Powered by TypePad

« The Nifong Watch | Main | The Nifong Watch: WaPo Wants Charges Dropped »

December 31, 2006



I recently finished the book, The Lost Dinosaurs of Egypt. I was talking to a fundamentalist about the book and how much the world has changed since the days that Dinosaurs walked the earth and Egypt was green and he said, But how can you really know?

His contention is not that there were no such critters but that scientists claim a certainty and level of proof to their findings that the evidence just does not support. As evidence he noted the mistakes made by palentologists in regards to the dinosaur bones in the Natural History museum in NY. I pointed out that mistakes happen but that does not negate the whole science. For instance if Pluto is not a planet does that mean science was wrong about Mars?

This is I think the crux of the problem with creationists. They feel that some scientists have made claims with no basis in fact while those same scientists require that creationists produce fact to prove something they can not possibley prove using the scientific method.

It seems here they not only want proof, they want outright denials. It would be like asking a Christian how is it that Mary could have concieved a child without the input of a mortal man? Well obviously that Christian will not answer that by saying, artificial insemination. He will say it was an act of God. I say, leave them be. This is an unnecessary fight.

Christopher Fotos

2000 million years old

Geologists speak this way just to annoy us, correct?


There are few more impressive sights in the world than an Executive Director of a cheesy acronym on the make.


The problem with some scientist Terrye is they want to say things are FACTS but then want to be free to change their minds.

Scietists once believed the earth was flat, they once believed the Sun went around the Earth, etc. etc.
Scietists should be much more clear that they are guessing and are not using facts.


One interesting item is global warming. When a group of scientists took the global warming software models and fed them 'grey' data, or just any old data, a very interesting thing happened.

In every instance the global warming software model showed global warming no matter what data was plugged into it. This means that the model itself has built in biases.

Of course the global warming scientist crowd are as radical in their beliefs as they believe Christians are, and if you question their belief system they get angry and upset and start calling names.


File this under chain-yanking, the best of which is this happy process (for them) of inter-tangling drivel and legitimate questions. (Not answers, questions)

Maybe there needs to be a new internet verb: to be "murphy-ed" -- which is to be momentarily suckered into taking seriously lame red herrings.

Because we know the truth about 911, baby!


Rock and Dinosaur logic debunked:

Do you see what has been done? The rock is 70 million years old, why? Because it contains a dinosaur bone. The dinosaur bone is 70 million years old, why? Because it is found in this rock. This is plainly a case of circular reasoning. In reality you have no idea how old the dinosaur or the rock is.

The rock was dated by the fossil it contained and the fossil was dated by the rock it was found in. Do geologists really do that? Yes. In his book on historical geology, Carl Dunbar, a geologist and an evolutionist, admits the circular reasoning involved in dating fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils.

A few years back the Encyclopedia Britannica in an article on fossil dating contains an admission of circular reasoning in dating fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils, but it is claimed to be so consistent that obviously it must be correct.

In reality, there is not a single valid scientific dating method that can be used to determine the age of this fossil. And there is not a single valid dating method to determine the age of sedimentary strata. They are non-dateable by any method we know.

Paul Zrimsek

Geologists speak this way just to annoy us, correct?

They may do it to avoid international confusion. At one time, "billion" in Britain meant the same thing we mean by "trillion". I'm told they've since come around to our usage, but there could be other countries out there where they still do the same thing.

Patton is either ignorant of isotope dating or is betting that the rest of us are ignorant of it.


"""Patton is either ignorant of isotope dating.... """

Is this a homosexual thing?


Once dated an isotope. She was pretty hot and glowed in the dark.


Except everytime scientists use these methods and come up with a date that doesn't match their deeply held belief system, they make an excuse why the date must be wrong and their belief system was right all along.


It may shock some to find out that scientists love to fudge their numbers to meet their deeply held non-religious beliefs.

For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.10 Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old,’ according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.

A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.11 This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans ‘weren’t around then’). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of ‘good’ from ‘bad’ results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).

However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being ‘that old.’ A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma. Such is the dating game.

Are scientists conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? YES! It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a ‘fact.’ So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly ‘objective scientists’ in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit their basic belief system.


they want to say things are FACTS but then want to be free to change their minds.

To be fair, we use the word THEORY for the best explanation we have for OBSERVATIONS that has beed backed up by EXPERIMENT or in some cases PREDICTED OBSERVATIONS (which is actually what an experiment is).

An explanation that fits known observations but is not backed up by experiment is generally called an HYPOTHESIS.

Geological dating is solidly backed up.


But PEER does know its audience - I have yet to find a lefty site that did not swallow this whole. Among the credulous are Steve Benen of Political Animal, Mona of Inactivist, Tim F of Balloon Juice, and the Huffers.

Tom, I'm not a lefty, whatever that term even means anymore. PEER is not an organization I would normally rely on, since I have a somewhat reflexive prejudice against environmentalists. (Which I must guard against because they are not always wrong.)

Maybe PEER over-stated its case, and the NPS web site is evidence that they did. I've always had a bug up my butt where creationists are concerned, but if this PEER report is wholly nonsense, I'll say so.



In the book I just read one of the scientists made mention of the fact that the theory of gravity has not been proven, it has just not been disproven. And in truth it was not scientists who believed the earth was flat, it was just about everyone. The entire concept of the scientific method is relatively recent in fact.

Newton, Gallileo, Copernicus all developed theories that are largely accepted as fact today. Unless of course you think the sun rotates around the earth and the earth is flat.

The truth is it was not until the 1960's that continental drift was established as fact in spite of the fact that just looking at a map of the world tells you our planet looks like a jigsaw puzzle.

One of the things I liked about the book was that they included geological as well as palentological information about the world the dinosaurs lived in.

Anyone who thinks global warming is a new or strange or man made phenomenon should read this book. The changes the world has gone through make it plain that there is no normal.


I've always had a bug up my butt

... must ... not ... respond ...



It's over at archeoblog. He translated some fortran - try and write about it.

Yes, science is wrong about Mars. Global warming is accelerating faster than we thought. So, if we start now with machines to terraform an aptmosphere on Mars rather than using manned space to pay JPL in California, we might survive. It's maybe forty years now, not 400.


we might survive. It's maybe forty years now ...

Repent the End is Nigh!


Isotope dating,geological guys will go out with anyone.


geological guys will go out with anyone ...

What can I say? In younger days I was Rock Star.


"""Geological dating is solidly backed up."""

By what? Should scientists consider 'solidly back-up' to be throw out any result that doesn't meet your pre-conceived notions??


throw out any result that doesn't meet your pre-conceived notions

The other way to phrase that would be "accuracy is improved by considering a diverse sampling of indicators".


Geology is far from my area of competence but the existence of common timelines across the planet is solid backing.

There is a rock layer that contains high levels of an element common to meteors but rare on earth. The theory is that layer was formed after a large meteor strike when the atmosphere of the planet was filled with smoke and dust from the explosion.


"What can I say? In younger days I was Rock Star."

There are some things even rock stars won't do,not many but.....


Let me just say that istope dating has the same problems with carbon dating. How are you referencing your samples?

And 20 years from now, will scientists be laughing at how stupid those scientists were back then to not have taken into account, X, Y, and Z in their theories and algorythms.

Scientists do one thing well, prove the last generations scientists were wrong.

Now I am going back to eating my butter....



When I said is science right about Mars, I was referring to the fact that there is question now as to whether Pluto is a planet and if they were wrong about that does that mean we have to assume that they are wrong about Mars being a planet. The answer to which obviously is NO. Really people, don't be so obtuse.

And Patton you are not helping your cause.


will scientists be laughing ...

A sense of humor is absolutely necessary. Lack of one is reason enough for skepticism.

All the good ones have it.


Would any scientists today argue that Darwins 'Survival of the Fittest' and 'Natural Selection' are anything more then presentations of a belief system not unlike religion, rather then based on scientific fact?


And Patton if it were not science there would be no internet, no polio vaccine, no satellites, no antibiotics, not concept or understanding of DNA etc.

Even scientists do not always agree on issues like global warming, nor do they claim to.

But I refuse to believe that the world was made in a week or that it is only a few thousand years old or that dinosaurs either never existed or only went extinct about a day and half ago. ONe thing about Creationists while they complain that the scientists have no proof of this or that, they themselves do not even attempt to come up with anything remotely resembling evidence to make their own points.

Carl Sagan said that God created the laws of nature and allowed them to take their course.


Of course on the one hand there is the scientific theory of evolution.

On the other hand there is postmodern dogma: The semi-religious belief that everything happened by accident, there is no purpose or higher power, genetics and behavior are completely separate, IQ can't be inherited, didn't evolve, and doesn't exist.


That should be if it were not FOR science.



Yes there are two polar extremes. Neither which will tolerate dissent.


Terrye, I was told for years that Pluto was a planet.
I wasn't told that it was just scientific speculation and they really didn't know.
Maybe you recieved a different education, but that's the crap the scientists fed us.

I bet ten years ago, if I said Plutos' not even a planet, I would have been called an idiot, a baffoon, etc. etc.

If my 'cause' was Plutos not a planet, I think my point has now been made.

Now I am going back to tinker with my cold fusion reactor that has solved the worlds energy needs.


My guess is their are some scientists still pushing Piltdown man:

In 1913 an ape's jaw with a canine tooth worn down like a human's was uncovered at a site near Piltdown. British paleoanthropologists came to accept the idea that the fossil remains belonged to a single creature who had a human cranium and an ape's jaw - offering the missing link between apes and humans in the evolutionary chain. In 1953, Piltdown 'man' was exposed as a forgery. The skull was modern and the teeth on the ape's jaw had been filed down.

Ohhh, those funny guys. Ha ha..big laughs.
Guess you do have to laugh it off when your that obtuse.


I guess all I am saying is I don't want scietists pushing tbheir religion onto people anymore then they want religious zealots pushing their religion.

An interesting case from Alaska where sciteific zealotry hurts our children:

From Daniel Porter:
One day, I received an email from a high school student in Alaska. Her chemistry teacher handed out a list entitled, “Carbon 14 Dating Successes.” The topmost item on the list read, “Shroud of Turin – Proven Fake.”

“I asked my teacher about it but was ridiculed for not being scientific,” she wrote. Later, during a true or false examination, the student had to acquiesce to the “truth” that the shroud was fake or be marked down. She objected. She brought in an article from Wikipedia and another article obtained from the internet (she was writing to me in search of more articles). Her teacher told her, in front of the entire class, that she could believe anything she wants about her “religion,” but when it comes to science the shroud is a fake, and that is a “scientific fact.”

This student was being punished for not holding to the scientists belief system, even though we know that three labs in three locations with three different teams of scientists all GOT THE DATE OF THE SHROUD WRONG.

But this student was being attacked for not comforming with the scientific belief system. This teacher clearly had bought the scietific line, no matter how wrong it was simply because they told a good story.



Science is not a religion. If it were not for science women with an overfondness for house cats and a knowledge of the healing nature of plants would still be burned at the stake by some morons who thought such women were all witches.

And my follow up remark about Pluto was made to tars. How can people be this dense?

The idea is that from time to time new discoveries are made that do change what people believe. When scientists got more information about Pluto they began to doubt it was a planet. When Columbus got to America instead of India people changed their ideas about not only the shape of the earth but just how little they knew about it. So what????

As for the Shroud, who knows? Prove it is the burial cloth of Jesus. You can not do it.

I am open to the possibility, but I know that proof either way does not exists.

And I do not want my child to go to school and be taught that anything that might cast doubt on certain religious beliefs, whatever they may be, must be discounted out of hand.


"""As for the Shroud, who knows? Prove it is the burial cloth of Jesus. You can not do it."""

I don't really care if Jesus was buried in it or not, so I have no interest in proving it. What I am saying is these scientists had an interest in DISPROVING it and that's why they got bad results.

They were more interested in disproving its religious significance then in doing real science. Thus their were more interested in pushing their belief system, then pushing facts.

Regardless of the shrouds religious significance, it is a relic no matter who wore it. The point is that the scietists should have gotten it RIGHT regardless if they were testing the shroud or testing a
pile of camel dung.

Otherwise, quite coming out writing articles and giving press conference proclaiming this and that. Just tell us you have a theory that could be wrong but your sticking with it for the time being because it fits your world view and your belief system. And 100 years from now some other just as confident scientist will prove you wrong, but by then the damage will have been done.


I've always known Pluto was an animated cartoon dog.


In fact, if they can't get a couple thousand year old cloth right, why should I believe then when they tell me the age of a multi-million year old rock?

Its like your mechanic screwing up a simple oil change and then allowing him to replace your engine block.

Soylent Red

As a Christian, I have always reconciled religion with science in the following way:

1. There is no record of the length of time between day 6 of creation and the fall of man (when Judaism and Christianity start marking time). You can look that up. It could have been a day, a week, or a 4000 million years. The Bible doesn't say.

2. I think all Christians, at least all of them I know, believe in the concept that Adam and Eve were given "perfected" bodies and lived in a world free of disease. Therefore, just as the book of Revelation describes how believers will be raised and given perfected bodies to live in for eternity, Adam and Eve could have been very, very old. Even 4000 million years old.

3. Nothing I have ever seen or heard of suggests that various forms of caveman could not have been created during the span of day five of creation. The reference to Adam and Eve being created in the image of God has nothing to do with the actually form of their bodies, and several other animals have cousins across genus or family boundaries that look similar (e.g. foxes ≠ wolves, but they look somewhat the same).

4. Taking that one step further, Adam and Eve could have been witness to natural selection and resulting evolution of species. They could have witnessed the rise and extinction of dinosaurs and autralopithicenes and so forth. Living for a vast amount of time (4000 million years?) would afford that opportunity.

Charlie (Colorado)

Patton, you ninny, whether Pluto is a "planet" or a "dwarf planet" is an essentially arbitrary choice of names. Just as you're "Patton" here, and I'm "Charlie (Colorado)". My drivers license is something else, and I post at YARGB as "Seneca the Younger" for historical reasons.

When I'm posting as Seneca, I'm not someone else; when we call Pluto a "dwarf planet" instead of a "planet" we're not saying that Pluto has changed.


In fact Terrye, it is only because the shroud is a relic on religious significance, that anyone went back and showed that the scientists had screwed up.

If it had been any common object the scientists report would have just been bought hook line and sinker by everyone and we would have never known about their errors.

So how many other items have they gotten wrong and no one has bothered to go back and check?? One, ten, a thousand?


That's funny Charlie, because everyone is talking about having to change all kinds of text books, childrens tests, etc.

But your saying don't bother, scientists are just hedging and haven't really decided for sure and they will get back with us sometime in the future.


Happy New Year, Soylent.


Capping years of intense debate, astronomers resolved Thursday to demote Pluto in a wholesale redefinition of planethood that is being billed as a victory of scientific reasoning over historic and cultural influences. But the decision is already being hotly debated.

Officially, Pluto is no longer a planet.

"Pluto is dead," said Mike Brown, a planetary scientist at the California Institute of Technology who spoke with reporters via a teleconference while monitoring the vote. The decision also means a Pluto-sized object that Brown discovered will not be called a planet.


Barney Frank

Try for a good website that reconciles faith and science. Started by a Cal tech astronomer. Lots of interesting info and fresh ideas for anyone whose position isn't already set in cement.

Soylent Red

Happy New Year to you Clarice, and everyone else up here for that matter.

I hope everyone has luck and prosperity and does better than poor, poor Pluto.

Charlie (Colorado)

Patton, I said you were a nitwit above. Now I think you're an idiot. Did *you* change, or did I just lower my opinion of you?


Don't worry about Pluto. I am sure a few good scietists in a few years will change everyones mind after watching a good movie about planet size theory.

It worked for steady state theory of Bondi, Gold and Hoyle which was inspired by the circular plot of the film Dead of Night they watched together. Got to hand it to those scientists, they will fall for anything, at least till the funding runs out.

Imagine trying to get funding today to prove their is no abnornmal global warming. No bucks in that let's come up with a funding shovelling theory.

Tom Maguire

I hope everyone has luck and prosperity and does better than poor, poor Pluto.

Words to live by.

I apologized to Mona in the comments but my browser ate it (and folks say Freud is dead). Anyway, I am trying again now - Mona is a libertarian, as I successfully noted in an UPDATE.


Charlie says: ""Patton, I said you were a nitwit above. Now I think you're an idiot. Did *you* change, or did I just lower my opinion of you?"""

Reference my second post at 6:36 this morning:
""and if you question their belief system they get angry and upset and start calling names."""

Just like those religious zealots......

Les Nessman

Jeebus! Someone has an unhealthy Pluto fixation.

Is the main point that 'Scientist are sometimes incorrect'? Because if it is, I (and probably everyone else here) wholeheartedly agree.

Can we also agree that 'Religious people are sometimes incorrect'?

Accept and move on already.


If a student gets asked the question, name the planets..they will need to know from the teacher in just what month/year and from which scientists they should get their answer. Could be yes, could be no, could be maybe, could be anything.

We can tell you to the 100th of a degree the Earths temperature 100 years from now, but we can't tell you if Pluto is a planet.
That's our story and were stickin to it.


Nice try les, but scientists claim they are arguing facts proven by scientific basis, when in fact much of what they do is based on their belief system, no different then the religious person.

Aristotle believed the world always existed.

Darwin believed the Cretacious period was 300,000,000 years ago, only off by 235,000,000 years.

Its time we start saying these guys are just making it up as they go and have no better insight then anyone else.


It increasingly appears that many of these "Christianist" conspiracy promoters are guided by the same type of zealous blind faith and resistance to empirical evidence that they claim to be the hallmarks of those whom they scorn. One almost might consider this a religious, if not a cultlike, mindset.



They can not be expected to get the age of a rock right? Patton, you ninny, the rock and Pluto have nothing to do with each other.

Jeez. A friend of mine was misdiagnosed by her doctor, so does that mean my dentist should be sued for malpractice?

You don't know what you are talking about that is obvious.


And as far as facts are concerned, there is no way to reconstruct the world of 200 million ago without surmising and no one disputes that including the scientists themselves. It is no different than crime scene investigators taking the evidence they find and reconstructing a crime. This is the past we are talking about so unless someone comes up with a time machine, there is no other way it can be done.

It is interesting to note that this is the same kind of argument made by holocaust denyers who say that we can not prove 6 million Jews died. It is all theory and supposition, etc. What a crock.

I am a Christian, but that does not make me stupid.


I may not be stupid but my spelling sucks. Is that denyer or denier?

Les Nessman

"Its time we start saying these guys are just making it up as they go and have no better insight then anyone else."

Heh. I promise I'll start saying 'scientists have no better insight than anyone else' the day you stop going to a doctor and start getting your medical care from the everyday man-in-the-street or the local shaman.

Overboard, overwrought, over-the-top.


"""Jeez. A friend of mine was misdiagnosed by her doctor, so does that mean my dentist should be sued for malpractice?"""

I don't know, did the dentist zealousy vouch for the bad doctor? Did the dentist say it was a bad idea to question the doctors plans simply because he had a degree on his wall? Did the dentist argue that we must believe everything the doctor says and not question him even when he says stupid stuff?


Terriye, we missed you.
Happy New Year!


Terrye: ""It is interesting to note that this is the same kind of argument made by holocaust denyers who say that we can not prove 6 million Jews died. """

WOW! Talk about over the top. I PROVE without a doubt Aristotle was wrong, Darwin was wrong, the three scientific teams that tested the shroud were all wrong, the guys that called Pluto a Planet were wrong and all the sudden I am lumped in with Holocaust denyers.

In actuality it is very easy to prove that more then 6 Million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, with overhwelming real tangible evidence. It doesn't take a theory, or a made up story, or watching a hollywood movie. But for you to say that the age of the earth is just as real and proveable as the holocaust is a bit of a stretch.


"They can not be expected to get the age of a rock right?"

People shouldn't date rocks if they don't know their age.


Thanks Les,

And if my doctor kept calling me back to tell me how he screwed it up lst time, but he thinks he's right this time...I would tend to stop believing him.

But that's just me, you must be the type that keeps falling everytime Lucy pulls away the football.


So tell us Les, did you believe the scientists when they told us we were about to experience global cooling? An ice age?

Did you fall for that football?


Having fun Patton?

When teacher claims "science" proved the shroud was a fake that's the answer to put on the quiz. If the only scientific evidence available indicated it was less than 2000 years old, then it's not a strictly false claim. In fact the amount of testing was inconclusive because it can not be verified. So the teacher is wrong to claim science proved anything. A small amount of inconclusive evidence was more than enough to convince the teacher so blame the teacher, not science.

Soylent Red

People shouldn't date rocks if they don't know their age.

The petra-phile was a pedophile...


Soylent Red:
I agree with your theory as stated above. I have no difficulty reconciling science and religion and I have my college theology classes to thank for that. I learned about interpreting the bible and I can understand and trace creation to amino acids and the gradual evolution and development of man. what I find most fascinating is the different degrees of intelligence. That has always interested me immensely.Genes do play an enormous part in who we become and who we are.


Anyway, I am trying again now - Mona is a libertarian, as I successfully noted in an UPDATE.

I appreciate that, Tom. And I updated my post to note that you offer evidence that PEER is at least over-stating things.


I agree with PUK.

Les Nessman

"Thanks Les,

None, I guess, if you are looking for perfection.

So if you get seriously ill or injured you won't see a doctor? I find that hard to believe.

What's funny is I believe God created the universe and it's been Evolving ever since just the way He planned it. I just don't see why Creation and Evolution are so mutually exclusive.

"So tell us Les, did you believe the scientists when they told us we were about to experience global cooling? An ice age?"

Sure. Whether it happens now or in 500 or 5000 years is the question. I don't think scientists know for sure and the ones who say they know for sure are politically motivated Watermelons. We probably will have another Ice Age and a Hot Age repeated over and over, just like we probably have had hundreds of times over millions of years.


As a scientist I think there are some places where science and religion agree and other areas where either science or religion have to yield - religious authority can't compete with scientific knowledge of the natural world, and there simply is no scientific position (knowledge/evidence) about God.

(BTW, I don't accept that religion is the sole moral authority in ethical debates.)

When the Bible describes Creation I see this as a story written prior to the deveopment of modern science, the story makes sense until you examine the evidence using modern tools (much like those crime scene shows).

One big problem with the Creationist position is that evolution just isn't separable from the rest of science, our understanding of evolution is fully supported by geology and physics and chemisty - as well as by the whole of biological knowledge.

I don't see science as a threat to religion, I'd encourage people to be interested in science and to learn more about it.

Happy 2007!


religion is the sole moral authority

Certainly one may justify Judeo-Christian morality by other methods, such as logical derivation from the golden rule. But it was Judeo-Christian religions that provided the natural selection avenue for that morality to demonstrate fitness and achieve dominance.

Derivations of alternate moralities based on global warming, animal rights, or multiculturalism, should receive the high degrees of skepticism they so richly deserve.


Could someone explain to me, if we are all descended from Adam and Eve and there is no evolution-natural selection, we have such a variety of racial groups with vastly different physical characteristics?

I didn't think so.



The only thing you have proved is that you do not know what you are talking about. And no, holocaust denial is not over the top. It happens when people prejudiced beyond the point of rational thought refuse to contemplate a reality that challenges their belief system.

And if we do not sue on Dr. for the error of another, why should we assume all scientists are wrong if some of them make mistakes? After all they are only human.



Hi there. Happy 2007. I have been around, science loving heathen that I am.


Scientifically speaking it is 2007 here.


Terrye; "And Patton if it were not science there would be no internet, no polio vaccine, no satellites, no antibiotics, not concept or understanding of DNA etc. """

I don't mind scientists existing, and sure they can invent great things, all I'm objecting to is them making grand statements on subjects they have so little ability to understand or experient on or ascertain the actual truth. They treat theory and conjecture as solid facts and are subsequently proven wrong over and over again.


For instance, the age of the earth, scientists have been all over the map on the subject, their projections have swings of several hundred million years, yet they act like they have some gospel truth that God himself bestowed upon them.

Why is that so damn hard to ask.??


"""And if we do not sue on Dr. for the error of another, why should we assume all scientists are wrong if some of them make mistakes? """

That's simple, I am talking about scientists that are making guesses, at best wild ass guesses and they are treating the data like they now things for sure.

And if scientists can treat religious people as loons because they believe some thing that the scientist thinks isn't true, why am I not at liberty to think the scientist is also a loon for believing things that are also untrue??


I think scientists are much more comfortable with uncertainty than creationists. There is a great difference between saying the earth is between 3 and 5 billion years old, based on some rational but inexact model, and insisting that it is 4000 years old (thus including the historical record) being completely created by God during one very busy week.


Here is a simple point.

FACT: The number of tornadoes has been increasing every decade.

GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTIST: This is proof of my theory about global warming changing weather patterns, we must stop global warming! let's spend billions and stop the US economy before we all die!!!

TRUTH: DAHHH! Actually the number of tornadoes hasn't increased, we simply have developed better radar and other detection devices and more people live in tornado prone areas and thus more tornadoes are REPORTED.

GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTIST: You question my authority, I've been studying this for decades!


But Jerry, if that were the case, then the Isotope age data would be just as inaccurate
as the 3-5 Billion, so every age could be off by 2 Billion years.

I haven't seen that error reported by any scientist.

In addition, you are only talking about 'young earth' creationists of which I have not heard of many as opposed to day-age creationism.


In some views, it is held that as Genesis 1:1 states, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” this would mean that the “heavens” (including the sun, the stars, all the planets as well as their respective moons) and the earth were created before the events stated in Genesis 1:3. This understanding allows for any amount of time necessary for the earth itself and the surrounding universe to be created, leaving the things created upon the earth - the events of “day” one through “day” six (described in verses 3 through 27) - to take place within a relatively shorter period of time, perhaps several millenniums (though evidently not 24-hour days). This view also allows the time described in verses 3 through 27 to be divided into six periods of equal length, with a seventh "day" of the same length following.

Perhaps scientists should spend a little time understanding creationist theory before they start name calling and bashing them as loons. What ever happened to all that experimentation and observation? Seems like they practice dismissal of anything they don't understand.


Perhaps this will help:
The word day (yôma in the original Hebrew).

1) It is noted that God is not bound by time (Psalms 90:4 etc.), so the term "day" can be very arbitrary.

2) The word "day" has multiple meanings in Hebrew. BDB's Hebrew lexicon gives the following definitions:

1) day, time, year
a) day (as opposed to night)
b) day (24 hour period)
1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1 1
2) as a division of time
a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)
e) year
f) temporal references
1) today
2) yesterday
3) tomorrow
(d) is the day-age interpretation of the word yom.

THIS THEORY IS NOT WITHOUT OTHER FACTUAL EVIDENCE, Other examples of yom as a long period include: Genesis 2:4, Genesis 30:14, Joshua 24:7, Proverbs 25:13, Isaiah 4:2, Zechariah 14:8 and references to "the day of the Lord."


So if I can't lump all scientists together, don't lump all creationists together.


MORE FACTS, NOT THEORIES: The abstract use of "day" as an indefinite period of time is found in other mythological and religious writings of the Middle East to denote the passage of cosmic benchmarks in addition to referring to earthly time marked by the sun or the moon.

Early Hebrew was very scant in words referring to periods of time. There was no word in early Hebrew with the meaning the words "period" and "season." Therefore, if the author meant long creation days, he would have used the word yôm to refer to them.

Of course learned scientists would already know all of this, RIGHT???


Happy New Year, everybody.
I'm already in 2007. Come join me!


Of course, scientists have been known to make some time measurement mistakes in the past..and they always seem to cost me money.

The Mars Climate Orbiter, launched in 1998, burned up in the Martian atmosphere. A mixup between metric and imperial measurements in the controlling software caused the spacecraft to miss its intended 140–150 km altitude above Mars during orbit insertion, instead entering the Martian atmosphere at about 57 km.

That pesky metric versus imperial measurement thing again, darn!!


Is that Mona the Mona that is a such a big fan of Greenwald?


Happy New Year right back atcha Maybee (and everyone else( - I've decided that this is the year of optimism. Hope everyone joins me!


"A mixup between metric and imperial measurements in the controlling software caused the spacecraft to miss its intended 140–150 km altitude above Mars during orbit insertion, instead entering the Martian atmosphere at about 57 km."

Those bloody French again.


Happy 2007 to everyone! My nieces are in Times Square as we speak!
Jane: I join you in your spirit of optimism for 2007!

Thomas Ryan Ellison Ellers-Wilson

Mona is a libertarian in the same way that the PEER press release is an accurate, unbiased statement of reality -- that is, not at all.

She's one of Glenn Sockpuppetwald's tedious sycophants.

She adopted the "libertarian" mantle for the same reason that Sockpuppetwald tries to pass himself off as "Centrist": as a rhetorical shield to hide behind while spewing forth tedious, mindless Leftist cant and the latest Townhouse talking points.

That the stupid bint would be so easily taken in by the PEER hoax is unsurprising -- partially because she's a rather dim bulb, but mostly because she wanted it to be true. Notice how, despite your clear debunking, she's still desperately clinging to the story's truthiness: it's valuable propaganda to her.

And with that, I bid you good DAY, sir!


Jeez, Tom, how in the world did you attract a troll like patton. He's just dim, even for a troll. (I'm a little alcholically happy, so, Happy New Year!)


Thank GOD I'm an atheist!
Happy New Year everyone.


So I take those posters that equate scientists to doctors would say that the Mars Climate Orbiter scientists who screwed up should have been sued, they had committed malpractice. They should have not only been reprimanded but fired as well.

The patient died, so I guess you would take away they license to practice science.

I mean since you want to equate them to doctors...just what was their punishment for malpractice and killing the patient??


By the way, the history of great geology leads much to be desired with regard to any type of scientific rigor that many today think occurred.
One might want to study the past of geology before proclaiming that
'science' led the way.



Get a grip.

A doctor is a scientist in many ways, amny of the things he has to learn and master in the course of his medical studies is indeed based on scientific research and development. Who do you think creates all the medications? And if you had bothered to stop ranting long enough to actually read my first post you would have noticed that I pointed out that reading the book The Lost Dinosaurs of Egypt made it plain that the planet has never stopped changing. There is no normal. Once upon a time there was not even a polar cap to melt. All of which makes me more not less skeptical of global warming claims.

But.... instead you pick a fight and go off on some rant which equates all scientists with global warming atheists who base all their findings on carbon dating or some such nonsense with the intent and purpose being to undermine religion. You are not helping your cause, in fact you are doing the opposite. This is the kind of stuff that makes people think Christians are narrow minded and anti science and it does not help your cause. Now ease up, no one here is your enemy.

Not all scientists even believe in global warming and while it is very true that the politicization of science has created more problems than it has solved you simply can not indict all geologists or all palentologists as being liars and frauds because you do not agree with all of them. It is ridiculous.

And you seem to have real trouble understanding what people are saying to you. I did not say anyone should be sued. My point is that one group of people should not be held accountable for the errors of another.

And people are going to make mistakes. To hold them to any standard that does not take that into account is not only wrong, it is absurd.


Well Terrye, then do like the dentist and the doctor, and throw out the bad scientists out of the proffesion??

People make mistakes...but for many it has real consequences...but these guys get constantly defended for some odd reason.....


The history of geology began with mining, Patton, you know men digging in the ground and noticing the strata in the rock and where gold showed up and where it did not and where one might find coal and where one might not. Like many sciences it began with normal people simply wanting to understand what they were seeing.

There was nothing rarified about its beginnings. But you lack the knowledge to try and debunk it.

Do you even understand continental drift or that it was geologists {among others} who did prove not only that it happened but that it continues to happen. And when they proved that they began to understand why earthquakes and volcanoes are more likely to happen where and when they do? No it is all one big fairy tale to you.



This is waste of my time, it is like arguing with a child. You are going out of your way to argue with no purpose other than being a dick.

The comments to this entry are closed.