Science and Society

As of this writing (early Friday afternoon), no one has yet bid on this artifact, and whether that's because of its price or what the money to purchase it would be destined for, I wouldn't presume to guess. But, at least to my mind, this auction has the same ironic tone as if the Smithsonian were auctioning off its priceless collection of antiquities to fund a project to show why museums are worthless to modern society. Is it just me, or is there a great deal of cognitive dissonance here?

His mistake was the "restoration." If the photo accompanying the article is the actual skull, there's no way of of distinguishing the original material from the restorative material. In other words, how much is mastodon, and how much is silly putty?

I was very amused at the first paragraph of Ned's article. Given the anemic response to the previous two articles, he seems to be dredging up another storm of Creationism vs. Evolution. Those two got a real back-and-forth going between the pro-folks and the con-folks.
Withal, it's a shame that a museum has to deal with the litigiousness of our modern society.

That's hilarious: "These fossils don't exist, but I'd be happy to sell them to you."

Since posts get deleted - why bother?

I find this guy stupid. There are millions of fossils around the world that clearly was dated millions of years ago. He can't refute actual science with his 'fony' science. A real scientific museum would have such money without going bankrupt.

Maybe Ned is playing with us! Such a target rich environment!

Seriously, I went to the site and looked around. Seems like one of those old craft stores your Mom dragged you into an wet Sunday afternoons. main thing seems to be sales of reproduction(?) artifacts and fossils. I don't know enough to know whether there is any truth in any of it.

It also appears that restoration has been performed on the skull. Maybe it's been restored in such a way as to support the ID/Creationism people's ideas.

As a way of getting tourists to part with money - fine, in the best traditions of P.T. Barnum; but I see no evidence of serious science about it.

It is amazing how people claim that evolution is scientific fact, however, in all actuallity evolution doesn't contain one credible fossil.

So are they willing to guarantee it is real or what? I mean how do I know it's a real fossil? How old is it?

What a hoot! Maybe their sending the money to Huckabee...

NJ - Do you not believe fossils exist? Or do you not believe that the 100,000+ species of fossils discovered so far, laid out in detailed sequences of morphological change, could possibly lead anyone to think that they might have evolved from each other?

Andy, I don't even know where to begin with how wrong your statement is, so I will leave it at that. As far as this guy goes, I want to visit his website so I can see how ridiculous he really is, but then I will generate traffic that makes money for what I consider to be the epitome of ignorance.

Note from Ned--

In a spirit of good will, I'd like to let some friends I've made on this blog (Hello, guys. Chuck, great to have you back.) know that I really don't go scouring the world for evolution/creation stories. This just happened to come up today--honest!

Dat Guy; I guess you should learn to read; there is nothing wrong with anything I said.

I will add this though; anyone who believes i n creationism or Intelligent design must be a few fries short of a happy meal!

NJ: You're right, there is not one credible fossil. There are probably millions. Creationists comes across as the lowest level of humans (or subhumans). They don't do a shred of investigation. They just believe as they are told. Go out, read, investigate, learn, don't sit there and be spoon fed.

Casey, et al. A discussion does not require insulting people. Such ad hominem attacks are not only immature (and obviously wrong), but they pretty much end any chance of legitimate communication between people. Remember what Thumper said!

I think Dat Guy meant to go after NJ.

I went to the site, what a load of garbage. If you want people to take what you say seriously (even if it's mostly broken math, moronic babbling and lies), you have got to stop dressing like a clown.

Ask him you want scientific proof of it's age and see what he says.

Just another idiot denying modern science. All of modern biology and medicine require validate evolution simply because evolution is essential in the advancement of these disciplines. If you were in the hospital for cancer and the doctor said there are two treatment paths to choose from: creation based medicine or evolution based medicine. Trust me, go for the evolution based treatment.

It is a cool looking skull, though. A bit imposing for my tiny living room. I suppose since the last mammoths didn't die out until something like 8000 years ago (maybe 4000 for a smaller species?), they can claim that as within the Biblical timeline. What they do with their trilobites and dinosaurs I couldn't guess. I suppose if you refuse to believe the scientific evidence for radiometric dating, you can make up any age you want.

Nj is right. I believe in creationism. I think aliens created us. Prove they didn't.

I believe very strongly in God, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and call creationists, by and large, the dumbest people that our country has to offer.

Sorry, godboy, but the bible doesn't hold a candle to the thousands of Ph.D-level thinkers who have analyzed our origins.

I'm the founder of a traveling ministry where we perform fake healings, pretend to speak in tongues and accept generous donations from Christians. So I guess that makes me Joe Taylor's long lost evil twin roflmao !!

I find it silly that there are people posting here that still can't see the facts. I don't care for proving evolution. It's just that these creationism people are outright denying the scientific facts that millions of fossils around the world have been dated to more than 65 million+ years ago. To say all this is false is denial to the facts the real scientific community has established. To play scientist like this to support religion is an outright slap to hard working scientific community around the world.

Hate to get this guy any more traffic than he deserves, but check out the castings he did "Taylor's Path"...a size 25 elongated footprint with a six foot long stride fossilized next to a much larger, rounded footprint. His conclusion: GIANT HUMANS LIVED WITH DINOSAURS!!! Duh...why didn't I think of that.

With material like that, who needs comedy writers!

Creationism is NOT science. It is mythology, and should be taught as such, like Greek and Roman mythology. Creationism is in the same category as the sun being pulled across the sky in Apollo's chariot.

At least he's not destroying the fossil so as to prevent it from being used in a fact-based exhibit. Hopefully, a "science" museum will buy it and use it to convince some child of a born again christian as to the validity of evolution. That would be sweet irony.

I convince even the most hard-core Christians that Evolution is a real phenomenon by uttering only two words: "dog breeding".

And science never needed radio-carbon-dating to debunk the 6,000 year age of the Earth. Just counting the rings of tree specimens dates the Earth back 20,000 years.

mike sonnenfeld
"Nj is right. I believe in creationism. I think aliens created us. Prove they didn't."

Actually, the burden of proof would be on you.

Looking at most of these posts, what is absolutely inescapable is the enormous pride of modern man...

Joe, you're not suggesting that we shouldn't be proud of our science ability, are you? Are you suggesting that we should apologize for our technological advancements? If anything, one could argue that there are uses of the science and technology of which we shouldn't be proud (ie; weapons of mass destruction). Many of these are driven by fear, hate, ignorance, superstition and greed. You know, the things you learn in fundamentalist religion.

Ned, I'm sure you meant well, but here we go again! Actually, it's kind of fun.

The paluxy prints were proven to be partial impressions of dinosaur feet, but some were "cleaned" to look human.
But this argument of dinosaurs coexisting with humans is a bit foolish from both sides. We know a lot about the KT extinction but we can not know everything about it without some kind of time machine. We don't know how large a population of saurians might have to be to survive extinction. Look at how small the Komodo dragon population is. The cryptozoologists may yet find a live dino-like animal but that does not prove a young earth, so the argument is moot.

A museum dedicated to ignorance can't raise enough money, based on its displays and offerings, to stay open? This is actually rather encouraging. It means those who would rather know outnumber those who prefer ignorance by enough of a margin to make such monuments to ignorance economically nonviable. What is even more encouraging is that the skull - 'restored' in such a way as to make it unattractive to other collectors - is being auctioned and has no takers. This is probably because the skull isn't worth the opening bid. From my understanding, mastodon skulls are pretty common.

If these "creationists" selling this thing REALLY think the Earth is only 6,000 years old, that man lived with dinosaurs only a few thousand years ago...and that evolution is a lie...then why does it say on the auction site that this mastodon is "believed to have become extinct about 10,000 years ago"??? Looks like making a buck is more important to these "believers" than spinning their fairy-tale version of Nature.

This one actually put me to sleep. None of the issues brought up were discussed. None of his views were even presented, let alone debated. No facts about mastodons, fossils, creationism...... nothing. It is as if CNN thinks that just mentioning a controversy is enough. Where is the reporting? Where is the analysis? Where is the content other than reformatting something from the wire for the web? This is a C- at best.

Um, CNN? So much for the importance of facts....

It's just a blog, not a news report. Ned finds all sorts of interesting tidbits for us, and we don't expect him to spend all day doing in-depth analyses of them.

Are there any facts about creationism? Seems to me that facts are the one thing that faith does NOT need and creationism does not disappoint on that score.

Creationism is a belief, with no shred of credible evidence for it. Santa Clause is a blief also, so is the Tooth Fairy and so is the monster in the closet. Get me? Childish beliefs should stay in your childhood.

Most preachers make 45-65,000 dollars and have most of there living expenses paid by the church,plus a short work week.
They have a strong interest in selling the Bible.

With respect to Terry's comment above.

I have long wondered why man would need to believe in something supernatural and then need a class of priests or shamans to police that belief. We have always paid them too!

There must be something deep in the psyche that demands this irrational behaviour and abrogation of the thinking ability given to us by.. dare I suggest it; God.

God gave me a brain; I believe that He wants me to use it to discover truth, wherever it may be or wherever it may lead.

It's been a while since I have run across such a large collection of self-important blow-hards who collectively don't posses the ability to convince a man on fire he needs to put out the flame. As I read down the posts I could see you all holding your star trac dolls and heard your mothers yelling in the background to turn down your Styx music. What a pathetic showing in this thread.

HateMonger
I thought Styx was a river.

HateMonger
And Star Trek not Trac.

The comedian Lewis Black does a routine about these museum people that don't believe in evolution and think that people roamed the earth with dinosaurs. He said they are people that think "The Flintstones" is a documentary.

well, he got $191,000 for it. Frankly, I would have to question the restorative work of a creationist on any fossil.

Sory abot the spelimg. I don't hav a box set of startrack handy dvd's. Its lost in mi box of fantisy comik books.rite know I writing for an animay cartoon so I can find truth.

Hatemonger, I am somewhat confused by your seemingly Jekyl and Hyde postings. I am also disappointed in the lack of science funding and agree that the super collider project should have gone forward. However, you ridicule those of us, showing obvious objectivity and basic human kindness, who discuss the overwhelming scientific support for the theory of evolution. I have no need to "convert" you to "my personal scientific dogma", one, by the way, shared by the VAST majority of scientists in the fields of palentology, biology, etc. I did not use "dog breeding" as the defining arguement for evolution; in fact, I did not use it at all. As for bullying children comment, is there a more demonstrative example of that than the farcical, "don't-look-behind-the-curtain" approach of religion with children? The "believe this or burn in hell for eternity" approach? All we ask, and here I am refering to the VAST majority of science educators and scientists in the world, is that you keep fantasy stories out of the science classrooms until you can come up with one shred of credible, testable evidence for creationism/ID. I trust that this response will reach you.

John, you presume, I take it, that I do not agree with the science and reasoning behind evolution and appear to base it solely on my contention that over-reaching personal attacks on religious beliefs supported by weak "bumper sticker" quality jabs are ineffective and counter productive. And in this case inaccurate as well. The ridicule you claim I introduced into this thread is what my post was in response to. A post that I believe you made stating that "the cause of fear, hate, greed, childish superstition" and a few other of humanities problems where exclusively the product of "fundamentalist religion".I was moved to address the galactic scale of arrogance that would motivate such deep and profound ignorance to speak believing it was authoritative, or even objective. That is the same sense of ordained understanding that motivated the cruelty of the inquisitions. I don't think I ever stated I was in disagreement with the science just the presumptive arrogance of the insecure that serves do keep the ignorant in the dark.

Hatemonger, I did not say that the list of bad qualities were the exclusive products of fundamentalist religion. Rather, I believe it contributes to them by the things it teaches. As for arrogance, look in the mirror. I am not insecure in my belief that religion is based on the belief in make believe. I will be objective once someone can produce the evidence for God's existence (any God). Notice, I did not ask for proof, just evidence. I can not be objective when all someone can offer is, "there is a book" or "I don't have proof that God doesn't exist so I will give it the benefit of the doubt". I have no evidence that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, but I doubt you'd line up to believe in it or cut slack to people who profess it does. Our society needs to move past the belief in make believe. We need to move on to the next level of human understanding about our existence. There are complex issues to tackle and having half of our population believe in ID will not aid the work. You obviously believe in the scientific method, by what means do you suggest we proceed to get the creationists to accept science? By ignoring them? That hasn't worked.

John, I believe it is just as undesirable for someone to dismiss as accept without personal and critical filtering. It dosent matter if that is in the form of religious beliefs or beliefs of science, or any position in any topic frankly. From personal experience most people I know believe a great deal of what they believe because they accept without critical evaluation the opinion of the majority. Whether that is the majority by affiliation or an assent of apathy, to me, equally wrong. It has produced some of the most intolerant people.The view some hold when discussing science that because something is considered science and there is a "consensus" that there is no bias and that it is objective. Well "consensus" held that the world was flat, the number of plants was nine, the dust on the lunar surface should be a few feet thick, there was no world-wide flood,the earth was cooling, the ice age wiped out the dinosaur, the periodic table continues to grow, nothing is smaller than atoms, no quarks, no neutrinos, no... In my mind based on my observations truth dosent need a defense just a persuit... and it will prevail. To me I see a kind of equity in thinking between a religious person denying the obviousness of scientific discovery motivated by a fear that their ignorance is more powerful than God and a person who looks to science as Stephen Hawkings is " ...to understand the mind of God".

John, I had to offer this follow-up as I missed it in the last post. You made a point of mentioning several times how your views were majority views held by the "vast" majority. I take that it is fair to say you take some level of comfort in knowing that you are supported in your views. Given that, a vastly superior number believe in a god and have throughout all of human existence, to include some of the greatest scientific minds in history.(I am happy to supply a list if you like) is there some deviation from objectivity that they are all unaware of or is there an inconsistency? How could religious people be scientists of the highest order? How can such objective and reasoned individuals fall victim to childish superstition?

I'm glad people are so involved in this matter. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and I know there are fossils in Texas. Lots of them. I've been to an archeological dig sight and seen and excavated bones. Old bones from the earth.

I also believe in the young earth theory which in my own words dates the earth in thousands of years. Christ was here about 2 thousand years ago, Moses, Abraham and Noah within the past 4 thousand years or so, and Adam not much farther behind that. Every time I hear a geologist or archeologist, or an astronomer date something beyond a millions years, I have to laugh. Was anyone there to see it? Date it, or duplicate the experiment? Henry Morris has some interesting things to say about it; although he wasn't there either.

So anyway, I'd like to see the church, especially here in Hawaii, pull money together to buy the skull and give it back to the museum so they can keep it going. "Your" skepticism makes me wonder about the condition of the skull, pre- and post-restoration, and also wonder if it would be worth raising money to keep the creation museum open. All I know is that I want the truth, which is not a lie, to be told, and I'd pay money to see that museum, so the next time I go to Texas, "Hook 'Em Horns", I'm going to stop by this museum. God willing. Aloha!!! Go New Hope!!!

If I'm not mistaken, (and as an old man, memory can be selective)it seems to me that in the not too distant past a vast majority of the peo;le on the planet not only thought that the world was flat but they would even burn people at the stake for implying that the earth was round. So now we have a new breed of enlightened people deciding that mankind is no more than an accidental abberation of a mixed up gene. Perhaps some of these enlightened people explain why only the line of protoplasm that (evolved) into humans are the only ones with intelligence as we know it.

Southern Farmer
Are you quite certain that we are? Neandertal man had a bigger brain than we do, maybe he was smarter? Brain size really does not matter but it poses the question - are we the only intelligent species on this planet or are we the only ones that can talk to say so?

Quietman
As I said in the last sentence,"(evolved) into humans are the only ones with intelligence as we know it." There is a vast amount of the past that we will never be privy to. You can study bones, rocks, caves, tombs and whatnot and only speculate as to what it really was. in so far as the history of our planet in relation to the religious thoughts, it always amazes me that the vast majority of religions appear to have decended from the same background. Most of them have the basic bible as their key to the past. After the splintering of the factions, then they came up with a lot of the different beliefs. Seems as though I remember somewhere in the Bible, (can't recall where) it says something to the effect that a day is but blink of the eye. following that thought, a day in the beginning of time could have been millions of years. Personally, I can't look a some of the creatures that inhabit the earth and draw the conclusion that this was just a matter of stray evolution.

Southern Farmer
I can easily understand that. I have trouble remembering things that I read 40 or 50 years ago too. I still remember as a young teen asking a priest about dinosaurs and evolution. He simply told me that god works in mysterious ways. I have no problem with that.

Southern Farmer
My problems with organized religion started whan I was told by a college professor that animals don't have souls, only people do. The class was not a theology class but a class on statistics and I felt that he was attacking my personal beliefs. I have felt very strongly about mixing faith and science ever since. :)

Quietman,
when you talk about College Professors, I automatically think about all of the far left wing, liberal, atheists that seem to think that they are the only ones that have a grasp on the so called facts of education. Quite frankly, even though theroughly educated, they don't have enough common sense to pour the perverbial p*** out of a boot. As far as the hereafter goes, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever made a round trip and stayed there long enough to know what is there and what is not.

As far as the question of a day and it's duration relative to the ID view there are several biblical references that support their 24 hour interpretation. The first was that the creation of light was first and defined a "day" in that it is stated after the light was created," was the end of the first day". Each subsequent verse of creation in each of the remaining days end the same way, something to the effect " and so was the end of the second(,third..).day" another reference was from a prophet in another old testament book who citing the 24 hour solar day in the context of a current event said something to the affect "a day in time like the days of creation" suggestion both "days" were a 24 hour solar day.

HateMonger
That would all fit in nicely if the fact that we do not have a 24 hour day and the logic behind the fact was not true. The planet is slowing down very slowly. At one time a day was much shorter but before the formation of the moon it may well have been longer.