G Rowls
msg tools
Mostly made up of spare parts and sarcasm! ... HTTP Error 418 I'm a Teapot!
Avatar
mbmb
it's the daily fail - so it's probally fake news.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4522034/Creat...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes Indeed, A Creationist Is Suing The Grand Canyon (i.e. The National Park Service) For Religious Discrimination


growlley wrote:
it's the daily fail - so it's probally fake news.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4522034/Creat...

No, it's the U.K. *Daily Mail*, and it's most definitely NOT "fake news". Moreover, Young-Earth Creationists have a delusional obsession with the Grand Canyon.


> Excerpts from the May 17, 2017 Atlantic magazine news story by Sarah Zhang entitled:

A Creationist Sues the Grand Canyon for Religious Discrimination
The national park wouldn’t let him collect rocks for research.




“How did the Grand Canyon form?” is a question so commonly pondered that YouTube is rife with explanations. Go down into the long tail of Grand Canyon videos, and you’ll eventually find a two-part, 35-minute lecture by Andrew Snelling.



Andrew Snelling

The first sign this isn’t a typical geology lecture comes about a minute in, when Snelling proclaims, “The Grand Canyon does provide a testament to the Biblical account of Earth’s history.”














Snelling is a prominent Young-Earth Creationist. For years, he has given lectures, guided Biblical-themed Grand Canyon rafting tours, and worked for the non-profit Answers in Genesis. (The CEO of Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham, is also behind the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter theme park.)

Young-Earth Creationism, in contrast to other forms of Creationism, specifically holds that the Earth is only thousands of years old. Snelling believes that the Grand Canyon formed after Noah’s Flood — and he now claims the U.S. government is blocking his research in the canyon because of his religious views.

Last week, Snelling sued park administrators and the Department of Interior, which administers the national parks program, because they would not grant him a permit to collect 50 to 60 fist-sized rocks. All research in the national park is restricted, especially if it requires removing material. But the Grand Canyon does host 80 research projects a year, ranging from archaeology digs to trout tracking.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal advocacy group that filed the lawsuit on behalf of Snelling, alleged discrimination by the park. “National Park Service Determines That Research in the Grand Canyon Is Okay for Geologists... But Not Christian Ones” read the headline on their press release. (Interior department and National Park Service spokespeople declined to comment because of that pending litigation.)

If the permit application hit a nerve, it’s because Young-Earth Creationists have a bit of an obsession with the Grand Canyon. Where geologists see billions of years of rock layers carved out by a persistent flow of water, Young-Earth Creationists see sediments laid down in Noah’s Flood. As the flood receded, they believe, water became trapped behind natural dams, until it finally broke through in a “catastrophic erosion” that carved the Grand Canyon.

This is the story told on religious rafting trips organized by companies like Canyon Ministries, for which Snelling also works as a guide. In 2004, a book by the Canyon Ministry founder Tom Vail caused a stir when it was sold at the national park’s bookstores.




It’s all part of an uneasy relationship between the park and Young-Earth Creationists. The park does permit the rafting trips, and it has allowed Creationists, including Snelling according to the lawsuit, to work in the park before. Another prominent Young-Earth Creationist, Steve Austin, took photos of nautiloid fossils in the park and used them to argue that the creatures died during Noah's Flood.



“I think the National Park Service has felt a bit stung by past Creationist research in the Grand Canyon,” says Steven Newton, who teaches geology at College of Marin and serves as the programs and policy director for the National Center for Science Education, a non-profit organization that opposes the teaching of Creationism in public schools.

Exactly why the park did not grant Snelling’s application is, of course, now the subject of a lawsuit. His project did involve collecting a sizable number of rocks, which can invite more scrutiny. In an email to Snelling filed as part of the lawsuit, a park officer said the project was not granted because the type of rock he wanted to study can also be found outside of the Grand Canyon.

The park solicited peer reviews from three mainstream geologists. One mentioned the rocks could be found elsewhere; all three overwhelmingly denounced the work as not scientifically valid, a criterion the park also uses to evaluate proposals. Snelling, who holds a Ph.D. in geology, did not disclose his Answers in Genesis affiliation, nor did he explicitly say he wanted to prove the Grand Canyon is young in his initial permit application, but the reviewers became aware of his reputation.

Geology as a profession has struggled with what to do with young-Earth creationists, whose beliefs are contradicted by literal mountains of scientific evidence. Shut them down, and you get cries of censorship—like this lawsuit.

“This just so plays into their hands,” Newton says about the national park’s treatment of Snelling’s application. Newton favors letting Creationists do their research and then arguing on the merits of their science. But allowing them to present at scientific conferences, others say, is lending Creationists legitimacy.




Stephen Moshier

“That’s really a tough question because in science we want to be the type of community where people can bring about ideas that are controversial,” says Stephen Moshier, a geologist at Wheaton, a Christian liberal arts college in Illinois, and a former president of the Affiliation of Christian Geologists.

The problem, according to Moshier, who is not a Young-Earth Creationist, is that they want mainstream geologists to be open to new ideas, but it’s the Young-Earth Creationists themselves who have proved inflexible in the face of new evidence contradicting their ideas.

“Often I read things by Young-Earth Creationists where I think they really ought to know better. Many of them have excellent training in the geosciences,” Moshier says. (Snelling declined to comment because of the lawsuit. Four other Young-Earth Creationists who study the Grand Canyon did not respond to requests for comment.)

That the Grand Canyon is the stage where this conflict now plays out is no coincidence. The canyon is such a potent example of the power of small changes over time — of what’s possible on geological time scales.

“Look through any introductory geology textbook, any sedimentology textbook, and the Grand Canyon is going to be there in either full color or on the whole page,” says Moshier.

Last year, he and other Christian geologists published a book titled "The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth", directly refuting Young-Earth Creationists who cite the canyon as evidence of Noah’s Flood.




“It wouldn’t be of any use writing about the Appalachian Mountains — even though I think we can make a stronger case for an ancient Earth there because the geology is so complex,” says Moshier. “Because they make a big deal out of the Grand Canyon and use it as a lab for Young-Earth Creationism and flood geology, that’s naturally where we had to focus the book.”

When Young-Earth Creationists invoke God, they are tapping into a real sense of wonder about the Grand Canyon. It’s easy — in fact, all too human — to wonder how so small a river could have carved so vast a chasm. One partial answer is that the Glen Canyon dam has quelled the spring floods that originally bored through rock. The lazily winding Colorado River that you see today is not the river that formed the Grand Canyon. But also, humans are bad at intuiting the consequences of deep time. Once you add enough zeros to number of years they all start to sound the same.

It’s hard to imagine how much can happen in geological time. About 1,700,000,000 years ago, a series of volcanoes crashed into what would become the continent of North America and created mountains taller than the Himalayas today. Those mountains eroded back down to hills to form the rock that now rests at the base of the canyon. Over countless millions of years, a shallow sea expanded and contracted over the area, laying down the sediment that would become the sandstone, shale, and limestone layers. Plate tectonics then pushed those rock layers up and up to became the Colorado Plateau. And finally, flowing water carved its way down 1.7 billion years of rock.

It’s hard to imagine, but there is wonder and grandeur in this imagination, too.





7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
growlley wrote:
it's the daily fail - so it's probally fake news.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4522034/Creat...


Not everything in the Mail is fake news, that's the cunning bit.

In this case, reading down, you can see where they got the story from. (Credit where it's due, they link, they don't just lift - I wonder how it looked in print.) I suspect it's true - suing is cheap publicity. Pursuing is more costly. Winning would be a problem.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Earth only a couple thousand years old? Laughs, so much for carbon dating technology. Those dinosaurs must have had a pretty short life span on this planet too. Man evolved pretty quickly too, apparently. One day Australiopithecus, next day Homo Sapiens.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mortego
United States
New Kensington
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why is it important to anyone how old the earth is? The earth is 4.543 billion years old.......that's not a guess, it's a fact.

If religious folks are willing to believe writings from a time before science then let them believe that but to "sue" to justify that they're correct is well,....bat-shit crazy.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
killerjoe1962 wrote:
Why is it important to anyone how old the earth is? The earth is 4.543 billion years old.......that's not a guess, it's a fact.

If religious folks are willing to believe writings from a time before science then let them believe that but to "sue" to justify that they're correct is well,....bat-shit crazy.



More to the point, what exactly would they do to the rocks to determine the age of them? I can only assume they want the rocks to conduct some tests on them, in order to verify their hypotheses about the age of the Earth. Although I could be wrong here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
killerjoe1962 wrote:
Why is it important to anyone how old the earth is? The earth is 4.543 billion years old.......that's not a guess, it's a fact.

If religious folks are willing to believe writings from a time before science then let them believe that but to "sue" to justify that they're correct is well,....bat-shit crazy.


I think thats at least one level of precision too much, but that's the point: the entire web of science gives answers which make this man look like a buffoon.
The amazing thing is that he works as a geologist and has 2 geology degrees. This means he has basically two personalities and is borderline insane or a habitual liar.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
DavidDearlove wrote:
killerjoe1962 wrote:
Why is it important to anyone how old the earth is? The earth is 4.543 billion years old.......that's not a guess, it's a fact.

If religious folks are willing to believe writings from a time before science then let them believe that but to "sue" to justify that they're correct is well,....bat-shit crazy.


I think thats at least one level of precision too much, but that's the point: the entire web of science gives answers which make this man look like a buffoon.
The amazing thing is that he works as a geologist and has 2 geology degrees. This means he has basically two personalities and is borderline insane or a habitual liar.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

Nope. Just a deluded true believer. I work with geologists, and a surprisingly large minority of them believe the Earth is less than 7,000 years old.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mortego
United States
New Kensington
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
killerjoe1962 wrote:
Why is it important to anyone how old the earth is? The earth is 4.543 billion years old.......that's not a guess, it's a fact.

If religious folks are willing to believe writings from a time before science then let them believe that but to "sue" to justify that they're correct is well,....bat-shit crazy.


I think thats at least one level of precision too much, but that's the point: the entire web of science gives answers which make this man look like a buffoon.
The amazing thing is that he works as a geologist and has 2 geology degrees. This means he has basically two personalities and is borderline insane or a habitual liar.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

Nope. Just a deluded true believer. I work with geologists, and a surprisingly large minority of them believe the Earth is less than 7,000 years old.


I just don't why anyone would think that...it doesn't make sense.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Mike Pence Is An Advocate of Young-Earth Creationism


killerjoe1962 wrote:
Why is it important to anyone how old the earth is? The earth is 4.543 billion years old.......that's not a guess, it's a fact.

If religious folks are willing to believe writings from a time before science then let them believe that but to "sue" to justify that they're correct is well,....bat-shit crazy.

Well, guess what: Those bat-shit crazy religious folks are in control of the Trump/Pence administration. Indeed, Vice President Pence is one of them!

Moreover, after those Dominionist folks gained control of Trump's campaign, they were instrumental in recommending and convincing Trump to choose Mike Pence as his Vice Presidential running mate. Upon his selection, Pence's extremist Congressional and gubernatorial track record came under scrutiny. It was then that we were reminded about Pence's pro-Creationism and anti-science beliefs which he even ventured to espouse and advocate on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.


> Excerpts from the August 3, 2016 Right Wing Watch news story by Ari Rabin-Havt entitled:

Flashback to 2009: Indiana Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Pence Delivers An Entire Speech Before Congress Denying The Theory Of Evolution





In a widely posted interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews from 2009, Republican Vice Presidential nominee Mike Pence refused to say whether or not he believed in evolution. While Pence dodged the question in 2009, previously the answer was an emphatic no — he does not believe in the Theory of Evolution.

In 2002, Pence delivered an entire speech in the House of Representatives on the subject. “I believe that God created the known universe, the Earth, and everything in it, including man,” Pence told his colleagues. “And I also believe that someday scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides even a remotely rational explanation for the known universe.”






Pence went to the floor to discuss the discovery of a skull from Sahelanthropus tchadensis, one of the oldest known species in the human family tree. He attempted to use this discovery to cast doubt on the entire Theory of Evolution.



A foresnic sculpture reconstruction of Sahelanthropus tchadensis

While there are still questions being raised about where this discovery fits on the evolutionary spectrum, whether the skull came from a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees or a direct descendent of humans, the skull did not throw the case for natural selection into doubt.

In his speech Pence also deployed the old Creationist canard of confusing the scientific definition of the word “Theory” with its common usage.

"The truth is it always was a theory, Mr. Speaker," Pence began. "And now that we have recognized Evolution as a theory, I would simply and humbly ask: Can we teach it as such? And can we also consider teaching other theories of the origin of species?” Pence asked before continuing to push Creationism as an equally scientifically viable alternative.

U.S. Rep. Mike Pence wrote:


Like the theory that was believed in by every signer of the Declaration of Independence. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence believed that men and women were created and were endowed by that same Creator with certain unalienable rights. The Bible tells us that God created man in his own image, male and female. He created them. And I believe that, Mr. Speaker.


While it seems silly to have to point this out, as the National Academy of Science notes:

The National Academy of Science wrote:


The formal scientific definition of the word "Theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the Theory of Evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the Theory of Evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.


Mike Pence might have been cautious with his words when questioned by Chris Matthews in 2009, but in 2002 his answer was clear: He was so dedicated to the cause of Creationism that he gave an entire speech on the subject. It should come as no surprise that a politician who denied the dangers of tobacco would not believe in basic science.








> Excerpts from the July 16, 2012 Smithsonian magazine news story by Erin Wayman entitled:

Sahelanthropus tchadensis: Ten Years After the Disocvery
A Decade Ago, Scientists Unearthed What May Be The Oldest Hominid Ever Found



The 7,000,000-year-old Sahelanthropus tchadensis skull, known as Toumai, viewed from different sides

Ten years ago, an international group of anthropologists made a bold claim: They had unearthed the earliest hominid ever found, in the Sahel region of Chad. They named their discovery Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Today, many anthropologists agree that the seven-million-year-old Sahelanthropus was an early hominid while others suggest it was nothing more than an ancient ape.

The team, led by Michel Brunet, now at the Collège de France, originally found six hominid specimens in Djurab Desert of northern Chad in 2001. The discovery included a nearly complete, yet distorted, skull (nicknamed Toumaï, meaning “hope of life” in the local Goran language). Although very primitive, the skull, jaw and teeth displayed some hominid-like traits. For instance, the species had a relatively flat face instead of a protruding muzzle like a chimp. And the tip of the canine tooth was worn down, as it is in humans. This suggested Sahelanthropus lacked a “honing” complex in which the back side of the upper canine sharpens itself against the lower first premolar (what your dentist might call a bicuspid). This appears to be a trait that hominids lost after they split from the chimpanzee lineage. In addition, Sahelanthropus’ foramen magnum — the hole at the base of the skull that the spinal cord runs through — was situated further forward than a chimp’s, implying Sahelanthropus had an erect posture and therefore walked upright on two legs. In 2005, the team announced additional jaw and teeth discoveries from Djurab, as well as a virtual reconstruction of the skull that corrected the distortion. These new pieces of evidence supported the original find, the researchers said.



A foresnic sculpture reconstruction of Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Based on the type and ages of other animal fossils found near Sahelanthropus—including freshwater fish, crocodiles, rodents and monkeys—the researchers concluded the species probably lived in a wooded environment near a lake, perhaps even in a swampy locale, six million to seven million years ago. Assuming the species was indeed a hominid, the time period implies the hominid-chimpanzee split must have occurred even earlier, contrary to some genetic studies that indicate a more recent split some five million years ago. And finding the hominid in Chad means early hominids lived beyond East Africa and were more spread out than paleoanthropologists had suspected.

But Sahelanthropus‘ hominid status is not universally accepted. In 2006, one group of researchers, including Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan and John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, considered the structure and function of the reconstructed Sahelanthropus skull. Although the placement of the foramen magnum appeared similar to humans’, other aspects of the skull would have prevented the species from keeping its head upright—and therefore it couldn’t have been a bipedal walker, the team concluded. Thus, they suggested, Sahelanthropus was not a hominid, just some kind of ape. They further noted that some of the dental similarities Sahelanthropus shared with hominids could be cases of parallel evolution, when closely related species independently evolve similar traits due to shared evolutionary pressures.

Since 2006, the study of Sahelanthropus hasn’t advanced all that much. No additional fossils have been discovered—or at least, none of have been publicly announced. In 2009, Hawks blogged about the possibility of a Sahelanthropus femur. One of the researchers involved in the discovery of the species published a paper alluding to a thigh bone and even published a picture allegedly showing the original cache of fossils that included a femur.

As far as I know, a formal analysis of the bone has never been published. If there is a Sahelanthropus, studying it might help confirm whether the species walked upright — and whether it deserves to be included in the hominid family. Sometimes it takes scientists a long time to fully analyze a fossil find. It took the team that found Ardi and other Ardipithecus fossils about 15 years to publish full studies on that early hominid. So maybe in another five years Brunet and his team will have another announcement to make.


___________________________________________



So, be advised that Mike Pence and his Creationist companions aren't "dumb as a bag of rocks" because their intellect isn't lacking. It's that they willfully disbelieve Science by virtue of their twisted and perverted version of Christianity (i.e. Dominionism and Christian Supremacy) that demands blind belief and conformity which, by the way, they also aspire to impose upon us all.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
abadolato01 wrote:
Earth only a couple thousand years old? Laughs, so much for carbon dating technology. Those dinosaurs must have had a pretty short life span on this planet too. Man evolved pretty quickly too, apparently. One day Australiopithecus, next day Homo Sapiens.


I know that's in green. But it would be really helpful if people got it clear that carbon dating is for organic things up to thousands of years (a double figure number of thousands). For millions and billions of years, other techniques, including other radioactive isotopes (and a different rationale too, it's not about exchange with the atmosphere).

That we have a pretty good (understatement there) estimate of the Earth's age is because different techniques give similar answers (up to errors with good estimates).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidDearlove wrote:
killerjoe1962 wrote:
Why is it important to anyone how old the earth is? The earth is 4.543 billion years old.......that's not a guess, it's a fact.

If religious folks are willing to believe writings from a time before science then let them believe that but to "sue" to justify that they're correct is well,....bat-shit crazy.


I think thats at least one level of precision too much


I've seen the 4.53 figure before. I believe it's better than you suggest, the 5 is pretty firm and the 3 is better than random. But I'd have to dig further to check, and not now.

Edit: and you may need to be more precise in what you are measuring than "age of the earth".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
Mostly made up of spare parts and sarcasm! ... HTTP Error 418 I'm a Teapot!
Avatar
mbmb
"So, be advised that Mike Pence and his Creationist companions aren't "dumb as a bag of rocks" because their intellect isn't lacking. It's that they willfully disbelieve Science by virtue of their twisted and perverted version of Christianity (i.e. Dominionism and Christian Supremacy) that demands blind belief and conformity which, by the way, they also aspire to impose upon us all."

way to suck all the fun out of life - it was just a perfect excuse to use that phrase.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


growlley wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
So, be advised that Mike Pence and his Creationist companions aren't "dumb as a bag of rocks" because their intellect isn't lacking. It's that they willfully disbelieve Science by virtue of their twisted and perverted version of Christianity (i.e. Dominionism and Christian Supremacy) that demands blind belief and conformity which, by the way, they also aspire to impose upon us all.

way to suck all the fun out of life - it was just a perfect excuse to use that phrase.

I'll suck even more fun out of your life: Mike Pence and his Domionionist allies don't believe that the rocks in that bag are millions of years old, either.


So there!



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
killerjoe1962 wrote:
Why is it important to anyone how old the earth is? The earth is 4.543 billion years old.......that's not a guess, it's a fact.

If religious folks are willing to believe writings from a time before science then let them believe that but to "sue" to justify that they're correct is well,....bat-shit crazy.


I think thats at least one level of precision too much, but that's the point: the entire web of science gives answers which make this man look like a buffoon.
The amazing thing is that he works as a geologist and has 2 geology degrees. This means he has basically two personalities and is borderline insane or a habitual liar.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

Nope. Just a deluded true believer. I work with geologists, and a surprisingly large minority of them believe the Earth is less than 7,000 years old.

The point is that he publishes as two mutually incompatible entities. When he is being a "real" geologist he dates things in millions of years. His PhD is dependent on a really old world.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dearlove wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
killerjoe1962 wrote:
Why is it important to anyone how old the earth is? The earth is 4.543 billion years old.......that's not a guess, it's a fact.

If religious folks are willing to believe writings from a time before science then let them believe that but to "sue" to justify that they're correct is well,....bat-shit crazy.


I think thats at least one level of precision too much


I've seen the 4.53 figure before. I believe it's better than you suggest, the 5 is pretty firm and the 3 is better than random. But I'd have to dig further to check, and not now.

Edit: and you may need to be more precise in what you are measuring than "age of the earth".

I said 3 s.f. not 4.
I don.t think 4.543 billion years is a fact.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guido Van Horn
United States
Othello
Washington
flag msg tools
I admit it, I killed her, I killed Yvette. I hated her so much
badge
Flames...flames on the side of my face...breathing...breathle...heaving breathes
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
*disclaimer I'm not a YCE, nor do I think it is a great idea to be raising our national monuments*

I'd like to step out of the story a bit and discuss the scope of scientific research and the notion of challenging precedent in the scientific community.

I'm not a scientist but at times get to teach scientific method in elementary school setting and have taken some scientific courses, as well as read about scientific discoveries because I find it fascinating.

One of the hallmarks of science is that often you are challenging a held belief, either through anecdotal evidence or more ingrained research. One of the purposes of scientific journals as I've heard is to propogate and advertise the findings of scientist all over the world, so other scientist can check on their work, verify results and otherwise learn.

Taking it back to the article, it appears he is a legitimate scientist with the proper credentials. He desires to study some rocks (his area of expertise) to challenge held beliefs. Is that really all that ridiculous? If he publishes his findings his work would be put up to scrutiny, especially if he finds anything wildly different.

I just find it incredibly....short sighted...to dismiss someone who desires to study something even if we think we have it figured out.

The one thing I'm fairly certain of is there are scientific "facts" we believe today that people will laugh at us about in 200 years.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
*disclaimer I'm not a YCE, nor do I think it is a great idea to be raising our national monuments*

I'd like to step out of the story a bit and discuss the scope of scientific research and the notion of challenging precedent in the scientific community.

I'm not a scientist but at times get to teach scientific method in elementary school setting and have taken some scientific courses, as well as read about scientific discoveries because I find it fascinating.

One of the hallmarks of science is that often you are challenging a held belief, either through anecdotal evidence or more ingrained research. One of the purposes of scientific journals as I've heard is to propogate and advertise the findings of scientist all over the world, so other scientist can check on their work, verify results and otherwise learn.

Taking it back to the article, it appears he is a legitimate scientist with the proper credentials. He desires to study some rocks (his area of expertise) to challenge held beliefs. Is that really all that ridiculous? If he publishes his findings his work would be put up to scrutiny, especially if he finds anything wildly different.

I just find it incredibly....short sighted...to dismiss someone who desires to study something even if we think we have it figured out.

The one thing I'm fairly certain of is there are scientific "facts" we believe today that people will laugh at us about in 200 years.


I acutally tend to agree with your argument, but the gent is not suing on the basis of some scientific reason, he is suing based on infringement of his religioius rights. There are other rocks in the area of the Grand Canyon that are similar to the rock in the canyon itself. Why the dogged persistence to get hold of the Canyon Rocks? If the true purpose of obtaining the rocks is to determine their age, any rocks in that area would likely suffice. It is my opinion (and opinion only) that this gent is using the religious infringment argument, to bring publicity to his cause, which I can only assume is to somehow prove that the canyon is much less old than other geologists have concluded.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guido Van Horn
United States
Othello
Washington
flag msg tools
I admit it, I killed her, I killed Yvette. I hated her so much
badge
Flames...flames on the side of my face...breathing...breathle...heaving breathes
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
abadolato01 wrote:
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
*disclaimer I'm not a YCE, nor do I think it is a great idea to be raising our national monuments*

I'd like to step out of the story a bit and discuss the scope of scientific research and the notion of challenging precedent in the scientific community.

I'm not a scientist but at times get to teach scientific method in elementary school setting and have taken some scientific courses, as well as read about scientific discoveries because I find it fascinating.

One of the hallmarks of science is that often you are challenging a held belief, either through anecdotal evidence or more ingrained research. One of the purposes of scientific journals as I've heard is to propogate and advertise the findings of scientist all over the world, so other scientist can check on their work, verify results and otherwise learn.

Taking it back to the article, it appears he is a legitimate scientist with the proper credentials. He desires to study some rocks (his area of expertise) to challenge held beliefs. Is that really all that ridiculous? If he publishes his findings his work would be put up to scrutiny, especially if he finds anything wildly different.

I just find it incredibly....short sighted...to dismiss someone who desires to study something even if we think we have it figured out.

The one thing I'm fairly certain of is there are scientific "facts" we believe today that people will laugh at us about in 200 years.


I acutally tend to agree with your argument, but the gent is not suing on the basis of some scientific reason, he is suing based on infringement of his religioius rights. There are other rocks in the area of the Grand Canyon that are similar to the rock in the canyon itself. Why the dogged persistence to get hold of the Canyon Rocks? If the true purpose of obtaining the rocks is to determine their age, any rocks in that area would likely suffice. It is my opinion (and opinion only) that this gent is using the religious infringment argument, to bring publicity to his cause, which I can only assume is to somehow prove that the canyon is much less old than other geologists have concluded.


I really don't want to get sucked into the merits of his scholarship, but it seems if you want to study the Grand Canyon, you'd want rocks from the Grand Canyon.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mortego
United States
New Kensington
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
He wants the rocks to prove the earth is about 10,000 years old on behalf of religious beliefs. Any rock from that general area would suffice. Maybe he should ask for a chip of the Blarney Stone or Stone Henge instead.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
*disclaimer I'm not a YCE, nor do I think it is a great idea to be raising our national monuments*

I'd like to step out of the story a bit and discuss the scope of scientific research and the notion of challenging precedent in the scientific community.

I'm not a scientist but at times get to teach scientific method in elementary school setting and have taken some scientific courses, as well as read about scientific discoveries because I find it fascinating.

One of the hallmarks of science is that often you are challenging a held belief, either through anecdotal evidence or more ingrained research. One of the purposes of scientific journals as I've heard is to propogate and advertise the findings of scientist all over the world, so other scientist can check on their work, verify results and otherwise learn.

Taking it back to the article, it appears he is a legitimate scientist with the proper credentials. He desires to study some rocks (his area of expertise) to challenge held beliefs. Is that really all that ridiculous? If he publishes his findings his work would be put up to scrutiny, especially if he finds anything wildly different.

I just find it incredibly....short sighted...to dismiss someone who desires to study something even if we think we have it figured out.

The one thing I'm fairly certain of is there are scientific "facts" we believe today that people will laugh at us about in 200 years.

Well not about anything fundamental. The level of knowledge required to mock a change now is massive. Will we laugh because the wrong model was used in String Theory?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
*disclaimer I'm not a YCE, nor do I think it is a great idea to be raising our national monuments*

I'd like to step out of the story a bit and discuss the scope of scientific research and the notion of challenging precedent in the scientific community.

I'm not a scientist but at times get to teach scientific method in elementary school setting and have taken some scientific courses, as well as read about scientific discoveries because I find it fascinating.

One of the hallmarks of science is that often you are challenging a held belief, either through anecdotal evidence or more ingrained research. One of the purposes of scientific journals as I've heard is to propogate and advertise the findings of scientist all over the world, so other scientist can check on their work, verify results and otherwise learn.

Taking it back to the article, it appears he is a legitimate scientist with the proper credentials. He desires to study some rocks (his area of expertise) to challenge held beliefs. Is that really all that ridiculous? If he publishes his findings his work would be put up to scrutiny, especially if he finds anything wildly different.

I just find it incredibly....short sighted...to dismiss someone who desires to study something even if we think we have it figured out.

The one thing I'm fairly certain of is there are scientific "facts" we believe today that people will laugh at us about in 200 years.


I acutally tend to agree with your argument, but the gent is not suing on the basis of some scientific reason, he is suing based on infringement of his religioius rights. There are other rocks in the area of the Grand Canyon that are similar to the rock in the canyon itself. Why the dogged persistence to get hold of the Canyon Rocks? If the true purpose of obtaining the rocks is to determine their age, any rocks in that area would likely suffice. It is my opinion (and opinion only) that this gent is using the religious infringment argument, to bring publicity to his cause, which I can only assume is to somehow prove that the canyon is much less old than other geologists have concluded.


I really don't want to get sucked into the merits of his scholarship, but it seems if you want to study the Grand Canyon, you'd want rocks from the Grand Canyon.

Rocks from pretty anywhere would do, with context. How will he prove that sandstone was laid down a tiny number of years ago? It's just silly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guido Van Horn
United States
Othello
Washington
flag msg tools
I admit it, I killed her, I killed Yvette. I hated her so much
badge
Flames...flames on the side of my face...breathing...breathle...heaving breathes
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidDearlove wrote:
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
GuidoVanHorn wrote:
*disclaimer I'm not a YCE, nor do I think it is a great idea to be raising our national monuments*

I'd like to step out of the story a bit and discuss the scope of scientific research and the notion of challenging precedent in the scientific community.

I'm not a scientist but at times get to teach scientific method in elementary school setting and have taken some scientific courses, as well as read about scientific discoveries because I find it fascinating.

One of the hallmarks of science is that often you are challenging a held belief, either through anecdotal evidence or more ingrained research. One of the purposes of scientific journals as I've heard is to propogate and advertise the findings of scientist all over the world, so other scientist can check on their work, verify results and otherwise learn.

Taking it back to the article, it appears he is a legitimate scientist with the proper credentials. He desires to study some rocks (his area of expertise) to challenge held beliefs. Is that really all that ridiculous? If he publishes his findings his work would be put up to scrutiny, especially if he finds anything wildly different.

I just find it incredibly....short sighted...to dismiss someone who desires to study something even if we think we have it figured out.

The one thing I'm fairly certain of is there are scientific "facts" we believe today that people will laugh at us about in 200 years.


I acutally tend to agree with your argument, but the gent is not suing on the basis of some scientific reason, he is suing based on infringement of his religioius rights. There are other rocks in the area of the Grand Canyon that are similar to the rock in the canyon itself. Why the dogged persistence to get hold of the Canyon Rocks? If the true purpose of obtaining the rocks is to determine their age, any rocks in that area would likely suffice. It is my opinion (and opinion only) that this gent is using the religious infringment argument, to bring publicity to his cause, which I can only assume is to somehow prove that the canyon is much less old than other geologists have concluded.


I really don't want to get sucked into the merits of his scholarship, but it seems if you want to study the Grand Canyon, you'd want rocks from the Grand Canyon.

Rocks from pretty anywhere would do, with context. How will he prove that sandstone was laid down a tiny number of years ago? It's just silly.


That doesn't make sense to me at all, if you want to study a specific area it makes sense your samples would come from the area you want to study. If he came out and said "these rocks from 30 miles away prove..." There would be some major questions about validity.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidDearlove wrote:
Dearlove wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
killerjoe1962 wrote:
Why is it important to anyone how old the earth is? The earth is 4.543 billion years old.......that's not a guess, it's a fact.

If religious folks are willing to believe writings from a time before science then let them believe that but to "sue" to justify that they're correct is well,....bat-shit crazy.


I think thats at least one level of precision too much


I've seen the 4.53 figure before. I believe it's better than you suggest, the 5 is pretty firm and the 3 is better than random. But I'd have to dig further to check, and not now.

Edit: and you may need to be more precise in what you are measuring than "age of the earth".

I said 3 s.f. not 4.
I don.t think 4.543 billion years is a fact.


You're right, I misread 4.543 as 4.53.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.