The Last Dinosaur Died In 1927: The Fossil Record According To Creationism [Infographic]

Hmmm... I don't see anything scientific in this story. But I do see a short bit of text that looks designed to stir up the already sensitive topic of creationism vs evolution.

And look at that... the author of the post didn't even have the guts to put his or her name on it.

Is PopSci actually trying to get its users to fight as much as possible? I don't typically see online publications trolling their own users.

The point is to show that if the creationist model were true, wooly mammoths would have still been roaming the countryside as late as last year.

Way to completely disregard what creationists actually believe. They believe all the layers were laid down at the same time through hydrologic sorting during the great flood, not "faster" as these absurd graphics portray.

I'm not speaking for or against creationism, but get your facts straight before you make fun of a religion (which, by the way, is NOT the way to make them see your side of things).

Love it. I think it is important to poke fun at ridiculous ideas at every opportunity, so that young people who are still figuring things out can see how ridiculous some of it is, because as we know, once the human mind has become brainwashed, it is very difficult to think rationally about anything.

@Onihikage
Oh is that what creationists believe?
And you speak for all of them? Of every religion?
Or do you just think that only YOUR creation myths deserves consideration?

@ Onihikage
Oh is that what creationists believe?
And you speak for all of them? Of every religion?
Or do you just think that only YOUR creation myths deserves consideration?

@marcoreid +100 to your comment. Completely agree. This kind of crap doesn't belong here...

---
In space, no one can hear a tree fall in the forest.

Geological update: Creationists went extinct in the year 2013. Yippee. What an insane group. Just goes to show you that ignorance and stupidity are alive and well in the world.

If what creationists say is true then we should be able to resurrect every creature that ever lived from their DNA as it would still be 'viable' and not petrified.

marcoreid,
I really appreciate you observations and pointing out the cowardliness of the writing to not post his name and apparently PoPSci supports this. It does seems tactfully PoPSCi is trolling.

Now for my two pennies, Creationism comes from the point of view of religion. Religion has been and still is a human point of view, written by humans, in a human perspective for the benefit of spiritual growth. It has never been nor will it be a science book. As I read my religion, I read it with an understanding to become closer to my god and the world around me and to make myself a better person. I do not read it understand what elements are involved in water.

I very much enjoy and appreciate all that science offers and it describes the tiniest details and cosmic wonders around us that my dear Lord has made. I am completely comfortable with my religion and science what science offers. I completely understand to myself, the purpose of either one is different and this I find my comfort.

LoL very funny graphic.
I think the author can be excused for not posting his name.
With all the crazy terrorists stifling free speech these days you cant be too careful.
Next thing you know Americans are protesting outside the Swedish embassy.

This is a bit mean-spirited isn't it? I am by no means a creationist, I believe in God and science and my personal belief is that God set the stage for the Universe then let it take its course... perhaps intending for humanity (and other species) to eventually spring along or that was all perhaps just one of many potential outcomes. Nonetheless, He exists, as does science, and we're here debating the issue.

My point though is that as intelligent people shouldn't we respect the viewpoints of others. This infographic is clearly a slap in the face to creationists because nobody really believes the last dino died in 1927.

Oh a little side note, in the back of my bible it states my dear Lord puts no value on human knowledge. Thus clearly making the point the two things are not related. It is science that seems to be entrenched in trying to combine the two.

My bible is there for the benefit of growing and nurturing my soul, my spiritual world.

Science exists for the benefit of understanding the world around us for the benefit of mankind in our physical world.

The two things are unrelated.

How very troll indeed. How old is the author? 11?

There is a huge difference between creationism of the 1700's and now. But Popsci doesn't seem to care, they just want as many fights as they can get.

Modern creationism is very much 'in line' with current scientific knowledge. Only the die-hard right is still on the 6000 year-old Earth calendar.

I see creationism as an awaking of the human mind, self-awareness, intelligence, creativity and spiritual knowledge of god and his own soul. It is tipping point\transition of when a animal\primate, became human.

Perhaps 6000 or 10,000 years ago, the human mind woke up and so the world a new for the very first time and it this all was created, not scientifically, but spiritually\intelligent inside ourselves.

This only shows the ignorance of PopSci. They don't know what the other side even believes. And the only evidence they ever have against it is the assumption that they are already right.

Like normal, naturalists can only justify themselves by asserting they are correct. Or by misconstruing what the other side actually believes.

I'm both annoyed and amused that PopSci has decided to troll on this. Honestly, does anyone coming to this website literally believe in any creation story? Have some humility, you're no better of a person for laughing at people's ignorance.

...but I will be framing that picture of Jesus on a raptor though, that's just awesome

There are way to many observed contradictions to the theories that depend on an old earth. But naturalists are to stuck in their religious beliefs to let a dis-proven theory go.

From the number of comets we still see, to the magnetism of mercury, to the heat of some of the outer planets moons, etc.

Too many things raise red flags on old earth theories.

Occum's razor people.

I do not have to prove my GOD to the world, via acts of violence.

And for those people that have different opinions than my own, I will not respond with acts of violence.

I also encourage always, freedom speech and freedom of religions and I so much enjoy science as well. Take care. ;)

What I found hillarious is that they are mocking the beliefs of a 1700's monk for believing the world to be about 6,000 years old, when SCIENTIST of his day knew the world to be TENS OF THOUSANDS of years older.

There is (and cannot be) "proof" of the past - unless of course you travel faster than light away from the Earth and then look back with a super-powerful telescope - but that is far beyond our current capabilities.

Thus, whenever science has hit anything that is unlikely or difficult, it has added a few billion years to the system to give it time to work out (a lot like buying every lottery ticket makes you a winner). It cannot prove age, only order, and if asked, the answer is "it must have been" (scary words for a rational mind).

Clearly, someone believing in supernatural creation would not believe that the past has been a natural constant. The only evidence of such a constant is our few hundreds of years of observations (pretty much today on that calander, probably this afternoon to be percise).

Thus, if you wanted to take the long view of naturalist creation (non-supernatural) and put in on a short calander, why not show compress it to 0AD, or 1776, or some other date to illustrate the comparative lengths of ages for the purposes of metaphor?

Was this meant to be an argument FOR supernatural creation by planting a naturalistic "slam" so rhetorically pathetic as to ad hom the arguement so strongly against the naturalist that no one listens to him again?

The one thing you cannot fault the supernaturalist for is logical reasoning. IF the Book is correct, then their arguements are valid and consistant with that Book. It is internally coheirent. IF the Book is invalid, so to their claims. They even correctly admit their presupposition as an element of faith (taken without direct evidence).

Try to get an avid evolutionist to be that honest about their constructs (that the basic premise is taken on faith and the worldview built to fit it). Won't happen.

Still, nothing good ever comes from syncrotism. Either the faith bends to science or the science bends to faith - and the one is ruined by the other (usually leaving both rather sorry in shape and form).

It is much better for science to keep on studying the universe and its forms as it is and for religion to be the one dreaming and guessing as to why it is. Where the two agree, we can rejoice and get along. Where the two disagree, let them both go study until they discover if the fault is in the science or in the theology.

Well, I'm not one to comment often, but this was a funny article/chart. I did get a chuckle from it, which was the point, I think. Just goes to show that *certain* theories of creationism need to be reformed to include the history of everything that has lived on earth and not of just of man. Reminds me of the time when the world thought of earth to be the center of the solar system/universe.

This is not insulting, it is a valid counterpoint when arguing theory of origin. If creationist want to present their theory they need to be able argue it effectively.

The article says nothing insulting. The only insult is the people wishing to shield creationism from criticism because in their minds it is already so goofy that it can't be considered a valid theory and must be protected from attacks.

If this is what people truly believe then they should be talking about why the timeline is incorrect or showing how a dinosaur could be alive in 1927.

TheZomb, it's insulting because it ignores everything that any creationist movement actually believes. The infographic was not created by creationists, it was created by a believer in evolution who took the modern geologic time scale and changed the dates so they fit into 6000 years. That's not what creationists of any kind believe at all.

I think people are just upset because it insults a theory so stupid that it can only be backed by religious people. If people commonly believed in young earth creation, without some religious reason, I don't think many people would feel that this article was a cheap shot.

That's the problem, Zomb, creationist already have dealt with that issue - by arguing that history has not been static, but dynamic. In other words, just because an inch of sediment represents 1000 years, a foot does not necessarly mean 12,000 years, since the rate of deposite could have changed over time.

Thus, this arguement is identical to it's reverse - if the world was created 6,016 years ago, look at how silly the geologist are - their beliefs have dinosaurs still roaming the Earth in 1927! Tards! We all know that dinosaurs went extinct almost 5,000 years ago. Their beliefs and our timeline don't line up! They must be wrong!!!

If creationist made arguments that stupid, they would be (legitimately) mocked - so when naturalist make arguements that stupid, they tend to get mocked (by both sides).

PoPScI, your such a shit kicker, ROFL,... ha ha snort. You walk in a barn and see a pile of poo and kick it about just to cause a mess and create problems.

So when does the science articles begin?

I heard that Robert E Lee rode into battle on a t-rex. Ha. I had to read this a few times... it seems to state that modern humans were created 11/5 2008.

on a side note: A lot of creationists, including myself, believe in theistic evolution.

"...an archbishop of the Church of Ireland named James Ussher mapped out the genealogies and chronologies of Biblical characters all the way back to Adam and Eve, and concluded that the world was created in the year 4004 B.C..."

Why does one man's opinion, force an insult on all or the rest of religion?

I am religious in my heart and never said I agree with this one person's theory. Hello Scientist, have you fairly survey and polled all the other religious folk or are just taking one man's theory and bouncing all over religion, because one or few persons opinion or view?

For a science-oriented website, there are an awful lot of commentors advocating a worrying degree of sympathy and credibility to creationist thinking.

Guys, I don't know what to say. That stuff is crazy and stupid; it deserves no respect and should certainly receive none here.

rosyatrandom,
Creationist comes from a religious point of view. Scientist and religion folk are different subjects. Plus not all religious folk agree with the creationist view too.

We might as well be discussing how well chocolate pudding taste and the mathematics supporting dark energy. The two subjects are completely not related and some people do not even like chocolate pudding, sheesh.

the "happy" face of people who believe in creacionism is that don't react so badly as muslims about believes. maybe if every time our faith is attacked, should be taken it with a grain of salt, many lives could be spared!!
i certainly believe that this kind of evidence beyond make us feel insulted, should teach us that there is different points of view and we must to find the ways to confirm everything that we believe. because our nature is to doubt what our senses perceive

Although it should probably say so to be clearer, this chart obviously only applies to Young Earth Creationists that really do believe Earth is 6,000 years old. When every piece of science says Earth is much, much older, I have no problem with discounting that position.

When it comes to intellectual rigour, and answers to empirical questions, the religious point of view is just the opinions of people who prefer to believe things they don't understand, can't justify, and prefer not to.

What I find darkly amusing is the apologetics; the attempts to clarify by explaining what they think is a stronger position. Witness the details of actual creationist theory in this thread -- people actually think this is compelling and reasonable.

Hmmm. I do not seem to be in a particularly tolerant mood for bulls**t today.

and by the way. the WWI could be fight on dinosaurs like Dinoriders???
way better than tanks and planes!!!!

You can either argue, or you can laugh.
HA ha hah hah aha ha!
Laughing at ignorant people is such fun!
Thank you PopSci for defending our freedoms!

I don't think this article slights religion at all. Ussher, who is in geology text books (Hence, the science relation to the article), came up with his "theory" which was later upended by geologists of the time. Anyone who is religious knows of someone prominent in their religion that has backed a dumb theory or said something stupid before and, it will probably happen again. So, theistic people, don't get wrapped around the axle about it. Unfortunately, it's the least scientific minded of religious folks that seem to think they know science the best.

Also: Robot goes to the church of Transformerism where Optimus Prime is the patron saint. LOL!

i feel like people commenting on this thread aren't taking into account that there is a creationist museum in america. There are creationist textbooks and there is a huge creationist movement that has been trying to put itself into science classrooms since before any of us were born. It didn't just start and it's not just one or two relatively quiet people that believe the world is a few thousand years old.

@ROBOT: science and religion are not completely isolated entities. They are both methods of thought that are meant to find answers/certainty about things we can't grasp from our sensory experiences alone. So, if a holy book says the world is about 6000 years old and a science book says it's 4.5 billion years old. I'd say the two are at odds with each other. Don't get me wrong, you can ascribe to thoughts from both methods, but I think it's misleading to imply that only an act of foolishness would pit one against the other. I mean.. we all remember the stories of Galileo and Copernicus, right?

Its too bad a majority of people who don't agree with religion think everyone believes the world was made 6k years ago just because we believe in God.

This was a man, who decided to add some sort of personal importance to the history of religion, and he thought he was right. This is no different than when they added "Limbo" and made money off it..

There are countless of times a single person or small group of people have added or changed things in religious history which made it much easier to push aside the belief of a higher power now for people.

What if we logged all the "mistakes" made in science throughout the history of it and used them individually to excuse it ALL as false the same way you do about religion?

Im not a bible thumper, nor do I believe anything is wrong with it. I believe in a supreme being, in a way that allows it to be acceptable to me and makes sense to me. Its too bad not everyone holds onto some sort of spirituality, once I found mine, life became... well, life...

* I’m living the future so the presence is my past *

"For a science-oriented website, there are an awful lot of commentors advocating a worrying degree of sympathy and credibility to creationist thinking.

Guys, I don't know what to say. That stuff is crazy and stupid; it deserves no respect and should certainly receive none here."

Since when did name calling and prima facia disrespect become part of scientific method? I certainly do not hold to the cosmology that believe the world to rests on an elephant sitting on a turtle. That does not mean I treat those beliefs with contempt or scorn. I might argue against them based on the evidence mankind has gained over the last few millinium on the issue, but not with disrespect.

The angry secularist is a cliche' of self-refferrential incoheirence. If there is no greater, second, or after life, then there is no benefit to whining at others who hold to beliefs, no matter how incorrect. The only valid responce from an athiest in the view of theism is apathy. Those who do believe in cosmic repercussions to their actions (karma, an afterlife, etc), do have motivation to proslytize.

Science debases itself when it tries to debunk religion. Science should simple strive to understand the world and present the truth of it to the world. Then, people can see how their beliefs align or do not align with the world. When science acts to debunk religion, it takes upon itself an AGENDA - which allows people to disreguard science wholesale, since "SCIENCE" now is out to destroy their worldview (usually with deciet - since "SCIENCE" is always changing its mind about what is true).

If you truely believe creationism to be junk, then do not waste your time arguing against creationism. Instead, do solid science, teach truth and rational thought, and trust that if someone sees good science with a rational mind they will cast aside previously held beliefs.

If you cannot do this, ask if it is because you (1) do not have sufficient scientiffic evidence, in which case, what harm does their beleif do while that evidence comes to light?, (2) you do not have confidence that your position would hold water in light of the evidence, (3) you do not trust your fellow man to be rational (at which point, why argue with him at all, since to argue ration with someone who is irrational is itself irrational).

In case anyone has forgotten, evolution would also be considered a "religion". You "believe" that the earth created its self from nothing. Evolutionist or anyone does not have ANY solid evidence for evolution, or no one has seen it happen, but they say that it is a science, and that they have proven it. Someone might say that we do not have any evidence that our God made the earth and that he exist, but that is were religion comes in. Your right, we don't, but we also don't call ours a science and force it into everyone's head. We call it a "religion", and we say that we "believe" that God made the earth 6k years ago.

THIS IS GREAT!!!!!!!! THIS ARTICLE WAS CLEARLY WRITTEN WITH THE INTENTION OF STIRRING UP A HEATED DEBATE!

I, LIKE MANY PEOPLE HERE, AM MORE INTERESTED IN WHAT EITHER PARTY HAS TO SAY ON THE MATTER. WE AS A SPECIES LEARN THRU EACH OTHER. AND SO ANY TOPIC WORTHY OF DEBATE (SCIENCE VS. RELIGION) IS SURELY WORTH PLACING ON POPSCI. THIS IS ALMOST A SOCIAL EXPERIMENT.

LOL HELLO TO ALL THE PEOPLE ENTERTAINING EACH OTHER! BET YOU HAD FUN DEBATING THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG?

@Oni See you claim this isnt what the creationism movement is about, but thats complete bull. I had a dead serious 3 hour argument with a guy who believed the earth was 6000 years old, and I really wish I could say it was the first time it has happened. So clearly this chart seems accurate for what a great many creationist believe. But hey dont take my word on it. Go to www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum and see for youself

and i quote
"Its exhibits reject universal common descent and biological evolution, and assert that the Earth and all of its life forms were created 6,000 years ago over a six-day period." So before you try to tell people its NOT what your movements about maybe you should actually learn what your movement is teaching others.

Rusty Beaumont,
The cosmos is only a half century old, since 50 years or so ago, is when It first came into the world to view it. I imagine 30 plus years in the future, my view of the cosmos will grow dark and my in soul will see a completely new view. Perspective and plays a large part too.

gmbusiness213,
You do realize you are the first and only one, typing caps right.....

I have one question for all of the evolutionist.

Were you there?

zack1028,
4.5 billion years ago or 6000 years ago? lol

@Bufu: I think you're making a lot of assumptions about non-believers. There are tons of people that rely on science to understand their physical world, yet are still more than willing to accept the idea that there are forces beyond their comprehension. Personally, It's the institutions that try to claim what goes on beyond our comprehension that generally irks me. You can define the terms to whatever works for you, but, for me, the term "religion" seems like that thing people use in an attempt to find certainty about things that are completely untestable: What do dreams mean? What's past the furthest star? Why does life exist? Whenever any of these questions get anything remotely close to convincing evidence, it's always coming from scientific study and it's usually nowhere near what a religion had previously claimed.

And just to be clear here, I'm not talking about getting an allegorical meaning or treating religious texts as folk lore, mostly based in a quasi-factual framework. I'm talking about real conviction. For example I like greek mythology; i find it fascinating and chock-full of meaningful stories. But, I don't think my fascination would necessarily make me any more or less religious.

As for spirituality, I don't know what to tell you. I'm still not entirely sure what the word means.

Robot,

It depends on your view!

Remember this not about science, it is about a belief!

Rusty Beaumont,
The craddle of civilization began with the Sumerians and when scientist learn of the Sumerian writing of Gods who came down from above and created several versions of humans to work for the Gods, until they settle upon one type of human, they tend igore the "GODS" part as fairy tails, but later call the Sumerians highly advanced.

Everyone just picks and chooses, what they 'prefer' to believe..... lol.

Well, this was my first visit to popsci and the sheer mass of derp in the comments do not exactly entice me to return. I'll reiterate my initial impression: for a science and technology website, a significant number of the people replying here are idiots.

Perhaps this is more due to other people led here through social network site, so I won't judge just yet. It's not an encouraging sign, though.

To respond on a personal level,

"Since when did name calling and prima facia disrespect become part of scientific method?"

OK, you. I will not stoop to correcting your spelling and grammar, but please do something about it. Anyway, what the f*ck does the scientific method have to do with my comment? I do not eat breakfast using the scientific method, and I do not generally employ it in conversation. To have that as your first line of defence hints very strongly that you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

Besides, this is not prima facie. About a decade ago I was a rather militant atheist, and debated the issues quite a lot. But... I got bored. Religion is dull, both socially and theologically. I don't argue it anymore because "you cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reason himself into", and also because it is simple nonsense to me. I've done this dance before, and I know your kind. You'll excuse me if I choose to spend my time on something more fruitful.

Lets remember "the" definition of science: (from a dictionary)

1. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. Any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. Systematized knowledge in general.

5. Knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

Well, Robot, I don't know what to say to that. Are you implying that the theory that Sumerians having Gods creating them and writing on tablets as an equally plausible theory to the one where
Sumerians just made the Gods up? Am I just being close-minded when I think that shooting someone in the head will kill them? I mean, some guy on TV says it will kill them, but I haven't been around for a gunshot to the head. So, what do i know? There is also this minister that says Jesus can save me from a gunshot, so maybe I should listen to him. Since they are both theories, they are both inherently equal, right? Do I really get to "pick and choose what I 'prefer' to believe? Could it possibly be a little more complicated than that?

Hypocrisy is the main problem here.
People say they follow this religious book or that, then when asked they say "well I don't believe that part"
But somehow they expect us to accept their views as valid?
And when members of their faith DO embrace everything in those "holy" books they are called extremists.
They are not extremists. They are only doing exactly as their religion dictates.
So just admit that the "holy" books are WRONG.
The hypocrisy is costing lives.

Killert,

Your right about people saying "I don't believe that". That would be like people picking and choosing what they want to believe, but people now days tend to make everything fit their way of life.

And some of us wonder why we have so many churches now days or Bibles!lol

I think the problem lies in that people are to comfortable in their SIN. Someone confronts them about it and instead of not doing it anymore, they just find a Bible that fits, a church that says it is ok, or another religion that makes them "feel" better. Or you could be like most people. They just say that they believe in nothing and that they are here for no purpose!lol

Creationist, secularist, evolutionist, naturalist - what productive purpose do these labels serve?

Look, people, the bible (just like EVERY other religious text) was written, edited, and translated several times over by PEOPLE. There are no religions that believe man is infallible. Myths, fables, and parables (just like history) can teach wisdom, but no one is really expecting to find proof that a tortoise at some point in time had a foot race with a hare.

Faith in something more than what we understand is simply part of the human experience, but blind faith is a plague upon our species. You do not have to literally believe Moses saw God in a burning bush to accept the 10 Commandments as a moral guide. Just like you do not need time-lapse video evidence of real time evolution to accept it as a logical explanation for bio-diversity and the fossil record.

Rusty Beaumont,
Do you get to pick and choose what you believe, you ask. I have free will; I hope you do too.
As scientist admire the Sumerians to be the cradle of humanity, it is this, I respect those writings on the Sumerian walls or tablets that refer humans being made from Gods in several forms. Now the Sumerians referred to them as Gods with what knowledge or reference they had at the time. They could also be outsiders of a different kind.

And as much as the earth is 4.5~.7 billion years old and we have evolution, with the occasional surprise changes in DNA life, primates on long the evolution trail might of had some tweaking done to their DNA. These early evolved primate\humans could have been given some education with their new tweak brains as well, so as the animal\primate woke up with its new intelligent mind and given new information about himself, surroundings and the Gods above, creation did in fact begin.

In the old mind animal\primate there was darkness. And with God and the new\primate their began light, 6000\10,000 years a so ago.

So yes we can have science, we can have Gods, we can have religion, we can have evolution and it all can be true at the same time.;)

What happened to popular SCIENCE?

You simply can't accurately characterize the belief of a group of people based on the statement of one person's point of view.

"I had a dead serious 3 hour argument with a guy who believed the earth was 6000 years old, and I really wish I could say it was the first time it has happened. So clearly this chart seems accurate for what a great many creationist believe." -USNDonahue

Neither a 3 hour argument with "a guy" nor the opinion of a ~200 year old archbishop can define what a group of people thinks or believes. (As a side note, it may be anachronistic to even call the archbishop a creationist.)

(@USNDonahue If you actually have the same argument with "a great many creationist[s]," then I'm sorry you've been wasting your time.)

Are there *some* people who believe this? Yes. Does that mean every person who subscribes to creationism believes in the archbishop's conclusion? No.

This should be so abundantly clear. This is the same reason why stereotypes aren't acceptable or respectable.

So is this what PopSci is about? Is this the direction they want the site to take? Was this really the collective effort of "PopSci Staff"? Is this article an example of what the *Bonnier Corporation* is about?

It would be great for the true author to speak for himself. Whoever you might be, I challenge you to state your name and intentions. Was your inention to stereotype creationists according to the ideas of a 200 year old archbishop and a chart not made nor promoted by creationists? Or, were you just trying to be funny in a way that defines creationists as backward thinking ignorant folk in an underhanded way?

Give me a reason to disagree with the conclusion that you (the author of this article) are simply a troll who got a chance to write an article on PopSci. Otherwise I'm inclined to agree that your anonymity and silence are quite trollish.

Perhaps the author of this article is so ignorant of what actual creationists believes that that he/she thinks this misrepresentation is accurate.

I will pessimistically await for a response from the author of this article.

Imagine what havoc a no name writer in this PoPSci article has caused today. Oh the power of the media and the crazy violent people in the middle east now.

I feel you on that one, Robot. Domestication of dogs could of been guided from an ancient wolf spirit. Birds flew out of the center of the earth when the first volcano erupted, 15,000 years ago, you know, just before the first human vs. vampire war. I mean, you certainly can't disprove it. And, whatever you do, don't try and talk to those close-minded scientists and atheists about this kind of stuff. They'll just bore you with facts and laborious lectures about plausibility.

Although, I do like your idea of ancient Gods' directing man's consciousness. Heck, anything good enough for L. Ron Hubbard is good enough for me.

Strider: Who is talking about stereotypes? Sure, there are christians that don't believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, but nobody on this post has been talking about that group. There are a lot of people that subscribe to particular faiths that take rather absolute stances on how the earth was created. A gallup done this year, showed that 46% of Americans think humans just popped unto the earth 10,000 years ago(or less). [link posed below] There is always a gray area, but this article isn't addressing those people. This article is addressing a very real movement that has sparked museums, movies, plays, tv shows, radio shows, and courtroom battles against evolution. Why are you pretending like you aren't aware of this?

www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

Arrogance, contempt, viciousness often tend to show up most garishly, while pretending to be reasonable. This isn't even an attempt to discuss the matter of creationism, only a bewlligerent act of mockery.
Some points can be of interest.
In his "Bad Astronomy" blog, recently, Phil Plait condemned "Young Earth Creationism". That is exactly as he phrased it. In other words, Phil Plait seems to be saying, creationism is a legitimate mechanism to consider if you accept an ancient earth. This may cause this to be removed, but I countered some statements he made and, like any insecure megalomaniac, he banned me from his blog, so I haven't had the chance to ask him what he meant. If anyone who has played the worshipful sycophant to Plait's boundless ego still can get on his blog, maybe they can find out what he meant.
Not necessarily that it matters much. Spontaneous generation, the arrival of new forms without precursors, seems to be happening everywhere. The literal explosion of new species, families, genera discovered in just the past decade seems to dwarf any other such period of discovery. And the Lesula monkey, only just announced discovered, is all unusual if not completely unbelievable. There had been expedition afer expedition, thousands of feet of film, hundreds of thousands of photographs, samples, drawings, collected stories, from the region where the monkey was declared discovered, over centuries of time, but nowhere is there any reference to it. It appears to have only just come into existence. In fact, it looks very much as if creation is continuing, wityh species coming into being without "evolution".

so... God/universe just made that monkey appear out of nowhere sometime recently? is that what you're implying? Is this the evidence you are presenting?

Because, personally, I think it all goes to show that Count Dracula is real and keeps making new species from magic. Of course, those arrogant scientists, keeps implying that I'm the crazy one.

Eminently characteristic of New World Order non argument techniques.
I made an argument about the near impossibility, if not the utter unreasonableness, that the Lesula monkey could have gone undiscovered, especially for so large an animal. Rusty Beaumont uses only mockery. The promoters of the untrue do not have anything valid or legitimate to discuss. As a result, they utilize alternate methods, geared only to appeal to the gullible and dim, the target audience of the New World Order. And those techniques include arrogance, contempt, dismissiveness, mockery, vulgarity.
Basically, Rusty Beaumont demonstrates the same level of imbecility as the article.
"If you make fun of something, then you've disproved it!"
That's what passes for "science” today.
In fact, there is absolutely no proof of “evolution” “Scientists” stand next to poured resin casts of shapes and call them “fossils”, then read off a bunch of numbers they made up and claim that “proves” they’re old. In fact, no one among the “rank and file” has seen in their own hands proof that fossils are real, that they’re old and that they “evolved” one into the other. All that there is on the subject are clainms that issue from behind “laborator” doors, with aboslutely no incontrovertible, independent validation. Only the word of “scientists”.
“Scientists” who didn’t warn about fen-phen.
“Scientists” who didn’t warn that there was no evidence whatsoever of banned weapons systems in Iraq.
“Scientists” who claimed that the exact match of isotope desnities on earth and moon was absolute proof that a third body must have hit the earth, causing the mooon to split off. But, then, it was pointed out that, if there was a third body, the isotope numbers would have to be different, reflecting the makeup of the other body!
“Scientists”, incidentally, who have defenders like Rusty Beaumont who don’t realize the phrase is “could have been guided”, not “could of been guided”!
And, note, for whatever pretense of respect for truth that Rusty Beaumont wants to mount, they did not admit that, in fact, no creationist text anywhere said the last dinosaur died in 1927! In fact, the entire article is a lie!
That is “science”!

Gees, Julian, you ask me not to mock you and then you write that? You kind of went on a tangent, full of conspiracy theories, which I know little about and will, in no way, further address. But, back to the subject at hand, and with, hopefully, a little less sarcasm than before...

You do realize that scientific discoveries undergo peer review from scientists across the globe? We're talking about people peer reviewing each other from all walks of life. It's not a private club that you have to pay/legacy/shmooze your way into. Science is results oriented. The evidence is all around you. We are typing on a computer, sending messages through cables, into dishes that beam a signal into satellites,orbiting the planet. We're talking about inventions that have only existed after the birth of modern science. This isn't some easily disregarded theory or hair-brained philosophy. We're talking about undeniable results. Modern science is the reason that we get to live so good. Think of the advancements in food preservation, communication, medicine, transportation, air conditioning, etc. etc. Woman and children have a much higher survival from complications during pregnancy and labor. Entertainment is all around us, all the time, and food has become so plentiful that it has become an "epidemic."

Why on Earth are you bad mouthing scientists like they are some crazy group that spits off a bunch of bullcrap?

And, I thought this was apparent earlier, but don't you think that there is probably a pretty small percentage of people(especially in the middle of Sub-Saharan Africa) that will know that an animal in a certain region, like the Lesula monkey, isn't already cataloged? And, of that small group, there's still a portion that might overlook it or mistake it for a similar species, especially if they can only see it from below a tall, thick, canopy of leaves.

There probably have been many natives that have come across that species on occasion. I'm not an expert on African politics, but I imagine that it might get pretty damn difficult to look for new species of animals in certain regions. But, then again, maybe it just popped out of thin air and quickly nestled in the niche that was, for whatever reason, left available to it.

I guess they are both possible theories, but so is my Dracula idea. It's kind of like the creation theory, except you replace God with Dracula. oh yeah, and it happens at night, because you wouldn't want anyone to see you pulling something like that. And, not because Dracula only comes out at night; that is an outright stereotype that us Dracula believers collectively decided to be offended about.

There are a few points that i think you might need to elaborate on. I'm a bit slow:

“Scientists”, incidentally, who have defenders like Rusty Beaumont who don’t realize the phrase is “could have been guided”, not “could of been guided”!

- ?

"If you make fun of something, then you've disproved it!"
That's what passes for "science” today.

- Is this based on this one article on one science website? I don't wear a lab coat, by the way, so I don't think it counts as science when I do it.

"And, note, for whatever pretense of respect for truth that Rusty Beaumont wants to mount, they did not admit that, in fact, no creationist text anywhere said the last dinosaur died in 1927! In fact, the entire article is a lie!"

- Wasn't that the point of this article. To me, it's lining up understood data of modern science with a template from a very common and what I personally believe to be a rather dated understanding in the way the world formed. So, if you believe in natural formation of fossil strata and also believe in 10k years or less creation, here is something that might make you reevaluate your position. Of course they aren't going to write an article about what a large demographic already believes. They wouldn't write an article about an old theory, unless there was a new spin/discovery. This is a magazine, not a text book.

ok ok... i said i wouldn't bring it up, but...
"“Scientists” who didn’t warn about fen-phen.
“Scientists” who didn’t warn that there was no evidence whatsoever of banned weapons systems in Iraq."

- I sure hope I'm not getting trolled. It's really hard to tell.

Among other things, the story is already going around about the "anestheiologist" in Japan who published around 200 "peer reviewed" articles, all of which have been shown to be fraudulent. "Peer review" does not magincally impart truthfulness to claims. The theory that a body hit the earth and caused the moon to split off was "definitively, unarguably proved" by the fact that, supposedly, isotope percentages of many elements are the same oin both the earth and moon. How could the moon not have been split from the earth with that similarity of isotopes, it was insisted. And that was peer reviewed. Now, they are pointing out that, if a third body was involved, some of its material should have gotten included, so the isotopes percentages should not match!
Rusty Beaumont displays the same shallowness of view as all who allow "science" to control their lives.
They are certain "scientists" cannot lie, that whatever they say is true.
Allied with that, they fail to understand that there are alternative explanations for absolutely everything, even if those explanations are not displayed in "science" magazines.
Too, they think that, if something is in a "science" magazine, that automatically makes it true and proved.
But nowhere has it been proved that "scientists" don't lie. "Science" devotees insist that "relativity" has been "proved" by GPS devices working despite Doppler signal shifts from satellites. But no one who claims that has actually ever looked inside a GPS to see if that's what it's doing! They're just told to believe it and they do! They're told to believe that light has the same speed with respect to all observers, even though they've never seen that. And, frankly, what does a computer or even a light bulb prove? Nothing says they work because of what "scientists" say makes them work! No "science" devotee has ever looked inside a wire to see if electricity comes from electrons or tiny aliens moving along it. Devotees laugh, but they never have proved it, they only accept it because they're told to, they never check for themselves.
And, among other things, Dracula was never credited with the ability to create new species, genera, families. God is.
Rusty Beaumont's second comment has much the structure of delusional meandering.

What is really stupid about this sort of article is that within a week this article will be used by young earth creationist organizations to demonstrate how mainstream science lies. Because the creationists will all know they don't have an extinction date for dinosaurs. Many of them use cryptozoological creatures in fact to argue some are still around. And the rest will think they died out after the flood. But whatever they think they will know that an evolutionist ""journal"" is easily demonstrated to be wrong with this article. Therefore it easily is lying about all that other science they know is wrong too.

"And, among other things, Dracula was never credited with the ability to create new species, genera, families. God is."

ummmm... Are you a Dracula expert now? Didn't I just claim that Dracula can do that? Do I need to write it in a book? How many people need to believe in it before it's a plausible assumption? Tell me why my Dracula theory doesn't hold any water. I think you're scared of admitting that it's infallible. Science, my other and lesser God, can't even touch it.

God told me that the earth is actually 2012 years old. Not 6000 or 4.5 billion years. He also told me not to buy the new iPhone 5 because it's overpriced.

I thought this was Popular SCIENCE, not Popular-Jesus-Freaks or Popular-Bible-BAngers?

No evidence for evolution? Really? Ever had your wisdom teeth taken out? Either humans are evolving shorter jawbones or God is a piss-poor engineer. We have organs in our bodies with no purpose, snakes have the skeletal remains of legs, whales have flippers with striking similarities to the toes of other mammals. Not to mention lungs. What kind of idiot God designs a FISH with LUNGS? Lions and Tigers are nearly the exact same animal under the skin, and can even still breed (with freakish and sterile results - kinda like horses and donkeys). How about when we humans take the randomness of natural selection and environmental pressures out of evolution and direct things ourselves? You can see the results in one of the 200-some-odd breeds of dogs you can pick up at Petsmart, many of which didn't exist 50 years ago. How about drug resistant bacteria? We were killing off all of God's beautiful disease-and-human-suffering-causing creations, so he broke into Pfizer and stole the formula for Amoxicillin, reverse engineered a new bacteria that we wouldn't be able to kill, stuck it into a tree (right by the Lesula Monkey he threw together over the weekend, just to f**k with Rusty Beaumont) and Voila! His beautiful bacterium can kill us off instead now. Yay God. And just to be clear - when those bugs develop and immunity to antibiotics, that's evolution in action Bud.

While I'm at it... What happened to good old fashioned Genesis? 1st day Earth, 2nd Sky, 3rd Land, 4th Sun and Moon, 5th Birds and Fish, 6th Man and Animal, 7th just chilled... So is Genesis still going on, or was that first one a mistake? Did God forget something? Cuz I was under the impression that GOD is PERFECT and ALL-KNOWING. Aside from that wisdom teeth thing. That was really dumb.

::sigh:: Pop Sci has ruined everything for me now - I loved that Jesus might have rode a Raptor! Now you've gone and taken that away. :(

Science is the only way to bypass all the irrational failings of the human mind, and exists for the sole purpose of getting the truth - there is no other objective! Science doesn't deliberately try to disprove a god - it just says there is little reason to think one exists.

Faith, on the other hand, plays directly into the irrationalities of the human mind, and enables people to believe whatever crazy batshit they like. As is evident by the many different and contradicting versions of faith-based "knowledge" that exist.

Which is most likely to be true?

Too stupid to understand science? Try religion instead!

Ha ha, it's all fodder anyways, our end date May 21st 2012, lol.

To PopSci Staff,
1) Why did you choose to be anonymous in writing this article and yet give your support by at least adding PoPSci Staff?

2) Will you be doing this more often or is this a onetime event?

3) PopSci Staff, are you amused by the comments on this article? Did this article get the result you were looking for?

4) PoPSci Staff, obviously somebody wrote this article. After reading all the comments, I wonder if the writer at this point would be willing to reveal his\her name?

5) PoPSci Staff, what was you motivation to write this article in the first place?

6) PoPSci Staff, will there be more touchy topics of science you will write about in the future, that will necessitate you continuing being an anonymous writer? And what sort of topics might those be?

@Rusty If you carefully read my post you will understand why I talk about stereotypes.

Characterizing a group of people (creationists) by the ideas of a single person (the ~200 year old archbishop).

This article is characterizing a "movement" based on the ideas of an archbishop from the 1700's.

What if I characterized all white people based on the opinions of a particular white person who lived in 1700. Would that be an accurate representation of white people today?

Do all people from Ireland believe that the earth is only 6000 years old because the archbishop is from Ireland circa 1700? Of course that's a ridiculous conclusion, but apparently acceptable to Popsci.

The archbishop wasn't, and never will be, a representative for any group of people or any particular belief system except maybe Catholicism, but even that's a stretch.

The archbishop's ideas don't represent the group called creationists any more that he represents all Irishmen or all Catholics.

The problem this article causes is that it falsely presents the archbishops ideas with an info graphic that he didn't create as "the Geologic Time Scale For Creationists"

The only thing that makes less sense than this article appearing on Popsci is Popsci being willing to support this article and it's author.

Have I been expecting too much of Popsci?

Ghandi once sagely commented:
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Looks like Popsci is in category 2 or 3. Ignoring creationists would be a move in the right direction, and would reflect less insecurity on the part of the editors. The question is, can you do it?

For those complaining about the lack of editorial wrapping for this chart here, note that it was originally published at http://www.mindat.org/article.php/1475/A+Geological+Timescale+for+Creationists without any text explaining the chart, presumably because jokes are best told without wrapping them in explanation.

And of course the chart is clearly a joke making fun of the concept of young-earth creationism. YEC may be believed by many people, but its popularity does not give it a right to respect but rather makes it a proper target for the ridicule it so richly earns from people who value science. Does anyone who believes in YEC believe in this chart's mapping of the geological record? Of course not. But if you look at the comments on the original mindat.org post you can see how the YEC denial of this chart's silliness immediately resorts to the assumption of a whimsically deceptive omnipotent deity. YEC isn't wrong science, bad science, or even pseudo-science, it is anti-science. It seems to me that PopSci is absolutely right to treat YEC with the disdain it deserves.

I am surprised, Robot, that you did not mention the Straw man.
The implication is that young earth creationists, who are theists, believe ridiculousness; therefore, all theists believe ridiculousness. This is an irrational conclusion.

To all the anti-theists: Simply because faith (of any kind) is not based in reason, does not mean that faithful people are unreasonable. Also, though there is, in your estimation, little reason to think that any god exists; there is little (none, in my estimation) that one does not. So, it may be irrational to come to a definitive conclusion in the absence of information, but isn't it more so to do so, calling it "the only rational conclusion?" Further, most theists whom I know, recognize that their conclusion is fundamentally derived from faith and therefore not truly a *definitive* conclusion.

I've always found it rather odd how the creationist movement attempts to co-opt select scientific data to prove its central theory while at the same time it rejects the overall premise of science based reasoning.

Sorry creationists but if the science is too hard or difficult for you to grasp then you should stick to religion. Evolution is based on empirical data and observations. Not second-hand historical "sources" and feelings. Faith does not make fact.

Your flavor of supernatural creationism is based on...what? A book? A religion? The Scientologists have what, 4 or 5 books AND a religion? Does that mean they get to dictate how life came to be? Or should we ask the Muslims because they also a book and religion? Perhaps we should ask the Native Americans how just the Americas came to be because they were here first and that obviously gives more credence to their specific "genesis" beliefs. No, no, I got it. We should just accept the Sumerian genesis beliefs because they were the first civilization and therefore in the best position to get it right.

Give me a break guys. How can you seriously criticize the scientific principles of evolution when you use a COMPUTER (SCIENCE!) powered by ELECTRICITY (SCIENCE!) connected to the INTERNET (SCIENCE!) to do so?

@strider: I read your post and I replied. I feel like you did not even acknowledge it, but you probably feel the same way. This article was specifically written towards the beliefs held by the young earth creationist movement. We're talking about a very unified movement that has been pushing it's agenda into our public school system since way before we were born. People have an infinite gray area of belief, but this ain't about whatever idea you came up with and decided to give the same name. This is about a very vocal movement. Richard Dawkins has been made a celebrity from becoming their opponent. It's not something small. 46% of Americans believed humans popped onto the earth in less than 10k years on a gallup poll from this year. I ask again. Why do you keep pretending like this is not the case. Keep playing the victim, i guess. The time line of 10k years or less did not get started or kept alive by the opponents. It has been a central part of the young-earth creationist movement's platform. You know, the same movement that brought us the theory about the grand canyon being formed by a single flood.

You're more than titled to believe what you want and call it what you want, but understand that not everyone shares the exact same terminology as you. I suppose the author could have posted the phrase "young-earth", but that's the example people think of when they hear the phrase, anyway. It's reinforced in the timeline they show that it's about young-earth creationism.

side note: Theistic evolutionists(Catholicisms official stance)don't claim to be creationists.

Growing up in Puerto Rico I used a lot of drugs, and did of lot of stupid things that I regret, and wish never took part in, but finding Jesus and the strength Of His power brought me out of the gutter, gave me the power i needed to drop the drugs, and finish highschool go on to college, and start my own business, not to say that it has all been rosy, but to say that I believe because I have seen first hand in my life, The POWER OF JESUS LOVE, AND FRIENDSHIP. With this in mind, the world is very very layered, there are layers beyond which the human mind can get to, we can only theorize and hypothasize, all good and well, but in the end, when you look at our life cycle of 85-100 years and the world being around for how ever any years you believe, were like a needle in a pile of hay. So if that needle is going to tell me how the pile of hay got there, I would be a little sceptic. Thats all i am saying.
GOD BLESS AMERICA USA
USA
USA

That graphic, while obviously tongue-in-cheek, does put into perspective the absurdity of the creationist view as a scientific way to look at the world. Look, if you're deeply religious, fine. Whatever. I don't care. But when you try to present your religious beliefs as reality and want it taught along side science when facts completely contradict you, then yes, you deserve a little mocking.

well, bizkit, there's a beautiful lattice work of data. You shouldn't write it off so quickly. Someone in the past could of easily shrugged off the thought of computers or the internet or cell phones. But, hey, it's not so crazy to people that have had the chance to witness the technology.

Yeah, I read about twenty-five comments and heck if I'm reading any more. Creationism is a religious belief. It shouldn't be considered scientific in any sense of the word because it starts with a "fact" (God created the universe 6,000 years ago, or 30,000, or 1 billion, or 8 billion) and whatever evidence is discovered must be shoehorned into that "fact". Popsci rightly derides any attempts to legitimize creationist "theory". It's smart, witty, and offensive -only- if you hold precious the idea that starting from a religion conclusion is a good way to inform scientific discovery. (It's not.)

I stopped reading about 50 comments in because I was too disgusted to go on. For crying out loud, why can't a science magazine publish a humor piece? Most scientific publications could make good use of an editorial cartoonist. And many publications publish unsigned staff-written articles, it's no big deal. It's not a scientific paper, and we're not peer-reviewing it.

A science magazine has every right to mock the very movement that has been repeatedly attacking science and science education. In my view, it has a duty. It is a completely ridiculous notion to suggest that PopSci should engage creationists in any serious way, as if creationism has a leg to stand on. The movement's faux debate ("teach the controversy") is no debate that any serious scientist should participate in or even acknowledge. Absolutely no one has shown the theory of evolution to be anything but the most fundamental working principle in the history of biology - even in the phony "journals" that creationists have cooked up to try to give themselves credibility.

Now as to offense. Why do religionists (and even some non-believers) claim that religion should be exempt from criticism. We can criticize, insult and lampoon politicians all day long, but not their religion. Criticism of religion is NOT criticism of the believer. Being offended is a deliberate choice, and so is putting on a thicker skin.

Well, saffie, no matter how frustrating that "don't criticize religion" loophole might be, I can only imagine that trying to believe the world is 6,000 years old for a chance at heaven has to be like a million times worse. It just has to eat at you all day. I don't know how the shit people are able to pull it off.

And to the creationists...

You don't have to comment about this. But, I think you should really consider long and hard about the fossil record and the dinosaur skulls and skeletons that have been uncovered. Think about the fossils of our ancestors. There is a very noticeable gradient. Think about the genetic coding and the countless ways it has only strengthened the evolutionary theory that predated it by over 100 years.

Creationism can only work if the world's creator has created all these systems to trick us. And, if God is real and he is going to try and trick me, then I'll be humble enough to admit that I never really stood a chance of figuring it out, anyway. So, if God is trying to trick you, in some elaborate/convoluted plot, then please just let him. Don't be the guy that tries to act like he knows how God operates. Where's your freaking humility? God is mysterious, right? Let him be mysterious. We can look at the world around us, the one he supposedly made for answers and more questions. We can search for the consistencies and use our intellect to make educated guesses, but nothing more. Doesn't that sound a lot more God-like then him possessing writers to talk about how great he is and how you need to constantly feed his ego.

@Rusty

You asked me why I brought up stereotypes in my original message and I elaborated on what I meant.

Creationist maybe be unified, but they aren't unified on the archbishops ideas nor the chart that wasn't created by a creationist. Therefore "the Geologic Time Scale For Creationists" is a misrepresentation.

I'm a creationist myself and I don't agree with the archbishop nor do I agree with the chart. I literally know hundreds of creationists who would hold the same view as I do when it comes to the archbishop and this chart. I think the view point of hundreds in a group is a more accurate representation of what the group stands for than a really old guy and a chart.

Aren't those who belong to a group allowed to speak up when they feel they are being misrepresented? Or must we be silent and accept any and every misrepresentedation?

If you can understand that then you get what I'm trying to say. I just don't understand why you think a guy who is ~200 years old and a chart that wasn't made by a creationist is an accurate representation of what creationists believe. If this is not what you think then there is nothing more to add to our bit of discussion.

On a different note, as a creationist I don't think creationism is a science or based on science.

Since when did science become the one and only acceptable way to explain the world around us? If my world view doesn't cause you harm then why you mad bro?

This is a big ol' world we live in and there is room enough for two (or more) ideas on the origin of the universe and/or life.

@strider:

"On a different note, as a creationist I don't think creationism is a science or based on science."

- couldn't agree more. When the time comes that people stop trying to pass it off as science will also be the time you'll stop hearing rebuttals from the science communities. Science is a cold-hearted beast that only cares about consistency. Put the message out there. Creationism is not science. keep saying it to your "hundreds of creationists" friends. Tell them to stop talking about it in a scientific context. Let them know that it shouldn't be mentioned in a science classroom.

Also, quit trying to chalk all this up to an archbishop from 200 years ago. Like I said, it's an argument very much alive today.

Apoca-Risk:

YEah, duh, it's a magazine. They can post things in a somewhat humorous light. Pop-sci has always been fairly light hearted, with a fairly casual demeanor. They've written loads of slightly humorous columns. If creationism wasn't some theory that was backed by judeo-christian beliefs, then you probably wouldn't care. What if they wrote a humorous article that poked at scientologists beliefs? Also, for the sake of hypothetical comparisons, pretend the scientologists have been trying, and sometimes successfully, to put their theories into public classrooms.

I am literally taken aback by the amount of rage from creationists because of a silly chart that, even though it may not represent your specific creationist beliefs, is an appropriate jab at creationism in general. Creationism does not coincide with science. It never will. Are you truly that surprised that a publication about SCIENCE might find some comedy in something so unscientific, but is often presented as such by bible thumpers and Texas politicians? Why are you even here?

Great, many of you are saying religion and science aren't related. That holds true as an absolute, but when religions often make claims that completely disregard science, the logical people have a right to defend reality from fiction. This holds especially true when considering that many backwards ass places in this very country are contantly trying to diminish the role of real science in schools and plant "Intelligent Design", a thinly veiled version of creationism in the classrooms, it seems not only appropriate but imperative to point out the absurdity of it all and offer actual knowledge instead of religious propoganda.

Believe what you want, but don't get mad when someone points out the flaws in your belief, ESPECIALLY on a website dedicated to science. Boo hoo, you feel insulted. Cry us a river and pray for some logic.

loljesus,
I applaud your right to your opinion and the freedom to express it, as well as others.

..............................
Some 13.7 billion years is the consider age of the cosmos.

Some 4.5 billion years ago Earth was made.

Some 100k ago intelligent\various primate humans showed up in the picture of life on Earth.

Some 10k ago the cradle of civilization was found
and noted in their text Gods from above made
several versions of humans, settling on one version for the benefit of the Gods.

It was science that noted they were the cradle of civilization and in the same breath they discount their writings on the wall about Gods.
Science also notes the very real possibility of the possibility of much intelligent life exist out in the vast cosmos. This seems contrary to the previous thought process.

We humans and our science tweak around very much with DNA and human DNA.

Soooo.....
Yes to evolution.

Yes to occasional pot-luck changes to evolution; shit happens!

Yes to past tweaking from visitors from above from the cosmos.

Yes to intelligence to in the vast cosmos.

Yes to current tweaking of DNA now.

Yes to religous groups noted things down for the benefit of growth for our inner maturity and being.

Yes to science for noting things down about our physical world.

"It was science that noted they were the cradle of civilization and in the same breath they discount their writings on the wall about Gods."

What do you even know of what they thought about Gods? Gods could of just been the forces of nature, stars in the sky, winds across the landscape. Why does the thought that actual living beings comie down from the sky to guide civilization a reasonable assumption, based on solid evidence, when all the evidence is writing? Old writings have never been considered solid sceintific evidence for anything other than literacy, stone masonry, and whatever other factors that go into and out from having a writing system. Quit acting like a crazy person. Romans were the peak of technology of their time and no one seriously considers Jupiter or Appolo's existence. I think you just want to believe in it. And, since we don't have as much contemporary sources to review the early Sumerians, you can fill in the blanks with whatever you want. Save that stupid shit history channel's channels web site.

ok... i'm officially done with this thread.

@Rusty

Although you claim to be done with this thread, I have to respond to one of your comments.

"Also, quit trying to chalk all this up to an archbishop from 200 years ago."

I'm not trying to chalk "all this up" to anyone except the elusive and anonymous author of this article. The only reason I mention the archbishop is because the author of this article mentioned the archbishop as the basis for the chart above and a summation of creationists ideas.

I never said that no one alive today believes in the archbishop's ideas, I only said (several times over) that it is a misrepresentation to say that his ideas and this chart represent creationists today when he never presented himself as a representative of creationists and since the chart was not created by a creationist. (This sentence is too long, but oh well..)

If I said otherwise before I'm clarifying myself now.

Another small note, although creationism isn't science in my opinion it is *an* explanation for the way the universe and life came into existence. It is also the explanation that literally millions, if not billions, of people accept and have accepted for thousands of years. While that fact alone doesn't make it valid in and of itself, it shouldn't be swept aside (or disrespected so readily) and thrown into the trash simply because it's not science.

Peace Rusty, you deserve a break from this thread.

@Robot I'm pickin' up what you're puttin' down. You have interesting comments and perspectives on this thread...

For all athiests listening, I'm going to play a little game with you. You may give any anti-theist theory you know and give me evidence supporting it, without an ounce of "THEISTS ARE WRONG" emotion (emotions cloud rational thinking). This evidence MUST not break the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in which energy and order is always getting lost. Because of this, the universe will run out of power and organization, thus, dissolving into chaos and cold material. This is why the universe has a beginning and an end (someone/something must have given it energy to "run" in the first place, allowing it to begin). Einstein once said that if your theory breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it's GG for you.
Remember, I want SOLID facts, not comments like "He's just another theist trying to defend his irrational, anti-science views." Also, I'm going to throw this out there: nowhere in the bible (if we are discussing Christianity whenever some makes a reference to religion) does it say the age of the world. Thus, Mr. Archbishop's 6000 Earth theory has no biblic support. Remember, answer LOGICALLY. I do not accept answers like "He's just a crazy religious theist". Remember the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God."
-James Tour, nanoscientist

I am a creationist and I have never heard any denomination of Biblical creationists that believe this. There are some creationists who believe God started the evolutionary process, however, I am not one of them. I believe all living things were created within the six day period of creation as stated in Genesis 1:1-31 and 2:1 (including dinosaurs) and on the seventh day God rested. The separate layers of earth came into existence because of the world wide flood in Genesis 6 and 7. The dinosaurs died because the earth had changed from a planet filled with plants to one with very few, the plant life could not support dinosaurs. I don't know about dinosaurs being alive today, and it seems unlikely, but it is still possible. Is the Loch Ness Monster a dinosaur?

Mr. Holmes - not sure exactly what you want here, but read my comment above. If evolution counts as an "anti-theist theory"

This is stupid.

"I believe all living things were created within the six day period of creation as stated in Genesis 1:1-31 and 2:1 (including dinosaurs) and on the seventh day God rested. The separate layers of earth came into existence because of the world wide flood in Genesis 6 and 7. The dinosaurs died because the earth had changed from a planet filled with plants to one with very few, the plant life could not support dinosaurs. I don't know about dinosaurs being alive today, and it seems unlikely, but it is still possible. Is the Loch Ness Monster a dinosaur?"

Bless your heart, are you 12?

As for Robot, who is trying his very hardest, I give him credit for being relentless. You have always been good at that- denial in the face of insurmountable evidence, belief without a shred of evidence. It's almost admirable how dedicated you are, if only it could be put to use in something based in reality and not fictional stories written and re-written over and over again by people hundreds of years ago. I'm not going to debase myself and have a debate with any of you on creationsim vs. science, because frankly, debates are reserved for two valid, though disagreeing, sides. There is only one valid side in this situation.

I know that ultimately I type all of this in vain. There is really nothing I, nor anyone else can say that will sway your minds. You have already decided upon that way of thinking, and I do harbor some level of sadness and sympathy for you. But in the end I believe we must be responsible for our own thoughts and beliefs, and I can't blame your parents for your continued ignorance. Some may say I'm being a little harsh, but I feel this type of response is necessary given the scenario that has played out here. This is a science website. They posted a piece of humor directed at something unscientific that often claims to be truth, and what happens? The army of church establishment spams the page, expressing their often misplaced outrage all the while amusing the likes of us. The stupidity of this mass decision you have all made is consistent with your reputation, yet still entirely disappointing.

You brought this disdain upon yourselves for shouting your ignorance at the top of your lungs in a place where it is very unwelcome.

A tempest in a teapot. They also just published an article about Time that strangely enough would give both the scientific crowd and the creationists comfort that both may be right.

Here:

www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time

@Kamus
Kufufufufu. Good one, Kamus, at least you were logical unlike other commentators.
Human jaws: wisdom teeth are stupid (I had mine removed, so I can testify to that), but by saying that the "design" of jaws are terrible, are you not admitting that there is a design, albeit a bad one? And if you think that it is a bad design, then you must have some idea of what a GOOD design is (you can't know what is right unless you know what is wrong, and vice versa). In other words, there is a design in place, even though it's not the best design. Besides, how would you know the purpose of the design? Wisdom teeth may be bad for some things but not others. I personally believe that wisdom teeth are good for surviving in prehistoric times, when cooking food was hard and vegetables were very chewy. Today, wisdom teeth are obsolete. The same goes for all "badly-designed" animals. How do you know they were badly designed?
Similar features: there's only so much variety that can survive in our biosphere. If an animal was TOO different then the rest, it would probably die out. Animals in the same biosphere must share similar features because it allows them to live in that biosphere (e.g. all animals have lungs or some other oxygen-processing organ/apparatus/organelle in our biosphere because it enables them to survive there). In other words, they're designed to live in the same place, so they must share similar features.
Hyper-"evolving" viruses: these viruses are similar to the way our immune system "learns" its enemies and adapts according. Also, evolution is ADDING new DNA, correct? Viruses aren't gaining new DNA, they're LOSING control of some DNA. Some virus' have defective genes that control anti-antivirus medications. The result: the metabolism that controls immunity goes in overdrive, and you get a resistant strain. Natural selection does the rest, and the non-"defective" virus die out and get replaced by different ones(natural selection is NOT evolution, it takes away from variety instead of increasing it). If you have a rebutal, feel free to let me know as long as you are logical and avoid letting emotions get into your message.

One more thing, evolution goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It states that the amount of order in the universe is always lost and never increased, yet evolution says that order (complicated life-form with higher thinking abilities) came from chaos (single-celled goo). Order dissolves into chaos, not the other way around. Complicated things require order and energy, something that evolution fails to account for (single-cell "randomly" mutates into multi-cell capable of surviving and thriving without order or effort?).

One important thing to look at is: No matter what side you come from, if you approach evidence with a certain viewpoint, you can make the evidence point towards you'r viewpoint. An Evolutionist sees layers, he thinks millions of years of deposit. A Creationist sees layers, he sees layers deposited by a massive flood. An Evolutionist sees millions of dinosaur skeletons, he thinks of a major catastrophic event, but of course, not a flood, because that would be too close to creationism, and to implausible, and looks for a more simple solution, such as a volcano or meteor. A Creationist sees millions of dinosaur skeletons, and sees support for Genesis 7:21 "Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind."

The difference?
The Evolutionist sees support for a theory proposed after seeing the evidence. The Creationist sees support for an event written about several thousand years before. Now if you want to just call me a bible thumper, how about this: look up the Epic of Gilgamesh. It is a piece of ancient literature from Mesopotamia, and in it there is an account of a flood. Is it pure accident that different cultures from all around the world have similar stories about a flood? Could all these stories have been an elaborate hoax? Or is it more likely that the story of an actual event was handed down from generations?

FreeRangeRadical

Maybe Cain didn't really kill Abel. I posit that Abel was eaten by a T. Rex.

MMHMM That's what happened. It came to be in a vision, so it must be true.

This chart above is ridiculous, obviously put in place by an idiot who wants to make Creationists look stupid, it by know means represents what it is the truth in a sensible interpretation of their beleif. (Earth created in six days - that means it wasn't spread over our recorded history, it was only at the beginning)
I think that literal "six days" thing is bunk, but I do beleive in God. I've had too many experiences to think otherwise, but I beleive it is obvious that he works by the natural laws of nature (perhaps he even created those laws of nature, including evolution, big bang, whatever. At the base level all matter is energy, and could possibly have been organized however wished.) Think about this...what if we as a race developed so much that we could influence the forces that create a planets or stars? Would we not then be "gods". Why are we so arrogant as to assume that there could not be another intelligent race out there far superior to ours, capable of utilizing all natural law? What if they had also developed socially and politically enough that they were also interested in the welfare of others, like ourselves, and did on the odd occasion, give us a little bit of help and knowledge. I do admit that much of religious tradition is bunk invented by man, but some of it is brilliant, typically when it is not touching science, but addressing human nature and behaviour. Perhaps those greater intelligences recognize that behavior, in the end, is more important than scientific knowledge to the progress and happiness of man.

I think any attack on persons aimed through their faith is weakness in the attacker. I think any attack from persons aimed at limiting science either specifically or in general is fear in the attacker. I think both are base ends, and unworthy of men who, whether creationist or scientist, are surely on this world to steward it. LIFE is the goal.

really people

i mean, this was obviously just a scam article to get people to fight and yell at each other 105 times, get a life,

this is obviously popsci trying to get more comments

It does seems tactfully, PoPSCi is trolling.

ROFL.... snort.

I am Christian and the Sumerians believe the same thing, we were made from the Gods for the purpose to serve the Gods. The Christians believe in a second coming and in effect also means another cleansing of Earth similar when Noah was around. The Gods only want obedient servants.

This means another cleansing by a more intelligent being is coming and it will come from above on clouds to Earth. It is a reality we will experience.

Now the fact of the manner is there was and are many Gods with different agenda. The Gods did in the past war among themselves.

The point of knowing all you need lives inside yourself is valid. The purpose of love and sacrifice for others and forgiving is valid too. This is all you need. This is a great truth for humanity, worth living and dying for. We humans are important.

On Earth we did and do have evolution. Science is real and does explain our physical world. Science does suggest in theory of other more intelligent life in our cosmos and it would be possible for this intelligent life to visit Earth in the past. This external cosmic life form visiting primate life in the past had their own agenda and multiple leadership. They came to Earth with a purpose and used the local life forms, primates to their purposes. It did require them to update the local primates to a higher intelligence for corporation and efficiency. Many versions of primate\humans were made, until the final version was accepted or settled on.

To believe in an outside source from the cosmos came to Earth and tweak with primate DNA to upgrade primates to human form, actually still conforms and works with science and evolution.

This new primate saw Earth and itself with innocent eyes and was educated with information from an outside source, with an outside agenda for itself. It was an age of innocence and possibly misinformation for a higher purpose from beings from above. But remember, some of these being above care for the life forms on Earth and others were just self servant to themselves. The Gods did war with themselves.

Earth and humans are near a tipping point of exploiting and exhausting the Earth recourses, combine with destroying our own environment. It was instilled in ourselves to be greedy, an un-animal type instinct for the benefit of serving the cosmic life forms. You will not find greed, in the natural animal kingdom of Earth. Natural life of Earth is survival of the fittest, but it only takes what it needs.

Life on Earth is going to change for several reasons. It is very possible, but I do not know external cosmic life could force change on Earth. But more likely, since wars were fought in the past and won, the fait of human life and suffering will be cause by us, the tipping point of exhausting Earth recourses, pollutions and our own greed. Most humans will be lost in this event.

The cosmic beings from above have expressed in the past and do posses the ability to save our inner being or should as we die, should they choose to do so. There is a place in the above for the chosen; the reset I imagine will dissipate in the cosmic chaos. The cosmic beings, Gods, GOD, will intervene at some point to scoop up many from the troubled suffering planet Earth. Earth and many will survive to a new beginning. God bless you all, I pray for all. Please, dear Lord helps me and forgives me my sins.

For the non religous folk, un open minded, ..... BOO! Take care. ;)

Oh, if you think about it, it works very nicely with science and evolution too. Yes it does involve a being from above as well.

Religion and science can be true, at the same time.

This was a very lame article. I did not see any value to the article. Several givens should be accepted before trying to discuss this topic.

1.Everyone know many animals on the graph depicted have been dead for 1000's if not millions of years. Even us bible believers. So the simple linear and unadjusted application of time-compression to a graph depicting two different ideas is a huge waste of breath and time.

2.The Bible never states 4004BC or provides any such calculation or date. This calculation is a conclusion of one or a small group of people who do not necessarily represent the beliefs of other Christians.

3.The english version of the Bible is a translation. In Genesis, the original hebrew word that was translated to "day" actually translates into period. Anyone who has done any historical Bible study knows this. When you replace the word day with period, then creationism doesn't stray too far from science (or vice versa).

The fact that this article was even written lets me know that it was written by someone who only thinks they know something about the Bible. And based on their acceptance of the time-compressed illustration, I question their knowledge of scientific principals as well.

@Sherlock Holmes
I'm saying if the human jaw was "designed" then its a bad one. I expect better from God.
So explain the differences in whales and fish to me. They live in the same environment. They have a similar look on the outside. Yet a Whales' skeleton, internal organs, and genetic makeup are much much much closer to a human's than to a trout's.
Next point, evolution isn't simply ADDING DNA, its CHANGING DNA. It changes all the time, and those changes add up eventually. They adapt. They become better (or less, which would seem to be the case with wisdom teeth) able to survive. That's EVOLUTION. Natural Selection is the driving force behind it. You said yourself - The Virus with the adaption lives, the one without dies.
Thermodynamics in an Evolution discussion? Ok lets run with this for a second... Things lose order. Simple things become more complicated... A simple cloud of hydrogen gas becomes stars, galaxies, planets and life. Seems perfectly in line with the 2nd law of thermodynamics to me...

@Kamus
Kufufufu.
Simplicity becoming complexity does not follow the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is in fact, the very opposite. A complicated star has more order than a random cloud of gas. Everything about the star is perfectly balanced for it to produce energy, but it will die as its internal forces become imbalanced. Thus, order dissolves into chaos. And even biology is subject to the 2nd Law. Living things run down and die, they develop destructive mutations (we have rarely seen mutations that improve organisms). Order does not necessarily mean simplicity. It means "a state in which everything is in its correct place" (Oxford Dictionary of English). Human organs are arrangement in thier correct places which enables humans to survive, even though their simplicity is out of the question. A bunch of random, elementary molecules drifting around, no matter how
"simple", is chaos.
If evolution is changing DNA, reptile-to-bird evolutions would be rather...challenging. There has to be a transition phase between the two. And in this transition phase, scale-feathers are completely useless, as it lacks the smooth protection of scales or the flight/aerodynamic capability of feathers. A transition creature would die out easily. And why would there need to be a change, a need to become "better", for reptiles? They could have kept on staying the way they are. Are birds really "better" than reptiles? I'm sure that a bird's brains are smaller, they have access to a smaller diet (bird diets are rather limited, as birds cannot crawl around an underbrush or dense flora like reptiles), etc. Only a handful of birds are birds-of-prey, and those ones have mostly the same limits as all the other ones. All if birds are better, why do we have birds and reptiles living together? How come one group of reptiles "evolved" when another didn't, even though they are in the same habitat with the same resources?
And didn't I say that just because human jawbones are useless now doesn't mean that they were in prehistoric times. You needed those teeth for chewing vegetables in a world where cooking had not been invented. And isn't natural selection supposed to "uproot" organisms that can't survive: organisms that are "badly" designed? If humans came in during the last few million years, should nature have done away with us? Wouldn't nature value humans who are smart (criteria of humans) and have good jawbones ("perfect" design criteria)? Wouldn't the wisdom teeth humans, regardless of intelligence, die out?
Whales are similar to humans because they're both mammals. In fact, how come evolution didn't turn everything into a monospecific planet? How come natural selection didn't kill everything off until there was only one, "perfect" organism? Why did water organisms evolve into variety, instead of having natural selection select for the perfect water creature? Good question, Kamus. Why are fish and whales different even though they live in the same environment and would have evolved the same way? And if whales were going to evolve into land organisms (you said that their flippers were surprisingly similar to toes in an earlier post) what made them stop?
Around 90% of human DNA is similar to apes, but the same percentage of human DNA is similar to mice. Kufufufufufu.

Hey Robot you are the biggest faggot i have ever seen. i made a account just to tell you you have literally no life and clearly no friends. go outside for a change and stop sitting here on popsci you faggot

So those that say life was killed by mythical worldwide flood...

Did this flood "drown" the fishies too? I don't quite understand how a flood can do that to things that breathe in water...

Oh but the big book must be true if it was written at a time when people had a narrower view of the earth and universe than we do now.

Don't throw away reason or logic when chasing beliefs.

Thebossman21,
Cool, I inspired you to make a login. Take care. ;)

I do not give a rats as# of your opinion. But, I am glad you and others have one.

SeekX,
Consider an inner perspective of the flood even and the guilt associated with the survivors.
One day a man was given knowledge about a coming flood and what to do about. Eventually that day arrives and his "WORLD" is gone and the guilt inside himself and his family must rationalize reasons for all those who are lost and why they survived.
I was not there when this even happen, were you? But, I can easily imagine a human emotional trauma to unfold to the survivors. And a great many other religions and cultures made note in their history too, of a great flood.
Yes, there were survivors. Humans are here today and the associated wild life.
Religious text is for growth of you inner being. It is not a science book.

Yes what you say is the experience of ANY natural disaster as seen threw the eyes of a human being, but do you happen to know what the whole "WORLD" was to the writer? Did he have knowledge of other places of farther than he's traveled or did he naturally assume it happened "everywhere"?

My point is that if an individual person saw some strange event they have little/no knowledge of as we do today, they would relate it to some supernatural power (if they believe in some religion) because of ignorance or maybe even preference to use as a means to control people through religion.

Religion has always been a driving force to control people, whether it be fear of being killed by "saviors", not following "the cool people" and being alienated by family and/or friends should they not believe it, etc. (I can go on forever). Its fine if you believe in certain things, but do not try to force them on people who you'd like to "save."
Study any religion's impact on man and the dark history behind it's creation to realize what you may be following.

My beef is mostly with the abstract term of "religion" and not exactly the people following them.

The only way I'd see any real proof in this day and age of "divination" is if there was suddenly some artifact/place that told those exact same stories that any religion forces upon you, saw an extremely strange and unknown language never before seen in humanities existence written, and "poof" somehow anyone can understand it, no matter what languages mankind has created. If such a language did exist, why did it have to be translated at all if that's where it came from? Was it "translated" so that it could be used by any man to write in their views? (I realize this may make little sense and sound completely stupid, but now you'd see my point on really any "religion". And no, crush the thought of alien "gods" you may get from this, that is something else i will not discuss though it may or may not belong here.)

Either you don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics or the basic meaning of words, because the way you just explained stars would mean they're breaking the 2nd law too. The cloud of gas comes BEFORE the star, and if the cloud of gas = disorder and the star = order, then disorder (the cloud of gas, as you said) moved to order (The star) and the 2nd law of thermodynamics is kaput. Same thing you wrote before about simple single-celled life=chaos and multi-cellular complex life=order. Grab a thesaurus and check double check this, but i'm pretty sure simple and chaos are NOT synonyms, and complex and orderly aren't either. The star is complexity and (grab your thesaurus again) complexity=chaos=disorder=many cellular life, whereas the gas=simplicity=order=single celled life. And the 2nd law states very clearly says a state of order(AKA simplicity) moves to a state of disorder (AKA complexity). Evolution is perfectly sound according to the law of thermodynamics, as long as you understand the meaning of words.

Likewise you seem to believe life is able to change and adapt to its environment, people grow shorter jaws and bacterium gain resistance to medicine, but you say those changes are because of their environment or the food they eat, not because of evolution. But you're failing to grasp the basic concept that evolution isn't the force that drives things to change, evolution is the CHANGE ITSELF.

Last thing, even if I'm wrong and somehow simple IS now synonymous with chaos, there's this nifty little loophole in the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says entropy can be reversed if you add external energy to the equation, and adding external energy is pretty much a fundamental of life. I'll understand if you'd rather pray than comment back.

Oh, and what the hell is kufufufufufu? You seem retarded - and I mean it in the most offensive way possible

Kamus, thus ends our debate. You brought emotions into the picture, and now it's clouded your better judgement. Emotions... sigh.

convenient

We are all travelers in life journey, individualist with free will and responsible for our choices and actions. Good luck to all and I hope you find you way. Everyone’s opinion deserves merit, even the ones that have insulted me. Why, simply because each individual is always deemed important and they journey that take in life, be it and outward journey and understanding of life all about us, science or an inner journey and feeding of their own soul.

It is at this time, I see a great many of you repeating your points as if, to stomp your foot and force the issue. You cannot force your will or your opinion on another person. You can only present your perspective opinion and maybe it inspires the listener a chance to be in the same place as you currently are in your own journey.

Some many people made upset, by a nameless writer, lol.

Take care. ;)

This is a poorly researched article. It ignores the core elements of "scientific creationism"/"flood geology". In the 1850's, a millerite false prophetess named Ellen G. White had a vision of Genesis which contradicted the growing view of long geologic timescales. In her vision, the Genesis creation occured in 6 calendar days and the geologic column was laid down by a cataclysmic planetary flood.
Her disciple, George MacReady Price, was particularly excited with geologic flood formations as a way to combat the view that fossils show somewhat increasing size and complexity over long periods of time. In the early 20th century, he took his "Flood Geology" on circuit to churches and anyone else who would listen.
Untrained congregants were easily persuaded of the plausibility of such an idea. By the 1950s the idea had grown considerable traction and Henry Morris began to publish along the same idea calling his thoughts "Scientific Creationism".
While it may give you a big chuckle to mock those who have little scientific training and no particularly good reason to trust an increasingly politicized academic system, putting the geologic column in order ingnores their position entirely and creates a straw man argument that untrained congregants can continue to easily ignore.
If you were a good journalist, you would go after actual bad arguments that they make, like the idea that fossils were somehow stratified in the deluge by size.
In contrast to folks like George MacReady Price, most Christians of his day did not hold to Ussher's chronology. In the 1890s Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield "The Lion of Princeton" and Arichibald Alexander Hodge codified the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy held by most evangelicals. They also held to standard geologic timescales.

Robot
All i want to know is why you comment on so much shit ont this website.

Thebossman21,
LOL, to pull your string and watch you spin! You yo-yo! ROFL.... ha ha snort....

Thebossman21,

I look forward to your intelligent comments in regards to the articles. Have you yet posted an intelligent comments with regards to any article yet? No... lol.

Beware the author of this article maybe part a pro-atheist movement.

First off the biblical scriptures themselves are over 4000 years old and even beyond we have found scriptures older... no where in the bible does it say the earth was created 6000 years ago. Not once...

Instead understand the psychology of the words in genesis.

It was meant to represent from darkness to light, meaning you were created in the womb, formless, just as the earth was at once. When you open your eyes, you are also creating the world in your mind by observing. If it was not for your observation, nothing would exist, your observation is what creates everything. Without you, there can be no one to testify.

Cover your eyes, it disappears, open your eyes, and there it is.

Go to sleep for 12 hours... you won't know what happens around you, because your observation of the world is dormant. For all you know, in that 12 hours, anything can happen... anything, and you wouldn't know it unless you awoke and observed it through your senses.

Sleep for 1000 years, and imagine.

Luke 1;37 with god all things are possible... What is god? Well... what is energy? Where does it come from? Where is the direct source of all of it? Why are we able to build bikes, cars, houses, computers, genetic engineering? "Genesis 1;27, So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

The bible is promoting social groups to dance around in church worshiping a stature, it was speaking the path for you as an individual to understand that seeking truth in all things you do will lead you to well being and immortality.

Tesla was seeking divinity in the things he did.

Correction...

The bible NOT* is promoting social groups to dance around in church worshiping a stature*

The people promoting social groups are exploiters, because they know if they can get 500 people in a church and make them feel good that those people will give up money and resources.

Whatever that church is...

Church of Harley Bikers
Church of Catholics
Church of Atheists
Church of Urban Gang Culture
Church of National Sports

Organized Religion... whatever it maybe, if it demands anything of you, then it is a fascist cult. No longer a place of love and truth.

mongoose,
I understand your point perfectly sir. While to myself, I am Christian as heart. I often wonder why throughout the world there are so many other religions and cultures. The only conclusion I have, we are all love and in a whisper here the voice of God in our hearts and we are all individuals too, taking life’s journey uniquely. So, get to know a neighbor, perhaps from another country, you might learn something knew about God, you never knew before.

The concept of creationism does not carry any level of scientific validity. It tries to calculate into the equation the work of an un-definable/measurable/testable element(god), thus it is not scientific. Science is a loveless, cold-hearted beast. It'll rip your heart out and remind you that no matter how good your intentions or how important something that's been kicking around in your head might seem, it is completely meaningless without the application of the scientific method. It doesn't matter what you believe; it matters on what you can show. For the theory of evolution: You can show evidence of fossils, you can show evidence in DNA sequences, you can show evidence through a myriad of dating techniques. Creationism, on the other hand, has nothing of the sort. It is not even remotely a scientific theory.

The fact that people try and push it into science classrooms makes it more than fair for scientific scrutiny. As more data comes in, the further the world(with scientists leading the pack) gets away from the idea. It's not out of spite or love. Science does not care about what the word God means to you. You can have a million theological debates, in attempt to validate your claims, but creationism will still lack the hard evidence to not be completely ridiculed by the scientific community.

This article highlights some of the absurdities of-young earth creationism. It seems obvious that the author was just trying to get a bunch of people to comment on the feed. It boosts up their traffic, as well as author's popularity, every time people get on to comment or read comments. So,if you're a big creationist fan and really want them to stop writing these kinds of articles,then it'd probably be best to post elsewhere.

Rusty Beaumont,
Since the author is name-less, this article gains him no extra popularity. Though, I do feel you are correct in its writing to insight increase traffic via a lot of arguing, being Gods\religion\creationism and science are two completely different subjects with different purposes. Hence the writer of this article is a TROLL.

Another trolling article like this and I'll never visit this website ever again...

Back in 2007-2008 when PopSci got on the "Human Caused Global Warming Armegedon(OMG!! WERE GONBNA DIE!!!)" bandwagon..specifically after the editor tried to justify how you could get 19 pounds of co2 out of 8 pounds of cracked gasoline with EPA approved clean burning formula with EPA required detergents and anti-smoking agents preventing spontanious oxidization on CO/"CO2"(plus 14,000BTU of heat,plus5lb of water,plus 400 hp of kinetic force if you belive the Physic class chemical Theory nonsense) I cancelled my subscription till about a year ago

This time around I just received my last issue,Oct 2012, and besides unstories like this one there is still the AGW nonsense and more tech stuff suited for popular mechanics then actual storie about research,testing,and general Scientific information,so I won't be renewing..but I might rummage around here still yet

As far as the Dinosaur thing, all animal life after them is thier "Offspring" including,posibly,humans cause "natural selection" is about loosing traits you don't use not gaining anything and the desendents of Dinosaurs,according to to natural selection proper, would loose "master species" traits that first would make them a bird,mammal,fish or reptile first,then a specific type of mammal or fish or bird or reptile, then a really specialized one that can no longer adapt..or "evolutionary dead end"
"Master Creatures" like the Dinosaurs are a blend of the animal groups and diversified into other things that are still living today over the millions of years (To Bad even"read,remember,recite" US College professors "teaching" Evolution can't comprehend this themselves nowadays)

But then again I've heard Physics lectures about the laws of thermal Dynamics,I hear them go on and on about Zeroth law and how you can't increase a composite gas's(like air's) maximum heat absorbtion threashold (reciting what they read and remembered when they learned the stuff) then 10 minutes later talk about the "Green house effect" from doubling of CO2 allowing the air's maximum heat absorbtion threashold to go up by 3c-9c(again rattling off stuff read,remembered and now recited).....what? (I of course call them on it..every time)

Little more versed Physisists will insist "Green house effect" currently isn't testable in the lab or field cause it has to do with the sudden rush of heat from the atmosphere to the vaccum of space...or "zero point energy"..or "null physics"..all which can't be offically verified with current technology..of course..which is why you need a formula to calculate "19 pounds of CO2 emmited" when any vehicle emmisions testing device errously? registers 66-134 mililiters of CO2 per a gallon of gas burned(co2 from air intake and trace co2 from enthynol additive)
And of course those Emmisions Testing devices on coal powereed plants stacks Errously? registering only Nitrogen and water vapor also needs a formula to tell how much CO2,not measured,is supposedly comming out ("19 tons CO2 per ton of coal" supposedly,despite closed injection furnace,water slurrly filtration,chemmical filtration,electrostatic filtration,and and catalyst converters on a "This isn't the 50's-70"s stock footage" Coal plant regulated by EPA?)

Oh my

Retired "grunt" scientist (don't guess,test it)

@marcoreid

This is a website dedicated to science and you can't even do a little research on the source???

Cowardly? Really? Or maybe its because this is not their article. This article can be found on mindat.org as stated at the bottom right of the info graph and was published by Jolyon Ralph. And the original graph without the timeline for creationists was made by sa.gov.au

Lets do a little bit of reading before we accuse people of things from now on, ok?

I wish this argument was not "evolution vs. creationism." One can experience God without refuting science. One just needs to be skeptical of human accounts in a freakin' text that was scribed during Roman occupation, and therefore subject to governmental censorship in the time of a failed democracy. Why do people blindly accept the modern accounts of the bible as scriptures from God? It baffles me that not only do they take what was supposed to be a mystical text and read it literally, but they will ignore science in order to make it fit the myths.

God does not live in the bible, God dwells in the science where awe is truly more palpable through the Hubble telescope and the electron microscope than even in Genesis.

@sondrasneed: "God does not live in the bible, God dwells in the science where awe is truly more palpable through the Hubble telescope and the electron microscope than even in Genesis."

you're still dictating what God is and how he/she/it works. Believing religious scripture is silly, but that's also where the word God has been defined for thousands of years. Perhaps you should come up with another word for what you call "God," as to avoid association with crazy people that think one flood caused the grand canyon.

The only thing that comes to my mind here is that 2000 years ago there was no doubt in man's mind that religion was the answer. Just imagine what we will be saying of our current beliefs in the next 2000 years.

Yeah, lets just ignore radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating should have a chaperone.

This heated debate has got me hungry waffles anyone?
Ingredients
1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
1/4 teaspoon salt
4 teaspoons baking powder
1 tablespoon white sugar
1/2 cup vegetable oil
1 3/4 cups of milf
2 cups all purpose flour
2 eggs

Directions

1.Preheat waffle iron. Beat eggs in large bowl with hand beater until fluffy. Beat in flour, milk, vegetable oil, sugar, baking powder, salt and vanilla, just until smooth.

2.Spray preheated waffle iron with non-stick cooking spray. Pour mix onto hot waffle iron. Cook until golden brown. Serve hot.

I don't see any science here? Ha! The earth is 6,000 years old... Sure. And we're the center of the universe.

This sounds like the plot for one of those schlock scifi movies. I can see it now "Abraham Lincoln! Dinosaur Hunter".

Radiocarbon dating debate aside, the fact that we have dated artifacts (not by carbon dating, by dates on the actual items) substantially older than the claims made by this chart cries BS to this "timeline".

Nothing published in this chart really surprises me, other than the missing Jello-pudding-popasaurus well documented and researched by our own Bill Cosby.

Honestly, c'mon. You cannot lump everyone who believes in creation in with young-earth creationists. No more than you can say that every evolutionist believes in RNA world theory. I believe in creation, but the age of the earth and the time man has spent on it are not at all close. Between articles like this and your in-mag ads selling me tobacco products (really? very scientific...) I'm not renewing my subscription when it comes up.

The great "I-am" did it all. In addition, while he identifies himself with existence, he shall remain nameless. The reason he shall rename nameless, because his description is beyond human imagination.

We estimate the cosmos this time around is 13.7 billion years old. And there are scientist that say, it is possible our existence, cosmos might of repeated many times prior.

Therefore, this "I-am", may well be very old and very powerful....

Evolution, yea on a planet. But for the cosmos, everything is happening according to plan, says the "I-am"!

To put this discussion into a context which will pull it
away from the distraction of disagreement and turn it
toward understanding the historical record, of planetary
events, left for us by the world's ancient
cultures, i would say that we have a puzzle to
be deciphered which tells of what they experienced.
I will use what Rusty said as a launching point to
introduce what consensus-science has been ignoring
for far too long.

(Rusty) " I like greek mythology; i find it fascinating and chock-full of meaningful stories. But, I don't think my fascination would necessarily make me any more or less religious."

Legends 'are' meaningful but the purpose is not to make you
religious it is to instruct you in deciphering the
rest of the puzzle pieces and inform you of actual
events.

People use the words science and religion far too loosely,
not realizing that consensus-science, what most
people are basing their arguments upon, is a form of
religion, with all sorts of dogma that props up a
belief system, an agreed-upon philosophy, leading to
joint-conclusion that you might not be able to
verify, you are placing your faith on a person that
is claiming that the scientific process has been
satisfied or has occurred at all.
Are those conclusions factual, based on irrefutable
evidence? In too many ways, No.

Consensus-science is not real science when they
ignore evidence which disqualify their conclusions.
Our planet and solar systems history has not been
properly interpreted because key evidence was excluded.
Standard conclusions are off because they ignored
the record left for use in the form of legend, rock
art and other cultural details.
Rock art, in many ways, was determined to frequently
be representations of high energy plasma events,
occurring in near earth space, as witnessed by the
ancient cultures around the world.(Anthony L. Peratt)
Legends tell us of the catastrophe's that occurred during
periods of violent interactions between celestial bodies.
Venus still has the cometary tail which was the source
of tragic events brought upon this planet.
It was once visible and was recently rediscovered by
the SOHO satellite.(Nasa 1997ish).
Our solar system has not been moving like clock-work
for as long as consensus-science want's you to accept.
The electric activity of our universe has been ignored
along with local accounts of events that were seen as
electrical interaction between the planets leaving
numerous scars. (Thunderbolts Project)

Institutionalized science has produced people
religiously holding on to misinformation.

Arguments over religion vs. science are just
a distraction to learning the real story of
earth's catastrophic past.
Hold on to what is 'historically true' and discard
the modern myths of gradualism. 3dzp