Washington poll »« Andrew Wakefield lashes out

Is Seattle’s KOMO news sympathizing with creationists now?

Or maybe it’s just guilty of bad journalism. Look at this story they ran: it’s about a creationist who claims that Arizona sandstones are proof of Noah’s flood. It’s a remarkable piece of crap. The creationist, Greg Morgan, is a nuclear safety engineer, not a geologist, and his argument consists entirely of pointing at some swirly sandstone formations and saying they look flowy, like they’d been formed in water. That’s it. It got published in Answers in Genesis magazine, though!

They gave this nonsense 35 paragraphs. The surprising thing is that nowhere in it did they consult an actual geologist — I guess “he said she said” journalism only applies when you’re talking about science. If it’s creationism, just “he said” is enough. The journalist, John Trumbo, did make the effort to call Andrew Snelling in Kentucky to get a second creationist’s opinion, but could not trouble himself to call the UW or WSU to find out what the opinion of a real geologist might be.

I’m not a geologist, not even close, but I’ve traveled through Utah and Northern Arizona and have seen a lot of these spectacular formations, and even I know the answer: these were formed by aeolian processes, built up and carved away by the wind. I can even lift my fingers and consult the BLM via Google and get a fairly thorough explanation.

The Jurassic Navajo Sandstone is 1200 feet thick in Paria Canyon and is the most prominent formation. It is composed of crossbedded eolian sandstone deposited over millions of years as huge sand dunes migrated across a large desert broken only by an occasional oasis. Where the Paria River and Buckskin Gulch have cut through the Navajo Sandstone, slot canyons have formed. The Navajo Sandstone is very resistant in this desert environment and forms sheer cliffs and conical hoodoos.

John Trumbo did not make the slightest effort to evaluate the bullshit Greg Morgan is spouting, or if he did, he ignored it. John Trumbo is an incompetent journalist. John Trumbo is a creationist. Why is KOMO news supporting him? They did issue a statement on their facebook page.

Folks, please note that we shared this story on our Facebook page because it is currently one of the most popular stories on our website. We are not promoting any agenda, including “young-earth creationism.” Thank you.

No, they are promoting creationism. They published a completely credulous story with no fact-checking at all that parrots a totally bogus explanation of a well-understood geological phenomenon.

That’s promoting a young earth creationist agenda.

Hey, KOMO. How about issuing a correction and consulting a competent geologist to get some goddamned truth in your news?

(Also on Sb)

Comments

  1. says

    Evaporites. That’s all it takes to show that “flood geology” is totally wrong.

    I don’t mind them reporting what some kook thinks, it just should be noted that it’s junk that no competent geologist accepts (yes, we can define “competent geologist” as those who accept reasonable conclusions from the evidence).

    Then too, evolution takes too long for YECism to be correct. Might as well mention it, since we have such abundant evidence for evolution, none for design.

    Say, where are the flood deposits? Even if there were something odd about these sandstones, we really don’t have, you know, identifiable flood deposits, save the usual local floods.

    Glen Davidson

  2. Brownian says

    That’s what journalism is.

    The next time some asshole flashes a press card and tells you the people have a right to know—eh, fuck it, do they even bother doing that anymore?

  3. peterh says

    You don’t need any particular expertise in geology to recognize when the IDjits have rocks in their heads.

  4. NitricAcid says

    A nuclear safety engineer- isn’t that Homer Simpson’s job? Obviously, the man must be a genius.

  5. says

    In the past there were certain points I would correct each time I came across them. I seemed to have an endless supply of argument in me. Some things, however, are so common to have become so frustrating and annoying to hear that any debate ends instantly. The response is now just an insult and out.

    One example of such is trotted out multiple times on that facebook link.

    These days, “it’s just a theory” is not met with any discussion on what theory means in science. It is met with, “you’re a fucking moron”.

    Full stop.

  6. says

    The next time some asshole flashes a press card and tells you the people have a right to know—eh, fuck it, do they even bother doing that anymore?

    And bloggers are denied the same rights as these journalists even though we do try to check our facts.

  7. Crow says

    How about the fact that even if those formations were formed by water, nothing about that implies a man who built a boat and saved the world’s animal population from extinction. It would imply that there used to be a fricking lake where a desert is now! Nothing more!

    Premise: Wrong!
    Valid: No!
    Sound: No!
    Conclusion: Wrong!

    It’s also laughable that this single discovery was enough to turn a staunch atheist into a creationist. Ha!

    Morgan, who became a Christian as an adult and takes the Bible literally, said the convoluted formations at Paria Canyon forced him to consider there must be another explanation.

  8. David Marjanović says

    The Navajo Sandstone is also full of dinosaur tracks. :-)

    to get some goddamned truth in your news?

    “There’s no truth in the News and no news in the Truth.”
    – Soviet joke about the newspapers Pravda (Truth) and Izvestiya (News).

  9. Dick the Damned says

    So, this goober is a nuclear safety engineer! He ain’t fit to be left in charge of a sandbox in a kindergarten.

  10. says

    Oh man. Both creationists interviewed for the article are perfectly happy to believe the “old-earth geologists” when they say the provenance of the sandstones is the Appalachians. Obviously this just points to a massive flood event! But the majority of that evidence comes from detrital zircon geochronology (e.g. Rahl et al., 2003 — http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/31/9/761.abstract ). Which yields ages for the very zircons these creationists accept for their “zomg what a big flood!” evidence of millions to billions of years. Yes, let’s just ignore the inconvenient parts. Not surprising, but still infuriating. And would have made a nice “gotcha” if the journalist had cared to report on the actual geology of the Navajo Sandstone beyond a cursory “here’s what the geologists say” sentence.

  11. says

    So swirly-looking rocks = flood that covered whole world up to the highest mountain tops.
    Oh, and to make sense of some features, a second gigantic flood is necessary.
    My favorite bit was where they ran out of water the first time they hiked down to “the wave.” Obviously the guy is an expert on canyons. Who would have thought the Arizona desert was hot and dry?
    Killed By Fish

  12. fastlane says

    As a native of Az, and current resident of Seattle.

    ggaaaaaaahhh *head assplodes*

    Alright, I’ll write a letter to KOMO tonight. Maybe I can get a followup story done, but I doubt it.

    I’m betting the main reason they even aired the story is because the creationist nutter is local to the area and now he’s ‘famous’?

  13. interrobang says

    The days of mainstream professional journalists taking any kinds of risks (including, say, the wrath of their editors by actually taking the time to do research, or their audience of rubes by contradicting creationism) seem to be long over. So much for “This is John Chancellor, somewhere in custody.”

  14. Azkyroth says

    The creationist, Greg Morgan, is a nuclear safety engineer

    That’s the scariest thing I’ve read in weeks. O.O

  15. says

    According to that NWCreation page, Messrs. Trumbo and Morgan “are taking on a lot of persecution for taking a stand for the truth.”

    No, you stupid fake martyrs: being called a fool and a liar when you say foolish and false things is NOT persecution, it’s just desserts.

  16. Brownian says

    Who would have thought the Arizona desert was hot and dry?

    Jesus survived in one for forty days, therefore…

  17. Thy Goddess says

    …If it was created by the zomg GLOBAL FLOOD of Noah’s, wouldn’t that mean there would be similar structures in my backyard or that most mountains would be dreadfully eroded like that as well?

  18. MMXI Vole says

    An IDjit geologist was consulted:

    Andrew Snelling, who has a doctorate in geology and is a content editor for Answers magazine, said two items of evidence at Paria Canyon point to a massive flood event.

    And no less than PhD, but from an unnamed Institution of Higher Learning.

    Never mind that his affiliations suggest any bias, private/professional agenda or are burdened by any conflict of interest.

  19. truthspeaker says

    Research? Fact checking?

    There’s no time to teach those skills in journalism schools anymore, now that most of the curriculum is devoted to “Sucking up to politicians” and “Repeating what the Pentagon tells you without question”.

  20. F says

    sandstone formations … formed in water

    Fucking stunning. That is just goddammned amazing. Sandstone, formed in fucking water. Incredible.

  21. F says

    “it’s just a theory”

    This should be met with, “You don’t even have a fucking theory, nor contrary evidence to theory x. STFU.”

  22. coyotenose says

    An engineer? The Salem Hypothesis strikes again.

    No disrespect intended to the intelligent engineering majority out there. It’s not your fault that your professions attract a few arrogant, shallow thinkers of a specific type in addition to geniuses like those who made The Engineer’s Guide to Cats. There are just some people who refuse to be taught, only trained.

  23. says

    @17: The fact that we can recognize structures (erosive and/or deposited) caused by water, from trickling creeks to wide-area inundations, itself puts paid to Flood Geology — simply because the whole world doesn’t look like that.

    @18: Snelling is a familiar name to anyone who’s followed the creation wars for a while (in my case: talk.origins 1991-2005). His Ph.D. is legit as far as it goes (can’t be arsed to look up where it’s from), which just goes to show that intelligent people can learn all sorts of stuff — and still come out being completely stupid in important respects. Being smart and educated sometimes just means that your rationalizations of bullshit are bigger and fancier than the average schmuck’s.

  24. says

    f @ 21

    I should clarify. I’m talking about people who say “evolution is just a theory” and “science is all theories, not FACTS”. There are a number of examples in the comments of the linked facebook post.

  25. Rey Fox says

    What a bunch of sniveling jackasses. Has no one in that organization any journalistic shame?

  26. says

    The NBC affiliate King5 had Dr. Oz on recently. One of the anchors later in the program used Dr. Oz’s name as a generic smart doctor when talking about medicine. Kind of like when you help someone and you say “I’m a genuine Mother Teresa.”

  27. Stevarious says

    Poor, poor journalists. After covering the Republican primaries for so long, they can’t even tell what real news IS anymore.

  28. Rip Steakface says

    Odd, considering KOMO 4 usually relegates itself to utterly pointless drivel instead of plain stupid bullshit.

  29. says

    To be fair, this Creationist didn’t say that this was proof of a global flood, but simply that it is evidence for one. PZ misrepresented his claim. He also didn’t provide any reasons to believe that this formation was NOT caused by water. There may be more than one valid interpretation, and it’s good to get other ideas on the table so they can be discussed. PZ seems more interested in silencing any oppposition.

    Also, Dr Andrew Snelling is a PhD Geologists from New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, where he graduated with first class honors. This article interestingly ommitted this fact, and PZ referred to him as a “creationist” instead. He then claims that Morgan should have consulted with a real geologist.

    I guess KOMO isnt the only one that needs to issue a correction!

  30. says

    Once:

    PZ misrepresented his claim.

    No he didn’t.

    He also didn’t provide any reasons to believe that this formation was NOT caused by water.

    Yes, he did. Reading comprehension not your strong suit, perhaps? We already know what caused them, aeolian forces. That ain’t water, Cupcake.

    There may be more than one valid interpretation, and it’s good to get other ideas on the table so they can be discussed.

    Creationists are full of interpretations, alright. One thing they aren’t is valid.

    He then claims that Morgan should have consulted with a real geologist.

    That would have been helpful, to say the least.

    I guess KOMO isnt the only one that needs to issue a correction!

    Cupcake, you need to work on actually using your brain and going to remedial reading comprehension class, at the very least.

  31. says

    @Comment 32 (Caine)

    Instead of insulting my reading comprehension, let’s stick to the facts ok? Can we not have a friendly dialogue, even if we disagree? If we simply insult each other, this conversation won’t get anywhere. Let’s leave the insults for the playground…we aren’t in elementary school anymore.

    Neither Morgan or Snelling called this PROOF of the flood. If you read the actual article from the ANSWERS magazine that they wrote, you will see that they refer to it as EVIDENCE for the flood, and that it is CONSISTENT with the flood model. Unless you think that evidence and proof are the same thing, then this is a misrepresentation of Morgan’s actual views. He never calls it PROOF! So as you can see, the problem is not that I have a reading comprehension, but that I did MORE reading and research.

    Next, you claim (as PZ stated) that these geological features were formed by wind. But AGAIN, no evidence was given. Instead, you stated that “we know” how they were formed. THAT’S NOT EVIDENCE!!

    Dr Andrew Snelling is a geologist. PZ left that fact out, and implied that he was not a geologist. PZ should of given a more balanced review and acknowledged that Snelling is in fact a qualified geologist.

    Just my thoughts…you are free to disagree! :) Just don’t insult me because you believe something different then me!
    Cheers

  32. says

    Dr Andrew Snelling is a PhD Geologists from New South Wales in Sydney, Australia”

    PhD Geologists? Why, yes. It’s most amusing that even onceforgiven seems to be aware that there are two Andrew Snellings!

    And presumably he means “UNSW”, which is indeed in Sydney. Otherwise it would be silly, because Sydney is the capital of NSW, not vice versa.

  33. Dave, the Kwisatz Haderach says

    Oh FFS #30!

    “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”
    –Answers in Genesis’ Statement of Faith

    That comes direct from the cesspool of stupidity that is AiG. An organization that advertises as its “Director of Research, AiG-US” one Andrew Snelling.

    Having decided what the answer is, AiG attempts to manufacture evidence to suit. That is not science, that is not a “valid interpretation”. It is intellectual dishonesty pure and simple. AiG is not the opposition, it is a troop (tribe, herd, gaggle, what’s the correct term?) of monkeys shrieking and throwing feces while people are trying to do real science. Snelling is a creationist, and consulting him is not something a reputable journalist would do.

  34. says

    Dave:

    AiG is not the opposition, it is a troop (tribe, herd, gaggle, what’s the correct term?)

    Idiocy. An Idiocy of Creationists. Or Babble. A Babble of Creationists.

  35. says

    truthspeaker – “There’s no time to teach those skills in journalism schools anymore”

    I think they still teach the skills, they just have to be abandoned in the real world if they want to get/keep a job.

  36. robro says

    If by “Arizona sandstones” they mean the Navajo Sandstones, then a quick trip to Wikipedia will tell you that the current thinking is that those formations were produced in “an arid erg of the western portion of the Supercontinent Pangea” in the late Triassic or early Jurassic. Hardly in the “Noah’s flood” timeline by some 190 million years. And even before anything we would recognize as a mammal appears in the fauna, much less primates, homonids, etc.

    Just as note, sandstones do form in water, for example as alluvial deposits into oceans, shallow inland seas, etc. That part is quite common. Still nothing for YECs to get excited about because the stratification common in sandstones is a good measuring rod for the age of geologic processes and the count comes out to a lot more than 6000-10000 years.

  37. says

    If you read the actual article from the ANSWERS magazine that they wrote, you will see that they refer to it as EVIDENCE for the flood, and that it is CONSISTENT with the flood model.

    How is it evidence for the flood, moron? How is it even consistent with the “flood model,” jackass? How would sand even form in a worldwide, extremely violent flood?

    Next, you claim (as PZ stated) that these geological features were formed by wind. But AGAIN, no evidence was given.

    It’s the cross-bedding for one thing, you idiot. It occurs differently in aeolian environments. And no, we don’t have to repeat all of the evidence for you ignorant jackasses who don’t care about real evidence at all.

    Dr Andrew Snelling is a geologist.

    He is not, liar. He’s an apologist who ignores the geology training he had in order to support a pack of lies.

    If we simply insult each other, this conversation won’t get anywhere.

    We already know it won’t get anywhere, because you’re not interested in the science. That’s why we insult you, because you don’t even care about honest means of getting at the truth. You’re both ignorant and uncaring of truth.

    Let’s leave the insults for the playground…we aren’t in elementary school anymore.

    Resolute liars like yourself deserve to be called what you are, ignorant liars for Jeebus.

    Glen Davidson

  38. says

    @Comment 39 Glen

    Wow. Anger issues? Chill man. Be happy :)

    Look, Andrew Snelling is a geologist, whether you like it or not.

    As PZ acknowledged, these Creationists wrote a 35 paragraph article defending their view. So far, 0 Atheists have even attempted to grasp the arguments that they put forth. None. I would bet that the majority of Atheists who are mocking these Creationists have not even read his article.

    But how many have Atheists have thrown insults? Most of them. How sad. And they think they are the ones being “scientific”.

    I can acknowledge that their particular interpretation may or may not be correct. But at least TRY to understand their point of view and the evidence that they put forth! Unfortunately, No one here did that.

    As a Creationist, I always try to look at both sides, and compare them to see who has the better arguement. I just wish Atheists would do the same! Instead, they rely on insults to make their case.

  39. says

    Wow. Anger issues? Chill man. Be happy :)

    No, I have issues with liars like you. Quit lying about what’s going on. I know you’re not going to admit that you’re a fuckhead liar, so will project whatever lie you like onto me, but there you go, you never stop lying.

    Look, Andrew Snelling is a geologist, whether you like it or not.

    He’s a liar for Jesus. That’s it, idiot.

    So far, 0 Atheists have even attempted to grasp the arguments that they put forth

    Explain evaporites appearing in the flood. Until then, shithead, I have no need to deal with your constant stream of lies.

    But at least TRY to understand their point of view and the evidence that they put forth!

    No, dickhead, because you lying assholes never explain a damned thing. I know that, because I grew up creationist, until I realized what a thoroughly dishonest business it is/was.

    As a Creationist, I always try to look at both sides, and compare them to see who has the better arguement.

    No you don’t, fuckwit. Furthermore, science isn’t “one side,” it’s the only side. Apologists lying for Jesus are just lying apologists. That you credit a bunch of lying ignorant buffoons as doing anything but shoveling bullshit into ignorant morons like yourself just goes to show what a thoroughly dishonest git you are.

    Instead, they rely on insults to make their case.

    See, you just lie. I mentioned evaporite deposits and evolution’s evidence in the first post, and you simply ignored that to tell lies. Then I mentioned that cross-bedding is different in aeolian deposits, but you ignored that as well to whine stupidly and dishonestly.

    That’s why I call you stupid, dishonest, and a liar. Because you are. You won’t deal with the huge numbers of details that we have that indicate a very old earth and evolution, rather you accept any fatuous lie that shores up your prejudices.

    Glen Davidson

  40. Loqi says

    To be fair, this Creationist didn’t say that this was proof of a global flood, but simply that it is evidence for one.

    *checks title of the KOMO article*
    Uh, yeah, he did.

    There may be more than one valid interpretation…

    Wait, what? Two conflicting factual statements can both be valid?

  41. says

    “There may be more than one valid interpretation, and it’s good to get other ideas on the table so they can be discussed. PZ seems more interested in silencing any oppposition.”

    I’m so tempted to say “here’s your porcupine” but I will hold those demons at bay.

    How is a blog post ‘silencing any oppposition’[sic] ?

    Scientists have solved this soluble problem. [Yes, I'm blending humor with science.]

    The ideas you speak of have been put forth, discussed, investigated, peer reviewed, peer reviewed by even more people, and as it turns out, they were wrong. Religious theories, are of course, not subject to such scrutiny.

    You basically said ‘teach the controversy’ and there is no controversy.

  42. cazfans says

    Wasn’t this Josh’s specialty early in or in the prequel to the endless thread.

    I miss Josh. :^(

  43. says

    As a Creationist, I always try to look at both sides, and compare them to see who has the better arguement.

    Tell me, then, why prokaryotes, which are known to horizontally transfer genes, reveal an extremely long macro-evolutionary history of having done so, while our line indicates nothing like that, except some incredibly early genetic transfers. Do so with evidence that science/courts would accept, of course, not some idiotic creationist hand-waving.

    If you can do that, then you can explain the other evidences of evolution, and we’ll be getting somewhere.

    If all you have are lies about what “geologists” are, and bullshit about “flood evidences” that ignores all of the counter-evidence, you’re worthless in any discussion.

    Glen Davidson

  44. Loqi says

    As a Creationist, I always try to look at both sides

    What “both” sides would those be? I assume you mean science and the Christian biblical creation story. Why don’t you give equal “thought” (I use that term loosely in your case) to the Hindu creation story? Or the Shinto one? Or the one in the Silmarilion?

  45. says

    @ Comment 41 Glen
    You say you grew up Creationist. I hope you weren’t that angry back then? Why are you so angry now? I honestly can’t understand why you seem to have this hatred against me. If I offended you in any way, I’m sorry. If I lied, I’m sorry and I’ll try not to do it again. But for goodness sake….relax and be respectful to your fellow man. We all have to live on this plnaet together, alright?

    You can’t even acknowledge that Dr Andrew Snelling is a PhD Geologist. How can I reason with someone like you? Is that what you do when you are proven wrong? You deny it? If that’s the case, Atheism is the correct worldview for you. Keep it up – you are giving them a bad name.

    I realize that you think cross bedding is evidence that it was formed by wind. I’m aware of your view. I’m not denying that you believe that. However, these Creationist have put forth a different explanation in a 35 paragraph article which explains them fairly well. I wish PZ would of focused more on the actual science, instead of making fun of them, not mentioning their creditials, and not even referencing the actual scientific paper that they wrote. That’s all I’m saying, ok?

    If my view offends you – I’m sorry, but I hope you will be tolerant enough and still respect me as a fellow human being. I will likewise respect you whether you respect me or not.

    take care,
    Matt

  46. says

    @Loqi
    ————-
    To be fair, this Creationist didn’t say that this was proof of a global flood, but simply that it is evidence for one.

    *checks title of the KOMO article*
    Uh, yeah, he did.

    ————–

    Did you ever consider the fact that maybe the Creationist did not write the title of this article, but that the journalist did? Did you ever consider reading their ACTUAL paper?

    Of course you didn’t….

  47. raven says

    creationist lying:

    As a Creationist, I always try to look at both sides>

    No you don’t. That is just a lie.

    Creationism is a lie. All creationists are liars.

    What you are is a religious fanatic, a kook, and a Presuppositionalist. No evidence can contradict the bible.

    Which is also a lie. The bible is quite consistent and convinced the earth is flat. While there are still some Flat Earthers around, there aren’t many.

  48. says

    onceforgivennowfree, you got one break, then 2 breaks, but that’s fucking it.

    You attacked the messenger and not the message. You have zero facts. And now you want to play tone troll?

    Fuck you, here’s your porcupine, shove it up your ass sideways, and may your santorum always be frothy.

  49. raven says

    You say you grew up Creationist. I hope you weren’t that angry back then? Why are you so angry now?

    We don’t like liars. Like you. No one does. Or trolls.

    We also don’t like religious fanatics. They cost us a lot, things like skyscrapers getting destroyed by hijacked jet planes, kids beaten to death by their brain dead parents, human child sacrifice by medical neglect to their Sky Monster god.

    It works both ways too. Like a lot of scientists, I’ve been getting death threats from fundies for over a decade. PZ Myers on a good day can up to a hundred.

    Xians lost their most convincing argument when they stopped burning people at the stake. A lot of them still miss those days.

    PS I realize as a creationist you are dumb. But most of us on this thread are ex-Xians, including myself. We know what it’s like from the inside.

  50. says

    You say you grew up Creationist. I hope you weren’t that angry back then? Why are you so angry now? I honestly can’t understand why you seem to have this hatred against me. If I offended you in any way, I’m sorry. If I lied, I’m sorry and I’ll try not to do it again. But for goodness sake….relax and be respectful to your fellow man. We all have to live on this plnaet together, alright?

    According to your bible you’re supposed to kill people like me.

    So, no according to you, we do not have to live on this planet together.

  51. says

    You say you grew up Creationist. I hope you weren’t that angry back then?blockquote>

    Why do you lie, asshole?

    Why are you so angry now?

    Why do you lie, asshole?

    I honestly can’t understand why you seem to have this hatred against me.

    You lie shamelessly.

    If I offended you in any way, I’m sorry.

    Then cease lying.

    You can’t even acknowledge that Dr Andrew Snelling is a PhD Geologist.

    I explained that in my first post, shithead. Why can’t you learn what it takes to be an actual scientist, rather than a liar for Jesus?

    How can I reason with someone like you?

    Quit lying, idiot.

    If I lied, I’m sorry and I’ll try not to do it again.

    Then learn what standards of honesty are, and begin to follow them.

    But for goodness sake….relax and be respectful to your fellow man.

    And why should I respect a consummate liar?

    Is that what you do when you are proven wrong? You deny it?

    Prove me wrong, liar. Don’t just say that you did when you clearly didn’t (and no, I don’t accept mere credentials for charlatans to be considered as scientists).

    f that’s the case, Atheism is the correct worldview for you. Keep it up – you are giving them a bad name.

    What a lying buffoon. How many lies did you put into there, and how much did you reveal your prejudices against the “other side” that you falsely claim that you consider?

    I realize that you think cross bedding is evidence that it was formed by wind. I’m aware of your view. I’m not denying that you believe that.

    I pointed out, asshole, that you haven’t bothered considering the evidence for aeolian deposition. Why would you, when you’re totally prejudiced against the science side? But this only goes to show again what a thorough liar you are.

    However, these Creationist have put forth a different explanation in a 35 paragraph article which explains them fairly well.

    And how would you know that, liar? You don’t know the science, and you don’t explain the hordes of evidence that we have for an old earth and for evolution. You’re a worthless liar.

    I wish PZ would of focused more on the actual science, instead of making fun of them, not mentioning their creditials, and not even referencing the actual scientific paper that they wrote. That’s all I’m saying, ok?

    Science papers aren’t written in a manner that a priori excludes any viewpoint that goes against the Bible (literalist interpretations of the Bible, that is). So why would he care about liars who have agreed not to deal with anything that is counter to a literalist viewpoint?

    If my view offends you – I’m sorry, but I hope you will be tolerant enough and still respect me as a fellow human being.

    I would most likely respect you as a fellow human being if I knew you beyond your lying creationist viewpoint. Since I only know that, and it’s contemptible, I can only treat you with the contempt you’ve earned.

    I will likewise respect you whether you respect me or not.

    That’s reasonable, since I’m a respectable person. In your creationist liar aspect you’re simply not respectable, you insist that we respect “science” that is undeserving of the name.

    Glen Davidson

  52. raven says

    If my view offends you – I’m sorry, but I hope you will be tolerant enough and still respect me as a fellow human being.

    Why bother. You are a troll, a liar, a tone troll, and an idiot. I have no respect for any of those.

    I will likewise respect you whether you respect me or not.

    Another lie from the idiot. Matt??? There have been several trolls named Matt around from time to time. As I recall, they were all uneducated and obnoxious creeps.

  53. says

    “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”
    –Answers in Genesis’ Statement of Faith

    This is why we get angry. They state, flat out, that it’s only “evidence” if it supports what they already believe. We don’t respect that, and we get especially irked when people who think like that start lecturing us on the difference between evidence and proof. And then claim to be looking at both sides of the picture.
    Respectable people, in my world, don’t lie like sacks of shit.

  54. raven says

    Couple pleads not guilty in homicide of adopted daughter | Local …www.komonews.com/news/local/131234864.htmlCached

    6 Oct 2011 – The parents of an adopted girl who died of exposure in her own backyard after she had been starved and beaten for months pleaded not guilty to the charges Thursday. … Larry P. Williams and Carri D. Williams of Sedro Woolley were …

    food while the parents played the Bible on tape and Christian music for …

    To cut KOMO a little slack.

    They did cover the ritual torture-murder child sacrifice by some fundie xians in Sedro Woolley, Washington.

    I suppose that means they have one employee that hasn’t gone over to the Dark Side. Wonder if he still has a job though?

  55. Active Margin says

    @once – Smelling may indeed be a geologist. However, being a geologist myself, I can attest to the fact that he isn’t a very good one. I live in and study Arizona’s geology, and this “flood interpretation” fails to address geologic evidence and principles that are taught in 100 level courses at universities around the world, such as the evidence and principles correctly presented by Glen Davidson, who (I believe) is not even a geologist.

    In other words, the flood idea is complete crap. I recommend you stick to peer-reviewed journals if you’re actually interested in learning about reality, and not just grasping for straws to prop up the creationist house of cards.

  56. maxamillion says

    Can some point out a list of mining/oil companies that base their surveys on “flood geology”?

    I didn’t think so.

  57. Loqi says

    Did you ever consider the fact that maybe the Creationist did not write the title of this article, but that the journalist did?

    The journalist *is* one of the creationists.

  58. says

    Interestingly, maxamillion, Snelling1, the geologist, doesn’t use flood geology in his work. He uses real geology. Snelling2 does use flood geology – but only in his preaching. It’s quite interesting, this doppelganger business.

  59. says

    The article I linked earlier is quite amusing. It’s snark. Pretending there are two people rather than one opportunistic liar. (I hate having to explain jokes.)

  60. says

    Hey onceforgivennowfree, take comfort in the fact that I don’t hate you. I only hate people who I have evidence pointing toward them having taken advantage of other people willfully.

    So far you just seem to be a total fucking moron who has little to no understanding of critical thinking, epistemology, science or… well, anything that doesn’t fit into your bronze age superstitious mythological understanding of the world.

    So, I don’t hate you I just pity you.

    So far, that is, because being that sort of creationist idiocy usually lends one to abuses of other people in the name of your cult in one way or another.

  61. says

    Sorry to say, this article originated in the local newspaper – The Tri-City Herald in south-eastern Washington state. It went out over the news service and was picked up by KOMO and other news outlets.

    http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2012/01/02/1771712/richland-man-sees-proof-of-global.html#storylink=misearch

    They are ok most of the time, but do have a tendency to run lame, uncritical pieces about ghost hunting, divining and such now and then. This one pretty much takes the cake, though.

  62. Owlmirror says

    And over here too!

    http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/view/44/36

      The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology

    Several Flood geologists have presented geologically sound reasons why strata assigned to specific parts of the geologic column cannot have been deposited during the Flood year or at least during the part of it when the entire planet was under water, hereafter called the PWS (period of worldwide submergence). In fact, compilation of such studies shows that together Flood geologists have eliminated the entire geologic column as having any record of a PWS. Here, I review the evidence against a PWS record that has been presented by the Flood geologists themselves.

    (emph mine)

  63. Owlmirror says

    You can’t even acknowledge that Dr Andrew Snelling is a PhD Geologist. How can I reason with someone like you? Is that what you do when you are proven wrong? You deny it?

    Your original contention, though, was this:

    Also, Dr Andrew Snelling is a PhD Geologists from New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, where he graduated with first class honors. This article interestingly ommitted this fact, and PZ referred to him as a “creationist” instead. He then claims that Morgan should have consulted with a real geologist.

    But Snelling is, in fact, a creationist!

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/a_snelling.asp

    Andrew commenced in full-time creation ministry at the end of 1983 [...] Andrew already had a clear Scriptural perspective on the literalness of Creation and Noah’s Flood, and an unmistakable call from the Lord for a life-long involvement in creationist ministry.

    Can you not acknowledge that Snelling is a creationist?

    http://www.icr.org/rate/

    Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished an eight-year research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. (Links to four pages authored by “Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.”)

    How, indeed, can we reason with someone like you? Is that indeed what you do when you are proven wrong? You deny it?

  64. says

    A creationist with legitimate credentials, who does legitimate work in geology in which he explicitly follows standard geology with standard geological timescales.

    You have to wonder if he’s managed to dispose of any conscience and find a lucrative market fleecing the creos, or if he has extra special super-strength compartmentalisation.

  65. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    However, these Creationist have put forth a different explanation in a 35 paragraph article which explains them fairly well. I wish PZ would of focused more on the actual science, instead of making fun of them,

    Care to cite the peer reviewed scientific literature, instead of web site dedicated to proving a presupposition? You know, from the university libraries from around the world, like this? That is the difference between science and creationism. Science follows the evidence. Creationism is based on the twin lies of an imaginary deity existing and book of mythology/fiction being true. Your choice cupcake, but I’ll follow the evidence every time. Delusional fools follow the mythology, and pretend it is science. It isn’t, and can’t be.

  66. Aquaria says

    These days, “it’s just a theory” is not met with any discussion on what theory means in science. It is met with, “you’re a fucking moron”.

    My kindred spirit.

    Now y’all know why I’ve become the way I have. I’m sick to death of stupid, and just go for the jugular right off. Saves me a lot of hassle. And blood pressure medication.

  67. Aquaria says

    Morgan, who became a Christian as an adult and takes the Bible literally, said the convoluted formations at Paria Canyon forced him to consider there must be another explanation.

    He didn’t become a christard when he was an adult. He was already a nominal christard. He just became a born again scumbag, and now claims that as being a “twuuuu” christard.

    You have to remember that christards are such lying fucking morons that they’ll call Catholics, other sects, or even those of the same sect (say, evangelislime) who go to another church an atheist. Or not “twwwwwwuuuuuu” christards.

    This is what they do.

    They lie. They lie from dawn to dusk to dawn.

    If they didn’t lie, they wouldn’t be christards.

  68. Aquaria says

    You say you grew up Creationist. I hope you weren’t that angry back then? Why are you so angry now? I honestly can’t understand why you seem to have this hatred against me. If I offended you in any way, I’m sorry. If I lied, I’m sorry and I’ll try not to do it again. But for goodness sake….relax and be respectful to your fellow man. We all have to live on this plnaet together, alright?</i.

    You're so fucking stupid that you don't see how fucking angry YOU are, you liar.

    YOU are the one who got your panties so much in a twist that you had to barge in here and vomit up your lying stupidity. YOU are the one so angry and stupid that you tell outright lies and insult other people by calling them something they aren't, and, worse, try to tell people how to behave, as if it's your fucking call to make.

    Calling scumbag christard liars like you christard and liars is the norm here when christards lie and say stupid shit. This is our house. We make the rules here, not passive-aggressive manipulative christslime like you. We don't play by your kindergarten rules. We're adults here. We act like it. You're the childish, stupid, insulting one. You're the one visiting here. Fucking mind your fucking manners–if you have any, dumbass. It's not your fucking place to dictate one iota of anything to anybody here, because you haven't earned that privilege, fuckface.

    Fuck off back to whatever christard rock you crawled out from, douchebag.

  69. Tethys says

    onceforgiven

    I wish PZ would of focused more on the actual science, instead of making fun of them

    Yeah, you should have clicked the link PZ provided where you would have read this.

    In lower Paria Canyon, the Jurassic Kayenta and Moenave Formations underlie the Navajo Sandstone and consist of maroon sandstone, siltstone and shale. Thin beds of light-colored limestone add a ledgy, slope-forming appearance. These formations are water-lain as evidenced by their horizontal bedding. Paria Canyon is wider in its lower reaches because these formations are more easily eroded.

    I have bolded the various characteristics that are evidence of rock that was formed in water. As Glen Davidson tried to get through your head, cross-bedding is evidence that the sandstone in question was deposited by wind on land. Sand dunes do not form underwater.

    I don’t have any degrees in geology, but even a few minutes searching the web is enough to show that Snelling wrote a 35 page article that is nothing but a pack of lies and misinformation.

  70. alanbagain says

    Yes. I’m back – at least intermittently.

    This is the “old” Alan B but being too old, I can’t work out how to come back with my old moniker.

    I realise I am no replacement for the original “Josh” and never can be but maybe I can contribute to this thread.

    To those who do not know me – aren’t you lucky! I am a perpetual student of geology at the Open University in the UK. Looks like I’ll never finish my OU degree but since I am 67 and nobody is ever likely to offer me a job in geology I don’t really care – I do it for fun.

    [I have an alter ego by the name of Ed. who occasionally interupts me]

    Contribution to follow …

  71. alanbagain says

    May I start off by saying my style is less adversarial than most on this site. Thus, I am happy to agree that:

    Andrew Snelling has a BSc (First Class) in Applied Geology from a reputable Ozzie Uni and has a PhD in geology from the same Uni, the latter awarded in 1982.

    “Andrew commenced in full-time creation ministry at the end of 1983 …” (Answers in Genesis bio)
    “Andrew has traveled around Australia, the USA, and widely overseas (Britain, New Zealand, South Africa, Korea, Indonesia, Hong Kong, China) speaking in schools, churches, colleges, public and university meetings, to both lay and technical audiences, on the overwhelming scientific evidence consistent with the biblical account of Creation and the Genesis Flood, based largely on his own research.” (Answers in Genesis bio)

    (As a purely personal comment, I find Snelling one of the more reasonable YEC geologists based on reading various contributions to the YEC literature. This does not mean that I believe he is right in his YEC views but at least he is less aggressive than some.)

    Sand dunes can form underwater. But they do not look like the Navajo Sandstone aeollian structures.

    From magnetic measurements on the sandstones the North American craton was on or close to the Equator when the Navajo Sandstone was laid down. The surface area of the erg was similar to that of the Sahara today so the large area is not beyond belief.

    Right. Let’s get down to the short article on The Wave and the Navajo Sandstone Formation.

    I say “short” because the 35 paragraphs do not occupy much space. Indeed, they contain little if anything in the way of scientific evidence other than an argument that the author finds it incredible that they could be anything other than formed in a worldwide flood. He is obviously entitled to his incredulity.

    The White Queen in “Through the Looking Glass” says to Alice that in her youth she could believe “six impossible things before breakfast” and counsels Alice to practice the same skill.

    I do not counsel this.

    What I do counsel is that people look at the Wiki article on “The Wave” in Arizona and follow up Reference 1:

    Seiler, W. M. (2008) Jurassic Navajo sandstone of Coyote Buttes, Utah/Arizona : coloration and diagenetic history, preservation of a dinosaur trample surface, and terrestrial analogs to Mars. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

    The M.S. thesis totals 247 pages long and gives an exhaustive treatment of the Navajo Sandstone Formation. There are several pages of references to the technical literature in addition to a report on the candidates own studies.

    The reader will find that mixed in with the sandstones are small areas of limestone typical of those formed by transient pools and lakes (as might be expected in an otherwise arid environment). They will also find dinosaur footprints and the impression of tails at certain levels.

    Remember, the Navajo Sandstone is above thousands of feet/metres of deposits (such as those seen in the Grand Canyon, none of which are younger than Permian). Many more thousands of whatever unit you choose lie above, up to the end of the Cenozoic. All of this was laid down in the flood or else the Genesis flood was not the cause of it all.

    At the end of this, perhaps our visitor onceforgivennowfree would like to come back and discuss the detailed presentation of the science.

  72. 'Tis Himself, OM. says

    Welcome to the new site, Alan B. It’s nice to see you here and it’s even better seeing you explaining the non-flood geology of the Navaho Sandstones.

  73. Owlmirror says

    @ Alan B. (Again),

    Hi, and welcome back!

    To change your display name, click on the link above the comment box, which should be your name as it is now, and click on “Profile” on the left side. Or go to the link:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/wp-admin/user/profile.php

    Once you’re there, you should be able to scroll down and change your “Nickname” to be whatever you want.

    On geology, I think you would like the paper I linked to above @#73.

  74. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Alan B, welcome back. Have a grog *hands over fuming tankard of grog*

  75. MMXI Vole says

    Dave, the Kwisatz Haderach (#35) omitted an interesting part of his “Answers in Genesis’ Statement of Faith” quote:

    “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

    There seems to be a major logical disconnect between that second sentence and “No…evidence…can be valid”.

  76. Owlmirror says

    No they’re saying that any evidence that disagrees with scripture is due to human fallibility. Don’t be stupid.

    I don’t see how it’s stupid to point out that that pair of statements demonstrates how the YEC argument undermines itself logically.

    After all, if “evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information”, that applies to the people posting that ‘Scripture is more valid than anything else’. Their assessment of Scripture as being infallible fails, under the unqualified premise of human fallibility, because of their own human fallibility.

    Ultimately, all religious presupposition is based on an unquestioned implicit assertion of personal infallibility on the part of the one making the presupposition. One might phrase it as being that they are stealing infallibility from the God they are claiming exists and is infallible.

  77. says

    @89: That is one lie that YECs should be called on every time they open their mouths. That statement means that they are arguing in bad faith, that whenever the evidence goes their way (ie: can be water-boarded into doing so), they point to the evidence, but when it goes the other way, suddenly the Bible trumps all. Heads creationism wins, tails evolution loses.

    And that is why people like Glen upthread pronounce Snelling no geologist — because he’s not practicing science, he’s just using bafflegab and a PhD. to prop up a predetermined conclusion. Saying he’s not a geologist may be a bit hyperbolic, and open to the obvious misinterpretation (ie. of being taken literally), but there’s a real point behind it.

  78. says

    I don’t see how it’s stupid to point out that that pair of statements demonstrates how the YEC argument undermines itself logically.

    After all, if “evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information”, that applies to the people posting that ‘Scripture is more valid than anything else’. Their assessment of Scripture as being infallible fails, under the unqualified premise of human fallibility, because of their own human fallibility.

    Ultimately, all religious presupposition is based on an unquestioned implicit assertion of personal infallibility on the part of the one making the presupposition. One might phrase it as being that they are stealing infallibility from the God they are claiming exists and is infallible.

    I misread that as him defending the AIG as being misquoted. sorry.

  79. alanbagain says

    #86 Owlmirror

    Thank you for the NCSE paper – I’ve downloaded it and will read with interest later.

    Thanks also for the advice. I will save it but at the moment I think I’ll stick with alanbagain.

    #87 Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Grog: an alcoholic liquor, especially rum diluted with water.

    [After Old Grog, nickname of Edward Vernon (1684-1757), British admiral who ordered that diluted rum be served to his sailors, from grogram (from his habit of wearing a grogram cloak).]

    Thank you. I don’t mind if I do! Worth coming back for.

    Anyone know whether we are likely to hear from onceforgivennowfree – last heard of at #48?

  80. Sandiseattle says

    @onceforgivennowfree: your first mistake was believing that you could express a differing opinion here and be respected. (‘member this is PZs kingdom.)

    and– would HAVE, not would OF –dang talk right.

  81. says

    Seriously, Sandiseattle? You can say that after I’ve tolerated your moronic ass for so many years, you dishonest dumb fuck?

    NOW. Done. You get away from my site for a day or two. If I see you posting here again while I’m this angry, you will discover that this is “PZs kingdom” for sure. Got it? Gone. Go.

  82. Rey Fox says

    Unfortunately, it would seem that PZ’s red text doesn’t compel its readers to obey like Jesse Custer’s red text in the Preacher comics.

  83. alanbagain says

    Re: #84 & #93

    I am addressing onceforgivennowfree:

    In #40, you said:

    As a Creationist, I always try to look at both sides, and compare them to see who has the better arguement. I just wish Atheists would do the same! Instead, they rely on insults to make their case.

    I would like you to note that I have not insulted you, the author of the 35 paragraph article or Dr Snelling. It is not my style as a 67 year old Englishman.

    I have shown you how to find out more about the other “side” i.e. by referring you to material available to anyone on the Internet who cares to look – the MSc thesis of 247 pages (total) which gives a detailed presentation of the candidate’s research, along with a discussion of how this fits in with other studies and how it can be applied elsewhere (e.g. Mars!).

    I acknowledge that it will take a little while to digest the thesis but since you have expressed yourself as: ” … always try[ing] to look at both sides, and compare them to see who has the better arguement …”, I am assuming you are taking a break to do so because as a forgiven Christian, I am sure you would not lie about this. You will be more aware than others here of the statement that:

    ” … the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolators, and all liars – their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death.

    (Revelation 21:8, NIV)

    When you have finished your studies you will have some questions. By all means come back to the “endless thread” (see link in RH margin) and we can discuss the science there.

    Best wishes

    Alan B