Skip to main content

Pity the poor young-Earth creationists. When Darwin and Wallace produced their papers, the evidence for their position was confined to part of biology and a fraction of the nascent science of geology. The situation is quite different today.

All of astronomy and astrophysics report the huge size of the universe. With a finite speed of light, and theoretical physics now centers around the constant speed of light, that requires billions of years for the light from distant galaxies to reach us. Creationists have postulated a slowing of the speed of light over time, but that would simply leave the light rays too attenuated to be seen.

The age of some rocks is measured by minerals. Technically this is part of geochemistry, but the argument is simple enough for anyone who has taken freshman Physics or Chemistry -- maybe high-school Physics or Chemistry -- to understand. Radioactive isotopes of some elements formed compounds with other elements, and these compounds  went into minerals found in the rocks. The isotopes decayed into different elements -- ones which would not form compounds with the elements the original isotopes did. The ratio of decay elements to the original isotopes measures the age of the minerals, and thus -- usually -- the age of the rocks.

Close study of glaciers reveal a pattern of layers like tree rings. The layers run several to the inch, and Antarctic glaciers are miles deep. So the glaciers reveal information about many times the years that young-Earth creationists say that the Earth has existed.

The expansion of evidence in biology and geology after the jump.

The sheer quantity of fossil finds, of course, has multiplied since Darwin and Wallace. Volume is, however, not a very convincing argument. If you aren't persuaded by ten fossils; you're unlikely to be persuaded by ten thousand. When you understand that the "White Cliffs of Dover" are compressed ancient sea shells, however, it is difficult to argue that they were laid down in a few thousand years.

In general, the layers of sediment that geologists speak of as being laid down over millions of years -- and the deep erosions that can be seen -- are regarded by Y-E Creationists as the result of one, or a few, floods. Well, North India, between the Himalayas and the Deccan, is sediment which flowed from the Himalayas as they rose. Rain erodes rock slowly, and sea water flowing over it erodes it much more slowly.

Then, too, some of the oldest individual plants -- not the oldest species -- are trees growing in the Grand Canyon. They have rings, and those rings go back to before the date Y-E Creationists give for the creation, let alone the flood.

Many species of mammal have valves in the arteries of their legs which prevent blood from pooling in their feet. The arteries in the trunk do not have those valves, and they don't need them because the arteries do not run vertically -- except in a few species. Humanity is one of those few species. So, you have those valves in the arteries of your arms, which are only sometimes vertical. You don't have them in the arteries of your main body, which is usually vertical. As you do have them in your legs, the blood often pools before entering your legs; we call those hemorrhoids. It is hard to see valves where we don't need them rather where we do as Intelligent Design.

Then, too, the entire series of results of DNA sequencing demonstrate relationships across the Linnaen family tree. Cows are genetically closer to whales than to horses.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Ignorance has been around for tens of thousands (6+ / 0-)

    of years, at least. We need a mass extinction of ignorance now.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 11:56:37 AM PDT

    •  Unfortunately (7+ / 0-)

      It appears that such an extinction will take us all without regard to intelligence.

      •  Back when I was a professor of cell biology (0+ / 0-)

        at an Ivy League university, I'd poll my upper-division pre-med course every year: How many of you consider yourselves practicing members of a religion? (Lots of hands, but hey, no problem; I'm a pretty good Presbyterian myself). And how many of you believe that the earth is thousands of years old, rather than billions? (Many hands go down, but still about half the students have a hand in the air). And how many of you don't actually believe in natural selection and evolution? (Few if any further hands go down).

        And every year, 60% of those kids went on to medical school to become physicians. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

        The scary thing is that if you don't understand evolution, you can't begin to actually understand biology. "God did it" isn't a very useful explanation for the behaviors of cells and tissues and organs, however reasonable a statement it might be on some poetic or philosophical level. And if you can't answer the question "And what will God do next, hmm?" (and hardly any person of faith pretends otherwise) you can't practice medicine to any benefit...you might as well be sacrificing goats. And for that you should be paid half-a-million dollars a year because why?

        I always yearned to teach an elective course on "how to be both an effective scientist and a person of faith, without being a chump on either count," but I could never quite figure out how I manage that myself, so I really had nothing to teach. Except maybe to respect myth for the things myth is good for, and science for the things science is good for, and to carefully bear in mind the difference between the two.

        Beneath the beam that blocked the sky, none had stood so alone as I - and the Hangman strapped me, and no voice there, cried "Stay" for me in the empty square. (The Hangman, Maurice Ogden)

        by DocDawg on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 10:04:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Lots of universe (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David54

      and countless opportunities for ignorance.  I'm afraid you're just going to have to learn to live with it.

  •  They give up Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the (7+ / 0-)

    Easter Bunny but they can not accept that they are highly evolved primates who are going to die and be dead for a very long time. To accept evolution for them is to accept their mortality.

    Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. John Leland

    by J Edward on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 12:03:53 PM PDT

  •  Nope. (11+ / 0-)
    Creationists have postulated
    No, no they haven't. No more than my terrier or Sarah Palin has "postulated."

    "Claimed" is the strongest verb any of them is technically competent to use.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 12:06:29 PM PDT

  •  Evolution scares the jesus right out of baggers. (7+ / 0-)

    That's why they want it removed from schools.

    "Evolution is a theory that's out there..." Rick Perry when answering a young child's question. Child abuse, imv.

    What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. SAM HARRIS

    by Cpqemp on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 12:07:56 PM PDT

  •  Some additional background (13+ / 0-)

    History 101: Evolution Before Charles Darwin

    In July, 1858, the Linnean Society gathered at its new headquarters in London to hear two papers by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in which they jointed announced a theory of evolution by natural selection. One of the many common misconceptions about biological evolution is that this was an idea first proposed by Charles Darwin. In reality, a number of scientists and natural philosophers had already written about this concept prior to Darwin.
  •  Not all creationists are tea baggers (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndyDemGirl, rduran

    or right wingers.....  Just like all republicans are not creationists....  Evolution vs Creation is not a left or right issue... Seriously....  There are many liberals who believe in Creationism.  They do not dismiss all of evolution but have theories on the earth's age.   Many do not believe in evolution period.   I am one who has as many questions for Darwin as Evolutionists have for the Pope.

    The right is about as wrong as it gets and please help veterans ...Thanks ! United Veterans of America

    by Vetwife on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 12:21:15 PM PDT

    •  Your questions have been answered. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aunt Pat, Santa Susanna Kid

      Start with Richard Dawkins, then Leonard Susskind, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris.

      Heck, start with the new series, Cosmos.

      What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. SAM HARRIS

      by Cpqemp on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:19:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  what's an "Evolutionist" . . . ? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ahianne, rodentrancher, rduran

      Is it anything like a "Gravityist" or a "Heliocentrist"?

      Evolution is a fact. An observed fact. And so is the age of the earth and the universe. Questioning any of that is just as dipshit idiotic as questioning the existence of gravity. No matter what side of the political spectrum one is on.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:28:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ps--evolution is science (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      207wickedgood, rduran

      Evolution is not religion.  Science is not religion, and religion is not science. And despite the yammerings of ideologues on both sides, evolution doesn't have stuff-all to do with religion, any more than gravity does.

      So "evolutionists" (whatever the heck THAT means) don't have any questions for the Pope.  The Pope doesn't have jackshit to do with evolution, any more than the Commissioner of Baseball does.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:55:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I do not have enough faith to believe in all of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rduran

        evolution... One question I have never heard answered was if evolution IS science and the total evolving process of ape to man....Why do we still have apes?  New born apea nad apes that procreate.. Should not a newborn ape have evolved somewhat?  What is science to some is theory and what is theory for some is science and I do not believe in organized religion either.

        The right is about as wrong as it gets and please help veterans ...Thanks ! United Veterans of America

        by Vetwife on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:54:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I do not even try to pretend I am as smart (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rduran

          as these folks...I just weigh out belief and science and don't broadstroke.

          http://www.creationists.org/...

          The right is about as wrong as it gets and please help veterans ...Thanks ! United Veterans of America

          by Vetwife on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:59:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  oh, for fucksakes . . . . . . . . (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gsenski, rduran

            Liars with fake degrees, and you swallow their bullshit because you're too uninformed to tell shit from shinola. That is indeed the very basis of creation "science".

            Any chance that you also think science is a corporate plot and vaccines are killing us . . . . ?

            (sigh)

            Teh stoopid, it burns.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:04:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Take another look: those degrees, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Vetwife, rduran

              sad to say, are real.  Most of them are irrelevant, but that’s a different matter.  And while they appear to be crackpots as far as this subject is concerned, I see no indication that they’re lying: their crackpottery appears to be genuine.

          •  ps--you may want to have a look here: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gsenski, 207wickedgood

            http://scc.losrios.edu/...

            where I shred all of the creationist bullshit, in detail, for free.  Enjoy. And stop being such a gullible sap.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:05:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  argh, that mirror doesn't have the links (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Emmy, 207wickedgood

              This one does.

              Oh, and about those "smart guys with degrees" . . .

              http://www.huecotanks.com/...

              IS THERE A REAL DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE?

              by Lenny Flank

              Next time you see a creation "scientist", ask him where he got his degree.

               --"Dr" Richard Bliss, who develops curriculum materials for the Institute for Creation Research, has a doctorate in education from the University of Sarisota in Florida, an unaccredited diploma mill that is located in a hotel.

              --"Dr" Kelly Segraves, a co-founder of the Creation Science Research Center, claims to have an MA and DSc degree. The doctorate is supposed to be an honorary degree from "Christian University", but no such place exists in the United States. Segraves dropped the "Dr" from his name in 1981. His Masters is supposed to come from "Sequoia University", but this doesn't exist either. There is a Sequoia College in California, but it has no record of a student named Segraves.

              --"Dr" Harold Slusher, a co-founder of the Creation Research Society, claims to have an earned PhD from Columbia Pacific University and an honorary DSc from Indiana Christian University. Indiana Christian is a Bible college, while Columbia Pacific is an unaccredited diploma mill.

              --"Dr" Clifford Burdick of the Creation Research Society got his doctorate from the University of Physical Sciences in Arizona, which consists of a post office box at an unaccredited institute in Phoenix.

              --"Dr" Carl Baugh, of the Creation Evidences Museum near Glen Rose, Texas, has a PhD in anthropology from the College of Advanced Education, an unaccredited Bible college on the grounds of the Sherwood Park Baptist Church. He has another PhD from the California Graduate School of Theology, an unaccredited college in California.

              There is NO scientist anywhere in the world with a legitimate degree in biology who accepts creationism and rejects evolution.  None.  Not a one.  Zip.  Zero.  Zilch.

              I never thought I'd see the day when anyone at DKos would actually be stoopid enough to defend creationist dumbfuckery.  It saddens me immensely.  

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:10:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well the insults sure convinced me !!! (0+ / 0-)

              Changed my mind completely.

                I am active in Climate change and not a denier.. I am pro vaccine...... I think it is wrong to not vaccinate and I believe in pro choice....

              I just don't buy that Boom one day all the stars and planets fell into place.   I really don't care how old the earth is but I do believe it is a lot more than a million years old but it doesn't matter because I have the right to believe my way and you have the right to believe your way....A hundred years from now your science and another scientist will be totally opposite so it is what it is on the monkey science with me and my beliefs...I am not stupid... I am just a believer in a higher power and I don'tfault  people who believe in evolution  without question but if you think I am stupid then you are wrong... because not only do I question much science but I question religion as well and  Like I care what you think of me.. i do believe most people who do throw insults at people who do not accept evolution are ususally rude..  Would you care that much if I said I don't believe in some some history as recorded?  I doubt it.  I think people should not apologize for what they choose to accept as science or theory or science and bullshit or certain aspects of all of the above.  I think it scares people just as much as it scares the religious zealots about certain challenges of faith.....They are not stupid... They choose to believe in intelligent design  and they have that right.

              The right is about as wrong as it gets and please help veterans ...Thanks ! United Veterans of America

              by Vetwife on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 06:49:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am not trying to convince you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gsenski

                I am mocking and laughing at you. As I do to all creationists.  It's all they deserve.

                I think people should not apologize for what they choose to accept as science
                Science is not a matter of choice. You don't get to choose if the Earth is round. You don't get to choose if the boiling point of water is 212F. And you don't get to choose if evolution happens. Science is not a democracy. Your vote doesn't mean shit.

                And I do not think people should apologize for mocking anti-science crackpots who don't know shit from shinola.

                Teh stoopid, it burns. . . .

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:33:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well .....proving it to some is the problem isn't (0+ / 0-)

                  it?   It is like proving the bible?   You can see boiling water.
                  You can see the earth is round from space......but proving something that is interpreted by mere  mortals  that happened millions of years ago is the problem isn't it from people who believe in a God.  A supernatural being... There is the problem . Did it ever occur to the people who do not believe in Creationism are considered stupid by the people who do?

                  Proving evolution is science is a big problem...to people who believe in intelligent design.   while people have to spend a lot of time looking under every rock and leaf to prove there is no God and I just evolved... all I have to do is believe there is and not try to prove it.....Love cannot be seen but felt.. It cannot be measured but it is real.  I do not have a tail or swing from a tree and I don't believe my ancestors did either... Yours may have..but I doubt it.  

                  The right is about as wrong as it gets and please help veterans ...Thanks ! United Veterans of America

                  by Vetwife on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 08:25:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Only one of the people listed (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rodentrancher, ybruti

            on that page, the molecular biologist, works in a truly relevant field, and he’s outnumbered by literally hundreds.  Even very intelligent people can be badly mistaken, especially outside their fields of expertise, and their intelligence can end up being used to construct ingenious defenses that may be superficially quite convincing.  Not to put too fine a point on it, all of them are crackpots as far as this subject is concerned.  

            If you really want to read up a bit, you might start at the TalkOrigins Archive. I’d begin with the main FAQ, the pages Evolution is a Fact and a Theory, Introduction to Evolutionary Biology, and Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution .

        •  evolution requires no more faith than gravity does (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rodentrancher, 207wickedgood, rduran

          *facepalm*  All of the creationist arguments, and you have to pick the dumbest one . . . . . . .

          In my 30 years of creationist-fighting, I have never yet met anyone anywhere who both rejected evolution AND UNDERSTOOD IT.

          You just confirmed that.

          PS--to answer your question, the reason we still have apes even though humans evolved from them is precisely the same reason we still have grandmothers even though we descended from them.  There is no requirement that ancestors die once descendants appear.

          And evolution works in POPULATIONS, not species.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:00:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It requires several orders of magnitude more faith (0+ / 0-)

            Of course this is the difference between millimeters and micrometers. ;)

          •  Assuming we're not being pedantic (0+ / 0-)

            about terms ("evolution is the change of allele frequencies over time"), then while you've may have never met them personally surely you've heard of Michael Behe and Charles Thaxton.

            Understanding--even to a professional degree--is no guarantee you can't be consistently, bone-headedly wrong.  Does anyone argue that Fred Hoyle lacks the chops to comprehend modern cosmology?  Even Ken Ham by now has at least an undergraduate grasp of evolutionary biology, if for no other reason than he's been schooled by enough critics for so long that he's actually addressing their arguments these days.

          •  Not grandmothers. (0+ / 0-)

            Cousins maybe. Chimps and humans have a common ancestor. That common ancestor looked more like a chimp than a human. Whether that was because humans changed more or because we are doing the judging, I'm not certain.

        •  apes HAVE evolved (6+ / 0-)

          current day apes are as different from our common ancestors as we are. That is, we are not descended from what we now call apes. We are descended from a type of being that branched off. Humans are only one limb of that tree.

          Dear NSA: I am only joking.

          by Shahryar on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 06:34:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Long answer short (0+ / 0-)

          Five to ten million years ago, the group of our common ancestors with chimps probably split up and moved away from each other: far enough away that reproduction between the split tribes was no longer possible.  These tribes experienced very different ecological pressures, which in turn acted on random mutations differently in ways that caused some to spread like wild fire, others to be weeded out ruthlessly, and everything in between.  

          Bottom line, evolution isn't locked to a single track within an population.  It depends on chance acting on our genes and the environment culling or stimulating their spread from one generation to the next.

        •  Evolution splits. (0+ / 0-)

          Evolution generally proceeds by splitting populations. (There are exceptions.) Once there was a population of apes. Then some apes found certain traits more beneficial and others found other traits more beneficial. After some time, they evolved until the two populations could not interbreed. At that point, they were different species.

          Trying to understand evolution simply in terms of human evolution is probably a losing cause.

    •  I'll defer to Francis Collins (0+ / 0-)

      I thought that the Christian God was so omnipotent that he could do anything?  Including use evolution to create the world as we know it today.  

      Well, that's what this Christian says.

      The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.
      Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/...

      "states like VT and ID are not 'real america'" -icemilkcoffee

      by Utahrd on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:48:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please, by all means, ask (0+ / 0-)
  •  So much evolution of species, so little time, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat

    never fear ID will reveal all.   Too bad the earth is so old, it just does not conform to the more recent mythological idea that the earth is only a few thousand year old.  And why are the ID folks so invested in a very young earth, the age issue seems to motivate them to tell bunk every where.  Are these also the anti-vacination people so that kids are starting to die from lack of vacinations due to parental fantasy about them.

  •  creationists can be so awful (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tominator, Aunt Pat

    I refuse to consider it as even a valid argument for any kind of science. It's not. Not even close.

    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. Russia Today=FoxNews, Seralini=Wakefield. yadda yadda.

    by terrypinder on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 12:40:02 PM PDT

  •  Carl Sagan nailed it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, 207wickedgood, ZedMont

    "You cannot convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."

    RIP, Carl. I'm sure you would be flummoxed at how stupid these young-earthers have become.

  •  Leonard Susskind (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Santa Susanna Kid, rduran

    What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. SAM HARRIS

    by Cpqemp on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:14:35 PM PDT

  •  Essentially what that quote is saying is (0+ / 0-)

    "You cannot reason a person out of position they weren't reasoned into."

    I personally have in the past used this quote but I have come to realize its false.

    I wont go on about why its wrong but rather simply link to an excellent blog post on the Atheist Experience that details why that saying is false.

    Most critically for me is this..

    The problem, though, isn't just that this statement is wrong, it's that it's a white flag. It implies that efforts to free people from religious thinking, via reason, are futile.
    There are of course numerous examples of theists who have reasoned their own way out of their original unreasoned position, just one person like that disproves the statement.

    Religion is like a blind man, in a pitch black room, searching for a black cat that isn't there.....and finding it.

    by fauxrs on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 01:37:06 PM PDT

  •  Two of my students were arguing (5+ / 0-)

    about evolution. One of them turned to me and asked, "Ms. Houyhnhnm, do you believe we're descended from monkeys?"  I said, "The theory of evolution does not claim that humans are descended from monkeys. It says that monkeys and humans have a common ancestor." The student was silent for a minute and then said, "Oh, well that's different."

    Light is seen through a small hole.

    by houyhnhnm on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 02:48:23 PM PDT

  •  33% of Democrats don't believe in evolution (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Santa Susanna Kid, blueoasis, rduran

    "states like VT and ID are not 'real america'" -icemilkcoffee

    by Utahrd on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:54:29 PM PDT

    •  Wow, that's disappointing news. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BentLiberal, blueoasis

      As the world turns, it dumbs on down. Humans don't deserve this earth; when I think of the damage we've done to it in the last 150 years...SSK

      "Hey Clinton, I'm bushed" - Keith Richards UID 194838

      by Santa Susanna Kid on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 05:44:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's irrelevant news (0+ / 0-)

        Aside from people irritated by creationism, no one cares what the typical person believes happened 6000 years ago.

        •  sadly, that is not true . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rduran

          Creationism/ID "theory" are not about science or religion--they are POLITICAL movements with political goals. Their general irrelevance today is not because they are harmless, but because they lost every court case they were ever involved with, and are now all but dead as a political movement.

          See my "Creation 'Science' Debunked" website, which is archived here:

          http://www.huecotanks.com/...

          Specifically these pages:

          What is the Political Program of the Creationist Movement?
          http://www.huecotanks.com/...

          The Wedge Document:
          http://www.huecotanks.com/...

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:29:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, I have no doubt they are a political movement (0+ / 0-)

            I just don't think there's much harm in their objectives.  The country isn't exactly hurting because half of the over 50 population believes in creationism, and it's not as if they're doing well with the young.

            And as you point out, they're dead or dying as a political force, but still I get the sense whether man and monkey share common descent is not anywhere near the forefront of most Americans' thoughts.

    •  our side is no less vulnerable to anti-science (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rodentrancher, Utahrd, gsenski, rduran

      horse shit than the other side is.

      Even here in the "reality-based community", we have our crackpot contingent of anti-vaxxers, fringe anti-GMOers, "cellphones cause cancer" kooks, and even apparently at least one creationist.

      (sigh)

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 06:43:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And then we have you , (sigh) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kansaster

        "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

        by indycam on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:35:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  remind us again which of the anti-science (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rduran

          horse shit you are a fan of, again . . . . ?

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:42:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why , are you so fucked up that you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shahryar

            can't even jump to some wild ass , shit for brains conclusion , on your own ?  
            If you want my help ,
            here it is again ,
            grow the fuck up
            or shut the fuck up .
            Do you think you will be able to remember this time ?
            Or will I need to remind you a few more times lenny ?

            "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

            by indycam on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:46:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  dude, you need a nap /nt (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rduran

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:50:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You think you know what I need ? (0+ / 0-)

                How motherfucking arrogant !!!
                Arrogance is for fools !
                And you have no clue what I need .
                Your bullshit is weak ass bullshit .
                Your self aggrandizing shit make you a laughingstock .
                Once again ,
                Grow the fuck up ,
                or shut the fuck up !

                "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

                by indycam on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:55:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I prefer not to converse with people while they (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rduran

                  are foaming at the mouth.

                  So, bye, and have a restful night.

                  Come back when you've taken a few deep breaths and calmed yourself.

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:58:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh so know you think you see (0+ / 0-)
                    foaming at the mouth.
                    You play one little tiny game after another , people have noticed , and I am letting you know , your games are small , childish , worthless and unproductive .
                    Grow the fuck up
                    or
                    shut the fuck up .
                    Come back when you've taken a few deep breaths and calmed yourself.
                    Come back when you can pretend to be an adult . Stop playing your little bullshit filled childish games .

                    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

                    by indycam on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 08:04:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Lenny, you're being really rude (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kansaster

        so any point you're making is lost. So why attempt it? I mean, if you're going to fail to convince anyone why even offer it?

        It's fairly easy to explain evolution in a way that people who previously had been against the idea will "get it". And it can be done in a way that doesn't make them push away from what you'd be saying.

        Even worse, the way you go about it makes you sound like the kook.

        No charge for this advice, this time.

        Dear NSA: I am only joking.

        by Shahryar on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 08:37:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well, if you wanna try to change their minds, have (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rduran

          at it and enjoy.

          I gave it up 15 years ago.  It's pointless.  People are not won to creationism through logic or science, and they won't be won away from it by logic or science either.  It's ideology, and ideology is impervious to logic or science.

          So now all I do is laugh at them.

          (shrug)

          But if you think science and logical arguments will help, then I humbly offer this book on creation "science" and intelligent design "theory" (you now know the author):

          http://www.amazon.com/...

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 08:46:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you really think ideology is impervious (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rduran

            to logic or science, why do you sport the signature "In the end, reality always wins"? Which do you really believe?

            Or is that mouth-foamer you're claiming to laugh at simply in the mirror?

          •  I can understand exasperation (0+ / 0-)

            where it concerns climate change and the anti-vax, which concern pressing present-day matters around highly technical matters, leaving us laymen to largely regurgitate dicta from higher authority.  But Creationism-v-Evolution is good old high school and collegiate level stuff, where you literally get a chance to teach someone how to fish and maybe pick up something new yourself.  Don't you get any pleasure out of these kinds of discussions?  Hell, let's face it.  I bet most people watched Bill Nye v. Ken Ham because we're junkies for this sort of stuff.

            •  I've been fighting creationists since 1982 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rduran

              I've had more than my fill of trying to educate them. Particularly since it's a hopeless cause. Creationism is about ideology and religion, not science or fact. You have more chance converting the Pope to Islam than you do converting a creationist to science.

              Have at it if you like, and enjoy. But me, I've given up on it, and now I just laugh at them.

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 10:53:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What happened in 1982? (0+ / 0-)

                I've debated creationists and IDers for about as long as that: asked questions, answered questions, picked up a taste for population genetics, astrophysics and cosmology along the way.    The vast majority were African Americans in my hometown.

                Wouldn't say I "fought" them, and since nobody's paying me to do so I wouldn't call myself an educator.  As far as I can tell, they're offer nothing more than harmless intellectual diversion--Genesis 1 has little to know bearing on our present condition or challenges.

                •  one of the local school boards in PA tried to pass (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rduran

                  an "equal time" policy for evolution and creationism. I helped organize a local coalition of teachers, clergy, parents and college students to fight them. We not only forced them to withdraw the proposal, but every school board member who supported it got voted out in the next election.

                  It was actually my first live political action.  Just a few years later, I helped form the Lehigh Valley Coalition for a Safe Environment, and shortly after that I was working for Greenpeace.

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:20:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Just ask these creationists one thing (0+ / 0-)

    Do they agree with the adage that
    " Necessity is the Mother of Invention"?

  •  Volume's pretty damned convincing (0+ / 0-)

    it's how you hammer down the error bars.

  •  60% of Americans believe the Noah myth (0+ / 0-)

    despite the fact that ice core studies in Antarctica and Greenland do not have a thick layer of homogeneous ice at 4500 years (or any other time). This is proof, beyond dispute, that there was no worldwide flood.

    “That which can be destroyed by the truth should be." ― P.C. Hodgell, Seeker's Mask

    by ramblin engineer on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 07:08:58 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site