Pharyngula

Posted by: Fred the Hun | July 7, 2009 9:41 AM

What, doesn't that idjit read xkcd?
http://xkcd.com/54/

Posted by: Obstreperous Anti-Theist | July 7, 2009 9:42 AM

Oh, for the love of...GAHHHHH!!!

"young-earthers?"

Posted by: Berner | July 7, 2009 9:45 AM

How exactly do these people try to say they have evidence for a 6000 year old earth when science has clearly demonstrated how old the earth is using radiometric dating?

It hurts my head to think about. Now if you'll excuse, my chromatogram is probably on the printer.

Posted by: Obstreperous Anti-Theist | July 7, 2009 9:47 AM

Fred the Hun, you have just won the thread with the XKCD.

=) props! (oh, that means "good jorb!")

Posted by: Andyo | July 7, 2009 9:47 AM

Sorry, I missed the other thread, anything with idiot politicians invoking creationism or god just depresses me.

Did Grant ever name those "respected" scientists he says "agree with him"?

Posted by: Richard Eis | July 7, 2009 9:49 AM

Where is his evidence for a 6000 year old earth? These guys are always so negative...you don't know, you can't know.

Posted by: Bodach | July 7, 2009 9:51 AM

PZ, you forget that "science" is difficult to master (many scientists actually specialize in smaller aspects, like, say, biology or physics) while religion is relatively easy to swallow, if you have a reduced gag reflex. Perhaps there is a correlation between desire to understand the universe and the gag reflex. Any masters candidates out there looking for some lab time?

Posted by: CalGeorge | July 7, 2009 9:52 AM

"Please refrain from the unintelligent, insulting, degrading name calling just because you disagree."

Why do they always say that?

Posted by: Nichole | July 7, 2009 9:52 AM

You call a stone a stone. You call a frakkin idjit a frakkin idjit.

"Name calling" a.k.a. "nouns?"

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 7, 2009 9:56 AM

This should be fun; all our claimant has to do is demonstrate that everything on earth is younger than 6000 years, and all anyone here has to do is show a single thing that's older than 6000 years.

Anyone for varves?

So far he has only got as far as saying the Earth is 6000 years old because he thinks it is.

Oh, and he dredged up an example of some dating from New Zealand that produced spurious results without bothering to check that the reason why spurious results were obtained is known and well understood.

Posted by: Obstreperous Anti-Theist | July 7, 2009 9:57 AM

unfortunately, many on the evolution/billions of years side aren't interested in proper debate, only in insulting those opposing them - which suggests something about their intelligence, perhaps?

Yep! It suggests that debate with anti-evolutionists is a waste of time, and we on the practical side of things just don't have time to waste arguing so instead we mock pathetic morons like this guy.

Posted by: JD | July 7, 2009 9:58 AM

For one, beer was invented roughly 6000 years ago. Tards came way before that.

Posted by: DavidW | July 7, 2009 9:59 AM

It is always amusing that people who likely do not have the ability to do algebra, who have no understanding of basic physics or chemistry, and have little to no formal education in any of the sciences think that their ignorant opinions and critiques of a theory are worthwhile or valid. It is less than worthwhile to try to educate a layman with no interest in understanding points of fact that contradict his superstitions. In reference to the "name-calling," ridicule is a proper response to ridiculous claims.

Posted by: maureen Brian | July 7, 2009 10:00 AM

When was the last time a young-earther killed 3000 people in a day?

Day one of the Iraq war?

Posted by: Dan | July 7, 2009 10:01 AM

It is futile to try to convince Grant of the scientific truth and the fallacy of a young earth. You can show him the data and point him to the scientific documents, but he will not read that information. These people only use ONE book and cherry pick everything else that they can twist or spin to support their fictional concepts. Why read a bunch of hard books when you can just read one easy one?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 7, 2009 10:03 AM

Clair Patterson's work on uranium-lead dating: "Age of Meteorites and the Earth" in Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 1956, vol. 10, pp. 230–237 should be enough for Grant... but I guess that actually researching the issue is far too much work for the average Young-Earth Dingbat... uh, Creationist.

He could try Chris Turney's "Bones, Rocks and Stars": The Science of When Things Happened". PZ reviewed it a while back and recommend it. Having also read it myself I can second that. An excellent, understandable, introduction into dating methods that can be read in an evening.

With such books available for a few quid from Amazon there really is little excuse for ignorance like Grant's.

Posted by: nal | July 7, 2009 10:07 AM

Ignorance is a choice. I have no sympathy for someone who chooses to ignorant.

Posted by: Jake | July 7, 2009 10:07 AM

I can't provide anything too much here, but I can relay an anecdote. I went to a christian high school, we had a YEC speaker come in during a year 7 class of ours. He's giving his main line of 'evidence' is that the amount of salt in the ocean has been constant since creation.

I, a mere year 7 whippersnapper stumped him when I mentioned about the water tables, rising salt levels and the ways that salt can enter and exit the oceanic system (note: I come from a farming background where salt was a problem when I was even younger) he was stumped and their answer? I was sent out of the room to think of what I had done.

I've never not been an atheist and going to a christian school only helped me a LOT.

Posted by: Dan52 | July 7, 2009 10:08 AM

Consider the ignorance of the average fundamentalist. Then realize that by definition fully half of them must be even dumber than that.

Posted by: PGPWNIT | July 7, 2009 10:08 AM

My 7 year old son loves all things fossil. His grandfather (my FIL) is a young earther. My son told his grandfather about this neat fossil he found. Grandfather said something about it being hundreds of years old. My son said, nuh uh, it's most likely 200-300 million years old. Then my FIL goes into the story of creation and my son looks at him and says...'well the evidence suggests that the earth is far older than that'.

My FIL erupts in mock anger. "You've poisoned him!!!"

He knows my view and respects how I'm raising my son...just doesn't agree with the knowledge I'm passing on.

Posted by: tsg | July 7, 2009 10:11 AM

You believe the world is older than 6000 years.

It is.

I believe it is not.

You're wrong.

Do you want to call me a dingbat also?

You're a dingbat.

Or can you possibly raise your intelligence level a little higher to discuss things more maturely.

Not and still have you understand it, no.

(I actually believe we need some laws to protect the earth, unlike the senator)

So just not being completely batshit insane makes you reasonable, does it?

If you know science, and I'm hoping you do, you will know that science CANNOT prove what happened at the beginning of the earth (whenever it was).

Equivocation.

All both sides can do is look at the evidence and analyse it to see if it fits their theory.

It fits the theory of a 4.5 billion year old earth, not a 6000 year old earth

So far, I can't see how it disproves my belief in 6000 years, so my belief stays.

That's because you aren't looking.

You can insult my intelligence if you like (you probably do),

I can't, you don't have any. Go get some and I'll insult it.

but it doesn't change the facts about what science can and can't prove.

No, it doesn't. You just don't seem to have any idea what that means.

It would be nice if both sides could have sensible meaningful discussions over their beliefs and interpretations, but, unfortunately, many on the evolution/billions of years side aren't interested in proper debate,

Facts aren't decided by debate.

only in insulting those opposing them

You don't give us much choice.

- which suggests something about their intelligence, perhaps?

Quite a bit, actually. Mostly that they have to dumb it down to get you to understand it and you still refuse.

One person once suggested that people who believe in an age of 6000 were worse than Islamic terrorists! That is absolutely ridiculous. When was the last time a young-earther killed 3000 people in a day?

Red Herring. Take it up with him.

I am not a scientist,

Obviously.

but many scientists disagree on this (and indeed many other matters), and they are well-recognised, well-respected scientists.

Such as?

I have read much about this (from both sides),

For small values of "much".

I have been presented one side of the argument by media and society, but I have decided that 6000 years actually makes sense to me based on the evidence.

Where "evidence" means "because I want it to."

Please refrain from the unintelligent, insulting, degrading name calling jus tbecause you disagree.

No.

The simple fact is that there is no way you can look at the evidence and independently conclude the earth is only 6000 years old. You had to have that number in your head to start with and you do everything you can to keep it there. There is no debating with you because you refuse to see outside your pre-conceived notions. Everything else is a fairy tale to preserve them.

Posted by: Nils Ross | July 7, 2009 10:11 AM

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/237/4819/1140, the papers that cite it, its references, and related publications on magnetic pole reversal should provide a good start. Earth's magnetic history as shown by evidence spans A LOT more than ~6000 years.

Of course, if you favour skyhooks for 'explaining' things then an invisible sky fairy might have played with magnetic fields while laying down geological formations, and stuck some trilobites, dinosaurs, and mastodons in there at the same time. While, of course, being simple enough to not warrant an explanation itself. Oh, wait.

Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 10:13 AM

As the person you are all so keen to insult, without knowing a thing about me, I have this to say:

I stand by what I said before.

And Mr Myers, if I was in a class of yours, I would have to walk out at the despicable way you treat people who disagree with you - totally unscientific and humane. You call me a dingbat - I call you a narrow-minded bigot (not for your belief mind you - but for your offensive childish attitude to opponents). Now where do we go next?

Helene, if I were in your class, I would vigorously debate with you on your closed-minded approach, and not care about what meaningless grades you gave me just because I disagreed with you. Isn't it good I already have my degree.

You say "The age of the earth is not a matter of personal belief" and that is true. The age of the earth is an actual number, but none of us can ever know that, no matter what you believe, If you think you can KNOW the age of the earth, you are sadly mistaken.

You write: "some kind of web design studio" what exactly do you mean by this 'some kind', and you also write "where he claims 14 years of experience in Science"

So after insulting my business, you then go on to misquote me: I have 14 years education experience.
I have a Bachelor of Science from the University of Queensland - that is not a claim, that is fact.

Did I insult you for your beliefs in my email? No. But you still go down to that level.

You write: "is now trying to pester me personally by email" I am not pestering you. I was pointed to this page - you have a link to your email, so I wrote you an email. Bit precious claiming that is pestering...

Thorfinn Kjartansson: Um yes that is what I said - you have a theory, you check the evidence, if the evidence constradicts your theory, you propose a new theory.... your problem would be?

So, you little people can insult me as much as you like - it doesn't help your argument one little bit. :-)

"You'll have to insult him..." Are you really that petty and childish? What sort of professor are you?

By all means put up your articles and comments about research and scientific findings that support your beliefs in billions of years, but don't resort to name-calling for those who disagree. That is just pathetic and beneath us all...

=====

This is all I have to say. I didn't come onto this site to start an argument, or to be insulted by uninformed people. All I tried to point out to you was that it is basically unacceptable to insult and name-call people in public because they disagree with you (and that applies to people on both sides of the argument)

Posted by: JBlilie | July 7, 2009 10:19 AM

Dearest Grant:

You believe the world is older than 6000 years. I believe it is not. Do you want to call me a dingbat also?

>6000 years is trivial.

All that's needed is C-14 dating. Done. C-14 gets us out to about 60,000 years accurately, an order of magntude beyond your line in the sand. An order of magnitude is certainly sufficient. This is but one single strand of the masses of data that show (beyond the doubt of any informed and objective observer) that the earth is older than 6000 years.

We don't need to call you a dingbat. There are really only two options as in most cases of nonsense or offense:

1. Malice (you are ignoring the data willfully)
2. Ignorance (you are ignorant of the data)

Please let us know which it is. Thanks very much.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 7, 2009 10:22 AM

You say "The age of the earth is not a matter of personal belief" and that is true. The age of the earth is an actual number, but none of us can ever know that, no matter what you believe, If you think you can KNOW the age of the earth, you are sadly mistaken.

We have evidence. Quite literally mountains of evidence. As PZ has pointed out we do not have just one strand of evidence supporting the Earth as being 4.5 Billion years old, we have many. One reason we can have a high degree of certainty about the age is that all these various strands of evidence are consistent, and suggest a similar age. These strands are independent of each other.

Now you have been asked repeatedly for your evidence. You still have not produced any.

I am no longer going to bother asking you to produce since it is clear you neither can nor will do so. You must therefore have lied about the evidence you have seen to support a 6000 year old Earth.

Posted by: me | July 7, 2009 10:23 AM

meh

sounds exactly like something my retarded developmentally delayed brother would write

are you sure this guy isn't from Missouri?

Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 7, 2009 10:24 AM

I remember a hilarious YEC who stopped by my blog and whine about radiometric dating. I asked him if he rejected it because he believed the nuclear physics involved in predicting radioactive decay was wrong. He agreed to that. I proceeded to point out that if he was right, all the atomic clocks in GPS satellites, RTGs in NASA probes, etcetera would be wrong, which would mean my dad's GPS guided me to my brother's apartment earlier that year by sheer dumb luck, instead of the scientists harnessing consistent, reliable laws of physics.

He tried to sputter and turn it around to me claiming the universe was random and chaotic. There's a reason I've taken up calling Creationism "the random theory of randomness" nowadays.

Posted by: John Morales | July 7, 2009 10:25 AM

Grant:

You can insult my intelligence if you like...

Fair crack o'the whip! That pathetic, runtish thing that passes for your intelligence ain't worth insulting; that'd be a waste of a good insult.

Can't I just pity you a bit? After all, you had the opportunity (that so many don't) of living in a first-world country, access to a good education, in fact the opportunity to exercise and grow your intelligence and wits — and look what you did. Starved the poor thing until it's near-moribund. Whipped it into submission until it's a cringing, moaning excuse for an intellect that, if were a bodily organ, it would be necrotic.

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | July 7, 2009 10:26 AM

Thank you to Malastare #17 for the reference to Patterson's work. It was something I mentioned in another thread.

This raises a point touched on by Anti-Theist in #21: people with jobs and especially science professors, science teachers and practicing scientists have other work to do. The burden of proof rests on the ones who think they have some super-magnificent idea that "proves" that evolution could not possibly be true (or the age of the Earth, etc.) to do their homework, educate themselves (or invest the time and money to take courses) so that their super-magnificent idea is actually original and not something someone else has brought up (and seen shot-down) before. Now and then I google around to find creationist verbiage on the web. There's tens of thousands of people all of whom think they have posted some super-magnificent treatise that proves a 6,000 year age for the earth, or that evolution could not possibly be true, (and on and on). It's insane to expect and demand that science professors with lectures to prepare, papers to grade, research of their own to publish (or perish) should drop what they're doing and read each one of tens of thousands of repetitious, poorly or un-researched rantings that demonstrate only that the writer failed to bother to do any of the research necessary to find out even if their ideas had any wiff of originality.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing
Drink deeply, or touch not the Pierian Spring,
For shallow draughts doth intoxicate the brain,
But drinking fully sobers us again.
--- Alexander Pope

Posted by: Drosera | July 7, 2009 10:28 AM

Grant, I’d still like to know how you arrive at an estimate of 6000 years for the age of the earth. Why not 10000? Or 240000? Or 46000000?

Posted by: Malastare | July 7, 2009 10:29 AM

Hell - its possible to make the 6000 year old earth "theory" ludicrous without even using science - Ancient History suffices. The Ubaid civilisation in the Fertile Crescent of the Near East was constructing settlements and engaging in the construction of monumental architecture before 4000 BC.

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | July 7, 2009 10:30 AM

Why not just let Mr. webdesign post his most convincing data and demolish, uh, I mean respectfully evaluate that? Maybe he could email this evidence since there seems to be a problem with it coming through in the comments.

I would assume Mr. webdesign would know of these things called "links", which are easily posted. Given the amount of ignorance he shows, I kind of doubt it though.

Posted by: James F | July 7, 2009 10:31 AM

I have decided that 6000 years actually makes sense to me based on the evidence because I am a Biblical literalist who lives in denial of science.

Fixed.

Posted by: Frink | July 7, 2009 10:34 AM

Aw jeez, isn't it cute when YEC's think there's a level of equality between their baseless beliefs and the cumulative empirical evidence science has kindly compiled into theories?

Posted by: Pantalaimon | July 7, 2009 10:34 AM

Oh let me please: (note, english isn't my normal language)

You believe the world is older than 6000 years. I believe it is not. Do you want to call me a dingbat also?

Or can you possibly raise your intelligence level a little higher to discuss things more maturely

If you know science, and I'm hoping you do, you will know that science CANNOT prove what happened at the beginning of the earth (whenever it was).

It would be nice if both sides could have sensible meaningful discussions over their beliefs and interpretations, but, unfortunately,

So far, I can't see how it disproves my belief in 6000 years, so my belief stays. You can insult my intelligence if you like (you probably do), but it doesn't change the facts about what science can and can't prove.

That is absolutely ridiculous. When was the last time a young-earther killed 3000 people in a day?

I have been presented one side of the argument by media and society, but I have decided that 6000 years actually makes sense to me based on the evidence.

Your evidence, show it to me and i will see if they sustain against my evidence.

Posted by: martiniconqueso | July 7, 2009 10:35 AM

People are not insulting you and name calling simply because they disagree. They are insulting you because your point of view is worthy of ridicule. Your insistence that you stand by it - even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's inaccurate - only reinforces the notion that you, yourself, are ridiculous.

Posted by: John Morales | July 7, 2009 10:38 AM

Pantalaimon, good on ya. Your English is not the best*, but by hell you're perfectly understandable and you make a lot of sense.

Good job!

--
* get a spellchecker if you can.

Posted by: Quidam | July 7, 2009 10:38 AM

If you know biology, and I'm hoping you do, you will know that biology CANNOT prove what's inside Grant's skull (whatever it is). All both sides can do is look at the evidence and analyse it to see if it fits their theory. So far, I can't see how it disproves my belief Grant's skull contains wombat excreta, so my belief stays.

I am not a biologist, but many biologists disagree on this (and indeed many other matters), and they are well-recognised, well-respected biologists. I have read much about this (from both sides), I have been presented one side of the argument, but I have decided that Grant's brain being composed of wombat excreta actually makes sense to me based on the evidence.

Posted by: Dale | July 7, 2009 10:39 AM

Grant wrote...

So after insulting my business, you then go on to misquote me: I have 14 years education experience.

I feel sad for your 14 years of students.

Unless of course you meant it took you 14 years to get an education. If so, ask for a refund - they obviously failed to teach you anything.

Posted by: Malastare | July 7, 2009 10:40 AM

Its also ironic that beautiful stromatolites that contain the oldest record of life on earth (3.5 billion years, I think?) are situated in Grant's own Australia, at Shark Bay. In Australia, surrounded by unique and fascinating geological and biological phenomena, you'd think he'd sympathetic to scientific explanations rather than Bronze Age dogma.

Posted by: Joe Bleau | July 7, 2009 10:40 AM

I have a Bachelor of Science from the University of Queensland - that is not a claim, that is fact.

Bollocks. We can't KNOW anything of the sort. Sure, you could produce "evidence" to suggest this "fact", but as you are obviously aware, evidence can surely be faked, witnesses coerced, history fudged.

You claim a University education. My belief is that you never made it past (the Oz equivalent of) 7th grade. It would be nice if both sides could have sensible meaningful discussions over their beliefs and interpretations, but, unfortunately, I rather suspect that you aren't interested in proper debate, only in insulting those opposing you - which suggests something about your intelligence, perhaps?

Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 7, 2009 10:42 AM

I'll join the chorus on this one: Grant, _why 6000 years_? Be specific.

Posted by: Eidolon | July 7, 2009 10:44 AM

Dear Grant:

If you wish a rational debate, why not start on a specific line of evidence?

I would suggest radioactive decay and it's use in dating materials. It is used to date everything from campfires and pieces of wood to lava flows, to the oldest rocks around. It is used to date meteorites and rocks from the moon. If you would like to discuss the merits and issues of this process, I would be happy to discuss it. Otherwise, you can remain in blissful ignorance as to why 99.9% of people with actual knowledge in this area accept the validity of the results.

Posted by: sailor1031 | July 7, 2009 10:45 AM

Christian religion developed the concept of "invincible ignorance", referring to people whose ignorance could absolutely not be overcome. Mr Grant is one of these. It is a complete waste of time to discuss with him.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 7, 2009 10:47 AM

Unless of course you meant it took you 14 years to get an education. If so, ask for a refund - they obviously failed to teach you anything.

Now be fair here. They did an excellent job of teaching him to talk out of his backside.

Posted by: Finback | July 7, 2009 10:50 AM

huh. Two seconds in google shows Grant has BSc's in Maths and Computer Science, and a Diploma of Education in Maths and English.

So no ACTUAL science then.

Posted by: Richard Eis | July 7, 2009 10:51 AM

-If you think you can KNOW the age of the earth, you are sadly mistaken.-

As you said, therefore since you think you know it is 6000 years old, you are mistaken.

You should be fully aware of the acerbic attitude of the blogmaster here and his rabid flying monkeys. Ignorance is no excuse. Defend youself using science. This is a science blog not a victorian tea party.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 7, 2009 10:53 AM

The age of the earth is an actual number, but none of us can ever know that, no matter what you believe

Let's estimate then, shall we?
Is the actual number closer to:
6000
or
4500000000
? Tough one. We may never know who's closer.

And Grant, your umbrage is extreme to the point of silly. You want a mature, intelligent discussion? Start with comments # 13, 18, and 19 above, please.

Posted by: jb | July 7, 2009 10:56 AM

@Grant:

I have a simple solution. Just post the proof that you have that shows radioactive dating to be junk science and your method used to determine the seemingly arbitrary value of 6000 years.

Until then, what's the difference between you and some guy on the street corner proclaiming the world's going to end tomorrow?

Posted by: Horse-Pheathers | July 7, 2009 11:00 AM

Grant, if you can look at the combined evidence of dendrochronology, radiometric dating, sedimentary deposits, the fossil record, geological morphology, the earth's magnetic field shifts, plate tectonics, light from distant galaxies, DNA clocks, and so on.....then I'm sorry, but you _are_ a dingbat.

Posted by: JBlilie | July 7, 2009 11:01 AM

Dearest Grant:

This is all I have to say. I didn't come onto this site to start an argument, or to be insulted by uninformed people. All I tried to point out to you was that it is basically unacceptable to insult and name-call people in public because they disagree with you (and that applies to people on both sides of the argument)

Sorry; but that is nonsense.

Refusing to play does not advance your "argument" such as it is.

You have been challenged on several points of fact. If you do not answer them clearly, you do not deserve our respect. Sorry about that; but the world is a rough place.

And saying that you are "[only trying] to point out to you was that it is basically unacceptable to insult and name-call people in public because they disagree with you" is plain nonsense.

You are both insulting the participants in this dicsussion board (isn't that blindingly obvious to you?) and you are making claims of fact -- that have been challenged. So, which is it: In this brief excerpt above, are you 1. malicious (lying to us about your intents and actions) or 2. ignorant (you didn't notice what you were doing on this site)?

Please let us know which it is (once again.)

All the best, hugs and kisses ...

Posted by: Watchman | July 7, 2009 11:05 AM

Bronze Dog:

He tried to sputter and turn it around to me claiming the universe was random and chaotic.

That's rich coming from a creationist, whose standard set of arguments generally includes the observation that the orderliness of the universe is all at once improbable, miraculous and beautiful, and proof of God's munificent existence.

Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 7, 2009 11:07 AM

The reason that Mr. webdesign won’t/can’t produce evidence is that there is no scientific line of reasoning/research that the earth is 6000 years old. There is only a fundamentalist, literalist Christianity and the mock-science manufactured to prove Usheresque Bible-based counting to be correct.

Mr. webdesign claims a Bachelor of Science from the University of Queensland and, if true, he must then have some understanding about weighing scientific evidence/argument (rather than personal belief grounded in supernatural myth) and therefore knows there’s nothing evidentiary that he can produce that will hold up. And so he produces none. Maybe he could just admit to the basis for his belief – if the Bible says it, I believe it, therefore it’s TRUE.

Come on Grant, buck up. You want some kind of respect so try to earn some by being honest.

Posted by: ursa major | July 7, 2009 11:10 AM

Grant:

There are thousands of reasons why we can get so impatient with YEC-ist's and other denialists. Everyone of us has dealt with representatives of the denialist crowd and you all say the exact same things which A) were disproved repeatedly, B) are illogical, and C) have no evidence to back them. In some cases, despite the denialism being religiously based it D) gets the religion wrong.

And when I use the phrase "the exact same things" I mean that literally. It is not just the same {false) ideas
but often the same sentences, the same disjointed conversations.

It is not like the evidence is even new - it often goes back decades, sometimes centuries (e.g. geologists established that the earth is far older than 6k years centuries before the development of tools for absolute dating). Or for that matter, Leonardo da Vinci wrote a proof that fossil deposits are not a result of Noah's flood.

You may claim to have reviewed the evidence but based on what you write and our experience with denialist's that is unlikely. The most probable situation is that you have not looked at any of the evidence. Less likely, though possible, you are so bound by ideology that you are unable to clearly see any evidence which passed under your nose.

I believe you about the BS degree and the education experience (though I weep for your students) but such things do not vaccinate against ignorance. Though there have not been many, I have meet some with MS and Phd's who did not know some basic information form their own fields. This always involved conflicts between their religion and the evidence.

Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 7, 2009 11:11 AM

Grant, I'll put in my colloquialism from where I'm from.

Grant, you're a dumb-fuck! Plain and simple.

I like the question 'where did you get the 6000 y/o age for the earth?" Is it in your bible? Does it really say that? It doesn't and you know it. Not only are you a dumb-fuck you are a fucking liar too. Why should I repect that?

Posted by: Drew | July 7, 2009 11:12 AM

Well, the guy does have one thing right. Both sides cannot "have sensible meaningful discussions" about the subject. 'Young earthers' cannot actually come up with a meaningful argument, and everyone else can't take them seriously!

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 7, 2009 11:16 AM

I have decided that 6000 years actually makes sense to me based on the evidence.

Have you a single piece of evidence that points to a 6000 year old earth? Stupid old books don't count as evidence, btw.

Thought not.

Saying that your side has scientists doesn't make it so. Perhaps some are scientists in some areas, but clearly they aren't acting as scientists where chronology is concerned.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Greymalkin | July 7, 2009 11:18 AM

I'd like to say something funny about our emailing 'friend', but I'm crying over here. Haven't we been over this like ten million times already? There is no argument amongst scientists (not amongst the real ones anyway).

Posted by: Alt101 | July 7, 2009 11:18 AM

i would like to say sorry from Australia for this brain washed dic head. sorry.
We seem to be getting lots of these. i blame our crappy 3 tv stations with their Fox news like reports and current affair shows. And the we seem to be afraid of outsiders.

So sorry...

Posted by: Richard Eis | July 7, 2009 11:23 AM

Ick, blue and brown website.

It is most likely that his evidence against the real age of the earth came from reading only books that tried to counter our vast scientific knowledge of history...badly.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 7, 2009 11:25 AM

If you know science, and I'm hoping you do, you will know that science CANNOT prove what happened at the beginning of the earth (whenever it was).

Aside from your pig-ignorant use of the word "proof," and idiotic move of the goalposts to the "beginning of the earth," are you telling me that scientists can't, say, reconstruct the past millions of years ago sufficiently to find oil?

Showing that you're so stupid that you don't even understand the present.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: lewis e. haymes | July 7, 2009 11:25 AM

All both sides can do is look at the evidence and analyse it to see if it fits their theory
That's your first mistake, sir. You never attempt to fit 'evidence to theory'. So you have it backwards. From evidence you build a theory. A theory is an explanation of what the evidence tells us is going on. And you have no evidence at all for your position. If you can produce evidence for your position - real evidence - we would all be glad to have to have it before us.

Posted by: lewis e. haymes | July 7, 2009 11:27 AM

All both sides can do is look at the evidence and analyse it to see if it fits their theory
That's your first mistake, sir. You never attempt to fit 'evidence to theory'. So you have it backwards. From evidence you build a theory. A theory is an explanation of what the evidence tells us is going on. And you have no evidence at all for your position. If you can produce evidence for your position - real evidence - we would all be glad to have to have it before us.

Posted by: lewis e. haymes | July 7, 2009 11:29 AM

All both sides can do is look at the evidence and analyse it to see if it fits their theory
That's your first mistake, sir. You never attempt to fit 'evidence to theory'. So you have it backwards. From evidence you build a theory. A theory is an explanation of what the evidence tells us is going on. And you have no evidence at all for your position. If you can produce evidence for your position - real evidence - we would all be glad to have it before us.

Posted by: Richard Wolford | July 7, 2009 11:30 AM

So Grant has a BSc in Comp Sci and Math? Wow, so do I. In fact, I went on to get a Masters in Software Engineering and a PhD in MIS. I was trained on the scientific method quite a bit, but don't claim to be a scientist. Just cause "science" is in the name of your degree doesn't make you a scientist, faulty syllogism.

Posted by: Unity | July 7, 2009 11:36 AM

On the human artefacts side, I'm pretty sure I can recall archaeologists finding clay tablets with writing older than 6K years somewhere in Mesopotamia.

In fact, if memory serves, what they found was a recipe for beer.

Posted by: Jim | July 7, 2009 11:37 AM

Strictly speaking, in order to insult his intelligence we would have to see some evidence that it even exists.

Or, to quote Asimov, "I'd say his mind stops functioning, but I lack the proof of any other state from which it might stop."

Posted by: Lynna | July 7, 2009 11:38 AM

At least Grant used paragraph breaks; reasonably good spelling, punctuation, and syntax; and only succumbed to caps-lock syndrome once.

Grant used an argument I hear all the time: he argued that all people, scientists included, view evidence through the lens of their preconceived notions. I hear this so often that I suspect it is a well-established meme within creationist circles. Easy to repeat. Easy to appy with a broad brush. Seems to brush any problems with under the rugh. Well, yes, scientists and all people do that. That's exactly why Josh pointed out in the Jebus thread that materials to be dated are sent to labs that have no idea what the assumed date is.

I'm not a scientist, but I recognize that I am prone to confirmation bias, and I make a concerted effort to double check facts, data, and conclusions. Show me I'm wrong, or even slightly off track and I'm happy to self-correct. Expanding one's knowledge of how nature operates is a great joy. Contracting knowledge to make it fit religious myths is painful.

Posted by: David | July 7, 2009 11:47 AM

Hi Grant,

I hope that you haven't abandoned this thread entirely. I would love to hear what evidence you reviewed that led you to the conclusion that the earth was formed 6,000 years ago.

I'd also love to know if you were aware of evidence that shows that the earth is far older than that, and if so, what grounds you rejected that in the formulation of your conclusions.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: John H | July 7, 2009 11:49 AM

Matt Penfold @95

Engineers are awarded a BSc. In fact any degree subject that is not part of the humanities gets a BSc rather than a BA.

Posted by: Attila | July 7, 2009 11:51 AM

Cant we just call people like Grant guilty of idolatry. The idol being the Bible of course. He would claim to worship the creator of the Universe. So if there is a creator maybe looking at the creation could tell you something about him/her/it. So we have a bunch of people who devote there lives looking at the creation: cosmologists, astronomers, physicists, chemists, geologist, biologists, etc. All of them from different or no religious traditions, and they come up with a view of the world that is more majestic and scarier than any bronze age thinker could come up with. And can give someone a vision of a creator (if they choose to believe) that literally crosses the limits of the human imagination.

But this is not go enough for Grant. He wants his little petty god written in the Bible. Sounds like an idolater to me. Perhaps the Shakespeare phrase should be reserved for the religious, "There are greater things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hell there are greater things in the multiverse that the human mind may even ever conceive.

Posted by: raven | July 7, 2009 11:54 AM

One of the most fascinating parts of that book, and one of the most damning bits of evidence against a 6000 year old earth, is that we have a continuous record of tree rings going back some 8000 years,

There are organisms alive on earth today that are older than 6,000 years

A creosote bush clone in California has been alive for 11,000 years.
A spruce tree clone in Northern Europe has been alive for 8,000 years.

If one were to look harder, there would undoubtedly be many more examples.

Posted by: Roger | July 7, 2009 11:57 AM

Hm, strange indeed.. I mean, how difficult can it be to through some evidence out there for us to examine... Just one tiny piece that can stand up to scrutiny, something, anything.. Oh well. Who cares as long as we have the word of religious goons on our side.. Sad, really..

Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 7, 2009 11:57 AM

Hmmm. Invention of beer 6000 years ago, invention of crazy stories about the creation of the world, same time and place. Coincidence? I think not.

Posted by: Watchman | July 7, 2009 12:01 PM

Eric:

but couldn't it be proven that the earths crust could not have cooled enough in 6000 years time to support life?

Your point is well made, of course, but you're missing one critical piece because you're being too rational. YECs believe that the earth and everything on it was created, more or less in its present state, in six days some six thousand years ago. There is no cooling period to contend with in YEC "theory". Neat, huh?

Posted by: chancelikely | July 7, 2009 12:06 PM

#139: Ah, I hadn't thought about that. I'm not a scientist, but the scientist I'm most particularly not is a botanist. Are there circumstances under which a tree would manufacture multiple rings in a single year? (I had heard already about situations where a tree might not produce a single ring in a given year due to extremely poor environmental conditions.)

Posted by: GregB | July 7, 2009 12:08 PM

As to the original point of this thread, let's add some evidence to the argument.

It is well known that igneous rocks can be dated using radiometric dating techniques. We know with to very precise level the rate at which these radioactive components decay. By looking at the amount of decay we can come up with very good estimate of the age of the rocks.

Now, notice that errors in measurements may skew the result by millions of years. But even with those errors the age of these rocks is still dated in the hundreds of millions of years, not 6000 years.

YEC have suggested that the rate of decay has not been consistent. However, for that to be true, the strong and weak nuclear forces would have to be different than they are now. If they were different then all atoms, not just radioactive atoms, would fall apart.

There may be some other combination of strong and weak nuclear forces as well as the magnetic force and the force of gravity which would allow the universe to look essentially the same while still allowing radioactive atoms to decay at a much faster rate. But since there's no evidence that these forces do change or have ever changed over time it's up to the young earth creationist to show that they have changed. You must show us evidence of your claim.

This is not simply two points of view on the same data. The YEC view requires complete ignorance or denial of the evidence or, at the very least, special pleading in the extreme.

But let's take the opposite view and see if that has any merit. What if there is a god that loves you but will also send you to hell if you don't believe in creationism? That would mean that he has placed mountains of evidence in the universe with the sole intent of destroying your belief so you can go to hell. It's not jsut fossils or radiometric dating, but the fact that fossils give you one answer, radiometric dating (a different science altogether) confirms that answer, DNA evidence confirms the same answer, astronomical data confirms the same data and so on.

And yet, we're suppose to believe that all this data is actually the work a a loving trickster god who simultainiously wants to save your soul while also giving us every possible bit of evidence to make us believe something that will cause us to be sent to hell. And, since "all things are as the present to God" he already knows if you'll be "fooled" by the mountains of evidence and therefore already knows if you're going to hell or not.

I think it's the God hypothesis that's the real "extrordinary claim."

Posted by: cyan | July 7, 2009 12:19 PM

I do not understand why Grant posted what he did at a site where the readers and posters evaluate opinions by the evidence on which they are based. People here are always going to ask you to make your evidence known to them.

Overall, Grant's postings inferred that he thinks anyone's opinion is equal to anyone else's, then provided no evidence to support that claim.

Specifically, he stated that he thinks the Earth is no more than 6000 years old, then would not present any of the evidence that leads him to that conclusion.

He wrote that he would like discussion, but then continually failed to discuss.

Did he think that after stating his opinions, others would think "he must have very good reasons for those opinions, so even though I don't know what those reasons are, I trust that his reasons are good and so respect them". ???????

Obviously he has not read much at Pharyngula.

He misunderstands the process of science, distrusts the conclusions made by scientists, yet flaunts that he has a degree in "Science" (although omitting that it is in computer science, not a physical science).

So, its back to trying to understand why he posted.

Posted by: Ray Ingles | July 7, 2009 12:21 PM

GregB: A couple more points about radioactive decay rates changing. First, it takes at least 10,000 years for light to make it from the center of the Sun to the surface - solar plasma is kinda dense, doncha know - so if the decay rates had changed over the last few thousand years, the Sun would be changing colors.

Also, note that if the "cosmic fine-tuning" argument for God were correct - the idea that the laws of nature have to exactly what they are, or life would be impossible - then the 'decay rates changing' claim would obviously be wrong. Theists get to use at most one of those two arguments.

Posted by: Eric | July 7, 2009 12:23 PM

Watchman #150

Young Earth CREATIONISTS? I guess I shouldn't have wasted my time (or yours). I got the feeling halfway through my post that no amount of scientific proof could ever correct a firmly held belief.

Posted by: genesgalore | July 7, 2009 12:28 PM

good grief, only a pyschotic or shammer could author such. to give them space, causes one to pause and question.

Posted by: ajbjasus | July 7, 2009 12:31 PM

Does this give us a bit more of an insight into Grant's mindset

"There is nothing that evolutionists can parade in front of all through television, radio, magazines, etc. that will prove once and for all these creationists are wrong and Darwin was right! NOTHING!"

From Ken Ham's blog yesterday. Ken is I suspect, an influence on Grant as well as a source of the spurious argument,

"science CANNOT prove what happened at the beginning of the earth (whenever it was). All both sides can do is look at the evidence and analyse it to see if it fits their theory"

I must say that when I studied science, we were always taught to always work from first principles, make as few assumptions as possible, and list any asssumptions. Be interesting to contrast the assumptions that go alongside Grant's evidence with those associated with the body of evidence which supports a billions of years old earth

Posted by: G.Shelley | July 7, 2009 12:33 PM

It is indeed a common tactic for Creationists to use the "we both use the same evidence but use different starting assumptions to interpret it" or some such variant.
What they are trying to imply is that usually that their biblical view is as valid as the opponents. The opponents view will usually be characterised as either "anti-biblical", which is easily demonstrated to be false, or based or that it relies on "uniformitanism" - the idea that the same laws of physics applied in the past as they do today. Of course, their argument essentially means science itself is ultimately unreliable, but it fits in with their common view that the flood caused a huge change in many physical constants (the consequences of which are always ignored). The counter that uniformitanism is not just an assumption and that if it were incorrect, we would not see the same results from so many independent lines of inquiry is of no interest to them.
Ultimately, no one has ever independently interpreted the evidence and concluded that the Earth is 6000 years old. This can be seen quite clearly from groups such as Answers in Genesis that state that the bible is the ultimate authority on the age of the earth, and from pretty much any Creationist web site, which all either use discredited and disproved arguments in favour of a young earth or simply try to discredit or misrepresent arguments against one

Posted by: Wildy | July 7, 2009 12:35 PM

I for one am not going to take the blame for this guy. He's a Banana Bender. They're like the least Australian Australians.

For the record I'm a Croweater.

Posted by: Gary Brown | July 7, 2009 12:40 PM

Grant, Oh Graaaant!

Where are you buddy? You seemed so confident that you have the evidence and amidst a veritable flood of very reasonable questions you post once in 121 posts so far.

H/T to Ray Ingles @ #68

If there is only one question you can answer let it be Ray's.

So where is flood geology in the field of oil exploration? I don't claim any credentials whatsoever but it seems like a fair question. I would guess that it would be a lot easier to find oil in relation to a 4k year old global flood and be pretty profitable too. Much cheaper and easier than dealing with subductions and unconformities and all that other sciencey stuff.

So where is HovindOil? ICRCO? ComfortOil?

Grant?

Posted by: sailor1031 | July 7, 2009 12:40 PM

Forgot to mention this: shouldn't University of Queensland revoke his degree? Or do they not mind the fearful rep. this will give them if it gets out?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 7, 2009 12:43 PM

No name calling! Next thing you know he'll protest gutter language.
Typical fundie kill-joy.

Posted by: Gary Brown | July 7, 2009 12:44 PM

Grant, Oh Graaaant!

Where are you buddy? You seemed so confident that you have the evidence and amidst a veritable flood of very reasonable questions you post once in 121 posts so far.

H/T to Ray Ingles @ #68

If there is only one question you can answer let it be Ray's.

So where is flood geology in the field of oil exploration? I don't claim any credentials whatsoever but it seems like a fair question. I would guess that it would be a lot easier to find oil in relation to a 4k year old global flood and be pretty profitable too. Much cheaper and easier than dealing with subductions and unconformities and all that other sciencey stuff.

So where is HovindOil? ICRCO? ComfortOil?

Grant?

Posted by: atheistlove | July 7, 2009 12:48 PM

hey, we may have some crazys down here, but funk it, whats a sick mind for but entertainment on a otherwise dull day.........!!

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | July 7, 2009 12:51 PM

If you think you can KNOW the age of the earth, you are sadly mistaken.

Sophistry. That we cannot state the age to a decimal point precise value does not invalidate the science. A close approximation is good enough, and the evidence points much closer to 4.5 billion than 6,000.

So, you little people can insult me as much as you like - it doesn't help your argument one little bit.

And you are welcome to insult us back. (I liked the 'little people' dig, by the way.) Most YEC denizens of the web tend to be eggshells armed with hammers and run away when challenged or fuss about being beaten up by the big kids. Why don't you show us that you are made of sterner stuff and give us your best evidence for 6,000 years?

By all means put up your articles and comments about research and scientific findings that support your beliefs in billions of years, but don't resort to name-calling for those who disagree. That is just pathetic and beneath us all...

No it's not. It is incumbent upon all good men and true (and the ladies too) to call bullshit on bullshit artists. Not that you are much of an artist in this matter. More a Xerox duplicating out other mens' errors.

All I tried to point out to you was that it is basically unacceptable to insult and name-call people in public because they disagree with you (and that applies to people on both sides of the argument)

Then why use the epithet 'little people'? That only makes you look disingenuous.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 7, 2009 12:52 PM

I never understand where the 6000 years comes from. There's zero evidence for it.

Posted by: Helene | July 7, 2009 12:53 PM

Oh Grant -
I’m afraid you don’t get the point.

RE Post #46: "Helene, if I were in your class, I would vigorously debate with you on your closed-minded approach, and not care about what meaningless grades you gave me just because I disagreed with you. Isn't it good I already have my degree."

If you were in my class, I would NOT give you a poor mark because you disagreed with me. I've had students disagree with me before and I don't have a problem with it. In fact, it can be a good way to get a discussion going and have students actively involved in researching and analyzing ALL of the data, and then draw a conclusion based on careful, logical interpretation. You would get a poor mark from me for failing to do the latter.

Before you get going on this, you should know that I HAVE given good marks to students who have disagreed with me, provided they supported their argument well. The distinction is that these disagreements were a matter of opinion, or preference and not a matter of scientific fact. There is no sound scientific data you can show or argument you can give to support your hypothesis that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Helene

Posted by: Josh | July 7, 2009 12:55 PM

...but thousands of scientist have carefully proven the correct age of 4.7 billion.

Whereas I love the point of your comment (and admittedly I'm nitpicking here, so feel free to throw things), this statement is written as though the 4.7Ga figure is THE ANSWER and, having now found it, we've all quit and gone home. It's written as though we won't refine the number further. That's not accurate.

Posted by: NoAstronomer | July 7, 2009 12:58 PM

"Or can you possibly raise your intelligence level a little higher to discuss things more maturely."

Nice framing. By phrasing the question in this manner you imply that it is PZ who is being immature and needs to raise his intelligence level.

In order for this dialogue to continue we need the answer to a simple question: Mr Grant have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no answers only please.

Posted by: TFK | July 7, 2009 1:06 PM

Is there a name for Grant's strategy? He asks to be insulted--and even provides a word ("dingbat"), then presents a proposition clearly in opposition to the ethos of the site, which he does not support with evidence, and then replies (just once) with complaints about being insulted (and no support for his proposition). It's kind of a reverse ad hominen.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 7, 2009 1:13 PM

Grant is probably asleep since he lives down under.

Grant, the burden of proof is upon you to show physical evidence that the earth is 6000 years old. You have presented nothing but your opinion, which is worth nothing. Until you present the physical evidence, preferably by citation to the peer reviewed primary scientific literature, you are considered merely an unscientific crank. We only need to show one thing older than 6000 years old to destroy your belief. Welcome to real science.

Posted by: Thorfinn Kjartansson | July 7, 2009 1:14 PM

"Thorfinn Kjartansson: Um yes that is what I said - you have a theory, you check the evidence, if the evidence constradicts your theory, you propose a new theory.... your problem would be?"

I look at the evidence, formulate my theory and when new evidence comes in, I may modify my theory. One thing I would never do is start with my theory. YEC's start with an answer "the earth is 6k years old" and then search for evidence. Even when they can't produce any at all, they still assert the same nonsense. Even year 6 & 7 children I teach know that much. It seems that the University of Queensland didn't manage to get through to you though

Posted by: Josh | July 7, 2009 1:16 PM

Apparently, the oldest known tree was around 3550 years before god made earth. Go figure?

But Grant can explain that away by not believing in teh radiocarbnz. For something that they can't really just explain away, the best we can do with tree rings is ~5000 years BP. See reference #8, here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/science_of_watchmen.php#comment-1503040

That harshes on teh flud pretty badly (indeed, I would say it pretty much fucking nukes 'em from orbit), but still gives the YEC crowd some wiggle room with respect to the date of creation (wiggle room that's completely slaughtered by other methods, of course...).

Posted by: Thorfinn Kjartansson | July 7, 2009 1:18 PM

"Thorfinn Kjartansson: Um yes that is what I said - you have a theory, you check the evidence, if the evidence constradicts your theory, you propose a new theory.... your problem would be?"

I look at the evidence, formulate my theory and when new evidence comes in, I may modify my theory. One thing I would never do is start with my theory. YEC's start with an answer "the earth is 6k years old" and then search for evidence. Even when they can't produce any at all, they still assert the same nonsense. Even year 6 & 7 children I teach know that much. It seems that the University of Queensland didn't manage to get through to you though

Posted by: Kobra | July 7, 2009 1:23 PM

I like how he keeps saying "I've seen the evidence" and "The evidence supports" and "Science can't prove," but does not once cite a single piece of evidence.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | July 7, 2009 1:23 PM

Woot!

He's about five minutes from me and he's a well known kook in the area. Don't ask me how I know him ( legal ethics and all *wink**wink*) but did I mention I now work back in CRIMINAL law?

Posted by: Lynna | July 7, 2009 1:25 PM

Josh @83: great link for Glacial Lake Hitchock. Images of circular concretions lying atop the varves, about 15 feet below surface level, if I recall correctly, are great. Woot! Geology lessons!

All hail to Grant for providing a dim excuse for a bright light to shine.

Concretions, why are they circular? I'm thinking also of the "Moki marbles" that one can find on the sandstone plateaus around Harris Wash in Utah.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | July 7, 2009 1:33 PM

Oh, and rest easy folks, no matter how much he's implying to the otherwise with this little "educational experience" quote, he is NOT a school teacher in Queensland so our children are safe.

Just a weirdo with a website and a bad attitude.

PS. ..and as my previous post sounds like it on rereading, I'd just like to clarify he is NOT one of my clients.

Posted by: JMG | July 7, 2009 1:40 PM

One person once suggested that people who believe in an age of 6000 were worse than Islamic terrorists! That is absolutely ridiculous.

Hmmm, maybe you're right. Even if us science-type people have overwhelming evidence for the age of universe, the Earth, and so on, maybe we're being a bit too harsh. After all, if YECers can be rational and sensible in discussion of...

When was the last time a young-earther killed 3000 people in a day?

*facepalm* You know what, nevermind. You are in fact, and idiot.

Posted by: Falcon | July 7, 2009 1:43 PM

Grant,

The only difference between young-earth creationists and flat-earthers is that YEC is inconsistent with *all* areas of human knowledge, while a flat earth is only inconsistent with most areas of human knowledge.

I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but YEC is indeed crazy. It's crazier than believing that 9/11 was an inside job, crazier than thinking that Elvis is alive, crazier than the flat earth hypothesis. It contradicts not just biology, but astronomy, geology, chemistry, anthropology, and every other area of human knowledge. YEC is by definition a conspiracy theory of the greatest magnitude. It is simply not possible for a reasonable person to believe that the earth is 6000 years old.

Posted by: Miguel | July 7, 2009 1:44 PM

So far, I can't see choose to ignore how it disproves my belief in 6000 years, so my belief stays.

Dingbat.

Posted by: Newfie | July 7, 2009 1:44 PM

Well done folks.
Grant, this is what's called a "boot in the arse".
Yes, it should be painful, and you should take heed.

Or, you can keep being a feckin' idgit... in which case, I have a wheel that spins straw into gold that I might be willing to sell to you. Jesus touched it, and blessed it... it really works too.. swear to God.

Posted by: DS | July 7, 2009 1:50 PM

Grant

And Mr Myers, if I was in a class of yours, I would have to walk out at the despicable way you treat people who disagree with you - totally unscientific and humane. You call me a dingbat - I call you a narrow-minded bigot (not for your belief mind you - but for your offensive childish attitude to opponents). Now where do we go next?

Posted by: Eric | July 7, 2009 1:52 PM

So it only took a mere 6,000 years for Australia to break off from Pangaea and locate itself at it's present day location in the Indian Ocean?

Grant admit it... you're not even remotely "using science" when you say that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Stop bearing false witness. Jesus is not amused!

Fun fact: NASA scientists who study and measure the movement of continents say that Australia is receding from South America and heading towards Hawaii. link to article

Question for Grant: If a continent such as Australia is moving at 4 to 7cm per year, how many years would it take for it to move a single mile?

It's baffling how people can be so sure (and proud) of their ignorance...

Posted by: Art | July 7, 2009 1:54 PM

I think Eidolon in Middle Georgia, #22, gets it right.

the statement: "All both sides can do is look at the evidence and analyse it to see if it fits their theory" jumped out at me reading the e-mail. Perhaps this is a Feudian slip and he may think he isn't using the method he explicitly says he is but whether he is aware of it or not he is.

He is fitting the evidence to his theory. Instead of fitting his theory to the evidence. A common and simple mistake in people who don't understand how science is done.

Unfortunately it also means that debate with him is highly unlikely to go anywhere. No matter how seemingly reasonable the presentation he is simply a denialist that cleaves to his own rigid belief system no matter what the evidence says.

Posted by: Sman | July 7, 2009 2:05 PM

Stephen Wells | July 7, 2009 9:53 AM

wrote:

Anyone for varves?

... or meter-scale cycles, and larger order sequences.

Posted by: tsg | July 7, 2009 2:06 PM

Question for Grant: If a continent such as Australia is moving at 4 to 7cm per year, how many years would it take for it to move a single mile?

This is an extremely pedantic pet peeve (and I fully admit the irrationality of it), but I hate it when people mix metric and US measurements. Probably because I once owned a car that had both kinds of fasteners and needed to have two sets of wrenches which meant I had twice as many to choose from when trying to find one that fit.

Okay, I feel better now.

Posted by: bobxxxx | July 7, 2009 2:08 PM

Grant: "You believe the world is older than 6000 years. I believe it is not."

Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 10:13 AM "As the person you are all so keen to insult, without knowing a thing about me, I have this to say: I stand by what I said before."

Grant, I know enough about you to be able say with 100% certainty that nobody could possibly be more stupid than you are. Any child who hasn't been brainwashed like you have could figure out the earth is at least millions of years old (it's about 4 1/2 billion years old).

People started breeding cows 8,000 years ago and you think the whole planet was magically created 2,000 years later. You're way beyond crazy. If it was up to me you would be forced to wear a straitjacket and you would be permanently locked up in an insane asylum.

Posted by: Lynna | July 7, 2009 2:15 PM

Raven @144: not as old as your examples, but there are plenty of bristlecone pine trees that exceed 4000 years old. See http://sonic.net/bristlecone/ for one example.

Posted by: Steve | July 7, 2009 2:29 PM

What a maroon. Another young earther. Probably believes the Grand Canyon formed in 5 minutes.

Look dude, even if you ignore all other evidence, you have your computer in front of you. You gladly use this technology and science because it doesn't upset your world view. The computer would be impossible on a young earth, since heavier elements are formed in supernovas. Oh, wait. God put them there. Or was it Satan? Is he trying to trick us? Wow, we could go in circles for, well, millenia....

Posted by: RPJ | July 7, 2009 2:36 PM

Sorry, not going to read 209+ comments, so I'll just be unoriginal and respond to the OP.

You believe the world is older than 6000 years.

"Belief" is a tenet of superstition. It is the acceptance of an idea that has no logical or factual basis, or is even factually or logically contradicted by reality. Belief is not a component of science.

I believe it is not.

Belief is irrelevant to both science and reality, and therefore, to this "debate".

Do you want to call me a dingbat also? Or can you possibly raise your intelligence level a little higher to discuss things more maturely.

This issue has been "debated" (or explained, rather) many times. Your side gets dismissed as dingbats by those who tire of repeating the same obvious stuff, only to have it ignored, kind of like how you're trying to distract the issue here. This is exactly the reason why you get called a dingbat.

If you know science, and I'm hoping you do, you will know that science CANNOT prove what happened at the beginning of the earth (whenever it was)

All both sides can do is look at the evidence and analyse it to see if it fits their theory.

So far, I can't see how it disproves my belief in 6000 years, so my belief stays.

Either you do not know the evidence or you choose to ignore it. Either way, the evidence is unequivocal and will not change. Believe what you will, but it will be wrong.

You can insult my intelligence if you like (you probably do), but it doesn't change the facts about what science can and can't prove.

Insults to intelligence arise after you demonstrate an inability to appreciate logic and rationality, which are some of the most basic tenets of intelligence. One cannot be considered intelligent if they are incapable of properly interpreting their environment and compensating for reality. An exception of course can be made for perfect ignorance, as not everything is directly observable, but once the facts and logic have been made apparent, failure to accept the undeniable reality betrays the lack of intelligence. Of course it has no bearing on reality. reality is what it is whether you accept it or not.

It would be nice if both sides could have sensible meaningful discussions over their beliefs and interpretations, but, unfortunately, many on the evolution/billions of years side aren't interested in proper debate, only in insulting those opposing them - which suggests something about their intelligence, perhaps?

See above. The issue has been explained to your side many times. Your side then ignores or distracts the issue with simpering, whining nonissues, such as the above. It is your side that refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion on the subject and defers debate to ad hominem attacks.

One person once suggested that people who believe in an age of 6000 were worse than Islamic terrorists!

I would regard YECs as less dangerous than IDists, though fighting o condemn the human race to untold years of ignorance about the world, undermining progress that could save millions and revolutionize life as we know it, espousing an outdated "moral" system the condemns vast swaths of a productive population (and betrays basic decency) and generally impeding any sort of human progress in favor of eternal stagnation, is in my opinion, quite a heinous crime.

When was the last time a young-earther killed 3000 people in a day?

Ideas are the most dangerous weapons of all.

I am not a scientist, but many scientists disagree on this (and indeed many other matters), and they are well-recognised, well-respected scientists.

By "this", are you referring to the age of the world? If so, I doubt that any scientist, much less one that has any business making statements about this subject, actually believes that the earth is 6000 years old. Perhaps you could give us a list of these "well-recognized, well-respected scientists"?

I have been presented one side of the argument by media and society, but I have decided that 6000 years actually makes sense to me based on the evidence.

You've been told by the media, which in general knows nothing about science (and certainly not the ones that you undoubtedly peruse), and by society (your church-going peers who are as ignorant as you), about something that none of you has any knowledge of, and claim that you've seen "evidence"? You have seen none. Your conclusions are based on invalid premises.

Please refrain from the unintelligent, insulting, degrading name calling jus tbecause you disagree.

I believe I have refrained from making any statements which were not relevant to the "debate". However, I hold no expectation that you or your side will pay any more attention to these arguments than usual - which is to say, none.

Posted by: Skemono | July 7, 2009 2:48 PM

Denying the evidence of dendrochronology pretty much requires denying that the trees in question grow one ring a year, right?

Tree rings, coral growth etc only suggest long age if you already have an expectation of how long it would take to grow that much to start with. They don't prove anything in themselves (unless they actually have the age written there in actual digits!)

Josh , you cut down a tree and see the tree rings. How do you know how old it is from that? You nyst already have an idea about how old each ring makes the tree. If people have different ideas about what the rings mean, they get different results. Same with the other measures.

Posted by: Freidenker | July 7, 2009 2:50 PM

I would cite Renee et. al 1997 - who used several radiometric dating and reached approximate datings of Mt. Vesuvius volcanic samples - all reaching dates very near 79 AD.

Now why on earth would a dating method based on something entirely unrelated to historical accounts reach exactly the same date? Trust me, they didn't use Potassium-Argon dating to ascertain that Pompeii was hit by the volcano at that date.

I'm sure that creationists might find dating methods inconclusive if they fail to meet their preconceived ideas, but what about historical accounts?

What about the fact that cow was domesticated before the earth was created, according to YEC's? There are even other creation myths who speak of an older earth - what makes one flavor of YEC better than another?

Posted by: Watchman | July 7, 2009 2:56 PM

Eric:

Young Earth CREATIONISTS? I guess I shouldn't have wasted my time (or yours). I got the feeling halfway through my post that no amount of scientific proof could ever correct a firmly held belief.

Trust your feelings, Luke.

Seriously, you didn't waste my time. I liked your comment very much; I only wanted to say that your point wouldn't be a problem for a YEC to explain away by way of Genesis... because <KyleReese>that's what they do... that's all they do... and they will not stop until you are dead!</KyleReese>

Posted by: daveau | July 7, 2009 2:59 PM

Frank Lovell@235

I think that's hilarious, even if no one else might.

Posted by: uncle frogy | July 7, 2009 3:03 PM

""Cant we just call people like Grant guilty of idolatry.""

if you follow their logic then of course it is idolatry that what it how it has seemed to be me for a long time. Their god is in the image of man and defined as a "personal god" and they worship "his word" as confined to one book compiled for arbitrary and political reasons by historical people. by their own belief in "satan" whose power is to lie, the god they worship must be the devil for who else would say "I Am God" and all others are not without any proof other that his word.?
just how would you ever be able to tell which was a lie and which of the many religions was "true".

and belief is not an answer that is a hope.
like going down to the track and picking a horse by name and betting to win.
or putting money in a Ponsi scheme even when you can see that it is impossible.

Posted by: CRS | July 7, 2009 3:04 PM

Grant,

In order to have the meaningful discussion you wish to have on this topic, it is necessary that you either share the evidence that supports your "theory" that the Earth is only 6000 years old, or at least respond to the evidence that the Earth is much older than that.

The scientists here have presented their evidence, and are eager to respond to your's as soon as you provide it. It is very frustrating for us to be accused of being unwilling to participate in the discussion when in fact we have done our part and your only response is to insult us. It is not surprising that after that, all you will get is insults in return.

If you cannot see that dismissing people's life work and education without giving any explanation is insulting to them, then I'm afraid a meaningful conversation with you is in fact impossible, and the only salvageable portion of this conversation will be coming up with interesting ways to insult you back. Scientists' high education and critical thinking skills actually result in them taking much pleasure in coming up with some constructions, and in fact it's much more fun than the rather laborious task of educating superstitious people (the hardest kind to educate).

However, we are willing to bring this thread back on track if you are, and all it takes is for you to participate in the dialog that you yourself suggested we have.

Posted by: Watchman | July 7, 2009 3:05 PM

"people who think the world is older than 6000 years are mindless, ignorant, brainwashed idiots"

Priceless.

Posted by: Elwood Herring | July 7, 2009 3:14 PM

tsg:

I hate it when people mix metric and US measurements

Don't come to England then, we have to put up with this nonsense every day. Miles, kilometres, pounds, kilograms, pints, litres... what a mess!

Posted by: plowman | July 7, 2009 3:20 PM

Dendochronology - Tree ring dating. There are fully anchored chronologies dating back more than 10,000 years. That trickster god testing the faithful I'm sure.

Posted by: tsg | July 7, 2009 3:24 PM

Don't come to England then, we have to put up with this nonsense every day. Miles, kilometres, pounds, kilograms, pints, litres... what a mess!

Well, that would explain it. The car in question was an MGB.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 7, 2009 3:26 PM

An equally mindless git said:

Eschenmoser's words are worth remembering next time someone objects to intelligent design on the grounds that it isn't scientific because it pertains to events that took place in the deep past.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/scientists_say_intelligent_des.html#more

Casey Luskin, if you desire the particulars.

Sure, Casey, it's that "intelligent design" pertains to events that (didn't) take place in the distant past that we consider it to be unscientific.

Oh hey, try this out, Casey, it's because you invoke an unobservable magic agent who made things as they are just on a whim that we consider it to be bullshit, not science.

Science actually does have problems with explaining very early events whose evidence is largely lost, which is why ID's focus on early events is so much cherry-picking of the gaps.

No one on on the science side ever thought that ID was not scientific because it supposedly happened in the distant past--although we have no more evidence that it doesn't happen now than we have that it did occur in the past. That's because ID has no evidence whatsoever for anything at all.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Science | July 7, 2009 3:33 PM

I wonder what this guy's opinion is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXNbcvNpbXU

Posted by: tsg | July 7, 2009 3:40 PM

@255

Yes, once you start appealing to "built with apparent age" to explain why it looks 4.5 billion years old, you open yourself up to Last Tuesdayism (ie. why 6000 years ago and not, say, last Tuesday?).

YEC is reduced to inventing all kinds of reasons why science doesn't prove 6000 years wrong, but can't provide one single shred of evidence why 6000 years is right. Oh, except "somebody said so".

Posted by: Alex | July 7, 2009 3:45 PM

The last time "a young-earther killed 3,000 people in a day," that I know of, was September 11, 2001.

Posted by: Epikt | July 7, 2009 3:51 PM

PZ Myers:

I suspect that Brave Sir Grant has bravely run away.

Is it still considered a Gish Gallop if the perpetrator tries to flee but trips over his own shoelaces and, arms windmilling like a sexually-aroused weed-whacker, performs a world-class face-plant?

Posted by: gr8hands | July 7, 2009 3:58 PM

Grant,

For you, forget geology and all that difficult to understand science. There is evidence of human activity: writing and drawing.

Investigate Jiahu symbols -- written/drawn 6,600 BC. Impossible, if the earth hadn't even been created at that time.

Here's another: http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSOWE14539320071011

Others have given examples, so now you have proof that 6000 years ago creation did NOT happen.

Posted by: Alan B | July 7, 2009 4:15 PM

We are getting careless on this site! Not too long ago we lost a "RogerS". Now we've lost a "Grant". Maybe he'll return and we'll get the evidence for a Young Earth and Flood geology that we failed to get from RogerS and his mate, Alan C.

Please note, Grant, I have not insulted you so can we have a useful chat based on the evidence, please?

Let me tell you how we left the discussion with RogerS to save you having to look it up. We concluded (after several thousand messages!) and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary that:

1) Neither a Young Earth nor Flood geology have any explanatory power when faced with evidence from the fields of geology, palaeontology, stratigraphy, petrology, vulcanology, geomorphology and sedimentology.

2) As a result, neither of them (or in combination) even reach the level of scientific hypotheses - let alone scientific theories.

3) Both of them can best be described as no more than religious hunches.

Grant, please feel free to take the argument further than either Alan C or RogerS were capable/willing to go.

Best wishes from the UK.

Posted by: Monkey Deathcar | July 7, 2009 4:29 PM

I figured it out. The UK, in colonizing different countries, put in "some crazy" to the ground water. As this "some crazy" substance gets more diluted through the years it actually becomes more potent. It's so simple.

Wait... what, I think I need to lay down for a bit.

Posted by: Ron Gove | July 7, 2009 4:46 PM

There is no point in insulting this man. If he believes that the earth is 6000 or so years old in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, insulting him isn't going to change his mind. Probably nothing can change is mind. I would like to ask him does he really truly believes that scientists (who also brought him the H Bomb, digital TV, and cell phones (for example)) can be so totally and absolutely wrong in estimating the age of the earth. Does he really believe that all of humanity is the result of incestuous union of Adam, Eve, and their children? Does he really believe that it is ok to kidnap women to be your wife (Deut 21:11-13) or that one can't wear linen and wool together (Deut22:11), or that one should stone a bride that isn't a virgin (Deut 22:17;210 or adulterers should be killed (Deut: 22:22) or that one whose testicles or penis have been lost (injury, cancer, ???) is not welcome to the lord? (Deut 23:1)??? I can go on and on--if one wants to accept a 6000 year old earth (which incidentally is nowhere stated in the bible, but is DERIVED by guess work and the genealogies given in the bible) then one also has to accept all of the other absurdities. On that last point, has Mr. Grant ever tried to trace his own genealogy? If is VERY difficult to trace one's ancestry back more than a few generations in historical time. How could the Bishop Ussher trace back the genealogies of Jesus and the Hebrew profits in prehistoric times. Get real! The only reason for accepting a young earth is the irrational need Mr Grant must have for a supernatural father figure to keep him being a good person. Obviously, without the threat of hell or the reward of heaven he would be evil. We should feel sympathy for Mr Grant, not insult him. He is a mere child and needs comforting. He can not accept that the universe has no purpose and that when he dies he is gone, no more, nada. And to end on an up-note, fundamentalists always remind me of the clerk in the wonderful Monty Python sketch of the dead parrot. There is nothing the customer and do or say to convince the clerk that the parrot is in fact dead!

Posted by: SC, OM | July 7, 2009 5:01 PM

Example: Since Alan Clarke got his "arguments" thoroughly whipped over here, he's now annoying people with his inanity over at John Loftus' blog.

He really is! Good grief. He's on Blogger now and there's no stoppin' him.

Posted by: Dr. Pablito | July 7, 2009 5:06 PM

Catalhoyuk, Damascus, Aleppo, Byblos, Jericho [etc.]

All are cities, (or inhabited places) much older than 6000 years. Most of the dates for the most ancient layers of archaeological evidence are derived from carbon dating, but not exclusively so. In other words, if one were to complain that carbon-14 dating was invalid, you'd still have a very strong case that these remains were more ancient than 6000 years. Is there a reply by the YEC's?

Cave paintings at Lascaux?

How about absolute dendochronology time scales:

http://courses.washington.edu/twsteach/ESS/302/ESS%20Readings/Reimer2004.pdf

Posted by: catta | July 7, 2009 5:09 PM

Grant, I suspect that hoping for another reply from you is hope against hope. But if you do, please consider actually answering some of the questions you have been asked. There are some very, very good ones there. You may have to deal with insults, but you seem to focus on those. Try focussing on the actual arguments supplied along with the insults -- just because you don't like the tone, the facts still stand.
So I'll repeat the most important question to you, the answering of which will remove at least one of the reasons to insult you. Grant, what evidence leads you to believe the earth is 6000 years old? Please, please answer this. And don't just say "do your own research"; we all know what the commonly-stated "reasons" are, and we know why they're flawed. A detailled argument for a 6000 year old earth please, with evidence.

Try to read what people have posted. As an example, your idea of the scientific method is plainly wrong, and it has been pointed out very clearly what is wrong about it. Yet you repeated your (simply wrong) definition and couldn't defend it beyond "that's the way it is, neener neener". Continually failing to back up your position does not make you look smart and facilitates the insults.

If your next post is like the last one, and I guess it will be - namely a string of "you're all losers, I'm SMRT and that's all there is to it" - remember that you've been asked to state your positon and that your arguments have been answered. If you continue to evade the questions, you deserve every single insult thrown at you.

Posted by: pdferguson | July 7, 2009 5:11 PM

Grant#46 wrote:

I didn't come onto this site to start an argument, or to be insulted by uninformed people.

So far it seems the only uninformed person here is you, child, a fact that should be clear from the many posts on this thread.

In your favor, though, YEC claims are so patently absurd as to not even rise to the level of being something to argue about, which should put you at ease over "starting an argument." I don't see anyone arguing here at all, everyone seems to be in complete agreement about your laughably wrong claims. Sorry if that hurts, but sometimes the only reasonable response to such idiocy is ridicule. Not all ideas deserve respect, and none deserve it less than YEC. That's just the way it is.

Since you didn't rule out being insulted by informed people, I'm guessing you're still reading these posts, because even if you didn't want to start an argument, you most definitely crave the attention. It's a common need among those who have become so isolated by their religious madness that they have lost touch with the rest of the world. The other common theme here is the desire to help people like you, but honestly, most of us know the futility of that effort.

Posted by: Dr. Pablito | July 7, 2009 5:18 PM

And one of my favorites: the Oklo natural nuclear reactor. The anomalous isotopic abundances of this particular deposit of uranium in Gabon are best explained as the action of a natural nuclear reactor operating some 2 billion years ago. If you believe that nuclear reactors work nowadays, then you are forced to conclude that this deposit of uranium is really old. I anticipate the YEC objections, however.

Posted by: realityvist | July 7, 2009 5:21 PM

Real Age of Earth - 4.5 billion years
Age as imagined by Grant - 6000 years
Real distance from New York to San Francisco - 2578 miles
Distance as imagined by Grant - 18 feet or 6 yards

Saying the age of Earth is 6000 years is like saying the distance from NY to SF is 18 feet. Dawkins said in The God Delusion pg. 336 it was like saying 700 yards, it is actually 6 yards.

Posted by: Doug Little | July 7, 2009 5:58 PM

Jim Or.

Oh look here I just found some gold tablets that were given to me by an angel that declares me the mouthpiece of god. Only you can't see them as I had to give them back, Oh and did I tell you I used to predict people's fortunes by staring into a hat with a rock in the bottom of it.

Posted by: Andyo | July 7, 2009 6:08 PM

Sorry, I just went to sleep and when I came back there were about 270 new posts. Jeez people you are relentless.

Has Grant answered which freaking "respectable" scientists agree with him on this matter?

Posted by: Doug Little | July 7, 2009 6:11 PM

Andyo, I think you know the answer already!

Posted by: Doug Little | July 7, 2009 6:16 PM

Carlie, from the article you posted.

The Soviet government decided to sell them in 1933 -- to raise money to buy tractors and other agricultural equipment.

Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 6:27 PM

Good morning. Thank you all for adding to the list of messages overnight, even taking to emailing an anonymous person at my work! You guys are so much fun to play with!

So easy to work you up into a frenzy. Best night's entertainment in quite a while.

Have a good day, all. :-)

Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 6:32 PM

Plus: even if I am totally wrong in my belief, the fact that you (almost all) chose to decide that that alone made me a total idiot, regardless of any other knowledge or skills I may have, proved so much about you. (yes, flawedprefect, I'm talking bout comments like yours)

So once again, thanks for the entertainment. Gave me a good laugh

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 7, 2009 6:36 PM

Dear Brother Grant,

Mate! Those Northern Hemisphericists sure gave you a swift kick or two up the ring piece. While I, as a Noo Zillunder, usually love to see a West Islander getting a good rooting, as an Antipodean I have to say you've let the side down badly. Might I suggest that if you really believe the world was created sometime after the cow was domesticated, then you are in the wrong place.

Take my advice and fuck of to America like Ken Ham and Ray Comfort. You'll have no trouble finding a likely spot--just point your "stoopid radar" in the approximate direction and God will guide you.

But...Granto...before you go, why not pop on up to Lake Mungo and check out some of the archeological sites there. Or don't you believe in those either.

FUCK GRANT! How the fuck can you live in Australia, with evidence of one of the world's longest periods of human habitation and still believe that 6,000 years-old shit?

You are a sad, deluded brain-washed fucking moron. And coming form me that's really saying something. You're offended? As a Noo Zillunder I'm offended on behalf of every West Islander in the world.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | July 7, 2009 6:38 PM

So easy to work you up into a frenzy. Best night's entertainment in quite a while.

Have a good day, all. :-)

Posted by: ZK | July 7, 2009 6:41 PM

OK, 285 posts in at the time of writing, so nobody will ever notice, but I'll give it a go:

You believe the world is older than 6000 years. I believe it is not.
It doesn't matter what you believe in your makey-uppey little mind, show us the evidence for your "argument".

Do you want to call me a dingbat also?
Far worse, you snot-gobbling knuckle dragger.

Or can you possibly raise your intelligence level a little higher to discuss things more maturely.
Not with you, snot-gobbler.

If you know science, and I'm hoping you do,
More than you do, guano-features.

you will know that science CANNOT prove what happened at the beginning of the earth (whenever it was).
It can have a damned good go at critically assessing the available evidence and publishing hypotheses that can then be critically tested by scientists forever more, or until a hypothesis is proved wrong, at which point new hypotheses may be suggested and the process continues. Perhaps religion could try a bit of "re-evaluation of evidence" once in a while, pffft, I think not!

All both sides can do is look at the evidence and analyse it to see if it fits their theory.
Bullshit. What's this "sides" lark anyway?

Creationists start with their crappy theories then try to twist the evidence to fit them. Scienctists start with the available evidence and produce theories to fit that - then (and do pay attention because this is important) use those theories to make predictions which can then be tested by science.

So far, I can't see how it disproves my belief in 6000 years, so my belief stays.
Go to a natural history / geology museum, look at fossils, at dendrochronology, at medium-long half-life radioactive isotopes, at shifting continents, volcanoes, glacial rock formations, etc. Ag, what's the point? You'll walk round with a bible wedged firmly into the space where your brain should be, thinking "fiat lux, fiat lux, this is all so wrong, WAAAA! WAAA!". Fucking dingbat.

You can insult my intelligence if you like (you probably do),
I would struggle to insult your intelligence, I'd have to find it first. You on the otherhand insult my intelligence.

but it doesn't change the facts about what science can and can't prove.
Quite right too, but remind me what exactly does your bible prove?

It would be nice if both sides could have sensible meaningful discussions over their beliefs and interpretations,
No it wouldn't be nice, it'd be a complete and utter waste of time except to serve to give diseased idiots like you the oxygen of respectability - "look at us, look at us, scientists and proper clever people will speak to us". Nope.

but, unfortunately, many on the evolution/billions of years side aren't interested in proper debate,
Yes they are. You just don't know what the word means.

only in insulting those opposing them - which suggests something about their intelligence, perhaps?
Yeah, it suggests that they've no reason to waste their intelligence on you.

I am not a scientist,
No shit.

but many scientists disagree on this
No they do not. If you think they do then prove it!

and they are well-recognised, well-respected scientists.
No they are not. Show and tell?

I have read much about this (from both sides),
No you haven't. That is a hypothesis of mine based upon the available evidence (and I'm sure I could make some very accurate predictions based upon said available evidence).

I have been presented one side of the argument by media and society,
It's not an argument. It's an attack on science by the control freaks of various churches.

but I have decided that 6000 years actually makes sense to me based on the evidence.
Oh well, if you've "decided" it must be so, no? No actually, your wishful thinking makes not a jot of difference.

Please refrain from the unintelligent, insulting, degrading name calling jus tbecause you disagree.
Fuck off.

So there.

How did I do?

ZK

Posted by: OrangeG | July 7, 2009 6:49 PM

PZ really knows how to call in an air strike. I love this place, both for entertainment and learning something, too.

Some points/questions:

1. I agree with tsg: Let's be accurate.

So,

@Dan52

"Consider the ignorance of the average fundamentalist. Then realize that by definition fully half of them must be even dumber than that."

At least. Sorry Dan52, but, by definition, you are talking about the median. If you indeed mean the average (or mean), it is possible that way, way more of them are dumber than that. That's an interpretation with which you might agree.

2. @197
I agree, but besides having a requirement for a refutable hypothesis, why does Grant get to disprove so much (by ignoring or misrepresenting it), rather than having to demonstrate his position with real, positive evidence. He does neither. That's all the IDers/creationists do: publicly attack without shouldering any burden of scientific proof by giving verifiable evidence.

That's old news to most of you here. I stand with the many here who call on Grant, or one who might defend him, to answer credibly the (historically) long ignored call for evidence to support creationist claims.

Posted by: Dan L. | July 7, 2009 6:59 PM

That is absolutely ridiculous. When was the last time a young-earther killed 3000 people in a day?

Probably when George W. Bush ordered shock and awe to go into effect. Which is considerably more recent than 9/11.

My guess is that most Islamic terrorists are young earth creationists, by the way, so maybe it's not a comparison Grant should draw too often -- people might get the wrong idea.

Posted by: RHM | July 7, 2009 7:05 PM

During the reading of this thread a question passed through my brain (preceded by a sigh): "why (oh, why!) do these people, who (supposedly) want to discuss "alternate viewpoints" (Ha!), always turn out to be such loons? Can't it ever be someone in their right mind, for a change?"

I paused...
Then I screamed.
Then shuddered.
Finally, I smacked myself - hard!

*dabbing the beads of sweat off my brow...*
Insidious, that stupid.

Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 7:07 PM

And all I asked for was politeness.

Who knew that manners were anathema to evolutionists.

Good bye.

P.S. Dale: satire

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 7, 2009 7:09 PM

Please, Grant, won't you please return and engage in pleasant and polite conversation? We'd be ever so entertained if you did. Thank you!

Posted by: jdac | July 7, 2009 7:11 PM

I'd love to help, PZ, but there's no evidence I could cite that your other posters haven't already. The most I can do is count fallacies and try to show Grant why his arguments are thoroughly unconvincing.

I'll give it a shot, if only for my own edification. I apologize in advance for my snark; I gleaned my rhetorical style from a melange of Brian Dunning and Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Okay, I suppose I should start with my assumptions. I'm assuming Grant is male, and that "he" is a Young Earth Creationist. I don't think that's much of a stretch; as YEC believers are about the only ones who take so ridiculous a figure for the age of the planet.

The email is quite a specimen. The first paragraph features an ad hominem attack vis a vis your intelligence, only increaseing the hilarity when the third paragraph begins with: "It would be nice if both sides could have sensible meaningful discussions..."

The second paragraph... *sigh*

I've seen briefer appeals to ignorance: "Science can't disprove my Young Earth Creationism, therefore it is true." Ignores the fact that YEC dogma is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific in the first place; ANY evidence is consistent with the will of an omnipotent and manipulative deity.

I can't say if asserting that scientists, like believers, start with a hypothesis and then cherry pick their evidence is an ad hominem attack or a straw man. Maybe it's both, or something else entirely; I'm still learning the subtleties of fallacy taxonomy.

Grant's provincial view of the limits of science is amusing though. Like posting a sign at the origins of the Earth (and Time, according to Grant) that says "Abandon Reason all Ye Who Enter Here."

I'm tempted to annunciate "YEC" with a voiceless velar fricative, forming, "yyyech." I think I'll do that.

Come paragraph three, he's shouting at you for something someone else may have said somewhere (no reference is given). Sloppy, as guilt by association ploys go.

Whether Yechs are worse than Muslim terrorists could be a red herring; it's certainly irrelevant to the truth of his Yech beliefs. I'm more inclined to call it an argument from final causes followed (pun intended) by a non sequitur: "Muslims killed 3000 people on 9/11, therefore they're much worse than we Yechs, whose beliefs are consequently beyond reproach."

Also, he sprinkles in another ad hominem; scientists are stupid because they call names. I guess he's done insulting just you, and has moved on to anyone who finds accepted theories of biodiversity, geology, chemistry, et cetera, to be a parsimonious explanation for veritable mountains of evidence.

Fourth paragraph: he now admits he's not a scientist (shocker).

Next he makes combined appeals to authority and ignorance; unnamed, well-respected scientists disagree on the age of the earth; therefore it is 6000 years old. In retrospect, the assertion that some scientific idea is wrong because scientists disagree about it is a favorite of climate change deniers as well; I probably should have seen it coming.

"I have decided that 6000 years actually makes sense to me based on the evidence"... Given the evidence of his second paragraph, I'm pretty sure he decided it made sense first, and then stopped really examining that belief when confirmation bias kicked in.

Finally, he pleads that you be nice and not call names. Frankly I was waiting for him to drop the the Fallacy Fallacy, claiming your argument is false because you committed an ad hominem attack in calling a (presumably) fellow Yech, "dingbat." Personally, I think asserting flatly that Earth is 6000 years old is ample justification for so gentle a term.

I won't ding this dingbat for the Fallacy Fallacy, though, since it would be reading too much into his email. Despite that, it has one of the greatest fallacy densities that I can recall.

I won't say he's wrong based on that, lest I commit the Logician's Fallacy myself. No, I can't say he's wrong because his arguments are fallacious. We have EVIDENCE to do that! :3

And what the heck is that muppet thing at the top of his email? Were we supposed to be swayed by his hillbilly rage muppet?

~jdac

Posted by: Doug Little | July 7, 2009 7:13 PM

And all we asked for was some evidence.

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | July 7, 2009 7:20 PM

Dale: satire

No, this is not satire. It is complete disingenuousness. You are a liar.

You'd do well to try and keep your story straight in future.

Posted by: Pharyngulette | July 7, 2009 7:24 PM

I'll admit cheerfully that I tuned into this thread to watch Grant get well and truly dogpiled -- nice work, Pharyngulites, btw -- but in reading all 300+ posts, I've also picked up a large number of excellent, concise talking points for when I'm next forced into a discussion of Young Earth Creationism by ignoramuses.

Thanks for the hints, smarter-than-me posters!

Posted by: Skemono | July 7, 2009 7:26 PM

All we're asking for is your evidence that the Earth is 6000 years old, Grant.

Fortunately everyone here knows that evidence is anathema to creationists, so nobody is at all surprised that you refuse to actually give any.

Posted by: Pharyngulette | July 7, 2009 7:26 PM

I'll admit cheerfully that I tuned into this thread to watch Grant get well and truly dogpiled -- nice work, Pharyngulites, btw -- but in reading all 300+ posts, I've also picked up a large number of excellent, concise talking points for when I'm next forced into a discussion of Young Earth Creationism by ignoramuses.

Thanks for the hints, smarter-than-me posters!

Posted by: chrisD | July 7, 2009 7:28 PM

Methinks Grant just admitted to trolling... He stated he found pleasure in "working pharyngulites into a frenzy." He doesn't address any issue and what's that... is that a smirking "lol" wanting to creep into his post? Yep, definitely a troll.

Lest he comes back to address any of the issues raised at him in a non-frenzy like manner. Which I doubt he will. If he does, it'll be more drive-by character emaciating, such as follows:

Plus: even if I am totally wrong in my belief, the fact that you (almost all) chose to decide that that alone made me a total idiot, regardless of any other knowledge or skills I may have, proved so much about you.

Now quit being an idiot.

Posted by: Kseniya | July 7, 2009 7:32 PM

Grant whined:

Who knew that manners were anathema to evolutionists.

Grant, you're just one more droning cipher in a long, long series of blind, foolish liars who whine about civility, but who then conveniently overlook the dozens of polite and informative comments left with good intentions to educate and enlighten - just so they can whine some more, then leave with a sense of having won a moral victory, but without for a single moment examining their own lapses of honesty and integrity.

How do you live with yourselfs? I have to wonder.

No, wait - I have it. Psychotic denial is at the root of belief in creationism, and it permeates all aspects of the creationist's life.

Never mind, then. I figured it out.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | July 7, 2009 7:35 PM

Plus, I never said "my belief is true". Ever.

Think it will be enough for him to throw out his 'theory'?

Posted by: chancelikely | July 7, 2009 7:44 PM

Grant is the classic pigeon:

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

Posted by: BG | July 7, 2009 7:48 PM

Ya, not only are you a poor designer in my opinion, but I love the "submit" our handy form button at the bottom of every to request a quote that goes a page with no form. lol. You are one pathetic waste of skin and yes, your job appears to be idiotic as well if that is you level of skill or attention to detail.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 7, 2009 7:50 PM

And all I asked for was politeness.

And all we asked for was evidence, which you claimed you had.

Who knew that manners were anathema to evolutionists.

We all knew that evidence was anathema to YECs.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 7, 2009 7:51 PM

Though to be fair, not all banana benders are brainless boofhead bumpkins. Brisbane contains the excellent IMB, for instance.

But we're in Australia, FFS! Ancient landscapes, ancient cultures, totally non-biblical flora and fauna, stromatolites, dinosaurs... The bloke clearly has a few roos loose in the top paddock. He's a couple of snags short of a barbie. What a galah!

Everyone's covered the obvious points, but I do wonder what Grant has to say about the well-known 40,000 years of Aboriginal history. Some evidence now points to it possibly being as much as 60,000 years. (On second thoughts, I'm not sure I really do want to know. I can guess.)

(This post brought to you by gratuitous alliteration and Autralianisms.)

Posted by: truthspeaker | July 7, 2009 8:05 PM

Still no evidence, Grant?

Posted by: Kevin | July 7, 2009 8:29 PM

I have 14 years education experience.

It seems to me that everyone is ignoring the fact that he forcefully stated his experience in education (assumed educating) but will not, after repeated questioning, teach us anything about his 6,000 y/o Earth idea. Maybe I'm wrong but after that long in teaching wouldn't that be your first tactic? Instead he resorts to "playing the high card." This isn't a grade school play yard. It's Grant that needs to grow up, take responsibility and back up his claims.

Posted by: Adam C. | July 7, 2009 8:32 PM

Even ignoring the science, 6000 years is blisteringly stupid in light of history alone: By that dating, the world began in the middle of Sumer's Uruk period, and evidently the Ubaid period - which began in the 6th millenium B.C. - just didn't exist.

Even if you're such an ignorant moron to ignore the science, putting the creation at around the start of Sumer's second Millenia of existence is just daft. Even 10,000 years presumes that Adam left the Garden of Eden, then somehow, despite every generation being documented as hundreds of years apart, they had enough people to found Eridu cities 2,600 years later, or about 1,600 years before the world was created, according to the ignorant boob.

Looking at this another way, the Neolithic period began about 11,500 years ago. That's pretty much the start of farming, which the Bible says Adam began doing when he left Eden. But, no, even trying to make history consistent with your own holy book (which still means chopping out the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic) is evidently too much for you. Idiot.

Posted by: Monkey Deathcar | July 7, 2009 8:41 PM

Grant was offended that I called him a "fucking idiot" in the last thread, despite the fact that he is a "fucking idiot." Also, his own website is pretty poor, it's difficult to navigate. He seems to be poor at just about everything he does. I hope he doesn't have children, for their sake.

Posted by: Richard Thomas | July 7, 2009 8:58 PM

I wonder if Grant is capable of explaining how a universe that is only 6000 light years in scope is able to contain on the order of 10²¹ stars. {That is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars Grant}.

IF we assume a spherical shape for this 6000 light year universe we have a volume approximating 110000000000 cubic light years and assuming again an equal distance between those stars we have approximately 0.00000000001 light years between the stars.

This translates into roughly 65 miles between the stars.

I do not believe that even a YEC'er can spin that to their advantage.

P.S. Apologies in advance for any errors in the maths though I do not think being a magnitude or so off in the calculation would be of any consequence.

Posted by: cyan | July 7, 2009 9:06 PM

Grant,

If you truly believed the Earth is 6000 years old and no older, you would try to help others understand that it is true, especially when over 200 people have asked you to do so.

But you consistently refuse to enlighten anyone.

It is obvious that you really do not think the Earth is 6000 years old.

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 7, 2009 9:18 PM

I apologize on behalf of Australia.

*serves up offerings of bbq'd prawn and imported Fosters as a sacrifice*

I've got to say it's really annoying reading all those Aussies in this thread apologise for this guy. Australia is no haven from insanity, nor should we pretend that this is an abberation. There are humans here so there are kooks, end of story.

Can I claim myself to be a scientist because I have a computer science degree? It has science in the title...

Posted by: Tristan | July 7, 2009 9:23 PM

Though to be fair, not all banana benders are brainless boofhead bumpkins. Brisbane contains the excellent IMB, for instance.

Not to mention the IHBI.

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 7, 2009 9:29 PM

I've never been a jingoistic American, but one of the things that always bugged me about talk.origins was the frequent habit of Ozzies and Limeys to point out that creationism was an American thing, and that their countries were untroubled by such lunacy. Even worse were the Americans that simpered up to them and said "Yeah, I think I'll move there and get away from all these creationist idiots."

Well, here is another "Booyah!" from a proud American. Sure we have a bunch of creationists, but we are not Fortress Jesus-Head.

Grant, thanks for helping me by demonstrating an exclusion to the rule.

Your friend,

Pithecanthropous erectus

Posted by: Olorin | July 7, 2009 9:35 PM

"Do you want to call me a dingbat also? Or can you possibly raise your intelligence level a little higher"

How's this? You can compress the most words into the smallest idea of anyone I know.

Is that a high enough level?

Posted by: cyan | July 7, 2009 9:41 PM

SusanR,

Maybe you read that SciAm article recently on the domestication of the cat about 10,000 years ago. Good stuff.

On average, cats cat-nap 13 to 18 hours a day. And they do not do that standing up, ergo, they lie. They lie about a lot.

However, all their articulations and actions are truthful.

Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 7, 2009 9:44 PM

I know we're supposed to be tearing this asshat's beliefs apart, but highholyhell have you seen his design site? It looks like he just ripped off a livejournal layout!

Oh and by the way, Grant, it would be way more convenient if the logo on your site was also the link to your home page. Just sayin'.

(I'm totally late to this party and it took me FOREVER to read all of the posts. Thanks to everyone who provided awesome arguments to refute this guy. I've learned a lot from you guys, even if he hasn't!)

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 7, 2009 10:06 PM

I didn't come onto this site to start an argument, or to be insulted by uninformed people.

You've got a computer science degree? Well so do I. Just where in your computer science degree did you spend time analysing radiometric dating? I'm sure you hit the calculus that underpins ageing the earth, I remember doing the maths in high school. What about finding out the speed of light and both the relative and absolute distance of stars? Did you touch on ice core dating, or dendrochronology? What about dating done by coral combined with the gradual slowing of the earth's rotation? Did you study anthropology and archaeology - the evidence of human settlements? What about genetics, and being able to determine the time of common ancestry based on genetic markers? What about main sequencing and the life-cycles of stars, did you learn about how to date a star by the ratio of hydrogen and helium in its core based on the stary type?

All these dating techniques are different solutions to the same puzzle, they all tell a consistent story. We see that the universe is old, around 13.7 billion years old. This is demonstrated by big bang cosmology, the furthest observed galaxies (~13.2 billion light years away) and the oldest stars (~13.2 billion years old). We see the sun age to 4.6 billion years old, and that's the same age as other solar bodies such as the moon and meteorites. And the different stratum of the earth show that older rocks date to older than younger rocks, where this data is consistent with the fossils within. It all tells the same story.

So you're either ignorant, stupid, or incredibly dishonest. Because there's not different perspectives, there's the conclusion that the evidence tells us and there's the conclusion that bible bashers come to from a piece of bronze age mythology.

Posted by: No Bs | July 7, 2009 11:12 PM

From talk origins;

"Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent. "

Not that many scientists after all.

Posted by: K-dub | July 7, 2009 11:25 PM

Not that it will likely change his deluded mind, but the best response I can offer is to tell him to read Measuring Eternity, by Martin Gorst. From the dust jacket: "The untold story of the religious figures, philosophers, astronomers, geologists, physicists and mathematicians who, for more than four hundred years, have pursued the answer to a fundamental question at the intersection of science and religion: When did the universe begin?" A fascinating read, and should be right up this guys alley. It's as much a history of how the scientific method developed as the above, too. He may not like the conclusions, but of course not everything science offers in the way of answers has to be or is going to be liked.

Posted by: Colin | July 7, 2009 11:32 PM

jdac @ #312: "And what the heck is that muppet thing at the top of his email? Were we supposed to be swayed by his hillbilly rage muppet?"

You're not talking about PZ's Gumby are you?

Jesus people, Monty Python doesn't begin and end with Holy Grail & Life of Brian, you know.

AJMilne @ #363: After checking his attempts at web design, I have to say the theory that he's a time travelling medieval peasant is looking more credible.

Posted by: Asa | July 8, 2009 12:31 AM

Dear Grant,

I believe you are being honest about your intentions. I'm sorry so many of the Pharyngulites were mean to you. I've read a lot of scientific material that explains why the world is billions of years old, but I have to admit that I am ignorant of the evidence for creationism.

Could you please give me some references so that I can learn about both sides and make the decision for myself, instead of just believing what Dr. Myers says?

Let's have a civil conversation right here.

Posted by: Emma | July 8, 2009 12:44 AM

"Can any Aussie explain what it is about Queensland that seems to produce more than its fair share of creationists?"

Looks like I'm a bit late, but to answer Matt's question, QLD is pretty much the Aussie equivalent of the South. Think rednecks, racism and a slow drawl. Pauline Hanson and the One Nation party came from and were very popular in QLD - they wanted to severely restrict immigration, especially from Asia. Very embarrassing period in Australian politics, thankfully they are gone now.

That said, I do know a lot of very intelligent and rational people who are from QLD, so they're not all like that.

Posted by: Emma | July 8, 2009 12:48 AM

"Can any Aussie explain what it is about Queensland that seems to produce more than its fair share of creationists?"

Looks like I'm a bit late, but to answer Matt's question, QLD is pretty much the Aussie equivalent of the South. Think rednecks, racism and a slow drawl. Pauline Hanson and the One Nation party came from and were very popular in QLD - they wanted to severely restrict immigration, especially from Asia. Very embarrassing period in Australian politics, thankfully they are gone now.

That said, I do know a lot of very intelligent and rational people who are from QLD, so they're not all like that.

Posted by: Kseniya | July 8, 2009 1:01 AM

How very, very exciting for Grant, to be the center of attention for a day. Too bad he won't learn a single thing from it.

I am so weary of his ilk.

Posted by: Pascalle | July 8, 2009 1:21 AM

Mister Grant,

I wasn't impolite in my post. So please respond to it, thanks.

(see.. again i'm not impolite, i don't call names. No reason to not respond)

Ps. When you respond to my post, please include your proof that the earth is no more than 6000 years old, i'm quite curious to read it.

Posted by: Dr. P | July 8, 2009 1:39 AM

So, um, Grant? About that evidence? You know , your convincing evidence based argument....Grant? Hello? Helooooo.......lo.........o............o................o............*crickets*

Posted by: Andrew Skegg | July 8, 2009 2:54 AM

I also apologise on behalf of Australia, but I am afraid to say we are not immune from these dingbats either. Indeed, I have personally spoken to many of them.

Their problem (not that they generally admit it) is presuming the Bible to the completely accurate and working things out from there. A truly rational approach assumes *nothing*, accept as few axioms as possible, then let's the evidence speak for itself.

You can't reach these people, and it's pointless trying. The best we can do is isolate them from position of power and continue on our merry way.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | July 8, 2009 3:47 AM

Whoa,

Enough of the Queensland bashing, we're not all that bad!

Shitty as we may be to some who have posted here, there are currently record numbers of southerners migrating here. Can't be all that terrible if a large number of you want to live here.

..and might I say it wasn't Queensland that hosted the friggin Pope in his week long clusterfuck of catholic insanity...nor do we have Hillsong.
..so there, ngha, ngah,ngah,ngah

**sticks tongue out and runs away**

Posted by: Gordy | July 8, 2009 4:17 AM

I have decided that 6000 years actually makes sense to me based on the evidence.

(Apologies if this has been covered above - reading 384 comments vs having a life, yano...)

Posted by: Colin Frayn | July 8, 2009 4:57 AM

Summarise the evidence? Look, the belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old hasn't been tenable in any way for the best part of two centuries. If this guy is too ignorant, brainwashed or both to get the message yet, then there's not a lot we can do. Just ignore him, pity him, and maybe he'll go away. The worst thing we can do is to give him the time it would take to craft a well-constructed argument that (a) he'd just ignore and (b) would have no effect on him whatsoever and (c) would give support to his delusional belief that there's actually some doubt about this.

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 8, 2009 5:23 AM

I am going to buck the trend and say that I think Grant is not an idiot, because his home page is well-done for proper webdesign sales. It loads quickly, is light on showy graphics, it only fills a single screen. It has all of the elements of a good advertising site.

If I needed a site I would consider his services.

That being said, he is a fool when it comes to origins. I would never consider his services as a science teacher.

Posted by: Andrew Skegg | July 8, 2009 5:55 AM

I also apologise on behalf of Australia, but I am afraid to say we are not immune from these dingbats either. Indeed, I have personally spoken to many of them.

Their problem (not that they generally admit it) is presuming the Bible to the completely accurate and working things out from there. A truly rational approach assumes *nothing*, accept as few axioms as possible, then let's the evidence speak for itself.

You can't reach these people, and it's pointless trying. The best we can do is isolate them from position of power and continue on our merry way.

Posted by: DebinOz | July 8, 2009 5:58 AM

It almost sounds from his twattering, er, twittering, that he has enjoyed the fact that he got some fancy professor and his minions to bust a gut!

His facebook page is open for all to see, and has some interesting information.

You guys can find it yourselves, so I don't get accused of outing personal information.

Definitely is wearing those god-goggles (love that term, thank you to a poster waaaay above)!

I have yet to meet a YEC here in Melbourne, but then again I don't get out much.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 8, 2009 6:10 AM

It's just that intelligent people have that capacity to rationalise away irrational notions and 'intellectually' defend points that have no intellectual basis.

Yeah, thats what I was trying to say...:-)

There is no point calling these people "retards" etc, they are not retarded, they possess some intelligence, just look at Collins.It's just that somehow their brains got all muddled up trying to rationalize their irrational beliefs.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 8, 2009 6:25 AM

I also apologise on behalf of Australia

Why??

You can't reach these people, and it's pointless trying.

That, after 2 years on Pharyngula, I will wholeheartedly agree with.

Posted by: DebinOz | July 8, 2009 6:34 AM

Australia just got a wicket!

Posted by: DebinOz | July 8, 2009 6:42 AM

Oops, did I have to give more details?

Hilfenhaus to Cook, OUT, GOT HIM! That's a catch and a half from Hussey at gully, as Cook felt for this wide delivery and Hussey flings himself to his right to snaffle a corker!

From cricinfo

Posted by: DebinOz | July 8, 2009 6:47 AM

Clark

http://www.cricinfo.com/engvaus2009/engine/current/match/345970.html

Posted by: DebinOz | July 8, 2009 6:54 AM

For non-Australians: We are talking cricket, England vs Australia for the Ashes (a big deal, and played in England this time around). The only game in the world that can go for five days and still end up a draw!

This means that many of us Australians will still be awake when the USA is waking up!

Posted by: SEF | July 8, 2009 7:04 AM

@ Rorschach #396:

There is no point calling these people "retards" etc, they are not retarded ...

Oh, but they are. They're artificially retarded - mentally, educationally, morally and emotionally - by their religion.

They're actively discouraged from thinking (especially when much of that was classed as heretical). They have some conveniently pre-packaged fake knowledge so that they don't have to bother looking for the real stuff. They've been told their morals are god-given and reside in a book, so they don't have to work on internalising and refining those either. They're encouraged not to grow up independent but to defer to authority, to value fantasy over reality, faith over evidence-based reason, style over substance and emotionality over rationality.

Religion feeds on the worst of humanity's core traits: laziness*, greed, fear, cruelty, revenge and the demand to be special (without having to bother to merit it).

* Never underestimate the incredible power of laziness! Remember that the vast majority of religious nutters haven't even read much, let alone the whole, of the book which they claim to be the best in the world and, typically, to be the inerrant work of the most important being in the universe. Instead, they treat it more like a magic talisman - as something which will protect them by mere possession (or naming) of it.

Posted by: DebinOz | July 8, 2009 7:14 AM

I agree about the laziness bit, but only in the 'go to church on Sunday' type of christians. In my experience, they are the ones who are more likely to be swayed by science.

But the real religious fundie nutters that I have seen firsthand are anything but lazy. They read and reread and annotate that fricken KJV bible, they evangelise, they go on and on and fucking on! Their obsession with their god is unbelievable. I've just realised that I am starting to describe some sort of mental illness.

Oh well, case closed!

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 8, 2009 7:38 AM

Going in without McGrath v2.0, it's a big risk.

Posted by: SEF | July 8, 2009 7:40 AM

@ Svetogorsk # 309:

I concede whether or not you're a total idiot is still up for discussion.

You mean he might merely be a half-wit. ;-)

(Ref. "The 10th Kingdom")

Posted by: Elwood Herring | July 8, 2009 7:48 AM

Well, I've gone through every comment here and I notice that Grant still hasn't answered my question posed at #205. I haven't been insulting, and I asked a valid question which should be easy enough to answer. I notice several other people have asked the same question, but still no answer is forthcoming.

Grant: I have a feeling that everybody's opinion of you would improve if you would provide an answer to our question. No insults, no name-calling, no sarcasm, no satire. Here's the question. Please help us out, here. We all want to know.

Where do you get the number 6,000 from?

Posted by: Rorschach | July 8, 2009 7:52 AM

**WICKET**

!!!!!!

Bopara--->>> OUT

Posted by: wobert | July 8, 2009 8:34 AM

Perhaps the intelligence of creationists can be directly attributed to the height from which the stork dropped them on their arrival in the cabbage patch.

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 8, 2009 8:54 AM

@ Kel #345, Richard Thomas #346 and anyone else bringing up astronomy:

The age or size of the universe doesn't actually force an age on the Earth.

I remember using a similar argument on Debunking Christianity where I mentioned a galaxy 13 billion light years away, I got the reply back "so the earth is 13 billion years old?" No, it's 4.55 billion years old. It's just showing that the universe has to be older than 13 billion years, so the biblical account is wrong regardless.

Posted by: Nose | July 8, 2009 9:06 AM

I haven’t read the entire thread in detail, so if someone has already picked this up I apologise.

I just wanted to correct the, now popular belief, that atomic clocks use radioactivity when they in fact use atomic resonance as a timekeeping source. So using the atomic clocks in the GPS systems to validate radiometric dating doesn’t really work, although I doubt most YECs would know this anyway.

Posted by: Nose | July 8, 2009 9:16 AM

Damn, sorry for the double post…….

Posted by: Watchman | July 8, 2009 10:12 AM

The more I process the thought processes that these people go through, the more I am thinking 'reality denialism' a la mental illness.

As you should. At a certain threshold it becomes diagnosable. Holding on to a belief, even in the face of overwhelming contradicting evidence, is delusional. The degree of denial may become so severe as to become psychotic, resulting in gross impairment in reality testing. This is not, in one way or the other, a function of intelligence.

It almost sounds from his twattering, er, twittering, that he has enjoyed the fact that he got some fancy professor and his minions to bust a gut!

Yes, despite the fact that he has received been many civil and informative responses - all of which he has ignored and discounted. He's a profoundly dishonest individual.

That's a catch and a half from Hussey at gully, as Cook felt for this wide delivery and Hussey flings himself to his right to snaffle a corker!

LOL! I'm vaguely ashamed to admit that Cricket talk makes far less sense to me than Quidditch talk.

By the way: Quidditch for Muggles.

Posted by: Stu | July 8, 2009 10:57 AM

where does a 3 Kelvin radiation field come from in a Biblical creation event?

It's the warmth of God's love! Everybody knows that!

Posted by: AJ | July 8, 2009 11:28 AM

Sorry if this is mentioned already, as I am #430! Another branch of study that destroys the young earth argument is Geology, specifically plate tectonics. The Mid Atlantic ridge is pushing N & S America away from Africa. Let's say that the rate of movement is 1" a year. At 6000 years the continent of Africa and country of Brazil should be 500' apart! One can only imagine the credibility rise of Sarah Palin's Brazilian counterpart saying, " I can see Brazil from my house!"
You are correct in saying that science cannot (at this moment) explain everything, but your "theory" just fills in the blanks, just like people did thousands of years ago.
Sorry Grant, you are at best delusional, and at worst intellectually vapid.

Posted by: AJ | July 8, 2009 11:31 AM

Sorry if this is mentioned already, as I am #430! Another branch of study that destroys the young earth argument is Geology, specifically plate tectonics. The Mid Atlantic ridge is pushing N & S America away from Africa. Let's say that the rate of movement is 1" a year. At 6000 years the continent of Africa and country of Brazil should be 500' apart! One can only imagine the credibility rise of Sarah Palin's Brazilian counterpart saying, " I can see Brazil from my house!"
You are correct in saying that science cannot (at this moment) explain everything, but your "theory" just fills in the blanks, just like people did thousands of years ago.
Sorry Grant, you are at best delusional, and at worst intellectually vapid.

Posted by: AJ | July 8, 2009 11:38 AM

Sorry if this is mentioned already, as I am #430! Another branch of study that destroys the young earth argument is Geology, specifically plate tectonics. The Mid Atlantic ridge is pushing N & S America away from Africa. Let's say that the rate of movement is 1" a year. At 6000 years the continent of Africa and country of Brazil should be 500' apart! One can only imagine the credibility rise of Sarah Palin's Brazilian counterpart saying, " I can see Brazil from my house!"
You are correct in saying that science cannot (at this moment) explain everything, but your "theory" just fills in the blanks, just like people did thousands of years ago.
Sorry Grant, you are at best delusional, and at worst intellectually vapid.

Posted by: DingoJack | July 8, 2009 11:39 AM

On behalf of my fellow Australians I don't apologise for Grant.
His unsupportable beliefs are entirely his own. No other person is responsible for them. Irrationality knows no borders and deserves no protection. Rip him a new one.
Bride of Shrek - If I were to suggest that Grant's dealings with your Criminal Lawyer colleagues are the reason why he won't be allowed around children, would you agree?* - DJ
___________
*Oh and BTW, QLD gave us (apart from Grant) Pauline Hanson, Russ Hinze, Joh, "That quisling Quasimodo from Queensland" and, of course, Kevin Rudd. Cheers for that! :)

Posted by: Stu | July 8, 2009 11:45 AM

Lynna: 1 Timothy 2 says hello...

Posted by: Lynna | July 8, 2009 12:39 PM

Stu@440: Yep. Timothy, this is Lynna. Yes, I know you are "ordained a preacher, and an apostle" (ooohh! Big Man, you are!) and that you always speak the truth and lie not, therefore I'm sitting here submissively, learning in silence, and dressing modestly, and sitting in the back of the bus, and not living in pleasure... and, well, you get the picture, Timothy. Honest. Come on over. (This is not an ambush. I lie not.) I desire your council about waxing wanton.

Posted by: Lynna | July 8, 2009 12:53 PM

Stu @443: Drinking coffee is a sin. Serves you right.

Death before Decaf! (Damn! Satan snuck in here again.)

Posted by: tmaxPA | July 8, 2009 2:00 PM

I'm very very late to the thread, but I think it is still worth pointing out that the problem Grant has is simple, but profound. It isn't that he doesn't know what "science" is or how it works, or the proper relationship between "evidence" and "theory". (Though it is worth pointing out that all those who intimated this was a simple and obvious relationship in science were being idealistic fools every bit as much as Grant is.)

The problem Grant has is when he uses the word "prove". This is a broad problem affecting religionists of every stripe, and even a lot of agnostics and atheists; Grant is not alone in misunderstanding what 'prove' means. Science has proven that the world is billions of years old. Period. Grant is free to not accept this, but that makes him ignorant, not skeptical. To Grant (and all his ilk) to "prove" something means to convince them it is true, rather than to demonstrate to a (generally hypothetical) knowledgeable and reasonable observer that it is true. The problem, of course, is that we don't live in a universe designed and organized by a deity, for if we did, there would be some incontrovertible way to know when something has or has not been "proven".

The same problem occurs in medicine and in law. Have you ever wondered how a dangerous fool like Scalia or Thomas can be considered a well respected jurist? When a fundie-capable mind is presented the truth of our system of justice (that it all rests on no more concrete a concept then whether something is or is not 'reasonable') they often end up with the kind of "terminal post-modern confusion" that is so well demonstrated in the evolution "debate", yet leaves their basic mental functions intact. The result is the kind of arrogant ignorance demonstrated by Grant.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 8, 2009 3:31 PM

Grant,

In post #197 I asked you to address a number of points, without insulting you in any way. For you not to even attempt to address them would be, of course, an insult. Which would, of course, justify the insults that have been slung at you and which seem to so dearly impact your fragile emotional state. Plus, if you don't respond soon, you stand the risk of becoming unnecessary, the thread will continue with people talking to each other, completely ignoring you.

I'm only trying to save you from irrelevance.

I fear it may be too late...

----------------
One other point, if all of the stars, galaxies, etc., are within 6,000 light years of the earth, then how have they not collapsed into a super massive black hole? In fact, how have the already observed super massive black holes simply not gobbled up all of the material of the universe?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 8, 2009 6:43 PM

For those who might be wondering, the score after the first day of The Ashes is England 336 for 7 wickets in 90 overs.

Posted by: Gail | July 8, 2009 10:51 PM

Anyone that doesn't understand the difference between beliefs and facts (yea, thinks beliefs ARE facts YEESH and is rationalising them without realising it) cannot be argued with. They believe the facts as they cherry pick them, because they believe they are true. They then weave all kinds of self deception and confirmation bias into their view of the topic.

Grant stated more than once that he wants to discuss beliefs about the age of the earth, clearly he just doesn't understand english. We would be discussing interfretation of evidence and fact which clearly states something totally different to his hypothesis. We cant even HAVE the discussion until we are on the same page.

GRANT! You wasted your HECS. Go buy a dictionary and read it and then come talk to the rest of us Australians and Peezites about what is evidence and what is fact and what is belief.

PS I have a real Science degree from a real Australian University, not EWQue.

Posted by: Bob in Darwin, NT | July 9, 2009 3:39 AM

Yeah, sorry about this guy. In mitigation, though, I should like to point out that we export most of our loonies; to the US, as it turns out.

Cheers,

Posted by: dephlogisticated | July 9, 2009 6:15 PM

Hi Grant,

It's probably to late for you to actually attempt, but if you want to try and convince me, go right ahead.

I do have a BS in Geology from the Inst. of Technology at the University of Minnesota, a BSEE from the same, and did my graduate work at FDU's West Indies Laboratory and WHOI.

By the way, you never stated what discipline you received your BS in?

Posted by: Muzz | July 10, 2009 4:11 AM

Man, I can't believe after all that he pulled the "Haha I'm just here to get a reaction and YOU fell for it!" retreat.
What an unspeakable tool. I can see where his troubles with chronology stem from. He's spent 14 years in education, yet still manages to be only 8yrs old.

Grant, I don't know if you noticed but there was spirited discussion before you showed up and there'll be spirited discussion after. You're not essential to that fact. It's not as if you ran some magnificent spoil campaign and caused the expending of enemy resources that might have been conserved otherwise, or whatever method you're rationalising this with. You've done nothing but show yourself to even the most casual observer as an obtuse, self-important fool. Congrats on trying to dervive smugness from that.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 10, 2009 10:20 AM

For those who might be wondering, the score after the first day of The Ashes is England 336 for 7 wickets in 90 overs.

What the hell does that mean in English? Yes, I get the irony...

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 10, 2009 9:58 PM

For those who might be wondering, the score after the first day of The Ashes is England 336 for 7 wickets in 90 overs.

What the hell does that mean in English? Yes, I get the irony...

It's quite simple. The Ashes is a test match, which means the game lasts five days. England batted first and have scored 336 runs (and you thought basketball ran up the score). At the end of the first day, they're still batting because there's essentially ten outs (wickets) per inning. Normally a test match is four innings (two each per team).

Overs is a little complicated, so please bear with me. A cricket pitch is 22 yards (2012 cm) long with wickets at each end. There's a batsman at each wicket. The bowler bowls the ball six times at a particular wicket. After the sixth bowl, the umpire shouts "over" and the other bowler at the other end of the pitch bowls six times at the other wicket. Runs are scored by the batsman striking the ball and the two batsmen running from wicket to wicket, each reversal counting as a run. If the ball crosses the boundary on the fly, it's an automatic six runs. If it crosses on a bounce, that's an automatic four runs.

For further information, wikipedia has a good article on cricket.

In The Ashes Test, on Day 2 England went all out for 435 (they got 98 more runs before the 10th wicket) and 106.5 overs. At the end of Day 2 Australia had 249 for 1 wicket. Now it's the end of Day 3, Australia are still batting with a score of 479 for 5 wickets (139 overs). Or to put it in simpler terms, unless England's second innings is spectacular and the Aussies fall on their faces, Australia should win this test.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 11, 2009 2:28 PM

Interesting ... though, since I find baseball dreadfully dull, and this is obviously related (predecessor) to baseball, I have a hard time even pretending longterm interest.

Posted by: Widgetas | July 21, 2009 3:25 PM

"All I tried to point out to you was that it is basically unacceptable to insult and name-call people in public because they disagree with you (and that applies to people on both sides of the argument)"
What twinkletits fails to understand, I think, is that this is not the default position.
Name calling is reserved for the religiously blinded who refuse to even look properly at evidence that contradicts their world view.
If you have a VALID opinion, then you won't get called an arse.

Posted by: McSinned | October 23, 2009 4:01 PM

Sorry, my previous comment should read:

The last time a young-earther killed 3000 people in a day was most likely Sept 11, 2001.

Remeber, you Christians don't hold the monopoly on stupidity. There are as many (if not more) muslims who hold the young earth belief as there are Christians. After all, they're belief system is based on yours.