"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. "It is
disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the
geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.'"
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.
source
bloc posted on Dec 30, 2006
| views: 988
Comments
-
NobodySpecial said on Dec 30, 2006....
Isn't usually people on Bush's side that speak out against PC? Next they won't be able to teach any science in school because you can link so much of it to the evolution theories and other things they don't want you to know. -
bloc said on Dec 30, 2006....
"Isn't usually people on Bush's side that speak out against PC?"
Yes, that's why I chose this title :)
-
Ormocanon said on Dec 30, 2006....
bloc, I was wondering, what happens if one does not conform to "politically correct" norms?
-
bloc said on Dec 30, 2006....
It probably depends on the context. You'll probably have a very bad day if you go into a minority neighborhood and shout racial insults at the top of your lungs. -
GrapeKoolaid said on Dec 30, 2006....
Good stuff bloc.
Way to force some mystery back into our lives.
-
paidinblood said on Dec 30, 2006....
What the hell is so politically incorrect with geology? -
NobodySpecial said on Dec 30, 2006....
It ages to Earth to be older than the Bible. -
kelly said on Dec 30, 2006....
Bizarre. You know, Islam was once the seat of scientific and mathematical progress. I don't what happened there, but it probably began somewhat like this.This is so absurd as to simply be very, very hard to believe. -
silverwhisper said on Jan 01, 2007....
i believe it's all a function of religious fundamentalism. and i'm coming to feel that religious fundamentalism--of any stripe--is itself intrinsically dangerous.
ed -
sturd475 said on Jan 01, 2007....
Geological theory is just that, it can't be proven! -
NobodySpecial said on Jan 01, 2007....
Sturd475- a theory is something that can be proven. It is a hypothesis that is something that either can't or hasn't yet been proven. -
bloc said on Jan 01, 2007....
a scientific theory is something that has supporting evidence. I.e. the theory of gravity. Many tests have shown the theory of gravity to be accurate, but it isn't 100% proven. Nothing is really 100% proven except abstract math.
Therefore,
There is a lot of evidence supporting the claim that the grand canyon is millions of years old.
There is not any scientific evidence that it is from the biblical flood.
-
silverwhisper said on Jan 01, 2007....
theory has a very specific meaning in science that is considerably more substantial than is connoted in the more casual use. it does not mean airy conjecture in science the way sturd wants it to mean.
ed -
BlueHotRage said on Jan 04, 2007....
As bloc already stated, the biblical flood explanation is technically not a theory, because there is no scientifically-documented evidence of it. It seems like more of an "explanation" to me--in that it's what religious conservatives tell themselves to justify their belief in Creation or so-called "Intelligent Design." This is not to say that practicing any of the three Ibrahmic [sic?] religions is wrong or bad--it's just not scientifically viable. Religion and science tend to contradict each other on a regular basis--and there's little evidence that any god exists and it's incredibly difficult to debate issues of faith.Now, I've heard from some of the more vocal fundamentalists that it's "entirely possible" that a flood could have eroded the Canyon into what it is, provided the water were going fast enough. And that possibility is what they want so desperately to cling to, because it validates their belief that god created everything in 6 days (or whatever the hell "6 days" is supposed to translate to--I don't know anymore and I honestly don't really care).However, while it would be possible for enough water going fast enough to erode a hole into the ground (just like enough water going in a fast and narrow enough stream can cut diamonds), that possibility does not account for the fact that the Grand Canyon has age-lines. And I don't mean a few age-lines--I mean more age-lines than you can find in the oldest tree in the California redwoods; more age-lines than you can count on your fingers, toes and teeth; more age-lines than can be found on Pat Robertson's entire prune-textured body. And yes, I gave you that disgusting image for a reason.If water were to have quickly eroded the Canyon into existence, it wouldn't have so many age-lines. And yet it does--and nobody has complained before because those age-lines are what have given the place its pretty colors. Because, hey, if it didn't have such pretty colors, tourists wouldn't flock from all over the world to see it, and the Canyon would consequently wind up as just another place for religious fundamentalists to dump their garbage. Can you even imagine it--the "Grand Trash Heap"?Yipes.So if those conservatives don't want to go see something beautiful and ancient because they think it's an affront to their precious religious beliefs, they might as well stay home. It's not like anybody will miss their indignant, unappreciative grousing. Or their hypocritical demands for "political correctness" that they've historically argued against. -
WaffenSS said on Dec 17, 2008....
It seems most are against, the Christian side of things here! God created you and me both, an ape did not. Example to those of you who consider the similarities between man and apes proof of the theory of evolution. My body contains the same materials as stars do, so why am I not creating nuclear reactions? I do believe God gave all life forms the ability to adapt, which some may consider evolution. How can otherwise intelligent people, think that we all came from one atom that exploded during the big bang? For those of you who don’t realize that God made us. Where did that atom come from? Political correctness has gone to far you can't say anything against a minority even if it's true, without being looked down upon. -
bloc said on Dec 19, 2008....
"For those of you who don’t realize that God made us. Where did that atom come from?"
Where did God come from?
"My body contains the same materials as stars do, so why am I not creating nuclear reactions?"
This isn't even remotely the same as the theory of evolution.
"God created you and me both, an ape did not."
No one is claiming that an ape created humans.
-
silverwhisper said on Dec 20, 2008....
bloc, doesn't that commenter's username invoke godwin's law? :D
ed -
bloc said on Dec 20, 2008....
I wasn't sure if that was the intent or not :/ -
BlueHotRage said on Dec 24, 2008....
Hang on... Did my comment from two years ago just recently piss off a neo-nazi? -
silverwhisper said on Dec 27, 2008....
logic & neo-nazis don't really mix, blue. :>
ed -
BlueHotRage said on Dec 28, 2008....
Oh good. In that case, I declare the scoreBlueHot = 1neo-nazis = 0Yay! I win! XD -
GrapeKoolaid said on Dec 28, 2008....
Ed.......no, they don't mix AT ALL....
Happy New Year, btw....and to Bloc too......:-)
Comment on "Political Correctness gone too far"
Related Posts:
pickersplock
posted 3 days ago
| views: 63
|
Every week, I delve into our local city entertainment/op-ed/newspaper.... read entire post
javadewd
posted 5 days ago
| views: 67
|
The only human being on the planet that can eject a huge turd, yet somehow dupe the media into thinking it's a golden egg that smells like roses.... read entire post
ALIENated
posted 6 days ago
| views: 87
|
Sarah Palin would be a disaster for the Republicans,
in my humble opinion.
... read entire post