Friday, May 25, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version

Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

by PZ Myers, scienceblogs.com

Thanks to Ranjani for the link.

Reposted from:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/another_christian_science_fair.php

It's becoming a trend: Evangelical Christian institutions that try to do science inevitably demonstrate breathtaking inanity of their own. The latest victim is the Pawleys Island Christian Academy. Take a gander at the first place winner in biology.

Brian Benson, an eighth-grade student who won first place in the Life Science/Biology category for his project "Creation Wins!!!," says he disproved part of the theory of evolution. Using a rolled-up paper towel suspended between two glasses of water with Epsom Salts, the paper towel formed stalactites. He states that the theory that they take millions of years to develop is incorrect.

"Scientists say it takes millions of years to form stalactites," Benson said. "However, in only a couple of hours, I have formed stalactites just by using paper towel and Epsom Salts."

This isn't just wrong, it's appallingly wrong. He's wrong on the facts, wrong on the interpretations, wrong on the understanding of how science works. If we're charitable and grant that a 14 year old has some reasonable excuse for ignorance, we can still indict his parents, his science teacher, and the judges at this fair on gross incompetence on multiple charges.

� This experiment has nothing to do with biology.

� Epsom salts are magnesium sulfate; stalactites are made of calcium carbonate.

� Stalactite growth rates are estimated to be around 0.1-10 centimeters per thousand years. If we assume his 'stalactite' was 10 cm long and use the slowest growth rate, that's 100 thousand years, not millions.

� Even if he had demonstrated an accelerated rate of stalactite growth, stalactite length isn't the method used to date the age of the earth.

� To quote the unquestionable authority, Terry Pratchett: "And all those exclamation points? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head." Mister Benson comes perilously close to the underpants limit in his title.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, May 25, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 198 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #44692 by JamPal on May 25, 2007 at 7:29 am

Poor kid, what chance did he have? Imagine growing up in a land where the only evidence worth takling notice of, is that which supports the delusion. No matter how silly.

I would hate to live in a land like that..

I do?

No!

Damn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)

Other Comments by JamPal

2. Comment #44695 by Mango on May 25, 2007 at 7:32 am

You know, even were he to grow stalactites in that manner, all he would have done was to increase our knowledge of stalacites, not prove Judeo-Christian "creation."

Other Comments by Mango

3. Comment #44699 by Philip1978 on May 25, 2007 at 7:36 am

If he had done it properly he could have prayed with the right amount of "faith" and got his god to create it for him!

Other Comments by Philip1978

4. Comment #44706 by RascoHeldall on May 25, 2007 at 7:42 am

Child abuse.

Plain and simple.

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

5. Comment #44711 by bmkern on May 25, 2007 at 7:49 am

I formed salt crystals, therefor God. Seems like pretty airtight logic to me...

Seriously, how far would just teaching logic to children go towards abolishing religion? I'd like to think a long way.

Other Comments by bmkern

6. Comment #44715 by _J_ on May 25, 2007 at 8:07 am

Poor kid.

There are teachers who are afraid to touch a child who falls down in the playground for fear of being sued for inappropriate behaviour or somehow held responsible for the injury. And that's here in England - popular 'wisdom' would have me believe that the US is still more zanily litigious.

If innocent concern for a child's welfare can be turned into a lawyer's lunch, surely wilfully misleading a child into completely misunderstanding the things you're supposed to be teaching him is an out-and-out criminal offence? Fines or prison sentences ought to follow.

Other Comments by _J_

7. Comment #44719 by konquererz on May 25, 2007 at 8:11 am

Wow, and not a single adult stepped in to inform him of extremely provable answer to his project. There was no science teacher there, not even if one had the title. If there was a science teacher that had really been taught science, then he or she should be banned from being around school children as they out and out lied to that child about the truth of his experiment. I agree, child abuse, plain and simple!

Other Comments by konquererz

8. Comment #44723 by Tyler Durden on May 25, 2007 at 8:22 am

*Slaps palm of hand on forehead*

This is just plain sad. Imagine a "science" fair confusing biology with geology. Idiots.

How can this teacher be allowed to keep her job?

And what are the chances one of the "judges" was a priest/preacher/man of god?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

9. Comment #44731 by CJ22 on May 25, 2007 at 8:30 am

Even if he had managed to come up with some proof that stalagtites grew faster than the scientific consensus, how does that 'disprove some parts of evolution'? What have stalagtites got to do with evolution?

Other Comments by CJ22

10. Comment #44736 by TIKI AL on May 25, 2007 at 8:34 am

My perpetual fiancee has grown more impressive stalactites than that in our icebox.

The kid that brought the fossilized dinosaur spurs should have won.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

11. Comment #44740 by ClemIsMe on May 25, 2007 at 8:38 am

This is a job for the ATF. These children need to be rescued.

Other Comments by ClemIsMe

12. Comment #44742 by DarwinsPitbull on May 25, 2007 at 8:42 am

So let me get it straight, god created man on the 6th day and then created rolled up paper towels?

Other Comments by DarwinsPitbull

13. Comment #44743 by adocarbog on May 25, 2007 at 8:42 am

My kudos to the kid, though, at least he is trying to be scientific, trying to experiment. Give him some time and a chance to gain more knowledge and he may actually get it and realize that the earth is 4.7 bil years old etc.
The only way to beat this creationism crap is by education, education, education, education, education .... and not intellectual debates.

Other Comments by adocarbog

14. Comment #44745 by Nebularry on May 25, 2007 at 8:47 am

If that kid was the "winner", how apallingly ludicrous must the losers have been!!!!!

Other Comments by Nebularry

15. Comment #44748 by Capt.Jon on May 25, 2007 at 8:49 am

Hey, I just disproved evolution by making some rocks and animals out of clay. I CREATED them and thus proved creation.

Where's my ribbon?

Other Comments by Capt.Jon

16. Comment #44769 by MorituriMax on May 25, 2007 at 9:10 am

Brian better walk real quiet.. once his God finds out he's got competition, it'll be all old testament on his ass.

Heh..

Other Comments by MorituriMax

17. Comment #44771 by anotherclinton on May 25, 2007 at 9:12 am

Ah, Pawley's Island. Right off the coast of my own benighted home state (single tear). Further proof, of course, that Christians love crystals.

Other Comments by anotherclinton

18. Comment #44783 by lt_zippy2 on May 25, 2007 at 9:29 am

Why, oh why, oh why, oh why can't we do something about this travesty?

It's not just a travesty of science, it's a travesty of simple intelligence, it's a travesty of common sense, it is an abuse of position...and on behalf of the teachers who gave this award it is lies. LIES.

Don't you wish christians had a commandment from their precious scriptures about that...

..OH WAIT THEY DO!
(please note only one exclaimation mark)

Other Comments by lt_zippy2

19. Comment #44795 by Lara Avara on May 25, 2007 at 9:50 am

An egregious example of the failure to educate children. Do you suppose this institution of "learning" is aware that Pica also refers to the behavior of eating inedibles?

Other Comments by Lara Avara

20. Comment #44798 by don malvado on May 25, 2007 at 9:55 am

I see someone claiming to be james randi has left a comment on the georgetown times page.

Other Comments by don malvado

21. Comment #44808 by Phaeonix on May 25, 2007 at 10:24 am

Another comment left on that article:

" Mylzz Gossett May, 25 2007
Uhh....it appears so that those two people are evolutionist.
just to let you two know, evolution has been disproven
SO many times, I can swallow my own head.
did you know that the more and more Einstein studied
about space, the more he thought there was to be a god.
I mean, look how complicated space is.
Do you think that all of that happened by chance?
No. It didn't. Its like I put a nice watch in a bag, then
shook it for a couple of months and chances
are,I'm not going to get a perfect watch with all
of it's gizmos as if someone had made it.
No, it took a Creator to make that watch.
so, sorry evolution, but that's 2 to nothing in my opinion. "

If there were such a thing as a soul in me, I assure all of you, it just died.

Other Comments by Phaeonix

22. Comment #44812 by Aaron SF on May 25, 2007 at 10:34 am

But everyone don't you see? This is Biology... because it *proves* the age of the earth to be less than six thousand years! (what?) And that means it diproves evolution! (what?) and that means it proves the creation my... errr theorey!

So seee... it's related to biology by only five or six hundred leaps of logic (or one leap of faith) and therefore even though he was using the wrong materials in the wrong environment he still earned that first place ribbon (bible?) at the christian science fare.

Other Comments by Aaron SF

23. Comment #44813 by Spinoza on May 25, 2007 at 10:35 am

FUCK!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Phaeonix... you've just made me so angry... not you... but... man... WHAT THE FUCK!!!! ARRRRRRGH!!

I'm torn between force-educating these idiots and hording knowledge for only those that deserve it.

Anyone with an IQ under 130 should not be allowed to MENTION the name Einstein, because YOU DON'T FUCKING UNDERSTAND HIM. PERIOD.

AHHHHHHH FUCK!!!!

Other Comments by Spinoza

24. Comment #44815 by mintcheerios on May 25, 2007 at 10:36 am

How can people still claim that religion doesn't conflict with science after this?

Other Comments by mintcheerios

25. Comment #44818 by pewkatchoo on May 25, 2007 at 10:42 am

You really have a serious problem in the US with all of this. There seems to be no end to the websites devoted to creationism and ID. Here in the UK we have problems with education in general at state schools and with violence among young people, which has the effect of turning kids off school. But we don't have anything like this I think, except maybe in the odd mumbo jumbo school. The US and the UK are going to have a huge unemployable underclass in 10-20 years, for different reasons. Scary stuff.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

26. Comment #44827 by Rtambree on May 25, 2007 at 10:59 am

3. Comment #44699 by Philip1978 on May 25, 2007 at 7:36 am

>If he had done it properly he could have prayed with the right amount of "faith" and got his god to create it for him!

But then it would no longer be "faith". There's a Catch-22 Parodox here. If God answers prayer, you have evidence and don't need "faith". :)

Other Comments by Rtambree

27. Comment #44850 by Tyler Durden on May 25, 2007 at 11:56 am

I actually rang these bozos, got through to the alleged principal, Rick.

He said he's been inundated with criticism over the award given to student Brian Benson. Reckons this "experiment" should not have been in the Life Sciences/Biology category.

I did ask him to print a retraction in the Georgetown Times (strange, he's not a big fan of that particular paper), he is considering it but I won't hold my breath.

He actually seemed surprised to be getting a phone call on this subject, needless to say, I didn't let him off the hook that easy! Is this how they teach children science? How is this preparing them for the real world? Did the school approve the quotes from Benson?

The other awards, he said, generated very little criticism. Yeah, funny that. Science with an agenda will tend to provoke a backlash.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

28. Comment #44855 by TIKI AL on May 25, 2007 at 12:05 pm

14. Comment #44745 by Nebularry on May 25, 2007 at 8:47 am

If that kid was the "winner", how apallingly ludicrous must the losers have been!!!!!

...Remember, the fundies world works in reverse. The "loser" may have aced string theory.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

29. Comment #44876 by GodlessHeathen on May 25, 2007 at 12:39 pm

The other projects having received awards all appear to be good learning projects for science. The examples given were really good ones for learning the scientific method - the "Why is the sky blue?" project in particular.

The creationism pseudo-science project is so glaringly different from the rest in focus and technique. The award was nothing more than a bunch of xtian jerks stroking one another. Bleh!

And was that really James Randi who posted that comment on the news story? Would be interesting that it garnered that sort of attention.

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

30. Comment #44893 by devolved on May 25, 2007 at 2:00 pm

In October 1953, National Geographic published a photo of a bat that had fallen on a stalagmite in the famous Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico, and had been cemented on to it. The stalagmite had grown so fast it was able to preserve the bat before the creature had time to decompose. [Mason Sutherland, Carlsbad Caverns in Color, National Geographic, October, 1953, p. 442.]

A photograph taken in February, 1968, shows a curtain of stalactites growing from the foundation ceiling beneath the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. Some of the stalactites had grown to five feet long (a metre and a half) in the 45 years since the memorial was built in 1923. [John C. Whitcomb, Jr, The World That Perished, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973, pp. 114�115.]

Other Comments by devolved

31. Comment #44895 by USA_Limey on May 25, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Comment #44893 by devolved wrote:

"In October 1953, National Geographic published a photo of a bat that had fallen on a stalagmite in the famous Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico, and had been cemented on to it. The stalagmite had grown so fast it was able to preserve the bat before the creature had time to decompose. [Mason Sutherland, Carlsbad Caverns in Color, National Geographic, October, 1953, p. 442.]

A photograph taken in February, 1968, shows a curtain of stalactites growing from the foundation ceiling beneath the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. Some of the stalactites had grown to five feet long (a metre and a half) in the 45 years since the memorial was built in 1923. [John C. Whitcomb, Jr, The World That Perished, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973, pp. 114�115."

... Interesting. This can only prove one of two things:

1) Sometimes, under some conditions, Stalagmites and Stalagtites can grow very quickly.

OR , (get ready folks, here it comes...)

2) The earth is 6,000 years old and everything in the bible is true!

Fuck off Devolved.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

32. Comment #44898 by Bremas on May 25, 2007 at 2:15 pm

devolved
So, by your reasoning the stalagmite should have grown substantially since 1942 (5-10ft maybe?).

Tell you what, take a road trip, get a picture, and then post the current and 1942 one.

Hey, if true, you might have made a significant discovery. See you then.

Other Comments by Bremas

33. Comment #44906 by don malvado on May 25, 2007 at 2:34 pm

And from Talkorigins for devolveds benefit:

Creationists sometimes point to some very rapid accumulations which superficially resemble the calcium carbonate formations in caves.

For example, on the mortared brickwork of old forts and places of that sort, formations which look to the naked eye like stalactites and stalagmites sometimes form in less than one hundred years. However, those formations are composed of gypsum, which is a salt of calcium sulfate. Unlike calcium carbonate, gypsum is moderately soluble in water, which means that transport and recrystallization can take place much more rapidly (White, 1976, p.304). There is a whole class of cave deposits called evaporite minerals which consist of those minerals which dissolve readily in water. As might be expected, these formations are ephemeral when compared to the carbonates which form all the really large and impressive cave formations. The chemistry of all this is not particularly complex and is very well understood.

(Loftin, 1988, p.23)

Here's some more information. This point is particularly important since creationists love to point out such examples.

Many people have found that stalactites forming on concrete or mortar outdoors may grow several centimeters each year. Stalactite growth in these environments, however, bears little relation to that in caves, because it does not proceed by the same chemical reaction. Although cement and mortar are made from limestone, the same rock in which the caves form, the carbon dioxide has been driven off by heating. When water is added to these materials, one product is calcium hydroxide, which is about 100 times as soluble in water as calcite is. A calcium hydroxide solution absorbs carbon dioxide rapidly from the atmosphere to reconstitute calcium carbonate, and produce stalactites. This is why stalactites formed by solution from cement and mortar grow much faster than those in caves. To illustrate, in 1925, a concrete bridge was constructed inside Postojna Cave, Yugoslavia, and adjacent to it an artificial tunnel was opened. By 1956, tubular stalactites 45 centimeters long were growing from the bridge, while stalactites of the same age in the tunnel were less than 1 centimeter long.

Apologies for the cut and paste job.

Other Comments by don malvado

34. Comment #44954 by Dr Benway on May 25, 2007 at 4:26 pm

This story brings back memories of a very cool toy called Magic Rocks. Anyone remember Magic Rocks? Somewhat toxic, but we didn't worry 'bout no toxic in my day.

See a movie of Magic Rocks in action here: http://www.thesneeze.com/art/rocks1.swf

Other Comments by Dr Benway

35. Comment #44961 by phil rimmer on May 25, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Comment #44954 by Dr Benway

Nostalgic clip. Thanks, Dr B.

I knew this as a "Chemical Garden". I used to make them with a solution of sodium silicate and "seed" it with nice large crystals of colourful metal salts, ferrous sulphate, copper sulphate and the like.

The chemistry (which pertains to some of the comments on cement/concrete) is outlined here..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Garden

Other Comments by phil rimmer

36. Comment #45009 by RickM on May 25, 2007 at 7:18 pm

Just goes to show; the species "nit-wit" continues to bear children.

Other Comments by RickM

37. Comment #45016 by k1mgy on May 25, 2007 at 7:34 pm

Future career: christian dentistry

Other Comments by k1mgy

38. Comment #45018 by Crazymalc on May 25, 2007 at 7:41 pm

*sigh*
My nephews and neice are being raised like Mr. Benson.

Breaks my heart

Other Comments by Crazymalc

39. Comment #45095 by TIKI AL on May 26, 2007 at 11:12 am

Crazymalc: Place RD audio books under the little brainwashed tykes pillows.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

40. Comment #45110 by devolved on May 26, 2007 at 12:06 pm

I was shopping in Sainsbury's yesterday [a UK supermarket chain] and saw a dump bin with 'The God Delusion' in it and across the bin in very prominent type was the invitation to 'Join the Debate', so here I am.

The other reason I'm here is that I've read 'The God Delusion' and I think it's very cleverly written propaganda written with the express intent of branding Christianity as 'evil'. I've also read a short and very interesting reply called 'The Dawkins Letters' by David Robertson [ISBN 978 184550 2614 �4.99]. Apparently the 1st chapter was posted on this website and David was subjected to similar abuse to me. I have yet to find anyone on the website who has written a critique of David's book.

I'm not sure what USA_Limey hopes to achieve by using foul language. It hardly reflects well on Richard Dawkins website and is evidence that not all atheists have developed a higher consciousness.

By contrast I thank don malvado for useful information. Let me return the compliment and if it's inappropriate please tell me.

"The growth rate of stalactites and stalagmites in many caves today is of course quite slow. But even in such caves the current slow rate of growth cannot be guaranteed to have always been this sluggish. Caves and their formations in tropical areas develop much faster than those in more temperate regions because of higher annual rainfall. But many factors, apart from the obvious unknown rate of water drip in the past, influence growth rate.

Research over the past five years in the Kelly Caves of Kangaroo Island has shown that stalactites can grow at rates of up to 1/2 inch (7mm) in four years. This is contrary to the usual evolutionist claim that stalactites grow, at the most, an inch a century and therefore any limestone caves must be very old. Such a high rate of growth in stalactites indicates that even many of the larger stalactite growths could have occurred in a reasonably short time, and therefore the caves are not necessarily old at all."

I appreciate that some of you will automatically dismiss these reports if I divulge the sources. Of course rejecting valid evidence on the basis that it's drawn from a source that doesn't agree with your own biases and presuppositions is as unscientific and bigoted as you can get but then this is a religious website so I shouldn't be too surprised. After all in all the posts I've made on this website I'm still waiting for a scientific critique of the information I provide. Lots of abuse, may snide remarks and lots of shallow rhetoric but as yet no science.

Other Comments by devolved

41. Comment #45114 by _J_ on May 26, 2007 at 12:13 pm

11. Comment #44740 by ClemIsMe on May 25, 2007 at 8:38 am

This is a job for the ATF. These children need to be rescued.

Ah yes: Antiscience, Theism and Fuckwittery. If only...

Other Comments by _J_

42. Comment #45117 by epeeist on May 26, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Comment #45110 by devolved

Research over the past five years in the Kelly Caves of Kangaroo Island

...

I appreciate that some of you will automatically dismiss these reports if I divulge the sources.

Hi devolved, you have become a geologist now have you, it makes a change from being a physicist and a biologist. Do you have qualifications for this one, or are you just quote mining from AiG or some other random creationist web site?

As Billy Sands and I have divulged, we both have Ph.D. qualifications in science. You still won't say whether you have actually been through grade school or not.

There is lots of science on this site, its just that you don't have the background to understand it.

Other Comments by epeeist

43. Comment #45118 by Duff on May 26, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Devolved, You put a smile on my face. Thank you for proving what many of us sincerely believe, and that is that religion truly is the only socially acceptable insanity. It takes true insanity to believe the truly unbelievable. The most common insanity in this country is the belief that the earth is only 6 thousand years old. Get some help, man.

Other Comments by Duff

44. Comment #45123 by Batlash on May 26, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Just the sort of silly "science" that passes for education here in South Carolina. Don't overlook the original article in which a 7th grader got second place in her category for an experiment that showed how light changed "as the sun would move during the day." It's not likely she's speaking figuratively. Some state legislators are forever trying to sneak this sort of thinking into the public schools and got a toe-hold last year with some vague yet clearly creationist standards for teaching evolution. It's things like this that make me constantly question why I live here.

Other Comments by Batlash

45. Comment #45130 by mark1958 on May 26, 2007 at 1:13 pm

All i can say is reprehensible and makes me sick.

Other Comments by mark1958

46. Comment #45133 by devolved on May 26, 2007 at 1:34 pm

As ever epeeist wants to attack me but I'm not the issue. Here's an article by a creation scientist.

Critique it eppeist for all our sakes:
http://trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Other Comments by devolved

47. Comment #45138 by epeeist on May 26, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Comment #45133 by devolved

As ever epeeist wants to attack me but I'm not the issue. Here's an article by a creation scientist.

Critique it eppeist for all our sakes:
http://trueorigin.org/abio.asp

It fails at the first hurdle "The first organized form of primitive life was a tiny protozoan [a one-celled animal]."

It references no other papers apart from the ones published by itself, no references to J. Evolutionary Biology or anything else, it refers to abiogenesis which has nothing to do with evolution.

Billy Sands has told you this before. The last time he told you this you went away in a sulk for several weeks and now you are back trying to make exactly the same points. Just because you say something three times does not make it true.

Let's see you argue about a paper in J. Phys. Letters rather than something from the flat earth society, then people might take you a little more seriously.

Other Comments by epeeist

48. Comment #45139 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 26, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Devolved - now you're playing the role of "victim" - how do you expect to be treated when you post articles that carry such spurious insuations as your comment no.30?

Credit to USALimey for the way he responded. You may have been offended by his language but you offend others by insulting their intelligence. You got caught out fair and square and everybody knows it. Then you whinge that people treat you unfairly.

You are a broken record. All you do is mither on about nothing or post "science" articles from creationist websites. People who think the Earth is 6,000 years old. How do you expect to be treated by people with an average level of intelligence?

I'm no "man of science" but you test my patience. I can only imagine how qualified people such as epeeist and Billy Sands must feel reading your nonsense.

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

49. Comment #45140 by don malvado on May 26, 2007 at 2:12 pm

I did a quick google search and have found devolved been quoting from http://madidahoman.blog-city.com/stalactites_stalagmites_and_the_age_of_the_earth.htm

Not exactly peer reviewed. I have a funny feeling these idiots are looking at gypsum (or some evaporite) stalagmites and thinking they're the much slower forming calcium carbonate type.

If you'd found a respected source that had published about fast growing true stalagmites I'd have been interested.

In any case I still don't see how this proves the earth is 6000 years old.

Other Comments by don malvado

50. Comment #45142 by thirdchimpanzee on May 26, 2007 at 2:26 pm

devolved, we can all appreciate the sincere effort you're making to point out alternate possibilities, but what appears to have gone right over your head is that science necessarily gives preference to the probable over the possible.

Given the enormous quantities of mutually supporting data that can reasonably and probably be interpreted as evidence of a 4.5 billion year old solar system, and geological timescales of thousands or millions of years - it simply seems perverse to be continually running around trying to find an occurrence where something might have happened at a faster rate than expected.

As someone pointed out in an earlier posting, if you did find a cave where stalactites had grown at a significantly faster rate, you would have found an interesting cave, and perhaps a novel process of stalactite formation. What you could not claim is to overturn the accumulated findings of geology, astronomy and physics on the basis of your cave.

And there's the rub - your underlying framework is a pre-scientific text written 3000 years ago, from which you have deduced a 6000 year old UNIVERSE. So every single piece of data that threatens your single data point must be challenged. On the other hand, if we find evidence that the Universe might be 40 billion years old, or only 5 billion years old, we will have to modify some of our framework, but our scientific understanding doesn't depend on a particular calculation of the age of the universe. In the wild and wacky world of quantum physics, all sorts of things are possible, but also vanishingly improbable.

One more scientific observation, if you conduct 10,000 experiments and 9,999 of the experiments arrived at the same answer, within an order of magnitude, and one experiment was different by a factor of one million - the reasonable thing to do is assume there was something experimentally wrong with the oddball result. You may try to investigate how the experiment had been conducted differently and so on, but at some point you put it aside and carry on with your work according to the 99.9% of results.

The calculation of the age of the Universe from biblical genealogy is that oddball experiment. Put it aside, and you'll find it so much easier to make sense of our wonderful universe.

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 | Next | Last