Last year, I took my kids to see Onondaga Cave located in Leasburg, Missouri. The state of Missouri runs this site. The park rangers present visitors with detailed descriptions regarding the geology of the cave. These descriptions often include time frames that run in the hundreds of millions of years. Here’s a sample, from the Onondaga Cave website:
About a billion years ago, the Ozarks were a hotbed of volcanic activity centered about 45 miles to the southeast, in Iron and Reynolds counties. The igneous remains of this activity formed the surface of granites, rhyolites, felsites and basalts that are exposed there. These rocks are the basement layer here, about 1,000 to 1,500 feet below the cave. This basement layer is not flat but tilted. About 600 million years ago, this volcanic activity calmed and the region cooled, condensing great amounts of water vapor, which formed shallow (about 200 foot deep) seas. These seas were the birthplace of the Eminence and Gasconade formations of dolomite, chert, sandstone and shale in which Onondaga Cave is formed. It is believed that the Ozarks were uplifted above sea level (or the seas retreated, take your pick) four times before they fell for the last time about 280 million years ago. One final major uplift (of dry land) took place 50 million to 7 million years ago.
For those who enjoy exploring large case, Onondaga is a terrific place to visit. It is a place to see a spectacular natural wonder and to learn a lot in the process.
Missouri has a second enormous cave, Meramec Caverns. As you can see from the Meramec Caverns website, the private owners of this second cave are absolutely unwilling to say anything about geology. This cave is marketed as a place where Jesse James and his gang hid some of their loot. It is also a place to buy fudge and ice cream, according to much of the advertising. The website also promotes Meramec Caverns as a place to attend church services. Meramec Caverns is marketed through the use of almost 50 billboards located between St. Louis and Stanton Missouri (site of the cave), a distance of less than 80 miles. None of these billboards mentions anything about the geology of the cave.
As it turns out, Meramec Caverns is an incredible cave, well worth exploring. Nowhere during the tour, however, did our tour guide mentione anything about the age of the cave or the dates on which important geological events occurred. At the end of our one-hour tour I approached the tour guide and asked her about the age of the cave. She hesitantly responded that the cave was formed in “prehistoric” times. I told her that “prehistoric” included a wide range of time. “What more can you tell me about the age of this cave?”
The woman sheepishly admitted to me that she doesn’t usually mention the age of the cave because many of the visitors on these tours have become perturbed with her. Some of these visitors heckle her in front of the other visitors.
I asked her if these hecklers were people who believed that the Bible was literally true, and she stated yes. She said that when she has stated the true age of the cave (portions of the cave are 70 million years old), Bible thumpers call out things like “That’s not true!” or “If only!” They sometimes call out passages from the Bible. It can all get quite unpleasant, according to our tour guide. Her solution is simply not to mention the age of the cave during most tours. She has discussed this issue with the other tour guides and this is how they handle their tours too.
Meramec Caverns thinks it knows his audience well, and throws them lots of red meat. We noticed this strategy during our tour of a large room the owners named the “Theater” of the cave. You can see a multicolor lit photo of one portion of this room here. It was toward the end of the hour-long tour that our tour guide of Meramec Caverns played two patriotic songs while she used a small console to flicker colored lights onto the cave wall. Before the beginning of the second song, the tour guide announced that the second song would be dedicated to the brave soldiers who are fighting in Iraq. She then hit a button to play Kate Smith singing “God bless America.” She flickered red white and blue lights onto the stalactites and stalagmites. As Kate crescendoed toward the end of the song, our tour guide hit yet another button to project a large American flag on the cave wall.
What a shame, I thought. There was no need for such a carnival atmosphere. Meramec Caverns is a naturally incredible cave. I also wondered, “What do the features of Meramec Caverns have to do with Iraq, K. Smith, God or the American flag?” For the owners of Meramec Caverns, the answer was obvious.
My recent vacation with my family took us to several other Missouri state parks. At the state parks (unlike Meramec Caverns, which is privately owned) the ages of the geological features were candidly disclosed. For instance, at a delightful park entitled “Elephant Rocks,” we learned that the huge granite boulders were originally formed 1.5 billion years ago. At a small but significant State Park, Mastodon State Historic Site, the employees told us of mastodon bones that were tens of thousands of years old, much older than 6,000 years, the date during which many creationists argue that God created the earth. The woman who worked at Mastodon State Historic Site told us that she is commonly confronted by creationists who insists that the geologists’ dates are wrong. They sometimes confront her, demanding that she discuss her own religious beliefs with them.
I went away from Mastodon State Historic Site having learned an incredible story based upon real facts. I learned that huge elephant-like creatures and giant sloths roamed Missouri a mere 10,000 years ago. I learned that the Clovis people hunted these extraordinary creatures, at least for a brief time. To take this incredible story to heart, all one needs to do is follow the evidence where it leads. No Kate Smith necessary. No need to support the troops. No flashing lights needed to drive the story home.
I grew up in Missouri and my folks took me to many of the natural attractions that you discussed (that's probably what led me to a career in geology). Even as a child I felt uncomfortable with the clownish presentations of the cave features at Meramec Caverns, and that was almost 40 years ago, so this stuff's been going on for quite some time. Missouri's an interesting blend of some of the nation's most fascinating geology and some of the nation's most backward thinking. My friends and I used to call it "the buckle of the Bible Belt." I'd had enough of it by age 17, so I packed up and left for college in another, more enlightened, state.
Near the theatrical, profitable, privately-owned and well-hyped Meramec Caverns you can find Fisher Cave. This is a state-run hole in a cliff gated with an iron grill and guarded and guided by a ranger. The cave is every bit as geologically impressive as Meramec Caverns, but you sign a waiver, carry your own light, and get a tour by a trained park ranger (geology, biology, history, etc). It is open seasonally, to protect the bats. Admission has 4 rates by age, from free to $6, and there is no gift shop.
Missouri has the nickname of the "Cave State" and there are thousands of caves statewide. I had been fortunate enough in my youth to have some very advanced amateur spelunkers as friends who took me all over the state to climb/rope/"fall" down into many caves.
Nearly all of the really fantastic formations are many millions of years old, wonders of God's creative powers.
I am much more willing for the planet to be allotted to individuals than to be entrusted to the state to enrich itself and practice it's Orwellian orthodoxy.
The world is an open forum. If any man has a viewpoint, he should be free to express it and to discuss it with others. Unfortunately, when men disagree, occasionally because they will not hear what the other is saying, they tend to point out how "ignernt", hypocritical or unprincipled the other is, which sometimes leads to lawlessness {1John 3:4}. It is the lack of love and respect for one another that keeps us divided.
I have actually heard a creationist claim that fossils were "planted" by Satan to discredit the existance of God. The number of logical fallacies with that type or reasoning are too numerous to mention.
Larry: In this case, the "Orwellian orthodoxy" is backed up by robust scientific techniques showing that the cave is millions of years old. I fail to see how "lack of love" has anything to do with accurately determining the age of a cave.
Larry writes: "The world is an open forum. If any man has a viewpoint, he should be free to express it and to discuss it with others."
While everyone has a viewpoint, Larry, not all viewpoints are equal. Some — the ones we call "scientific" — are supported by data and logical reasoning; others — the ones we call "religious doctrine" — are not. This difference should not necessarily be a obstacle for religious believers, unless they seek to elevate their dogmatism to an equal footing with science.
The facts about the religion vs. science battle have been discussed before, and there is little to be added. The real question is, "How does one battle an opponent who fights so dirty?"
Logical arguments are presented according to fairly rigid rules. Logical arguers thrust and parry with facts, acknowledge victories humbly, concede defeats graciously, and sometimes even agree to disagree until further study can be undertaken. At least, that's the way it's supposed to work.
Empassioned arguments are forceably asserted. Passionate arguers comandeer victory, use the threat of defeat as motivation to assert with even greater force, refuse to allow any disagreement, and study further only that which they already know to support of their assertions.
Passionate arguers follow no rules, and are not above verbally or even physically beating an opponent into submission. This is the equivalent of the lawyer asking the defendent, "Do you still beat your wife?", of the playground bullies playing "keep away" with a child's lunch, of the president saying, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." People confronted with such arguments are utterly defenseless unless they are willing to resort to similar tactics, at which point it degenerates into gang warfare. Passionate arguers know that most people are unwilling to take on such a battle, either because the point is unworthy of the effort, or because the price of victory is too high. Or simply because they fear for their own safety.
In my experience, the only defense against this kind of attack is for an entity more powerful than either party to step in and put a stop to it. I'll have to leave it to others to try to figure out what that entity might be in the present situation.
It is an interesting point and unfortunately it is not a Christian vs. Science thing. It is a people thing. It is what I call a little knowledge is dangerous (this is my personal saying.)
In the article we have a bunch of people so indoctrinated into a way of thinking without the maturity to understand what they are talking about. These people are then rude and I cannot say for sure whether it is pure ignorance on the subject or lack of self confidence. Then they make fun of science. Science deals with facts and the interpretation of the facts. It has nothing to do with religion. It is a beautiful natural stone formation. It is beauty in itself. It doesn’t need flags and propaganda there to allow one to enjoy it.
Unfortunately, this is not a religious problem. It is the stare of people problem.. For example, someone reads an article saying if you eat something it will ruin your health. So, this person goes and tells all his friends and mocks the people making this product as if he was now the authority on this product. I actually, thought something was wrong as this product is eaten by the healthier people on this planet. I finally came across the original study and it was a side note by the researcher on a study on something totally not related to the product. It said that the there may be a link to this product and health, but the study did not address the problem adequately so further studies need to be done. But, the media in an effort to sell more papers wrote the story as if the conclusion was a definitive one.
It even goes into the scientific realm as a noted professor went as far as to say, “Hawaiians are intellectually inferior because they only have 12 letters in their alphabet.” I guess that makes the Japanese and Chinese super geniuses as they have 10’s of thousands of character in their languages.
What is worst is that people go to all lengths to prove they are smarter, better physically, have more authority than others or have to be right.. That is not the way to understanding. I have talked to an atheist, who believes that life started from a comet that carried primal DNA crashing on earth. Another told me that humans are a product of aliens landing and modifying the genetic code of the animals present. Finally, there was a gentleman who also was an atheist and he told me he worked for N.A.S.A. and had the credentials on him and he believed that the aliens had set up a triangle of devices along the Pacific Rim and Pyramids apex stood above Hawaii and thus the landing point for the invasion and infiltration of the world would take place in Hawaii and he was in Hawaii to stop the invasion. Are they wrong? I don’t know, but I enjoyed the conversation.
xiaogou: "Science deals with facts and the interpretation of the facts. It has nothing to do with religion."
Maybe for you this is true, but for millions of people religion has to do with factual claims like the age of these caves.
Further to Edgar's observations about the dirty tricks of debate, the situation is surmountable by explicitly rejecting the premise. When Bush said, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists," Democrats should have explicitly rejected Bush's premise that the issue has only two choices. Trouble was, too many Democrats — Kerry being an obvious example — were unskilled in the sort of bare-knuckles street fighting that conservatives were willing to employ. The challenge for such Dems is to overcome this weakness and slam back hard. Not with more dirty tricks of their own, and not by whining about how unfair the tricks are (as Kerry tended to do), but by discrediting the tricks as invalid and destructive to American values — the very values that conservatives claim to embody. When the dirty tricks are shown to contradict the values of the people who Bush & Co., claim to represent, it will strike at the very foundation of their support. This fact has finally percolated to the surface on its own (as demonstrated by the droves of Republicans who are fleeing from Bush's failed policies), but it might have been helped if Dems had been smarter about playing dirty.
Grumpy: Out of curiosity, what's a good come-back to the accusation: “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists." It needs to be something that can pack a wallop for viewers who have attention spans that run 30 seconds. One of the problems is that many people intuit that it's better to do SOMETHING (even attacking a country that is not a real threat) than to do Nothing (honest people would say that there was no Iraq military target that would have lessened the threat terrorism).
Marketing experts spend weeks and months developing effective slogans. It's not easy to do this.
I agree with your comment, though. I think that the Dems need to spend the time preparing responses to street fight tactics. I hate that they need to divert precious time and money doing this when we really need honest self-critical discussion.
As the genius of G.B. Shaw demonstrates;
"Everyone has a right to his opinion but, no one has a right to be wrong on the facts."
False premises and ad hominem attacks have been the red meat of the far right and their radical religious cohorts. See CNN tonight for "God's Warriors" and be afraid, very afraid.
Kerry is not an example of anything except a flawed candidate who in the moments of testing vacillated and was found wanting. Bill Clinton had it right; strike back fast and harder. I found that the Swift Boaters were telling lies within hours of their claims they were never in Cambodia–transcripts of formerly secret White House tapes from Watergate where Mr. O'Neill (Nixon's hatchet man against Kerry during the war) discussed with President Nixon his adventures in Cambodia. Kerry's office didn't resp[ond to my calls oer e-mails.
The last time someone said that to me—and it's been many years, but it was in a public place, with an audience—my response was:
"And who made you god?"
It drew a couple of laughs. Part two was:
"If that's all you can say to defend stupidity, then we're all screwed."
The name-caller got angry, but I then was able to talk to the others. You know, I can't even remember now what it was about, but I remember that exchange.
Regarding a comeback to, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”; at the time there was no comeback. As I recall, there was almost a full month between the September 11 attacks and the beginning of operations in Afghanistan. Americans were angry and frustrated, and "tough talk" like this gave them welcome relief. So the statement was allowed to stand without challenge. Had we only known then what we know now …
As for a comeback to Biblical claims about the age of the earth and similar things; unfortunately, rejection of the premise is met with, "Die, blasphemer," instead of, "I will pray for you."
And I think the thing that bothers me most about some of those who claim to know the Bible so well is that they are also the ones who got a "D" on their high school book report about "The Grapes of Wrath". If they lack the cognitive capacity to understand the subtleties of classic literature, then how can they proclaim themselves to be Biblical "experts", to understand what they claim to be the infinitely complex plans and works of the supreme being? In fact, how can they even presume to try?
xiaogou: It's not that a little knowledge is dangerous. It's believing- "knowing"- that you have a lot of irrefutable knowledge that is dangerous.
Erich the problem lies less in what people believe, for example religion. The problem is a person's maturity. I could believe in creation and not have a personal agenda to promote it. The values on this topic are that both parties have no real idea on what happened since they were not there to witness the event. The two most popular theories come down to, it just happened or some force had a hand in it. Who is right? Who is wrong? This is the thinking of most people. In the void that there were no witnesses, there can only be best guess theories. Taking into the fact, that science deals with more current technology and terminology, religion is taken from the view point and experiences of people several millennia ago, it becomes an unfair debate.
I think you mentioned unicorns in another article and you were poking fun at the thought that someone was erecting a museum to unicorns in the Biblical sense. I sort of laugh at the picture of these cute cuddly overweight white stuffed horses with a yellow horn and dusted with stars and glitter bedecking a huge hall in Victorian era architecture.
The truth is in understanding. Unicorn is a translation from the Greek word for one horn which translates to Old English as Unicorn. The Greek word is also translated from a Hebrew word One Horn. Unfortunately, the Hebrew language at the time did not include many vowels. Many of those old words the vowels were assumed and could actually vary depending on the speaker (like the kids game when you tell the first child a phrase and it is passed down and at the end of a line the last child says something totally different from what was first said.) Also all occurrences of the word were translated identically, but there is cause to believe that it may have been several synonyms for the same word. A one horn could be an Indian rhinoceros, a Reel, a currently extinct form of oxen or an extinct mammal that had a seven foot horn. The joke is that there is no witness to exactly see the animal in question so your guess is as good as mines.
The current form of the unicorn came from European mythos and many people have not spent the time to actually lookup the actually word. In which the modern day horse with a single horn unicorn if my research is correct comes actually from Celtic mythos.
As the manifesto is to bring people together we need to focus on the problem not the results. The problem is people like to be right, feel superior and they cling to their idea and if they feel insecure and threatened they will make all sorts of arguments to be right. For example the story that Satan planted dinosaur bones in not in any scriptures, it is a desperate so called Christian grasping at straws. If that person really understood what he had said and realized how far he fell from being a Christian he would have turned in his cross. Unfortunately, he is probably too prideful to admit that he has done any wrong which in itself would bar him from being a Christian. Science minded people who are mature will remember that science is a best guess theory and not to be treated as gospel. Likewise, religion minded people also need to remember the writings of creation were a story that was told many millenniums ago and eventually written down and as to what they actually meant and given the inaccuracy as they could not wrap their mind around such complex theories as evolution and they explained it the best they could.” Unless, either party witnessed the events as they transpired or not transpire, all they can do is say something happened. So unless one can pull out an eye witness out of one’s hip pocket, all is moot, at which point both parties are in agreement. Perhaps all that exists is some alien’s science fair project and he wants to see what happens when he introduces all the factors at work now and right now we are in a Petri Dish under a microscope. That is a scientific theory being kicked around by a small group of people.
Erika, I think you are talking about Christians. This is not only a Christian trait. In the first illustration I wrote shows a person gets a tidbit of knowledge and believes that he is an authority on the subject and begins to speak to people as if he was the authority. In review of the facts is that his knowledge on the topic is wanting. I believe that he was pretending to be scientific.
Another point in case, a microbiology professor, who I had the pleasure of being an acquaintance to, at the beginning of the semester put out a blog on a dangerous substance, Dihydrogen Oxide. The blog talked about how it was involved in car crashes, airplane accidents and thousands of deaths every year. The students started a massive campaign to ban the substance it would still be going on now if not the professor told them at the end of the semester that Dihydrogen Oxide was water, H2O. This was a class full of intelligent science oriented people. I also wonder why no one had figured it out. Not once did God enter the Blog.
A little knowledge (Dihydrogen Oxide is dangerous) is dangerous (without a thorough grasp of the subject matter.) I am not sure if people actually spent the time to understand what they talk about. (not you Erika, I am a bit long winded at times or a bit obtuse.) It is a flaw in both the science and religious communities and that is one thing that keeps the two from coming together or at least accepting the other’s views without prejudice.
By the way I was being sarcastic in saying “A little knowledge is dangerous.” I am sorry if you misunderstood it to being a fact.
Did somebody say dirty tricks?
I don't mind sharing my views with creationists, and do so all the time. By filming under false pretenses, much like the example of the case of Richard Dawkins' infamous "pause", they've undercut their own credibility … not that that will matter. I suspect their audience will not question whatever mangling of the video that they carry out, and the subterfuges used to make it will not be brought up. -PZ
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gon…
So it begins (again…)
"I have been a scientist for close to 40 years and I have just one problem for you, the atheistic intelligentsia (or, superpseudos as we used to call you): Take a Mercedes Benz apart and reduce it to a pile of all of its smallest elements. Then, using any probabilistic model you choose, after placing all of these parts in a big bag and hanging the bag only 20 feet from the ground, how many millions of years of dropping all of the parts to the ground would it take before the parts came together to form the original automobile? (Process: Drop the parts, put all the parts back in the bag after they've hit the ground, hoist the bag again to 20 feet and drop again.) My model, results in infinity, an incalculable number of years…There is only one way to explain the beauty and simplicity of our universe and that is through the synthesis of science and religion postulated by Intelligent Design Creationism."
http://movies.netscape.com/story/2007/08/22/ben-s…
Ben's specious Benz argument (actually posted by mojotycoon on pharyngula's blog) is hilarious. Anyone with a clue about information knows that the process of evolution is not random, but benefits from random changes to create a wider variety to feed later selection events. The modern Benz itself evolved over many decades, keeping advantageous random changes and discarding others, with a new generation happening every model year.
Several elegant refutations of this argument appear shortly after the linked mojotycoon response.
Meanwhile, the Young Earth argument didn't exist until it was a necessary wedge to refute the time scales necessary for evolution, around the time that the scientifically determined mega-years age of the Earth rose into the giga-year range.
The concern that the Meremac Cave is in private hands and the owners should be compelled in some way to discuss it's age as part of the tour, seems misdirected to me. They, and probably most of their patrons, apparently, do not care about this aspect of the cave, even though you may believe it is the most significant aspect.
Why concern yourself with a family of hillbillys selling tours of a hole in the ground when you could do the world much more good by convincing scientists to refuse to allow their work to be used to the detriment and/or destruction of mankind?
If pathological skeptics would spend a little time lampooning the scientists without consciences {on the government dole} who are creating better ways to destroy people, perhaps the religious warmongers would, eventually, be limited to swords and clubs. You might also address the possibility of wiping out millions by accident. Both science and religion are things that people do to other people.
LJC: Science used for the detriment of mankind? You mean like applying modern medicine to societies that were already unable to feed themselves? You mean like the creation of perfect mono-culture crops that will allow a single infection to cause widespread starvation? You mean like creating inexpensive food products that create addictions and disease, like processed sugars? You mean like medical symptom cures that save children, allowing genetic diseases to thrive?
That tiny minority of applied scientists and technicians that create weapons are not a noticeable threat to our species, compared to these other short-sighted applications of technology.
Understanding the true age of the planet is a step toward understanding how delicate is our perch upon it, and learning to tell real threats from scary prospects.
Grand Canyon National Park is one of the best places in the world to gain a sense of geologic, or “deep,” time because the canyon exposes a great swath of geologic history. Rocks exposed in Grand Canyon are truly ancient, ranging from 1840 million years old (m.y.), or 1.84 billion years old (b.y.), to 270 m.y. The Grand Canyon landscape is geologically young, being carved within just the last 6 m.y. There are younger geologic deposits in Grand Canyon too, such as the Ice Age fossils found in caves, a 1000-year-old lava flow in the western canyon, and even the debris flow deposits that continue form each year.
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca/age…
I am glad to see the website now includes the word "billion", although it certainly isn't displayed prominently (still buried under many links so that nobody would just stumble upon the it).
"The Canyon’s mile-high walls display a largely undisturbed cross section of the Earth’s crust extending back some two *billion* years."
http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/geologicfor…
It is on the Missouri Conservation page.
But then again if you place all your belief in some tour guide to give you specific information on her summer break job then what else can you expect.
Cyn: I don't deny that Missouri did a good job of providing accurate information. It was the PRIVATELY owned cave (Meramec Caverns) that squelched important information in order to placate fundamentalists.