I have always considered the far-far-far right wing "news" site World Net Daily to just be another in a long series of nutbag neocon cheerleaders. However, I now suspect that they are instead brilliant satire, putting the Onion to shame. Everyone knows the Onion is satire. But to sound crazy and actually look crazy, well, that takes some doing.
I give you WND, saying the Earth is 6010 years old today.
It quotes (of course) Bishop Ussher, who counted the begats in the Bible and therefore figured out how old the Earth is. And some people say young-Earth creationism is stupid!
Of course, there will be those who disagree with Ussher’s calculations of time – especially evolutionists who need billions of years to explain their theory of how life sprang from non-life and mutated from one-celled animals into human beings.
Well, there is that, but there’s also all of astronomy, physics, biology, archeology, linguistics, paleontology, history, and, oh yeah, all those other religions that say young-Earth creationism is full of it, too.
Oh well. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it think.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
It’s also true that you can lead a horticulture but you can’t make her think.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
In case anyone has missed this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq-tmigypAM
It’s a debate between Kent Hovind and a Canadian Biology student. Annoyingly, the debate is broken up into many parts, but it’s worth the clicking if you haven’t heard it.
I tend to return to it after hearing crazy talk from creationists. It’s nice to hear someone talk sense to them. Not that Kent is capable of absorbing it. Still nice though.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:01 pm
I remember when I was an exchange student in Louisiana in 88 (I am from Sweden). Some classmate and my English teacher started to talk about the earth as 6000 years old and I thought they were making a joke, it took me about half an hour before I understood they were serious and that scared me.
I got silent and didn’t know what to say since I didn’t want to offend their faith. Now I wish I had debated with them. Faith doesn’t deserve the free pass we so often give it when it is the excuse for ignorance.
/Per
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I commented on this in the ‘Discovery is go’ thread, but I was a day early, me being on the other side of the Prime Meridian and all. For those of you stuck in the past, here’s what I wrote:
In case no-one realized, two interesting events occured today in history: in 1977, the earliest known fossils were discovered (3.4 billion year old algae) and also October 23 4004 BC was when the Earth was supposed to have been created (according to one interpretation of the Bible by Church leaders in 1650). How ironic is that? http://www.todayinsci.com
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Evolutionists who “need” billions of years? That’s the cart before the horse son. We happened to have billions of years to account for, and we had to explain what was going on there.
If there weren’t 13 billion years of observable history (Hubble routinely looks that far back in time- but the birth of the Universe, obviously, is earlier than that) things would be much simpler, wouldn’t they? If everything came to be 6,000 years ago, and showed its age, why- we wouldn’t be bothered to explain what happened before that, would we?
We don’t need all those billions of years. We have them whether we want them or not. Personally, they make me curious. Folks like that World Nut Daily writer apparently have lost the capacity to be curious.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Ummm . . . as smart as everyone is supposed to be here, and I’m the first person to point out that the WND “article” isn’t really an article? It’s actually an advertisement?
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
@Jasini: Well, if you want to get technical about it, nothing on WND is an article. WND has lots of meaningless screed, not much content.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
I have to go on a rant here.. The urge is overwhelming. Sorry.
In part four of the debate I linked to, Hovind brings up Lineaus creating the classification system. Marting, the Biologist says he agrees with Lineaus’ classification, where upon Hovind asks, well Lineaus was a believed in creation, how can you believe he was right about the order of species but not about creation.
Aside from the obvious retardedness of the argument, it shows the authoritarian / traditionalist mindset with perfect clarity. The same mechanism is seen when creationists bring up Einstein, and his mentioning God on occasion.
The logic is: A is a scientific authority, therefore scientists should believe everything A says.
This is explicit evidence that we are dealing with people who has the intellectual maturity of 7 year olds. I am not kidding.
Children going through this particular stage of development will take the word of a teacher or parent as absolute truth, as is often evident in schoolyard debates. “Dad says …” followed by “My Dad can beat up your Dad”.
So, it’s no wonder they cling to their delusions so ferociously. They need a parental authority to make the world comprehensible, because independent thinking never developed in these people.
Probably because their culture does not provide for it. It also has to do with development of sexual identity and stuff so the collective guilt trip probably doesn’t help.
Zeus forbid the “abstinence only” programs take hold or the next generation might be even worse.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:45 pm
You forgot chemistry.
*pouts*
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
I have tried to find a branch of science that does not conflict with a
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:55 pm
@ Per,
It isn’t really possible to debate with creationists. Debate requires an understanding of logic, evidence and compelling argument. These guys have swallowed an argument that they found compelling, hook, line and sinker. Abandoning, or being unaware of, logic and evidence. You can’t win an argument with them. They have a whole other frame of reference.
On the up side, maybe your student excange programme resulted in a student from Louisiana studying in Sweden and having a ‘Bizarro World’ version of your experience
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
That’s just an ad dressed as an article … the only “news” in the article is that the book is now available from WND – it was published in 2003, for crying out loud!
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I have tried to find a branch of science that does not conflict with a less than 10,000 year old universe. I have been unsuccessful. Does anyone know of any branches of science that do not contradict young Earth creationist?
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
So, its an ad for a book. A $65 (from WND, but only $35 at Amazon) book that was written in the 1650’s? I don’t think so. I’m going to see if the original text from James Ussher is online somewhere. I wouldn’t pay $5 for it, but it might make an interesting read.
For example, what is this about:
“What really happened when the sun “went backward” as a sign to Hezekiah?”
Could that have been an early morning solar eclipse? Where the sun starts to rise, then gets partially or totally eclipsed, then is seen again? Gotta check that out, too.
As to arguing with creationists about the “evidence” my favorite argument is that “God made the universe to already look millions of years old, and only He knows why.”
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Scrolling to the bottom of the right wing “Wacko Nut Daily” article, the truth is revealed: like all other creationist claptrap they’re ultimately trying to do two things, control people and sell them something. In this case, Ussher’s boneheaded book.
P.S. Per’s concluding sentence is a great thought. To paraphrase: “Faith doesn’t deserve a free pass when it is an excuse for ignorance.”
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Actually, yes, I saw that it was an ad, but it’s also an article. WND is really just about the worst of the worst.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Per, Chip: Funny, I have another blog post ready to go tomorrow about religion and nonsense, and I use the exact phrase “giving it a pass.”
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
“One-celled animals?” Aren’t animals by definition multi-celled organisms? Animals are only from the kingdoms Animalia and Metazoa, which include only mulicellular organisms. The guy can’t even get his terminology right, let alone the facts. I know I’m nitpicking, but this gets to me even more than people constantly saying that “Men evolved from apes.”
Grrr…
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I can’t believe that stupid http://www.DrDino.com is still up. Here is an example of how creationists use it:
http://weblog.xanga.com/ShortyTheChileHead/621907392/lies-in-the-textbooks-part-3—circular-reasoning-and-trilobites.html
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Integrating biblical history (around 15 percent of the text is from the Bible) with secular sources, Ussher wrote this masterpiece. Considered not only a literary classic, but also an accurate reference, “The Annals of the World” was so highly regarded for its preciseness that the timeline from it was included in the margins of many King James Version Bibles throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.
Literary classic? Accurate reference? “Highly regarded?”
Then why have I never heard of this junk?
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Funny that one of Ussher’s titles was Primate of All Ireland.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Skeptic4u
Reading that blog post made my poor geologist’s (and former paleontologist’s) brain hurt.
I especially love how she makes claims like “Trilobites found!” without referencing anything. (But it is underlined so it has to be true!)
A part of me really wants to comment there, and explain how geology really works, but it’s just not worth it.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Yeah, right. The Universe is a LOT older than 6,000 years, and I’ve got a video that proves it WITHOUT using evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I guess these are the same people that elected Bush…twice. So what do you expect?
People still believe that the earth is only 6000 years old??? Do they also believe the earth is flat? With all the scientific evidence that exists showing just how long this planet has been around, I still can’t fathom why one would throw all that out in the name of “faith”.
If I remember correctly from my Geology class, I think it took much much longer than 6000 years just for the Grand Canyon to form!
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Great post, BA!
These nuts crack me up every time! ;o)
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Ussher calculated the Earth was created on October 23rd, 4004 BC by the proleptic Julian calendar. That means he was projecting his 17th-Century AD method of timekeeping back to more than 4000 years before the time of Julius Caesar, who the Julian calendar is named after. (prolepsis is something that is described by what has not happened to it yet.)
If we chose to honour Bishop Ussher’s chosen day, we would do it using the proleptic Gregorian calendar adopted by the English-speaking world in 1752. Over the last 6010 years the difference between the proleptic Julian and proleptic Gregorian calendars adds up to 32 days; by our calendar, Ussher’s date would be September 21.
cribbed from Superfluous Chronology ( http://www.plokta.com/plokta/issue1/chronology.htm )
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:08 pm
>Oh well. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it think.
Perhaps true, but if you mate a horse with a donkey, you do get an A???
Young earth creationists make A??? out of themselves daily.
Folcrom.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:56 pm
>Oh well. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it think.
But you’d have a better chance with the horse than with some people.
October 24th, 2007 at 3:26 am
I take offense at the suggestion that Archbishop Ussher was stupid. He was a very intelligent man. He lived in the 17th century, before the developments in physical sciences allowed us to determine more accurately how old the earth is. He was simply using the method he thought best to do the job, History. He didn’t simply count the ‘begats’ to arrive at the date of 4004 BC. His book was quite an accomplished piece of scholarship, synthesising various historical information from different traditions written in many languages. And he used logical reasoning to determine that many ancient cultures started their calendar at harvest time. He looked at the evidence to reach his conclusions.
You can find the original text online, but it’s in Latin.
Now, before anyone criticises me, I have to clarify that I am not defending his conclusions, rather I am defending his scholarship. I don’t agree with anyone who still accepts Archbishop Ussher’s conclusions about the age of the earth.
I also feel obliged to say that not everyone from Louisiana believes in creationism. I’m from Louisiana and most of the people I know there are intelligent enough to dismiss creationism. Of course, this is anectdotal evidence, as is the account of the Swedish exchange student.
October 24th, 2007 at 4:10 am
>Oh well. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it think.
Actually… if you led a horse to some sort of water dispenser with a simple mechanism that needed to be activated by the horse for it to get water, couldn’t you make it think out the way to get to the water? That presupposes that horses are moderately intelligent I suppose. But I have higher hopes for a horse figuring that out rather than a creationist.
October 24th, 2007 at 4:13 am
[...] 24th, 2007 by tinyfrog Quite a few people have been commenting on this article from the WND: “Everything that is was [...]
October 24th, 2007 at 4:14 am
Oh, come on guys. You just need to read the article in its proper context!
http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/wnd-everything-that-is-was-created-6010-years-ago-today/
October 24th, 2007 at 7:05 am
here is a most appropiate quote from one of my favorite films, the 1960 production of Inherit the wind:
Brady: It’s not an opinion. It’s a literal fact — which the good Bishop arrived at through careful computation of the ages of the prophets, as set down in the Old Testament. In fact, he determined that the Lord began the Creation on the 23rd of October, 4004 B.C. at, uh, 9:00am.
Drummond: [Is] that Eastern Standard Time? Or Rocky Mountain Time? It wasn’t Daylight Saving Time, was it, because the Lord didn’t make the sun until the fourth day.
October 24th, 2007 at 7:08 am
here is a quote from Inherit the wind that is most appropiate
Brady: It’s not an opinion. It’s a literal fact — which the good Bishop arrived at through careful computation of the ages of the prophets, as set down in the Old Testament. In fact, he determined that the Lord began the Creation on the 23rd of October, 4004 B.C. at, uh, 9:00am.
Drummond: [Is] that Eastern Standard Time? Or Rocky Mountain Time? It wasn’t Daylight Saving Time, was it, because the Lord didn’t make the sun until the fourth day.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:38 am
All together now. On 3
1…
2…
3…
Happy Birthday to you!
Happy Birthday to you!
Happy Birthday dear Earth!
Happy Birthday to you!
Now, make a wish and blow out the 6,010 candles on this rather large cake.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Jasini said: Ummm . . . as smart as everyone is supposed to be here, and I’m the first person to point out that the WND “article†isn’t really an article? It’s actually an advertisement?
I posted on this announcement advertisement last June here.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:33 am
I remember showing a Creosote bush to a home school kid during a hike in the Mojave desert. Watching her do mental backflips attempting to reconcile the fact that many of these plants are nearly 12,000 years old with her own persistent delusional belief in a young Earth was a surreal experience.
The sort of cognitive dissonance that wreaks havoc on the minds of these misguided people can be formidable. And depressing.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Jasini said: Ummm . . . as smart as everyone is supposed to be here, and I’m the first person to point out that the WND “article†isn’t really an article? It’s actually an advertisement?
I posted on this announcement/advertisement last June here. I noted the book was available from Answers in Genesis for a $350 donation to the Flintstone Museum.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:04 am
WOW what can I say…hmmmmmm You said creationist swallowed it hook..line & sinker…if this were soooooooooooo true how come your people hide it when they are proven wrong or something comes up that proves the BIBLE accurate???? UHHHHHH ???? Your theory is just that… theory… look up the definition guys… When science is given without the theory as fact Evos.. the science does prove the BIBLE correct and for that matter your carbon dating showed things that were a year old to be 6 million years old … Well I guess all comes down to the time when we will stand before GOD & account for who we were… those who know Jesus won’t hear ..I never knew you leave.
I won’t be back here to see your grutteral remarks…Lets JUST say you’ve been warned.
October 24th, 2007 at 11:44 am
K is a parody, right? Right?
October 24th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
K – That was some rant! Somewhat akin to yelling “Yah boo, you’re all idiots” into a crowded room then slamming the door (”I won’t be here to see your grutteral (sic) remarks”) – in other words you don’t want to read any criticism of your barely coherent babbling. That’s one of the more obvious tactics of the undereducated and brainwashed. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “Can’t hear you, nyah nyah” isn’t going to change the truth to what you want it to be, no matter how much you do it. Do you really think anyone’s going to take your post seriously? I’m surprised you didn’t type it all in capital letters too.
Why don’t you post your objections to Phil’s article sensibly and coherently, and then stick around to read the responses? Let’s have a proper debate – I’m waiting to hear your side of the story. For example, you said “your carbon dating showed things that were a year old to be 6 million years old…” – please cite your source for this claim. That would make a good start. (Let’s face it, that was about the only sentence in your entire post that made any kind of sense! It’s wrong, of course, but you’ve made the claim, so prove it.)
October 24th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Michael
I didn’t mean to give the impression that all people from Louisiana think or thought the world is 6000 years old. From what I saw there was a few that did. But I was very surprised that they did because before that I had never met anyone who believed in the Bible so literary.
I had a great time in Louisiana, learned a lot and met several very nice and smart people.
The point I was trying to make is that I wish I had kept talking to them about it and tried to make them see that they were wrong. I shouldn’t have kept my mouth shut just because the reason for their ignorance is religion. For any other reason I would have argued with them but since it was religion I “respected them†and I now think that was a mistake.
October 24th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Okay:
Hmm. Somehow I think K was expecting this one instead:
Not that K is going to be back to read any of this anyway…
Got an example? Piltdown Man is probably the closest you could get, and even on that one the scientific community eventually admitted they were wrong (after 30 years, granted, but that’s still much faster than, say, the Catholic Church’s apology to Galileo). Compare and contrast Piltdown Man with a more recent hoax, Archaeoraptor.
Like what? Some of the locations, sure, but I’m not aware of any events that have been proven (though I do know of several that have been all but proven false).
October 25th, 2007 at 4:41 am
Per,
Thanks for clarifying. I’m glad you had a good time, and I can understand why. Louisiana is a great state. I personally think the best thing about it is the food. I’m just a bit touchy when it comes to perceptions about people from Louisiana. I no longer live there, and i travel widely, but I frequently encounter people who, upon learning where I’m from, act surprised and say things like: “You’re from Louisiana!? But you’re so well spoken and intelligent.” Which, at best, is a back-handed complement.
Yes, there are people in Louisiana that believe in creationism. I had this one experience when I was getting car insurance. The sales representative asked what I did for a living. When I said I was archaeologist, she replied by saying “Oh, so you’re one of those people that believe in evolution.” I was very diplomatic and tried not to offend, mainly because I didn’t want to end up paying too much for car insurance, but it was difficult not to say anything. My point, though, is that you can encounter people such as this just about anywhere. For example, I currently live in Leeds, England, which is where the guy who sent Phil the email about the doomsday asteroid lives.
October 29th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Just the kind Christmas gift reference book for my compassionate Christian family values fundiCON father and brother-in-law. Thanks for the tip!,
Jim Oss
Jetmore – Bible belt – Kansas
October 30th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Forgive my ignorance, but if the earth was millions of years old, and the sun is a product that is getting smaller wouldnt that mean that 100’s of millions of years ago the sun would be to close to the earth to sustain life?
December 30th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I just want to say that I know that Ussher is closer than most scientists. There is a lot of evidence for creation, and a lot that denies evolution. There’s no need for anger here. Are there some of us – most of us, me included – in rebellion against the Creator?
My friend has a PhD in BioChemistry and he personally knows tenured professors with PhDs who privately admit that the evidence points to Creation – but they cannot teach it or openly declare that they’ve found Creation more credible.
Eric Blair was right. There is universal deceit and truth is hard to come by these days [Paraphrased of course].
Please don’t insult me – it’s a waste of time and not profitable. I’ve simply stated what I believe to be true.
If I am wrong, I won’t hold evolutionists in contempt. So don’t hold Creationists in contempt.
Take care.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:30 am
There seems to be plenty of closed mindedness on both sides of the debate. Since evolution cannot be proven fact or false; what makes beleivers in Darwin’s Evolution any less religious than beleivers in God’s Creation, which cannot be proven fact or false?
What makes creationism any less scientific than darwinism?
There may be something to learn from both viewpoints.
It is doubtful that anything possitve will come from dogmatism, regardless the source.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:34 am
There seems to be plenty of closed mindedness on both sides of the debate. Since evolution cannot be proven fact or false; what makes believers in Darwin’s Evolution any less religious than believers in God’s Creation, which cannot be proven fact or false?
What makes creationism any less scientific than Darwinism?
There may be something to learn from both viewpoints.
It is doubtful that anything positive will come from dogmatism, regardless the source.