tags: science, geology, Grand Canyon, religion, creationism, humor, funny, streaming video
The Grand Canyon is such an icon of the Earth's geological history, of slow and steady uplift, erosion, submergence and deposition, that the creationist crowd thought it essential to tackle it head on. So they have come up with an explanation as to how it might have got there in a world created only 6,000 years ago. Their attempts to squeeze this majestic testament to natural processes into bronze age mythology are not just clumsy, they're the stuff good comedy is made of [10:03]
- Log in to post comments
More like this
That Answers in Genesis crackpot, Terry Mortenson, is speaking on "Millions of Years" at the Creation "Museum". Those of us who visited that circus of charlatanry know that this is one of their obsessions — the idea that the earth is more than 6000 years old is one of the wrecking balls atheists…
Ron Numbers is a very smart fellow, a historian of science, who has done marvelous work on the history of creationism. Paul Nelson is a Discovery Institute Fellow, a young earth creationist (but an amazingly fuzzy one), and, unfortunately, very long-winded. Bloggingheads has brought Ronald Numbers…
tags: religion, creationism museum
While a small airplane flew overhead, towing a banner that read, "Thou shalt not lie," Ken Ham and his cronies opened their $27 million "museum" near Cincinnati today, and were met with condemnation from the country's scientists. This so-called "museum" portrays…
One of the most common strategems for reconciling evolution and the Bible that I've run into is the Day-Age hypothesis, the claim that each of the seven 'days' of the book of Genesis represents one of God's days, which doesn't have to be 24 hours long, but could be millions or billions of years…
This is a nice way to learn geology. 2 parts fun, 1 part real science.
For one horrible moment I expected to be watching an ID production. Thankfully not.
One could go a little further than this short, and point out how the Creationists are poster children for the dangers of reasoning from analogy. Analogies have their place - in conveying some key points of an idea, laying the ground work for a teaching experience, etc. i.e., their usefulness is descriptive. Not prescriptive. Mixed in with starting from analogy is starting from unexamined and erroneous statements and using them as axiomatically TRUE for the ensuing "proof". Yes, they say "if A then B", but then studiously ignore the fact that their A is actually and demonstrably FALSE, instead taking it as proof that B is TRUE.
Now I think of it, I do not recall them ever using a construct other than "if A then B". Maybe it sounds too close to English? Maybe the others (constructs) do not? What part of A -> B is it that they miss?
The stupid - it deluges!