Mr. Neil Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 I've seen this over and over again here at Ex-C. A Creato-Christian wanders into the science section and bawks at "millions and millions of years." It's one of their favorite ribs on those of us who accept the evolutionary theory. They just parade around laughing at those silly "evolutionists" and "millions and millions of years". But this banter is almost always based on a strawman. Whether most of them believe it or not (including those who should know better), they're basically using a classic Hovind/Gastrich argument, which is that the "evolutionists" are using "millions and millions of years" as a magic wand to explain anything. That's really not the case at all, but before I get into that, the first thing that always comes to mind, for me, is that there's really nothing amazing about millions and millions of years at all. To me, the passing of 14 billion years is no more or less amazing than the passing of six thousand years. Eventually, the passing of time will accumulate to the greater number anyway. So the issue becomes a question of where we are now on that scale of time and not which one is more realistic. Unfortunately for the creationists, when asked to supply some arguments for their point of view, it becomes rapidly apparent that they don't have one. This is a rather dreadful delema for them, because not only do they have no evidence in their favor, but they also have to deal with the mountain of evidence against them. What happens next is as amusing as it is sad, because when the creationists are shown processes that simply could not take place in their ridiculously stingy timeframe, they're forced to fall back on weak and desperate ad hoc arguments. They'll usually spout such howlers as, "No one has ever seen a galaxy form", or "God made the universe appear old." Again, these are classic Hovindisms, and while many of the more competent creationists who visit us ahbor Hovind, they don't seem to bat an eye at using his arguments anyway. My favorite among these is the fact that many of them go to such great lengths to find absurd ways to accelerate the speed of light, so that we can see all of those distant galaxies that are millions and millions of lightyears away. Yes, I highlighted that for a reason. So, what I'm about to do is ask a very facetious set of questions (I already know the answers... or ANSWER, because there's only one, and it starts with a "B"), but I want them to at least try to slip a real argument in here. Creationists, what is the problem with "millions and millions of years"? What exactly do you find difficult to swallow? Why can't it be accepted? If you feel that it's been falsified, explain. Please do so without being ad hoc or using special pleading. And none of that strawman stuff either. We burn strawmen around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 I don't know why creationists would balk at the idea of an ancient earth, especially since it was creationists who devised the geologic column in the first place! In fact, the real scientific creationists knew their geology and formulated the geologic column and great time spans before the likes of James Hutton and other uniformitarians came onto the scene! In fact, some creationists specifically renounced their advocacy of catastrophism on the basis of scientific evidence and not because of intimidation from evolutionary geologists. Matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Carrion Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 As an aside, see those mountains? Every heard of the Grand canyon? Ever seen a waterfall, or a desert, or an ocean, or a forest? You know how long it takes these phenomena and environments to develop? Oh, they were just there because God wanted thekm to be? Oh well, that makes much more sense than them having developed over millions and in some cases billions of years in response to certain geographical and climacitc conditions. Now all you need to do is explain to me where this trilobite fossil atop my desk came from and why there are no more around and we'll all be home dry. Nobody does sarcasm like the English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted April 27, 2005 Author Share Posted April 27, 2005 You know what? I love using the Grand Canyon as an evidence for an ancient world, because it happens to be one of the creationists' favorite places to abuse. On an older version of the board, I presented my evidence of angular unconformities (see graphic below), to which the creationist visitor were unable to provide an acceptable answer. In an angular unconformity, there's a tilted layer of rock, which is eroded flat and overlaid with another layer to which the angle of its layers does not conform, hense the term angular unconformities. The problem for the creationist is to present a timeline of events which account for this phenomenon within their rigid and unnecessarily short timeline. Almost certainly, they have to admit that there was a minimum of two events here. That's being generous, of course, but we'll let the creationists use just two events, because it's not going to work, anyway. The first event would, obviously, be the first layering of rock, which eventually becomes tilted and eroded. Somehow, the creationist has to explain how this happens. Remember, these layers are supposed to be layers of silt which eventually harden to become rock. Well, what happens when you angularize silt? It seeks it's own level, because it's saturated with the flood waters. OOPS! The creationists forgot about gravity! And assuming that you can somehow tilt these layers without any sliding whatsoever, the creationist must then explain how how this layer becomes eroded before the second layering occurs. How do you erode silt? If any significant water activity occurs, then these layers are trashed! It must have been hard, which the creationists must then demonstrate how the layers solidified and eroded underwater in such a short period of time. The problem for them is that it simply can't be done without attributing more time and abandoning their silly flood myth, for which they have no reason to postulate in the first place! One of the first answers I got to the angular unconformities challenge was, "I don't see what the problem is." This made me very angry. I hate when creationists fall back on bravery when they can't give an answer, because it basically means that they're blowing me off. They act as if they're unshakable, so that maybe we'll try something else and abandon the new argument. But that, in itself, is not an answer, and it's akin to trying to put a square peg in a round hole and saying, "I don't see what the problem is." You just feel like saying, "What do you mean you don't see the problem?! It doesn't fit, you moron!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Wonder Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 I've seen this over and over again here at Ex-C. A Creato-Christian wanders into the science section and bawks at "millions and millions of years." "Bawks?" What a great image! I can't help but picture a chicken, "Millions of years? bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk ba GAWK!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted April 27, 2005 Author Share Posted April 27, 2005 I meant "balk", but perhaps "bawk" is a more appropriate word, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 "Bawks?" What a great image! I can't help but picture a chicken, "Millions of years? bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk ba GAWK!!!" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> DAMMIT! Yet more spray on the keyboard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthenSun Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 "Bawks?" What a great image! I can't help but picture a chicken, "Millions of years? bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk ba GAWK!!!" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> HA HA HA HA HA, ROLF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reach Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Oh, that's priceless!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BeMuseMe Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Neil, So you are looking for people who first read the bible literally and then decide they shall prove it using science to make sense? Dr., Why are you banging your heard against the wall trying to understand the workings of the lunatic mind? To them it does not have to make sense. They live in a magical universe where anything can happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted April 28, 2005 Author Share Posted April 28, 2005 Bemuse, I'm not trying to understand everything. I understand perfectly well what the problem is. I just want to torture them see if any of our creatonist friends can answer my questions without blatantly saying "the Bible said so". Because, you see, that's precisely what the problem is. The Bible says nothing about millions and millions of years. The genealogies project, at best, thousands and thousands. Of course, they're not going to use the Bible, because they don't want to get caught using a circular argument. So they're going to pretend like there's actually some other form of evidence that works in their favor. I'm going to predict that they use the T-rex tissue, since most of them like to distort that finding anyway. Why? Because that's the best argument they got. And if that's the best argument they got, then they're in trouble. Go ahead, creationists. I dare you to use the t-rex soft tissues! It's still not going to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 DAMMIT! Yet more spray on the keyboard... You surely already got yourself an industrial keyboard, didn't you? I mean one of those dust-proof, acid-proof, armor-plated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Bemuse, I'm not trying to understand everything. I understand perfectly well what the problem is. I just want to torture them see if any of our creatonist friends can answer my questions without blatantly saying "the Bible said so". Silly Neil - you should know by now that they can't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 You surely already got yourself an industrial keyboard, didn't you? I mean one of those dust-proof, acid-proof, armor-plated... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's on order... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BeMuseMe Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 Are you sure you are not a masochist Neil???... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted April 29, 2005 Author Share Posted April 29, 2005 Nope. No masochism here. Asking creationists to explain themselves without special pleading or referencing the Bible is like shooting... ...dropping a grenade on ...atom bombing a barrel full of ducks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BeMuseMe Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 Yeah there isn't much sport in it is there?...No danger involved to yourself unless it would be that you might split a gut laughing at their attempted intellectual gymnastics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 It's on order... Hey, if these things are available on Ebay or similar, you might want a Siemens FieldPG. These are basically notebooks w/ special interface hardware (for their proprietary InterBus connectors), but sufficiently normal that you can install a bunch of "standard" M$ software on them. And they are armor-plated, solid metal all around - I've never seen a notebook so damned heavy before I started working at Auto5000. I don't know for sure about the keyboards of those beasts, but considering the environment in which they are often used for extensive amounts of time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 Hey, if these things are available on Ebay or similar, you might want a Siemens FieldPG. These are basically notebooks w/ special interface hardware (for their proprietary InterBus connectors), but sufficiently normal that you can install a bunch of "standard" M$ software on them. And they are armor-plated, solid metal all around - I've never seen a notebook so damned heavy before I started working at Auto5000. I don't know for sure about the keyboards of those beasts, but considering the environment in which they are often used for extensive amounts of time... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So it could last a couple of weeks around here then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted April 29, 2005 Author Share Posted April 29, 2005 Yeah there isn't much sport in it is there?...No danger involved to yourself unless it would be that you might split a gut laughing at their attempted intellectual gymnastics... Eeeeeeexactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts