Grand Canyon Created By Noah’s Flood

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in General Politics, Religion

That and other tall tales are being sold at our national parks with approval by Bush Administration appointees.

No, seriously. This is actually happening. And not only that, park employees are being told to not talk about the scientific explanations for these formations because it may offend people.

My head is about to explode…

According to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) in a report released this week [PDF], Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees.

Furthermore, a book approved by the Service claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood ,rather than by geologic forces, is on sale in the park for more than three years, even though a review was promised to Congress and the press. A Freedom of Information request [PDF] reveals that no review has ever been requested, nor taken place.

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’” PEER urged [PDF] the new Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Mary Bomar, to end the stalling tactics, remove the book from sale at the park and allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon.

What this story doesn’t say is this has been going on for over 2 years. They’ve been trying to get this clearly religious text off the shelves, but apparently it’s a big seller.

And here are some tips from AnswersinGenesis.org about taking a biblical vacation with your family…

Help your children understand that canyon carving could be accomplished in a relatively short time by catastrophic emptying of a great inland lake to the northeast of the canyon shortly after the Flood (the “lot of water, little time� model). Grand Canyon is a monument to remind us about God’s judgment of a sinful world at the time of Noah. Take time to meditate on the awfulness of sin, but also take time to marvel at God’s gift of grace in salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ, our “Ark� of safety in the coming judgment. Consider, too, how God can make something beautiful out of destruction, even in our own lives.

Amen.


This entry was posted on Saturday, December 30th, 2006 and is filed under General Politics, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

30 Responses to “Grand Canyon Created By Noah’s Flood”

  1. SOTUblog » Grand Canyon Park Officials Pressured by Bush Appointees on Geological Age Says:

    [...] [...]

  2. Randy Says:

    “This is actually happening.”

    Based on what? I have not seen one source other than the PEER people. Can you please provide it? And I don’t mean other unsourced blogs, etc. that will only lead me back to PEER. Please provide a legitimate source.

  3. Justin Gardner Says:

    I can’t provide proof right now, but PEER was talking about this back in 2004. Just because the MSM hasn’t talked about this, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

    Furthermore, do you think they’d risk their repuation on a lie? Somebody could easily say, “No, we don’t sell that book,” but they haven’t.

    In short, don’t look for affirmations. Instead, look for the opposite of PEER’s assertions. That should provide more proof than it’s actually happening. You know that the fundys would be all over it if it wasn’t true.

  4. Randy Says:

    You must be kidding me? First of all, the MSM WOULD BE all over this if it were true… and if it is, we’ll see them pile on in coming days.

    Would PEER stake their reputation? I don’t know. Liberal groups are constantly lying and photoshopping. Remember Code Pink’s photoshop? Remember MoveOn.org’s photoshops? I could go on and on, but those are just off the top.

    Again, I’m open to hearing that I missed something, but why doesn’t PEER offer any sourcing on this Bush administration crackdown stopping the evolutionist’s version of history to be told? In fact I believe it’s quite the opposite, that the old age evolutionist POV is the only one allowed, and just getting a single book in providing an alternative view was an uphill battle. And by the way, they moved the book the the “inspirational” section because they caved the the pressure of the Church of Darwin fanatics, despite the fact that it is a science book that has many PhD’s (including those who have doctorates in geology) as it’s contributors.

    Anyway, it’s extremely flawed logic for you to ask me to prove a negative. To prove that this “old Earth age censorship” isn’t happening. PEER made the claim, PEER needs to back it up. What if I release a press release tomorrow that says that behind closed doors the DNC worships satan and sacrifices children to him. Don’t you dare challenge me, because I’ll use your logic and say that the MSM won’t cover it, so you need to prove to me that this doesn’t happen. Understand?

    By the way, “fanatics”? I know the public has been brainwashed in to believing that it is only “fanatics” that reject the religion of evolution, but the facts are that a vast majority reject it. I understand how those who haven’t spent much time on this topic can feel that evolution is a given, but I feel like evolution is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard of. It’s not science. It’s a world view. And the major scientists writing in all the top science publications constantly prove parts of it wrong, and then have to reshape the worldview around it, without ever once questioning it.

    Call this a fanatic site if you wish, but they detail this activity constantly (and don’t judge it on one post… give it a chance if you’re interested in really taking an honest look)
    http://creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm

    They report on all the latest findings published in all the Darwin loving publications, and analyze the hell out of them. Noting as I mentioned, that findings consistently are at odds with what evolutionists thought and what was part of their fairytale, yet when their story is dealt a blow, they just reshape their story, rather than taking the evidence at face value. They constantly write articles that have NOTHING to do with evolution, not even in an evolutionists mind does the evidence say anything about evolution, but because they are so beholden to their Darwin worshipping religion they almost always have to stick in an obligatory line like “…. means these complex systems must have evolved much quicker than we had originally thought.” Again, the finding will have nothing to do with evolution, but because that is how they approach everything they throw a illogical and out of place line like that in their constantly, often while admitting in the same paragraphs that it throws their previously long held beliefs on their heads… completely unaware of how ridiculous it sounds.

    If you really want to be taken for a ride, read along as evolution is essentially unknowingly falsified recently by it’s own worshippers.
    http://creationsafaris.com/crev200612.htm#20061214a

  5. someone famous Says:

    Wow….the fundies are getting stupider…
    (please don’t spawn)

  6. Jim S Says:

    Randy doesn’t seem to realize that the web site he cites is incapable of analyzing anything because analysis requires that your mind isn’t already made up. He also proves that he has absolutely no credibility on the issue the instant he calls evolution a religion. Keep typing, Randy and everyone who knows anything about science will continue to ignore you.

  7. Steve H Says:

    I don’t know how these stories get started but if you go to the Grand Canyon National Park’s offical website, you will find a number of statements like this about the canyon’s age (this from the FAQ):

    “How old is the Canyon?

    That’s a tricky question. Although rocks exposed in the walls of the canyon are geologically quite old, the Canyon itself is a fairly young feature. The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million years old. The Canyon itself – an erosional feature – has formed only in the past five or six million years. Geologically speaking, Grand Canyon is very young”

    But not as young as 4400 BCE, actually…..

  8. Randy Says:

    Not that I expect you Darwinists to open your eyes and minds for two seconds, but let me just point out that Steve H has just proved my main point, on this topic accurate. I’m still waiting for anyone, outside of a “PEER press release” to source this story about the guides by the way.

  9. Dan Says:

    Here is the URL to an editorial about this on the Time website:

    http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,783829,00.html

    So, is Time not “Mainstream Media” enough for you? Sheesh.

  10. Dan Says:

    Also covered in the October 15, 2004 edition of the Washington Post. Sorry, I don’t have a link. Try using a library.

  11. Randy Says:

    “So, is Time not “Mainstream Mediaâ€Â? enough for you? Sheesh.”

    Take your misplaced condescension elsewhere Dan… NOTHING in that article supports PEER’s assertion (or that of the writer of this post) that guides are no longer allowed to say that the Grand Canyon was created over millions of years or that there is no longer an “official” estimated age. It clearly says that PEER “alleges”, but it doesn’t substantiate.

    Oh, and that’s a COLUMN not an ARTICLE. So that really completely invalidates your “MSM” point anyway. An editorial column is no different than a blog.

    So again, not a shred of evidence that anything has changed. Just a bunch of Darwinists pissed about a book that is kept in the “inspirational” section at these gift shops, even though its sources are PhD’s, many with their degrees in geology.

    You know, I was about to go in to how “estimating” the age of something isn’t science, especially when almost daily findings upset… I’m sorry “surprise” evolutionists, and force them to twist and reorganized their theories (but never losing faith). How about we just do science. How about reporting on the observable, testable facts. Look what they’ve been teaching about comets for a long time…. that was all shattered when they actually got results back from the Stardust mission…. their teaching was based on evolutionary assumptions. The true findings didn’t fit. They’re working on changing up their fairytale now to suit the new findings, but does that mean that it was okay to teach assumptions based on evolutionary dogma all these years was okay and “science”?

    No, let’s not get in to all that. Let’s just have some evidence that supports PEER’s claims, or an admission by people posting on it, that there is no sourcing outside of this group which clearly has a special interest and agenda here.

    Still waiting.

  12. Jeff Says:

    This is the current Grand Canyon visitor’s guide

    http://www.nps.gov/grca/upload/2006winter.pdf

    Notice something? It gives the age of the grand canyon, in millions of years.

    This PEER article is a bunch of BS and I’m getting tired of sites that I usually respect being taken for a ride, and not doing the resposible thing and investigating it before making accusations.

  13. Randy Says:

    Haha, thanks Jeff…. Somewhere there are some sad liberals crying at their computer screens. They’ve been taken for a ride by some radical group that is all upset over a single book being given the right to be sold in these gift shops, so upset that they build up a lie to draw more attention to their cause and the liberal blogosphere ran with it.

  14. Ranger X Says:

    There are a lot of problems with this story. My investigation turned up a lot. Don’t believe everything you read.

    http://parkrangerx.blogspot.com/2007/01/dont-believe-everything-you-read.html

    GRC sells books, not the NPS. GRC is a private, non-profit group. They also sell American Indian books with creation myths. The book in question is in the “inspirational” section. Most of PEER’s claims are wildly unsubstantiated.

  15. Randy Says:

    Thanks for confirming what I knew and have been telling these libs all along Ranger X. Again, none of these claims are true, which is why PEER, and PEER alone “reported” this…. oh and of course any Tom, Dick, and Liberal blog on the planet who is always looking for something bogus to be outraged about…. followed by pretending the lies weren’t busted completely in a matter of days. They just move on to their next “controversy”… This is why liberals make me sick. They get away with it because before someone can really nail their ass to the floor, their out with a new one.

    Anyone think the “journalists” at the HuffingtonPost that helped spread this word to liberal bloggers will do the right thing and issue a correction? Oh wait, liberals are virtually incapable of honesty… don’t hold your breath.

  16. Randy Says:

    awwwww… more trouble for the evolution fairytale (which was already falsified by the way)…. this one pertains to dating.

    Quick “scientists”, find a new way (you always do) to reorganize your story to make sense of something you believed and taught as part of your story were some of the planet’s earliest rocks, are now revealed to be some of the more recent. Uh-oh!

    http://creationsafaris.com/crev200701.htm#20070103a

    I’m not worried though. Despite evolutionists’ long held ideas being shattered every day, they always find a way to just make a few edits and the Church of Charlie is once again safe from reality.

  17. Dan Says:

    Apparently the concept of revising a theory in light of new data is beyond your meager comprehension Randy. Obviously, when thinking becomes too painful, you and your ilk turn to the one source that requires no thought whatsoever.

    I swear, this has got to be the only planet in the entire universe whose inhabitants allow a three thousand year old fairytale to take precedence over modern science. No wonder no aliens have made any official contact – they’re probably ashamed to be seen with us.

  18. Randy Says:

    You’re empty Dan, need a fill-up on that glass of kool-aid? What flavor were you drinkin’? Blinded by ideology?

    What have we actually learned here? I was right from the beginning, liberals lied about this “story”, and evolutionists continue to make “discoveries” that fly in the face of their theory, but because ToE is their religion, they can’t allow it to collapse, they just refit the contradicting information in the must ridiculous ways that would be embarassing if only people knew. What don’t you get about teaching, and using it as a jumping point, that a certain set of rocks are some of the earliest of the earth, and going on about how they relate to early life, etc. etc. only to “discover” later that they’re much more recent. Why aren’t there highly publicized “corrections” when these sort of things happen every day? You have no problem with them teaching “theory” as fact, even though time and time again modern science proves these theories wrong. Should students get a “refund” on their eduction.

    (here’s the part where you say “they teach the best information available at the time)

    To which I say “bull!” They teach their story based on their own interpretation of information… only their interpretation was based on their story to begin with! They don’t teach observable and testable facts. There wouldn’t be a problem, because teaching testable and observable scientific facts is…. SCIENCE. Teaching a world view and belief system is not. Evolutionary theory and teaching has never contributed to science, and in fact it’s inhibited it, because “scientists” shy away from studying things they have assumptions about (to fit their story), only to later discover “oh whoops, we didn’t realize XYZ about this organism… it must have “evolved” differntly/more rapidly/convergently”… Even though these discoveries don’t ever offer insite in to how something evolved… they just shatter long held beliefs of how they evolved. Instead of just laying out the facts, the “scientists” INSIST on putting the “E” word in there, even though the studies showed NOTHING about evolution. It is only because evolution is assumed. How is that science? How can you ever prove evolution wrong when evolutionary beliefs are destroyed all the time, and they just rewrite their story?

    Can you seriously call that science? When a discovery about a particular organism shows that it didn’t “evolve” at all the way scientists previous thought and taught it did, do you think it’s fair for them to say “well it must have evolved differently”, even though nothing in the finding showed that it evolved at all… just showed that certain systems prove it wasn’t possible for it to evolve the way they though, leaving them at square one for it’s origins. Is it fair, is it “science” to teach that it “evolved differently” even though no information had been learned about it’s evolution, but evolution is simply assumed?

    Your problem is, our side is talking science, your side talks assumptions that are constantly proven wrong. We want to study testable and observable facts, you want to hold science back by forcing it to stay within your belief system.

  19. Allen Roy Says:

    I’d just like to point out that in the year 2000 all the scientists who have been studying Grand Canyon got together for a symposium [Grand Canyon Symposium] to determine the age of Grand Canyon. Scientist after scientist presented his evidence. About 10 different ages were proposed ranging from 65 Ma to 1 Ma. There was NO consensus and there remains NO consensus. One group has since updated their estimate to 750,000 years. [All this can be found by a simple search on the internet]

    The PEER group is not really interested in the age of Grand Canyon, they just want to censor freedom of speech in public places and public stores, because it does not agree with their religous beliefs; i.e. the religion of evolutionism. [look up religion on dictionary.com]

    Allen

  20. john Says:

    Randy-

    it seems that you are blasting a widely accepted scientific theory for what? What are you supposing is a better theory for who things have happened in this world? Creationism? And you seem very quick to throw out the Kool Aid drinking Mime, are we watching too much Bill OReilly. There is much more Geographic Evidence that the Canyon was created over Millions, not Thousands of years. So, if they had a section in the bookstore for Mythology, I’m guessing you would have no objections to placing this book in question in the Mythology section as it has to do with a Religious belief of the creation of the canyon as does the American Indian books at the bookstore.

  21. Randy Says:

    How about we stick to the point here john? That PEER and all the liberal blogs who pushed this crap LIED, and that evolutionists are the Darwin faithful, and not practicing science.

    I’m not even getting in to what the age of the Grand Canyon is. Not that I agree with the millions of years crap, but that has nothing to do with anything I’ve said. PEER lied. The only truthful thing they mentioned, which was years old news anyway, is that a book exists. They didn’t make clear that to calm the Church of Charlie folks down they put it in the “inspirational” section. They TOTALLY made up this story about guides not being able to tell the old Earth age estimates, etc. etc.

    Those things were the subject of this post, me and my side one hands down, and like a classic liberal… you want to divert attention. And by the way, O’Reilly didn’t invent the term “kool-aid” drinker… are you even aware of it’s origins?

    At any rate, I’m not going to repeat myself…. see previous comments for elaboration, but here’s the main point again, pasted for your pleasure:

    “Your problem is, our side is talking science, your side talks assumptions that are constantly proven wrong. We want to study testable and observable facts, you want to hold science back by forcing it to stay within your belief system.”

  22. john Says:

    Randy -

    Besides the fact that you just called me an idiot, I will approach your point and the point of the article from a different angle, perhaps to shed some light on this subject for you. But, first lets deal with the fact that you essentially tried to idiot slap me in your reply.

    OReilly, hands down, has popularized the KoolAid drinking mime with conservatives, you listen to his show at least on occasion (I’m certain of this, I can tell by your pissed off approach to these other posts). Yes, I know about Jonestown, but please don’t stop thinking that I’m an idiot.

    Now in terms of the post, yes perhaps those that wrote the article were incorrect in their assertions, but this, I’m sure is no more a conspiracy to discredit religion, as it was for the liberals to take the christ out of christmas mime that was ran within the past few years. However, the point that PEER may be trying to make is that Christian Conservatives are struggling to get in through back doors, and replace proven scientific theory with religous theology twisted into scientific jargon and questionable propositions. This can be seen in a number of different realms, the biggest being trying to replace evolution with intelligent design which completely lacks academic merit. And in terms of this book, it actually tries to supplant agreed upon geologic theories about the canyon with an alternate belief that it was created by an ancient flood, within a condensed time frame. It masks its own theological agenda with psuedo scientific theories that are counter to more scientifically sound theories. But if the only way you can understand the posts here is black and white, you are correct sir, what has been portrayed by PEER is incorrect, and probably evidence of too much Zeal for the Subject by the group that issued it.

  23. Randy Says:

    First of all, I never called you an idiot.. however it’s clear you are, because you’re still ignoring the point… that PEER and everyone who ran with this story are lying… It’s not a matter of me looking at it as “black and white”, they are asserting more than the existence of a book (which again, resides in the “inspiration” section)… They are claiming that Bush appointees are stopping guides from telling the Old Earth fairytale, which is simply bullsh**.

    “psuedo scientific theories that are counter to more scientifically sound theories.”

    Says you. As I have explained, and I could literally provide thousands of examples for, it is the evolutionist side who’s in the psuedo science game. They don’t base their theory on observation and research, they do research based on their theory, discover that it doesn’t match their theory, and instead of just reporting facts, they spin them around to make them fit in their theory in such unbelievable ways that they should be embarassed. You can choose not to except this, but it happens all the time.

    I’ll even give you the latest example of Darwinian Dogma…. I’m sure by now you’ve heard the new idea that reports that we probably killed life on Mars in the 70s because we didn’t know what we were looking for. It’s been a headline news story today, even on that evil right-wing Fox News…. here’s the gist

    http://english.people.com.cn/200701/10/eng20070110_339876.html

    Is that science to you? Probably. But in reality? It’s a crock. There is no evidence that there was life there, yet this is a highly popular story leaving the casual news consumer with the impression that this scenario is very likely true… but again, NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. This is a theory based on ASSUMED EVOLUTION. Assuming evolution, IS NOT SCIENCE. Studying and testing observable things is science. The “science” community is so desperate to prove life exists elswhere that they pump out their latest theory of where and why it exists every few months.. but it’s never based in reality… “We see something that may indicate liquid… which means water which means life!” Even though in reality, even if evolution were true, simply having water does not life make… that is an extreme stretch.

    But back to this new “we probably crushed life” crap…. again, read the article, but this is based on the assumption life evolved… and then based on their own completely made up theory of how it would have evolved on another planet…. I just can’t even put in to words how ridiculous this article is. I mean, if this were discussed as a possible idea of how life could have come about in some back room when considering areas to study in the future, okay that’s one thing… but to put this out as a possible and likely idea for the media to trot out all day long is utterly ridiculous and NOT SCIENCE. Nothing about this is science, NOTHING.

    I do find it funny how one professor acknowledged what I said earlier about all of these people: “you only find what you’re looking for,”. This has constantly dragged Darwinists down with the constant discoveries knocking down their ridiculous story… but they didn’t consider new discoveries before, because it didn’t fit the story they’d already written… now they’re in a constant state of rewrites.

    Anyway, my point about that article is that is what passes for mainstream news and science and it’s just par for the course.

    I repeat again:

    “Your problem is, our side is talking science, your side talks assumptions that are constantly proven wrong. We want to study testable and observable facts, you want to hold science back by forcing it to stay within your belief system.�

  24. Tomato Says:

    Randy

    Far be it from me to get in the middle of this but here is my “dilemma.” Evolution is a science. While creationism/ID/the purple breasted snot monster all make the same assumption that in the end if it can’t be explained “god did it.”

    You could be right Randy and god could have done it, but if there is a way to scientifically prove god, then that denies faith, and why would god wanna deny faith? There is nothing wrong with religion and you are no dumber for believing in it, then i am for not believing in it.

    My problem simply put is this, religion is not scientific, scientists call evolution a theory, not a fact, and if some day we prove that it was wrong then, well that is science, that is the definition of science. Religion can not be scientific can not be approached scientifically, because you can test the assumption that god did it, how would you?

    So please I will concede any day of the week that you were right, PEER lied, if you concede that religion is no more a science then Scientology is a religion.

    thanks
    Tomato

  25. Randy Says:

    Well I shouldn’t need to concede that PEER lied, because if you’re an honest person, you should simply admit that.

    As for religiong being science, where did I ever claim that to be the case? It’s not. However what you’ve been told about Creationism is simply incorrect. You may think you’re informed about it, so I won’t insult you by telling you that you’re clearly not because you’ve just repeated the same old broken record line.

    But the point is, religion isn’t science and I never claimed it was. However neither is Evolution. Evolution/Darwinism are extremely religious and faith based belief systems. Again, I can’t force you to believe it, but I strongly suggest checking out the site I linked above. It’s clear what side they come down on, but all you have to do is read it to realize that the vast majority of what they post is in context excerpts and write-ups of scientific findings by the Darwinists themselves:

    http://creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm

    I won’t bother rewriting everything I’ve written already… if you’re truly interested in who deals with observable testable facts of science and who uses faith to fit contradictory findings in to their worldview, take a look. It is literally a daily occurance that discoveries fly in the face of “evolution” yet because evolution is assumed, the blind Darwin faithful press through and instead of reporting JUST THE FACTS they bring evolution in to an argument where there is no basis for it.

    How can I make it any clearer…. I’ll just past a paragraph from an earlier comment:

    “Can you seriously call that science? When a discovery about a particular organism shows that it didn’t “evolveâ€Â? at all the way scientists previous thought and taught it did, do you think it’s fair for them to say “well it must have evolved differentlyâ€Â?, even though nothing in the finding showed that it evolved at all… just showed that certain systems prove it wasn’t possible for it to evolve the way they though, leaving them at square one for it’s origins. Is it fair, is it “scienceâ€Â? to teach that it “evolved differentlyâ€Â? even though no information had been learned about it’s evolution, but evolution is simply assumed?”

    When a discovery ONLY proves that something didn’t evolve the way the “scientists” previous thought, but doesn’t show anything else about “evolution”, why should that be brought in to the argument at all? How about just reporting the amazing and astounding design features discovered. That’s the best, when the evolutionists talk about the uniquely designed features of something, and then without anything discovered implying evolution AT ALL, they start throwing the “E Word” around to take guesses at how it came to be. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE! Do you get this? I know it’s tough to hear this because we’re constantly told that these people are the “scientists” but you simply cannot maintain a position that they are doing honest real science by bringing up Darwin in places he wasn’t found. Are you getting this?

  26. Tomato Says:

    alright, so i disagree with most of this, and seeing as your website test scientific theories on creationism as well, clearly you believe that to be a science. However, assuming you are right and evolution is wrong for the moment. What “science” would you replace it with? ID isn’t science it is creationism in different wrapping, and creationism isn’t a science. Then do you just suggest that we ignore fossil records and carbon dating and things we find? Do you suggest that we not label it and just put findings out there, or do you suggest that we pick the best theories that fit the “scientific facts” and since neither ID nor creationism are science, what do you propose we do? What theory do you have?

    Darwin believed in God, many people that study evolution believe in a god, and no one in the evolutionary community, with the exception of the ultra rabid has ever said there wasn’t.

  27. Randy Says:

    Dude, reread my comment, and then reread yours…

    Why can’t we just have honest science that reports the facts. Evolution is a world view/belief system/faith that interprets information. And no matter how many times the data conflicts with their beliefs, they can’t let go of evolution and insist on fitting the data in to their belief system. What don’t you see about that (and please don’t judge that site on the most recent post or two… again, I’ve asked you to reread my other comments on the site from earlier… they constantly review and quote with full context what leading “scientists” published in all the leading publications).

    There isn’t “a science” to replace evolution with, because evolution isn’t science. It’s a belief system that is constantly in contradiction with findings, but because it is religious dogma, scientist insist on inserting the E word in even when they see no signs of it. And that’s not my creationists talk saying that they “see no signs of it”, I’m talking about the reality of when they discover something that turns long held beliefs on their head and without any evidence of any type of evolution, they still somehow have to include evolution in their reporting. Why? Why must they do this? Does it further science in any way? Or is it because they hold so fast to their religion they are unaware of how ridiculous and nonscientific it is?

    I gave you guys the Mars example earlier, but if you need some Earth based ones and you’re just being to lazy or blinded to see this yourself, I can provide a few examples… it happens pretty much daily.

    So again, your problem ere is that you think I’m trying to replace evolution with something… where did I ever say that? Evolution isn’t science, and saying that things evolved doesn’t further science. Infact it holds science back to hold certain beliefs that are required for the story to continue on, and not study things with an open mind. Who does it benefit to go in to a science class and say “we just found this 100 million year old rodent fossil”. Did just presenting the facts, “we found this rodent fossil” leave out anything important to someone’s knowledge? Only if you feel it is necessary to push an old Earth worldview on someone… Is this making any sense to you?

    Again, not about replacing evolution with anything…. The fact that you even say it like that is annoying. Why is it “evolution or something else”… How about just SCIENCE. Just the facts. Testable and observable facts.

    Again, if you need examples I can provide them for you regarding ages of species or rock formations, etc. being totally different than long held (and taught) beliefs. Your side would say “they just relied on the best information available”… Really? How about they just stay away from guessing at the ages of things and just present facts?

    Your last paragraph is ridiculous and totally off point.

  28. Bad Breath Remedies Says:

    bad breath kit

    The gum disease industry is worth millions of dollars, with a huge

  29. jack for iraq Says:

    creation is right. evoulution is wrong. God created the universe. to prove that evoulution is wrong i will use an example. say for instance you have a string. over time, does the string become more advanced(cleaner, tighter) or does it begin to unravel and become wethered? things go in a downward spiral, not becoming more and more advanced. evoulution suggests differently. things became more and more complex. evoulution is ridiculous. give me proof otherwise you dumb evoulutionists! eleventy billion years never happened! Just try to prove me wrong, ill be checking back on this site.

  30. jack for iraq Says:

    NICE JOB RANDY! U ROK OUT LOUDS!

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: