tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post6868707890050558710..comments2024-03-17T18:37:36.377-07:00Comments on Geotripper: Earth: The Alternative StoryGarry Hayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00531226195147986457noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post-16745300934606723822010-03-17T22:20:05.534-07:002010-03-17T22:20:05.534-07:00Thanks for writing back, 'anonymous'. I li...Thanks for writing back, 'anonymous'. I live in a very conservative region, and many of my students are fundamentalist in their religious beliefs. In all my years teaching, no one has ever said they felt I was demeaning their religious beliefs in class, and most are surprised to find that I am also a church-goer. This "meeting of the minds" comes about when they realize that I am attacking a "scientific" hypothesis that attempts to "prove" the earth is 6,000 years old so their model can agree with their religious beliefs. This creation-science hypothesis exists for no other reason. But it is indeed very bad science which can only work by denying and disregarding most of the findings of the last 200 years in the fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and geology. I used this blog post to attack an example of bad science. It was not at all directed at anyone's religious beliefs, indeed God isn't given any credit for these events at all in their model.<br /><br />I appreciate the discussion!Garry Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00531226195147986457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post-87088508847929537552010-03-16T10:30:26.427-07:002010-03-16T10:30:26.427-07:00Alright, I understand where you are coming from, a...Alright, I understand where you are coming from, and you're right, you really aren't subtle. But can't science be more than just evolution, or having all roads lead to evolution? Of course it can. But it seems that some from your position make it a point to single out "religious" viewpoints. That is not the job of a professor. (No accusation intended, I'm not one of your students.) That is what I referred to when I mentioned "bias". And the reference to gravity is also bias....that is something we can physically touch and feel, obviously not a belief of sorts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post-65668464918214708852010-03-15T04:02:58.058-07:002010-03-15T04:02:58.058-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.angelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10506776941087544270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post-51620779471944849632010-03-15T00:13:27.767-07:002010-03-15T00:13:27.767-07:00Anonymous, I wasn't being subtle. You may trus...Anonymous, I wasn't being subtle. You may trust that I have read practically all the arguments made about creation "science" over the last thirty years, from a scientific point of view, and from a religious point of view. It's bunk, from both points of view. It's a distortion of science, and a distortion of Christian belief as well. You don't "believe" in evolution, any more than you chose to "believe" in gravity. Bias? I do teach without bias. But I teach scientific facts, observations and scientific conclusions, not pseudo-science.Garry Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00531226195147986457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post-86458613464219127862010-03-14T23:58:59.308-07:002010-03-14T23:58:59.308-07:00Your evolutionary beliefs are just that - beliefs....Your evolutionary beliefs are just that - beliefs. You can't prove them anymore than a creationist can. As a professor you should be teaching without bias. Subtly putting down creationist science is just plain unprofessional.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post-56564331107550764022010-03-09T08:05:22.201-08:002010-03-09T08:05:22.201-08:00oh my, a blog on geology 8)oh my, a blog on geology 8)justanothertragedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14307699237454120869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post-60954385346257289612010-03-08T16:15:25.740-08:002010-03-08T16:15:25.740-08:00The (especially) crazy thing is, most of these &qu...The (especially) crazy thing is, most of these "facts" aren't described in the Bible. If one believes the book is inerrant and literal truth, where does a creation scientist get off embellishing that narrative with invented details? If it wasn't important enough to report in the Bible, then it's not fit for creationist "research".BJ Nichollshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525256614467299544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post-67256791109219225162010-03-08T05:20:45.267-08:002010-03-08T05:20:45.267-08:00Great story.
I am a firm believer in letting peop...Great story.<br /><br />I am a firm believer in letting people destroy themselves with their own arguments.<br /><br />I particularly liked the part about animals showing up in particular parts of the world because human beings wanted them there.Marcia Earthhttp://www.earthfacts.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post-17942505686023686082010-03-06T17:13:57.188-08:002010-03-06T17:13:57.188-08:00Hmmm... I hadn't heard of that vapor cloud thi...Hmmm... I hadn't heard of that vapor cloud thingy before. I may have to rethink my position. It sure makes the reasons for the controversy much clearer.<br /><br />And cats diverged into house cats, bobcats, servals, lions, tigers, cougars, jaguars and all, in a few thousand years? But "macroevolution" is a silly idea?<br /><br />Sheesh.Lockwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05960762797349483760noreply@blogger.com