that he would not change his plea or ever appeal, regardless of his sentence. Marks told the court that he opposed Chapman’s change of plea but that Chapman would not listen to him since reporting having had two conversations with God on June 8 and June 10.

    Motivation and mental health

    Chapman was a fan of the Beatles, particularly Lennon, but was reportedly angered by Lennon’s infamous 1966 remark that the Beatles were “bigger than Jesus.” Jan Reeves, sister of one of Chapman’s best friends, reports that Chapman “seemed really angry toward John Lennon, and he kept saying he could not understand why John Lennon had said it. According to Mark, there should be nobody more popular than the Lord Jesus Christ. He said it was blasphemy.

    Chapman recalls having listened to Lennon’s Plastic Ono Band album in the weeks before the murder and stated: “I would listen to this music and I would get angry at him, for saying that he didn’t believe in God… and that he didn’t believe in the Beatles. This was another thing that angered me, even though this record had been done at least 10 years previously. I just wanted to scream out loud, ‘Who does he think he is, saying these things about God and heaven and the Beatles?’ Saying that he doesn’t believe in Jesus and things like that. At that point, my mind was going through a total blackness of anger and rage.

    Psychotic and Christian, both at the same time.

    This is what gives me confidence that the Bible is true.

    Your hypocrisy, psychosis, and lies give me ever-greater confidence that the bible is false.

    Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

    See? More hypocrisy, defeating your own argument: You cite one of the verses where Jesus calls for murder and war. I am sure that Mark David Chapman would have agreed with that verse; he would have proudly claimed that he was killing for Jesus.

    You are the false witness; you perjure yourself by your own testimony.

  613. #613 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 14, 2009

    Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM |

    Despite both his and all his followers’ (including you) claims to the contrary, his parents weren’t anything special. Just a carpenter and a lady.

    I can resist everything but temptation. You do know I have to do this.

  614. #614 Alan Clarke
    March 14, 2009

    Josh: Can you provide citations for the reports describing numerous/vast/abundant tsunami deposits in the continental interiors? We can start with just North America if you like.

    1) Athabasca Oil Sands (poorly explained by peat accumulation over millions of years)
    2) Morrison Formation
    3) Bedford Limestone (my home State of Indiana)

    Josh, I hope you understand by now that I am linking you to secular websites which will naturally interpret these evidences as being millions of years old, but the age is not what I am currently arguing. You wanted evidences of ?numerous/vast/abundant tsunami deposits in the continental interiors?. My position is that these were all created in a relatively short period of time during the global flood. One obvious feature of limestone is that it is composed of crushed and compressed skeletons of marine life. If you don?t think a catastrophe created the vast amount of limestone throughout the world, then could you please provide me a link with photo evidence of where it is being created today? If it isn?t ?being created?, then perhaps you could at least provide a link were it is in residence ?waiting to be created?. Keep in mind that limestone makes up about 10% of the total volume of all sedimentary rocks in the world.

    Alan: It has been hypothesized that the sea shifts in some places may have achieved cataclysmic harmonic oscillation.

    Josh: Where were those hypotheses written down? Citations?

    When I originally stated ?tidal? waves, I meant what I said but tsunamis are an abundant part of the global flood model as well. In the following article, look for the frequent use of the word ?resonance?.
    http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_jb_patternsofcirculation

  615. #615 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 14, 2009

    More lies from Alan the creobot, “I THINK NOT.”, Alan Clarke.
    Alan, I’ve been reviewing the sedimentation layers in the Michigan basin. Next door to your alleged home state (we take nothing you say at face value). You need to reconcile the whole Michigan Basin collection with a one-off tsunami. It just can’t be done. Otherwise, you can’t have the number of evaporite layers, most of which are used by a very large chemical company to make different chemicals depending on the composition of the salt layer. Stop lying to yourself Alan, then you can stop lying to us.

  616. #616 Wowbagger, OM
    March 14, 2009

    Cosmic Teapot, #583, wrote:

    So let me get this clear, history, geology, common sense, ice core dating, common sense, dendrochronology, cosmology, astronomy, common sense, physics, common sense, etcetra, etcetra all say the biblical account of the flood is wrong. And yet you still insist on believing these bronze age myths?

    I like to add ‘logic’ to this list. What I always ask creationists who mention the flood – and, funnily enough have never been answered – is why?

    Why did their god need to flood the earth?

    Why didn’t he just wave his magic wand and poof the bad people (and, presumably, bad animals and plants and bacteria etc.) away?

    Why did he need to have Noah take any animals anywhere when he could could have used aforementioned magic wand and poofed all new animals into existence, without anyone having to build a boat or make their kids spend countless hours shovelling elephant crap out of it?

    How is it that a being that could have created the universe had his power so severely retarded that he was limited to only the ability to talk, make it rain and create fucking rainbows?

  617. #617 Stanton
    March 14, 2009

    Alan, please explain why, if the Morrison Formation and the Indiana Limestone represent tsunami deposits from the Flood, then, how come no contemporary animals, such as porcupines, pronghorns or buffalo are intermixed with the dinosaur fossils, or why there are no modern marine animal remains found with the crinoids of the Indiana Limestone?

    Also, if these were tsunami deposits, then why do the crinoids tend to be intact, and not smashed to pieces by the violent wave action?

  618. #618 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 14, 2009

    Josh, I hope you understand by now that I am linking you to secular websites which will naturally interpret these evidences as being millions of years old, but the age is not what I am currently arguing.

    Oh for fucks’ sake.

    Without looking at any of those in the light of the correct time scale, they do not make sense.

    You should maybe go to the emergency room. The holes you are shooting in your own feet must be bleeding pretty seriously by now.

    My position is that these were all created in a relatively short period of time during the global flood.

    Your “position” doesn’t mean shit if you can not back it up with a something that explains the shorter time scale. Something backed by actual empiricism. Something you have not done.

  619. #619 Alan Clarke
    March 14, 2009

    Owlmirror: Hypocrite. Look what you left out: At age 16, Chapman became a born again Christian, and distributed Bible tracts.

    So this is what drove him to kill? Or is it the abandonment of Christian principles that drove him to kill? Jesus taught “Do good to those who despitefully use you. Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek.” and “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” The law teaches, “Thou shalt not kill.”

    So you must be way off track. I think his downfall was embracing the philosophy of “The Catcher in the Rye”. Isn’t the winner of a race determined by how a person finishes? Using your philosophy, we should close the book on everyone’s fate when they confess a childhood sin. Or should we release from prison every individual who performed a good dead in their youth? I’m telling you Owlmirror, you have an axe to grind with Christianity. Your hate for it has blinded you to any possible objectivity. You are looking at it as being the root of all evil. You got burned somewhere early in life and now your life’s goal is to make everyone share equal in your misery. You are as equally religious and devoted as I (maybe more). The only difference is the god you worship.

  620. #620 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 14, 2009

    Alan, in dealing with the Michigan basin, you have to allow for four stages of glaciation to account for all the surface features. Also, keep in mind that north America has been populated for at least 13,000 years, if not 30,000 years. Oral records of the alleged flud should be there from all the tribes.
    You do have the ability to just fade into the bandwidth. I suggest you do so.

  621. #621 Ichthyic
    March 14, 2009

    and create fucking rainbows?

    “Get outta my ass you stupid rainbows!”

  622. #622 Wowbagger, OM
    March 14, 2009

    Alan Clarke frothed at the mouth:

    I’m telling you Owlmirror, you have an axe to grind with Christianity. Your hate for it has blinded you to any possible objectivity. You are looking at it as being the root of all evil. You got burned somewhere early in life and now your life’s goal is to make everyone share equal in your misery. You are as equally religious and devoted as I (maybe more). The only difference is the god you worship.

    Ladies and gentlemen (and Christians) – I present to you the twin failings of egocentrism and projection!

    He’s devoted to truth, Alan – and, despite the bleating of the religious, truth has nothing whatsoever to do with gods, yours or anyone else’s.

  623. #623 'Tis Himself
    March 14, 2009

    If heavy rains were falling and tsunamis were sweeping hither and yon on the waters upon which the ark was floating, how did the ark remain in one piece? I spent several years at sea in the Navy and I’ve raced sailboats in ocean races. I can tell you from experience that even a large ship is not safe in a major storm.

    Here’s a picture of the heavy cruiser USS Pittsburgh having lost her bow in a 1945 typhoon. Pittsburgh was built of steel, was 673 feet long and displaced 13,700 tons. She was a whole lot larger than Noah’s ark. She was in the typhoon for less than two days.

    It was a miracle that the ark didn’t sink during the flood.

  624. #624 Sven DiMilo
    March 14, 2009

    wow…the colors, man…the colors…

  625. #625 Alan Clarke
    March 14, 2009

    Nerd of Redhead: Alan, in dealing with the Michigan basin, you have to allow for four stages of glaciation to account for all the surface features.

    Got it covered:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/where-does-ice-age-fit

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/?q=ice+age

    And remember, in your theory, you have to account for why limestone isn’t being currently formed. How about granite? I don’t think it can even be manufactured in a laboratory. Those nasty polonium halos are buggers.

  626. #626 Kel
    March 14, 2009

    Science is not a religion as science changes as more evidence is found and new ideas come through to explain the evidence better. Religion on the other hand has a pre-conceived conclusion. When there are 1023 stars in our universe, some of which are 13 billion light years away – it demonstrates that the universe is both big and old. To call for a young earth / universe is manifestly false. This says nothing about the existence of God. So what do we get from Alan here? A denial of evidence in order to keep his pre-conceived conclusion.

  627. #627 Alan Clarke
    March 14, 2009

    Nerd of Redhead: Alan, in dealing with the Michigan basin, you have to allow for four stages of glaciation to account for all the surface features.

    Got it covered:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/where-does-ice-age-fit

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/?q=ice+age

    And remember, in your theory, you have to account for why limestone isn’t being currently formed. How about granite? I don’t think it can even be manufactured in a laboratory. Those nasty polonium halos are buggers.

  628. #628 Janine, Insulting Sinner
    March 14, 2009

    With AIG, he has it covered.

    ‘snicker’

  629. #629 Josh
    March 14, 2009

    1) Athabasca Oil Sands (poorly explained by peat accumulation over millions of years)

    Let’s start with this one. I wasn’t previously familiar with this unit, but some quick checking provided an indication of the overall sedimentary character. Seems to be a pretty uniform sand, probably deposited in a braided river environment proximal to the coast (i.e., sea-level was higher at the time).

    Mossop GD, 1980, Geology of the Athabasca Oil Sands. Science 207:145-152, described the sorting (page 145) of the sandstone making up the unit as follows:

    Sorting. Most of the reservoir stands in the Athabasca Deposit are moderately well sorted (Fig. 4), meaning that a large percentage of the grains are approximately the same size. The small amount of matrix fines, which would tend to occlude the pore space between the modal grains, is a principal reason for the excellent reservoir quality of the sands.

    Pemberton, SG et al., 1982, Trace Fossils from the Athabasca Oil Sands, Alberta, Canada. Science 217, 825-827, described the rock as:

    Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the three facies that characteristically make up the McMurray Formation sequence at outcrop: thick-bedded sands at the base, grading into epsilc cross-strata, overlain by horizontally bedded argillaceous sands.

    They also (page 826) discuss the likely environment of deposition as being river channel bars:

    A typical set consists of decimeter-to-meter-thick beds of fine sand separated by thin partings of argillaceous silt; individual beds are remarkably continuous and uniform from the base to the top of the set, and subtle fining upward within the set is manifest in part by an upward decrease in mean sand size but in greater part by an upward increase in the proportion of silty partings (2). These units have been interpreted as representing lateral accretion deposits, laid down on the sloping flanks of channel-margin bars in very large channels (5, 6).

    See also:
    URL LINK: www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119543871/abstract
    URL LINK: search.datapages.com/data/doi/10.1306/AD462BAF-16F7-11D7-8645000102C1865D
    URL LINK: bcpg.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/1/178

    I couldn’t find any indication that there were tsunami deposits within this unit.

    Remember, tsunamis make a mess. This is a very high energy event. We’re going to expect to see a sequence with an initial depositional phase (the highest energy depositional phase) that’s just all fucked up. Extremely poorly sorted (a jumble of particles of different sizes, with sand and pebble and cobble and silt sizes all mixed together) with lots of detritus (plant pieces at least) mixed in. Quite possibly chunks of other rocks units that have been ripped up and redeposited as part of this new deposit. On top on top of this basal horizon, there might be a thick sand overlain by muds (as the tsunami water began to lose energy and drop smaller and smaller grain sizes of particles in sequence) depending on how much water and how long it took to recede, but there will be that initial high energy phase.

    The Athabasca Oil Sands seems to be pretty much the opposite of what we expect a tsunami to do (check those sources I provided earlier).

    Can you provide me some links/citations of reports where people have identified what they think are tsunami deposits in the Athabasca Oil Sands? What I’d really like to see is a strat column.

  630. #630 Ichthyic
    March 14, 2009

    why limestone isn’t being currently formed.

    wtf?

    ever heard of cocolithophores and forams?

    Limestone is being formed in massive amounts as I write this, and has been continuously forming such for hundreds of millions of years.

    In fact, if those little buggers didn’t exist to fix CO2 into an inert form, I doubt you would even exist.

    that’s the problem with getting your info from AIG. Not only do you only get one small part of the story, even THAT part is most often wrong.

    pathetic.

  631. #631 Sven DiMilo
    March 14, 2009

    Fuck! Alan knows about the Polonium halos! The jig is up; we might as well throw in the towel. We’re fucked: he’s found our Achilles heel. Damn it!

  632. #632 Josh
    March 14, 2009

    And remember, in your theory, you have to account for why limestone isn’t being currently formed.

    But it is currently being formed. Who told you it wasn’t?

    check out the links I provided above in comment #479
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/science_of_watchmen.php#comment-1463469

    What’s next?

  633. #633 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 14, 2009

    Alan, Still a liar and bullshitter. AIG is equivalent to you quoting your bible. (See talkorigins for refutation.) That is, nothing of consequence, already shown to be false. Why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot? Stupidity perhaps? Or just wishful thinking of a deluded idiot?

    Still to physical evidence for your imaginary deity. You can’t avoid not showing evidence forever. You will have to put up or shut eventually. The sooner the better. If you want us to take you seriously, stick to the peer reviewed primary scientific literature, and don’t quote-mine.

  634. #634 Josh
    March 14, 2009

    How about granite?

    You’ve never been to the Cascades, huh?

  635. #635 'Tis Himself
    March 14, 2009

    For some reason the picture of the bowless Pittsburgh didn’t link. Here’s another picture that should link.

  636. #636 tresmal
    March 14, 2009

    Talkorigins on polonium halos.

  637. #637 Ichthyic
    March 14, 2009

    if those little buggers didn’t exist to fix CO2 into an inert form

    more accurately:

    fix CO2 into a non-soluble or non-circulating form.

    whether it’s inert or not is irrelevant.

  638. #638 Ken Cope
    March 14, 2009

    RamblinDude @600:

    I still lived in a world where Edgar Cayce could go into a trance and transmit information from the astral plane, and if he said that reincarnation happened then maybe reincarnation actually happened.

    What a gateway drug that Edgar Cayce bullshit was! I was so into Cayce that I checked out and read Plato’s Republic, right after Ignatius Donnelly’s Atlantis, while gobbling up as much Heinlein and Tolkien as I could get my hands on. So, I’ll see your Cayce, and raise you a T. Lobsang Rampa (who was an inspiration for a Pterry Night Watch story) and a Urantia Book. Joseph Campbell eventually talked me down from all that, making me realize that myth is metaphor and truthiness can be independent of facts; why rob a story of its magic by being a literalist demanding that it be merely factual dry documentary? Finally, what people are doing now in the real world is so much more astonishing than any of those bronze-age goat-herding campfire tales could ever be, stories that so held me under their sway when I was younger and more credulous. It’s only taken me a lifetime to recover, treasuring the capacity to think critically, out here beyond the pale.

    I’m glad I’ve still got my comic books though. There is more and superior ethical and moral exploration in the comic books of the last 50-60 years than in anything contained in 2000 year old Jesus Comix, plus, nobody expects you to believe that they actually, really, literally happened.

  639. #639 Kseniya
    March 15, 2009

    I can’t believe we’re in a 600-comment thread with people who support their claims by linking to AIG.

    Well, I hope the lurkers get something out of it.

    Josh for Pharyngulan Geology Department Head!

  640. #640 RamblinDude
    March 15, 2009

    I was so into Cayce that I checked out and read Plato’s Republic, right after Ignatius Donnelly’s Atlantis, while gobbling up as much Heinlein and Tolkien as I could get my hands on.

    Heh. Oh yeah, Heinlein and Tolkien!

    I’ll see your T. Lobsang Rampa and raise you Carlos Castaneda. His books were pure magic for me. The ideas he explored and the characters he wrote about were (and still are) incredibly appealing to me, but for the longest time I was in limbo as to whether they were actually true or not (non-organic beings? Leaping from a cliff into an abyss?) Finally, the critical thinking skills developed (thanks to people like James Randi) and I had to admit they were works of fiction. I still feel let down.

    One thing is great about being a hard-nosed truth-seeker, though: the lack of fear. I?m not afraid to say ?I don?t care? when told that Jesus died for my sins. What a relief.

  641. #641 Josh
    March 15, 2009

    Keep in mind that limestone makes up about 10% of the total volume of all sedimentary rocks in the world.

    Do you have a source for this 10% figure? Does it refer to ancient carbonates only or does it include modern? Marine limestones only or also freshwater? Cave deposits? What about hot-water precipitated limestones (travertines) like the ones being deposited in Yellowstone today? Since something like 75% of the entire world’s surface is covered with sedimentary material* and a large percentage of that is in the ocean, I would think that 10% is a rather low estimate.

    *see, for example,
    Nichols G., 1999, Sedimentology and Stratigraphy. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
    Blatt et al., 1980, Origin of Sedimentary Rocks. Prentice-Hall, Englewood.

  642. #642 Wowbagger, OM
    March 15, 2009

    I think the name ‘Polonium Halo’ would be an awesome name for a band – or, failing that, the title of an album.

  643. #643 CosmicTeapot
    March 15, 2009
  644. #644 Josh
    March 15, 2009

    I think the name ‘Polonium Halo’ would be an awesome name for a band – or, failing that, the title of an album.

    I think it would make a terrific album title.

    Okay, before we return to tsunamis, just a couple of housekeeping details:

    1. In #615, Alan wrote: 1) Athabasca Oil Sands (poorly explained by peat accumulation over millions of years).

    Alan, when I discussed the sedimentology of the Athabasca Sands in #630, I neglected to address your parenthetical about peat. However, in looking through the literature, I couldn?t find any support for the idea that these deposits resulted from peat accumulation. I actually found no mention of it at all. So, while you?re hunting around for references that report on probable tsunami deposits in the Athabasca, could you also please get the source that proposed peat accumulation as a probable formation history for these deposits? Thanks.

    2. In #615, Alan also wrote:

    Josh, I hope you understand by now that I am linking you to secular websites which will naturally interpret these evidences as being millions of years old, but the age is not what I am currently arguing.

    Alan, I do understand that, and I?m willing to let it go for the moment and just talk about rock types. HOWEVER, if I do that, you need to understand that we?re only talking about half of the story and we?re back to my comment #551, which you might want to read again (I also refer you to similar comments from others on the same issue). To recap: if you just grab rock type information from a source and then present that source to me, then you?re not evaluating the source?s accuracy. You?re just trusting that the folks who put that information together got it right. So, to trust the source and cherry-pick the information that supports your flood hypothesis while at the same time ignoring, say, paleoenvironmental interpretations or age interpretations that argue against your flood hypothesis, is dishonest. In short, you need to SHOW ME that you have some reason to accept rock information from a ?secular? source while rejecting radiometric age dating interpretations from that same source other than your a priori assumption that a flood happened.

    Right. Okay, back to tsunami deposits:
    I wrote:

    Can you provide citations for the reports describing numerous/vast/abundant tsunami deposits in the continental interiors? We can start with just North America if you like.

    Alan replied, in #615,

    2) Morrison Formation

    and cited Blabbapedia.

    *sigh*

    The Morrison Formation, Alan? Seriously? The Morrison?
    Okay, first, go back and re-read the links I provided you in #552. I didn’t put those links in there for me; I already know this stuff. I put them in there for you.

    Second, read these:

    URL LINK: contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd1392.pdf
    Spend some time comparing the strat columns in here with those in the links I provided in #552 (especially that Nature article). It doesn’t matter if you understand all of the symbols; what matters is that the symbols are very different. Also study the photographs in this thesis. Does this lithology look anything like what I was describing in #630?

    URL LINK: http://www.wyomingpaleo.org/pubs/papers/Lovelace_2006_DebrisFlow.pdf

    This paper actually discusses a debris-flow deposit. Again, though, does this seem like something a tsunami would do? Look also at the rocks around the flow deposit? High energy or low energy?

    URL LINK: bio.fsu.edu/~amarquez/Evolutionary%20Morphology%20fall%202004/Dodson/180-%20Dodson%20et%20al%201980%20-%20taphon%20&%20paleoecol%20Morrison%20Fm.pdf

    This paper is a classic. I know you’re not a geologist, but you can understand what the Lithology & Texture column of Table 2 is talking about. If not, then ask. Dodson et al. (1980) surveyed a lot of Morrison outcrop to produce this work. Where is the indication of high-energy crazy tsunami-type deposits therein?

    We’ve been working on the Morrison for like 170 years. It is one of the most well-studied surface-cropping sedimentary units in North America. We have this formation basically figured out in the broad scale. The environments of deposition were proximal to the coast at the time, so it’s entirely possible that we’ve got tsunami deposits somewhere within it. Where are they? The Morrison isn’t what I personally work on, so if those papers are out there, I have likely missed them. Can you produce citations?

    If you’re going to try and assert that the entire formation represents a tsunami, well than I’ll go out on a limb and just say you’re wrong. That interpretation is completely contrary to the evidence at hand. But a couple of them within it? Sure–could be. Why not? Where are they? Show me the papers. There’s a ton of stuff out there. Do a Google search on Morrison Formation and sediment and go to war. I’ll wait.

    A related question, of course, is that if you’re under the impression that the entire formation represents a tsunami deposit, then why do you think that? Where did you get that idea from? Please provide that citation, because I have simply got to see the mental gymnastics that the authors went through to arrive at that interpretation.

  645. #645 David Marjanovi?, OM
    March 15, 2009

    Kel, welcome to the world of ?science?. All theorists look for data that supports their positions. Do you seriously think you are exempted?

    It cannot be stressed often enough.

    Scientists look for evidence that disproves their positions. And when they fail, they publish, so that other people can help them look!

    Scientists are nothing, nothing, nothing but nattering, nitpicking, nagging, naysaying nabobs of negativity. I know what I’m talking about — I am one! :-) You should try it sometime, it’s fun. :-)

    The reason is that science cannot prove, only disprove — so, what scientists do all day is to try to disprove everyone else’s hypotheses and first of all their own. When confronted with a conclusion, scientists ask if it really follows from the data, and if so, if it’s the only conclusion that follows from the data, and if that’s not the case, they ask if it’s the most parsimonious conclusion that follows from the data; when confronted with data, scientists ask “is that really the case?”.

    Scientists know that the easiest person for you to fool is yourself. Science is nothing but a workaround around this very problem.

    Now go read the article on radiometric dating, you incredible coward.

    Will Athiesm take you further than you want to go?
    This is long but you need t