Pharyngula

Posted by: Grumpy | February 24, 2009 10:46 PM

Still halfway through his book.

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

Posted by: Richard Wolford | February 24, 2009 11:06 PM

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.

Posted by: terrylong | February 24, 2009 11:15 PM

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

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 24, 2009 11:18 PM

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.

Posted by: TigerHunter | February 24, 2009 11:21 PM

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

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 24, 2009 11:33 PM

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.

Posted by: GAZZA | February 24, 2009 11:44 PM

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.

Posted by: Theo | February 24, 2009 11:51 PM

Sold me a ticket!

Posted by: Kitty'sBitch | February 25, 2009 12:05 AM

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.

Posted by: Daniel | February 25, 2009 12:06 AM

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?

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 25, 2009 12:15 AM

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.

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 25, 2009 12:36 AM

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.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 25, 2009 12:56 AM

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?

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 25, 2009 1:03 AM

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.

Posted by: Daniel | February 25, 2009 1:27 AM

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.

Posted by: Ri-chan | February 25, 2009 1:57 AM

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.

Posted by: Ri-chan | February 25, 2009 2:00 AM

And by "rarely", I mean "never".

Posted by: Twin-Skies | February 25, 2009 2:16 AM

@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

Posted by: GAZZA | February 25, 2009 2:31 AM

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?

Posted by: Andyo | February 25, 2009 2:41 AM

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.

Posted by: Andyo | February 25, 2009 4:04 AM

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.

Posted by: Chris Davis | February 25, 2009 4:57 AM

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.

Posted by: John S. Wilkins | February 25, 2009 5:32 AM

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

Posted by: Robert Maynard | February 25, 2009 6:37 AM

@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.

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | February 25, 2009 7:16 AM

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.....

Posted by: Yair | February 25, 2009 7:24 AM

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.

Posted by: MH | February 25, 2009 7:57 AM

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.

Posted by: Cruithne | February 25, 2009 8:06 AM

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.

Posted by: N | February 25, 2009 9:14 AM

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.

Posted by: Matt Heath | February 25, 2009 9:33 AM

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).

Posted by: DGKnipfer | February 25, 2009 9:40 AM

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.

Posted by: Matt Heath | February 25, 2009 9:58 AM

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.

Posted by: Phoenix Woman | February 25, 2009 10:05 AM

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."

Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 25, 2009 10:23 AM

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.

Posted by: Frank Snow | February 25, 2009 10:30 AM

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

Dammit.

Posted by: Steve_C | February 25, 2009 10:35 AM

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.

Posted by: Matt Heath | February 25, 2009 10:42 AM

DOH! "wasn't comparing as such". @Frank Snow: Can I borrow your spare "not".

Posted by: Franz | February 25, 2009 11:02 AM

rrt@62:

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

Posted by: E.V. | February 25, 2009 11:11 AM

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

Posted by: Robyn Slinger | February 25, 2009 11:24 AM

"Logicomix", by Apostolos Doxiadis et al.

Posted by: E.V. | February 25, 2009 11:26 AM

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

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 25, 2009 11:30 AM

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

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 25, 2009 11:34 AM

Soz, worst link ever: Big Dumb Ring

Posted by: Frank Snow | February 25, 2009 12:04 PM

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?

Posted by: DGKnipfer | February 25, 2009 12:12 PM

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.

Posted by: Matt Heath | February 25, 2009 12:32 PM

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

Posted by: Bill Dauphin | February 25, 2009 12:38 PM

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.

Posted by: Bachalon | February 25, 2009 1:08 PM

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.

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 25, 2009 1:20 PM

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.

Posted by: Cruithne | February 25, 2009 2:14 PM

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.

Posted by: MH | February 25, 2009 3:19 PM

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.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | February 25, 2009 3:30 PM

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?

Posted by: rrt | February 25, 2009 4:06 PM

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

Posted by: Dan L. | February 25, 2009 4:31 PM

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.

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 25, 2009 5:08 PM

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.

Posted by: Colin | February 25, 2009 8:21 PM

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.

Posted by: Colin | February 25, 2009 9:13 PM

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…).

Posted by: Stephanie W. | February 26, 2009 5:45 AM

#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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 26, 2009 1:23 PM

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.

Posted by: E.V. | February 26, 2009 1:47 PM

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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 26, 2009 2:17 PM

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!

Posted by: Stephen Wells | February 26, 2009 5:02 PM

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

Right.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin | February 26, 2009 6:29 PM

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.

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 26, 2009 6:36 PM

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.

Posted by: Bachalon | February 26, 2009 7:51 PM

Bill, are you still interested in talking?

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 26, 2009 10:06 PM

Watchmen is the new Titanoboa.

Posted by: Kel | February 26, 2009 10:13 PM

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

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 26, 2009 10:35 PM

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

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 26, 2009 11:33 PM

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.

Posted by: Ragutis | February 27, 2009 1:03 AM

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.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 27, 2009 2:14 AM

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.

Posted by: Ragutis | February 27, 2009 3:26 AM

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.

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 27, 2009 10:59 AM

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?

Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 27, 2009 4:13 PM

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?

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

Posted by: tony | February 27, 2009 4:42 PM

Ken@150: ROFL!

Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 28, 2009 3:24 PM

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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | February 28, 2009 9:07 PM

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?

Posted by: Kel | February 28, 2009 9:40 PM

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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 1, 2009 2:02 AM

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.

Posted by: Ragutis | March 1, 2009 2:37 AM

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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 1, 2009 10:15 PM

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.

Posted by: Wowbagger | March 1, 2009 10:30 PM

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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 2, 2009 1:45 AM

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.

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 2, 2009 2:18 AM

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

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 2, 2009 2:49 AM

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."

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 2, 2009 3:12 AM

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?

Posted by: Wowbagger | March 2, 2009 3:38 AM

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?

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 2, 2009 4:03 AM

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.

Posted by: Ragutis | March 2, 2009 4:32 AM

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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 2, 2009 2:41 PM

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.

Posted by: E.V. | March 2, 2009 2:47 PM

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.

Posted by: Steve_C | March 2, 2009 2:55 PM

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

Posted by: CJO | March 2, 2009 3:08 PM

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?

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 2, 2009 4:25 PM

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)

Posted by: Kel | March 2, 2009 4:37 PM

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.

Posted by: Kel | March 2, 2009 4:42 PM

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...

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 2, 2009 4:46 PM

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.

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 2, 2009 5:12 PM

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.

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 2, 2009 5:19 PM

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 "ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ" appear to be missing from the text; "and it is suggested that these words were inadvertently dropped through haplography."

Posted by: CJO | March 2, 2009 5:50 PM

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?

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 2, 2009 6:01 PM

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.

Posted by: Wowbagger | March 2, 2009 6:20 PM

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.

Posted by: Watchman | March 2, 2009 6:36 PM

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.

Posted by: Kel | March 2, 2009 6:41 PM

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.

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 2, 2009 6:44 PM

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.

Posted by: E.V. | March 2, 2009 6:50 PM

the inconvenient discovery of a living coelacanth....

(Oh Alan. What a fucking moron. hahahahahahahahahahahhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa)

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 2, 2009 8:29 PM

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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 2, 2009 10:33 PM

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)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 2, 2009 10:49 PM

Why don’t you just accept the scientific data? Instead of 100 my, the diamonds are 70K years old.

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.

Posted by: Kel | March 2, 2009 10:55 PM

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.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 2, 2009 11:10 PM

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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 3, 2009 4:48 PM

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.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 3, 2009 5:03 PM

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.

Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 6:53 PM

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

Posted by: Watchman | March 3, 2009 7:03 PM

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.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 3, 2009 7:33 PM

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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 3, 2009 8:51 PM

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.

Posted by: Kel | March 3, 2009 8:58 PM

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

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

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”.

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 4, 2009 2:17 AM

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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 4, 2009 3:30 AM

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.

Posted by: Ragutis | March 4, 2009 5:22 AM

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?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 4, 2009 9:59 PM

Alan, still quoting your fictional bible. Bad form.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 4, 2009 10:09 PM

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.

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 4, 2009 10:26 PM

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.

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 4, 2009 10:44 PM

"Hrrmm." Roger Ebert's review

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 5, 2009 12:47 AM

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.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | March 5, 2009 3:50 AM

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?

Posted by: Matt | March 5, 2009 1:45 PM

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

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 5, 2009 4:32 PM

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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 5, 2009 5:12 PM

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?

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 6, 2009 1:11 AM

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

Posted by: Ken Cope | March 6, 2009 1:57 AM

...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.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 6, 2009 2:29 AM

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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 6, 2009 12:46 PM

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

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 6, 2009 1:41 PM

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.

Posted by: Knockgoats | March 6, 2009 1:56 PM

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!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 7, 2009 12:40 AM

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.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 7, 2009 8:26 AM

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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 7, 2009 10:34 PM

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.

Posted by: Kel | March 7, 2009 10:50 PM

Oh, but Nerd, AGW denialist Michael Crichton said SETI is "unquestioningly" a religion, and he's famous, so he must be right!

Posted by: Kel | March 7, 2009 10:57 PM

1) Sun & Moon are exact same size from Earth’s perspective.

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 7, 2009 11:23 PM

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.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 7, 2009 11:53 PM

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.

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 8, 2009 12:17 AM

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.

Posted by: Kseniya | March 8, 2009 1:15 AM

I wonder if Alan Clarke knows Nat Weeks.

Posted by: Kseniya | March 8, 2009 3:22 AM

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?

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 8, 2009 4:05 AM

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.

Posted by: Wowbagger | March 8, 2009 4:58 AM

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.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | March 8, 2009 9:58 AM

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.

Posted by: Kel | March 8, 2009 10:06 AM

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. .

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 8, 2009 4:02 PM

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...

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 9, 2009 9:22 PM

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

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | March 10, 2009 1:28 AM

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.

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 10, 2009 2:20 AM

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.

Posted by: RogerS | March 10, 2009 11:23 PM

#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?

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 11, 2009 12:55 AM

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?

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 11, 2009 2:19 AM

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.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | March 11, 2009 3:40 AM

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.

Posted by: Kel | March 11, 2009 4:04 AM

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.

Posted by: Kel | March 11, 2009 4:32 AM

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.

Posted by: Kel | March 11, 2009 8:29 AM

I am pointing out that the data is a better fit with the flood model

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 11, 2009 9:28 AM

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.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 11, 2009 10:11 AM

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.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 11, 2009 10:29 AM

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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 11, 2009 1:19 PM

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

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 11, 2009 1:25 PM

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

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 11, 2009 1:46 PM

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.

Posted by: rogerS | March 11, 2009 1:54 PM

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.

Posted by: Matt Heath | March 11, 2009 2:07 PM

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.

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.

Posted by: Tulse | March 11, 2009 3:34 PM

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...

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | March 11, 2009 5:20 PM

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).

Posted by: Josh | March 11, 2009 5:41 PM

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.

Posted by: Stu | March 11, 2009 6:14 PM

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*

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 11, 2009 11:12 PM

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.

Posted by: Kel | March 11, 2009 11:25 PM

Answer: The New Testament was written before it happened.

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 12, 2009 12:09 AM

*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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 12, 2009 3:13 AM

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”.

Posted by: Kel | March 12, 2009 3:42 AM

Go to Owlmirror and say that he is inferior to Jesus Christ. See what kind of response you get.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | March 12, 2009 4:04 AM

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.

Posted by: the truth | March 12, 2009 4:58 AM

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

Posted by: Kagato | March 12, 2009 6:08 AM

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?

Posted by: DaveL | March 12, 2009 9:14 AM

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.

Posted by: RogerS | March 12, 2009 3:05 PM

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

Posted by: aratina | March 12, 2009 3:24 PM

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?

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 12, 2009 3:41 PM

An actual [flood] event that occurred over 4400 years ago

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

Posted by: Kel | March 12, 2009 5:34 PM

Why are sea shells found in sands in the Midwest and fossilized clams in the closed position found as high as Everest?

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 12, 2009 5:43 PM

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.

Posted by: Watchman | March 12, 2009 5:57 PM

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?

Posted by: Josh | March 12, 2009 6:06 PM

*reads #372*

Oh for fucks sake.

Where do I even begin? This one might take a minute.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 12, 2009 6:35 PM

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.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 12, 2009 6:38 PM

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?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 12, 2009 6:49 PM

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.

Posted by: Kel | March 12, 2009 6:57 PM

brokenSoldier, God has no ill-intention toward you nor is it his goal to deceive you.

Posted by: Josh | March 12, 2009 7:19 PM

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.

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 12, 2009 8:01 PM

Woah Alan Clarke - hyper-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"

Posted by: Kagato | March 12, 2009 8:15 PM

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.

Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | March 12, 2009 8:26 PM

I unkilled Alan juuuust for a little peek, and my reward was badly sprained eye-rolling muscles. Learned that lesson.

Posted by: Josh | March 12, 2009 8:32 PM

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

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 12, 2009 8:45 PM

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!

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 12, 2009 8:48 PM

  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.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | March 12, 2009 9:02 PM

Anyone else find it hilarious/ironic that these Creationists are using myths to prove their claims?

Posted by: Kel | March 12, 2009 9:08 PM

Anyone else find it hilarious/ironic that these Creationists are using myths to prove their claims?

Posted by: Josh | March 12, 2009 9:42 PM

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.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2009 9:49 PM

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.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | March 12, 2009 10:03 PM

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.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 12, 2009 10:06 PM

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.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 12, 2009 10:17 PM

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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 12, 2009 11:06 PM

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.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 12, 2009 11:09 PM

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.

Posted by: tony | March 12, 2009 11:19 PM

fucking, fucking, sheep.

I thought we'd done that already on another thread (and wasn't it goats that Louis preferred?)

(sorry Louis)

Posted by: Kel | March 12, 2009 11:23 PM

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.

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 12, 2009 11:57 PM

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.

Posted by: Kseniya | March 13, 2009 12:17 AM

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?

Posted by: Kagato | March 13, 2009 12:46 AM

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.

Posted by: tony | March 13, 2009 12:53 AM

Alan Clarke is proof that evolution is dumb and unguided. Nothing that stupid would ever pass QA in any design process.

Posted by: RamblinDude | March 13, 2009 1:06 AM

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.

Posted by: Kagato | March 13, 2009 1:31 AM

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...

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 13, 2009 1:33 AM

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.

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 13, 2009 1:40 AM

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.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | March 13, 2009 1:45 AM

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...

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 13, 2009 1:57 AM

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.

Posted by: rogerS | March 13, 2009 2:49 AM

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.

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.

Posted by: aratina | March 13, 2009 3:02 AM

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.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 13, 2009 3:12 AM

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.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 13, 2009 6:50 AM

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.

Posted by: Josh | March 13, 2009 7:17 AM

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?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 13, 2009 7:49 AM

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.

Posted by: Kel | March 13, 2009 8:06 AM

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.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 13, 2009 8:10 AM

Sweet, starting the day off with some formatting fail.

Today is going to be great.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 13, 2009 8:25 AM

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.

Posted by: tony | March 13, 2009 8:41 AM

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.

Posted by: Anne Hedonia | March 13, 2009 8:51 AM

entertainment panders to emotion and is therefore irrelevant.

Posted by: Kel | March 13, 2009 9:07 AM

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?

Posted by: Kel | March 13, 2009 9:23 AM

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.

Posted by: tony | March 13, 2009 9:40 AM

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.

Posted by: Josh | March 13, 2009 9:44 AM

Josh- Time to unleash Rev.BigDumbChimps extrapolations?

It could be that time. That, however, is for Rev to decide. Not me.

Posted by: RogerS | March 13, 2009 11:08 AM

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

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 13, 2009 11:20 AM

You will just need to take my word for now that the persistence of my positions is overwhelmingly justified.

Posted by: Josh | March 13, 2009 11:26 AM

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.

Posted by: Stanton | March 13, 2009 11:49 AM

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.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 13, 2009 12:36 PM

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.

Posted by: RogerS | March 13, 2009 12:38 PM

My Post #482: Sorry, substitute psychologist for physiologist.
Proves my point -my spell checker lied to me!

Posted by: Stanton | March 13, 2009 12:45 PM

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"?

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 13, 2009 12:59 PM

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.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 13, 2009 1:01 PM

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.

Posted by: rogerS | March 13, 2009 1:04 PM

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.

Posted by: DaveL | March 13, 2009 1:12 PM

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.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | March 13, 2009 1:13 PM

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?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 13, 2009 1:19 PM

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.

Posted by: Josh | March 13, 2009 1:23 PM

Come over to the reality of atheism Roger,...

The water is great, Roger.

Posted by: rogerS | March 13, 2009 1:35 PM

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)

Posted by: DaveL | March 13, 2009 3:34 PM

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.

Posted by: Kel | March 13, 2009 4:14 PM

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?

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | March 13, 2009 4:28 PM

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.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | March 13, 2009 4:57 PM

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?

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 13, 2009 5:51 PM

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.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 13, 2009 6:01 PM

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.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 13, 2009 6:12 PM

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?

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 13, 2009 6:22 PM

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?

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 13, 2009 6:32 PM

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?

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | March 13, 2009 6:42 PM

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?

Posted by: John Morales | March 13, 2009 6:54 PM

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.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 13, 2009 7:50 PM

Explain that, flood boy.

Bushmills Black>nose>monitor

Posted by: Kel | March 13, 2009 8:32 PM

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!

Posted by: RamblinDude | March 13, 2009 9:45 PM

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!!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 13, 2009 10:53 PM

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 Marjanović, and myself are trained to do, and the other posters on the thread understand this too.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 13, 2009 11:10 PM

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.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 13, 2009 11:24 PM

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.

Posted by: Alan Clarke | March 14, 2009 12:56 AM

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)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 14, 2009 1:13 AM

I am juggling two theories whereas you seem to think in only one dimension: your theory empirically supported science based in reality

fixed

Posted by: Owlmirror | March 14, 2009 2:10 AM

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.

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"

Posted by: RogerS | March 14, 2009 3:53 AM

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?

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.

Posted by: Josh | March 14, 2009 7:06 AM

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.

Posted by: Kel | March 14, 2009 8:00 AM

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...

Posted by: Josh | March 14, 2009 9:30 AM

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.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 14, 2009 10:20 AM

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.

Posted by: Kseniya | March 14, 2009 10:49 AM

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'.

Posted by: rogerS | March 14, 2009 11:10 AM

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 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.

Posted by: Brownian | March 14, 2009 11:53 AM