Grand Canyon not permitted to give its geologic age

[jeff]

ThatReallyHurt: believe it or not, there are now creationists trying to ruin astronomy and astrophysics for the exact reason you mention. Can't talk about stars millions of light years away with a belief system that says that the universe is 6,000 years old. So, they're trying to ruin that too.

OROD: you hit exactly on what I was talking about long ago in this thread when I made the equal time" argument. Fundies want to proselytize their religious views in the public space (and frequently with public money), then lets have the real world have a shot at indoctrinating their kids, with classes that pointedly show how the literal interpretation of Genesis makes no sense. But we don't do that - and that's a good thing.

Why are the fundies so upset by the entire subject? Because once you start empowering people to interpret the Bible metaphorically instead of taking it literally, well, then people may dispute and question it everywhere. That isn't acceptable to the fundamentalist mindset. So, what if it turns out that scrapinpeg is correct, and literal interpretation of the Bible is a recent addiion. What then, dcmdale?

In this thread, unfortunately I see dcmdale disengenuously changing the subject when he's losing. Instead of talking about the undisputable case that the religious want to use public, and governmental services for promoting their views, let's cry censorship, when it isn't. Remember that evangelists believe that it is their obligation to evangelize, and that they have the right to evangelize whether the rest of us want it or not. I also find it hard to believe he's never heard of the Discovery Institute and its "teach the controversy" ploy. When the facts of the world overwhelmingly point to an old earth with evolution forming the species we have today (notice, he never really responds to those points - his quotes leave them out), change the subject to abstract philosophy. Well Kant said ""If one cannot prove that a thing is, he may try to prove that it is not", which shows he wasn't all that against "falsification" as a method.

[keith]

So, what if it turns out that scrapinpeg is correct, and literal interpretation of the Bible is a recent addiion. What then, dcmdale?

In cautious defense of dcmdale I took his observations on biblical interpretation to illustrate the point that orthodoxy, and otherwise, is a constant feature of religious debate - the current crop of christian fundamentalists are part of a long tradition and no more susceptible to defeat. Maybe if we put them all in a spaceship? If it works once...

[ThatReallyHurt]

ThatReallyHurt: believe it or not, there are now creationists trying to ruin astronomy and astrophysics for the exact reason you mention. Can't talk about stars millions of light years away with a belief system that says that the universe is 6,000 years old. So, they're trying to ruin that too.

Ah, but there's the catch - we have absolute irrefutable proof of the speed of light - they've been doing experiments for, what... 120 years now or something like that, and each time, it just confirms it to another decimal point or two. We've also got measurements to nearby stars by parallax, another verifiable thing that can be done with grade seven geometry and basic trig. I could (grudgingly) give some people the "evolution" thing because we can't visibly see humans evolving with every generation, but they couldn't possibly have an out from the astronomy angle.

Makes my head spin. I've been around for a while, but it never ceases to amaze me how there are mature adults out there who insist on covering their ears and yelling "blah blah blah" when confronted with something they don't want to hear.

Anyone have any good links to some (genuine) fundamentalist documentation so I can actually read where they're coming from and the reasoning/proof?

[OROD]

I could (grudgingly) give some people the "evolution" thing because we can't visibly see humans evolving with every generation, but they couldn't possibly have an out from the astronomy angle.

I know what you're saying, some people cant understand what they cant see right in front of them. But, even considering that, evolution cannot be disputed. Heck, I was watching a show on TV just the other night about the evolution of dogs from wolves, and how different breeds with different behaviors have arrisen through selective breeding to all the different types of dogs we have now. And all this didnt happen that long ago. You're telling me that even the densest religious dummy out there cant see evolution at work in this? Granted it's not "natural selection", a lot of it was guided by man. But all man did was use the reproductive process that would happen in the wild to select the outcome.

Heck, even just the early work by Darwin on what he saw in the Galapagos is estraordinary evidense for evolution... nevermind all the fossils from millions of years ago, or all the rest of it.

But then again, what can you expect? The main premise of religion is not to question (i.e. dont think), just swallow the dogmatic BS you're fed whole. That's why it's pointless to argue with these people, they dont have a thought in their heads worth contemplating.

.

[Have At You]

Gotta wonder about the fervently anti-evolution types who are also masters of animal husbandry, breeding, or crop hybrid management.

Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

[OROD]

Gotta wonder about the fervently anti-evolution types who are also masters of animal husbandry, breeding, or crop hybrid management.

Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

I gave up wondering WHY people are stupid a long time ago. I just accept it and move on.

.

[jBirch]

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-01-17.html

James.