Neil deGrasse Tyson Said Earth Is 4.5 Billion Years Old on National TV: Creationists' Heads Explode

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/belief/neil-degrasse-tyson-says-planet-45-billion-years-old-national-tv-creationists-heads-explode

It did not take long for the creationists to take issue with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and the latest episode of Cosmos on Fox. Why you ask? Well, because Tyson dared to declare the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years old.

Answers in Genesis (AiG), the organization run by "young Earth" creationist Ken Ham, known for his recent debate against Bill Nye on the topic of evolution has now taken issue with episode 7 of Cosmos as the show taught us just how scientist Claire Patterson discovered the true age of this very planet.

AiG takes issue because early on Tyson declared that the true age of the earth couldn’t be found without a reliable historical record. The Bible was once believed to be this historical record, but as Tyson explains, it is no longer. Now we can look to the rocks themselves to find our answer.

Right away AiG on its website attacks science as unreliable because this particular episode discusses how scientific bias can be used for good and bad. The episode itself shows how good data always wins over bad and highlights just why science works, through peer-review.

AiG misses this point entirely and now believes, as it always has, that science is flawed and biased. Ironic from a site that states its mission is to prove its conclusion, almost the total definition of bias.

[n2doc]

1. Screw the Creationist nut cases

They should be ignored, ridiculed, and treated like the UFO and Nessie believers. They deserve zero respect.

[toby jo]

20. What do we do with the folks who believe we are the only intelligent life form in the cosmos?

It's a pretty big place, n2doc.

[n2doc]

24. That is still an open question, isn't it?

Other life of any kind has yet to be found off Earth. So Scientifically, it is a valid hypothesis that intelligent life is only found on Earth. Don't get me started on those who believe that Humans are the only 'intelligent' lifeforms, however.

I'm speaking of those nitwits who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, that the Grand Canyon is from Noah's flood, etc., etc. There is no valid debate on those points.

[malaise]

77. The only place I see their crap is here on DU

I don't give a flying fugg what they say. I have no respect for dunces who parade their ignorance and challenge those who did their homework.

Fugg 'em!

[yuiyoshida]

2. "First AiG demanded equal airtime on Fox to teach its view of human existence because of an episode"

NO! ..baka! doji! manuke!!

[newfie11]

3. Why do these idiots watch it

If their heads explode, good!

[pangaia]

13. Because it reinforces their negative emotions.

Since they have no real positive emotions, and little if any connection to reality or to themselves, negative emotions are the only thing they have to remind them they are alive.

[chervilant]

4. Science will always throw

a big monkey wrench (pun intended) into the god mythologies.

[Martin Eden]

5. Creationists defaced a park sign in Fall Creek Falls State Park, TN

Along a trail at an overlook of a beautiful gorge was a sign explaining the geology of the place and how it was formed over hundreds of millions of years ... and someone had scratched out the word millions.

Religious faith stands on shaky ground if it requires the denial of widely accepted science.

[Prophet 451]

7. Thankfully, it doesn't

Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism don't require their adherents to deny science. Nor does Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. The only one I'm unsure about is Islam and that's because I don't know many Muslims. I'm a man of faith (Luciferian Satanist) and I have no problem accepting Big Bang cosmology or evolution by common descent.

[Martin Eden]

40. I wasn't referring to religious faith in principle;

I was referring to people who believe science must be false in order for their religion to be true. Their faith is on shaky ground.
Yours appears to be under ground, where some like it hot.

[Prophet 451]

41. And it's BBQ every day :) n/t

[Maedhros]

60. "You gotta get together and tell yourself stories that violate every law of the universe

just to get through the goddamn day? What's that say about your reality?"

- Rustin Cohle, True Detective

(I love that series).

[rhett o rick]

65. What I find amazing is that God chooses to communicate his presence by sending

messages via Jesus's image on toast.

[Martin Eden]

68. They simply don't understand the meaning of that message.

God is trying to tell them their brand of religion IS toast.

[rhett o rick]

70. Ahh yes. nm

[pokerfan]

75. That they did....

An angry creationist had his way with several of the plaques in the park.

http://www.houstoniamag.com/travel-and-outdoors/wanderlust/articles/come-with-me-to-tennessee-october-2013

[nyquil_man]

6. Answers In Genesis lives up to its name.

That's the only place they really look.

[Prophet 451]

8. A day without a conservative freakout...

...is like a day without sunshine. As long as conservatives are condemning you, you know you're doing something right.

[Gothmog]

50. The conservative freakouts are funny

[Sunlei]

9. must be very hard for todays 'creationist' to avoid knowledge.

[ladjf]

19. They are achieving the near impossible. Verified knowledge is everywhere

for all to see.

[paleotn]

22. A testament to human stubborness...

...not one of our specie's more virtuous qualities.

[Sunlei]

25. you know how kids love dinosaurs & ask all those questions? I just don't understand how,

anyone would lie to their children when they ask those questions.

Then of course children will seek out their own information on the internet and know they were told lies. This is why there is such a decline in the young in religions major groups. Like a house of cards, religion can not be based on a lie.

[paleotn]

29. Sad thing is, many don't think they're lying....

...they think they're giving their children the truth as they see it. But you're right, their beliefs are demonstrably wrong with just a little research. That's what caused me to chuck my fundigelical, Southern Baptist upbringing back in the early 80's. It just didn't square with the evidence. Being a touch it, measure it kind of person (a flaw in my personality, some would say), I couldn't keep believing that stuff. Some are just more stubborn than me I guess.

[Sunlei]

33. These fears of science are why major religions fail to keep 'regular people' and turn into cults.

IMO, of course

[LongTomH]

58. Greetings from another fundy / evangelical / pentecostal escapee!

My grandmother tried to raise me in the Assembly of God (Brrrrr!)!

I escaped in my teens. I've been in and out of various mainstream churches since then. The last time I attended church regularly was with my late sweetheart, who was a devout Catholic.

If I decide to start attending again, it will probably be a Unitarian / Universalist church. They're closer to my own, very flexible belief system.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

62. The Unitarians believe in one God.......at most!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

80. And they pray "To Whom It May Concern."

Another old Unitarian joke.
I've been a UU since 1979 and since you can be a questioning
atheist/agnostic, and there is no creed you have to believe, it's the only denomination for me.

Them and the Mahayana Buddhists.

[raven mad]

56. They work at ignorance like normal people

work toward knowledge.

[whopis01]

71. Their ability to do so is proof of god's miracles... n/t

[High_Voltage]

10. It's interesting to read the actual AiG article...

Not a whole lot of substance in there.

The only part that was confusing, and probably intentionally so, was the fact that they claimed that different methods result in different results in finding the age of certain atoms.

As a definite non-scientist, can someone lay that out for me barney style?

[paleotn]

21. radiometric dating.....

certain elements decay radioactively at measurable rates. Uranium-238 decays to Lead-206. Uranium-237 decays to Lead-207. etc. etc. Experimental evidence shows that the decay of these radiometric "clocks" is unaffected by temperature, pressure, magnetic or electrical fields and chemical environments. Thus, there is no evidence that this decay could speed up or slow down over time. It is virtually constant.

Since the earth has a habit of recycling its crust, the direct age of the earth is measured by radiometric dating of the oldest rocks known. That gives us a lower limit of 3.8 to 3.9 billion years. So the earth is at least that old. WAY older than young earth creationist estimates.

If we look at objects not subject to the geologic forces on earth's surface, meteorites for instance, using many different radiometric tests, we get a nice pattern of ages around 4.5 billion years. Since the earth coalesced from the same material, it's safe to assume the planet is at least that old.

Thus the evidence is solid, since all known measurements correspond to each other positively and build upon each other predictively.

Here's a nice synopsis of dating methods and results, along with some debunking of the more common creationist bullshit.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

[Sunlei]

34. Thanks for the good post! I raise my 'rock' of Utah dinosaur 'poo' to you!

[tclambert]

38. Some minerals like zircon can incorporate uranium when they form, but reject lead.

Therefore any lead in zircons comes from uranium decay. U-238 decays to lead-206, with a half-life of about 4.47 billion years. So the ratio of U-238 to lead-206 allows geologists to calculate the time since the zircon formed. U-235 decays to lead-207 has a half-life of about 704 million years. That gives you a second clock with which you can compare answers. Although for really old dates, the U-235 may be almost gone. They typically use these forms of radiometric dating for ages of 1 million to 4.5 billion years. Wikipedia says the error rate is about 0.1-1 percent.

For carbon dating, the half-life of carbon-14 is about 5,730 years. So scientists use that to date more recent items, like ancient documents, clothing, or wood. About the highest precision they can get for carbon-dating is ±20 years.

Obviously different methods give different results. Sloppy methods give sloppy results. And really careful methods give more precise results. If you only have a tiny sample, you may not get the precision you'd like.

What you never see in the anti-science arguments are the error bars, the plus or minus amounts scientists calculate as the margin of error. When the anti-science people hear "margin of error" they say, "See, they admit there's a chance of error. So reject the whole thing."
They insist the Bible does not have a margin of error. Everything is exactly, perfectly right. Even 1st Kings 7:23.

[The Wizard]

11. Just more lunacy

from the radical right that has seized the Republican Party. The only things they like about science are the modern weapons of mass destruction. The Bible approves of slavery too. AiG is just getting the last drops from a well that's gone dry.

[riverbendviewgal]

12. the discoverer of earth's age

Also discovered how lead was so poisonous. I love this show. It is so educational. I am a senior and the show makes learning science so interesting. Science was not my favorite subject in school. I wish I had had a teacher like Tyson when I went to school.

The creationists have very closed minds. It is their loss.

[spin]

16. I also found the program segment on lead very interesting. (n/t)

[lunasun]

27. perhaps the AIGs have been exposed to excessive lead

screw this small smug segment of America

[Sunlei]

37. thought it was interesting how the crime rate rose (and fell) related directly to lead exposure.

That science report was Global violent crime rates.

They used to allow lead in gas, aswell as everything else we know about.

[paleotn]

14. science flawed and biased?

...sounds like Ham is projecting again. Good data always wins out, because the overriding goal is the truth, no matter how inconvenient that might be for our puny, insignificant human perspective. All Ham has is a dusty old Iron Age book of Bronze / Iron age legends and myths steeped in utter bullshit. No data. No evidence. Just obvious bullshit.

[elias7]

15. Origin myths are not meant to be taken literally

A healthy, living religion should find science to be complementary.

[Arugula Latte]

53. Although, really, science does not support a lot of the magical thinking at the heart of

most religions and is not compatible with the supernatural tales that are so important to these sects and cults, including in the three main desert-originated paternalistic monotheisms. For example, the major myth of Christianity is that Jesus died for humanity's sins, ascended to "heaven," and will return to earth some day. Nothing in science would support there being one magical homo sapien among the billions who have lived and who is capable of returning from the dead, nor is there a shred of scientific evidence that there is a place or realm that exists somewhere separate from earth where humans live on in the afterlife.

[elias7]

61. I don't agree that magical thinking is at the heart of most religions

It is the teachings of the major figures of the Levantine religions that is important, not whether the stories are literally true. If a concrete minded person needs to believe in the historicity of the concepts, so be it. A religion has to hold together a population of variable intelligence, variable abilities of abstraction, and this is quite a coup.

Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism do not have significant magical thinking functionally speaking (although these do have their mystical adherents who love the magical aspect of things).

The function of all these mythologies is to align the individual with their own psychology, with society, with the cosmos, and with the mystery dimension that is unknowable/ineffable. Organized religion helps individuals move through life while dealing with pain and loss, the fear of death, ethical/moral issues, etc.

Did Jesus really die for humanity's sins and ascend to heaven? In a literal sense, probably not. Heaven is more likely a construct that helps people deal with the crazy fear-inspiring abstractness that is death, same as reincarnation. Helps you live better. Then, heaven is a state of mind.

Like Jesus is the son of God. You can look at it literally, like Jesus is the son of some invisible guy in the sky, or metaphorically, in that Jesus was telling us we are all divine, all borne of this wonderful and mysterious process that is life and the universe. In this sense God is not a fact, but symbolic of a process that we are all part of yet will never really know....ineffable, or beyond our comprehension or imagination, yet immanent, or within us as everything is a precipitation of this mystery.

Just a thought.

[Arugula Latte]

73. I know what you're saying, and you and I can step back and look at it from a more

anthropological perspective, but to millions of believers (particularly in The Big Two religions) there is no metaphor. They are instructed/indoctrinated to take the major tenets of their religions literally or face dire consequences. I don't think most Christian sects, for example, would continue on if a significant percentage of their adherents didn't really believe that they are going to get redemption and everlasting life through belief in Jesus, who will eventually return to Earth. Just my two cents.

[elias7]

74. I think that's the main problem with Christianity

As we become more sophisticated scientifically, a literal reading makes the scriptures less and less tenable. It is a crisis.

[nyabingi]

17. If you ask any Christian why they believe the

Bible is literally the truth and is factual historical record, they'll start mumbling and evading because they know it doesn't make sense. I almost feel sorry for them sometimes when you debate them into a corner, then they resort to "well the Bible says it so I'm gonna believe it."

[DisgustipatedinCA]

42. I see what you're saying, but...

There are many Christians who understand that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is about 15.8 billion years old. So I don't believe that if you ask "any" Christian this, they'd agree--only a really stupid subset.

[nyabingi]

46. I guess I should have said

get any of them to explain why their bible says one thing when years of scientific advancement has shown otherwise. Many I've run across will at least make the attempt to defend their beliefs, some don't even try.

[rhett o rick]

63. I would be interested in your opinion of how many the "many" is. If the "many" number is large

why dont they shout down the "stupid subset"?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

67. I don't know the number. I'd guess it's maybe 30% (?)

I'm not a Christian, but I grew up in what was considered a "liberal" Protestant church. Politically, we'd call it center or even center-right, but that definitely qualified as liberal in the Southern Baptist church.

Christianity is comprised of everything from Eastern Orthodox to Catholic to all flavors of Protestant, and even within one of those subgroups, people can't agree on hot-button issues, so I think it's unrealistic to think that a Catholic stands a chance of shouting down a Presbyterian or whatever. Also, in my personal view, if a church member is "doing it right", they may be less worried about others' dogmatic beliefs and more about getting some sort of spiritual benefit for themselves. That is to say, if I attended a church, it would be because I found one that looked like it could serve my spiritual needs. I wouldn't be interested in engaging in a fight, either with my own church or with some other denomination. Then again, that's probably one of the reasons I don't attend church--it does nothing to feed those spiritual parts of me.

This is not to say that you don't have a point. It probably is embarrassing for some Christians to know they're associated with these clowns, but there's a practical limit to what one can do to counter crazy. In many cases, I think people have left the church, as many churches have become more politicized, more hateful. But there are those who stay who aren't whacked out of their heads and do understand that the earth is 4.5bn years old, and so on. In the particular case of the church I attended as a kid, it was emphasized that "a day to God is as 1000 years", or words to that effect from some verse in the Bible. In other words, the Bible should not be read as a literal "this happened and then that happened and that's the way it is" sort of book. For what it's worth, I'm sure the Southern Baptists have finished running off anyone who holds that particular view.

If you had asked me what percentage of Unitarians supported evolution and science in general, I would've guessed very high, somewhere in the 90's. And this just goes to show that there are lots of different sorts of Christians, and not all of them are the nose-making dumbasses we read about on a regular basis.

[Prophet 451]

43. Most xians don't believe the Bible is literally true

The biggest Christian denomination is Catholicism and they fully accept evolution.

[nyabingi]

45. You need to bring up the topic

with one of the Southern Baptists or evangelicals...you'll have a hearty debate on your hands there!

[Prophet 451]

48. They're a minority

and one that is rapidly dying out. The young aren't interested in their religion of hate.

[Arugula Latte]

54. But they literally believe the resurrection story, unless they are the kind of

Christian who just thinks Jesus or the ideas attributed to a historic character called Jesus are worthwhile (but I'm not sure if people who don't believe in the concept of Jesus' resurrection can be considered technically "Christian," although I'm sure some of them would call themselves that).

My point is that creationism-denying-but-resurrection-believing Christians recognize that most things in the Bible are just stories and myths, but they pick and choose which ones to believe and somehow make exceptions to believe some of them to be literally "true."

[Prophet 451]

55. Well, that's an interesting question

Without getting into No True Christian territory, how do we define who is or isn't really Christian? Also, believing in a literal resurrection might be dumb but it doesn't actually affect anything. They're, by and large, not trying to stop kids learning science.

[Arugula Latte]

57. Right. I guess I was just taking slight exception with the notion that

most Christians don't take the Bible to be literally true, because most of them do take the New Testament's main plot point to be literally true.

[Rozlee]

18. The first sentence in Genesis debunks the entire Creation story.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The earth wasn't created in the beginning. It came along nine billion years later. They'll never come around to believing that the universe wasn't created with the sole purpose of being a landscape for our planet.

[Stellar]

31. Hey, for all we know, we could still be in the 7th day...

when God rested. Nobody really knows how long a day is for God since he was always here.

Maybe S/He came along with the 'big bang' (who knows) and people are still trying to rap their heads around that time 'limit', right?

[stonecutter357]

23. K&R

[R Merm]

26. I am surprised Conservative heads didn't explode with has discussion on the lead pollution deniers,

the parallel to today's climate change deniers is uncanny. And, anyone missing his intent to draw that parallel has to be stupid.

[Riverman100]

28. Very true

That was the first thing that crossed my mind as I watched that episode

[Prophet 451]

44. Which is great

We really need to stop humouring the climate change deniers, those people are going to kill us.

[MisterP]

72. so the question is--what will they pin their identity on next?

I hope it's planarism--bad theology, bad philosophy, worse science (but as long as they can stud it with enough simpering sentimentalism they can get dozens of Senators behind it)

[tclambert]

30. Who ya gonna believe--scientists, or a bronze-age poet who never heard of radiometric dating?

A poet who thought the sun goes around the Earth at a time when shepherd was a high tech job.

[Rex]

32. I don't really care what insane people think about science.

Let them babble away.

[Stellar]

35. They were angry with Tyson when he said

Sandra Bullock was ridiculous playing the part of a medical engineer, repairing the shuttle. And they would need a mechanic to do the repairs as Tyson explained. But he caught flack anyway.

[WillyT]

36. K & R !!!

[Initech]

39. Hey creationists.... go call the whambulance.

[Orsino]

47. Pretty sure they don't like Obama telling them things, either.

Really, this is only a thing because Tyson is popular. Again, like the president. Hmm.

[Gothmog]

49. I have this episode on my DVR

I love the fact that the Fox News viewers are upset by this show

[rhett o rick]

64. I hope the OP didnt spoil it for you.

JK

[Gothmog]

66. I was aware that the earth was more than 6,000 years old

I do not think that this episode was spoiled for me.

[rhett o rick]

78. Sorry that didnt come out right. I meant as a spoiler as you hadnt seen the show.

It was a bad joke. My fault.

[Gothmog]

81. I took no offense and understood the joke you were making

[Gothmog]

76. That episode was great

The segment about lead in gasoline was really interesting. I have seen the statistics showing the decline in lead levels in humans since the ban.

[rhett o rick]

79. Actually I havent seen it yet. I have it on my dvr. nm

[abelenkpe]

51. good

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. I am shocked though that the American Petroleum Institute is quiet,

like a church mouse, on this one.

I expected them to be up in arms by early Monday.

[Blue Owl]

59. What is it with them and their birth certificates?

[AverageJoe90]

69. Dr. Tyson does it again! He trounced that moron Kenny Ham GOOD. nt