I know that it only gives them publicity, but I'm almost curious as to how he (thinks) can possibly prove that. We have archeologists, paleontologists, geologists, and assorted other -ists that have proven, scientifically, that the Grand Canyon is a little older than a couple thousand years. What does this guy possibly have than can prove otherwise, other than the Bible itself? Seriously. Baby dinosaurs floating along in the Ark? Another case of people who think they know more than they do, "teaching" everyone else what they (think) they know, thereby proving to the rest of us how little they really know. Honestly, it's people like him that give honest religious folks a bad name. -monkey
gees, someone please send this person to the dunce corner. Anyone see the irony in this? Perhaps Hammy should have been better educated himself. The bible, imo, does not state enough scientific findings and sources to back up its claims and thus cannot possibly be used to put dinosaur, and man, in the same timeline. These are the ravings of a madman. No doubt he believes "The Flintstone's" was based on actual events.. ok wait a second.. Ok. This is ridiculous. There is no way, you can shunt 5 billions years of fossils, up to recent timelines. He needs a reality check. Noah did not build an impossibley huge ark, filled with every animal (dinosaurs included now), armed with God's words and his trusty dove compass, crusade across a worldwide flood and say; "Wow, the grand canyon sure got deep.." Someone pinch me, he can't be for real Nope, this is teaching them a world where dinosaur and man co-existed.. peacefuly.. in Biblical paradise.. Of course, this is a prime location terrorists..
Still at least he's not trying to force it down your throat unlike that erm... guy who said he'd give so many thousand dollars to whoever could prove Darwin but the catch was it had to abide by his rules. I forget his name. Still I really think people who believe this junk are really misguided. "The world is only 6000 years old" that’s BS! I openly admit that radiometric dating has its flaws and that ultimately you can’t prove the age of the earth which is a major thing in creation theory. You can make a damn good EDUCATED guess though. However I made a similar point in my 10th dimension post that, just because you can’t prove 100% it exists by viewing it or some other technique. That doesn’t mean it’s not real or doesn’t exist. There comes a point, where you’ve amassed so much evidence that the probability of it being true is almost 1. It kind of seems like creationists see everything as black and white in that if a theory doesn’t conclusively prove something then by there logic it totally disproves it.
Look, just see it as a roadside attraction. Like the "See the Biggest Ball of String in the World" or something like those weird little tourist attractions you saw all along 1950's and 60's American Highways. The people who buy into this do not approach the world from a scientific perspective. They're not exactly critical thinkers --many people aren't. How many people in the street could tell you about carbon dating? His proof is the word of God --that's good enough for him. For many other lay people the "proof" is the word of scientists, because they don't really understand many scientific theories. They just see science deliver the goods, and that's good enough for them. As long as your car drives you to the mall, what do you care about how the engine works? If the pill makes you feel better, what do you care about its biochemistry? Other stuff seems remote and abstract to their daily lives. When you fall or drop something, what do you care about whether gravity is a force or a curvature in space-time? Thing is, that from a conceptual point of view, God creating life, the universe and everything is a lot easier to understand than how science says it all happened. There are also a lot of existentialist gains attached --it seems kind of relevant to your daily life in a way a lot of science does not seem to. So: simple minds, simple ideas.
This guy is not just a creationist, he's a literal creationist. I.e. he believes creation took place over 6 twenty four hour periods. I always hope this view is a minority one. Other views of creation consider genesis to be either allegorical or to view each "day" as a period of time. These theories have the wonderful benefit of also tying in with evolutionary theory quite well. About the only area where most creationists and evolutionists tend to differ is the creation/evolution of man.
The two accounts are indeed uncannily alike. If I had to explain the origins of the universe to a bunch of illiterate peasants and sheepherds 2000 years ago, I would probably give an allegorical account quite similar to that. Problem is, many people are a bit literate. The more fundamentalist, the more literate, in fact. Something better not get lost in the translation --oops...
When you base life on magic/an omnipotent deity rather than science, anything can be very simply explained - "It's magic". End of story, no discussion possible. I'm surprised it's an American thing rather than some primitive tribe, but there's a strong commercial angle ("Organizations that benefit from charitable organization status are exempt from federal taxes."). God the Showman pays well. Just another branch of the entertainment industry, move along...
