Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Bush Administration: Grand Canyon Created by Noah's Flood
peer.org — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces.
pwill- 3400 diggs
- digg it
- lexicondominus, on 10/12/2007, -147/+16Yeah sure :S
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -47/+359"this is not that surprising considering that bush (administration) is a complete ***** moron, he is one of the first presidents that actually needs to be assassinated; at least Nixon quit... ...how can anyone who considers themselves to be competent be a creationist?!?!?"
The secret service should be showing up at your home momentarily... - birch25, on 10/12/2007, -31/+216i think i speak for rational people (religious and not alike) when i say..."hey, bush admin, stfu! you've ***** up the war on terror, the war in iraq, our nation's reputation, and countless other things we hold dear, and just when it looks like you can't sink any lower, you tell us the grand canyon was formed by noah's flood...why? what possible gain is there in making this claim that is so ludicrous (and ultimately unimportant) for no reason at all. the bible itself doesn't even back up your thought!"
naturally, rational thought is to be avoided at all costs by the bush team. - Ebeniz, on 10/12/2007, -16/+115http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon
The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin (of which the Grand Canyon is a part) has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old (with most of the downcutting occurring in the last two million years). The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet.
The major geologic exposures in Grand Canyon range in age from the 2 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 230 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim. Many of the formations were deposited in warm shallow seas, near-shore environments (such as beaches), and swamps as the seashore repeatedly advanced and retreated over the edge of a proto-North America. Major exceptions include the Permian Coconino Sandstone which was laid down as sand dunes in a desert and several parts of the Supai Group. - slicedoranges, on 10/12/2007, -14/+100Oh god, I almost sprayed Pepsi on the screen when I read the title. hahahahahaha
- betacmag4u, on 10/12/2007, -100/+274When will people wake up. There is no God. The Bible is a fairy tale.
- jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -20/+65Yeah the Grand Canyon was created in Noahs Flood, there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq we just haven't found them yet either.
Did I mention I have a bridge in central Ohio for sale? Interested? Just post your bank account number here so I can check to make sure you have the funds. - uberkling, on 10/12/2007, -16/+160America has really and truly been damaged on a fundamental level by this administration. Ethics of stem cell research and WMD's in Iraq aside, things like this are the worst aspect of the Bush administration.
Religious opinion should never, ever, EVER be allowed to be prioritised over science. EVER. It seems from where I'm standing that it's only the fundamentalist christians that seem to have this huge problem with science in general being a direct opposition to their world view. More rational christians, agnostics and most other religions seem much more willing to accept that maybe "both" could be true, or simply push science to a seperate area of belief than their religious faith.
Some people can do a better job ignoring it, some rationalise things like evolution as being simply (and I'm quoting a friend's idea here, for the record I'm an athiest but that's my business) having the seven days of creation being "god days", with the millions of years of evolution, shifting and changing from our perspective seeming much quicker to god as he created the modern day species. I know it's a strange idea but as I said it's my friends, and I actually respect him for trying to rationalise the two ideas together.
Anyway back on topic, people like my friend don't get mortally offended every time they see a physics professor or paleantologist. Those are the kind of people with a faith I can respect. Those that deny basic, evidenced scientic fact to keep their (in my opinion) ***** fairytales intact within their own closed minds shouldn't be running a world superpower.
Disclaimer: I do generalise a bit here, and I myself am somewhat closed-minded about religion. That said I respect the basic point that if I'm right and they're wrong they're worm food, whilst if they're right I burn in eternal hellfire. The difference is I'm willing to accept the risk of said hellfire without imposing my views on them. Meanwhile I got woken up at 7am last saturday by two smartly dressed gits asking if I was interested in finding Jesus. Mull over that. - fleury29, on 10/12/2007, -144/+36@betacmag4u "When will people wake up. There is no God. The Bible is a fairy tale."
Consider this:
Everything in the universe we see has the ability to exist and to not exist (ie a tree, a dog, you...etc). Now at one point there must have been a time when nothing existed. And since you cannot get something from nothing, there must have been an intelligent being that always existed, and will always exist. Doesn't prove that the Judeo-Christian God exist, but that a higher being with more power then we can comprehend has to exist.
If I believe that there is God and live my life accordingly, and I am wrong what did I lose? If I believe that there is no God and live my life accordingly, and I am wrong what did I lose? EVERYTHING - Protean1, on 10/12/2007, -25/+52Some folks never really grow up,
and need fairy tales to help them sleep.
I'm Serious. Mentally, on a certain cognitive level, they
never really reach the 'adult' level of critical thinking and
rationally processing info.
Then again, aspects of this society do seem to infantilize
people....low-wattage folks buy more of their crap, I guess. - jasz, on 10/12/2007, -13/+65I'm not American.. but this is embarassing... how is the world's (ex-)greatest power be under the command of such people?
- Mylonite, on 10/12/2007, -13/+63@fleury - you have obviously not read the reading list for Digg - Dawkins responds to both of your little spurts of idiocy in every single one of his books!
You described a skyhook - where you see improbable things, and use even more improbable/impossible things to explain it. Science attempts to seek explanations for improbable things in ways that can actually be tested and refined. Oddly enough, all of the varied branches of science all point in the same general direction - perhaps because they revolve around *facts* even though people like to think they revolve around theories. Science provides us with a way to learn about and understand these things that seem so improbable, and we are now able to describe them in terms that do not require a god to hang a skyhook for us. Who created that initial superpower you speak of anyway?
I'm equally amused by the 'what did I lose' argument - to hear some religious folks talk, you've not only got to worship God, but you've got to worship the right one in the right way with the right chants and the appropriate monetary considerations. In a number of religions and branches, you lose the ability to make your own decisions and you STILL have to know that you might be terribly wrong ('70 VIRGINIANS!') Can you really believe that it costs you nothing to live a religious life? What if you find that God is peaceful, tolerant, and loving, and thinks that the ***** you have put onto your children's children is an unforgivable crime? If what you believe in is just a benevolent force after death that rewards your intentions, why be religious? I strive to be a good person, God or no god. You don't need a religious book or teachings to do right by others. I like to think that any existing God finds GWB's attempt to squash science *much* more disturbing than my adoration of false idols like invisible pink unicorns and FSM. - mekongcola, on 10/12/2007, -9/+51[“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch.]
One of the stupidest and scariest thing I've read in a long time. An order to suspend "belief" in scientific fact?!? This is draconian in nature, I’m gob smacked...
This is a huge step back in logical thinking. I hope that the entire scientific community and rational thinking people everywhere don't allow this to stand... - mstar, on 10/12/2007, -9/+32@ fleury29
>> Now at one point there must have been a time when nothing existed. And since you cannot get something from nothing, there must have been an intelligent being that always existed,
And so where exactly did this intelligent complicated being come from? As you said you cannot get something from nothing??? I would say that just because we have not been able to determine the exact nature of the universe doesn't mean you fill the gap in knowledge with "magic". That's way too convenient. They used to say that about solar eclipses back in the day...
>> If I believe that there is no God and live my life accordingly, and I am wrong what did I lose? EVERYTHING
Sure. If you believe in God solely to cover your ass then how real or genuine is such a belief? Isn't believing "just in case" the worst reason. Are you so frightened that the magical all seeing thing in the clouds will get you... ? - smellinator, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42@ fleury29:
As a Christian and a logician, I have to say that your argument doesn't hold water.
>>Now at one point there must have been a time when nothing existed.
You offer no evidence for this assertion. In fact, what we know now about the concept of time (and what we do not yet know) really contradicts this assertion. Case in point: if nothing existed, then time itself did not exist. Therefore, there could not have been a "Time when nothing existed"?
>>And since you cannot get something from nothing, there must have been an intelligent being that always existed, and will always exist.
You have three leaps in this one, with no supporting evidence. First, you say that you cannot get something from nothing. Yet you have already stated that everything "has the ability to exist or not exist". So either "everything always is in one state of existence (i.e. ALWAYS exists or NEVER exists)" or it can change states of existence (can change from Non-existence to existence and/or vice versa). If the first is true (things that existed ALWAYS existed), then your earlier statement (there must have been a time when nothing existed) must be false. And if it's possible that the state of existence can change for a particular item (to exist, having never existed before), then it sure sounds like you can get something from nothing. Especially considering that you stated that there was a time when nothing existed, and now there's a time when something exists.
Second leap is that "there must have been an intelligent being that always existed, and will always exist." This contradicts your statement that there was a time when nothing existed. And it contradicts your statement that things can exist or not exist. Third leap, you've tossed in "intelligent", with absolutely no supporting evidence.
Time to go back to school. Study some of the "Proofs of God's existence" and their counter-arguments. They are quite interesting. - tewas, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8I'm reading this and i can't believe this is happening. How much lower we can go? We already in mud 50 feet below rock bottom. just wow
- gravity71, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35We all know Chuck Norris created the Grand Canyon. President Bush? Roundhouse kick coming!
- jd5alive, on 10/12/2007, -41/+2some times i wonder if Americans or terrorists are the ones posting on digg.
- hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -14/+18How did this turn into an argument over whether or not god exists? Who cares? The story is about the president not letting the scientists at the grand canyon do their job. And the fact that he may be mentally ill.
- JimmyIkon, on 10/12/2007, -36/+12As with most of the bush stuff on digg, this is probably taken out of context or simply made up.
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14@JimmyIkon
No, it isn't made up or taken out of context, it's been going on for a few years now. Wake up. - Logal, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18FTFA:
“As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,”
and Thunder is just angels bowling.
Anyone got any more? - JimmyIkon, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8@mutatron
Don't believe everything you read and always consider if the source has an agenda. Manipulation is sadly too common these days. - qurk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@JimmyIkon
If you listen to any of the right-wing talking heads on the radio, it's easy to see that they leave out half of the facts, use emotionally charged words and arguments to win over their listening base, often equate opinion with facts, and very often resort to straight bully-ridicule tactics to make their listening base feel good about themselves and to gain on the "YA!!! Go Republican team!!! We sure as GREEN BEANS aint no (charged racist epithat tone of voice) LIBERALS!!!!"
I know you aren't alluding to these people as not having an agenda, and not trying to manipulate people. Are you? - Amnesia10, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I would have thought that this would not only make the US look backward as far as other nations are concerned.
@anysublime123
There is no need to assassinate him, just impeach him for harming both the US economy and population for dumbing down science and the educational attainments of its citizens. This sort of attitude only harms US jobs in the long term. - docdoak, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7It's only a fairy tale in your mind because that's what you want it to be.
- CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11heres a good question
how much lower does the government have to go before the public is storming the whitehouse?
instead we're sitting here online bitching about it. - jgreath, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4@Logal:
"FTFA:
“As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,”
and Thunder is just angels bowling.
Anyone got any more?"
The Grand Canyon is just Mother Earth's cleavage, the Mariana Trench is her vagina. - nevinl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@ anysublime123
"this is not that surprising considering that bush (administration) is a complete ***** moron, he is one of the first presidents that actually needs to be assassinated; at least Nixon quit... ...how can anyone who considers themselves to be competent be a creationist?!?!?"
Competent is the key word.... - Nobi-Wan, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9I don't get how so many diggers make comments about how Saddam, the former Iraqi dictator responsible for thousands of murders, should not be hanged on Sunday for his crimes, yet when some diggers are calling for the assassination of the president they get dugg up by hundreds?
Bush administration appointees are merely offering a "different view" from the one given by the park for years. They're not saying one way or the other. Sometimes offering options is well and good instead of being force fed one way, whether it's religious or atheist.
I'll be dugg down to oblivion, but geez, some of you are hypocrites to no end. - questionable, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@fleury29
"If I believe that there is God and live my life accordingly, and I am wrong what did I lose? If I believe that there is no God and live my life accordingly, and I am wrong what did I lose? EVERYTHING"
Well, what if you're worshiping the wrong God and you meet the "right" God in heaven or whatever? Then you've lose as the rest of us heathens. - freff, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@Nobi-Wan
"Bush administration appointees are merely offering a "different view" from the one given by the park for years."
No, they're promoting a creationist view of the formation of the Grand Canyon by providing a religious book through the National Parks Service. This violates longstanding Constitutional separation between church function and our government. Several Supreme Court decisions have upheld this separation, to include Lee v. Weisman, which was the first time that the Rehnquist court had taken up the issue: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/206/ . It's unconstitutional, regardless of what you might think about a "different view".
Not to mention that it's nonsense that has been refuted by science. - soogy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If there is a god, he stopped caring about six years ago.
- jsd8cc, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"he is one of the first presidents that actually needs to be assassinated"
You and the people that dugg you up for this are despicable. - toosas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3i am sorry to see that the country which was used to be an example of technological achievement is now returning to middle ages step by step. the noahs flood now, what's next? sun turns around the earth? scientists burning on fires? there must be quite a lot of those religious fundamentalists if the governments is so concerned. i don't know how long will it take for the u.s. but it will end bad..
- XZanatos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@fleury29
"Now at one point there must have been a time when nothing existed."
'Must'? Hardly, there is nowhere in scientific fields I know that says at some point nothing existed. Of course you are referring to the Big Bang, which was a singularity event, which means that we cannot know what came before it, ther are several theories about what caused the Big Bang (higher dimensional plane collisions, previous universe contracting and re-expanding, etc). Nothing before the Big Bang is only one 'possibliity' among many, NOT a 'must'.
Your belief is the typical god-in-the-gaps mental security blanket .
All the above was a rather academic rant so for the finish let me focus on this bit. "and I am wrong what did I lose?" How about a life based on rationality, reason, and logic? - qurk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"by jsd8cc 14 hours ago
"he is one of the first presidents that actually needs to be assassinated"
You and the people that dugg you up for this are despicable."
I dugg him down.
But in 2004, did he run on the "I will destroy science" campaign? Nope.
I tried to tell people that the main reason I didn't like him and thought he was
an atrocity to our species was the fact that he and his administration were
dumbing down science. Hell, why should pi be 3.143 when you can just
enact legislation saying it's 3. It has to be ok someplace in the bible.
But nope, I was told like 1,000,000 times that I had no idea what I was talking about.
I really doubt that half of the nation voted for him because he promised he would
destroy science, in this, the most modern and most powerful nation in the modern world.
I think it's despicable that anyone would call for the assassination of the president of my
country.
But I do understand his frustration. - rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"this is not that surprising considering that bush (administration) is a complete ***** moron, he is one of the first presidents that actually needs to be assassinated; at least Nixon quit... ...how can anyone who considers themselves to be competent be a creationist?!?!?"
Yes... and using an ad hominem to form the basis of your argument speaks volumes about your competency as well.
People who blame other people's stupidity on their religious beliefs (or lack of) should be put in the same boat as Bush.
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -47/+359"this is not that surprising considering that bush (administration) is a complete ***** moron, he is one of the first presidents that actually needs to be assassinated; at least Nixon quit... ...how can anyone who considers themselves to be competent be a creationist?!?!?"
- JimDinger, on 10/12/2007, -14/+152Are they serious? This is ridiculous.
- wagesj45, on 10/12/2007, -14/+105Ridiculous indeed. Seems like science is getting its ass kicked by the government anymore. I'm disappointed. Ugh. Where has all the sanity in this country gone? I have no problem with religious views, but I don't like them to be forced on us, and withholding scientific explanations in favor of religious views is just as bad as denying the religion. I have a feeling there would be riots if twenty some books describing the religious history of some holy site were rejected and only a secular book was allowed.
I've heard a lot about a war on Christmas, but it seems to me that the real war is on science. - flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -21/+36its not rediculous its *****' retarded!
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Understatement of the century.
- somebitches, on 10/12/2007, -16/+24This I would expect from a country like Saudi Arabia but not Amer...
Oh wait I forgot, America IS Saudi Arabia, its pretty clear - they both love each-other, they're both full of fundamentalists. I wonder how long before someone reinterprets the constitution so that publicly flogging people who deny the Grand Canyon was made by Noahs flood is introduced, I would imagine the argument would be something like "public flogging is not a cruel punishment because it is stipulated in the Bible and it is not an unusual punishment because other countries in the world practice it". Im almost certain that during one of his visits the King/Ambassador to Saudi has talked to Bush about this - "why do you not flogg the blasphemous here?" he probably asked and Bush probably replied "believe me, if I could get away with it I would!". Bush is a *****.
I mean lets face it, America is hardly the beacon of freedom it seems to be when you scrape off the surface - Sodomy laws are still on the books in several states, and contrary to belief, they have been enforced in some states as recently as a few years ago. The US still uses the death penalty - even their 'lower' neighbours to the south have abolished this, even countries like Russia have abolished this (ok Russia is in transition, it is abolished in practice). After China, the only countries in the world that can compare are Middle Eastern and African countries! I thought America was at war with this ideology? As far as the US prison service goes, this is practically corporal punishment as the chances of not being raped or severely beaten while in prison are about the same as winning the lottery. Whatever your views are on corporal punishment (if you believe in it then you are sick but thats for another thread) you must agree that due-process and the United States constitution CLEARLY guarantees that a punishment should be consistent and accurate to its title - if someone is sentenced to prison they should go to prison, not a gang rape parlour. - DeezNutz420, on 10/12/2007, -50/+6so typical from the libs, attacking those who think different and calling anyone who believes in noah or the canyon "idiots" and "retarded" so tyipcal coming from the libs . they hate anything christian, so when there are FACTS in front of them they do what leftists do best: change the subject. why do you libs hate religion so much? god forbid anyone has different opinions than you, how dare they!
- DeezNutz420, on 10/12/2007, -44/+5also, bushes version of the canyon has just as much merit as saying it was created 600million years ago, but dont expect a lib to have any rational thought o ftheir own, as with the MSM shows, they constantly need someone to spoonfeed them all their information to belive lol!
- mstar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6:: also, bushes version of the canyon has just as much merit as saying it was created 600million years ago
Thats point. It does not have any merit at all. - cybortrip, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17it's sad that ***** like this never makes a splash (pun intended) in the major media outlets. THIS IS REAL NEWS. instead, we hear about trailer trash brittney spears on a daily basis. i feel sorry for the next prez who has to clean up after this idiot's mess...
- teamgwho, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11I think everyone needs to get behind that phrase. "the war on science". hell if it worked for the fundies and the right wingers to "motivate their base" to tell them there is a war on christmas (which there isn't btw, but thats' besides the point) then maybe we need a phrase to get people off their collective asses and stop tolerating this butchering of science in the name of God and pacification of the fundies.
- wobitnobby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12There is an organization called the Union of Concerned Scientists which has rallied behind this very point, sending a statement to our government and the world about the need to protect our scientific integrity. This document was signed by more than 10,000 working scientists, including 49 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 175 members of the National Academies.
This excellent organization is helping scientists to speak out with a unified voice, to make the point that it's not okay for political wind to affect our results, or interpretation or dissemination of those results. (You can join or donate!)
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/
- wagesj45, on 10/12/2007, -14/+105Ridiculous indeed. Seems like science is getting its ass kicked by the government anymore. I'm disappointed. Ugh. Where has all the sanity in this country gone? I have no problem with religious views, but I don't like them to be forced on us, and withholding scientific explanations in favor of religious views is just as bad as denying the religion. I have a feeling there would be riots if twenty some books describing the religious history of some holy site were rejected and only a secular book was allowed.
- jtorkbob, on 10/12/2007, -26/+41Here's the key phrase: "In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists".
These kind of decisions have nothing to do with the Bush administration; they've been happening for years because every decision maker is afraid of offending _anyone_. This is equivalent to the common theme of refusing to allow nativity scenes. In some places, legal counsel has said that the only way to for a public institution to celebrate Christmas without offending anyone is to display other religions' paraphernalia alongside the Christmas ones. That's complicated; so now we have 'winter break' at school and 'happy holidays' at the mall.
Why can't we just offend everyone equally?
(FWIW, I'm an agnostic from a Jewish/Protestant/Baha'i background, who is a big fan of religion as social structure)- pjleonhardt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+92Instead of insulting religious fundamentalists they offend everyone with some common sense.
- GTPilot, on 10/12/2007, -10/+53"(FWIW, I'm an agnostic from a Jewish/Protestant/Baha'i background, who is a big fan of religion as social structure)"
Did you add that to avoid offending the fundamentalists? - Frost9999, on 10/12/2007, -11/+58Are you serious? 'Winter break' and 'happy holidays', is that really what life is like in the USA now? I find it hard to imagine people being so spineless that Christmas is considered offensive. You people don't need a war on terror, you need an election!
- pensivewombat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34Instead of saying "offending" it would have been more correct of them to say "losing millions of dollars in political donations." Nobody is afraid of offending people, but they go to insane lengths to avoid losing money.
- metamorfoza, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6It's not the fear that drives this kind of regulations, its democracy at its worst. Everyone has rights to do everything (as long those actions don't offend anyone), which is in fine in one sense, but there has to be a limit; a line that has to be drawn how far democracy can be abused (and law for that matter).
hell, it can happend in a future that if I fart in elevator I can be sued by some arsehole - beacause my fart had some kind of conseqence on his preformace and hence working day, which resulted in (i dunno) company giong broke.
People are abusing the law to the maximim. Thats the problem. - netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@Metamorphoza: No, I'm pretty it's fear of a boycott. If democracy was about not hurting other's feelings, we wouldn't have elections in case they hurt the feelings of the losing cantidate.
- highgeere, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16The reason we say 'winter break' and 'happy holidays' is because it isn't reasonable to assume that every person that gets a break during december or every person you greet celebrates a particular holiday. Would it seem reasonable to call it 'Chanukah Break' and say 'Merry Kwanzaa' to everyone you see in december?
- Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -12/+18The USA is a country based on christian values. It's basically a christian country. That doesn't you should ignore every other religion, nor ignore your own. Be proud of what you believe, and have just as much respect for what other believe as you would like to have for what you believe.
I am an atheist, and I still celebrate christmas. I live in Sweden, a predominately christian country, and we have no problem whatsoever with anyone being "offended" just because we say merry christmas to them. In fact, they'd be the weirdos for not letting the rest of us celebrate a tradition we've had for centuries.
Religion really has nothing to do with this issue. Fear has. Fear of losing money and power by "offending" those who take offense to pretty much anything you say. I say offend the hell out of them, let them know that all thought and all beliefs are equal.
Be proud of who you are, and what you believe in, and respect that others are just as proud as you. - Azertyqsdf, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Is Sweden really a "predominately christian country" with just 23% saying that they believe in a god ?
http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf - Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I live in the East end of London. I wish people Merry Christmas. They tell me to have a Happy Divali or Ede. Works for me.
- djlosch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8the problem is that merely expressing a fact is now "offending" someone. you can't call a black person black, you can't say "hang" around a black person, and you can't say the word "nose" around a jew. and you can't do these even if they have absolutely nothing to do with derogatory statements. when did we become such ***** pussies? there's are differences between innocent ignorance, willful ignorance, and flat out derogatory remarks. since when did innocent ignorance become discrimination?
if the grand canyon book says the GC was created 6mil years ago, it's not offending anyone - it's just going against the teachings of most religions - which is offending them all equally. - pierik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@Azertyqsdf Yes, only 23% believes in a god, and fewer still believe in the Christian gospel. Still, about 80% of the population is a member of the Swedish formerly state church, so in one meaning we are definitely a christian country...
- MixMastaKooz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yea, several years ago I tried to come up with a phrase that would become the new PC, but for be applied to the right: Religiously Correct. or RC. Don't know of a better catch phrase, but it seems that our government is definitely "RC."
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Goddamn it, read the ***** article you moron: "Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees."
I'm fairly new to Digg, is it common that most people comment without ever reading the articles, or is this just a new thing since Yahoo shut down their message boards? - eekjedi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Respect! ^_^
Anyone played Civ4? It's a good example of reality: religion is to keep the masses in line. The bottom line is it's good for social structure from the gov's point of view. +1 happiness. So remember there is a religious majority in the U.S.A. which is why the people who's jobs depend on not offending certain groups are so careful not to offend. - Refrag, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Endemoniada, America was NOT founded on Christian values. You've seen too much of the recent propaganda to this effect. Don't buy into it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Longevity_and_family_life
I'm also an atheist that celebrates Christmas. However, like the vast majority of everyone I know (including Christians) I participate in the European pagan traditions that Christmas was overlaid onto. Christmas trees, gatherings, gifts, etc. I do this because those pagan, natural religions were actually celebrating a scientific event, the Winter Solstice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Solstice_Celebrations - qurk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's funny that the right-wing media talking head radio people just loooove to call on politcal correctness as something that only (racially charged voice) LIBERALS do.
- qurk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ Frost9999
"Are you serious? 'Winter break' and 'happy holidays', is that really what life is like in the USA now? I find it hard to imagine people being so spineless that Christmas is considered offensive. You people don't need a war on terror, you need an election!"
What is so offensive about "Winter break" or "happy holidays". As a christian who loves christ I find it offensive that so many fake people are flocking to the Republican banner bacause some retard talking head on a right-wing media news channel is crying about a "war on festivus". I mean, "war on christmas".
What is offensive at all about Christians standing up defending a pagan holiday? Nothing. Just please stop it with the "WAR ON CHRISTMAS". Noone is telling you here, in 2007, to NOT celebrate Christmas in any way you choose to.. Just PLEASE shut the old poop-shooter. Thanks
- livejamie, on 10/12/2007, -31/+9REMEMBER GUYS THEY FOUND THE ARK OMG
- Mewchu11, on 10/12/2007, -11/+82And then it melted all those Nazi faces... That was indeed an awesome movie :D
- cesclaveria, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12different ark... but still a really cool movie.
- Philonius, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT OMG
- perrywsparrow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The Arc of the Covenant and Noah's Ark are two.....oh forget it.
- xarc13, on 10/12/2007, -12/+40(Tries to bring back Scientology jokes)
I thought Xenu created the Grand Canyon.- Nameless1, on 10/12/2007, -33/+4But will it blend?
- PirateFSM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11And this is why we say that it's all about timing...
- arbee, on 10/12/2007, -24/+10I guess Michael Moore is thankful since this administration keeps him employed.
- jasonsbytes, on 10/12/2007, -34/+7Why does this matter?
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Maybe relative to all the other stupid things it has done then it is nothing and it is unsuprising. But that doesn't mean it isn't ***** [the english language does not have a word for this].
- CocaCola88, on 10/12/2007, -9/+40see what happens when dumbasses control a country ->
- somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33That's democracy for you. When there's a choice between doing what's right and doing what's popular- you do what's popular, so you don't upset the voters.
Millions of creationists get upset by science? Hide the science.
Millions of rednecks want to nuke Iraq? Send in the boys. - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -4/+56Rednecks didn't want to invade Iraq, neo-cons and our war profiteer industry wanted to invade Iraq. Rednecks just endorsed it cuz they wanted to see tanks on TV.
- dustko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I understand your point, but Iraq is a bad example. They didn't invade Iraq because the masses wanted them to or to be popular. Project for the New American Century and all that ..
/beaten by TopherT - Koros8, on 10/12/2007, -18/+6"see what happens when dumbasses control a country ->"
Yeah, people think it is ok to cheat on your wife as long you don't kill anyone. - dogshaft, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"Yeah, people think it is ok to cheat on your wife as long you don't kill anyone."
I think you meant to say:
"Yeah, people think it is ok to kill anyone as long you don't cheat on your wife."
Actually, you were right, cheating on your wife IS better than killing someone. - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7You have to remember that during the initial ramp up to the Iraq invasion, most Americans were still reeling from 9/11. We were told by the gov't that intelligence showed Iraq as an immediate threat. In reality, we were lied to. The current Iraq situation is Dubya trying to succeed where his father failed. Of course, his father wasn't a closed-minded lunatic either.
- incongruity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@drmangrum:
" We were told by the gov't that intelligence showed Iraq as an immediate threat"
Um, no, this is everywhere and it's COMPLETELY revisionist history -- the Bush administration said explicitly that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat but they were clearly working towards stockpiles of WMD's and that we couldn't afford to wait until they were an imminent threat. This became known as the doctrine of preemption -- search on that term and you'll see it widely discussed. It wouldn't be widely discussed if it weren't a major point in this administration's justification for going into Iraq (and hence, you're incorrect in your statement.)
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm seriously troubled by the Bush doctrine of preemption as a general policy. I think it's a giant step towards imperialism and that's not a good thing, IMHO, but I'm equally troubled by people that don't get the facts straight on either side...even when it's "my side"... - fizzup, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@incongruity
This should all come as news to you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqIj7FzVawU, at 0:20.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMBDCQ4cPx0.
- somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33That's democracy for you. When there's a choice between doing what's right and doing what's popular- you do what's popular, so you don't upset the voters.
- jcaino, on 10/12/2007, -10/+26wow.
im religious...but i believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with science...and this is just ridiculous- mugenkeiji, on 10/12/2007, -27/+9Dugg down because in truth one cannot be religious and admit the scientific method without doing a disservice to one or the other.
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Not true. There are a lot of religious folk who realize that their holy book, even if it was divinely inspired, was written by man. Men make mistakes. Once you factor in multiple interpretations, the religion can fit the science.
While I gave up on religion years ago, I respect the idea that not all of them are idiots who believe everything the over-paid child molester in a robe tells them. - wobitnobby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Stephen Jay Gould, in particular, was a devout Catholic and a brilliant, globally recognized paleontologist. He wrote a nice book on how he feels that there is no conflict for him between his faith and his groundbreaking theories about the pace and determining factors of evolution.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345430093/
it's a nice read.
- Hazardc, on 10/12/2007, -10/+44Bush jr becoming president was enough to sway me from agnostic to full out athiest.
- jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14It took him winning a second term to swing me.
- Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Bush Jr. just about turned me to religion. He must have sold his soul to the devil to get (re)elected. What other explanation could there be?
- weepopstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1weekle this is ridiculous. Your hate for Bush and the administration is so rabid, that you can't even discern fact from fiction.
Eskeptic covered this http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-01-17.html
Fact Checking 101
How Skeptic magazine was Duped
by an Environmental Activist Group
by Michael Shermer
In last week’s eSkeptic , we published highlights from a press release issued by PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), a Washington D.C.-based environmental watchdog group. That press release, dated December 28, 2006, was headlined:
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY
Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology
The first sentence of the release reads:
Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees.
Unfortunately, in our eagerness to find additional examples of the inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life (as if we actually needed more), we accepted this claim by PEER without calling the National Park Service (NPS) or the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) to check it. As a testimony to the quality of our readers, however, dozens immediately phoned both NPS and GCNP, only to discover that the claim is absolutely false. Callers were told that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, that no one is being pressured from Bush administration appointees — or by anyone else — to withhold scientific information, and all were referred to a statement by David Barna, Chief of Public Affairs, National Park Service as to the park’s official position. “Therefore, our interpretive talks, way-side exhibits, visitor center films, etc. use the following explanation for the age of the geologic features at Grand Canyon,” the document explains.
If asked the age of the Grand Canyon, our rangers use the following answer: ‘The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old. The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet.’
Understandably, many of our readers were outraged by both the duplicity of the claim and our failure to fact check it. One park ranger wrote us:
You’re a day late and a dollar short on this one. As a national park ranger, I found most of PEER’s findings to be bogus. So have others: http://parkrangerx.blogspot.com
- Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -17/+64"the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood"
What a coincidence! So was the crack in my ass!- Nameless1, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5Best digg comment. EVER.
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I don't even wanna know where you hid the boat.
- xealinc, on 10/12/2007, -125/+10Oh what does it hurt to offer another opinion? If you read the article the book is actually self-disclosed as it is titled "Grand Canyon: A Different View"
Here yet again, if liberals can't win an argument, then they simply try to suppress any alternatives.
Obviously, any argument with some basis in faith is unwinable, but what's the harm in letting people read about it and talk about the possibilities? Much science is based on best conjecture anyway, so why not let opposing views be represented?
What is happening to our freedoms? Will the book-burners win again?- Dregga, on 10/12/2007, -17/+82Shut the ***** up you demagogue.
This has nothing to do with liberals. It has everything to do with science, and a bunch of uppity christian conservatives who don't want to hear things that make them feel uncomfortable.
Take that culture warrior ***** elsewhere. - Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -12/+80"Oh what does it hurt to offer another opinion? If you read the article the book is actually self-disclosed as it is titled "Grand Canyon: A Different View""
It hurts to offer another opinion when you're not allowed to express the original opinion anymore. Did you even RTFA? The story's about park officials being FORBIDDEN to comment on the Grand Canyon's geological age....
but I guess you just did what Conservatives do best in an argument--change the subject. - LePoissonDeNoel, on 10/12/2007, -11/+48It's not a matter of liberal vs. conservative, but thank you for attempting to polarize and misconstrue the argument as such. What it is a matter of is, on one side, real and solid geological science: decades of research and thought, formulation of theories and evidence to support them, and debates within the scientific community; and on the other side, a half-assed attempt at taking a 5000 year-old myth written with a child's capacity for abstract thought and passing it off as an equally valid explanation.
The Great Flood story is not science and furthermore is not even remotely grounded in reality, and to have the government back it up in order to be politically correct is absolutely ***** insane. - qsucvatz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29To have a world view such that the entire universe was created when the Sumerians began making glue; and the rest of the world was in the throes of the agricultural revolution, is wrong.
Unless you want your kids wasting their time discussing the alternative view of the Invisible Pink Rhinoceros, they should stick to debating the evidence at hand. - triple110, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32@xealinc
Yeah! Who cares about the facts, as long as I'm right.
/sarcasm
There is nothing wrong with having different views as long as it doesn't step on the toes of the facts. While "truth" is based on perspective and belief, "fact" is constant. - Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24"Obviously, any argument with some basis in faith is unwinable, but what's the harm in letting people read about it and talk about the possibilities? Much science is based on best conjecture anyway, so why not let opposing views be represented?"
That's the kind of thinking that started the Crusades. Too often, scientific FACT is thrown out because it does not jibe with "faith". Christians have a habit of killing those who don't agree with them. - Plotinus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30@Xealinc
I have no problem with an alternative viewpoint. What I have an issue with is the belief going around these days, that *any* half-arsed view is as valid as any other *regardless* of the evidence. The Old Testament contradicts itself, is vicious, the god in it has the morals and self-restraint of a spoiled five year old so taking it as the "literal" truth shows only that the reader is at best semi-literate. To use it as the reason for overriding geological evidence is, ... well let's just say - anyone with anti-american sentiment out there is laughing their arses off as you lead the technological charge into the thirteenth century - well done. - tybris, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11This argument is perfectly winnable! It's science! It has nothing to do with opinions! Science shows the truth we all share whether we like it or not.
Sure, the scientific method is debatable, debatable as in: scientific method vs. scientific method. Not as in scientific method vs. dogmatic, religious believe. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5And you wonder why you lost the last election.
- professorchaos1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18To illustrate how irrelevant the Bible can be in this day and age I offer this link:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp
I especially like this jab:
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Holy ***** this guy got reply-owned. I wanted to respond too until I saw how many sane people had already weighed in.
- insomniasystems, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@xealinc
Dude, you are so ***** ignorant i'm gonna make up a new word for it and send it to webster!... - Philonius, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Read the article again, carefully. The answer to your question is in there.
Sheesh! - junk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ Plotinus
Well said and I completely agree. The way things are going I would not be surprised to turn on my TV and see a he said / she said debate on whether the earth revolves around the sun. - kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9We've reached a point in society where it's unacceptable to humour religious zealots with tales of creation, because of the blatant misinformation. The scientific community's consensus is that the creation myth, whether it's Abrahamic, Greek or Mayan, isn't to be taken seriously. Quite possibly because there's no actual evidence to support creation myths, leaving all creation myths with equal probability. We all know that Satan created the Grand Canyon because he pwns God, after all.
The Vatican has made it clear that creationism is an allegory and "intelligent design" is unscientific. The Archbishop of Canterbury (leader of the world's Anglicans) has made it clear that creationism and "intelligent design" aren't to be taken seriously. Christians who are mandated to believe in creationism are in the minority, and are primarily confined to the third world and America. - Protean1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5AARGH.
Look man, this tool you're using to think about things,
this thing called faith. You know that faith is taking
someone's word for something with NO evidence?
"Blind" faith, as it were?
Faith is not the best tool for thinking about the world.
I don't have faith the sun will rise, I don't have faith the
rain will fall, faith that gravity will work properly.
I KNOW it. Faith is just asking to be suckered. - ChicGeek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Did you lose your freedom, or are you just bitching when people express an opposing view?
- frankinla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A different opinion? this sounds like it goes back to that ole rationalization that there are two sides to every story. Actually, there are as many sides as there are opinions, but let's consider there are only two sides; There is no reason to assume there are two VALID sides.
A little example not even referring to religion:
A man brings his car to a stop in front of your driveway. He gets out of the car and begins walking away. This is wrong. What if you had an emergancy and had to leave: what if your grandma was having a heart attack, your wife having a baby, the cookies where hot and you had no milk, the toilet paper roll was empty!!!! Seeing this, you run out of your house to confront him. He ignores you and you shoot him.
The police come to arrest you, but you resist, saying they should arrest the man you shot instead citing potential threats to your grandma, your wife, the rapidly cooling cookies, or the moist smelly mess in your crack, real or imagined!! Why are they taking the dead mans side? Cant they see the dead man was wrong first?
Are there really two sides to this story? No. Not two valid sides anyways. Is it lame and ridiculous in the extreme? Yes, and I might add totally absurd as well. But it is no less lame, ridiculous or absurd then the silly stories that fundamentalist crowd puts out to argue against science.
To be fair, these people are not a bush creation, nor is our alcoholic, draft dodging, coke head, lying and theiving 1st citizen necessarily one of them. This fringe has always been around, and exist pretty much everywhere. The difference is that here, in an effort to boost their numbers, the neocons have given these fools a voice, and to keep them loyal occasionally toss the a bone.
The real tragedy here is that logic and reason are so easily offered on the alter of expediency, both by fools and for fools. - frankinla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@junk
"....I would not be surprised to turn on my TV and see a he said / she said debate on whether the earth revolves around the sun."
oh you're so silly. everyone knows the earth is flat and that the sun doesn't "rise" as as much as it passed along the sky by 12 naked virgins until one of them "hides" it. The sun "rising" is just kind of a pun....
- Dregga, on 10/12/2007, -17/+82Shut the ***** up you demagogue.
- zeroSignal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20This cannot be true.. can it?
I mean.. this is just far too out there.. The limits some people impose on themselves are almost impossible to grasp..
Seriously.. wtf?- flashboy131, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13yeah... that's what I keep saying. but we have two more ***** years... these are wonderful times for our country.
- weepopstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This isn't true.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-01-17.html
Fact Checking 101
How Skeptic magazine was Duped
by an Environmental Activist Group
by Michael Shermer
In last week’s eSkeptic , we published highlights from a press release issued by PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), a Washington D.C.-based environmental watchdog group. That press release, dated December 28, 2006, was headlined:
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY
Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology
The first sentence of the release reads:
Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees.
Unfortunately, in our eagerness to find additional examples of the inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life (as if we actually needed more), we accepted this claim by PEER without calling the National Park Service (NPS) or the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) to check it. As a testimony to the quality of our readers, however, dozens immediately phoned both NPS and GCNP, only to discover that the claim is absolutely false. Callers were told that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, that no one is being pressured from Bush administration appointees — or by anyone else — to withhold scientific information, and all were referred to a statement by David Barna, Chief of Public Affairs, National Park Service as to the park’s official position. “Therefore, our interpretive talks, way-side exhibits, visitor center films, etc. use the following explanation for the age of the geologic features at Grand Canyon,” the document explains.
If asked the age of the Grand Canyon, our rangers use the following answer: ‘The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old. The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet.’
Understandably, many of our readers were outraged by both the duplicity of the claim and our failure to fact check it. One park ranger wrote us:
You’re a day late and a dollar short on this one. As a national park ranger, I found most of PEER’s findings to be bogus. So have others: http://parkrangerx.blogspot.com
- KimmoA, on 10/12/2007, -25/+32Religious people are all retards. Where's the news?
- Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9I do not understand why the above comment is being dugg down... :p (prepares to never be an elected official anywhere in the U.S. from this point on)
- Trister0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@Derrekito
He is being dugg down because of a broad generalization.
Lets rephrase.
All Muslims are Terrorists. Wheres the news?
See the problem now? - patik, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6@Trister0
That's not an analogous statement. Muslims aren't terrorists by definition, but people who believe in and follow organized religion are mentally unwell. - Dpack1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I believe what you meant to say is:
"All Terrorists are Muslims"
much in the same way that all religious folk are retards. However this does not mean that all retards are religious and all muslims are terrorists. - dig412, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Dpack1
Ever heard of the IRA? - chapina, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Religious people are all retards. Where's the news? "
You see, it's comments such as these that break down the possibilities of progress in the first place. Constant ridicule on either side only fuels each opposer to find other reasons why each must prove themselves right. It is these similar thoughts that opposing sides have that lead to a lack of well thought out ideas and ultimately end up with ridiculous and childish comments that do not help the problem, only add to it.
- taxonimous, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6yet another way the bush admin can make people dumber, now it is "go see a wonder of the world and lose IQ points, no alcohol necessary". I wonder how many kids failed their science papers after field trips "but miss, they said the grand canyon was only a few thousand years old, honest!" "thats now detention for you for a year for lying to your teacher! go see the headmaster at once"
- Zreitan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11***** Nuts....People should be outraged and the complete lack of thought and zealotry here...
- zephc, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13yay we're ruled by *****
- lpmusix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2yes, the one's you elected.
- ktklown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Clearly this isn't the whole story -- if you go to the Grand Canyon's official web site run by the National Park Service (http://www.nps.gov/grca/faqs.htm#old ) you find this in the FAQ:
How old is the Canyon?
That's a tricky question. Although rocks exposed in the walls of the canyon are geologically quite old, the Canyon itself is a fairly young feature. The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million years old. The Canyon itself - an erosional feature - has formed only in the past five or six million years. Geologically speaking, Grand Canyon is very young. (top of page)
Are the oldest rocks in the world exposed at Grand Canyon?
No. Although the oldest rocks at Grand Canyon (2000 million years old) are fairly old by any standard, the oldest rocks in the world are closer to 4000 million years old. The oldest exposed rocks in North America, which are among the oldest rocks in the world, are in northern Canada. (top of page)- Imus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+142000 million? 4000 million?
Say it with me... billion. - Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2EXACTLY not ThOuSands! wtf?
- Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5dam your right, i was reading it as two hundred million
wtf is that?
two thousand million?
whats wrong with two billion? easier, follows the classic metric style notation
oh wait, thats right, you havent caught up to the rest of the world - pereira, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Well, if they said 2 or 4 billions, it would be confusing to European (except UK) readers. Because here 1000 millions (10^9) is different from one billion (10^12).
Explanation here, for those interested: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52579.html - buckrice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7FWIW: the old British meaning of "billion" is 10^12, not the more common 10^9 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion ), so some people use thousand-million for clarification.
Whichever word you use, one thing that's certain is the christian fundamentalist "estimation" (guess?) still misses the mark by six orders of magnitude.
Edit: beat to the punch by pereira - mugenkeiji, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Imus:
In scientific or technical writing it is common to state 10^9 as 'thousand million' to avoid the ambiguity introduced when America decided to, what the hell, change 'billion' from 10^12 to 10^9. It is good style to do so.
Murdats:
You idiot. A 'true' billion is 10^12 and in this case the Parks Service has quite correctly stated the figure as 2000 million, and thereby gone out of its way, in deference to the traditional British definition; the very opposite of stubbornly clinging to Imperial measurements. - UncleCrapper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6People, "2000 million years old" has nothing to do with the British versus American interpretation of "billion" and everything to do with appeasing fundamentalist Christians. See how easy it is to just mentally scratch out "million" and end up with "2000 years old"?
Very clever National Park Service. Very clever. - kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ pereira:
I've only ever seen "billion" represented as 1,000,000,000, and I live in the UK. The old definition hasn't been in popular usage in decades. - DutchGuilder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Another interesting question is how long did it take to create the Grand Canyon? The answer may be as short as one day. A new theory says that at the end of the last ice age North America was under thousands of feet of ice; when the ice melted it formed a lake in the middle of the ice thousands of feet deep; when the ice at the edges broke/melted a sudden flood of water thousands of feet deep rushed towards the oceans carving the GC along the way.
- Imus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+142000 million? 4000 million?
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I think this is a Bush Administration tactic. There has been so much scandal over the last 6 years that people are desensitized to it. So by the time it comes out that he commits crimes while in office, swears that what he does isn't criminal, then quickly changes the laws to make it legal, nobody cares anymore. It's so close to 2008 that most people are just waiting to vote the next not-Bush into office.
- burningbush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13It's not going to be enough to just vote in the next not-bush. We need this government overthrown. Big business is running the show now. We need to overthrow them too. What the hell am I even saying? Complete chaos around the globe is going to break out unless the right people gain control of America.
If we let another puppet land in office, we are up **** creek! - jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -1/+220 years from now we can have our kids look back at us and laugh with envy that we elected a puppet monkey into the white house and all we got was one lousy tv season out of it.
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/thats_my_bush/index.jhtml - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The other thing is that it's all so outrageous, reasonable people might be forgiven for believing every other scandal is a liberal exaggeration.
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@mutatron
The very fact that you use the word liberal as a pejorative leads me to believe that you are anything but a reasonable person.
- burningbush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13It's not going to be enough to just vote in the next not-bush. We need this government overthrown. Big business is running the show now. We need to overthrow them too. What the hell am I even saying? Complete chaos around the globe is going to break out unless the right people gain control of America.
- Imus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1I feel the same way about this as I do about school districts that won't allow the mention of "Christmas" in schools. I think it's BS. But nowhere in the article did I see that policy in informing the public about the age of the Grand Canyon had changed, only that they still sell this book. This article is misleading. Overall, why not let fools believe what they want and let the truth win in the marketplace of ideas.
- jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13" Overall, why not let fools believe what they want and let the truth win in the marketplace of ideas."
Fools vote. The truth doesn't stand a chance. - Imus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If 51% of fools would vote to make creationism law then we're screwed anyway. God help us.
- jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13" Overall, why not let fools believe what they want and let the truth win in the marketplace of ideas."
- tep200377, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4This is *****' scary. How long would it take before jihad starts in the usa with the creationists, christians and the atheists ?
- Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5From what I understand there is a born again Christian "army" being built out of the younger generations out of love. I do recall images of young children crying out of "happiness" along with supporting statements of what I just said. Sure it may be manipulated to a point but still, if you ask me it is nothing more than MASS hysteria!
- UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They could be used in the same way "jihad" has been turned in to something negative. From what I understand "jihad" could be used in reference for studying hard in school or something equally as innocent.
- johnpaul191, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@UGM
i think you're right.... my understanding, from a person that studies the middle east, is that it is wrongly translated as only war and is more accurately "a holy effort". like what you said. to somebody that devout to their religion saying they are making "a holy effort" at anything implies they go the extra mile or something like that. i was told it's one of those expressions who's meaning just doesn't really translate into english. obviously the war/violence one would be a meaning that the western world would notice a lot more than some guy REALLY studying hard for a test.
- macirish, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10This is nonsense. Someone is playing on people's desire to believe any bizarre accusation about the Bush administration.
Check this: http://www.nps.gov/grca/faqs.htm#old
Looks to me like the "official" position of the NPS is an age of "5 to 6 million years".- freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11The controversy is centered around the fact that the National Parks Service is not permitted to give an official estimate of the age of the Grand Canyon, and the book that was approved for sale by the National Park Service that has, amongst other things, passages like this one:
"For years, as a Colorado River guide I told people how the Grand Canyon was formed over the evolutionary time scale of millions of years. Then I met the Lord. Now, I have a different view of the Canyon, which according to a biblical time scale, can't possibly be more than a few thousand years old."
That was taken directly from the pamphlet that is still on sale today, that has been endorsed by a wing of our Federal Government, that contains scientifically proven inaccuracies. If a church organization wants to delude its congregation about such facts (and they seem to want to), then that's their business, but when our Parks Service endorses a religious viewpoint that can have no validity except by holding blind faith above facts, then there is a problem. - bizchris, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0"That was taken directly from the pamphlet that is still on sale today"
Got a reference for that, cowboy? - freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You could try reading the article.
I'll even give you a hint. It's in the first (1st) paragraph. - freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And on a related note, digg should close off comments to people until they've at least clicked on the actual submission. It would dramatically increase the quality of the posts.
There's not much that they can really do about reading comprehension unfortunately.
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11The controversy is centered around the fact that the National Parks Service is not permitted to give an official estimate of the age of the Grand Canyon, and the book that was approved for sale by the National Park Service that has, amongst other things, passages like this one:
- ianhobbies, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2ANOTHER GOVERNMENT IDEA JUST TO DIVERT OUR MINDS FROM THE UPCOMING HUSSEIN EXECUTION
- Imus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Why would they try to divert our attention? They've paid a half a trillion to hang him.
- Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2and why are we hanging him again?
couldnt we just let him free and put a more deserving man in his place
say the globally damaging bush not the nationally damaging suddam
- sloof70, on 10/12/2007, -38/+9What's with this war on Christianity? What did we ever do? I'd like to see a Digg where not every topic is "hey, let's rip on the newest most popular Christian leader". I understand your concerns with W, but do you have to attack his religion?
By the way, why does everyone separate God from science. There are two theories: one that a slow process of randomization created our universe, and the other that a divine Creator swept in and did it quickly. If God did create the universe, what's not scientific about that? He did have to make a universe that could adapt and evolve.
You can doubt the belief of intelligent design, but there's no reason to bash it every chance you get.- vhold, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Erm. I'm against the constant Christian bashing too, but people hate intelligent design so much precisely because it isn't scientific in any way shape or form yet it's presented as some kind scientific alternative. It's just a philosophical theory. If you can't test it, it's not scientific. You said it yourself, it's a belief.
I think that where intelligent design comes from is legitimate only in these sense of the notion of tit-for-tat. The way I was taught evolution in school seemed very political to me, as though it were constantly and purposefully being pitted against the bible. The focus wasn't on the verifiable processes themselves, but rather on the presumed effects of the processes. - Dregga, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17"What's with this war on Christianity? What did we ever do? I'd like to see a Digg where not every topic is "hey, let's rip on the newest most popular Christian leader"."
I'd really like to see some evidence that Christians are being attacked by virtue of their Christianity and not because of their latest regressive acts which they are attempting to inflict upon the rest of the country.
And you should probably know - places like Digg allow people to vent about things that they can't normally express when they aren't anonymous. Christians complain about their faith being oppressed but they themselves are some of the biggest perpetuators of prejudice and self-righteousness towards their fellow countrymen. So it should come as no surprise when lots of people on Digg criticize Christianity when doing so in the real world would get them treated like a second-class citizen. - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13You cannot study God, you can only study what people say about God. Intelligent design is absolutely irrelevant to science. You can say "Well god created the evolutionary process". A scientist would say "So?".
- professorchaos1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"If God did create the universe, what's not scientific about that? He did have to make a universe that could adapt and evolve."
It's not scientific because it cannot be proven by rigorous scientific inquiry.
I have an open mind for ID, but you simply CANNOT pass it off as science. In fact doing so is dangerous because you are basically saying "Don't bother investigating, God did it". Where would scientific progress be with that kind of attitude? - Koros8, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2@dregga "I'd really like to see some evidence that Christians are being attacked by virtue of their Christianity and not because of their latest regressive acts which they are attempting to inflict upon the rest of the country."
www.digg.com - AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@sloof70
"There are two theories: one that a slow process of randomization created our universe, and the other that a divine Creator swept in and did it quickly."
Bzzzzzz. Sorry, the correct answer was "Evolution is a scientific theory, while intelligent design, by its nature of non-falsifiability, cannot qualify as a theory in the scientific sense of the word." But don't feel too bad, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.
"You can doubt the belief of intelligent design, but there's no reason to bash it every chance you get."
The phrase "intelligent design" is a recent creation with the sole purpose of masquerading creationism as actual science. It's an affront to science, as it willfully misuses the term "theory", and it's an affront to religion, as it insinuates that creationism would somehow be "better" if it were scientific enough. Based on that, I'll bash intelligent design every chance I get, thankyouverymuch. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24@stoof: Imagine having a drunk guy going around in a bar, randomly punching people in the face. Then, when he gets beat up by the people he's punched, he complains "why is everybody always picking on me?".
That aggressive drunk is the US evangelical movement.
Prayer in school, opposition to evolution, opposition to cosmology, dissolution of the separation of state and church, the bogus "war on christmas", godhatesfags, opposition to abortion, opposition to stem cell research, the ongoing attempt at gaining control of the US army, pushing creationism, discrimination against atheists and agnostics, opposition to gay marriage, opposition even to the _existence_ of gays, opposition to contraception, opposition to environmental protection.... the list of issues in which the evangelicals take entirely bible-based positions and ***** all over the views of non-evangelicals is seemingly endless.
Then, when the evangelical movement gets beat up over the utter baselessness of their positions or the hypocrisy of its leaders, it complains about "anti-christian persecution". - avasol, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5I'm a Christian in the sense that I believe in treating people good, but don't you ***** dare put me in with the "other" Christians who believe this non-sensical ridiculous non-factual Creationism *****.
The only problem with evolution is that apparently not everything evolves. - 0b501373, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@sloof70
WHAT DID WE EVER DO!!
Do you have any idea how many people have been killed in the name of the bible!!
freakin moron! - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"I'm a Christian in the sense that I believe in treating people good"
That is not a uniqely Christian quality. Do you accept Christ as your lord and saviour? Do you bow to a god in the sky because a 2000 year old book told you to?
Personally I consider no ***** to be my lord, I don't need saving from anything but ignorance and worshipping anything is pointless. - avasol, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@Orientis
To answer your two questions. No, certainly not.
I guess I practice the "do-good" "love-above-conflict" "facts-before-fiction" religion then, because I certainly don't worship anyone or a specific deity.
My ideal human being is Jeffrey "The dude" Lebowski, I guess. ;-) But that's closer to Taoism than Christianity. Heh. - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Well sorry man, but you're not a Christian. Do your country a favour and don't put that down on your next census.
P.S Being a Christian is nothing to be proud of, so don't feel you need to pay lip-service to some false morality. - jangoman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@avasol
"The only problem with evolution is that apparently not everything evolves."
Evolution doesn't claim that EVERYTHING evolves.
Perhaps you actually mean that not all life evolves? If so, can you be a little more specific, perhaps provide an example or some evidence..... just SOMETHING that will indicate that this isn't just another unsubstantiated bash at the theory of evolution. - lpmusix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@ professorchaos1
Just because _you_ don't know how to doesn't mean it's _not_ possible. - Refrag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Avasol apparently aligns with the Jefferson Bible more than the Holy Bible.
Avasol, labeling yourself as a Christian is a disservice to you and others like you.
- vhold, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Erm. I'm against the constant Christian bashing too, but people hate intelligent design so much precisely because it isn't scientific in any way shape or form yet it's presented as some kind scientific alternative. It's just a philosophical theory. If you can't test it, it's not scientific. You said it yourself, it's a belief.
- karnautrahl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Check out the video on mind control cults. It's excellent, not aimed at a one single group, but probably applies to nearly all me thinks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnNSe5XYp6E
It might be nice to have faith indoctrinated into ones mind, and linked to things that make you feel good about it. Like a comfort blanket I suppose. I just have this weakness for my faith to be based on the best evidence and facts available. It is immensely dangerous to allow religion-fundementalist religion especially-to have influence and power in law. Bad idea. Even if a religion originally is reasonable and non intrusive, the precedent is set and later extremist style religions can push themselves in the back door. Too many people sincerely (or otherwise) believe they have rights to dictate what happens in my bedroom, in my life, and other places. As far as I'm concerned only a secular, non religious law that all agree on (ok, ideally) should have any input, and only as far as harm to others is concerned.
It's not an arguement, Creationism, it's just a bunch of beliefs backed up by clever rhetoric, hot air and too much emotion without reason. It's time religion grew up and out of this.
Yes, I'm into researching mind control, hypnotherapy and the like. It's plain as the nose on my face what cults, and now governments do. Without the need for complex conspiracy theories.- orientis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You're absolutely correct.
- rtini, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8I'm so very proud of my President, he's not a ***** idiot at all.
- thebruins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I thought the article would link to www.theonion.com ! this is hilarious
- HDPMS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Surely if Dubya's approval rating is around 17%, then why not ensure only 17% of public appointees are appointable by him. Don't these people go to College? Roll on a presidential election.....
- webmonk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes. Bob Jones University.
- MikesOK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1HA! Sure it wasn't Jim Jones' University? Oh I forgot they're all DEAD.
- Somniis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Buried as inaccurate because the Bush Administration is inaccurate.
- Satanael, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10This just in.
During the Bush Administration's recent study of the moon through scientific observation, they have concluded that the Moon is, in fact, made of cheese. - SpoBo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2And Bush was appointed by the devil himself. Sure. Let's all go hunt the big bad wolf and make sure he can't make any more weapons of mass destruction.
- Nameless1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7America should be renamed to Jesusland.
- marnaq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2United States of Jesusland. I'm working on a constitution right now. Prepare for a civil war everyone.
- treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm not surprised. The Evangelical Christians which make up about 25% of the US population all praise and support Bush (see the 'Jesus Camp' documentary)... and they happen to believe in creationism. So either Bush truly believes the world is only a couple thousand years old or he is pretending to believe it so as to please his largest collection of votes... either way it's pretty scary that someone with so much power has that kind of view.
- darnit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think you are over thinking his ability for thinking. I don’t think this is some grand strategy or master plan, rather it's simply another ignorant out of touch "gut feeling" decision made by himself or one of his equally out of touch appointees.
- Kopperstein, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I am surprised that the bush administration didnt say that it was created by WMD's (Weapons of mass destruction)...
I am actually embarrased living in America now. - Buluen, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0Isn't a flood a geological force? Or do they mean like plates pushing against each other? Either way flood or no flood , I think its impossible to lay the grand canyon on one certain event in history it could be a combination of many different natural forces.
- DocDEB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Two years from now can't come soon enough.
- teeemoy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14god i thought americans were just lacking in IQ...
now when bush is put in power, and something like this comes out, now i think you're just all mentally retarded...
god bless the rest of the world...
how the ***** did your country become a super power anyway?!- logic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I dugg you up, and I'm American.
- Philonius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6And I did, too, and I am also an American.
Well, back to my dinner of squirrel, and watching some wrestling. - logic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Haha - Let me guess, you ran over the squirrel with your F-150?
- surfbrands, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1Listen .... go to Answers in Genesis for the inside angle on the story - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp
Forgeting whatever political preferences ... I gather that most digg people who have commented here are biased against Christians?- Dregga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Maybe it is you who is biased against non-Christians?
- orientis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8No no no! Not Christians! Just the stupid ***** that you believe that is quite easily demonstrated to be false by millennia of observation and experimentation! It's not about YOU it's about the lies you believe! It's not about YOU it's about the very foundation of your shaky personality!
Silly! - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14We're not anti-christians.
We're pro-science.
However, while it's perfectly possible to be pro-science and a christian, it is impossible to be both pro-science and a *literalist* christian, and most evangelicals are. - Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I am biased against all religion, because I have read about them with great interest and decided that I am, indeed, not at all interested in them. Religion, to me, is self delusion and serves no other purpose than to make others do what you want them to by exploiting a belief you created. Simple as that.
There is nothing scientific about creationism, as has been proven (scientifically, mind you) in several comments above on this page. - nukewinter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm equally biased against all organized religion, as it does nothing but breed intolerance. It just happens that Christianity is my countries organized religion and they scarcely resemble a religion anymore, more like a big business with political influence.
- pgoowy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Just to point out that there are plenty of Christians who don't support Bush and can see through his political agenda.
- Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Good for you!
I don't have a problem with religion as long as religion doesn't have a problem with me. This fundamentalist, jihad-like, creationist bullcrap has gone way overboard.
Faith as a way of life is ok, faith as a way to subdue the masses and control them with nearly infinite power is not ok. - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Faith as a way of life is ok, faith as a way to subdue the masses and control them with nearly infinite power is not ok."
Two sides of the same coin. Faith is bad. Faith means believing something despite a lack of, or in some cases a wealth of, evidence. There is nothing inherently respectable about faith. "Faith as a way of life". "Deliberate ignorance as a way of life". Same thing.
- Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Good for you!
- surfbrands, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1no definately not - I am a Christian myself
- DenDen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5El Em F****ING Ay Oh! This is the best one of the week! And there's a big difference between Christians and Creationists. Creationists are loons.
- logic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6So the difference is..... what?
- Mc_Carter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The bible is a book of stories nothing more nothing less even if it were true the damn thing has been translated from so many different languages starting with Aramaic who can know whats fact of fiction.
- treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The biggest selling piece of FICTION in the history of mankind. It may have a few pieces of information about the time which historians would find useful... but otherwise the majority of it is pure fiction and the story of 'Christ' etc has been found in many stories of previous religions.
- theshelf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Mc_Carter
Actually, no... The Bible was not written in Aramaic. The Old Testament was written completely in Hebrew and the New Testament was written completely in Greek. All the translations that we have were translated directly from the originals. Also, as far as accuracy goes... We currently have well over 5000 manuscripts of the New Testament written in the original Greek, the earliest of which dates approximately 20-25 years after the original was written. On top of that, there are over 9000 manuscripts of the New Testament translated into other languages early in history. Compare this with something like Homer's Iliad which we have only 500-600 copies of, the earliest of which dates over 100 years after the original was written. How is it that everyone says the Bible is inaccurate, yet no one ever questions the accuracy of any other ancient books? Also, 20-25 years is hardly enough time for something as eventful as the life of Christ to become a myth or legend. That would be like me saying the Vietnam war or the Holocaust were mere legends. That's just bogus. Also, keep in mind that the authors who wrote the Bible had every reason *not* to write it. They risked their lives to tell what they witnessed, and the vast majority of them were martyred as a result. I think it's safe to say that none of the authors were making things up just to "control the masses."
One last thing. There are 10 recorded non-Christian historic accounts that mention Jesus. If you count all the Christian accounts, I think it comes out to 46-47 different authors who testify that Jesus was at least real. Compare this with only 9 historical documents that even mention Tiberius, the ruler of the time. I find it amazing that a Jewish man got far more mention than the king of a nation.
@treelovinhippie
Could you please name one religion that has a story similar to Christ? I've never heard of any, and I'm just curious. Judaism doesn't count because it is the precursor to Christianity. - Mandals, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9
@theshelf
You may find it interesting to learn that much of the Christ mythos appears to have been lifted wholesale from earlier pagan religions. For example, here's a list of similarities which I dug up on Jesus and his Persian precursor Mithras:
Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).
(2)
He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles.
(3)
Mithra was called "the good shepherd,” "the way, the truth and the light,” “redeemer,” “savior,” “Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.
(4)
The International Encyclopedia states: "Mithras seems to have owed his prominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could also redeem the souls of the dead into the better world ... The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine, believed to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part."
(5)
Chambers Encyclopedia says: "The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed -- against all evidence -- as the birthday of Christ. The worship of Mithras early found its way into Rome, and the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox, were famous even among the many Roman festivals. The ceremonies observed in the initiation to these mysteries -- symbolical of the struggle between Ahriman and Ormuzd (the Good and the Evil) -- were of the most extraordinary and to a certain degree even dangerous character. Baptism and the partaking of a mystical liquid, consisting of flour and water, to be drunk with the utterance of sacred formulas, were among the inauguration acts."
(6)
Prof. Franz Cumont, of the University of Ghent, writes as follows concerning the religion of Mithra and the religion of Christ: "The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians', purified themselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the power necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a Lord's supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December.... They both preached a categorical system of ethics, regarded asceticism as meritorious and counted among their principal virtues abstinence and continence, renunciation and self-control. Their conceptions of the world and of the destiny of man were similar. They both admitted the existence of a Heaven inhabited by beatified ones, situated in the upper regions, and of a Hell, peopled by demons, situated in the bowels of the earth. They both placed a flood at the beginning of history; they both assigned as the source of their condition, a primitive revelation; they both, finally, believed in the immortality of the soul, in a last judgment, and in a resurrection of the dead, consequent upon a final conflagration of the universe" (The Mysteries of Mithras, pp. 190, 191).
(7)
Reverend Charles Biggs stated: "The disciples of Mithra formed an organized church, with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas of Mediation, Atonement, and a Savior, who is human and yet divine, and not only the idea, but a doctrine of the future life. They had a Eucharist, and a Baptism, and other curious analogies might be pointed out between their system and the church of Christ (The Christian Platonists, p. 240).
(8)
In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts.
(9)
He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year.
(10)
McClintock and Strong wrote: "In modern times Christian writers have been induced to look favorably upon the assertion that some of our ecclesiastical usages (e.g., the institution of the Christmas festival) originated in the cultus of Mithraism. Some writers who refuse to accept the Christian religion as of supernatural origin, have even gone so far as to institute a close comparison with the founder of Christianity; and Dupuis and others, going even beyond this, have not hesitated to pronounce the Gospel simply a branch of Mithraism" (Art. "Mithra").
(11)
Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day." The Mithra religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."
(12)
The Christian Father Manes, founder of the heretical sect known as Manicheans, believed that Christ and Mithra were one. His teaching, according to Mosheim, was as follows: "Christ is that glorious intelligence which the Persians called Mithras ... His residence is in the sun" (Ecclesiastical History, 3rd century, Part 2, ch. 5).
"I am a star which goes with thee and shines out of the depths." - Mithraic saying
"I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star." - Jesus, (Rev. 22:16)
But wait, there's more!
1. Many early Christians celebrated Jesus' birthday on JAN-6. Armenian Christians still do. In Alexandria, in what is now Egypt, the birthday of their god-man, Aion, was also celebrated on JAN-6.
2. Christians and most Pagans eventually celebrated the birthday of their god-man on DEC-25.
3. According to an ancient Christian tradition, Christ died on MAR-23 and resurrected on MAR-25. These dates agree precisely with the death and resurrection of Attis.
4. Baptism was a principal ritual; it washed away a person's sins. In some rituals, Baptism was performed by sprinkling holy water on the believer; in others, the person was totally immersed.
5. The most important sacrament was a ritual meal of bread and wine which symbolize the god-man's body and blood. His followers were accused of engaging in cannibalism.
6. Early Christians initiated converts in March and April by baptism. Mithraism initiated their new members at this time as well.
7. Early Christians were naked when they were baptized. After immersion, they then put on white clothing and a crown. They carried a candle and walked in a procession to a basilica. Followers of Mithra were also baptized naked, put on white clothing and a crown, and walked in a procession to the temple. However, they carried torches.
8. At Pentecost, the followers of Jesus were recorded as speaking in tongues. At Trophonius and Delos, the Pagan priestesses also spoke in tongues: They appeared to speak in such a way that each person present heard her words in the observer's own language.
bullet An inscription to Mithras reads: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." 1 In John 6:53-54, Jesus is said to have repeated this theme: "...Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (KJV)
bullet The Bible records that Jesus was crucified between two thieves. One went to heaven and the other to hell. In the Mithras mysteries, a common image showed Mithras flanked by two torchbearers, one on either side. One held a torch pointed upwards, the other downwards. This symbolized ascent to heaven or descent to hell.
9. In Attis, a bull was slaughtered while on a perforated platform. The animal's blood flowed down over an initiate who stood in a pit under the platform. The believer was then considered to have been "born again." Poor people could only afford a sheep, and so were literally washed in the blood of the lamb. This practice was interpreted symbolically by Christians.
10. There were many additional points of similarity between Mithraism and Christianity. 2 St. Augustine even declared that the priests of Mithraism worshiped the same God as he did:
11.Followers of both religions celebrated a ritual meal involving bread. It was called a missa in Latin or mass in English.
12. Both the Catholic church and Mithraism had a total of seven sacraments.
13. Epiphany, JAN-6, was originally the festival in which the followers of Mithra celebrated the visit of the Magi to their newborn god-man. The Christian Church took it over in the 9th century. - theshelf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ Mandals
Wow, thanks for the information. I'm not used to people actually knowing anything about ancient history. I'm definitely going to look into Mithra some more. Can you do me a favor though? Could you tell me where you heard that early Christians were typically baptized in March and April and that they wore a crown afterward? I've never heard anything about that, and I'm very skeptical of it at this point. If it was just one sect, th