Comments on: The evolution of Creationism http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Thu, 23 May 2013 16:44:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: heph http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1576411 heph Wed, 07 Nov 2012 19:32:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1576411 A long time ago where was a big freshwater-lake in Egypt including fresh-water whales etc. I could see the flood thing originating from there. A long time ago where was a big freshwater-lake in Egypt including fresh-water whales etc.

I could see the flood thing originating from there.

]]> By: Christopher R Weiss http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1575898 Christopher R Weiss Wed, 07 Nov 2012 08:42:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1575898 Genesis had the order of appearance of the animals wrong.  It claims water, air, and then land when we know it was water, land and then air.  This is just one of literally thousands of errors, inconsistencies, and outright myths in the bible. Genesis had the order of appearance of the animals wrong.  It claims water, air, and then land when we know it was water, land and then air.  This is just one of literally thousands of errors, inconsistencies, and outright myths in the bible.

]]> By: Christopher R Weiss http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1575896 Christopher R Weiss Wed, 07 Nov 2012 08:40:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1575896 Oh C'mon!  This time dilation explanation has no backing whatsoever in the physics community.  It is actually a misunderstanding of Lorentz transforms.  This is more "magic" and nothing else. The YEC movement is the worst and most destructive active cult in the US.  In countries without our free speech protections, the YEC movement would be banned for lying to the public. Oh C’mon!  This time dilation explanation has no backing whatsoever in the physics community.  It is actually a misunderstanding of Lorentz transforms.  This is more “magic” and nothing else.

The YEC movement is the worst and most destructive active cult in the US.  In countries without our free speech protections, the YEC movement would be banned for lying to the public.

]]> By: JosephU http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1575765 JosephU Wed, 07 Nov 2012 00:38:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1575765 Q. 5. Can you explain how light has been able to reach us from billions of light years away in the roughly 6000 years since the creation of the universe? A. "How can distant starlight reach us in just 6,000 years? http://creation.com/how-can-distant-starlight-reach-us-in-just-6000-years (partial quote) Time dilation - An experimentally verified prediction of Einstein’s General Relativity Theory is a phenomenon called gravitational time dilation. It has long been established that gravity affects the rate at which time flows in any particular location in the universe. ... Distant starlight and the biblical timescale - ... The days of the Creation Week were recorded from the point of view of an observer on the earth so the time reference in Genesis is Earth time. On Day 4, as God commenced stretching out the heavens, the mass of the universe (presumably including the ‘waters above’ which were separated out on Day 2) would have been confined to a much smaller volume of space than is the case today. Assuming the Hartnett–Carmeli theory is correct, the Universe rapidly expanded with massive time dilation as a result of very rapid acceleration of the fabric of space on Day 4. The Humphreys model on the other hand, also based on General Relativity, has clocks at the outer edge of the cosmos running much faster than earth-bound clocks because of gravitational time dilation. By the end of Day 4, when God completed his work of creating the sun, moon and stars, and had stretched out the heavens to their vast extent, billions of years of cosmic time could have elapsed at the outer edges of the cosmos in just one 24 hour earth day. There would have been more than enough time for the light from distant stars to have reached the earth so that when Adam gazed at the night sky on that sixth night he would have seen much the same as what we see today. 6,000 years have passed since the Creation Week. If the models outlined above are correct, the light from any star that is greater than 6,000 light years away from the earth will have originated on Day 4 itself. This would include most of the visible stars, all of which are part of the Milky Way galaxy. We are effectively looking at God’s creative activity on Day 4 as we gaze into the universe!" References: How can distant starlight reach us in just 6,000 years? by Mark Harwood http://creation.com/how-can-distant-starlight-reach-us-in-just-6000-years Genesis 1-11 (NIV1984Bible) "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ..." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201-11&version=NIV1984 Q. 5. Can you explain how light has been able to reach us from billions of light years away in the roughly 6000 years since the creation of the universe?

A.
“How can distant starlight reach us in just 6,000 years?
http://creation.com/how-can-distant-starlight-reach-us-in-just-6000-years
(partial quote)
Time dilation – An experimentally verified prediction of Einstein’s General Relativity Theory is a phenomenon called gravitational time dilation. It has long been established that gravity affects the rate at which time flows in any particular location in the universe.
…
Distant starlight and the biblical timescale – … The days of the Creation Week were recorded from the point of view of an observer on the earth so the time reference in Genesis is Earth time.

On Day 4, as God commenced stretching out the heavens, the mass of the universe (presumably including the ‘waters above’ which were separated out on Day 2) would have been confined to a much smaller volume of space than is the case today.

Assuming the Hartnett–Carmeli theory is correct, the Universe rapidly expanded with massive time dilation as a result of very rapid acceleration of the fabric of space on Day 4. The Humphreys model on the other hand, also based on General Relativity, has clocks at the outer edge of the cosmos running much faster than earth-bound clocks because of gravitational time dilation.

By the end of Day 4, when God completed his work of creating the sun, moon and stars, and had stretched out the heavens to their vast extent, billions of years of cosmic time could have elapsed at the outer edges of the cosmos in just one 24 hour earth day. There would have been more than enough time for the light from distant stars to have reached the earth so that when Adam gazed at the night sky on that sixth night he would have seen much the same as what we see today.

6,000 years have passed since the Creation Week. If the models outlined above are correct, the light from any star that is greater than 6,000 light years away from the earth will have originated on Day 4 itself. This would include most of the visible stars, all of which are part of the Milky Way galaxy. We are effectively looking at God’s creative activity on Day 4 as we gaze into the universe!”

References:

How can distant starlight reach us in just 6,000 years? by Mark Harwood
http://creation.com/how-can-distant-starlight-reach-us-in-just-6000-years

Genesis 1-11 (NIV1984Bible)
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth …”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201-11&version=NIV1984

]]> By: JosephU http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1575727 JosephU Tue, 06 Nov 2012 23:46:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1575727 Q. Should the Bible be considered a literal recounting of historical events? A. Yes.  i.) Praying to God, and referring to Scripture, Jesus said: John 17:17 - "Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. ii.) What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins? - Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909) - Genesis contains real history - it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)... - All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church) References:1. John 17:17 ... http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17&version=NIV19842. What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins? http://www.kolbecenter.org/creation-doctrine-2/3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201-11&version=NIV1984 Q. Should the Bible be considered a literal recounting of historical events?
A. Yes. 

i.) Praying to God, and referring to Scripture, Jesus said:
John 17:17 - ”Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.
ii.) What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
- Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909)
- Genesis contains real history – it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)…
- All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
References:1. John 17:17 …
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17&version=NIV19842.
What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
http://www.kolbecenter.org/creation-doctrine-2/3
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201-11&version=NIV1984

]]> By: Christopher http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1575293 Christopher Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:56:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1575293 I think this is how they will respond.  I think this is how they will respond. 

]]> By: ptco http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1575221 ptco Tue, 06 Nov 2012 16:41:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1575221 It probably made sense in the 19th century for creationists to try to debunk geology to support their beliefs, but in the 21st century I'd like to know how they explain cosmology.  Here are my questions for creationists: 1. Do you believe the earth orbits the sun at a distance of roughly 93 million miles and that it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach earth? 2. Do you believe that Alpha Centauri is the closest star to us and that light takes 4.3 years to reach us from there? 3. Do you believe that our solar system sits in one of the radial arms of the Milky Way galaxy, a galaxy that is 120,000 light years across which contains 200-400 billion stars? 4. Do you believe that we are able to observe other galaxies that are millions or billions of light years away from earth? 5. Can you explain how light has been able to reach us from billions of light years away in the roughly 6000 years since the creation of the universe?  It probably made sense in the 19th century for creationists to try to debunk geology to support their beliefs, but in the 21st century I’d like to know how they explain cosmology.  Here are my questions for creationists:

1. Do you believe the earth orbits the sun at a distance of roughly 93 million miles and that it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach earth?
2. Do you believe that Alpha Centauri is the closest star to us and that light takes 4.3 years to reach us from there?
3. Do you believe that our solar system sits in one of the radial arms of the Milky Way galaxy, a galaxy that is 120,000 light years across which contains 200-400 billion stars?
4. Do you believe that we are able to observe other galaxies that are millions or billions of light years away from earth?
5. Can you explain how light has been able to reach us from billions of light years away in the roughly 6000 years since the creation of the universe? 

]]> By: wfraser11 http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1575209 wfraser11 Tue, 06 Nov 2012 16:32:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1575209 Thats nice. Have any peer reviewed scientific research papers supported by data in credible science journals  that prove Flood "Geology" explains the stratigraphy seen in the earth's layers or the fossil assemblages from oldest to youngest? 20,000,000 Library of Congress tabs say there aren't any. Might I suggest a geology 101 or 102 textbook? Also perhaps you might visit the NCSE website and read up on creationism and flood "geology" as opposed to science. It might help clear up some of the creationism pseudoscience myths you've been exposed to, That is, if you're a logical person. If you're not a logical person capable of absorbing information rationally, it won't help. There doesn't have to be a conflict between your faith and science and reason. Most mainstream denominations accept evolution and reject YEC and flood "geology". Its credibility scientifically died around 1780 with Hutton and Lyell. Good luck Will Lutheran, Scientist, Conservative Thats nice. Have any peer reviewed scientific research papers supported by data in credible science journals  that prove Flood “Geology” explains the stratigraphy seen in the earth’s layers or the fossil assemblages from oldest to youngest? 20,000,000 Library of Congress tabs say there aren’t any. Might I suggest a geology 101 or 102 textbook?
Also perhaps you might visit the NCSE website and read up on creationism and flood “geology” as opposed to science. It might help clear up some of the creationism pseudoscience myths you’ve been exposed to, That is, if you’re a logical person. If you’re not a logical person capable of absorbing information rationally, it won’t help.
There doesn’t have to be a conflict between your faith and science and reason. Most mainstream denominations accept evolution and reject YEC and flood “geology”.
Its credibility scientifically died around 1780 with Hutton and Lyell.
Good luck
Will
Lutheran, Scientist, Conservative

]]> By: Greg Tucker-Kellogg http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1575078 Greg Tucker-Kellogg Tue, 06 Nov 2012 11:18:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1575078 To expand on Koerth-Bake's point about creationism being a response to (then) modern geology: that's true, but it's so much richer.  Fundamentalism itself was a response to  19th century biblical interpretation. The publication of "The Fundamentals", from which fundamentalist drew their name, was in response to what was considered liberal biblical interpretation.  As with so much reactionism, their narrowness was a prison of their own making. They required *some* form of young earth creationism.  Seventh Day Adventists had already  committed to a six day creation (obviously), but because Adventism was considered heterodox there was no way to tap that well.  McCready Price's "flood geology" provided the bridge for fundamentalists, precisely because Adventism wasn't  needed to explain it. To expand on Koerth-Bake’s point about creationism being a response to (then) modern geology: that’s true, but it’s so much richer.  Fundamentalism itself was a response to  19th century biblical interpretation. The publication of “The Fundamentals”, from which fundamentalist drew their name, was in response to what was considered liberal biblical interpretation.  As with so much reactionism, their narrowness was a prison of their own making. They required *some* form of young earth creationism.  Seventh Day Adventists had already  committed to a six day creation (obviously), but because Adventism was considered heterodox there was no way to tap that well.  McCready Price’s “flood geology” provided the bridge for fundamentalists, precisely because Adventism wasn’t  needed to explain it.

]]> By: Greg Tucker-Kellogg http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1575064 Greg Tucker-Kellogg Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:31:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1575064 The best account of the evolution of creationism is the book by Ronald Numbers,  which Montgomery cites twice in the short passage excerpted by Koerth-Bake. If I recall correctly, the first sentence of Numbers' book is "Creationism is evolving". [ed. I might be mixing that up with the first sentence of Robert Pennock's book]   But Numbers makes  larger, and deeply important, points missed (or at least skipped) by Montgomery.  Chief among them is the obscured Adventist origins of young earth creationism.  George McCready Price was a Seventh Day Adventist, not a fundamentalist.  Adventists were considered apostates to fundamentalist Christianity, and a large part of the acceptance of Price's "flood geology" by fundamentalists involved obscuring its Adventist roots. The best account of the evolution of creationism is the book by Ronald Numbers,  which Montgomery cites twice in the short passage excerpted by Koerth-Bake. If I recall correctly, the first sentence of Numbers’ book is “Creationism is evolving”. [ed. I might be mixing that up with the first sentence of Robert Pennock's book]   But Numbers makes  larger, and deeply important, points missed (or at least skipped) by Montgomery.  Chief among them is the obscured Adventist origins of young earth creationism.  George McCready Price was a Seventh Day Adventist, not a fundamentalist.  Adventists were considered apostates to fundamentalist Christianity, and a large part of the acceptance of Price’s “flood geology” by fundamentalists involved obscuring its Adventist roots.

]]> By: Wreckrob8 http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1575042 Wreckrob8 Tue, 06 Nov 2012 07:49:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1575042 Mythologies are one means of coming to terms with what is immediately knowable, potentially knowable or never knowable. The modern age also corresponds with the development and rise of the novel and the final abandonment of the creation of new myths. Neither science fiction nor movements like magic realism quite seem to fill the void. There is a space which has been vacated by modernity and which lets the fundamentalists in. Religion is just one manifestation of the human tendency to misuse texts. Mythologies are one means of coming to terms with what is immediately knowable, potentially knowable or never knowable.
The modern age also corresponds with the development and rise of the novel and the final abandonment of the creation of new myths. Neither science fiction nor movements like magic realism quite seem to fill the void.
There is a space which has been vacated by modernity and which lets the fundamentalists in.
Religion is just one manifestation of the human tendency to misuse texts.

]]> By: Mister44 http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1575003 Mister44 Tue, 06 Nov 2012 06:18:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1575003  Or things that float - like ducks, very small rocks, and witches.  Or things that float – like ducks, very small rocks, and witches.

]]> By: ocker3 http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574965 ocker3 Tue, 06 Nov 2012 04:56:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574965  The 'Bible as literal spoken word of God' question is Very important to some religions and has caused schisms in the past, such as the one that caused huge numbers of Germans to leave their homes and farms and end up in Australia, where my ancestors come from.  The ‘Bible as literal spoken word of God’ question is Very important to some religions and has caused schisms in the past, such as the one that caused huge numbers of Germans to leave their homes and farms and end up in Australia, where my ancestors come from.

]]> By: ocker3 http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574964 ocker3 Tue, 06 Nov 2012 04:54:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574964  Or it could be perhaps related to some massive flood event that affected a large population, who then went on to found/affect most other cultures. Or it could have been a globe-spanning mega-storm caused by a volcanic eruption.  Or it could be perhaps related to some massive flood event that affected a large population, who then went on to found/affect most other cultures. Or it could have been a globe-spanning mega-storm caused by a volcanic eruption.

]]> By: ocker3 http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574962 ocker3 Tue, 06 Nov 2012 04:50:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574962  Dear Sir, +1 Internets!  Dear Sir, +1 Internets!

]]> By: snagglepuss http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574877 snagglepuss Tue, 06 Nov 2012 02:50:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574877 Sorry, tynam & robcat - I couldn't respond anywhere else. I should've phrased that better; What I SHOULD have posted was, "It's the GLOBAL ORGANIZATION, via the internet, the uniting of the crack-brained murderous militancy that's fairly new." Sorry, tynam & robcat – I couldn’t respond anywhere else.

I should’ve phrased that better; What I SHOULD have posted was, “It’s the GLOBAL ORGANIZATION, via the internet, the uniting of the crack-brained murderous militancy that’s fairly new.”

]]> By: robcat2075 http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574749 robcat2075 Mon, 05 Nov 2012 23:53:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574749  If one believes in a firmament of water, precise salinity is not a stumbling block.  If one believes in a firmament of water, precise salinity is not a stumbling block.

]]> By: robcat2075 http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574748 robcat2075 Mon, 05 Nov 2012 23:51:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574748 -Spanish Inquisition. -Salem (and elsewhere) witch trials. -The Crusades. -Spanish Inquisition.
-Salem (and elsewhere) witch trials.
-The Crusades.

]]> By: redesigned http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574727 redesigned Mon, 05 Nov 2012 23:26:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574727 alas fundamentalists only consider like minded fundamentalists to be christians. alas fundamentalists only consider like minded fundamentalists to be christians.

]]> By: efergus3 http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574712 efergus3 Mon, 05 Nov 2012 23:07:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574712 Yup - I love what you did with the title. Yup – I love what you did with the title.

]]> By: Cowicide http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574698 Cowicide Mon, 05 Nov 2012 22:57:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574698 Agreed. Agreed.

]]> By: Tynam http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574695 Tynam Mon, 05 Nov 2012 22:54:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574695 To be really precise, the problem is <i>authoritarians</i>, who tend react to all examination of ideas with hostility.  The bias is there in all humans, but there's a proven correlation between modern conservatism and authoritarianism.  To summarise a lot of research: all humans are prone to that error, but conservatives actively embrace it. To be really precise, the problem is authoritarians, who tend react to all examination of ideas with hostility.  The bias is there in all humans, but there’s a proven correlation between modern conservatism and authoritarianism.  To summarise a lot of research: all humans are prone to that error, but conservatives actively embrace it.

]]> By: Tynam http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574692 Tynam Mon, 05 Nov 2012 22:51:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574692 Oh, how much nicer history would have been if only that were true.  It's not. Oh, how much nicer history would have been if only that were true.  It’s not.

]]> By: Cowicide http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574672 Cowicide Mon, 05 Nov 2012 22:27:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574672 <blockquote>probably Human thinking across the board</blockquote>Not really. Plenty of research shows that conservatives are the masters at this sort of circular reasoning. More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation

probably Human thinking across the board

Not really. Plenty of research shows that conservatives are the masters at this sort of circular reasoning.

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation

]]> By: Ernest Valdemar http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574655 Ernest Valdemar Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:59:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574655  Fish are incredibly sensitive to salinity, oxygen levels and temperature. A global flood would, at the very least, cause a massive extinction event at least at the level of the Permian-Triassic event (which wiped out 96% of all marine species). You don't just dump an entire firmamentful of fresh water in the world's oceans without killing off all the fish.  Fish are incredibly sensitive to salinity, oxygen levels and temperature. A global flood would, at the very least, cause a massive extinction event at least at the level of the Permian-Triassic event (which wiped out 96% of all marine species). You don’t just dump an entire firmamentful of fresh water in the world’s oceans without killing off all the fish.

]]> By: SamSam http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574608 SamSam Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:13:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574608 Eh, this is probably Human thinking across the board. If you present me with an argument that says my strongly-held beliefs are right, I'm sure as heck going to think those arguments are better than the ones that say my beliefs are wrong. It's an unfortunate Human bias. Eh, this is probably Human thinking across the board. If you present me with an argument that says my strongly-held beliefs are right, I’m sure as heck going to think those arguments are better than the ones that say my beliefs are wrong.

It’s an unfortunate Human bias.

]]> By: SamSam http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574604 SamSam Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:11:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574604 I'm struggling too. My best guess: "It is a logical fallacy to define Christianity only by looking at Christians who believe in evolution or who don't take the bible literally." It still doesn't really make sense, because no one is defining Christianity this way. I’m struggling too. My best guess:

“It is a logical fallacy to define Christianity only by looking at Christians who believe in evolution or who don’t take the bible literally.”

It still doesn’t really make sense, because no one is defining Christianity this way.

]]> By: Navin_Johnson http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574599 Navin_Johnson Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:02:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574599 On top of that, many civilizations and cultures (all over the world, ancient to more recent) have very similar flood myths. It's a common theme of creation myth. Noah's flood seems like it was just cribbed from earlier 'pagan' flood myths anyway. Not a particularly strong choice of bible verse if you're trying to argue the historicity of The Bible... I suppose that if you're ancient man and you find 140 million year old seashells and fossils in the middle of the desert your mind tries to square it somehow. On top of that, many civilizations and cultures (all over the world, ancient to more recent) have very similar flood myths. It’s a common theme of creation myth. Noah’s flood seems like it was just cribbed from earlier ‘pagan’ flood myths anyway. Not a particularly strong choice of bible verse if you’re trying to argue the historicity of The Bible…

I suppose that if you’re ancient man and you find 140 million year old seashells and fossils in the middle of the desert your mind tries to square it somehow.

]]> By: jandrese http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574596 jandrese Mon, 05 Nov 2012 20:58:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574596 "Also, it would be completely devoid of any form of life more complex than simple bacteria, for that matter." What about fish?  “Also, it would be completely devoid of any form of life more complex than simple bacteria, for that matter.”

What about fish? 

]]> By: ChicagoD http://boingboing.net/2012/11/05/the-evolution-of-creationism.html#comment-1574589 ChicagoD Mon, 05 Nov 2012 20:50:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=192246#comment-1574589 "Most" is certainly not accurate. There are a billion Catholics (give or take) around the world. As a matter of Catholic theology none of them are taught that the Old Testament is historically accurate. I am very confident that there are not a billion plus one fundamentalists out there. “Most” is certainly not accurate. There are a billion Catholics (give or take) around the world. As a matter of Catholic theology none of them are taught that the Old Testament is historically accurate. I am very confident that there are not a billion plus one fundamentalists out there.

]]>