NationStates Jolt Archive

Nope. It was all a lie kids. Put your flaming torches and pitchforks away.... :(

In fact, the only relevance the Grand Canyon National Park has with Creationism is that they sell a book by a Creationist author in their "inspiration" section - alongside other works on spirituality and religion.


In last week’s eSkeptic , we published highlights from a press release issued by PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), a Washington D.C.-based environmental watchdog group.
...

Unfortunately, in our eagerness to find additional examples of the inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life (as if we actually needed more), we accepted this claim by PEER without calling the National Park Service (NPS) or the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) to check it.

Dumbasses didn't check their facts or sources. Tsk tsk. Rookie mistake.

To that end I apologize to all of our readers for not fact checking this story before publishing it on eSkeptic... Shame on us.
Darn tootin'.

Link (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-01-17.html)

Dude--selling the book is bad enough.

Dude--selling the book is bad enough.

Oh I don't blame/judge the people who sell it - I blame/judge the people who buy it.

Shame, it was a good story and all.

Dude--selling the book is bad enough.

Sorry to derail, but this is mildly interesting:

The Nazz just made Jolt's 12,222,222nd post!

I noticed this when I was replying to another thread. You know how when you quote a post, and it reproduces some older posts below? Well, if you hold your mouse over it, a little box pops up that tells you the post number. The one I noticed was something like 12,222,226. So, a moment of backtracking led here.

...

Hooray for arbitrary milestones!

I don't see what the problem is.

Yes, they chose to "publish" something which they had not checked, but so what if they were handing out pro-Creationist literature? They hand out pro-Evolutionist literature all the time.

Why are so many persons afraid of views being made available and being presented in a balanced manner? It seems that they really aren't in favor of freedom of thought or the free exchange of ideas, doesn't it?

And before someone says that Creationist literature should be banned because it's all lies, what do you fear? If it's all lies, your Evolutionist literature should prove it all wrong anyway, so why be worried?

The Gand Canyon (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-grand-canyon.asp)
Grand Canyon: Monument to a World-Wide Flood (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/grand_canyon.asp)
Grand Canyon - What is the Message (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1222gc.asp)
Radioisotopic Dating of Rocks in the Grand Canyon (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i3/canyon.asp)

I don't see what the problem is.

Yes, they chose to "publish" something which they had not checked, but so what if they were handing out pro-Creationist literature? They hand out pro-Evolutionist literature all the time.

Why are so many persons afraid of views being made available and being presented in a balanced manner? It seems that they really aren't in favor of freedom of thought or the free exchange of ideas, doesn't it?

And before someone says that Creationist literature should be banned because it's all lies, what do you fear? If it's all lies, your Evolutionist literature should prove it all wrong anyway, so why be worried?

The Gand Canyon (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-grand-canyon.asp)
Grand Canyon: Monument to a World-Wide Flood (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/grand_canyon.asp)
Grand Canyon - What is the Message (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1222gc.asp)
Radioisotopic Dating of Rocks in the Grand Canyon (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i3/canyon.asp)

you must have missed the other thread where they claimed that the park service had been ordered to put the book on how the grand canyon was proof of the flood in the science section instead of the inspiration/religion section.

I don't see what the problem is.

Yes, they chose to "publish" something which they had not checked, but so what if they were handing out pro-Creationist literature? They hand out pro-Evolutionist literature all the time.

Why are so many persons afraid of views being made available and being presented in a balanced manner? It seems that they really aren't in favor of freedom of thought or the free exchange of ideas, doesn't it?

And before someone says that Creationist literature should be banned because it's all lies, what do you fear? If it's all lies, your Evolutionist literature should prove it all wrong anyway, so why be worried?


Catagory mistake.
Would you put astrology in the science section at NASA?
Would you put alchemy in the science section at some chemistry lab?
How about putting a book on geocentricity in the science section at NASA?
Maybe putting a book about the biblical value of pi at a math conference?
Putting a book about flat earth theory in any science section anywhere?

It's just that we don't want people to get the idea that an unprovable theory that happens to be in the science section for no good reason really is science.
Sell the book all you want, just don't put it in the science section.

Dude--selling the book is bad enough.

yes, let's ban it. :rolleyes:

you must have missed the other thread where they claimed that the park service had been ordered to put the book on how the grand canyon was proof of the flood in the science section instead of the inspiration/religion section.

Yes, I did miss that, but what of if they had been?

If it has scientific backing, then go ahead. You can't disprove it, so it's just as good as (if not better than) evolution as a scientific theory for how things happened.

The Gand Canyon (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-grand-canyon.asp)
Grand Canyon: Monument to a World-Wide Flood (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/grand_canyon.asp)
Grand Canyon - What is the Message (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1222gc.asp)
Radioisotopic Dating of Rocks in the Grand Canyon (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i3/canyon.asp)

BTW, your links come from answersingenesis.org and so will all be biased to the point of making stuff up.
You phail, try again.

Yes, I did miss that, but what of if they had been?

If it has scientific backing, then go ahead. You can't disprove it, so it's just as good as (if not better than) evolution as a scientific theory for how things happened.

Except it's based in religion so the government cannot endorse it, violation of the separation church and state, see.

Catagory mistake.
Would you put astrology in the science section at NASA?
Would you put alchemy in the science section at some chemistry lab?
How about putting a book on geocentricity in the science section at NASA?
Maybe putting a book about the biblical value of pi at a math conference?
Putting a book about flat earth theory in any science section anywhere?

It's just that we don't want people to get the idea that an unprovable theory that happens to be in the science section for no good reason really is science.
Sell the book all you want, just don't put it in the science section.

I don't know the book that was put on the shelf. I have not read it. But the books and articles I have read have just as much science in them as the evolutionist dogma I have been made to read. Look at the articles I linked to: God is central, but so is science.

And as to unprovable, I see no sufficient proof for evolution. Necessary? Yes, but not sufficient.

Yes, I did miss that, but what of if they had been?

If it has scientific backing, then go ahead. You can't disprove it, so it's just as good as (if not better than) evolution as a scientific theory for how things happened.

HAHAHAHA!!!
Do you realize that the greatest insult you can give a scientific theory is "not even wrong"?
That means it's undisprovable.
If you have just admitted that creationism is not disprovable, you have admitted it is not science, and so should not be put in science sections or taught in science classes.

BTW, your links come from answersingenesis.org and so will all be biased to the point of making stuff up.
You phail, try again.

Wow, really?

They cite all their evidence. They admit when they make mistakes. They point out problems in other Creationists' arguments.

The same cannot be said for most of the evolutionist material out there.

Yes, I did miss that, but what of if they had been?

If it has scientific backing, then go ahead. You can't disprove it, so it's just as good as (if not better than) evolution as a scientific theory for how things happened.

i have no problem with it being sold in the grand canyon national park bookstore. it seems to me that there are people who would buy it if they saw it in there.

it is not scientifically accurate however. you dont have to be a geologist to know that, you just have to have been to the grand canyon. its far to big to have been cause by a single event.

I don't know the book that was put on the shelf. I have not read it. But the books and articles I have read have just as much science in them as the evolutionist dogma I have been made to read. Look at the articles I linked to: God is central, but so is science.

And as to unprovable, I see no sufficient proof for evolution. Necessary? Yes, but not sufficient.

Has anybody disproved evolution? No.
How long have they been trying? About 150 years.
Does this make a good case for evolution being true? Yes, yes it does.

Wow, really?

They cite all their evidence. They admit when they make mistakes. They point out problems in other Creationists' arguments.

The same cannot be said for most of the evolutionist material out there.

the grand canyon has nothing to do with evolution. evolution is the theory of the way life forms change over time.

Except it's based in religion so the government cannot endorse it, violation of the separation church and state, see.

Well, if evolution (of the planet in this case) is correct, I guess that means that Biblical creation is incorrect. Which is a religious belief. So the government is endorsing the religious belief that Biblical creation is incorrect by putting evolutionist materials on its shelves and not creationist material.

Wow, really?

They cite all their evidence. They admit when they make mistakes. They point out problems in other Creationists' arguments.

The same cannot be said for most of the evolutionist material out there.

Let's take a look at the many many problems with the great flood theory of the grand canyon:
Read and be satisfied (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html)

Well, if evolution (of the planet in this case) is correct, I guess that means that Biblical creation is incorrect. Which is a religious belief. So the government is endorsing the religious belief that Biblical creation is incorrect by putting evolutionist materials on its shelves and not creationist material.

as long as evolution sticks to science and leaves religion alone there is no problem with it being incompatible with any particular religious beliefs. that is up to the various religions to decide, not scientists

You would think seeing something like the Grand Canyon would suggest a God far greater and more perfect than the crappy, incompetent tinkerer (and liar) that creationism makes him out to be.

I mean, billions of years of geological activity and millions of erosion producing something like that...that suggests a God to me, but not one that screws up like the God of the creationists.

the grand canyon has nothing to do with evolution. evolution is the theory of the way life forms change over time.

We are, of course, in this case speaking about planetary evolution.

We are, of course, in this case speaking about planetary evolution.

isnt that a misnomer?

we are talking about geology and hydrology

You would think seeing something like the Grand Canyon would suggest a God far greater and more perfect than the crappy, incompetent tinkerer (and liar) that creationism makes him out to be.

I mean, billions of years of geological activity and millions of erosion producing something like that...that suggests a God to me, but not one that screws up like the God of the creationists.

you mean the one whose freshly created people were booted out of eden in less than 3 weeks?

the one whose creations sucked so much that he killed every freaking thing on earth (except noah and the fish) within a thousand years?

you mean the ones whose freshly created people were booted out of eden in less than 3 weeks?

the one whose creations sucked so much that he killed every freaking thing on earth (except noah and the fish) within a thousand years?

Not to mention gave us the power to learn about and understand our natural environment, but in reality created all of the beauty we observe in nature as a lie meant to send us to hell?

No, that's not the God I believe in.

Not to mention gave us the power to learn about and understand our natural environment, but in reality created all of the beauty we observe in nature as a lie meant to send us to hell?

No, that's not the God I believe in.

yeah the guy who buried all those dinosaur bones, who made it seem like evolution is correct, the one who gave us evidence that there is no way the grand canyon was created by the flood then damns us for following his evidence.

not my god either.

Well, if evolution (of the planet in this case) is correct, I guess that means that Biblical creation is incorrect. Which is a religious belief. So the government is endorsing the religious belief that Biblical creation is incorrect by putting evolutionist materials on its shelves and not creationist material.
Wow. With such twisted, convoluted thinking like that, you should take up yoga.

yeah the guy who buried all those dinosaur bones
That wasn't God. That was Dog, his pet.
Which makes sense - all dogs love burying bones. So God's Dog would do it as well - just more so.

As for the Grand Canyon - that was caused by God getting drunk one night, forgetting his way to the toilet and unleasing his trouser snake onto America.

I don't see what the problem is.

Yes, they chose to "publish" something which they had not checked, but so what if they were handing out pro-Creationist literature? They hand out pro-Evolutionist literature all the time.Pro-Evolutionist? They have that now? Where do I get a member card? Is there a membership fee?

Why are so many persons afraid of views being made available and being presented in a balanced manner? It seems that they really aren't in favor of freedom of thought or the free exchange of ideas, doesn't it?Balanced? If you have a perfectly balanced scale, and you add some bullshit on one end, what happens to the scale? I'll tell you: It is no longer balanced.

And before someone says that Creationist literature should be banned because it's all lies, what do you fear? If it's all lies, your Evolutionist literature should prove it all wrong anyway, so why be worried?Some people ignore proof. Holocaust deniers are a perfect example for that.

The Gand Canyon (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-grand-canyon.asp)
Grand Canyon: Monument to a World-Wide Flood (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/grand_canyon.asp)
Grand Canyon - What is the Message (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1222gc.asp)
Radioisotopic Dating of Rocks in the Grand Canyon (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i3/canyon.asp)www.talkorigins.org

Why are so many persons afraid of views being made available and being presented in a balanced manner?

no idea. i look forward to the day when creationist nonsense is appropriately located in the urinals too.

We arizonans do like to keep the shit for brains unwashed of the creationist movement at arms length, in the south and midwest, thanks.

We arizonans do like to keep the shit for brains unwashed of the creationist movement at arms length, in the south and midwest, thanks.

except for those polygamous mormon towns north of the canyon eh?

no idea. i look forward to the day when creationist nonsense is appropriately located in the urinals too.
Cubicles, not urinals. And not because I'm demanding equality here.
For those times we run out of toilet paper.

except for those polygamous mormon towns north of the canyon eh?

We've put the boot down on them as well :)

His Holiness mr Warren Jeffs is looking forward to a long spell in prison.

yes, let's ban it. :rolleyes:

Ban the book? Not at all, though I'd like to thank you for thinking the worst of me when it's not even remotely deserved. But keep it out of a bookstore at the Grand Canyon run by the National Parks Service, which gives it an undeserved air of authenticity? You bet your ass. It can be sold at any privately owned bookstore that will have it, though that will certainly make me question the intelligence of any bookstore owner that carries it.

We've put the boot down on them as well :)

His Holiness mr Warren Jeffs is looking forward to a long spell in prison.

bout time!

is he one of those 85 year olds with 25 wives?

bout time!

is he one of those 85 year olds with 25 wives?51 and 90 respectively. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs)

Well, if evolution (of the planet in this case) is correct, I guess that means that Biblical creation is incorrect. Which is a religious belief. So the government is endorsing the religious belief that Biblical creation is incorrect by putting evolutionist materials on its shelves and not creationist material.
So I guess you want to give equal shelf space to the other thousands of creation myths too, right, in the interest of fairness? After all, it's not like the Bible is alone in having creation stories--hell, it has two of its own. :rolleyes:

So I guess you want to give equal shelf space to the other thousands of creation myths too, right, in the interest of fairness? After all, it's not like the Bible is alone in having creation stories--hell, it has two of its own. :rolleyes:

Not to mention some of them are a lot more "scientific" than that one. Hell, some of the Eastern creation myths would sound quite similar to modern-day cosmology if the mystical aspects are removed.

I'm more and more convinced that it was the Dharmic religions that got the whole God thing right..

51 and 90 respectively. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs)

geez. do any of the other men get ANY wives?

Rofl...another bookmark to the rubbish bin. :)

I don't see what the problem is.

Yes, they chose to "publish" something which they had not checked, but so what if they were handing out pro-Creationist literature? They hand out pro-Evolutionist literature all the time.

Why are so many persons afraid of views being made available and being presented in a balanced manner?

You are so right.
Lies and fantasy are as valid as scientific theory and we should present
both without bias to one or the other.

Well, if evolution (of the planet in this case) is correct, I guess that means that Biblical creation is incorrect. Which is a religious belief. So the government is endorsing the religious belief that Biblical creation is incorrect by putting evolutionist materials on its shelves and not creationist material.

Accepting evolutionary theory is only a stumbling block for a small number of break away christians.

Most christianity has no problem with it as most do not take the creation mythology at the start of the old testament as anything other than myth.

Evolution however is neither religion nor religious belief;
the fact that it happens to be in contradiction of some peoples interpretation of one part of the literature of one religion does not make it so.
Anymore than physics and astronomy become religious beliefs by virtue of the fact that they show that only catastrophe for the entire planet could occur if either the earth or the sun suddenly stood still.

We arizonans do like to keep the shit for brains unwashed of the creationist movement at arms length, in the south and midwest, thanks.

In my experience we Arizonans like to keep politics in general at arms length :P
After all, we already have the coolest senator. What else do we need?

After all, we already have the coolest senator.

feingold and obama's communist lovechild?

Ban the book? Not at all, though I'd like to thank you for thinking the worst of me when it's not even remotely deserved. But keep it out of a bookstore at the Grand Canyon run by the National Parks Service, which gives it an undeserved air of authenticity? You bet your ass. It can be sold at any privately owned bookstore that will have it, though that will certainly make me question the intelligence of any bookstore owner that carries it.
You've got to be kidding me. According to the article, "The reference to the creationism book being sold in the Grand Canyon bookstore — Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail — is true. It is sold in the “inspiration” section of the bookstore, alongside other books of myth and spirituality." So a bookstore (operated by the Grand Canyon Association, a private, non-profit organization), which, you know, sells books, has a book in a section that is labled for myths and other spiritual matters somehow is running afoul of the establishment clause and/or is giving an air if giovernment endorcement to religion?

Come on, Nazz, that streach would bridge the Grand Canyon. If they were handing it out as the 'origion' to the canyon, if they had it stacked next to the geology/history section(s), if they even mentiond it in the walks or on sign posts as an example of an alternative theory, you'd have a case, but here... It's no more an endorsement or given an 'air of authenticity' than Mein Kampf or the Communist Manafesto would if sold by your college's bookstore.