1. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15317 by Toby on December 30, 2006 at 10:27 am

Before i say anything else, i must point out how personally disgusted i am by the grand canyon national park to not step forward and denounce ludicarous claims which back up an earth that is 10,000 years old. It is beyond me how officials can allow such ridiculous thoughts such as noahs flood creating the grand canyon.
A single flood with the power to gouge such a canyon would have scraped north america off the face of the map. Though this great flood didnt actually ever occur anyway.
To turn a blind eye to 'conclusive' evidence people have confirmed all over the world indicates that whoever made this theory has never read any scientific literature on geology. I feel that turning down such evidence is asking for the doors to open to other things which there is no evidence for. Why not say that the rockys were actually put there by god from the sediment gouged out from the canyon. The whole situation is utterly proposterous.
I don't know how officials can stand back and watch this happen without a full investigation. If they genuinely believe in such nonsense without backing it up with scienitfic theory themselves. If they do not believe in carbon dating and geological based analysis then they should not believe in these forms of analysis in other fields. So carbon dating is based on radioactivity theories such as half life and nuclear decay therefore any science based on radiation should be dismissed by them such as x-ray technology, radar sensors, television and radios all based on electromagnetic radiation 'theories' (and thats just scratching the tip of the ice berg).
A group of people cannot, i repeat cannot justify not believing in a theory when it suits their purposes and then believe in it when it suits their purposes, it defies logic, understanding and the field of science itself.

2. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13804 by Toby on December 19, 2006 at 1:43 pm

'There might not be a God, there might be a God. Why can't we leave it at that?'
We can't leave it as that as we are based on a society which seeks to find facts which better our understanding of the universe. This scientific theory searching has enabled us to accomplish great things including technology, medicine and communication along with more likely theories of how the universe may have begun. Yet this documentary seems to ignore this; it seems to ignore that science stumbling upon the conclusion that it is unlikely god exists was an accident (we didn't do it on purpose to prove a supernatural deity existed). It is our better understanding of life, physics and matter that has enabled us to open up our minds and think that there may be another possibility other than a supernatural deity which designed the world and the universe along with all thermodynamic and physical laws within it.
Talking about physical laws a scientist on the video speaks about how could this 'level of complexity arise by chance'. That point is his fatal flaw in his argument; it couldn't have arisen by chance. It was those levels you saw in the pyramid that enabled the next layer (using combinations of units from the level beneath it) to reach another level of complexity. Yes it is possible that this may not have happened, yet we happen to exist in a place where it did happen, a universe which has enabled a level of complexity beyond the quark, a level of complexity which enables us to consciously study and think about the quark itself. This is a much more impressive feat than that of a thinking designing supernatural deity and on that basis alone we should appreciate the extraordinary magnificence of life itself..
Along with this, the video (though as expected) has very little on the scientific side. It is argued that Darwin's theory of natural selection 'is destroyed' by the possibility of random phenotypic properties of organisms. Yet what he doesn't realise is that is exactly what evolution by natural selection is. There are so many thousands of genes in complex organisms that it is likely that through many generations seemingly 'random' phenotypes arise. This as pointed out in the video arises due to an organism carrying 2 recessive alleles of a gene, if many genes instantaneously carry both recessive alleles in just one generation it is possible that 'an abnormal' phenotypic change could take place. But as there are so many combinations of genes and mutations and then again alleles it is likely that in history these phenotypic 'leaps' have occurred. But in most cases they would be so minute so insignificant to the organisms that they would be almost un-noticable let alone cause a significant physical jump in the visible physiology of an animal.
Relying on the fossil record for an absolute proof of evolutionary history is scientific suicide in its own right. Surely if it is argued that the fossil record has no holes (and that it should be the sole proof for evolution) then we should find every organism that ever existed on the planet to be fossilised right beneath our feet; this just isn't the case. Therefore there are going to be gaps. Physiological properties of fossils will enable us to physically 'link' phenotypic properties that can be fossilised between organisms. This in turn has enabled us to genetically link the organisms more accurately and enable us to get a better view of stages in evolution and how some organisms would have genetically evolved from others.
Therefore using the fossil record to destroy the theory of natural selection is flawed unless as Prof. Richard Dawkins has said a significant find such as a fossilized rabbit carbon dated from the Precambrian (a period in earths history when evidence suggests single celled organisms had only evolved making it an almost certainty rabbits weren't around). Therefore it is unlikely a genetic fact which supports change in species phenotype (which can lead on to evolution by natural selection) could be used 'to destroy' and remove Darwin's theory completely.
He argues that people are making 'holes' in natural selection; like any other theory it will be scrutinized and holes will be found as this is the way of science. Yet I would be happy to put a bet on it that the eventual theory which will explain complex life arising would have been originally based on this theory of natural selection. In the video he says 'That Darwinism is getting old', getting old? Hasn't he noticed that Christianity for example is at least 2,000years old doesn't that also mean 'it's getting on'. And for one thing he doesn't point out the holes being made in the theory of a supernatural deity; 'The fact there is no evidence to support it, not one tiny piece of evidence except a scripture written by so many people and written over so many times it was likely to have started as a cookery book (but may not have done).' Therefore it is unfair to say one side has downfalls and the other does not. Yes religions could be argued as theories, yet a theory cannot be one unless it is based on fact.
So; 'There might not be a God, there might be a God. Why can't we leave it at that?', well we can't leave it as that; as we want to find out the truth, the facts, the reasons which may lead us to a better understanding of the universe. By pointing out to people the things that are very likely not to be true, it may enable a world where people would want to seek the truth including questions such as; how do they exist? How can they comprehend they exist? This could enable man-kind to exponentially grow into an incredible culture of knowledge, understanding and philosophy that could allow us to go beyond known physics itself, that's why!