Curly4 #fundie arstechnica.com

For all you who think the earth is doomed I will tell you we were told that about 2000 years ago when the book of revelation was written. In chapter 16 of that book Jon the Revelator stated that because of mans' sins God allows the sun to get much hotter than normal. Even with all the heat that the sun creates people still will not listen to God. By not listing to God they seal their own fate. So in the end those who will not and did not listen to God will be burned up to ashes. The saints who are the only ones who listened to God are left and will walk up on the ashes of the sinners, the ones who did not listen to God.
So that time is near even at the door so don't be surprised to see thing get worse. Not only the climate but also what people do which is exactly what is happening just like it said it would. People today are copping what the people did before the big flood. BTW, after the big flood God said that he would never destroy the earth by a flood again. In other places He said that he would use fire to purify the earth to make it suitable for habitation. The only people who will be upon the earth after it is purified by fire are the people that hid themselves in the Savior Jesus Christ. These are the same people that have decided to follow Jesus Christ for the rest of time which we know is never ending.I

[Invisible to those not logged in to Ars due to downvotes]

The_Truth_Hurts #fundie arstechnica.com

This would be an interesting point if Language stayed still and definitions did not change. The term Person, in its modern usage, has no religious meaning at all.

"Modern usage"???
Seriously? You consider 50 years ago ancient history or something?
The term "person" is a religious term. The fact that atheists are trying to culturally appropriate the word is suddenly ok, simply because you need to steal the term in order to make an absolutely false point, right?

"Person" has a theological meaning, always has, always will.
The UN Declaration on Human Rights uses the term in its theological context. The three Persons of the Trinity are distinguished only by the relationships (begetting, begotten, spiration, spirated). Made in the image and likeness of God, human persons are likewise distinguished by their relationships.

The whole UN document drips with Catholic theology explaining how this applies in the political realm. Not a surprise, since Jacques Mauritain, one of the principle advisors, was a devout Catholic. The modern political international world is built around the UN. So, yeah, "person" remains an intensely religious term, even if the people who throw it around are too ignorant of religion to realize what they are attempting to culturally appropriate.

cewoldt #fundie arstechnica.com

A couple of comments: First, how do you substantiate that uniformitarian geology has been out of vogue for 100 years? It wasn't until the mid 1950's that J. Harlan Bretz's Missoula flood evidence was accepted because it smacked of catastrophism. It wasn't until about 1980 that catastrophism was generally acknowledged by the geological community. But it is good that it is now acknowledged as a part of the process.

Mt. Saint Helens was mentioned for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that geological processes can happen in very short periods of time. Secondly, during the worldwide flood there was more than just a lot of water. The "fountains of the deep" opened up. There was a lot more going on than just rain coming down, including massive volcanism and tectonic activity. You may disagree with that--I accept that. But I do know the difference between a flood and a volcano.

Also, to answer a previous post. Noah was a preacher of righteousness, and all were invited to come into the Ark. No, it was not God's choice that people perished, but their own.

And yes, there is evidence for a worldwide flood. Many if not most of the sedimentary rock layers were laid down during the flood, and many other geological features are a result of the flood waters rushing off of the rising landmass to the sinking ocean floor.

And I don't think you have given a good explanation of water gaps. Oh yes, the land rose so slowly that the river could continue flowing through the gap rather than going around the barrier. A rather ad hoc explanation.

cewoldt #fundie arstechnica.com

I don't see how much of what you have stated contradicts what I have posted.You are correct. The polystrate fossils had to be buried within a short period of time; that is my contention as well. And we also now know that the polystrate fossilized trees in Yellowstone Park were most likely all a result of one event, rather like that at Spirit Lake, not the burial of multiple forests on top of each other--simply that different species of trees sunk to the bottom of a lake at different rates based on the characteristics of their wood (how quickly they absorbed the water), so landed on the bottom at different times as the lake filled with more sediment.

Of course, the layers are sorted by the size of the particulate. And the worldwide flood consisted of many events, not just one. The only item that is contradictory is your uniformitarian worldview assumption of billions of years.

I shook it to get the water throughout the dirt. Then I let the bottle sit. Isn't that the way you said you did your experiment? The courser and heavier particles settle to the bottom.

As the continents rose over at least months if not years after the inundation of the flood, the waters rushed off the surface causing catastrophic erosion of the surfaces, which is where the sediment from the layers come from.

And yes, during the worldwide flood there were huge amounts of heat energy released into the oceans from tectonics and volcanism. This is what is needed for an ice age--lots of moisture going into clouds from warm oceans and dropping on cool continents, which were a result of the atmosphere with significant particulate matter from volcanic activity blocking sunlight on the continents--for more than a hundred years. That also accounts for why there was no ice cover in the arctic areas of the earth--the warm oceans surrounding it. Is there a better explanation (not better storytelling) for how ice ages form? I don't think so.

cewoldt #fundie arstechnica.com

Let's start with one issue at a time as I find time to work on it. First, contrary to your statement, one flood or one even can and does lay down multiple layers of sediment. This has been shown both in the laboratory and in nature. At Mount Saint Helens for example, multiple layers were laid down in both hours and weeks, and significant canyons were formed afterwards. This is documented, eyewitness evidence that multiple layers can occur in just a few weeks from related events.

Also remember that the worldwide flood was a protracted even, with the inundation period lasting 40 days, but as the land surfaces rose and the ocean beds fell, there were countless other geological events taking place over several months and even years. In the case of the ice age, the events of the flood reverberated for hundreds of years.

bhs128 #fundie arstechnica.com

(Emphasis mine)

Newsflash! People are imperfect, and collections of people are also imperfect. Such crimes are not part of their creed. They aimed high and failed spectacularly, but at least they aimed. You claim no atheist has molested children? No corporation has protected their own? No police department has covered up law breaking cops? No law firm? No political party? Mob? All non religious organizations full of imperfect people.

Frankly it is mostly due to Christian morality that molestation is even considered abhorrent- a hedonistic atheist is perfectly justified in molesting kids. Right? Wrong? By whose standard? Why should they care? There is no god, and they happen to like groping kids- you live once and then you die.

It is far easier for an atheist to justify molesting kids than a Christian, and the only reason there aren’t more is that atheists are such a small minority. Thankfully most of them still cling to their Christian-rooted ethics (though there is little reason to assume that will continue).

cewoldt #fundie arstechnica.com

Here are some examples of important physical evidence that is far better explained by flood geology than by standard deep time geology:

Well, what about planation surfaces over large areas between various geological layers. And why are there layers with millions of years between them while in many places, there is little or no erosion or debris? How can there be nearly continent wide unconformities and layers? How can the angles of repose for the continental shelves, and even their existence, be adequately explained by standard geology? How do you account for ice ages--I mean without giving anything but a highly speculative idea?

How were water gaps and wind gaps formed? By sslloowwllyy rising ground surfaces that matched the erosion rates? Really? And how were the Grand Canyon and others formed? By the tiny river down in the canyon? Not likely.

These questions and more can be much better answered by flood geology.

ssener2001 #fundie arstechnica.com

(Something about Ars Technica and fundies today,,, Also, the formatting is his)

belief in the hereafter is fundamental to the life of society and to man's personal life, and is the basis of his happiness, prosperity, and achievement.( some proofs)
The First:
It is only with the thought of Paradise that children, who form almost a half of mankind, can endure all the deaths around them, which appear to them to be grievous and frightening, and strengthen the morale of their weak and delicate beings. Through Paradise they find hope in their vulnerable spirits, prone to weeping, and may live happily. For example, with the thought of Paradise, one may say: "My little brother or friend has died and become a bird in Paradise. He is flying around Paradise and living more happily than us." The frequent deaths before their unhappy eyes of other children like themselves or of grown-ups will otherwise destroy all their resistance and morale, making their subtle faculties like their spirits, hearts, and minds weep in addition to their eyes; they will either decline utterly or become crazy, wretched animals...
Second Proof:
It is only through the life of the hereafter that the elderly, who form half of mankind, can endure the proximity of the grave, and be consoled at the thought that their lives, to which they are firmly attached, will soon be extinguished and their fine worlds come to an end. It is only at the hope of eternal life that they can respond to the grievous despair they feel in their emotional child-like spirits at the thought of death. Those worthy, anxious fathers and mothers, so deserving of compassion and in need of tranquillity and peace of mind, will otherwise feel a terrible spiritual turmoil and distress in their hearts, and this world will become a dark prison for them, and life even, grievous torment..............
from Quran's Light

cewoldt #fundie arstechnica.com

The Worldwide Flood
There are lots of comments about how much water it would take to inundate the whole world with a flood, and where the water would go after the flood.

There is currently enough water to cover the entire surface of a flat earth with about a mile and a half deep of water. Prior to the Flood, a great deal of this water was under the earth as the Bible says in Genesis 7:11—-“. . . and the fountains of the deep opened up.” (Recent reports suggest that there may still be more water in the crust than there is on the surface.) And the world was much flatter than it is today, perhaps just one continent. So there was plenty of water to flood the entire land surface of the relatively flat earth.

There were tremendous tectonic and volcanic activities during the flood. As a result, the continents rose and the ocean floors sunk, just as the Bible records—Psalm 104:8. As this occurred, there was rapid water runoff from the continents into the oceans. During this time is when much of the water laid down sediments and fossils were created, as well as the continental shelves. All agree that on the highest mountain in the world, Mt. Everest, that there are marine fossils, and that these mountains were raised by tectonic activity. What young earth v. deep time advocates disagree on is how long this lifting process took, not that this is what happened.

Overall, the geological evidence we see today is best explained by a worldwide catastrophic flood.

Everything Is Racist Award

cewoldt #fundie arstechnica.com

You are absolutely right that a worldwide flood would account for these fossils very well. And what is the evidence for a worldwide flood that another commenter asks for? Billions of dead things (fossils) buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. And that is exactly what we find. Sedimentary rock covers about three quarters of the earth’s surface and many of these contain fossils. We find marine fossils even on the top of Mount Everest, which means that the mountain must have been pushed up through tectonic plate activity during and after a massive flood.
Further, slow burial as a previous poster assumes, doesn’t work for fossilization, especially for organisms with soft bodies. Fossilization requires rapid and generally deep burial as the article acknowledges. Oxygen must be quickly excluded as must scavengers—within days at most. Gradual burial just doesn’t work.
I am not sure how the narrative of a global ice age causing extinction fits in either. There is really no good evidence for a worldwide ice age or ages—“snowball earth”. That postulate creates a lot more problems than it solves. The striations on the rocks which are interpreted as evidence for ice ages in the lower latitudes were most likely created by massive catastrophic landslides, most of them in a submarine environment.
There are lots of speculative theories to explain an ice age, but these fall far short of being reasonable. The only reasonable explanation is I have read is from Michael Oard. Like fossilization, ice ages take very special conditions—First, warmer oceans are necessary to put massive amounts of moisture in the air. Perhaps you’ve heard the phrase, “It’s too cold to snow.” That is because really cold air doesn’t carry enough moisture for snow. Next, for glaciers to form you need many years of accumulated snowfall. Much cooler continents are necessary so that the moisture comes down as snow and remains un-melted through the summer. How could both of these requirements be met? The oceans would be warmed by massive global techtonics and volcanism; the land masses would remain cool due to the massive amounts of volcanic dust in the atmosphere.
Another problem with this published narrative is that it states that half the species uncovered are unknown. That is often an argument from ignorance. Dr. Carl Werner conducted a multi-year study and found that many of the purported new species are not really such if fossils from museums around the world are actually compared—and on many occasions, the fossils are very similar to existing, living species.

IAM4U #fundie arstechnica.com

(On an article about the discovery of a large trove of Cambrian fossils in China)

What buried these creatures so quickly and preserved them for thousands of years? A massive flood would do that. No one has proved it didn’t happen and many ancient cultures recorded stories of a flood that wiped out mankind. The resistance to such a flood explanation is not based on science, just prejudice. It fits the evidence.

Jpan #sexist arstechnica.com

(Hidden behind a mod bumper that says "Sexist Drivel". Top quote is also his)

Why is it alwsys the same kind of people that are activists. It's really not good to make generalizations but they fit soooo goddamn well. You just need to take a look at her Twitter. You know she was hated by most of her colleagues and went into activism because of that.

You are aware that you are answering all your questions yourself, right?

In this case let me ask why I should care what she thinks? She clearly doesn't make my field better. I alwsys thought getting more women in tech meant cool hard working girls who know their shit. Not a flock of activists who annoy the shit out of everybody with Master slave renamings and marginalized group investigations.

These people must be REALLY annoying to the cool women who actually just want to work.

birchleg #fundie arstechnica.com

You have to love the logic of the left. “Let’s not talk about things we don’t understand, because that’s so scientific.” Why does creationism scare lefties so much? Show me scientific evidence where any single cellular organism has ever evolved into a multicellular organism and we can start the debate there. Just admit it, there are things we can’t prove, but we can see strong evidence.

When you walk down the beach and see an elaborate sand castle, is your first thought to wonder how the water and wind created it? No, you wonder who built it. Life is the same way, you scoff at intelligent design, but your origin of life theories are just as fantastic. I love the group think. “We must teach our fantastical theory of life and dismiss that one over there”

I believe in evolution and I believe in creationism, but I’m humble enough to understand I don’t know how they fit together. Believe it or not, it’s okay not to have all the answers.

ED(I) #racist arstechnica.com

(Soros+PWB+ADL+SPLC)/Jews = N x (SShooter + Charlottesville + Whatever%xMAGAbomber)/Whites

What’s the value for N? B-But WATABOOT NAZEES!!

Your kind is perpetrating genocide. And it is genocide. See Tibet and West Sahara. They are not even targeting Germans. All Whites. Never mind if the Nazis also slaughtered them.

I believe you can legitimately wash your hands but not whilst claiming genocide is actually a great thing at the same time.

It’s okay to be Zionist. We just want a White Zion for every White folk.

StopStopForumSpam #fundie arstechnica.com

In an article about the Google walkouts. Relevant bolded.

mob rule

It's ironic. We must not see this as a negative, Sousa. This is a positive. The left, just as they were gaining power, got impatient and validated the tactics the new minority, the right, shall require. We have been blessed by their foolishness. Who has the greatest ability to maintain social structures apart from work and official systems, the right or the left? In America, the right overwhelmingly has maintained religious facilities. Who has the greatest ability to maintain social norms, and bring shame to bear on non-conforming members? In America, again, it is the right which has the tireless volunteers.

There is a new app, which you may not be aware of, so I want to encourage you to use it. It is called VoteWithMe. It's motto is "flip the house". But you can use it to find likely Republicans in your contacts list and then, hear me out, give them a phone. Don't text them. Ineffective. And let me tell you, you can also look up other people who are not in your list. It's very easy and obvious how to do it.

And there is a secret weapon which doesn't exist, according to the left. There is the power of prayer. I do not know if you are devout, but if you are, spend at minimum 15 minutes in prayer, on your knees, daily, concerning this matter. SCOTUS shall be our thin red line, as the flood of blue destroys every last ethical principle remaining. The first to go is honesty, I will warn you about this! If you discover someone is a Democrat, be suspicious! As O'Keefe has revealed, breaking rules is common for that sort of person. You can look them up in this app, and find out who is a dishonest person (Democrat). Today, Democrats are a little bit inclined to be honest. This shall change, I can assure you. But already, telling the truth has slid. It's much less important now. It's more important to achieve "more important" goals. God help you if the Democrat decides to lie to you, for whatever the Democrat has decided is "more important" than truth!

SteamArst #fundie arstechnica.com

This is one of the reasons some atheists such as Anthony Flew eventually accepted God as a first cause, as initial inception explanations of matter then life how life got started amounted to a spontaneous appearance by the combination of time and coincidence.

if you wait long enough a big bang will occur manifesting matter where there was nothing before ,
if you wait long enough the inert matter will combine into stars and planets
if you wait long enough complex molecules will combine producing life that will evolve
if you wait long enough evolution will produce persons reading arstechnica.com on cell phone screens while riding the subway to work.

hellothere333 #fundie arstechnica.com

Off topic, but agreed! Regrettably, today's left seems to have forgotten the ills socialism inevitably and invariably bring. Gone are the days of revering the ideals that made this country great. Namely, self reliance, personal responsibility, family values, god fearing christian ideals, fiscal conservatism, and far less federal and far more local laws. Perhaps it is time for another great depression to recall what really matters.

itsastickup #fundie arstechnica.com

here's also the religious explanation which has been missed out. Whatever your prejudices on this subject, for objectivity's sake, this one should have been included.

Pope John Paul II (died 2005) canonised as a Christian saint a carrot peeler nun (ie, very humble, low-level nun) who claimed in her diary that Jesus had told her that the universe is teeming with life. St Faustina.

The Catholic position is that there is no dogma on this matter, although the above makes it an informal teaching. But it's particularly interesting since a Catholic priest invented the Big Bang theory, Lemaitre, and a Catholic monk, Mendel, is considered the father of modern genetics. (Catholicism has never had a dogma of a literal interpretation of the Bible.)

Meanwhile, the ex-atheist, near-death-experience, Arts professor, Howard Storm (now a methodist), says that he was shown by God that not only is the universe teeming with life, but also intelligent life, and that we are either the only or one of very few that rebelled against God. All other planets with intelligent life receive God's blessings without resistence. Considering God's blessings to us include death, I suppose that's not too surprising. :)

The interesting detail in Storm's testimony is why outside life isn't communicating with us (radio waves etc): there is no need as, excepting humans, intelligent beings communicate without need of material means, particularly through 'union' in which they experience each other's existence.


Howard Storm, talking to some old ladies ina Church:


No, it shouldn't be included. This is a scientific discussion. Religion is for theologians and philosophers. Take it there.

Lol!! You're presumably an atheist. Only an atheist prejudice would make such a claim. The question isn't purely scientific. And no reasonable scientist would exclude this possibility. An atheist scientist would, however.

And while there has been an amazing loss of faith among the young, (mostly due to successful misinformation from atheists such as Dawkins), atheism continues to be a minority belief. Most people are at most agnostic, making no atheistic presumptions. And atheism is presumptuous since there has never been a proof of no god, and plenty of evidence that that might be one, starting with the fact that there are so many people claiming to have had personal contact with a god. Which includes myself.

TruthTold2017 #racist arstechnica.com

List of white countries that have gone from over 90% white to less than 60% in last 50 years.
List of white countries that are expected to go from 90%+ white to less than 60% white in the next 25 years.
England, France, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Italy.

List of Asian Countries expected to go from 90%+ asian to less than 60 asian in next 25 years.
List of African countries
List of Jewish countries

You wont find any, they would slaughter the invaders.

Whites are the LEAST racist people on the planet, and their generocity will be there undoing.

Messager777 #racist arstechnica.com

(In RSTDT because of that first damn paragraph)

Since the 1960s, the liberals of the Blue States have been using US taxpayers money to buy votes from the Blacks, Hispanics, other minorities, poor folks, LGBTQs, etc, in order to keep themselves in power in Washington DC, against the conservatives of the Red States.
....... Eg generous welfare benefits for the poor and illegal immigrants(= mostly Hispanics), easy social welfare benefits for the Black welfare queens with 4 kids from 4 different Black bf's, Federal spousal benefits for same-sex couples, etc.

Hence, the States with the highest public debt are mostly liberal, eg California, New York and New Jersey. Most bankrupt cities are liberal.
....... The liberals-dominated US govt has an unsustainable debt of about US$20 trillion = will eventually go bankrupt.

P S - The Social Security Trust Fund is projected to be insolvent by 2033. The liberal Democrat President Lyndon Johnson began "robbing" the SSTF during the 1960s to fund the liberals' Vietnam War, which was earlier started by President Kennedy in support of the French colonialists.

ziegler #fundie arstechnica.com

(FSTDT/RSTDT twofer)

Just my thoughts on the matter.
Look around the news these days.
College's teach classes that whites are privileged and racists by the very act of being born white.
They are barring them from certain places on campus.
The same is happening with Maleness and christianity (not judaism or islam though)
Christians are denigrated openly and joyously. It's fashionable to hate them.
In today's world, if you are a straight white male, you're the most atrocious thing walking the planet now and responsible for everything that is wrong with the world.

So when these disenfranchised youths look around and see all this, its not hard to see them being lured to KKK, Et.al ...
It shouldnt be too hard to see this, after all, it is exactly what we have been saying about attacking muslims and creating more extremists.
When you start painting broad sections of people as all evil because of one thing or another, it leads no where good.

ED(I) #sexist arstechnica.com

(on an article about the Google Engineer's infamous sexist manifesto)

Men, out of empathy, gave voice and vote to what they saw as the mistreated weaker people in society. Legal discrimination and persecution for their beliefs was their reward. No good deed goes unpunished.

The generations of men growing up in the last few decades grew up learning all the dogmas of Female Supremacy, and are only now, after a few years interacting with real people in the real world, starting to realize that they have been lied to, exploited and abused by intellectually dishonest people.

Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do. Be a better man. Treat other people with the respect they deserve, no more no less. Don't waste your time discussing with reality deniers.

Blackspoon #fundie arstechnica.com

It is also striking to notice that atheist believers (Atheism is also a religion by the way) who believe in Dark Matter and Dark Energy are so worried and make such a big fuss of inoffensive religious believers who happen to believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago.

Shameless bloodsucking "scientists" are telling a lot of lies about nutrition. They always refuse to investigate the effect of basic simple diets like eating without cooking, like all the animal are eating. But they have credibility, because they use science as PR, even though they are not actually practicing science.

Arguably, a religious society can be much better than the current atheist and materialistic society. Because the religious people have some moral values, while the current society is always teaching you to be more selfish and greedy and to take advantage of others. Umar II and the Islamic Golden Age stand as a good proof for that.

Sometimes I prefer to live between religious people who have some limits instead of keeping to be part of this society that is going down spiraling into more and more greed, corruption and abuse - towards disintegration. Being an Amish farmer with weird beliefs is actually much safer and healthier than to be part of this economic system where you are never good enough and therefore you have to live a life in misery and humiliation "for good (and scientific) reasons".

In any case, the question remains: if the non-religious people are so smart then why the secular society is such a big disaster? Where is the reason and the logic when the scientific and "rational" people have no problem with the perpetual situation of increasing the taxes for the poor and reducing the taxes for the rich?

I want to see the scientific people getting together and building a functional and fair society. They are clearly incapable to do that, so where is their reason, logic and intelligence? Intelligence means being able to solve problems, therefore they are lacking intelligence, logic and reason.

How can the scientific community have credibility when it is actually so corrupt?

The catastrophic results of their actions show that the secular and the scientific people are actually not using reason and logic.

Whatever system (religious or not, weird or not) that helps the people to have a decent life without hurting others is actually more logic and reasonable and intelligent than the current system that locks the poor people into poverty and confusion (with the help and participation of the "scientists").

stratthinker #fundie arstechnica.com

(on a guy getting permission to get rocks from the grand Canyon to conduct an experiment to prove his belief in a 6k year old earth)

“Even if I don’t find the evidence I think I will find, it wouldn’t assault my core beliefs,” Snelling told The Australian.

And this is where he fails as a Scientist.

There is a lot of evidence that the global flood occurred, however some of the specifics are unclear. He is testing a specific flood model. If this model turns out to be false, his fact based belief that the flood occurred will not change.

Evidence other than Bible or other religious text? Because of the thousands of other civilisations around at the time, none of them mentioned anything more than "it's raining a bit today".

How about the large flat regions in Africa. Small scale erosion cannot do that, you need large scale erosion.

Me Too Now #fundie arstechnica.com

(Link is to quote of post, as it's invisible to those not logged in to Ars)

Ya'll are from the pages of la la land in your replies. The scientific method is based in evolution which is just a THEORY. No proof that it ever occurred. In fact it is impossible by its own rules. The scientific method states that it MUST be able to be repeated with the exact same results. There is NOT one pig giving birth to anything EXCEPT ANOTHER PIG. When GOD created the universe He commanded every creation to bear offspring after it's own kind. That is the way it will always be. Even trees bear seed that produces trees of the same kind as the parent tree. It's only when so-called scientists started trying to "improve" a species that there are things like killer bees.
These "scientists" are the quacks.
Just because you don't believe the Bible's record does not mean you are right. All of the record of our past is His Story.

Read the story about the rain that proves geology doesn't always have to take a long time. Right here in America. The Colorado River area. Proves that the Young Earth creationism is not as far fetched as y'all are trying to make it.

Andrew Snelling #fundie arstechnica.com

“Alternative facts” aren’t new. Young-Earth creationist groups like Answers in Genesis believe the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old despite actual mountains of evidence to the contrary, and they've been playing the “alternative facts” card for years. In lieu of conceding incontrovertible geological evidence, they sidestep it by saying, “Well, we just look at those facts differently.”

Nowhere is this more apparent than the Grand Canyon, which young-Earth creationist groups have long been enamored with. A long geologic record (spanning almost 2 billion years, in total) is on display in the layers of the Grand Canyon thanks to the work of the Colorado River. But many creationists instead assert that the canyon’s rocks—in addition to the spectacular erosion that reveals them—are actually the product of the Biblical “great flood” several thousand years ago.

Andrew Snelling, who got a PhD in geology before joining Answers in Genesis, continues working to interpret the canyon in a way that is consistent with his views. In 2013, he requested permission from the National Park Service to collect some rock samples in the canyon for a new project to that end. The Park Service can grant permits for collecting material, which is otherwise illegal.

Snelling wanted to collect rocks from structures in sedimentary formations known as “soft-sediment deformation”—basically, squiggly disturbances of the layering that occur long before the sediment solidifies into rock. While solid rock layers can fold (bend) on a larger scale under the right pressures, young-Earth creationists assert that all folds are soft sediment structures, since forming them doesn’t require long periods of time.

The National Park Service sent Snelling’s proposal out for review, having three academic geologists who study the canyon look at it. Those reviews were not kind. None felt the project provided any value to justify the collection. One reviewer, the University of New Mexico’s Karl Karlstrom, pointed out that examples of soft-sediment deformation can be found all over the place, so Snelling didn’t need to collect rock from a national park. In the end, Snelling didn’t get his permit.

In May, Snelling filed a lawsuit alleging that his rights had been violated, as he believed his application had been denied by a federal agency because of his religious views. The complaint cites, among other things, President Trump’s executive order on religious freedom.
That lawsuit was withdrawn by Snelling on June 28. According to a story in The Australian, Snelling withdrew his suit because the National Park Service has relented and granted him his permit. He will be able to collect about 40 fist-sized samples, provided that he makes the data from any analyses freely available.

Not that anything he collects will matter. “Even if I don’t find the evidence I think I will find, it wouldn’t assault my core beliefs,” Snelling told The Australian. “We already have evidence that is consistent with a great flood that swept the world.”
Again, in actuality, that hypothesis is in conflict with the entirety of Earth’s surface geology.

Snelling says he will publish his results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. That likely means Answers in Genesis’ own Answers Research Journal, of which he is editor-in-chief.

ziegler #fundie arstechnica.com

Genuine question; we hear a lot about the nutty Christian right in the US, but is there a Christian left? Who's the American equivalent of Rowan Williams?

Leftist Christians I find to be what is called "fair weather christians" . They go to church on the prescribed holidays, they got the jesus picture up somewhere and they identify as Christian. When in truth, they are agnostic or atheist at heart, but the social stigma they worry about leads them to do the social obligation of showing up to church and such.

It's my opinion and I reserve the right to be wrong about it. *shrugs*

BulkyZ #fundie arstechnica.com

(On a guy, Tate, intentionally ramming, a newly erected statue of the ten commandments on public property)

Uh, Tate is a born-again christian.

Is he now? He goes out of his way to hinder the teaching of said religion by destroying landmarks that promote said teachings. Thats not very Christian.

It's be like clamming your a member of ISIS and proceeding to make yummy BLTs for people during a pride March, for free.

BulkyZ #fundie arstechnica.com

(On an article about a born-again Christian intentionally ramming a newly erected statue of the ten commandments outside the Arkansas Capitol then running off and making a bizarre anti-Obama rant. Said incident was bizarre but not the sort of fundie I submit)

"when Reed crashed into it. He was not formally charged and instead was treated for mental health issues."

3 years ago you'd use it's scientific name. Atheism

Wonder if they had to beat him to get his fedora off for the mug shot .

Different posters: How many of the liberals here would be praising him if he had run down a monument that was relevant to Islam?

All the same ones who praise him now, if that monument were erected on public land.


Atheisim is for Christianity only. Because reasons. And if someone damaged a religious monument of any religion other than Christianity or Judaism there would be wholeharted outrage on this site.

burne_ #fundie arstechnica.com

Again is some Atheist Superior Mind telling me what to believe. Have you read what I said? In your arrogance you might have missed this:

You should accept the computational theory of mind if you believe in science, because 'mind' stems from physical and chemical processes in your brain. For us hard to calculate or simulate, but in theory definitively possible. If you believe 'you' is something we cannot compute, you believe in a spiritual 'soul' and thus some form of religion.

Did I just tell you and that other Atheist Superior Mind that your consciousness is nothing but a bunch of chemical and physical processes? How could you miss that? Did you see the word 'religion' and stopped thinking and let your Atheist Superior Mind speak for you?

You and him think you believe in atheism and that doing so makes you superior to the stupid people who believe in a man with a long white beard on a hilltop handing out stone tables with rules. I have seen no proof for your supposed superiority so let's keep it at "I'm not convinced."

(I'm trying my best to not start returning the compliment and call you an idiot.)

yynxs #fundie arstechnica.com

(due to downvoting, this quote will probably not be visible at the link unless you're logged in)

To Ziggy: Atheism is the thing you use, along with science, to fill the hole where belief is needed in the human psyche. Atheism is as much a religious belief as Catholicism and has it's own chants and ave's.

To Taake: I'm a Christian. I honestly am. One of the things I've learned is those who do not want to face their inner need for faith in something choose atheism or science as their professed viewpoint. That they chant their 'proof' mantras or bite at the concept of God or godhood is normal. You do not get angry at them for that anymore than you get angry about a child kicking a toy. They're rejecting something and it's often difficult and anger provoking to reject something you need.

Mr. Nye's viewpoint or statements about atheism are no more abnormal than anyone's questioning the need for faith. A better path, I feel, is to accept what he says and live a Christian (or whichever religious) life and still accept all that science shows. The same people who hear why science 'proves' there is no god, will wonder why you can keep two such seemingly 'mutually exclusive' things in your heart. The better of them, like all good scientists, will ask. At that point you must be prepared to answer. Attacking Mr. Nye for how he goes about his life is not the answer.

taake #fundie arstechnica.com

(Link is to a quoted example of his post, since that one is visible when not logged in. His original post has been downvoted to oblivion, making it invisible to guests)

how does one misinform on Atheism?
Does one say its a belief in god?

He [Bill Nye] provides atheism as an alternative position while omitting the uselessness and danger of his position.

seems like you have your own opinion and anything differing from that is wrong.

whats the uselessness of believing there is no god as opposed to the usefulness of believing there is one?
and how is not believing in god dangerous?

I'm not going to get into it here. The point is simply he tries on all levels, including ridicule, to apply science to questions at least being partially spiritual and philosophical in nature. He is a hungry ghost.

stratthinker #fundie arstechnica.com

Let's try taking this from another direction. StratThinker, you clearly accept that genetic mutation and natural selection produces variation within species, regardless of how we're defining the word "species". You've already said as much. So, explain to me:

- Exactly how we're defining "species" here, and where we're drawing the line between a "species" and a "kind".

- How that line prevents the same mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection from applying anywhere higher in the hierarchy. We'll set aside the other mechanisms involved in evolution, because you don't seem to be aware of them.

- Your alternative explanation for the apparent genetic and fossil lineages that evolution is used to explain.

1) I draw the line between a species, kind and a sub-species as this:
a) A group of animals are in the same species if and only if most of them can produce fertile offspring with each other. (Thus if group A of animals can produce fertile offspring with other members of group A, and similarly for group B, but group A cannot produce fertile offspring with group B, then group A and B are of different species). Note this a simplest definition and does not consider that you may have group A can reproduce with group B, and group B can reproduce with group C, but A cannot reproduce with C.
b) A species can split into sub-populations which due to variations over time, the members of the sub-populations can no longer produce fertile offspring, thus one species can become multiple sub-species. This is called speciation.
c) What I would call a "Kind" is one of original species that God created which could not reproduce with each other at all, I would also use it to encompasses all of the daughter species of the original species. It is probably impossible to fully know what are the original kinds (please read carefully), but it is possible to put some limits on what they were. If two animals can produce any offspring (even an infertile one) via natural means, then they are of the same kind and their species are of the same kind. For example Lions and Tigers are of the same kind. If species A and species B are of the same kind, and species B and species C are of the same kind, then species A and C are of the same kind even if no member of A can reproduce with members of C at all (i.e. the kind relation is a transitive relation, it is also reflexive and symmetric)

Note the last statement makes the idea of "kind" falsifiable (together with the fact that the Bible says that there are more than one kind of animal). If according it, we can show that all animals are of one kind, then we have disproven the Bible.

2) All animals, bacteria, plants, ect that ever lived are subject to natural selection and mutations. What do you mean by "higher in the hierarchy"? According to the creationist model, the highest in the hierarchy is the kinds.

Are you asking "why couldn't all of these variations given rise to all known species starting at one species, why do these changes 'stop'"? The changes do not stop. Natural selection decreases genetic diversity but increases fitness. Mutations increase diversity but usually decrease fitness. If you have too intense natural selection, then you get genetic uniformity. If you have too little natural selection, then risk a gradual increase in multiple recessive harmful mutations per individual, up to the point where if almost any two random individuals reproduce, their offspring will have a pair recessive harmful mutations. Thus it is not that the changes stop, it is that they are not necessarily sufficient to produce the tree of life.

I am very tired, and I must work tomorrow. So I can't complete this now.

CB88 #fundie arstechnica.com

*If it wasn't for the part about religious texts, I wouldn't have submitted this. Also, you'll have to log in to Ars Technica to view this, as it was downvoted to hell and back*

So, here's a thought.. 30-50 years ago few kids even thought about gay marriage let alone marriage in their teens.

Secondly, schools now basically encourage homosexual relationships in sex ed and other classes by promoting it as a valid lifestyle choice. If you teach kids that something is ok, while it is also illegal expect bad results... but I'm sure that is on purpose by the deviant powers that be.

Kids haven't been able to carry religious texts for years in schools... and yet they can carry thier smartphones full of cussing, race baiting and sexualization of thier peers without any oversight.

Thirdly, the second case increases over time to include peer pressure to commit homosexual acts or enter into homosexual relationships.

If you want suicide rates to go down... quite pressuring kids. A) into having early relationships B) have kids dress modestly but with the freedom to express themselves intact ... in other words pre-teens and teens show not be sexualizing their appearance. C) block their blasted phones from communicating through private apps some of that stuff that goes on there is probably 4chan-lite D) parents, parents parents,... they must be involved a good home is imperative to healthy development. E) Ensure that kids are engaged and interested in what they are learning... acutally I think a mix of vocational training, and *gasp* work, would vastly improve success rates. Kids that have busy minds and feel useful aren't going to seek out invalid methods of fitting into society when they are already well on their way to being productive socially functional adults.

Don't vote me down if you are against what I say.... I've lived a moderately sheltered life and have never even thought of suicide. Just because you were brought up to think the direction modern society has taken is good doesn't mean that is better than what I was brought up to think. I am happy despite the many problems of life can you say the same?

vlam #fundie arstechnica.com

[Discourse on a failed Christian shoemaker's game called "Kill the Faggot". Bolding mine.]

One can be afraid of gay people without being hateful or a bigot. That is, if he is actually referring to fear of gay people and not the bastardized colloquial meaning. One can even dislike (the colloquial meaning) people without being hateful or a bigot.

Hell, I wouldn't even label him a bigot for this over-the-top production. On its own, at least. He very well could be. And probably is. But you aren't automatically a bigot if you dislike an aspect of people. I'm pretty solidly against tattoos, but I'm certainly not unfairly disliking people with tattoos.

Ostracus #fundie arstechnica.com

You all do realize in this titillating debate of there being no God, and hence no heaven. It also means there's no "the devil made me do it" since there's no Devil and hence no Hell. So anyone pretty much can murder millions of Russians, Jews, and Cambodians (for starters), and pretty much get away with it, with human justice being what it is and all.

MyPasswordIs12345678 #fundie arstechnica.com

(Emphasis mine)

A lot of what is termed "belief perseverance" is actually a concept better known as Faith. Religious people act contrary to established "truths" at times because they are placing their trust in a higher power than the intelligence, logic and reasoning of man.

For example, in the Bible when Moses took over a million people out of Egypt into the desert the common sense of man's established truth dictated that they would all die of starvation or thirst. God, a higher intelligence than man, promised to provide for them if they would follow him. They followed, putting common sense aside, and were cared for for 40 years until they settled in Jerusalem.

Now, whether or not you believe in this account is not relevant to the point I'm trying to make. I use it only as an example of why religious people stubbornly adhere to their beliefs in the face of man's truths. They believe they are serving a higher being. Personally, I believe that the consumption of alcohol is something the Lord has counseled against and yet there are many studies saying that a glass of wine a day is good for your health. Who do I trust? Science or God? I make my own choice in this matter and you can make yours. Just don't get frustrated or angry when I or others striving to serve God don't change what we believe in order to suit the newfound "truths" science or men present to us on an almost daily basis. (live and let live) (agree to disagree) (bygones be bygones...)

davidm777 #fundie arstechnica.com

The problem with the way the word 'theory' is used (I would say, no longer used but should be) is that 'theory' is just not 'fact'. When a theory hits an edge case, the theory is modified. When a 'fact' hits an edge case, the edge case gets ignored.

Case in point: evolution & creationism. Both theories (as in, not recorded history and not repeatable). What do evolutionists do with 'facts' that are unexplainable in their theory? Just read the comments in this article (sad). What I will give creationists is this: they do change their theory (I know, I know - not all of them! but Intelligent Design and other theories are clearly attempts to modify their theory). Of course, then they get labeled as, essentially, 'stupid.' Creationists can put anything under 'it was created that way', but they get blasted for that. Evolutionists, however, change their 'facts' (remember when the earth was only [insert what you were taught here] years old?). And call it 'science'.

And that is why not calling a theory a 'theory' is important. When a theory is not called by its name, it gets called a 'fact'. And we (naturally) deal with facts very differently.

I am NOT saying we shouldn't build on theories, by the way. But that we should build on them as theories. I do agree with you, though, that the way "it's just a theory" has been used is actually just a slur and, if accepted, would prevent any further progress. I, also, despise that lame rhetoric.

And this is why I think what I wrote does change things... it changes which set of assumptions we use. The 'fact' assumptions or the 'theory' assumptions.

Rep. Andy Thompson (R-Lima) and another #fundie arstechnica.com

Science educators have recognized that teaching science as a large compendium of facts, without reference to the scientific process and theories that bind them together, simply leads to uninterested and uninformed students. So it's a bit mind-boggling to discover that an Ohio state legislator is attempting to ban educators for teaching anything about the scientific process. And for good measure, the bill's sponsor threw politics and creationism into the mix.

The bill, currently under consideration by the Ohio Assembly, is intended to revoke a previous approval of the Common Core educational standards, which target math and literacy. However, the bill's language also includes sections devoted to science and social studies. And the science one is a real winner:

The standards in science shall be based in core existing disciplines of biology, chemistry, and physics; incorporate grade-level mathematics and be referenced to the mathematics standards; focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes; and prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another.

Specifically prohibiting a discussion of the scientific process is a recipe for educational chaos. To begin with, it leaves the knowledge the kids will still receive—the things we have learned through science—completely unmoored from any indication of how that knowledge was generated or whether it's likely to be reliable. The scientific process is also useful in that it can help people understand the world around them and the information they're bombarded with; it can also help people assess the reliability of various sources of information.

Prohibiting "political or religious interpretation of scientific facts," however, opens up a large can of worms. People who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old frequently claim that they work with the same facts as actual geologists and biologists; they simply interpret them differently. Although the wording of the bill is vague, it could be interpreted as blocking educators from pointing out how completely inconsistent with the data this interpretation is, or prevent them from describing how the evidence favors a four-billion-year-old Earth.

One of the bill's two sponsors, Rep. Andy Thompson (R-Lima), has gone back and forth about his intentions. Last week, he told The Columbus Dispatch that the bill would open the door to instruction on intelligent design: “I think it would be good for them to consider the perspectives of people of faith. That’s legitimate.”

This week, however, he told the Cincinnati Enquirer that the bill does nothing to put creationism into the classroom—instead, he said it's all about the political interpretation of science. And his example of politicized science, naturally, was climate change. Confusingly, as evidence of climate change's political nature, he cites past estimates of agricultural productivity and the availability of fossil fuels.

The bill is still being considered, and Ohio residents have time to contact their legislators to try to prevent its passage. For those wishing to keep track of it, the National Center for Science Education has a page dedicated to news out of Ohio.

Next page