Senator Jeff Monroe (R-24/Pierre) thinks increasing teacher pay to address the number-one crisis in K-12 education, the teacher shortage, is dead on arrival. But he thinks the Legislature should entertain his anti-science creationism bill to address the “workplace situations” that he says discourage teachers from staying in South Dakota:
Monroe says that the bill calls for the intent to create an environment where students are “encouraged to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects taught”…
What that means, according to Monroe, is that teachers can discuss all science-related topics, including biological evolution, global warming and human cloning, as long as those topics are included in the curriculum approved by that respective school district.
This bill, according to Monroe, will give teachers the ability and protection to discuss such issues if asked by students… [Kevin Larsen, “Monroe Bringing Back ‘Scientific Teaching Bill’ Again This Session,” KCCR Radio, 2016.01.05].
“Scientific Teaching Bill”—yeah, you’d better put that in quotes, Kevin. Senator Monroe isn’t protecting my ability to discuss issues if asked by students—my fellow teachers and I already have all the protection his bill pretends to give to serious scientific teaching. Senator Monroe tells KCCR that our current K-12 standards prevent teachers from leading students in analyses of big scientific ideas like “the Big Bang Theory of how we got here” to “decide if there’s another scientific theory that’s better.” That contention is rot: if my students want to fire up the classroom telescopes and cyclotron, prove that CERN and the Homestake Lab have missed a couple decimal places, and compose a whole new theory of the universe, I will yield the whiteboard for them to do the calculus.
But Senator Monroe isn’t asking for calculus and particle collisions. Senator Monroe wants to write “God made people” into the K-12 curriculum. His 2014 bill on this matter gave explicit legal protection to “intelligent design” and French teachers’ discourse thereupon. The 2015 iteration cleverly avoided those words, but the whacky creationists at the Discovery Institute made sure they testified for the bill in committee to try wedging their religion into our public classrooms. The 2016 iteration will surely be another excuse to play culture war, to say that our teachers need God, not mammon (sorry, my mortgage lender and Kessler’s still only accept the latter).
Senator Monroe is denying both science and market forces. He’s clinging to fantasies to keep from dealing with the primary policy objective the 2016 Legislature must achieve, raising teacher pay to battle South Dakota’s teacher shortage.
Monroe is just one more extremist legislator diverting attention from the Westerhuis murders, Bendagate and the culture of corruption in Pierre.
What Monroe believes is that the sun really revolves around the earth and then later in the day, the moon eats the sun. Science to Monroe is just another hard word to use the spellchecker on.
Send your kids to Catholic or Born-Again school if you want fictional not factual.
Jeff Monroe is a nut. I can’t believe that Pierre keeps re-electing him.
Rors,
That certainly says a lot about Pierre, doesn’t it.
As Ph.D. physicist Jake Hebert explains at the link below, there are sound scientific reasons to reject the “Big Bang”:
http://www.icr.org/article/big-bang-evidence-retracted/
Mr. Monroe is a scientist, medically trained. He is the chair of the bonecracker caucus and probably pulls the strings from much of the legislatures. Quietly, behind the scenes he pulls all the strings.
He does not drive white pickups that are simply delivering pheasants to hunting preserves because Mr. Monroe is not a conspiracy theorist, nor is he a hunter.
Perhaps I should feel more threatened by this. When a scientific theory such as evolution or the Big Bang is supported by diversified mountains of evidence and when even relatively shaker hypotheses such as climate change are supported by systemic evidence, research, and physical laws, I have a hard time feeling threatened by other ideas in the classroom that may counter them. The classroom should be a welcoming environment for divergent student viewpoints. It is ironic that I have to apparently remind liberals of this on this site.
Spencer says: “The classroom should be a welcoming environment for divergent student viewpoints.” Uh, no, not when it comes to basic factual and scientific information. If you want to discuss it in some current events class, fine, no problem, or in some government class that talks about the “know nothings” and their modern equivalents. But, science classes shouldn’t be diluted down to the idiot level just to coddle someone’s mistaken “viewpoint.”
Students can hold divergent ideas about the shape of the earth, but we ought not spend one minute discussing it, except to point out the historical role science can play in dispelling religious superstition.
Funny, Spencer: I find it ironic that I have to apparently remind conservatives not to go down the road of relativism.
The classroom should be a welcoming environment for divergent student viewpoints. It is ironic that I have to apparently remind liberals of this on this site.
You aren’t talking diversified student viewpoints,you are talking shoving religion into public schools where it doesn’t belong. Feel free to yak about creationism in church whenever.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but since Monroe was elected to the Senate in 2013, has any bill he’s been the prime sponsor of passed? I’m thinking no, but perhaps someone can refresh my memory.
From Grudznick above:
“Mr. Monroe is a scientist, medically trained. He is the chair of the bonecracker caucus and probably pulls the strings from much of the legislatures. Quietly, behind the scenes he pulls all the strings.”
A Chiropractor is a scientist? In what world is this? And chiropractors have a place and provide relief for some from long term pain, but you often see quackery and homeopathy mixed in. Pseudo science has hurt a lot of people. Give me peer reviewed research from bona fide scientists and I don’t care where the conclusions fall, just so good science has been done and checked by others with the qualifications to be sure of what we are getting.
It is beyond fascinating that social/ religious conservatives scream tyranny at the slightest perception of their not being able to dominate many aspects of our lives, but when asked about the turn-around, that is, what they will accept from someone else that, like them, tells them that their God has determined there are things they either can’t do, or have to do, then the religious conservatives – at least many, prohibit Sharia Law in our state, for example, where in order to find Moslems, you would go to the universities and it would be professors who teach engineering, math, pharmacy etc. or international students who leave upon degree completion. I know many and the last thing they want is to be involved in stupid and endless religious contests that never will be settled. If your religion conflicts with established science and the arrogance of a literal absolute interpretation, then you have a problem in that your theology is incorrect. So very many think they know nothing less than the mind of God. They, of course deny this, but if you tell me there is a God, who has a son, who has a will that you have telepathically received a good feeling about or experienced some kind of serendipity about that you don’t have the skills to understand chance and extrapolated from that, that you should be empowered to make large decisions about other’s lives because you are in the one group out of hundreds that has gotten this right. I want no part in being controlled by someone who has appointed themselves to do my thinking – or any other citizen that wishes to opt out. It is interesting these same people that tell us their creator God made light already in transit, laid down layers of sediments rapidly in the flood rather than over vast time and speeds up radioactive decay to fool the arrogant scientists. It is ironic that these same deniers and fundamentalists upon contracting a serious disease or have a medical condition that is serious will go to the people – MD’s who use the same scientific system they deny. I know from having grown up in a pretty hard, absolutist fundamentalist one, that these same oh so pious believers would elbow women and children out of the way at the clinic to get their shot! I don’t want to impede any one elses belief in any way, but this business of the state’s teacher’s being put in a position where some districts would require them to repeat Christian creation myths is so blatantly unconstitutional it staggers the mind. Maybe if we could transport back to 1650 and stop the Enlightenment, they would be happy. Just before Sir Isaac Newton was born you could be murdered by the church for failing to attend. The last witch burning in Europe was in about 1815. If you think the bad stuff is in the long past look up Croatia in 1940 – Ustasha – to see it is still with us and in the memories of people who lived through it. If religion is not optional, then we are no longer free. Most churches love authority driven organizational structure and won’t devise a train brake cord any member can pull if children are getting abused. They transfer the wealth and property so as not to compensate victims. The top officials cover it up again and again. They have nothing to teach us about morality.
Hey, Page! I find that over the last three sessions, Sen. Monroe has primed sponsored 27 bills, 11 of them his own Senate bills, the other 16 House bills onto which he signed has prime Senator. None of his Senate bills have passed. 3 of the House bills he has joined have passed. Details:
2013: 9 bills, 4 in Senate, passed HB 1093 and HB 1246
2014: 10 bills, 4 in Senate, passed HB 1130
2015: 8 bills, 3 in Senate, passed none.
I have been told that Mr. Monroe home-schools his kids. Is that true? If so, why does he feel so compelled to dictate what happens in a place his kids aren’t?
Why are all South Dakota chiropractors as crazed as Deutsch, Munsterman, Unruh and Monroe are?
I don’t know much,but even I know there is a vast difference between divergent paths and mindlessly choosing the wrong way.
During the 2013 or 2014 session, Monroe introduced a bill that would have permitted any person to kill a mountain lion on sight if it were within a certain distance from habitation. He testified that several of his constituents had dangerous encounters with cougars in the Pierre area and he stated that any Mt. Lion that came within 10 miles of his children would be shot on site. He joined our resident wildlife biologist Senator Betty Olson in asserting that Mt. Lions are merciless, bloodthirsty killers that should be expunged from the face of the earth to make South Dakota more safe. (Then they turned around and voted for permitless concealed carry permits.) Based on that, the man lives an alternate reality that is based upon heresay, theory, and fundamentalist, self generated facts. Several of us went in search of verified reports of Mt. Lions in the Pierre area reported by Mr. Monroes constituents. There were none. As my dad use to say……. It appears the senator exaggerates and lies even if the truth would fit better. Being an overt reactionary pacing the halls of the legislature with ones hair on fire is not in the best interests of South Dakota or her citizens.
Spencer Cody writes:
I’m wondering what Spencer would cite as the two biggest pieces of evidence for macroevolution and the two biggest pieces of evidence for the Big Bang.
Jack Shaftoe writes:
You’re apparently fine with using government to control the thinking of others by concealing scientific evidence that contradicts your presuppositions.
Jack Shaftoe continues:
Informed young-earth creationists have generally embraced time dilation and rejected the idea that God created starlight already in transit. We also generally believe current radioactive decay rates are much lower (not higher) than they’ve been in the past.
yer nuttier than a fruitcake, kurt.
http://phys.org/news/2015-07-accidental-discovery-key-universe.html
Jack Shaftoe writes:
I want no part in being controlled by someone who has appointed themselves to do my thinking …
Spencer Cody
“You’re apparently fine with using government to control the thinking of others by concealing scientific evidence that contradicts your presuppositions.”
Spencer Cody
“Informed young-earth creationists have generally embraced time dilation and rejected the idea that God created starlight already in transit. We also generally believe current radioactive decay rates are much lower (not higher) than they’ve been in the past.”
Jack Shaftoe
Informed Young Earth Creationists – that’s an interesting idea. Do you yet have a theory or even a model that will survive even a little close examination by real scientists? All this energy spent because you are trying to squeeze your God into a mold of the absolute literal. Are you also an Inerrantist? It seems that what you are having to deal with is that you and many other fundamentalists have assumed that your theology has to be right so everything else has to change. Are virtually all scientists who research these questions in a big conspiracy? That has been a mainstay of Creationist thought for a long time. Your statement about my wishing to conceal scientific evidence sure smells of conspiracy. I’m concerned about wasting precious class time on trying to plant a seed for specific beliefs by a slice of fundamentalist Christians. Let’s see, I wonder how tolerant you would be if they scientifically considered Lakota creation beliefs or Hindu ones. None of you come to this through a process of examining evidence and then forming a model or theory, but you come into it “knowing” what you believe is true then forcing anything you can to support you. It is piecemeal and what you are engaging in is looking for how what you believe is true. That is a million light years from the scientific process of looking for what is true. Your team has it completely backwards because you can’t accept that you might be wrong about theology and that is what this is when Creationists attempt to force it. Your conclusions precede your search for evidence. I submit your source material is suspect. Many of you feel scientists are proud and of the world, but if every bit of peer reviewed science says a 4 1/2 billion year old earth, then isn’t it arrogant in the extreme to maintain that every scientist is wrong because you were raised to believe yet another origin story from long before any kind of method existed to ascertain if you really had truth. I mean, how many things in the Bible that can be checked have been right? I have read some of the contorted stuff by people trying to make it all work but they all break down along the line, usually catastrophically. Does science have all the answers – of course not, but it has been built by humans so we can check and verify. Models get improved and we are learning all the time.
“Creation Science” relies on one textbook, the “Autobiography of God,” referred to by some as “Holy Scripture,” or the “Holy Bible.” God’s “autobiography” is said to have been written by God hisself, as dictated to various ghost writers.
It makes various assertions, such as that God breathed life into a mud form to make the first human, a male, then extracted a rib from him around which to build the first woman. Then, having taught this probably genetically identical couple to screw, God allowed them to do so incestuously, further promoting incest throughout the first several generations to fulfill God’s command to “be fruitful.”
Now the only evidence for the most fantastical of the assertions made in God’s autobiography is contained within the book itself, and consists only of assertions of what we are to accept as fact, creating the spectre of a “science” built on circular arguments. This reminds me of Phat Phough’s War College argument that cannabis is illegal because it’s illegal and should stay illegal because it’s illegal.
Mr. Wrede’s characterizations of Betty Olson and Jeff Monroe are far too complimentary. And Kurt Evans makes an unsupported assumption in calling young-earthers “informed.”
Mr. Shaftoe, good post. Please note however that the person you are addressing is actually Mr. Kurt Evans who was responding to both you and Mr. Cody in his post. (Just trying to help us all keep track of who’s who in the discussion.) Please do carry on gentlemen.
p.s. I’m curious as to what Mr. Evans is referring to when he writes “concealing scientific evidence that contradicts your presuppositions.” And conversely, what evidence he has to convince the science community (and the rest of us) that as little as 6000 years ago there were talking snakes.
Thank you Bill Fleming. I was trying to do a few things at once and should have checked my post for sense making and clarity. I always appreciate the help.
I just want to say that I am not opposed to religion either. I know very many people who derive great comfort from it, even, in some ways basing their lives on it and if it makes them better people and more charitable that is a good thing. I have been to church with my mother in law and family for years for Christmas Eve. I think the story and observance of these traditions has a charm and the whole end of year celebrations transcends to a larger thing that has occurred in civilization for far, far longer than Christianity has existed. Christianity is so similar to many of the Pagan beliefs that if one were to do a contrast and compare, it would be very difficult because they all were made of the same stuff that came before them and were so similar.
I have attended a small country church’s nativity presentation for a few years at some long time friends farm and again, there is an innocent charm to standing in a group singing familiar carols and so forth. They even have a camel!
But my big problem is the attempt by zealots to appoint themselves to be in charge. You see through history that at the times zealots gained control very often they have started Inquisitions or auto da fe’s and the good people stand by and do nothing. I have always wondered where those two things are in “the good book”.
Our freedom to believe is the most precious thing we have. John Locke along with Sir Isaac Newton, Liebniz, Galileo, even Martin Luther were all part of a progression toward individual autonomy and the guarantee of certain specific rights. When a group comes along and claims ownership of an area the size of a football in women who are in their reproductive years because someone else’s God says so, this violates everything.Teaching children that the basis of how so many wonderful things that have been discovered is suspect is awful and counter productive for our future. I remember watching a Sunday sermon by D. James Kennedy and he said we would have been better off had the Enlightenment never occurred. Astounding! So, in my view we live and let live. Each can believe as they choose but it falls apart when someone knows how God doesn’t speak to me, so they will tell me what he wants. Oldest trick in the book.
By the way, if anyone is interested, an examination of Roussos Rushdoony is interesting as he is considered the father of the home school movement and produced textbooks for that purpose. To say he was bizarre is mild. He founded much of the movement to “Christianize” the USA. one of his close friends was Mike Huckabee.
Although in the minority i’ve long supported the oscillating universe:
http://www.universetoday.com/38195/oscillating-universe-theory/
As a scientist, Mr. Monroe knows that weed is bad, it is bad, and he probably does not prescribe it for his patients. Plus, while he is very young to be in the legislatures isn’t he probably a papa? We should be asking where his grandkids are going to school and what they are being fed at the school lunches.
Another problem with the “Creationist” argument is that most Creationists, including Mr. Evans, never tell us which translation of the Bible they are relying upon for their proof of creationism or why their version trumps all the other versions.
Is it the original John Wycliffe translation to English from 1380 or so? Or perhaps the Gutenberg Latin translation endorsed by the Roman Catholic church in the 1450’s, later condemned as an inaccurate translation designed so that parishioners could not understand it and would be left to the explanation by Priests who used this translation to dupe folks into believing that if they paid alms they could be forgiven from sins?
Or maybe the 1496 Colet translation into English is the proof of creationism? Or maybe the 1516 attempt by Erasmus to reform some of the Latin translation excesses? Or perhaps William Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament into English in 1525-26? Or perhaps Luther’s translation into German in 1523? Or the Coverdale translation into English in 1535? Or could it be the Roger’s translation to English in 1537? Or maybe the Geneva Bible translation in 1557? Or could it have been the Bishop’s Bible from 1568 to 1606? Or maybe the Rheims translation or the Douay Old Testament from around 1609?
Or maybe the King James version from 1611? Or maybe the John Eliot translation into the native Algonquin Indian Language in 1663? Or could it be Robert Aitken’s 1782 Bible, which was the only Bible ever authorized by the United States Congress? Or perhaps Noah Webster;s translation in 1833? Or maybe the English Revised Version from the 1880’s? Or maybe the American Standard version from 1801? Or the New American Standard Version from 1971? Or could it be the 1973 New International Version? Or perhaps the 1982 New King James Version? Or maybe even the 2002 English Standard version?
And what about the extra 14 books that were in every single Bible until the 1880’s? Does their removal (all 14 from protestant Bibles, and 2 books from Catholic Bibles) support the view that the entire Bible was perhaps not really the actual word of God?
Boy with all those translations out there it is hard to see how to pick the one that is the actual word of God explaining why the theory of evolution is a mistake? At least creationists have a lot of books to cite to to support their rejection of modern science.
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
Thomas Jefferson believed the earth was at least 60,000 years old and rejected Jesus’ divinity.
So now jesus made supersweet confections?
bearcreekbat – excellent post and thanks for the link. I am learning many things at this little place on the web.
Interesting thing concerning the Bible, Pat Robertson on the 700 Club used to be so pleased to mention the fact that all incoming legislators to The US House of Representatives and The US Senate were given a copy of the Bible. What he wasn’t aware of apparently for a while is that it is the Jefferson redacted version where our third President took out all the magic and some of the ugliness. Pat had to be privately embarrassed, but he needn’t worry as I would guess that fewer than one in a hundred would bother to check it out!
Mr. Shaftoe, I must warn you to be wary of some of the blue links posted by some of the fellows here. On occasion a few of them, not the swellest ones but some others, will post links to naughty pictures or illegal drug places. Especially, beware of Lar.
An essay has been languishing in my inbox for a few days. Here’s a snip:
grudznick – Thank you. I shall consider myself warned. The jiggling doesn’t bother or offend me but I did spend some hours a few weeks ago removing 21 bits of foistware from a sharing site for some obsolete software and it was from an outfit in Maine called Via Advertising. It was bundled and had a “.exe” embedded. Someone who sends foistware – Off with their heads!
Yes, Lar has some foisting too so just be careful. Glad to have you here, sir.
Bearcreekbat, maybe Senator Monroe could better advance his agenda with a bill funding world language classes in every district. Require every child to get daily instruction in another language starting in kindergarten, then by middle school start offering ancient languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew) so that by the time they get to high school biology and physics, the kids can intelligently answer those biblical translation questions.
Cory, don’t forget Aramaic, as that was a language used in portions of the original Old Testament.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if all evangelicals actually understood the history of the book that they believe should be used to shackle human freedom. It could be a real eye opener for anyone capable of critical thinking.
Aramaic! Thanks for reminding me. Dang—that’s four ancient languages we need to pack into an already crowded high school curriculum. When will we ever fit in the classes in advanced nuclear physics and cosmology necessary to intelligently investigate the Big Bang Theory and the classes in advanced biology and chemistry necessary to intelligently investigate evolutionary processes?
Therein lies a problem: the real discussion that Monroe pretends his bill is asking for requires a level of scientific knowledge beyond what we can fit into the K-12 curriculum. I don’t think Monroe is really asking for that rigorous scientific conversation to take place in classrooms. He’s trying to undermine science by creating room for crackpots to invade the classroom and shout their slogans any time a teacher mentions some part of science that leads to conclusions Monroe doesn’t like. The teacher won’t have time to prove anything, because everyone will have to rush back to cramming for the state’s standardized tests before we can rev up the cyclotron to make some Higgs bosons or fly to the Galapagos Islands to take samples to get real answers to the questions raised. Monroe doesn’t want to allow K-12 teachers the authority to dismiss the cranks’ queries with, “Asked and answered,” and he’s not going to demand that the cranks stick around for four additional years of rigorous scientific education that would show them how their doubts have been posed and disposed.
Excellent points Cory. In some ways Monroe and modern churches reflect the view of the Roman Catholic Church in the 15th and 16th Centuries with the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible. At that time the church went as far as executing anyone who tried to translate the Bible from the original languages in a manner that would enable parishioners to read it for themselves – parishioners, unable to read Latin, had to accept whatever the church priests told them the Bible said.
Today, rather than engage in any good faith analysis of the content the original Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, or the merit of various translations, Monroe and modern church leaders simply want parishioners to accept what Monroe and the church leaders assert the Bible says and means. If they can force schools (rather than churches) to offer these interpretations they feel their particular views may be less likely to be questioned.
I wonder how Monroe would feel if teachers did open up creation theories for scientific questioning and at the end of four years, the kids all said, “You were right, teach! Intelligent design isn’t even science! The Discovery Institute isn’t scientists! Evolution is the best scientific theory available, and intelligent design doesn’t offer any testable hypotheses to discredit it. Onward, Darwin!”
I agree with bearcreekbat. Good points. As an aside, I am old enough to remember my fourth grade teacher reading the Bible to us before the Supreme Court ruled on the question and 17 of the 23 of us in the class went to the church the teacher did. We outsiders regularly got told on the playground about burning forever in hell and so on. In the fifth grade it was over and there was much less tension among us. There were a few of even 10-11 year olds that were zealots just like their parents. This was even in liberal Northern Virginia. It is still a big deal across the South and the fire breathers love the chance to declare your moral inferiority.
Now that kind on scholarly analysis of creationism is a result worth pursuing Cory.
Jack, when my children were 4 and 6 we let them attend a Sunday school service with a neighbor. They came home making crosses out of bobby pins and singing, “one, two three the devil is after me!” Talk about trying to frighten little children – that was the end of that church experience. Fortunately, despite the lack of church afterwards both kids grew up to be compassionate empathetic adults who care deeply for their fellow human beings – and without even needing further threats of hell and damnation.
It is always the zealots and extremists who ruin it for everyone else. No sense of balance in anything.
Exposing students to critical study in cosmology requires college level physics that weigh reality with myth. Imagine Jeff Monroe advocating teacher funding for that.
Could someone direct me to the place in scripture that teaches me to write computer code or how to identify fossils from the Ordovician Period or do a fungi spore print?
CHURCH OF BILL! The only option.
The Blindman
Larry Kurtz – or that establishes Inquisition or auto da fe?
… beware the zealot
It would be auto da fe to believe Jack Shaftoe is anybody’s real name.
I am a Christian. I believe Jesus is the Christ. I am also a Democrat. I do not believe everything in the Bible.
My wife, a teacher, is also a Christian. And yet I guarantee that even she and I have a different God in mind when we picture him. And I know we don’t agree on all aspects of our chosen religion. What do we agree on? God is love, and we will live forever because Jesus died for our sins.
I have more questions than answers when it comes to Christianity. But I do know that my faith journey has been enhanced most by honest discussions with others who have similar questions. I have never, and will never, listen to someone who claims to have absolute answers. Because that person, more often than not, is a fool.
My point? This idea that we can teach Christianity, or any religion, in schools that are more diversified than ever, is moronic. It always boils down to this. Whose Christianity? Mine? My wife’s? The 1000’s of other Christian views that are out there? But it is apparent that Mr. Monroe feels HE has answers. I don’t believe he does.
Mike, you sound like the type of Christian that I would definitely respect. Christianity that eschews judgment, instead encourages love and follows Jesus’s teachings that we should treat each other in a positive way, especially the sick, poor and stranger (immigrant/refugee), is an important part of our social order. Thank you for your comment!
Mike Henriksen, it’s difficult for me to apprehend the construction of your belief, but then you aren’t asking me to.
I do appreciate that you approach the artificially-constructed issue of teaching children “religion” with state-extracted funds with considerably more reasonableness than do about 90 of SoDak’s 105 legislators.
Lar, you might think Mr. Shaftoe slightly mad, but he seems like a swell enough fellow to me.
I think that what you say Mike Henriksen is true and very nicely stated. I find nothing to disagree with. I am critical of Christianity in general, as is my right in this country, but I would never impede anyone in the pursuit of whatever they think is true. But truth has to be relative to each person on these topics. I think the pro life/pro choice dichotomy is a cogent example. If someone believes it is murder or a great sin, then I suggest not having one, but when one comes out of their sphere or area of individual rights and tells other Americans that this is prohibited because the believer has it straight from God, this is where the problem starts. I have seen many pro lifers declare that this is not negotiable. Goodness, everything is negotiable and when anyone wants to outweigh my rights, decisions or choices, then they no longer consider me equal and a human being. The religious right has attempted to hijack the definition of human life that science has defined in favor of a statement by the Pope in, I believe, the mid 19th century and as time passed other churches adopted the belief. There is no mention of abortion in the Bible or even an allusion to it. In that time children were not even counted until they had reached a year or more in age. Child mortality rates before modern medicine were staggering. The citation of the Old Testament verse about God knowing the prophet before he was born is metaphorical. Otherwise you have introduced the notion of a spiritual pre-existence. This is like the Mormons, but say that to most pro-lifers and it will induce screaming. Is the union of two dog cells a dog, or tree cells a tree etc.? Science tells us that life develops gradually over time and as complexity builds, the fetus or organism becomes more developed and at some point is human. This, like many other issues, is not amenable to an absolute, black or white assertion. Some of our Conservative Christian brothers, sisters, friends, neighbors etc. can not abide a world that is not easy to define. I think it is about command or being in charge of life. Imposing ones attitudes on the reality you see changes nothing. But there is a great desire for final, absolute, pure, moral absolutes. So the belief or not belief isn’t a problem for any atheist or agnostic I know, but it is using government force or power to attempt to make someone else believe or failing that, look like they do. I know many non-believers in my city that show up to help prepare and serve a full meal at one of the local churches every Monday. They open a pantry and give needy folks food donated by our grocery stores. It is good and helpful, and everyone gets along fine. But.in my experience, the more absolute any group is in belief, the more everyone else is to be feared, because they are outside, of the world and likely will spread their filthy immortality. Again, the issue is force or taking my decisions away.
Hey Lar – You are clever and figured me out! If you Googled Jack Shaftoe you would find he was a character (I rather admire) from “The Baroque Cycle” by Neal Stephenson who is considered to be mainly a science fiction writer. The cycle is around 3,000 pages.
I went home with a waitress the way I always do
How was I to know she was with the Bundys, too?
I was gambling in Oacoma – I took a little risk
Send lawyers, guns, and money
Dad, get me out of this
An innocent bystander
Somehow I got stuck between a rock and a hard place
And I’m down on my luck
Yes, I’m down on my luck
Well, I’m down on my luck
I’m hiding in the Black Hills – I’m a desperate man
Send lawyers, guns, and money
The shit has hit the fan
Jack-you are only one of three characters in Baroque Cycle. I googled your name. You can be anyone you want to be regardless of what Lynn-everyone’s conscience-has to say about it.
ps-if grudz takes a liking to you,make sure your affairs are in order. He is insaner than most. Just saying.
Mike-Warned again, and I appreciate the heads up.
to be fair only cory knows which users are using their real names and which are merely ground clutter.
Then a Creationist, wouldnt have to be a Christian would they? Just crazy? This is just as true now, as the day I wrote it.
Just because I don’t choose to believe the same thing as you doesn’t mean that I hate a religion, does it? Not hardly. I in fact respect those that let their religions define them. I find intolerable those that want us to think that they are their gods disciples.
The one thing that has always stuck in my mind about the times that I used to read your bible was this. “Beware of false prophets.” After all its in the bible. If there is a god I think she would get a kick out of this thread.
As for me and religion, who knows there might be something out there. But there again who are we supposed to believe when it comes to something like that?
I think the right thing to do here would be to just treat everyone like you would want to be treated. But that doesn’t mean that if I see and or step in some dog crap I’m going to call it chocolate candy. I’ve seen a lot of dog crap in my life.
Here’s a little something for ya. I wrote this song a while back. Its about religion the way I see it. There is even an explanation to go with it.
From my book THE CHURCH OF BILL
CHAPTER 12
“THE INSANE PREACHER BLUES”
I admit that I put this off for a while because I respect those that follow religion, not just Christianity but all of them. In the next couple of words I’m going to try to explained why organized religion isn’t for me, anymore.
It wasn’t always this way. Early in life we didn’t go to church, but church came to us in the form of a traveling preacher. Every week he would show up at one of several ranches in this part of the country and preach.
I don’t remember much about the man while he was here except for one thing, he never told us how we should live our lives, he just gave us the word and let us figure it out for ourselves if we were right or wrong. He never got in anyone’s face and told them they were going to hell because they weren’t living the way he thought god thought they should live. His name was Reverend Bushnell and he was the last preacher that I ever respected. I knew him for almost my whole life and he never strayed from his path with god.
From then on our church consisted of working cattle on Sunday mornings in the summer time and watching church on TV in the winter time. My Uncle Cars would say lets go to church when we were getting ready to ride on those Sundays. I guess in a way that’s what we were doing. There is nothing like nature to make you feel close to whoever or whatever is out there.
Now I would like to talk to you about the reason that I don’t go to church anymore. TV preachers.
From the beginning of TV history there have been preachers trying to separate you from your money. There I said it. They all had their little spiels that didn’t really have anything to do with religion but had everything to do with their pocket books. Lets talk about a couple of these that I have known through our TV set.
Kenneth Copeland, told amusing stories about the bible and tried to bring it up to todays standards. He’s still around and still asking for money.Self proclaimed Apostle, Prophet, Pastor, Teacher, and, TV evangelist
Jerry Falwell, a true pain in the ass until the day he died. He thought everything hinged on the problems that the gay people were causing in his world. Earthquakes, blame the gays, bad storms, blame the gays, economic collapse yup blame the gays. This mans only redeeming quality was his ability to raise money from those that loved him and his bullshit. He built a collage from that money. More on him in a little bit.
Kathryn Kuhlman, This old girl was actually fun to watch. She knew how to get your attention with the fire she spat from the pulpit. She used to have these two bubbas that stood around until she wanted to heal someone. She would get in front of the sick or crippled and yell and scream and talk to god. Then she would reach out and touch um on the head. They would go down like a sack of rocks only to be caught by the two bubbas before they reach the ground. Then she would have them stand up and walk across the stage. To a person they all said thank you Jesus right along with Kate. Of course then she would ask for money to keep the good times rolling.
Rex Humbard was another one of the miracle workers on TV. He was the first preacher on our TV that had first class entertainment. The place where he worked the most magic was taking money form people and depositing it in his bank account.
Oral & Richard Roberts, the founder of Oral Roberts University, faith healer, shyster, and taker of money. Roberts claimed that Jesus told him God had chosen him to find an effective treatment for cancer. He was also the first preacher to play the “if you don’t send me a million dollars by such and such date god will take me” crap. He knew how to make money the old fashioned way he begged for it, and got it by the millions.
Jimmy Swaggart, and Robert Tilton, were two more of the first class faith healers. Tilton preached from somewhere down in Texas and wasn’t scared to ask for money. His main tactic was shaming you into sending him money. Because you were basically a sinner and well he was not.
Then there was Jimmy Swaggart. Jimmy loved the whores, not once, not twice, but he was caught three times as he would say “counseling the ladies.” I might be wrong but I believe he had two famous cousins, Mickey Gilley and Jerry Lee Lewis. He would have been a great entertainer but chose to be a preacher. It was the worlds loss along with the worlds money.
Pat Robertson, well what cant be said about old Pat that hasn’t been said before. He was for a short time in his own mind a Colonel in the armed forces until we found out that the closest he ever got to battle was pinching a Korean girls ass in the officers club. He still offers his advise on the 700 club if you care to stop and drop of some money. He had some interesting relationships with world leaders. He was into blood diamonds and gold bought with other peoples money dug out of the ground by slaves.What a piece of shit he still is.
And last but not least are Jim and Tammy Fae Bakker. Now I loved these two. They were true showmen that knew how to work a crowd. Jim would preach, Tammy would croak out a tune, and they could both cry on cue. Sometimes you could see six or seven coats of war paint running down Tammys face while they were asking for more money. Back when I partied a lot late at night when there wasn’t anything else on TV you could count of the PTL to give great values for your buck, Of course it went down a lot better if you were a little drunk or stoned.
JB also like the whores. He got into some trouble for his dalliances but until the government put him in jail for taking money that they though he got in an unlawful way he kept right on preaching. The two of them made a ministry of the PTL Club and turned it into a one hundred and fifty million dollar business, tax dodge, slush fund, and from the looks of things whore magnet. Then Jimmy went to jail, Tammy found another man, and our old friend Jerry Falwell took over the PTL Club so it wouldn’t go broke. Jerry knew a good thing when he saw it.
These people all had a couple of things in common. They knew how to work a 501c to make money, and they were healing SOBs. In every show you would see the stage, then down in one corner there would be a pile of wheel chairs, crutches, canes, and oxygen tanks. I saw everything from brain cancer to hemorrhoids healed on these shows.
Well there you have it. That’s why I don’t go to church anymore, or at least one of the reasons. It is also the reason I wrote the song below. If there is a god I think he would like my stuff as much as those people I talked about. One more thing here I’m not asking for any of your money.
THE INSANE PREACHER BLUES
Aint been to church since I don’t know when
Don’t think I’ll be going back again
I’ve heard the rumors and I’ve seen the news
These preachers are all insane
I like the sound of a good blues band
A glass of whiskey or a pipe in my hand
If there’s a god and I’m not saying it’s true
I think he’d like me when I’m high
Don’t play me, betray me
Don’t push me down unless you wanna go to
We’re only different in your head
Stop lying denying, don’t need the crap that your putting us through
Wont make no difference if we’re dead
Its the end of the old way
Its the start of a new day
Lets just forget where we came from
We’ve all had some rough luck
Some hard times and tough luck
Lets hope for better things to come
I sang the hymns and went to Sunday school
But that’s not where I learned the golden rule
I’ve seem people do some real bad things
I’ll remember till I die
We all do things, think no ones around
But someone sees and tries to push us down
The same people think they have not sinned
But they all have things to hide
Don’t play me, betray me
Don’t push me down unless you wanna go to
We’re only different in your head
Stop lying denying, don’t need the crap that your putting us through
Wont make no difference if we’re dead
Its the end of the old way
Its the start of a new day
Lets just forget where we came from
We’ve all had some rough luck
Some hard times and tough luck
Lets hope for better things to come
Aint it enough to love your fellow man
Treat those around you as good as you can
We make mistakes and you know its true
But that’s as perfect as we’ll ever be
As perfect as we’ll ever be
Its the end of the old way
Its the start of a new day
Lets just forget where we came from
We’ve all had some rough luck
Some hard times and tough luck
Lets hope for better things to come
Aint been to church since I don’t know when
Aint never going back again
I’ve heard the rumors and I’ve seen the news
These preachers are all insane
From THE CHURCH OF BILL and the pulpit of
The Blindman
Mr. Dithmer, you are a very fine gentleman.
Looks like I’m not alone in thinking Mike H expressed his thoughts well. Note especially what he says at the end, about Sen. Monroe thinking he has the answers. Monroe will testify on his bill that he’s just trying to make it possible for kids to ask questions, but as I said above, that’s not what he’s after. He wants to be able to shout his false certainties in the classroom and distract from science teachers’ efforts to train kids to ask real scientific questions rather than play the specious word games of the Discovery Institute…
…and all because Jeff Monroe is apparently one of those Christians who mistake science for the enemy.
When I have contemplated conversion, it has never occurred to me that I would have to forswear Darwin, Einstein, and Hawking to side with C.S. Lewis and the Gospels. Not one word of Darwin, Einstein, or Hawking negates the possibility that humans are fallible creatures, that sin is in the world, and that a deity had to take the form of his own son and submit himself to a gruesome public execution to somehow settle a cosmic moral debt. That whole sin-salvation mechanism boggles me far more than quantum mechanics, but that fundamental tenet of Monroe’s professed worldview is not excluded by science. It does not need science. It does not equal time in the science classroom. Monroe needs to figure that out, drop his bills, and save his Christian crusading for other venues.
Mr. H, I still submit that the Bonecracker Caucus, led by Mr. Monroe, will be the straw that stirs the drink in the legislatures this year.
Hear, Hear Mr. Dithmer, indeed you are a fine fellow and what a wonderful essay and song.
Great post Blindman! I too really enjoyed the Jim and Tammy show – to me it was a religious Monty Python theme. One episode I enjoyed in particular was when Jim told everyone who was worth less than a million dollars to shut off their TV’s as he only wanted to address the millionaires in that fund raising episode. He didn’t ask for much, only $10,000 apiece from 100 millionaires so PTL could raise $1,000,000. The absurdity of the whole thing just flowed like Penn and Teller’s magic.
As for charlatan healers, don’t forget bout Benny Hinn – his show comes close to the comedy of the old PTL Club.
Great song. Hope it gets published.
Pat Robertson’s son Tim was born less than 9 months after mom and dad got hitched leading knowledgeable folks to believe he was a preemie.
Jim Bakker is bald with a beard and back on tv shilling some more.
Swaggart and one or two of his sons all have tv shows where they pry coins out of gullible people. The worst one is the newest one with all the make-up and blinky eyes-can’t put a handle on him right this minute.
Franklin Graham is lecturing the Potus on gun crime by open letter and will prolly expect to get paid for it.
Thank you Porter. Every song tells a story, or they should.
The Blindman
I’m glad you mentioned Benny Hinn, bearcreekbat. Once long ago my friends and I were laughing our arses off watching his show when we decided to call in, which was even funnier.
I’ve never seen the Creflo Dollar show, but I suppose it’s right up there for entertainment value. Not even Creflo could finagle $100 million from his viewers for that new jet he wanted. Even the gullible didn’t fall for that one.
In my youth my aunt, a 60’s hippie that quit the drugs when she found Gawd, took me to see Kenneth Copeland while I was in California. The arena audience was waving their arms and yelling amen, many of them crying. I just couldn’t figure out what he said that caused that kind of blubbering. I must be missing something. Whatever it is it has enabled him to live in a $6.3 million tax free “parsonage” and take his ski trips in a $20 million jet. He wouldn’t be living so large if Gawd hadn’t willed it, right? Praise the Lord and pass the offering plate, er Brinks truck.
I didnt even know about Benny Hinn until after I wrote that piece, but he looks like a silver tongue rascal that would take your money.
Todays tv preachers were yesterdays radio preachers. Then it was thousands of $ today its millions.
The CHURCH OF BILL would be glad to take that kind of money, and we’d pay taxes on it to. And no other church has competition “wall pissing!”
The Blindman
“Jack Shaftoe” asks me:
We have many such models.
That’s not my favorite label, but I believe the Bible is true.
No, but I suspect some are.
I’m wondering how you claim to know that.
Hypothetically, the claim would be fallacious but not necessarily arrogant.
The things that can be checked have all been right.
***
Bob Newland writes:
Based on your other remarks, Bob, I’d say you’re far less informed than I am on the topic of origins science.
***
Bill Fleming writes:
There’s an example in my first comment above (2016-01-05 at 20:38).
I’m not aware of any evidence that there were more than one.
***
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
In a non-Christian forum like this one, it usually seems more productive to discuss the scientific evidence.
I just explained this to you in November:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2015/11/21/mitchell-hard-town-for-love-19-of-22-pastors-refuse-to-bless-same-sex-marriages/#comment-25002
***
Cory Heidelberger writes:
I’m wondering how you claim to know what Monroe is trying to do, Cory.
***
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
In this case the ones trying to ensure that only their side of the story is told are macroevolutionists, not creationists.
***
Mike Henriksen writes:
This may be a little off the topic, Mike, but I’m wondering whether you’d listen to someone who claims to have absolute answers to questions like “Is God love?” and “Will we live forever because Jesus died for our sins?”
***
Cory writes:
You’re directly asserting that Monroe is going to lie, Cory, and I’m again wondering how you claim to know.
I guess that answers Bill’s talking snake question. There was only one talking snake, and forget asking for evidence.
Nice try Kurt, but no sale.
I ask: “And conversely, what evidence he has to convince the science community (and the rest of us) that as little as 6000 years ago there were talking snakes.”
You reply: “I’m not aware of any evidence that there were more than one.”
You don’t get to dodge the issue just because I used a plural for “snakes.” That’s called “weaseling.”
Show us the scientific evidence you are aware of for one talking snake that existed around 6000 years ago, Kurt.
As to your “evidence” that the science community is hiding evidence that the Big Bang theory might not be accurate, I can assure you even as a layman who tries to keep up with modern physics theory that’s not the case. Anyone who has any interest in the subject has easy access to all the current, and oftentimes opposing scientific theories on the internet with just a few keystrokes.
Speaking of, here’s a little fun for you from the other side of the universe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5VVEw4ZSRI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq4uCWtQE24
Oh wait… here… I found it. Never mind, Mr. Evans. I’m good. :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh5kxentrY0
Kurt Evans: the drive-by candidate.
Kurt, I recall and appreciate your explanation of why 14 books of the Bible were removed in the 1800’s, and this suggests we can agree that not everything included in the Bible was the word of God. Now, perhaps you can clarify how you and other theological scholars were and are able to discern which books of the Bible were or were not the word of God?
Not only do I wonder why you rejected the 14 books (unless you just accepted what some other theologian told you to believe), I would still ask which translation of the Bible you believe is without error, and why you reject all other translations. I agree that scientific evidence is critical, yet if part of your “evidence” of creationist theory is based in any part on the “Bible” then it is a legitimate question to ask which translation, especially since the translations frequently differ in important respects.
Bill Fleming writes:
I’d say the evidence is primarily historical rather than scientific. There’s strong historical evidence that Christ publicly recognized the Hebrew Bible as true, and there’s even stronger historical evidence that He rose from the dead. Those pieces of evidence don’t conclusively prove the truth of the Hebrew Bible (now also known as the Protestant Old Testament), but they support it.
To be clear, I’m not advocating for the details of Genesis 3 to be included in any science curriculum, and I don’t think Jeff Monroe probably is either.
Bill continues:
Thanks for acknowledging the existence of scientific evidence that the Big Bang theory may not be accurate, Bill. I’m wondering whether you support letting South Dakota teachers discuss that evidence in science classes.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
As I’ve explicitly told you before, I don’t agree that the books of the Apocrypha were regarded as part of the Protestant Bible until the 1800s.
It’s pretty straightforward. The books that were part of the Hebrew Bible were recognized as infallible, and the books that weren’t were rejected as apocryphal.
I mostly use a 1998 reference edition of the New American Standard, but I don’t believe it retains the absolute perfection of the original manuscripts, and I often compare it with other translations.
Mr. Evans, are you running for something again? I hope you make a website and maybe a blog or a website with a place people can comment about your blog or your website or running for office.
Yesterday on Twitter I received this link to a 2010 article by Ph.D. geologist John D. Morris, whom I regard as one of the greatest scientists of all time:
http://www.icr.org/article/earths-magnetic-field/
“Grudznick” asks:
Not right now, but I’d expect Dakota Free Press readers to be among the first to know if that changes.
If you darken an oval for Kurt Evans you’re a psychologist and not a voter.
Kurt, the theory proposed by Morris is interesting and seem quite inconsistent with a creationist view based on Genesis.
Larry Kurtz writes:
I don’t know whether they were psychologists, Larry, but a little over a year ago more than 48,000 voters made a mark for me in the South Dakota state auditor’s race.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
I’m wondering exactly where you’d say there’s an inconsistency.
You should be the auditor, Mr. Evans.
Kurt, the Genesis stories are straightforward and quite simple. All power is in God’s hands alone. The passage you quoted from Morris’ theory doesn’t even mention God’s power, instead, relying upon some sort of magnetic field to measure the age of the Earth based on the theory that this magnetic field would have made it impossible for God to create the Earth (or entire universe) earlier than 10,000 years ago.
While Morris might be presenting an alternate “scientific” theory about the age of the Earth and evolution, the language you quoted diminishes the role of God in the creation theory by subjecting God’s power to control the age of the Earth to magnetic forces.
By the way, you never responded to my question about why you chose a particular translation of the Bible over the rest, and whether you have rejected any other translations, and if so why. How is it you decided to rely on a 1998 reference edition of the New American Standard, even though you “don’t believe it retains the absolute perfection of the original manuscripts?” And which other translations do you “often compare it with?”
BCB, basically you’re asking Kurt if God, having established the laws of physics, prohibits himself from breaking them. Interesting. Theology as game theory. Love it.
Anita Bryant used to say she couldn’t deny what she knew to be true. Wonder how she knew stuff was true-because she read in a bible?
Bill, Kurt’s a joy to talk with as he is typically willing to address questions and issues that many religious folks refuse to even consider. I learn a lot from Kurt, just as I learned a great deal from you in our exploration of various philosophical and scientific issues.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
You’ve apparently misunderstood. Dr. Morris doesn’t say the earth’s magnetic field would have made it impossible for God to create the earth earlier than 10,000 years ago. He only says extrapolating present processes into the past leads to the conclusion that the earth must be fewer than 10,000 years old.
You didn’t ask why I’d chosen a particular translation of the Bible over the rest. You asked which translation I believed was without error. (There isn’t one.) You also didn’t ask whether I’d rejected any other translations. You asked “why” I rejected “all” other translations. (I don’t.)
I decided on the New American Standard because it prioritized word-for-word translation over easy readability. The specific edition was a casual decision I made in the bookstore. I don’t remember the reasons.
Mainly the King James Version, the Revised Standard Version and the New International Version.
Bill Fleming writes:
I’m not sure whether he meant to ask that, Bill, but I definitely wouldn’t say God prohibits Himself from superseding the laws of physics.
I certainly don’t prohibit Myself from superseding the laws of physics.
btw, human settlement in the Arctic has been pushed back to 45,000 years or about 10,000 years earlier than previously thought: imagine Jeff Monroe supporting research that uncovered that fossil record.
“Bearcreekbat” had written to Bill Fleming:
I’d like to take that as a compliment and offer my belated thanks.
Larry Kurtz writes:
It has nothing to do with any fossil record, Larry, because it’s based on carbon-dating the non-fossilized remains of a single mammoth (which, by the way, hardly proves “settlement”):
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/grisly-find-suggests-humans-inhabited-arctic-45000-years-ago
Kennett predictably doesn’t mention that the calibration of radiocarbon dates was originally based on tree rings from pieces of wood that were themselves ordered using carbon dating. He also doesn’t mention that even macroevolutionists only claim to have tree-ring chronologies extending back less than 15,000 years. Carbon-dating to supposed ages greater than that becomes even more speculative.
Here’s a little more food for thought:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/grisly-find-suggests-humans-inhabited-arctic-45000-years-ago
Evans: radiocarbon dating is highly accurate to 20,000 years and only loses minor certainty of a hundred years or so after that. That still puts humans in the Arctic far earlier than the creationists can speculate using a 2000 year old storybook does.
Larry Kurtz writes:
I’m wondering how you claim to know this, Larry, especially since less than 48 hours ago you apparently didn’t even know that radiocarbon dating can’t be used on fossils. Even macroevolutionists generally admit that carbon-dating to the distant past eventually loses far more than “a hundred years or so” of certainty.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/showing-their-age-62874/?no-ist
Larry Kurtz had written:
I’d replied:
Larry responds with this link:
In that article, Sarah Zielinski writes:
The dung to which Zielinski refers wasn’t fully fossilized. Radiocarbon dating was used on the non-fossilized (subfossil) remains rather than on the coprolites themselves.
Zielinski is wrong here. Coprolites themselves, like other fossils, consist of mineral deposits that were never part of a living object and can’t be carbon-dated.
This is one of the central problems with carbon dating: Scientists don’t know how much carbon-14 there would have been in the atmosphere in the distant past.
I’m still wondering, Larry, how you claim to know that “radiocarbon dating is highly accurate to 20,000 years and only loses minor certainty of a hundred years or so after that.”
From later in the same article:
Zielinski’s language is much too sloppy for science. If the organic material had been fossilized, there were no “organic remains” of any age.
So, all carbon dating is flawed? Or just the evidence older than 6,000 years? How old is the light from celestial objects farther away than 6,000 light years, Kurt? Some call that visible form of radiation at those distances fossil light.
Deep aquifers contain fossil water having taken millions of years to accumulate.
Don’t forget about the argon-39 dating method mentioned in the article, which states that non-organic material can be dated with strong accuracy:
“there are other radioactive isotopes that can be used to date non-organic materials (such as rocks) and older materials (up to billions of years old).
One of these radioisotopes is potassium-40, which is found in volcanic rock. After the volcanic rock cools off, its potassium-40 decays into argon-40 with a 1.25-billion-year half-life. It is possible to measure the ratio of potassium-40 to argon-40 and estimate a rock’s age, but this method is imprecise. However, scientists discovered in the 1960s that they could irradiate a rock sample with neutrons and thereby convert the potassium-40 to argon-39, an isotope not normally found in nature and easier to measure. Though more intricate, this process yields more precise dates.”
There is basement rock in the Black Hills nearly two billion years old. You really should visit the School of Mines geology museum, Kurt, maybe find a professor pen pal there who could help you with your distrust of science.
Follow Paleontologist Pete Larson on Twitter. Ask him some questions.
Larry Kurtz asks:
It’s never perfectly accurate, and it becomes completely unreliable at ages well under 6000 years.
That depends on the position (or positions) from which its age is measured. If the earth was in a deep gravity well on the fourth day of creation, the light could be billions of years old as measured from the objects where it originated and only a few thousand years old as measured from the earth’s surface:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
As usual, I’m wondering how you claim to know these things.
I’m a state-certified high school science teacher, Larry. I’ve been to the museum, and I know plenty of science professors from my days at SDSU.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Every method of radioisotope dating is based on the assumption that radioactive decay rates have always been as low as they are today. Informed young-earth creationists generally reject that assumption.