Creationists Hit the Panic Button After Neil DeGrasse Tyson Demolishes Their Myth That the Universe

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/belief/creationists-hit-panic-button-after-neil-degrasse-tyson-demolishes-their-myth-universe-6000

Creationists Hit the Panic Button After Neil DeGrasse Tyson Demolishes Their Myth That the Universe Is 6,000 Years Old

Creationists find evolution so offensive that this week they attacked Neil deGrasse Tyson and his show Cosmos over the claim that stars evolved and created life as we know it. In episode 8 titled, "Sisters of the Sun," Tyson highlighted the stellar evolution and explained in detail the life and death of stars.

Of course creationists take issue with stars that are scientifically proven to be billions of years old. The creationist website that's emerging as the leading opposition to Tyson and his show, Answers in Genesis (AiG), claimed: “We know from the Bible that God created the stars on Day Four of Creation Week about 6,000 years ago.”

Yet they do not know this, because there is zero evidence that any star we see in the sky is less only 6,000 years old, in fact for us to see almost any of the stars in the sky they would have to be hundreds of millions or billions of years old because of how far away they are (as explained in earlier episodes of Cosmos about what a light-year is.)

The continued use of the universe's actual timescale, an estimated 14.8 billion years to now, is a thorn in the side of creationists who know anything older than 6,000 years brings their entire myth to its knees.

AiG even goes as far to deny the fact that stars are born at all: “Whether or not stars are still forming today, the Bible does not specify, but no one has ever seen a star form.”

[hobbit709]

1. Anything that makes a thumper's head explode is a good thing.

[Swede Atlanta]

123. Yes.....

If we could get millions of neanderthal species living in this country to let their little heads explode we would be much better off.

Personally I would like to see if I could train them to clean my house and care for my dogs. They might be capable of those basic, rudimentary tasks.

Seriously though.....the "literalists" are so beholden to their belief the Bible is a history book they cannot accept that the world is more than 6,000 years old. They have cornered themselves now because they have no way out. Either they believe the Bible and the chronology are absolutely, literally true or they don't.

I am a Christian but I accept what I don't know and what I can't understand. The universe is a fascinating, wonderful place. The art of creation is a mystery but so exciting.

I have no problem believing God sparked the Big Bang and let things go from there. I have no problem believing the laws of physics were part of the original design. If you were God and you could create an environment with matter and laws of behavior, etc. wouldn't you want to launch it and see what develops?

To me that is the magic or mystery of life. That is totally congruous with my religious beliefs. No problem here.

But for those that must have black and white, they cannot deal with that kind of variance. They are like small children who need someone to say you may go to the bathroom or not. You must believe 7 days literally or you are punished. I believe literalists are of diminished mental capacity. They can only operate in a world of black and white, yes and no. They are totally incapable of nuance. I believe that is the joke God played on them.

[eridani]

166. Big Bang has pretty much won out over steady state--

--but I don't see that it is necessary to a theistic viewpoint. If steady state had won out instead, you could still believe that God and the universe have coexisted eternally with no start time.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

158. :) I agree with that! nt

[ejpoeta]

2. if it says it in the 'good book'....

Yet they do not know this, because there is zero evidence that any star we see in the sky is less only 6,000 years old,

but it says it in the book, so it must be true!!!! for me, harry potter is true... i use it to make all my life decisions!! /sarcasm.

[malaise]

4. For most of them it is the only book they have ever read

The stupid burns

[hobbit709]

5. And even then, they selectively read it.

Only the parts that agreed with their biases.

[malaise]

7. +1,000

You're so right.

[JackInGreen]

15. I've yet to see

any of them run away from a shrimp cocktail at the church social.

[hobbit709]

20. Or even the Friday night catfish fry

[SheilaT]

83. Not only is it the only book they have ever read,

but it encourages a very short attention span. There is simply no sustained narrative of any kind. Bible readers of this ilk think that some very short sentence completely answers whatever the question was, and all to often a short answer is simply not sufficient.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. Does It Actually Say In The Bible. . .

. . .6,000 years ago. I don't recall that being in there. That seems some cleric's interpretation of things from a long time ago.

Also, if "let there be light" was the first thing, wouldn't there had to be have at least one star (the sun) from the very first second. So, what's with the 4th day thing?

[whopis01]

30. It does not say it directly

Last edited Thu May 1, 2014, 06:13 PM - Edit history (1)

It was calculated by finding something in the New Testament that corresponded to a known historical event (King Nebuchadnezzar's death) and then going through the genealogy list to calculate how long ago Adam was around.

There is a pretty clear lineage with ages of when each next generation was born. So if you add it all up it comes out to that 6000 year number.

So while it doesn't explicitly say 6000 years, it can be calculated from the information that is in the bible.

[jberryhill]

59. It's simpler than that

The number of years since creation is stated at the point the first Temple is completed.

[whopis01]

126. I'm not familair with that

I was thinking of the method used by Usher to calculate it.

Just out of curiosity where is stated?

[Generic Other]

114. Does this include those 800 and 900 year old folks?

Because they lived a rather long time (so maybe others did too in those days), or maybe the Hebrews were just bad at math. Honestly, this is the modern theologians' version of arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

[whopis01]

121. It does

at least how old they were when they had the next person in the list of begats.

[Generic Other]

124. Well I know what my math teacher would have said

about my answers. Actually, my math teacher once taught us how to calculate carbon dating, then had the gall to add his god was capable of creating false data to throw us all off. Needless to say, this so-called academic earned zero respect from me and a place near the very top of the list of worst teachers I ever had.

[whopis01]

128. I always like the idea of a god who just likes screwing around with people like that

That's what someone thinks an omnipotent being that can create all of the universe is going to do - create a bunch of odd little things that don't fit in with the rules that the rest of the universe follows just to screw around with us.

Sure, why not - let's all go off and worship that. What can possibly go wrong there?

[defacto7]

163. God.... The practical joker!

God must like laughing at his own jokes.

[stopbush]

162. Which NT genealogy? There are two, and they don't agree with each other.

[thesquanderer]

36. Well, on the first day, he created CFLs

By the fourth day, he realized that they sucked, so he created the sun.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

159. Problem is, they even believe stuff that's not "in the good book"

For example, they consider abortion to be their #1 most important fad issue, and there's absolutely nothing in the Bible against abortion, zero.

Same with gays. Where does Jesus make even a remote mention in the Bible about gays?

When I was little, I didn't question Christians. Now, I consider American Christians to be scam artists.

[chervilant]

3. "...no one has ever seen a star form."

Those poor 'religionists' are treading on thin ice. No one has seen a god either...

[ejpoeta]

6. thank you!!

I tend to look at it this way..... why can't evolution and religion coexist. Why isn't it possible that 1 bible day = thousands or millions of years? the idea that the earth is 6000 years old is laughable. and this trying to make the world fit this book is crazy.

[LiberalFighter]

27. Mainly because religion is nuts.

You might want to rethink the possibility of 1 bible day = thousands or millions of years. Why would there be a need for a god if it could only create those things in that time frame? Not very powerful. It should only take god a nanosecond to create the whole universe let alone earth and all the creatures.

[marew]

55. Excellent, insightful, and accurate post.

As someone who has spent decades attempting to prevent or lessen the suffering of all beings- humans and animals, my stipulation is god cannot or will not intervene. Neither alternative is acceptable for a so-called "supreme being ".

[AlbertCat]

120. why can't evolution and religion coexist.

"Mainly because religion is nuts."

Actually....even tho' religion IS nuts.... the real reason is:

They contradict each other.
And it's obvious from every ancient text that folks just looked around and assumed, as anyone without science would, that things have always been just like they are now. Science's approach is obviously more well thought out....

[mdbl]

147. My sentiments exactly Albert

The people who wrote the old testament were one step above sun worshippers. Not much evidence to go on there but I'm sure there was plenty of conjecture.

[amuse bouche]

31. "why can't evolution and religion coexist"

Facts and BS do coexist. It's just such a shame so many believe the BS as facts

[Gothmog]

81. Facts and Religion can co-exist

There are some good works on how religion and Judaism are consistent by some good rabbis and Jewish scientists. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-geoffrey-a-mitelman/why-can-judaism-embrace-s_b_880003.html

I recently had a conversation with a neuroscientist, who also happened to be a self-described atheist. He knew I was a rabbi and so, in the middle of the conversation, he very tentatively asked me, "So ... do you believe in evolution?" I think what he was really asking was, "Can you be a religious person who believes in science?" And my answer to that question is, "Of course."

While some people think of science and religion as being inherently in conflict, I think it's because they tend to define "religion" as "blind acceptance and complete certainty about silly, superstitious fantasies." Quite honestly, if that's what religion really was, I wouldn't be religious!....

Instead, when Jews read the Bible today through a rabbinic worldview, we are trying to answer two separate questions: First, what did the text mean in its time, and second, how can we create interpretations that will give us lessons for our time?

Indeed, the Bible shouldn't be taken simply literally today because circumstances, societies, norms and knowledge have all changed.

A great example of that comes from how the rabbis interpret the verse "an eye for an eye." While that is what the Bible says, to the rabbis, that's not what the verse means. Instead, the rabbis argue, "an eye for an eye" actually means financial compensation, and they go on for multiple pages in the Talmud trying to explain their reasoning. They don't read that verse on its simple, literal level, but through the lenses of fairness, of common sense, of other verses in the Torah and of the best legal knowledge they had at that time.

So now we can also see why in Judaism the beginning of Genesis is not in conflict with the big bang theory or natural selection. On the one hand, for its time, the Bible provided an origin story that was a story that worked then, but now, science provides a much better explanation for how we got here.

But the Bible isn't meant to be taken only literally -- it's designed to be a source of study and exploration for the questions of our time. The point of the Creation story is really to challenge us with questions like, "How should we treat people if everyone is created in the image of God? What are our responsibilities to this world if God has called it 'good'?"

In Judaism, there's no concept of "God says it, I believe it, that settles it." Instead, Judaism pushes us to embrace the text for what it was back then, and to create new ways of reading the text for what it can be now.

Judaism has no problem reconciling facts and religion.

[JDPriestly]

117. Wonderful post! Thanks.

I am Unitarian, not Jewish, but I see my personal religious beliefs as the means through which I seek the answers to the questions, "why am I?" and "to live a moral, good, personally and socially healthy life, how should I live in this world?"

I am not seeking magical answers. I am here in a mysterious universe that functions more or less according to certain rules. Those are the givens. Now, how am I, as a being who is equal to others of my kind, to live within the rules of the universe? How am I to be in harmony and one with this universe around me?

At the moment, that is my idea of religion. I would not choose one particular book as the source of my spiritual guidance. But I very definitely sense there is a purpose to life and that it is spiritual.

[Gothmog]

119. I am a member of the Reformed Movement of Judaism

I found that this is a good place for me to ask and seek answers to the questions that you discuss above. Each person needs to find their own path and I am happy with my path. It sounds like we are on very similar journeys

[chervilant]

34. That brings me to my own conclusions:

This universe is AWESOME! Our existence as sentient beings is AMAZING! Whatever creative force in this reality might be responsible for our existence is INCREDIBLE! I get blissed out the minute I'm awake every morning. I say about a gazillion 'gratitude prayers' every day--simply because I get a rush out of seeing meadowlarks, scissortail flycatchers, albino hummingbirds, fat'n'sassy groundhogs, dogwoods loaded with blossoms... the list of beautiful sights is endless!

By society's standards, I am an atheist, because I don't believe there's some old, white guy in 'heaven,' dressed in long flowing robes, sitting in judgment of our every waking moment. Isn't that ironic?

[mountain grammy]

48. I agree but it also strengthens the case for a higher power..

in my opinion. The Bible is a simple story to explain the unknown and actually protected people with some laws. Before there was good sanitation, there was kosher, which kept people healthier.

Now we know why people get sick and how the universe was made. Nature is such a mysterious and wonderful balance, it's absolutely miraculous how everything works together. Watching "Cosmos" is watching the history of the discoveries of our amazing universe.

Even though I'm a non believer myself, I think the scientific proof of how the universe and humans evolved is so beautiful and complicated, it's natural to believe in a higher power and intelligent guidance. My problem is, the Bible doesn't offer me much in intelligent guidance, in fact, for the most part, the Bible has evolved into a weapon to undo our miraculous balance and destroy our world more than teach lessons of love and acceptance like, you know, Jesus did.

[tclambert]

50. Evolution and religion do co-exist. Many of the religions using the same Bible accept evolution.

Officially, the Catholic Church accepts an old Earth and evolution. Some Protestant denominations accept evolution, as well. Many Jews do not see evolution and other science as incompatible with Judaism. And you can argue, they own the book.

Only certain sects insist on taking everything in the King James translation of the Bible literally at face value. They lose a lot of the deeper symbolic beauty of it that way. And they end up arguing about whether or not Adam and Eve had belly buttons.

[LongTomH]

85. As a rule, science and religion do co-exist

The Vatican and most of the major Protestant denominations have issued statements that they accept the scientific consensus on evolution and natural selection. It's the fringe fundamentalist, evangelical and pentecostal element in protestantism that still makes this an issue.

[Hekate]

97. You are right. Most major religious bodies are thoughtful and intelligent about science these days

It's just a damn shame that the fringe wackos are so noisy and get so much air-time.

I think the fringe wackos are American third-world tribalists with minds in the Dark Ages of superstition and fear. They want the rest of us to be the same, and keep trying to distort public school education according to their own beliefs.

[pangaia]

25. Haven't cosmologists actually SEEN stars forming..

albeit a bit after the fact?

[chervilant]

33. One could easily say that

since the 'laws' of physics are purportedly universal. (I know, bad pun... )

[hootinholler]

46. But proven only in our universe

There could be other universes that do not exhibit our physical laws.

[pangaia]

66. The universe on my shoulders

sometimes does not exhibit all the physical laws in 'universe' as we know it..

[hootinholler]

71. But then again that's the beauty of being human

We can conceptualize things that will never exist. Thus the root of this thread.

While I doubt physics will resolve that universe, perhaps Chemistry will?

[chervilant]

100. Yes, but, how would we know? :) n/t

[hootinholler]

106. Perhaps it is what causes the patterns

In the Cosmic Background Radiation? PDF!

[chervilant]

130. Wow!

Awesome graphic!!!

[hootinholler]

153. It's from wiki, but the paper

I ran across the paper while trying to research why do planetary systems (and galaxies) form a planar orientation?

It's funny because apparently there is an alignment between the plane of the Sol system and the Cosmic plane which seems to date from the big bang itself. There's a great graphic that shows the orientation in the paper. I was wondering why there is any planar orientation and it turns out that the cosmos itself has the same, well, at least a similar orientation.

That blew my little mind.

So if anyone can explain why the planet orbits describe a plane instead of a sphere, I'm all ears. I mean really, it goes from a dust cloud to a plane and then the planets form from the disc?

[LongTomH]

87. Google on "Stellar Nurseries" or "Star Forming Regions"

These 'pillars' in the Orion Nebula are among the best-known:

[Gravitycollapse]

148. Well, star formation takes a long time. Like evolution, we see the stages and components...

But it would be asking too much of science to have the ability to witness a single star formation over millions of years.

[Cartoonist]

86. Holy Paradox

They don't understand the concept. It's that old saying, "If God is all powerful, can he make a rock so big he can't lift it?" Intelligent design is the same thing. If the Human eye is so complex that it must have required an intelligent creator, then who created God?
I keep missing Neil's show. I'll have to wait until my library gets the DVD. Neil should use that eye argument against them by showing them how the human eye has evolved over the centuries from the old days of the tri-colored rainbow in ancient literature.

[lob1]

107. He explained how the eye evolved on, I believe, the 2nd or 3rd show.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

108. You can stream all his shows at the Cosmos website here:

http://www.cosmosontv.com/

[Spitfire of ATJ]

92. The guy is just plain wrong too...

[nytemare]

136. Actually....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2173142/The-birth-baby-star-NASA-acts-midwife-watch-new-creation-burst-life.html


http://article.wn.com/view/2012/07/13/Star_Birth_Heartbeat_Of_Sunlike_Protostar_V1647_Orionis_Seen/

[Fred Drum]

8. Neil Degrasse Tyson is great

but i don't think he would be too happy about some of the statements in that article.

for example, ALL of the stars you see in the night sky, with your eyes, are in our galaxy. no further than 100,000 light years away.

the article implies that looking up you can see stars that are hundreds of millions or billions of light years away. you can't.

and there are many stars closer than 6,000 light years.

and the article doesn't mention the FSM even once, sacrilege

[cpwm17]

16. And our Universe is an estimated 13.8 billion years old

not 14.8

[defacto7]

164. I was wondering if anyone was going to

pick up on that. Congrats!

[longship]

19. Well M31, the Andromeda galaxy is visible with the unaided eye.

It is six times bigger on the sky than the moon, albeit fairly dim. But if you are in a place with fairly dark skies, you can easily see it without a telescope. And it is 2.5 million light years away.

But that is about the farthest object one can easily do that with.

[ProfessorGAC]

24. Also, Some Of What We See As Faint Stars. . .

. . .are very distant, very large galaxies. Astronmers have been saying that for decades.
GAC

[MillennialDem]

32. Not really true. Since Andromeda is about as far away as something we can see and

in cosmological terms is very close - but of course in terms of a human scale very far.

Everything that we see as a star in the night sky is

a. A relatively close relatively bright star - ie in a range of almost as bright as the sun to much brighter than the sun.

b. A binary (or 2 stars orbiting each other) star. The brightest of the two is at least similar in brightness to the sun to much brighter.

c. A multiple star system. Similar to a binary, just 3 or more.

d. A stellar cluster within our galaxy. 1000s to millions of stars relatively close together. Not the same as a binary/multiple.

e. A galaxy within our local group, like Andromeda or the LMC and SMC. There are only about 50 members of the local group and I think most are not naked eye visible.

f. The ISS (serious), a planet, or an asteroid/comet.

Technically a few gamma ray bursts may be farther away and seen with the naked eye, but they don't last very long.

[chervilant]

35. I am severely in LUVVVVVV with Neil Degrasse Tyson!!!

Such a sexy brain! Such a sexy man!

[SunSeeker]

109. +1

[rocktivity]

141. You're too late, he's taken LOL

rocktivity

[mattclearing]

57. Ramen. n/t

[SheilaT]

84. Yeah. Recently I asked an astronomer

how far into our galaxy we can actually see. He said, think of the galaxy as the size of the United States. We live in Washington, DC, and we can't see beyond West Virginia.

That was a cool analogy.

However, we can actually see some galaxies outside ours with the naked eye. Andromeda, which is found in Pegasus (I had to look this up to know where it is) and the Magellanic Clouds in the Southern Hemisphere are examples.

However your larger point is a good one, that almost everything we can see with the naked eye is astronomically speaking, not very far away.

[Thor_MN]

112. Did you mean universe? We can see lots of galaxies outside our own.

[SheilaT]

132. No. Not the entire Universe.

Our galaxy. If our galaxy were the size of the United States, our little solar system would be located where Washington DC is. And looking towards the center of our galaxy, we can only see as far as West Virginia.

Since we can with the naked eye actually see some things that are outside our galaxy, the analogy isn't perfect, but it gives a sense of just how large our galaxy is, and how little of it we see with the naked eye.

The only reason we can see lots of galaxies outside this one is because we use cheaters, I mean telescopes. Without telescopes we can only see a handful of things outside our own galaxy.

It was back in something like 1917 that some astronomer suggested that Andromeda was really something outside our galaxy, and for nearly a decade there was quite a lively debate about that, as astronomers up til then thought perhaps the entire Universe was just our one galaxy. There was some sort of famous debate about it, and then around 1925 it was established that Andromeda was another galaxy, outside of ours. By the way, Milky Way and Andromeda are on a collision course and will intersect in something like three or four billion years from now. Brace yourself!

[Thor_MN]

155. Well, heck, if you are talking unaided naked eye, I can't see half way across the room.

[SheilaT]

168. LOL!

I couldn't see past my fingertips with the unaided naked eye until a year and a half ago. Cataract surgery. The best thing that ever happened to my eyes.

[spin]

9. Exactly where in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old? (n/t)

[hobbit709]

10. Actually it doesn't. you can blame Bishop Ussher for that one.

[spin]

21. Exactly. In 1654, an Anglican bishop does some calculations based on Biblical chronology ...

and his date for the creation of the universe is taken as gospel by some people living in 2014.

At that time the apple hadn't yet landed on Newton's head causing him to develop his concept of gravity.

[Kaleva]

22. Any fundy who claims the Earth is only 6k years old is a fraud because...

they are basing their belief, not on what the Bible says, but on some figures some dude a few hundred years ago came up with.

No where in the Bible does it say that the Earth is 6k or so years old. Nor can one determine, from reading the Old Testament, how long a day was in the time frame of Genesis.

[workinclasszero]

42. Thank you

All made up BS from the church of ayn rand/teabag

[tclambert]

43. Ayn Rand was an atheist. And she hated Christians. Not selfish enough for her.

[workinclasszero]

170. Exactly my point

So why do people calling themselves followers of Christ hate the poor with the intensity of a thousands suns and worship nazis like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and the usual hate radio filth etc? Republicans hate the poor, gays, non-Christians, immigrants and finally anybody that's not rich.

Does this sound Christlike to you? It sounds just like Rand to me. What a person says means nothing. What they do shows the true self.

[Major Nikon]

38. They trace the lineage all the way back to Adam using biblical text

Of course you have to accept that Adam lived to be 930 yrs old and Noah lived to be 950, but the bible says so and since the bible is obviously a fax from god doubting this would be blasphemy.

[spin]

60. That's a fascinating graph in your post. (n/t)

[safeinOhio]

65. Not sure, but here is where it says the

world is flat.

King James Bible
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

[nikto]

11. The Bible is really really weak on lasers, geophysics, micro-organisms and electromagnetism, too

The Bible is the crappiest science book, evah.

[RKP5637]

29. It's crappy, creepy and ignorant! A book written by those trying to

interpret the world with tools they had at that time and many of them authoritarians. And, then selected works included to promote the political propaganda of that time.

[tclambert]

45. Back then, shepherd was a high tech job.

Consider it wasn't until 1925, less than one hundred years ago, that Edwin Hubble determined that the Andromeda nebulae was another whole galaxy. (It had been debated since 1917. But astronomers didn't settle the argument until 1925.)

Back when those shepherds wrote the Bible, they didn't even know the Earth was round. They didn't know China existed. Or the Pacific Ocean. As Alexander Pope said, "Say first, of God above or man below,/ What can we reason but from what we know?"

[Thor_MN]

115. They didn't know that Noah had to get Kangaroos, Platypluses, Wooly Mammoths, Saber Tooth Tigers

, etc onto the Ark. Millions of species of bacteria and other microrganisms. If there is no evolution, they had to get every virus ever known on as well.

[lunasun]

138. I do not know why but your post made me think of this song :)

Dude forgot the unicorn

[MrMickeysMom]

12. Let's HEAR it for bringing their ENTIRE MYTH to it's KNEES!!!!!!

I absolutely LOVE Cosmos and for anyone who's missed it (hard to imagine, since Fox runs it Sunday night after "Family Guy", which is after "The Simpsons&quot , can also see it online.

I loved Carl, and I love the way Neil carries this show. His voice to science is the only thing now that I think can save mankind from the kind of nut-baggery of the creationist movement.

http://www.cosmosontv.com

[Crunchy Frog]

13. Did they get this upset over Carl Sagan in the original Cosmos?

Or is this a new thing because they've gotten so used to being coddled?

[JackInGreen]

18. They got upset then

but they only had either their flocks or fellow parishioners to screech at.

[thesquanderer]

39. At least Sagan was white. (n/t)

[exboyfil]

75. I have heard right wingers

describe Tyson as an affirmative action hire. Totally repugnant.

[Ikonoklast]

146. I would rent the auditorium, pay Dr. Tyson his speaking fee, and sell tickets to the event

where any one of those idiots get fifteen minutes each to debate Dr. Tyson on any subject.

[Wise Child]

41. The marketing of "Creationism" as a thing,

was either in it's infancy, or not quite arrived. I looked up Ken Ham on Wikipedia. The article on him says that he left Australia, to develop his kind of hucksterism right when Sagan was filming the original Cosmos.

[jberryhill]

61. Yes

[defacto7]

165. As I remember it

A lot of believers watched it and liked it very much. In those years, it wasn't a sin to listen and wonder about things that were new and interesting. Then they would go back to prayer meeting, read the bible and just not make any decisions or comparisons either way. They just kept on with their ways.

Now, there are religious police waiting to warn and deflect all interest in science with the hand of God and money. Lie, discredit, threaten, laugh at the believer who would dare stray from the "real" truth and use every low ball psychological tactic to crate their world of ignorance.

I remember church going people being free to think back then. I see little of that now among the loud religionists that "walk to and fro on the earth seeking whom they may devour. (that's a bible quote. I thought I would be creative.)

[BrainDrain]

14. dumbest argument.......ever

AiG even goes as far to deny the fact that stars are born at all: “Whether or not stars are still forming today, the Bible does not specify, but no one has ever seen a star form.”

We've never seen a dinosaur..but we know they exist because of the fossil record...but then again according to these yahoo's man and Deno the dinosaur walked together 6000 years ago. That is also their favorite argument against evolution...well has anyone seen a chimp (or any other species) evolve into a man (or something else)? It not like stars suddenly pop into existence and become a new dot in the night sky like hitting the switch to turn on the basement light.

Anything...anything at all that even smacks of a contradiction to their delusion is a threat. Aww hell, lets just ban or burn books, bring back the inquisition and some good old fashioned burning at the stake.

[Tree-Hugger]

62. It's a well known fact

Dinosaur bones were planted around the globe by the devil as an attempt to lure mankind away from the word of God. The devil knew that finding these bones would make us question God. Then, we'd be closer to the devil and would work for him.

Haha, right? Except I have been told this by some fundies.

[siligut]

17. They have been set-up to believe that their happiness and survival is dependent upon falsehoods

So when someone says the world is not what the church tells them, they tend to get upset. Their church controllers have taught them that overt destruction of the 'lies' is the appropriate response/what god expects of them. Their cognitive dissonance may be tempered by the fact that Neil is AA, because they also have been taught that AAs are born inferior so god doesn't really love them.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[RoccoR5955]

26. Come on...

They are so dumb, that they believe in a talking snake too!

I once sold one of them a bridge!
Talk about dumb!

[RKP5637]

28. There individuals are so overwhelmingly ignorant it's difficult to even listen to

anything moronic creationists have to say.

[obxnacy]

37. evolution

and the dumb get dumber. they are allowed to vote while smart people are stymied in their efforts to elect someone with intelligence.
just the fact "they" even speak against science shows just how ignorant they are - the bible is a fairy tale, written to satisfy the power of those in charge at the time. geez, how can anyone deny exploration of the universe and not understand its eons of existence.

[shawn703]

40. But God is omnipotent!

So surely 6,000 years ago God could have created everything to look like it's been around for 14.8 billion years already! And not only did God go through the trouble to create stars that were billions of light years away, but God also created light beams from those stars to look like they've already been shining for 14.8 billion years! And God did all this just to separate those that have faith from those that don't! I'm not sure why the creationists would be hitting the panic button, when your story focuses around a being whose power is limitless, there's nothing that couldn't be explained away.

[derby378]

63. Too good not to share - since we're on the subject of a prankster God

[Major Nikon]

64. Exactly

[opiate69]

89. Lmao. that's perfect!

[Major Nikon]

110. ...

[Jim Lane]

160. What you write in jest has been seriously propounded by some people.

It's called the Omphalos hypothesis. "Omphalos" is the Greek word for navel. God created Adam and Eve as normal humans, and normal humans have navels, so those two had navels, even though these would be "evidence" of a birth that never occurred. Similarly, the trees in the Garden of Eden were created already bearing fruit, a feature of trees that takes some years to develop. If Adam and Eve had cut one down, they would have seen growth rings, because trees have growth rings.

Some elitist scientist of that era might have concluded on the seventh day that the Earth was at least several years old, just based on the trees, but that would have been an error.

Answers in Genesis acknowledges this idea but can't quite choke it down:

But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument.

(from "Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?")

You'll note, however, that even creationists who are uncomfortable with this idea can't rule it out completely. As you say, in a belief system that starts with an omnipotent being, even this colossal deception is possible.

[L0oniX]

44. Most biblical scholars will tell you that the 6 days of creation is a metaphor.

[L0oniX]

52. The Dead Sea scrolls are real. No intelligent person would deny that.

[pangaia]

77. I'm not a biblical scholar and I could have told you that.

Said with all good humor.. as in good feelings...

[MisterP]

150. I guess a good definition of fundamentalism is that it's antitheological

and they never do seem to draw on the two or ten millennia of human thinking on the divine

it's like "literalism"--just as you can forgo READING what you cite if you just wave that bloody shirt around, you can claim your reading's the original one if you just erase everything else

[Agnosticsherbet]

53. People who practice faith should not feel it necessary to explain things with science.

The very fact that they must dream up creation science to give a bullshit explanation to the universe shows their essential lack of faith.

Scratch a creationist and you will find a hypocrite.

[marew]

56. LOL! So true! n/t

[JoePhilly]

70. Their kids start asking tough questions.

Discussion of evolution and how the world began in science class causes kids to start asking hard questions of their religious parents.

So pushing this nonsense into school is their silly attempt to prevent the scientific threat to their indoctrination of the kids.

[frogmarch]

58. They'd burst into flames if

they saw even one episode of Your Inner Fish!

http://www.pbs.org/your-inner-fish/home/

[7wo7rees]

67. Thread Killer

[hatrack]

73. I am SO stealing this!

[backscatter712]

88. That is awesome!

[LongTomH]

101. Does kind of put things into perspective, doesn't it?

Our conceptions of "God" are much too small.

[rhett o rick]

68. Ok so the world is estimated to be 14.8 billion. But notice how they dont tell you what the margin

of error is?? If the margin of error is plus or minus 14,999,994,000. Just sayin.

[AtheistCrusader]

96. Uh, no. The world is only about 4.5bn.

The universe is about 13.8bn

[oldandhappy]

69. Cosmos is so wonderful.

I look forward to Sunday evening. I am grateful for this high quality show. Love the information. Hope at some point the DVDs will be available. I will buy the set and watch again and again -- takes me several tries to take in all the facts. And I believe God is alive and real and this show makes me laugh and giggle and walk around saying 'God is sooooo BIG!' I do not want to be limited. I want to grow and take in this miracle of galaxy upon galaxy. I am old and when I was a kid in school I do not think we knew (or did not learn) that there was more than one galaxy. I have been thrilled to learn more about creation and how truly big and amazing it is!

[Xyzse]

72. Agreed. Seriously though, Science is not trying to prove that God does not exist

Science is trying to understand how things work, how things happened, and all of that.

Trying to prove or disprove something without variables, measurable or otherwise is an exercise in futility.

Science does not need to prove that God does not exist, those so called religious people just have shallow faith to be threatened by science, since they can't seem to take any other point of view other than their own.

[exboyfil]

74. I was reading a book called "Leonardo's Notebooks"

and I was struck about his write up on shell fossils. He understood at the time that these shells on top of a mountain represented an important consideration in geology. He knew they could not have been deposited by a great flood (he explains his logic in the text). He obviously did not know about plate tectonics, but he concluded that the earth was much older than commonly believed.

This is 500 years ago. He understood more about science than the fundies do today. To accept their paradigm you have to reject 500 years of observational science. Many of da Vinci's speculations were proven false, but he at least tried to look at the evidence and he was close to a firmer understanding of the world around him (a remarkable achievement given the time and place).

Another consideration is that, while we treasure the writings of da Vinci, Gallileo, Newton, and Darwin; scientists have no problem disproving aspects of their speculations and conclusions. They are not saints. Their writing is infalible. Scientists reputations get made by disproving old paradigms (just ask Einstein and the life scientists that found evidence of horizontal gene transfer).

[Maraya1969]

76. Where do they get the 6,000 number from anyway? eom

[Blue_In_AK]

79. From the "begats," I think,

Some Biblical "scholar" sat down and did the math some time ago. You'd think that they would at least say 6,300 years or something, unless time has stood still in the interim.

Here you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

[Kaleva]

93. See post #21

[Blue_In_AK]

78. During the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial debates,

our current governor, Sean Parnell, a true believer, was asked if he thought the earth was 6,000 years old. He hedged for a bit and then declared that there's no way to know for sure. I wonder where he thinks the oil that he loves so much comes from.

[Gothmog]

80. The fact that the conservative nut cases hate this show is wonderful

Cosmos is a great show. I have really enjoyed this show. The fact that the religious nut cases hate this show makes me smile

[chrisa]

82. The usual arguments from ignorance and purposeful obtuseness one would expect

from a creationist. Anyone else recognize the pattern? - First, try to shut down any scientific discussion because it night contradict the Bible, and if you can't, throw out an argument from ignorance to try and avoid any arguments against your superstition.

Very typical.

[Waiting For Everyman]

90. It takes as much faith to believe in evolution as creationism.

The idea that everything that exists in the precise way that it does, "just happened" by accident on its own, is some fabulous nonsense. It strikes me as a lot like believing in the "invisible hand of the free market". Shit just happens on its own. Isn't that convenient for us, we are just that lucky I guess.

The big difference between evolutionists and creationists, in my view, is that one group is consciously aware that they are engaging in an act of faith, while the other group is not at all aware of it.

There are beliefs that are "in", and there are beliefs that are "out". It's that simple.

[Silent3]

91. Seriously? That old saw? Have you ever paid attention to how well that...

..."just as much faith" crap, tied to a stupid misunderstanding of what evolution is all about, has been debunked, or do we have to waste time repeating it all over, for you to once again deliberately misunderstand and ignore?

[Godhumor]

105. faith requires belief, science does not

Whether you "believe" in evolution or not in no way influences the outcome. Government could declare teaching evolution illegal and have a period of time where evolutionary theory is wiped completely out of knowledge..still doesn't matter, as evolution will continue unabated. On the other hand, do the same to any religion and it ceases to exist.

Learn how the mechanism of evolution actually works and then come back and say it is a belief system.

[Kaleva]

131. A number of governments have attempted to abolish all or some religions.

It didn't work.

[Godhumor]

133. it was a hypothetical

If knowledge of a religion disappears, the religion disappears. If knowledge of natural science disappears, it just keeps right on trucking.

[tkmorris]

116. You... lack understanding of this topic

[AverageJoe90]

129. Gonna have to disagree with you on that.

Yes, it may be true that the scientific establishment may not be perfect; after all, some people still think we are apes like gorillas for example(evidence *does* tell us that we share a common ancestor, but that we aren't apes ourselves).....and that ontological materialism(as practiced by people such as Richard Dawkins; as in, the "if you cannot observe it normally it must not be" school of thought) in particular does have many of its own faults similar to that of creationism in some aspects.

However, though, while the interpretation of science, of any kind, may sometimes not be perfect, the science of evolution itself is very much concrete and backed up with solid research. Has been for many, many years now.

I can also say that science in general is always evolving, even if progress sometimes takes a while, due to skepticism, or office politics within establishments, etc.; for example, in the field of consciousness, there is an increasing amount of evidence that strongly suggests that not only is it possible that it may exist in some form after bodily death, but that the whole model of what we think of as "consciousness" may perhaps need to be reconstructed & re-evaluated to a point. Despite this, however, the establishment remains rather skeptical(and not always for the best of reasons), because it goes largely against what is still currently accepted by most.

I should add, by the way, that the same held true of Darwin's evolution theory as well, until about the 1920s here in the U.S., when the proof started to become undeniable.

[phil89]

137. The theory of evolution requires no faith, it is based on evidence.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

[Gravitycollapse]

149. Random variation is not the same as natural selection. Natural selection is not random.

The production of random variations in characteristics is random. But how those variations interact with the natural world is not random at all.

Maybe you should actually know how evolution works before you talk about it. Just a small bit of advice.

[NuclearDem]

156. No it doesn't. Saying so means you don't know what faith means.

The rest means you don't understand evolution or abiogenesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html

[blkmusclmachine]

94. Religionists = "The Flat Earth Club"

[Hekate]

95. Neil de Grasse Tyson and Cosmos are both wonderful. It's must-see viewing, and I can hardly wait...

... for the DVDs to appear in Costco once the series is over.

Dr. Tyson is brilliant, extremely personable, and the episodes are gorgeously produced: a feast for the eyes, the mind, and dare I say it the soul itself. (Thank you, FOX; and I never thought I'd say that.)

The narrow minded little bigots who can't bear to even look in that direction must have barren deserts for the landscape of their brains and souls. I feel sorry for them.

[merrily]

98. It's been debunked so many times before.

Hard to believe they will do much other than deny and move on from this.

[AtheistCrusader]

99. After a good solid week of shit-throwing arguments in the religion forum...

This thread warms my heart.

[skepticscott]

152. Was just thinking the same thing

before I read your post. It's heartening to know that there is sense and sanity about religion on DU outside of a few enclaves.

[wandy]

102. I suspect this 6000 year myth has been around longer than modern day fundies..............

Amazing Grace

"Amazing Grace" is a Christian hymn with words written by the English poet and clergyman John Newton (1725–1807), published in 1779. With the message that forgiveness and redemption are possible regardless of sins committed and that the soul can be delivered from despair through the mercy of God, "Amazing Grace" is one of the most recognizable songs in the English-speaking world.

Newton wrote the words from personal experience. He grew up without any particular religious conviction, but his life's path was formed by a variety of twists and coincidences that were often put into motion by his recalcitrant insubordination. He was pressed (forced into service involuntarily) into the Royal Navy, and after leaving the service became involved in the Atlantic slave trade. In 1748, a violent storm battered his vessel so severely that he called out to God for mercy, a moment that marked his spiritual conversion. However, he continued his slave trading career until 1754 or 1755, when he ended his seafaring altogether and began studying Christian theology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace

When we've been there ten thousand years ?

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

T'was Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares
I have already come;
'Tis Grace that brought me safe thus far
and Grace will lead me home.

The Lord has promised good to me.
His word my hope secures.
He will my shield and portion be,
As long as life endures.

Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.

Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease;
I shall profess, within the vail,
A life of joy and peace.

The following stanza was written by an an anonymous author, often replacing the sixth stanza, or inserted as the fourth.

When we've been there ten thousand years
Bright shining as the sun.
We've no less days to sing God's praise
Than when we've first begun.

http://www.constitution.org/col/amazing_grace.htm

Then and again, to me this interpretation has more meaning.

[Vashta Nerada]

103. Anything that pisses off the religionistas is good in my book.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

104. Self-Esteem

[AlbertCat]

111. but no one has ever seen a star form.

No one has ever seen your god either.

[penndragon69]

113. You can't fix STUPID.

[awoke_in_2003]

118. I almost never watch TV

so I am not in the habit of scheduling time for it. I have missed every episode so far. Is there any way to view these without Netflix?

[lunasun]

140. yes

http://www.cosmosontv.com/watch/236611651828

[awoke_in_2003]

143. Gracias...

that is much appreciated

[DallasNE]

122. "No One Has Ever Seen A Star Form"

Really? Maybe he should try to Google it.

&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fstellar-nursery-lupus-3-image-2013-1&size=58.7KB&name=%3Cb%3Eborn+%3C%2Fb%3Efrom+a+shadow+monster+gas+cloud+new+image+shows+%3Cb%3Estars+%3C%2Fb%3Ebeing+%3Cb%3Eborn+%3C%2Fb%3E...&p=stars+born&oid=6565711c5fea3f36b327ac5c1ee91cae&fr2=&fr=ytff1-yff27&tt=%3Cb%3Eborn+%3C%2Fb%3Efrom+a+shadow+monster+gas+cloud+new+image+shows+%3Cb%3Estars+%3C%2Fb%3Ebeing+%3Cb%3Eborn+%3C%2Fb%3E...&b=0&ni=21&no=36&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=123n65js0&sigb=13bjcdurp&sigi=13vvvrep6&sigt=12uig94ms&sign=12uig94ms&.crumb=3EvJSE8LsP4&fr=ytff1-yff27

[spanone]

125. 'on day four of creation' oy.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

127. I love Cosmos, but my favorite science show is Through The Wormhole with the great Morgan Freeman

For several years they've had shows about the age of the universe. Recently they've not only described how the universe is over 14 billion years old but may have resulted from two membranes hitting each other as an idea of string theory. The universe according to these theorists never had a creation but was the result of two previous universe membranes coming into contact as part of an eternal neverending process.

[mwdem]

134. My grandson, at 5 1/2 , watches Cosmos every week...

His teacher let's him lecture the class the next day on what he learned. This is in Kansas.

[lunasun]

142. our kids ask is it time yet? we do not do much TV and are surprised at the continuing interest

and happy to have something we can all watch together!

[mwdem]

145. That's exactly how my daughter and son in law are.

Not much tv, but quality tv.

[lunasun]

135. “Whether or not stars are still forming today, the Bible does not specify,"

wow just wow
Rule of one book and only one book sorta limits their thinking eh??

[rocktivity]

139. They may be right -- after all,

Last edited Fri May 2, 2014, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

nobody knows how long the "days" lasted back then!


rocktivity

[Beartracks]

144. "no one has ever seen a star form"... Well, we've seen the DEATH of this one...

... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_nebula



========

[gtar100]

151. It all happened by magic, the magic hand of God.

So beyond that, we are not entitled to ask questions, so say the Creationists (or they imply with their disdain for science). Simple answers for simple minds.

[Puzzledtraveller]

154. Or more likely, they do not care

[nyquil_man]

157. Cut 'em some slack. They're only off by about 14.8 billion years.

That's no worse than saying LA is six feet from NYC.

[yuiyoshida]

161. THE stupid is

Strong, in this Country is....

[Exposethefrauds]

167. Let's do an experiment

Take all the fundies and put them in one area some place In the south or Midwest because so many fundies are concentrated in those areas and see how long they will last living in a modern world using the bible as their only source of knowledge. If it is not in the bible they cannot have it or use it

So no electricity, tv, ac, and cars for starters. And no cheeseburgers either, they they would have to keep kosher too otherwise they would displease god and he would have to punish them accordingly.

Let's prove once and for all science trumps fiction every time.

[HuckleB]

169. Recommended!

The piece is now on Salon, too!