A global warming disciple was troubled by the Goracle’s presentation in Regina;
The slide I found particularly interesting/shocking/sad, was his new(?) slide containing a graph of human population growth over the past couple hundred-thousand years. It started off good. He pointed at the beginning of the graph, showing the population of humans on Earth from 200,000 years ago, and referred to the “rise of humans.”
Cool beans. So he believes that Homo sapiens evolved from other hominid ancestors, right? Nope.
In the very same breath, he then continued to explain that according to his religious beliefs, this “rise of humans” was God’s creation of mankind – apparently 200,000 years ago. His graph then changed to include the caption “Adam & Eve” above this starting point.I started laughing, and I had to consciously blink my eyes and double-check the screen to make sure I was seeing it properly. Let me get this straight…the guy’s entire presentation exists in order to present people with the scientific data showing that human-caused climate change is a fact. He does his very best to include references in all of the slides, showing to any thinking person that this data is not made up, that it comes from the forefront of our scientific research (there was many slides containing data from Science journal, and a few from Nature).
He tarnishes his beautifully crafted presentation by not only stating his belief in creationism – but by placing the words “Adam and Eve” right on the slide (which is actually a scientific graph) as a caption explaining the beginnings of mankind.
Something doesn’t add up here. On one hand, he is using science to predict the disastrous outcome of our current actions and rally support for taking proactive measures to make sure bad things don’t happen, but on the other hand, he is clinging to stone-age beliefs that another very important area of science has proven wrong (that we humans evolved from other forms of life, and that every organism on Earth has a common ancestor).
And of course, all the religious people in the audience get to feel good knowing that this important politician sees no dilemma in using this this zero-sum belief system. I should also note that at this point in the lecture (I’ll call it the schism) he stated that there is no conflict between science and religion. He appeared as though he wanted to say more about this, and even mentioned the Scopes trial, but then decided to continue on with the slideshow instead.
Whaaaaa???? You tell me that anthropogenic climate change is a scientific fact (to the degree that science can use that word), mankind came from God’s creation of Adam and Eve 200,000 years ago, there is no conflict between science and religion, refer to the Scopes trial, and then shrug it off and move on with the show?
Odd that none of the media in attendence picked up on this. Sharp as tacks, that crew.
An outraged Tim Blair – “He put the terrible words RIGHT ON A SCIENTIFIC GRAPH? Forget Korans down toilets, people. This is serious.”
(Global warming meets creationist science. Why is it that Warren Kinsella is nowhere to be found at times like this?)
h/t to Mississauga Matt.
“Al Gore Strikes A Blow For Intelligent Design”
It’s not good for denotative integrity to put the words “Gore” and “intelligent” in the same sentence.
The concept of Gore indicating the ascention of the human race on a carbon graph is the type of voodoo tarted up as science we expect from him…..people believing this ecclesiastical-bunko road show is too preposterous to comment on.
In my opinion the Gore worshippers are intellectual suiciders.
AGW ===> Al Gore’s War
While everyone has been purposefully distracted by the professed meaning of the letters AGW-Anthropogenic Global Warming- they have missed the REAL meaning and intent- Al Gore’s War.
Remember, Al Gore is not a scientist. You are seeing Al Gore’s science-as-religion and religion-as-science shell game. He gets to cover all the bets that way, and wins big with the *faithful believers*.
As far as Global Warming goes, the earth has been warming and cooling in cycles for 4.5+ billion years. Do not be afraid.
As far as climate change is concerned, climate has been in a near constant flux for 4.5 billion years. Do not be afraid.
As to those scientists that have signed up, with a religious fervor, as soldiers in Al Gore’s [Religious] War- be very, very afraid.
Hey, wait a minute, I think as Canadians we do not fully understand how strongly Moral Relativism has taken hold in the US. According to ‘Progressivists’ like Gore, any falsehoods, lies, reversal of logic, or bias can be justified if it achieves a higher Moral Good.
For Progressivists, the highest good is to put the Democrat Party in control of the US Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Global warming is vital in this fight, because ONLY the Progressivist Democrats can save the world from global warming Armageddon.
Therefore, lying is not only OK, it’s desirable if it helps you get power faster. C’mon folks Progressivism is not complicated, in Canada we call it the NDP.
Pro Patria
There could be another more dark meaning with Gore’s obsession with human population studies and enviromental guilt loading on that human population….behind every Green fanatic is a population control zealot…their core philosphy holds that man and man’s existance is unnatrural and the more people there are the farther we go from “the garden”.
Every green fanatic/sustainability addict advocates some form of population control/reduction.
WL, have to agree, Al is one of those who see humans as an infestation of this planet. I suppose guys like him silently hope for an influenza pandemic to wipe out half the earth’s population, as long as they’re in the surviving half. Nice people.
Might as well cover all bases, religious and atheist,anyone who’ll buy into his sophistry is an ally, and more important, a potential donor to the GW/CC coffers.
This shark’s been jumped so many times that the poor thing’s lying belly up on the beach. When are a few of those intrepid media guys going to notice?
Whether you accept Adam and Eve’s existence or not, sooner or later you have to admit that there were two original humans, of the opposite sex, that continued to populate the earth.
Even evolutionists are looking for the “Eve” gene…so it’s not a stretch. Whenever we enter into a discussion of human origins, we have to keep in mind that this is origins science, not operational science; meaning, we can’t test and repeat things that happened in the distant past, we use assumptions to come to a hypothesis (there are several interpretations/applications of Darwinism, not just one.)
And, for the non-sequitur (science and religion don’t mix), keep in mind that Newton, Galileo, Linnaeus and others were creationists–these men were leaders in their fields, and some of them progenitors of their field.
does god know that adam and eve are 200,000 years old ?
I don’t wish to change topics too much here, but as a religious science teacher, I’m uncertain what atheistic-types believe when it comes to the original ‘genesis’ of life (not specifically human life). Scientists have decisively excluded the possibility of spontaneous generation. Are atheists required to believe that somehow ‘life’ randomly, spontaneously, began eons ago?
Has anyone ever calculated how many trees have been cut down, or how much energy if various forms, gas used for transport etc. to produce gores book. How much is he getting for having his book replace the bible in hotels.
How long before missionarys are going door to door to convert people to this book. He better lose a lot of weight, cause when he falls, and he will, it will make a huge hole somewhere. Bet taliban jack is seething with envy that he never thought of this scam to get cdns to follow the ndp.
Al Gore can’t be all bad if he believes in Intelligent Design (creation). Personally, I consider the “proven science” of evolution an even bigger scam than Global Warming.
According to the site below there is some debate in the archeaology/anthropology disciplines in respect of dating methods.
Most dating methods assume continuous decay rates for the dating isotope in question.
The Cobalt 60 dating method below
C-14 dating methods are useful to about 60,000 BPE
My own dating isotope was discovered with Chernobyl while on honeymoon in Europe. This is also a form of “radioactive dating”. 🙂
At any rate a variety of radio-isotope methods are available to give absolute dates in archaeology and anthropology.
Seeing as God was the ‘ultimate census taker’ at the time of Adam and Eve, we will leave it to Him to figure out the exact number of humans 200,000 years ago.
If it is any help, it is also instructive that population charts are not repeatable experiments.
In short, most scientists do not lay claim to the power of resurrection.
The proto origins of man are the subject of some considerable debate, and depending on the ‘dating method’ used in the Garden of Eden, yields varying results.
To make such grand pronouncements as to the validity of the origins of man within the margins of error per the dating methods used is to say the least highly questionable.
Does the “Goracle” list his sources and margins of error? What dating methods did he use to determine the appearance of homonids on earth?
One would think the archeological and anthropological disciplines would take the “Goracle” to task for the unsubstantiated assertions.
What assumptions has the “Goracle” made to validate this date of 200,000 years ago?
http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/mnr/Main-Page/dating.htm
Nuclear dating techniques play an important role in Earth Sciences and Archaeology. MNR is used to irradiate geological samples to be dated by the 40-Ar/39-Ar method. This is the most widely used method of dating geological materials, and is applicable over a wider age range than any other method. MNR is ideal for this type of work, because of its near-optimal fast neutron flux, the convenience and flexibility of the irradiation facility, and the relatively low sample heating resulting from the water-cooled design and small samples. Since the optimum irradiation period depends on the age of the samples, it is far more convenient, precise and cost-effective to use a number of small capsules irradiated for differing periods than to use the large capsules required in many other facilities.
Electron spin resonance (‘ESR’) dating makes use of the Co-60 source in the Hot Cell. ESR was developed at McMaster using the University’s nuclear reactor. This complete dating laboratory is unique in North America.
The conventional belief that Homo erectus disappeared from the earth more than 250,000 years ago has been challenged by McMaster geologists Dr. Henry Schwarcz and Dr. Jack Rink: their examination of fossils found in Java reveals that this genus of human beings lived as recently as 27,000 to 53,000 years ago.
“It is the first time anywhere in the world that evidence has been found that both Homo erectus and Homo sapiens were alive at the same time,” says Dr. Schwarcz. “The new results will have a significant impact on scientific thinking about the origin of anatomically modern human beings.”
Geologists discovered partial skulls of Homo erectus in Java in the 1930s, and scientists estimated the site to be 300,000 years old or more. Rink and Schwarcz used the relatively new dating technique of electron-spin resonance, which tests animal teeth for their level of radioactivity, to discover that the Java fossils are much younger than the estimates.
“The ancient teeth we examined are like Lazarus fossils; they’ve risen again to prove Homo erectus survived much more recently than was ever previously believed,” says Dr. Rink.
I’m not sure what exactly he means by “this this zero-sum belief system” (“I don’t think that phrase means what you think it means”), but the sense of smug superiority comes through loud and clear. The cognitive dissonance of this True Believer is funny as hell. Why, it’s as if the imam started digressing about what a fine human being the Pope is, and how many fine cultures and lofty philosophies have come out of the Judeo-Christian tradition…
“Al started off by telling the audience a few amusing jokes/stories, including how he used to fly on Air Force Two, and now he has to take off his shoes in order to get on a plane.”
Well if those planning his return to the White House get their wish, they will have to dress him in a Speedo and grease him with Vaseline to get him on Air Force One.
We knew already that Gore was a hypocrite, and now he turns out to be a science denier too.
What a glorious day for us skeptics!
I think the political left decided it needed a rallying call, a calling to arms. The global warming issue is just that, I don’t know a lefty that is’nt falling all over themselves over this.
IPCC ,an impartial political body you say, The “neocon republicans” want to dimminish UN power. What do you expect ,it’s like Harper getting fair coverage from the CBC. Of course they are going to fight back.
The Left around the world love the GW issue,having seen thier power erode away over the years as country after country goes right. This is thier chance for a comeback.
The whole issue also provides a great opportunity to bring in Nuclear power (who I think is behind the scenes player in GW as well) -with abundant nuclear power we can: Generate electricity, Break down water into Hydrogen, and extract oil more effectively out of the tarsands.
If all goes to plan the left will be in power in the US and around the world and we’ll all be driving electric cars.
But what does Lizzy May think about all this? Maybe she and The Goracle can share the pulpit next Sunday???
JCL
And how is this different from the numerous global warming scoffers who are also themselves religious, i.e. strongly sceptical about the scientific consensus but entirely credulous about the existence of supernatural Beings?
Gore is just introducing old-earth creationism into his “the earth is doomed” argument because that is the default position of most of red America, where his gospel is NOT doing very well.
We need to distinguish between two types of creationists:
Old earth creation believers accept (on average) the current scientific view of big bang and evolution, with humans either directly created by God some hundreds of thousands of years ago, or infusing hominids with a soul/consciousness. These creation adherents largely harmonize science and religion by tweaking their religion and reinterpreting their scripture.
Young earth creation believers hold, at a minimum, that all life on earth occurred by God’s direct creation 6000 to 10000 years ago, and not by evolution. The claim is seemingly preposterous, yet it is held with great seriousness even by some scientifically-trained people.
Shane – as far as I can tell (and its been a number of years since I last looked at this literature), the evolutionary sciences evidence less concern with abiogenesis than with the evolutionary mechanisms themselves, in my view, largely because all attempts to crack the origins-of-life nut have failed. Advancements in the understanding of evolutionary mechanisms have been contentious and contradictory (e.g., Gould vs Dawkins), and have given strong impetuous to the intelligent design movement.
Research is difficult enough in the hard physical sciences, where we can fully describe what’s going on (e.g., quantum mechanics), and where we can repeat experiments as long as the money holds out. How people manage in the “historical sciences” continues to baffle me.
Glenn Beck had an interesting show debunking Global Warming last night.
Apparently, after completing their papers, the scientist/authors for the IPCC are told to adjust their findings to correspond with and support the summary, which is written by politicians and bureaucrats. After that unscientific experience, many scientists drop out of the program.
Beck had six or seven climate expert scientists on the show, such as Professor Richard Lindzen – an atomospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. He was also the former lead author for the IPCC.
In a recent interview in the NP, Lindzen was asked:
Q: I read that you bet one of your colleagues that the Earth will actually be colder 20 years from now?
A: I haven’t bet on it, but I figure the odds are about 50-50.
Q: What do you find to be the attitude among your MIT under-grads on global warming?
A: I find that they realize they don’t know enough to reach judgments. They all realize that Gore’s book was a sham. They appreciate that Michael Crichton at least included references.
Q: Are there any behaviours we should be changing, as a society, in order to protect our planet?
A: Yes. We should learn math and physics so we don’t get fooled by this idiocy.
Funny that Michael Crichton’s fictional book is taken seriously, while Al Gore’s supposedly non-fiction documentary is not.
As well, it seems to me the rational side has all the scientists. While, the screaming, irrational, discombobulated lefty side has fools and non-experts such as Gore, Dion, Layton, May and a fruitfly scientist.
Forget about the war against terrorism, or even the so-called war against climate change – I reckon the most critical war for the survival of mankind is against idiots.
According to Darwin, all humans had a common male and female ancestor. It’s quite common for scientists to refer to these two as “Adam and Eve”. Thanks for the morning laugh, guys.
“Forget about the war against terrorism, or even the so-called war against climate change – I reckon the most critical war for the survival of mankind is against idiots.
Posted by: irwin daisy at May 3, 2007 11:14 AM ”
irwin daisy…IMHO there is not nearly enough scientific research and money being spent on finding the “idiot” gene. That would be a worthwhile project!
Richard said:
“Whether you accept Adam and Eve’s existence or not, sooner or later you have to admit that there were two original humans, of the opposite sex, that continued to populate the earth.”
Then that explains why we as a species are so stupid … we are all inbred. Makes sense.
“And, for the non-sequitur (science and religion don’t mix), keep in mind that Newton, Galileo, Linnaeus and others were creationists–these men were leaders in their fields, and some of them progenitors of their field.”
That is because during their time, Christianity was a lot like Islam. If you were a heretic you may be either killed or put in jail to rot.
These men were smart enough to know how to continue on with their lives freely.
Darwin recanted everything on his deathbed!
Darwin Lives.
“rise of humans”
Did Goreacle use those words?
Chucker Darwin arrived, using reason/logic, after years of close observation of turtles, fishes, dogs, various flora and fauna, etc., with the words: Descent of Man.
The world of organized religion/theocracy/superstition died; not dead enough!
Yes, Man fell out of the tree of life. Yes, some Mans/Womans are usurpers. Gore is one of the usurpers. He has eaten the poisoned apple proffered by the Snake.
Socialism, creationism, Islamism, nazism, fascism, environmentalism, feminism, all the ‘isms: one coalition of evil.
Gore, et al, have made their choice.
…-
Descent of Man [ 1871]. Charles Darwin [ 1809 – 1882 ] … Chapter I – The Evidence of the Descent of Man from some Lower Form …-
(infidels-org-library)
Sometimes a person with foul odour sits next to you on the bus and I tolerate but do wish he wasn’t there.
I’m a believer in Six days Creation and Adam and Eve, and a young earth(based on Scripture, re-inforced by geology, science, physics and biology)
I wish Gore wasn’t on the same bus. He’s embarrassing, and if he was a believer he would understand that we are warned in scripture that the earth is getting old.Ps 102:25-26.
So, what’s your point? Al Gore panders to the prevailing religious beliefs of his audience, ergo climate change is a liberal con based on poor science? Are you even capable of talking about the issue without invoking character assassination? Or would that compel you to confront some of that scientific fact you seem to feel is so untrustworthy?
“Darwin recanted everything on his deathbed!”
He most certainly did not; this is another fable the creationists/superstitionists like to pull out of their hat with no evidence whatsoever, on a par with “Hitler was an atheist.” If being a conservative means that I have to drink the superstitionists’ dirty bathwater, I must be on the wrong bus.
I Googled “Al Gore Intelligent Design” and didn’t get anything in the first page. That isn’t to deny that he made the comment (I’ll assume he did).
However it’s not suprising. Al Gore isn’t presenting the “Global Warming for Dummies” version of the argument. And that argument is largely directed at people who are creationists.
It’s highly regrettable, Intelligent Design is worse than stupid science and bad religion.
“behind every Green fanatic is a population control zealot…”
Hardly, there are “subscribers” to the AGW meme who think we should agressively grow our population build arcologies, colonize space and all that stuff.
And most people who are concerned about population control strongly express a preference for better healthcare and education. Prohibitions like China’s one child per family policy have their proponents but they’re not centre stage.
Counterintuitively the best way to decrease population is improve infant mortality. Women who expect to lose a high percentage of children tend to have extra as “insurance”. Decrease infant mortality and you get a short term spike in population growth which levels off after 5-10 years before sharply reversing.
We do have a very loose but de facto population control policy- call it “let the brown babies die.” It’s moraly and economicaly wrong in my opinion.
Dr. Bono Suzuki has proposed though his sustainable agriculture (actually Substandard or substainable agriculture ) that 20% of the world starve. They will be mostly in Africa and Asia and always the poorest.
thanks for your ideas Dr. Fruitfly.
maybe we can peel layers off Al Gorged and feed the millions.
“Darwin recanted everything on his deathbed!”
That’s a myth, he was still wrestling with the cancellation of this AOL subscription.
His faith in god’s role in the universe was what shaken actually.
Christianity is not in conflict with Evolution. Specific Judeo-Christian dogmas are in conflict with evolution but not all.
Interestingly enough Jesus’ best line about loving your neighbors is largely an incarnation of the “Golden Rule” which exsists in both Game Theory and Evolutionary Theory. Mind you the Christians who object to Evolution tend to gloss over this preferring the old testament fire and brimstone type stuff.
There are plenty of great scientists out there who are christian. I’m not blogging anymore but I interviewed a number of Christian scientists for my blog last year. Terricificly smart guys and excellent scientists. Their religious and scientific paradigms were well integrated in my view.
BTW, I don’t consider Intelligent Design to be a “good” integration between religion and science. Quite the opposite in fact.
It’s a bit odd that the complaniee doesn’t realise that his religion is also just that.
It’s a bit like a Christian discovering that Jesus was boprn a Jew.
And on the third attempt, God created President Gore.
Young earth or old earth creationism is Biblically a moot point.
The OT says, “there were giants (Nephilim) on the earth in those days, men of old, men of reknown.” It also refers to a land called ‘Nod’ obviously populated by non-Adamic humans, where Cain was banished.
One can therefore assume that the Adamic human line was a separate creation, according to the OT.
Furthermore, recent findings are showing that the so-called Neanderthals were not only more intelligent (larger brain at least) and more physically robust than modern man, but were in fact blonds with high cheek bones and apparently better looking than Cro-Magnon. They also had a higher civilization.
I see evolution as a farce. Primordial muck evolving into man is just too much to have faith in. And faith is precisely what it requires. Even Crick (one of the discoverers of DNA), afterwards recanted his faith in evolution. Instead coming up with the theory of panspermia as an explanation. One should also look into Zipf’s language law and how it relates to so-called ‘junk’ DNA.
That leaves creationism, which I believe in. However, I also realize that there are no absolutes (young/old argument), given whatever evidence is available.
AGW = Al Gore*s whimsey..
Al has discovered that vast numbers of people enjoy being led, especially when sitting in a theater audience, looking up to the *guru*.
I remember this feeling of power when, as a youngster, *they* asked me to say a few words on stage and thank sponsors of our stage production.
All those open faces looking up. They were putty in my hands. People just seem to give themselves to the authority of the speaker, even when he is a 12 year old.
AGW is an entertainment. One can do a lot more by lowering one*s overhead and stop buying stuff we don*t need, thus stop dumping all that stuff too.
And if you can*t buy an EV, just get a 2002 Honda Insight. [700 miles on a small tank of gas.] – TG
“We do have a very loose but de facto population control policy- call it “let the brown babies die.” It’s moraly and economicaly wrong in my opinion.” – Jose
Yes, indeed. According to the book ‘Freakenomics’ the executional method to achieve this, in NA anyhow, is the lefty celebrated practice of abortion. Including the Rosie O’Donnell supported partial abortion.
It’s also claimed in the book, one of the results are an overall urban decline in violent crime.
Irwin Daisy,
“Furthermore, recent findings are showing that the so-called Neanderthals were not only more intelligent (larger brain at least) and more physically robust than modern man, but were in fact blonds with high cheek bones and apparently better looking than Cro-Magnon. They also had a higher civilization.”
You are 180 degrees wrong here. Their heads may have been larger but they appear to have lacked imagination.
Also, there’s no more a need to “believe” in evolution than there is to believe teh galaxy is composed of stars.
Also, I do not understand theists’ aversion to evolution. After all, who says that God’s work of creation is cryptic and finite?
hey guys, dont want to break it to you, but I think Al was being ironic!
irwin daisy – “myths and endless genealogies”
Shane O asks: “Are atheists required to believe that somehow ‘life’ randomly, spontaneously, began eons ago?”
Shane, Atheists aren’t “required” to believe anything. That’s the whole point. We’re ‘allowed’ to have open minds; no church heirarchy, no dogma, no G*d.
If some individual(s) purport to represent all atheists, they’re free to do so; it doesn’t make it true.
If you don’t believe in climate change, how come you watch Al Gore so closely?
I believe in climate change.
I also believe in water wet!
There was another civilization who used knowledge of the seasons, weather and such natural phenomena as eclipses to terrify and control the gullible masses.
The Mayans.
Maybe they knew something else about the “end of the world”. The mayan calendar which has been accurate for thousands of years ends in 2012.
So what does your open mind tell you then? Do you believe in abiogenesis?
Jose said “Christianity is not in conflict with Evolution. Specific Judeo-Christian dogmas are in conflict with evolution but not all.”
False. Christianity is defined by Christ through the purpose of his incarnation and death. This purpose has been clearly described in Christian scripture as atonement for sin, actual and original. The reference to original sin brings in Adam and Eve and a fall into sin, and a corrupted human nature. Christian scripture is utter clear on the fact that this corruption is so detestable to God that it completely removed any possibility of harmonious relations between God and people. It is also clear on the fact that God would rather nail himself to a tree than have this state of affairs continue.
That, to the best of my understanding, is the core Christian gospel. Theological self consistency (no different from the ordinary kind – a self-consistent logical framework proceeding from formal axioms) requires a reason for Christ. Without an original state of grace (harmony with God), and a hereditary corruption, there is no need of Christ. At minimum, Christianity is antithetical to the blind chance origin and development of human life.
There are four types of people that identify as Christians: those who realize this, those who are struggling with it, those who have not yet thought about it, and those who deny it. The latter are not Christians.
Furthermore, recent findings are showing that the so-called Neanderthals were not only more intelligent (larger brain at least) and more physically robust than modern man, but were in fact blonds with high cheek bones and apparently better looking than Cro-Magnon. They also had a higher civilization
are you sure this wasnt Sacha Trudeau’s description of Fidel Castro?
actually I believe they think Neathandrals were red haired and the remnent gene is mostly in scotland. although I remember cold war pictures that definitely pointed to the Kremlin.
Wimpy,
The Neanderthal comment was based on the latest findings/suggestions by an expert anthropologist, from an article I read in the Post I believe.
“Also, there’s no more a need to “believe” in evolution than there is to believe teh galaxy is composed of stars.”
Huh? The stars are observed. Evolution is not. Furthermore, the galaxy is not composed of stars. It’s composed of matter, is it not?
Since it cannot be observed, evolution is every bit as much based on faith as any other theory. However, it is a faith, which for myself at least, requires an even greater leap of logic and a grand suspension of disbelief.
If you’d like to believe in the evolution of swamp gunk into sentient life forms, that’s entirely up to you. But it still leaves you with the critical, unanswered question, what did the living swamp gunk evolve from? As we all know, life cannot be created from non-life. And Cricks problem was that DNA is too complex to rely on evolutionary theory. And then there’s Zipf’s language law.
Gore understands neither science nor religion. I saw a calculation once that showed that if one takes the timeline set out in the Old Testament, then Adam and Eve were around perhaps 5000 BC. This was from a creationist “scholar”.
Clearly 200,000 BC is contrary to the “who begat whom” litanies…
lobbey said… “hey guys, dont want to break it to you, but I think Al was being ironic!”
Yes, it was in fact a joke. The reaction we have seen here is too delicious.
4004BC oct 3 at 9 AM was the exact calculation.
Shane O asks (in response to me, I believe…)”So what does your open mind tell you then? Do you believe in abiogenesis?
Posted by: Shane O. at May 3, 2007 1:47 PM ”
So what does your open mind tell you then? Do you believe in abiogenesis?
Posted by: Shane O. at May 3, 2007 1:47 PM ”
What I believe, Shane, matters not. I’m not a scientist and am unqualified to comment on the origins of life; not unlike the Creationists.
This gentleman, however seems to have some relevant thoughts on the subject of life’s origins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro