• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Archaeology and Creationism

Johnny Pixels

Graduate Poster
J
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
1,389
Just an idea I had the other day, but fundies seem to have a problem with evidence because "you weren't there". Does this have any relation to the type of archaeology you get in the US? I admit I only know of this from Time Team, but they seem to have to sift through every piece of topsoil and can't use mechanical diggers because there is very little preserved evidence in the earth. This is very different to archaeology in Britain, where you can still find evidence of stone age settlers, for example.

I spent 2 years living in St Albans which is situated over the Roman town of Verulamium, and there's a museum there with tons of artifacts. Here in Kent there's Lullingstone Roman villa. There's even a church in my town which contains sections of wall built before America was even discovered.

So my question was, do creationists distrust fossil evidence from palentology because America is lacking in more recent archeological evidence? In the same way you might dismiss higher mathematical proofs if you don't have any evidence of simpler ones.
 
Johnny Pixels said:
Just an idea I had the other day, but fundies seem to have a problem with evidence because "you weren't there". Does this have any relation to the type of archaeology you get in the US? I admit I only know of this from Time Team, but they seem to have to sift through every piece of topsoil and can't use mechanical diggers because there is very little preserved evidence in the earth. This is very different to archaeology in Britain, where you can still find evidence of stone age settlers, for example.

I spent 2 years living in St Albans which is situated over the Roman town of Verulamium, and there's a museum there with tons of artifacts. Here in Kent there's Lullingstone Roman villa. There's even a church in my town which contains sections of wall built before America was even discovered.

So my question was, do creationists distrust fossil evidence from palentology because America is lacking in more recent archeological evidence? In the same way you might dismiss higher mathematical proofs if you don't have any evidence of simpler ones.
Click to expand...
I think it has more to do with the circumstances of religiosity than those of science.
 
I think the issue is not archeology. There are artifacts here from Native Americans, Vikings, etc. that can be dated. The fundamentalists don't have problems on these issues, but more upon the carbon dating of dinosaurs and other items from the years before man existed. In fact, I heard one gentleman argue that freshly solid lava was carbon dated at millions of years old, but the volcano had spewn it merely a few months ago. He could not grasp the concept that it existed below the earth's surface. Yes, it's a silly argument. But as long as a great orator can come acrossed as educated, this argument can stand ground with a mass of people.

The "fundies" are a small group in America. Unfortunately, they are one of the loudest. Most Christians do not even hold the same ideas on science as this group. Unfortunately, because of how loud they are (and how much of a prominent position they have taken recently), the world views them as the representative of America's religious.
 
wastepanel said:
The "fundies" are a small group in America. Unfortunately, they are one of the loudest. Most Christians do not even hold the same ideas on science as this group. Unfortunately, because of how loud they are (and how much of a prominent position they have taken recently), the world views them as the representative of America's religious.
Click to expand...

You might want to rethink that one.

God created humans in present form
All Americans: 55%

Humans evolved, God guided the process
All Americans: 27%

Humans evolved, God did not guide process
All Americans: 13%

-----------------

FAVOR SCHOOLS TEACHING…

Creationism and evolution: 65%
Creationism instead of evolution: 37%
Source
Click to expand...

In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a supreme being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.
Source
Click to expand...

Currently, the Ohio Board of Education is debating new academic standards for public school science classes, including what to teach students about the development of life on Earth. Which position do you support:

8% - Teach only evolution;

8% - Teach only intelligent design;

59% - Teach both;

15% - Teach the evidence both for and against evolution, but not necessarily intelligent design;

9% - Teach nothing about human development;

1% - Not Sure (NOT READ)
Source
Click to expand...

Confirmed here.

Creationists are not a small group in America. They are the majority.
 
CFLarsen said:
You might want to rethink that one.







Confirmed here.

Creationists are not a small group in America. They are the majority.
Click to expand...
Although all fundies are creationists, not all those that support one form of "creationism" or another are fundies. As an example, apparently over 40% of the UK population support the teaching of "alternatives" to evolution in state funded schools, however the Xian fundamentalist movement in the UK is not large at all (though it does appear to be growing).
 
This kind of knucke-dragging, mouth-breeding, credulous bunkiness needs to be outlawed!!!
 
Unbelievable decision by exam board

Even worse news. A UK examination board has decided to include creationism in science courses.
Apparently I can't post URLs for you to check the story, but it is on the Times Online website.
 
CFLarsen said:
You might want to rethink that one.







Confirmed here.

Creationists are not a small group in America. They are the majority.
Click to expand...

CFLarsen, I nominate your post as the most depressing thing I have read in 2006.

(of course, it is depressing in its original form with all the quoted material left in it, not my quote of it)
 
My concern is that in many schools this will be used to push the creationist agenda. I made an official visit to the Emmanuel School, where creationsim is given equal time to Darwin. There was a chilling quote ' "our children know what to believe" - of course they do, they have been indoctrinated thoroughly.
See also in the context of a Prime Minister who, when questioned on the issue, said that Evolution was only a theory, so it was also just a matter of faith and belief, not proof...
 
wastepanel said:
In fact, I heard one gentleman argue that freshly solid lava was carbon dated at millions of years old, but the volcano had spewn it merely a few months ago. He could not grasp the concept that it existed below the earth's surface.
Click to expand...
That's because if you dig too deeply below the Earth's surface, you'll hit the shell of the giant turtle that the Earth is resting on.
 
wastepanel said:
In fact, I heard one gentleman argue that freshly solid lava was carbon dated at millions of years old, but the volcano had spewn it merely a few months ago.
Click to expand...

That should have tipped anybody off that he was making stuff up. Lava cannot be carbon dated.

Carbon dating is for the remains of living things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom