Schizophrenia at Creation "Museum"

Posted 4 April 2014 by Matt Young

Yeah, yeah, I know: Schizophrenia is a specific medical diagnosis, and it does not mean holding two views at the same time. But its etymology does imply something like split mind, and I cannot think of a better way to describe this: The Creation "Museum" has put on display the Allosaurus fossil that we reported on here. And they are tickled pink. Their house geologist, Andrew Snelling, who used to do real geology (or his doppelgänger did) said of their Allosaurus,

It was found with its bones arranged in their correct anatomical positions relative to each other, rather than in a scattered assortment of bones as is often the case.

The article goes on,

Dr. Snelling added that the intact skeleton of this allosaur is a testimony to an extremely rapid burial, which is confirmation of the global catastrophe of a Flood a few thousand years ago.

In short, the intact nature of the Creation "Museum's" Allosaurus is alone proof of a global flood (not a local flood!), whereas "a scattered assortment of bones" is not evidence against a global flood. This kind of reasoning – and from a person with a PhD in geology – gives confirmation bias a bad name. I am afraid that what Dan Phelps said in the link given above remains true: Creationists do not do research, and, worse, real paleontologists will not get to study their "nice display trophy."

39 Comments

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 4 April 2014

And why is this a spectacular specimen?

Because most dinosaur bones are indeed found scattered.

Why not ignore the vast majority of evidence, and focus on the exception that ever so vaguely comports with your own belief (and is to be expected as exceptions in the evidence-based view)? I mean, what else can they do?

Glen Davidson

Just Bob · 4 April 2014

If Dr. Snelling stepped into quicksand and sank completely, then the quicksand dried up and his skeleton remained articulated...

or...

if Dr. Snelling had become the victim of something like the recent extreme mudslide in Washington state, which then solidified, entombing his intact, articulated skeleton...

then both those cases would be "testimony to an extremely rapid burial, which is confirmation of the global catastrophe of a Flood a few thousand years ago."

Not just a data point, or evidence supporting, but confirmation.

Creation science. Yeah.

Scott F · 4 April 2014

Just Bob said: [ emphasis added ] If Dr. Snelling stepped into quicksand and sank completely, then the quicksand dried up and his skeleton remained articulated... or... if Dr. Snelling had become the victim of something like the recent extreme mudslide in Washington state, which then solidified, entombing his intact, articulated skeleton... then both those cases would be "testimony to an extremely rapid burial, which is confirmation of the global catastrophe of a Flood a few thousand years ago." Not just a data point, or evidence supporting, but confirmation. Creation science. Yeah.

From NPR: [ emphasis added ]

After six days of searching, people perhaps aren't the only ones showing signs of strain. Shane Barco's 3-year-old German shepherd has found bodies and body parts. But, Barco said, the dog gets frustrated when they don't bring anybody out alive.

From Yahoo: [ emphasis added ]

"You can find parts of people, and you can find people that obviously experienced a lot of trauma to their bodies," he [Brunner, a police officer] said. "You can tell that someone had suffocated, some people had been tossed around pretty good and hit by other objects."

From CNN: [ emphasis added ]

Steve Harris, the supervisor for the search team on the eastern side of the slide, said that about four to six times per day, someone gets a "hit" on what may be a body or body part in the debris. He said identification is difficult and takes time. The slide was so powerful it crushed a lot of what was in its path. Cars were compacted to the size of a refrigerator, he said.

From The Seattle Times: [ emphasis added ]

In some instances, only partial remains are being recovered, making identification an issue.

Apparently rapid burial in a flood can dismember a body. "Rapid burial" does not appear to be a gentle process. This doesn't bode well for the "hypothesis" that rapid burial under miles of mud would leave a body well articulated. Quite the opposite, in fact.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 5 April 2014

If Dr. Snelling stepped into quicksand and sank completely, then the quicksand dried up and his skeleton remained articulated…

It's not really possible to sink completely into quicksand--considering that almost all sand is at least 2X the density of water. One could no doubt die in quicksand, it's the sinking that really can't work. Not really the point, I know, but somehow the idea that you can sink completely into quicksand is prevalent, but can only persist by ignoring matters of buoyancy. Glen Davidson

Karen S. · 5 April 2014

The devil went around scattering bones after the flood. It's just that this particular skeleton escaped his notice.

harold · 5 April 2014

The simple question that reveals all reality deniers is -

"What evidence could convince you (of whatever you deny)?"

For some strange reason, no-one ever answers "nothing". Science denial is almost never a completely conscious process. However, evasion of the question is the equivalent of an answer of "nothing".

(In defense of Dr. Snelling on the level of logical consistency, he may be arguing that intact fossils are those of animals that died in the flood and scattered remains indicate death before or after the flood. He's still factually wrong, because intact skeletons are not evidence of death in a sudden torrential flood. They're probably evidence of the exact opposite, death followed by rapidly falling into shallow water of mud-like environment that subsequently went undisturbed for a long time, and slowly solidified. Why does he think that rapidly changing environment would lead to undisturbed and intact fossil remains? That makes no sense at all.)

TomS · 5 April 2014

I also suggest that the argument is not contradictory. It could be that phenomenon (A) is a (rare, but possible) result of cause (1); but (A) is not possible with (non-1); and (non-A) (the common event) is consistent with either (1) or (non-1). (I think that the events interpreted as evidence of the Higgs boson are rare, and the common events are consistent with either Higgs or with non-Higgs.)

The argument can be wrong, of course.

Matt Young · 5 April 2014

Dan Phelps reminds us that the dinosaur is not yet on display but, according to the link above, is scheduled to be displayed by Memorial Day, May 26.

John Harshman · 5 April 2014

Re: schizophrenia. The proper term here is "White Queen thinking". The White Queen Hypothesis holds that creationists are capable of believing as many as six impossible things before breakfast, with an emphasis on the mutually contradictory bits.

Scott F · 5 April 2014

While searching for the "White Queen Hypothesis", I found this interesting little piece on the "Black Queen Hypothesis". It's not related to schizophrenia, but it is related to evolutionary biology.

Scott F · 5 April 2014

And, the "Red Queen Hypothesis", regarding co-evolutionary processes, and evolution of sex as a means to circumvent parasitism.

DS · 5 April 2014

harold said: The simple question that reveals all reality deniers is - "What evidence could convince you (of whatever you deny)?" For some strange reason, no-one ever answers "nothing". Science denial is almost never a completely conscious process. However, evasion of the question is the equivalent of an answer of "nothing". (In defense of Dr. Snelling on the level of logical consistency, he may be arguing that intact fossils are those of animals that died in the flood and scattered remains indicate death before or after the flood. He's still factually wrong, because intact skeletons are not evidence of death in a sudden torrential flood. They're probably evidence of the exact opposite, death followed by rapidly falling into shallow water of mud-like environment that subsequently went undisturbed for a long time, and slowly solidified. Why does he think that rapidly changing environment would lead to undisturbed and intact fossil remains? That makes no sense at all.)

Well Kenny the Hamster essentially answered "nothing" in the Nye debate. It was a very revealing moment and I hope it was not lost on the audience. Being impervious to evidence is not a good thing. It not only displays contempt for science, but a distinct lack of faith as well.

Karen S. · 5 April 2014

Isn't it interesting that the flood moved continents around but didn't touch that skeleton? Must be like a holy relic.

ashleyhr · 5 April 2014

Andrew Snelling - religious dogmatist masquerading as a 'scientist'.

TomS · 5 April 2014

DS said:
harold said: The simple question that reveals all reality deniers is - "What evidence could convince you (of whatever you deny)?" For some strange reason, no-one ever answers "nothing". Science denial is almost never a completely conscious process. However, evasion of the question is the equivalent of an answer of "nothing". (In defense of Dr. Snelling on the level of logical consistency, he may be arguing that intact fossils are those of animals that died in the flood and scattered remains indicate death before or after the flood. He's still factually wrong, because intact skeletons are not evidence of death in a sudden torrential flood. They're probably evidence of the exact opposite, death followed by rapidly falling into shallow water of mud-like environment that subsequently went undisturbed for a long time, and slowly solidified. Why does he think that rapidly changing environment would lead to undisturbed and intact fossil remains? That makes no sense at all.)
Well Kenny the Hamster essentially answered "nothing" in the Nye debate. It was a very revealing moment and I hope it was not lost on the audience. Being impervious to evidence is not a good thing. It not only displays contempt for science, but a distinct lack of faith as well.

But nearly all creationists/Bible-inerrants do let some merely human reasoning make a difference in what they believe about the Bible: 1) the Earth moves 2) Moses did not write the last verses of Deuteronomy

Just Bob · 5 April 2014

TomS said: But nearly all creationists/Bible-inerrants do let some merely human reasoning make a difference in what they believe about the Bible: 1) the Earth moves 2) Moses did not write the last verses of Deuteronomy

I emphasized the 'nearly'. There are still some who really do believe the Bible is literally true-- all of it-- and that the Earth does NOT move, and is the center of the Solar System. Unlike syncretists like FL, who know that's crap and have to pretend that the writers didn't REALLY mean that.

robert van bakel · 5 April 2014

Yeah! In the words of doctor Greg House,'reason usually doesn't work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people...' also, 'I think the law of the land allows everyone to be crazy, i think it's called the second ammendment.'

david.starling.macmillan · 5 April 2014

So many YEC talking points are exactly like this. It's never about evidence or falsifiability. Just "See how this could work? Doesn't that seem plausible?"

Just Bob said:
TomS said: But nearly all creationists/Bible-inerrants do let some merely human reasoning make a difference in what they believe about the Bible: 1) the Earth moves 2) Moses did not write the last verses of Deuteronomy
I emphasized the 'nearly'. There are still some who really do believe the Bible is literally true-- all of it-- and that the Earth does NOT move, and is the center of the Solar System. Unlike syncretists like FL, who know that's crap and have to pretend that the writers didn't REALLY mean that.

To be fair, I think the context of Psalm 96 makes it impossible to definitively argue that the author of Psalm 96 was making a specific reference to a belief in geocentrism. Not that it would bother me if he was.

Just Bob · 5 April 2014

david.starling.macmillan said: To be fair, I think the context of Psalm 96 makes it impossible to definitively argue that the author of Psalm 96 was making a specific reference to a belief in geocentrism. Not that it would bother me if he was.

No argument, but adding Ps 96 to all the other apparent indications of a fixed Earth, with the sun and the rest of the 'heavens' centered upon and moving around it -- and no hints of a revolving or rotating Earth (or even a spherical one) -- pretty much nails the Earth in place, and demotes everything else to mere 'lights', for our benefit.

Scott F · 5 April 2014

Just Bob said:
david.starling.macmillan said: To be fair, I think the context of Psalm 96 makes it impossible to definitively argue that the author of Psalm 96 was making a specific reference to a belief in geocentrism. Not that it would bother me if he was.
No argument, but adding Ps 96 to all the other apparent indications of a fixed Earth, with the sun and the rest of the 'heavens' centered upon and moving around it -- and no hints of a revolving or rotating Earth (or even a spherical one) -- pretty much nails the Earth in place, and demotes everything else to mere 'lights', for our benefit.

And isn't that always the way of it. It isn't just "lights in the sky". It's always, "lights in the sky for our benefit". God did this because we were good people. God did that because they were bad people. God sends us rain to show his blessings upon us. Etc… You never hear that God sent the rain, simply because he got bored with sunny blue days, or that he just happened to be in the mood for subtle shades of gray that day. God doesn't seem to have any existence outside of his relationship with his people.

david.starling.macmillan · 5 April 2014

Just Bob said:
david.starling.macmillan said: To be fair, I think the context of Psalm 96 makes it impossible to definitively argue that the author of Psalm 96 was making a specific reference to a belief in geocentrism. Not that it would bother me if he was.
No argument, but adding Ps 96 to all the other apparent indications of a fixed Earth, with the sun and the rest of the 'heavens' centered upon and moving around it -- and no hints of a revolving or rotating Earth (or even a spherical one) -- pretty much nails the Earth in place, and demotes everything else to mere 'lights', for our benefit.

I'm confident that some of the people who wrote parts of the Bible believed in a flat Earth. I'm also confident that some of the people who wrote parts of the Bible understood that the Earth is a sphere. I doubt any of the people who wrote parts of the Bible accepted an orbiting Earth...not because it hadn't been proposed as early as Grecian times, but because it was considered scientifically implausible due to the lack of observable stellar parallax. And obviously their writings reflected their understanding of the universe. But this is only a problem if you're a fundamentalist demanding an interpretation of the Bible that divorces it from the culture and background of its authors.

Helena Constantine · 6 April 2014

david.starling.macmillan said:
Just Bob said:
david.starling.macmillan said: To be fair, I think the context of Psalm 96 makes it impossible to definitively argue that the author of Psalm 96 was making a specific reference to a belief in geocentrism. Not that it would bother me if he was.
No argument, but adding Ps 96 to all the other apparent indications of a fixed Earth, with the sun and the rest of the 'heavens' centered upon and moving around it -- and no hints of a revolving or rotating Earth (or even a spherical one) -- pretty much nails the Earth in place, and demotes everything else to mere 'lights', for our benefit.
I'm confident that some of the people who wrote parts of the Bible believed in a flat Earth. I'm also confident that some of the people who wrote parts of the Bible understood that the Earth is a sphere. I doubt any of the people who wrote parts of the Bible accepted an orbiting Earth...not because it hadn't been proposed as early as Grecian times, but because it was considered scientifically implausible due to the lack of observable stellar parallax. And obviously their writings reflected their understanding of the universe. But this is only a problem if you're a fundamentalist demanding an interpretation of the Bible that divorces it from the culture and background of its authors.

The biblical texts that we have now are much later than you think, from the Hellenistic era (even if they preserve older material). But even the still later NT gives no hint of anything except the old Babylonian snow globe earth. The authors were not interested at all in Hellenistic science. If you think some Biblical authors believed the earth was a sphere, please present the evidence; scholars who deal with the topic have never seen any. Parallax was not an operative concept in antiquity. No author, not even Ptolemy or Hipparchus, discusses it. As I understand it, it can't be observed at all without a telescope.

david.starling.macmillan · 6 April 2014

Helena Constantine said: The biblical texts that we have now are much later than you think, from the Hellenistic era (even if they preserve older material). But even the still later NT gives no hint of anything except the old Babylonian snow globe earth. The authors were not interested at all in Hellenistic science. If you think some Biblical authors believed the earth was a sphere, please present the evidence; scholars who deal with the topic have never seen any.

I certainly have no direct evidence that any specific biblical characters understood the sphericity of Earth, but I'd be very surprised if Paul, Luke, and various others did not. Educated individuals in the first century had ample access to the evidence for a spherical Earth; Strabo's Geography was quite clear on the point. Anyone with even a rudimentary classical education should have known.

Parallax was not an operative concept in antiquity. No author, not even Ptolemy or Hipparchus, discusses it. As I understand it, it can't be observed at all without a telescope.

Exactly -- you can't see stellar parallax without a pretty powerful telescope, and that's why they all thought the Earth was stationary. Little has survived concerning the heliocentric models proposed by Philolaus and Aristarchus in the first millenium BC. But the lack of observable parallax was the primary scientific objection to Copernicus and Galileo, and IIRC it was cited as being something which had been known for quite a while.

Helena Constantine · 6 April 2014

david.starling.macmillan said:
Helena Constantine said: The biblical texts that we have now are much later than you think, from the Hellenistic era (even if they preserve older material). But even the still later NT gives no hint of anything except the old Babylonian snow globe earth. The authors were not interested at all in Hellenistic science. If you think some Biblical authors believed the earth was a sphere, please present the evidence; scholars who deal with the topic have never seen any.
I certainly have no direct evidence that any specific biblical characters understood the sphericity of Earth, but I'd be very surprised if Paul, Luke, and various others did not. Educated individuals in the first century had ample access to the evidence for a spherical Earth; Strabo's Geography was quite clear on the point. Anyone with even a rudimentary classical education should have known.
Parallax was not an operative concept in antiquity. No author, not even Ptolemy or Hipparchus, discusses it. As I understand it, it can't be observed at all without a telescope.
Exactly -- you can't see stellar parallax without a pretty powerful telescope, and that's why they all thought the Earth was stationary. Little has survived concerning the heliocentric models proposed by Philolaus and Aristarchus in the first millenium BC. But the lack of observable parallax was the primary scientific objection to Copernicus and Galileo, and IIRC it was cited as being something which had been known for quite a while.

You would think so, wouldn't you? But Luke (and that term can only usefully refer to the anonymous author of the Gospel of Luke), was able to write: "And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time." There's an interesting parallel passage in Polybius, in which Philip V of Macedon ascends a mountain in Bulgaria, from which, according to legend, one could see to the ends of the earth. Polybius notes the view was nothing special. Luke evidently didn't get the debunking. Paul, for his part, was "caught up to the third heaven"--that can only be part of the snow globe.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 6 April 2014

david.starling.macmillan said:
Helena Constantine said: The biblical texts that we have now are much later than you think, from the Hellenistic era (even if they preserve older material). But even the still later NT gives no hint of anything except the old Babylonian snow globe earth. The authors were not interested at all in Hellenistic science. If you think some Biblical authors believed the earth was a sphere, please present the evidence; scholars who deal with the topic have never seen any.
I certainly have no direct evidence that any specific biblical characters understood the sphericity of Earth, but I'd be very surprised if Paul, Luke, and various others did not. Educated individuals in the first century had ample access to the evidence for a spherical Earth; Strabo's Geography was quite clear on the point. Anyone with even a rudimentary classical education should have known.
Parallax was not an operative concept in antiquity. No author, not even Ptolemy or Hipparchus, discusses it. As I understand it, it can't be observed at all without a telescope.
Exactly -- you can't see stellar parallax without a pretty powerful telescope, and that's why they all thought the Earth was stationary. Little has survived concerning the heliocentric models proposed by Philolaus and Aristarchus in the first millenium BC. But the lack of observable parallax was the primary scientific objection to Copernicus and Galileo, and IIRC it was cited as being something which had been known for quite a while.

Aristarchus had the right idea, that stars were too far away for observable parallax. But that sounds a bit ad hoc, and it was quite untestable at the time. One has to remember, too, that before modern physics it wasn't at all clear why things wouldn't fall down and westward if earth was actually moving, so I don't think it was all about parallax, either. Glen Davidson

david.starling.macmillan · 6 April 2014

Luke may indeed have accepted a flat-earth cosmology, though there are certainly other plausible explanations of that account. With Paul, I think it's much less likely. The levels of heaven are an idea which is in no way bound to a snow globe model; you can have them with a spherical earth or a flat one.

TomS · 6 April 2014

david.starling.macmillan said: So many YEC talking points are exactly like this. It's never about evidence or falsifiability. Just "See how this could work? Doesn't that seem plausible?"
Just Bob said:
TomS said: But nearly all creationists/Bible-inerrants do let some merely human reasoning make a difference in what they believe about the Bible: 1) the Earth moves 2) Moses did not write the last verses of Deuteronomy
I emphasized the 'nearly'. There are still some who really do believe the Bible is literally true-- all of it-- and that the Earth does NOT move, and is the center of the Solar System. Unlike syncretists like FL, who know that's crap and have to pretend that the writers didn't REALLY mean that.
To be fair, I think the context of Psalm 96 makes it impossible to definitively argue that the author of Psalm 96 was making a specific reference to a belief in geocentrism. Not that it would bother me if he was.

We know that no one before the rise of modern science suggested that the Bible was not describing a fixed Earth. The only reason that, even today, anyone reinterprets the Bible as being consistent with to the Earth being a planet of the Sun is that they first accepted the findings of modern science. They allow mere human reason and naturalistic evidence to override the "plain meaning" (that it is the plain meaning as seen by everybody going along with it for something like 2000 years) in this case. I don't like to argue what the "real meaning" of any text is. The most I can say is that everyone, for a long time, said this; and modern heliocentrist-inerrantists say something else, and they say that "something else" because of the authority of modern science. That is their privilege. But they cannot say that they never let mere, fallible human reasoning inform their understanding.

Robert Byers · 6 April 2014

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

david.starling.macmillan · 6 April 2014

A Masked Panda said: Aristarchus had the right idea, that stars were too far away for observable parallax. But that sounds a bit ad hoc, and it was quite untestable at the time. One has to remember, too, that before modern physics it wasn't at all clear why things wouldn't fall down and westward if earth was actually moving, so I don't think it was all about parallax, either.

Hmm, good point. The ancients weren't stupid, after all. They reasoned that if heliocentrism was right, the positions of the stars would move and ballistic trajectories would curve west. And they were right; stellar parallax is a thing, and so is the Coriolis effect. Not their fault that these effects were too subtle for them to observe. I recently read a neat paper explaining how Archimedes or one of his contemporaries could have performed a rudimentary version of the Cavendish experiment using common materials of the day...enough to demonstrate universal gravitation and get an order-of-magnitude estimate of G. How different would the world have been!

TomS said: We know that no one before the rise of modern science suggested that the Bible was not describing a fixed Earth. The only reason that, even today, anyone reinterprets the Bible as being consistent with to the Earth being a planet of the Sun is that they first accepted the findings of modern science. They allow mere human reason and naturalistic evidence to override the "plain meaning" (that it is the plain meaning as seen by everybody going along with it for something like 2000 years) in this case. I don't like to argue what the "real meaning" of any text is. The most I can say is that everyone, for a long time, said this; and modern heliocentrist-inerrantists say something else, and they say that "something else" because of the authority of modern science. That is their privilege. But they cannot say that they never let mere, fallible human reasoning inform their understanding.

Oh, I'm sure the author of Psalm 96 held a geocentric view; the inerrantists who argue otherwise (e.g. "the orbit is firmly established") are being patently silly. I'm just pointing out that the author was most likely making no specific argument about geocentrism here and wasn't really concerned with the issue from a theological standpoint. He was writing a poetic flourish about God's preeminence over nature, not trying to establish a cosmological model by fiat.

TomS · 7 April 2014

david.starling.macmillan said: Oh, I'm sure the author of Psalm 96 held a geocentric view; the inerrantists who argue otherwise (e.g. "the orbit is firmly established") are being patently silly. I'm just pointing out that the author was most likely making no specific argument about geocentrism here and wasn't really concerned with the issue from a theological standpoint. He was writing a poetic flourish about God's preeminence over nature, not trying to establish a cosmological model by fiat.

Perhaps Psalm 96 would not be the best example to argue for geocentrism, but let us continue with it. The inerrantists are not merely being "patently silly" for putting forth that interpretation. They are using their knowledge of modern science to inform their understanding of Scripture. I am willing to grant them their right to any interpretation of Scripture (even if I think if it "patently silly"). But I insist that that particular interpretation of Psalm 96 is one which could not (and, as a matter of history, never did) occur to one who did not give authority to modern science. Again, I do not question their right to use what ever they want to interpret Scripture. But let them not tell us that they will never use the findings of modern science in interpreting Scripture. They did it. Let no one say that "I recognize that modern science provides credible evidence for common descent, but I must cling to the plain sense of Scripture" when they abandon that plain sense in the face of modern science's heliocentrism. If they want to use the entrails of birds, or a Ouija board, or the oracles of some prophet, or modern Scriptural scholarship, or modern science, I cannot object. I may differ on the methodology, but it is what they have chosen. But I must object when they disown their methodology when it is gives unwelcome results.

ksplawn · 7 April 2014

david.starling.macmillan said: I recently read a neat paper explaining how Archimedes or one of his contemporaries could have performed a rudimentary version of the Cavendish experiment using common materials of the day...enough to demonstrate universal gravitation and get an order-of-magnitude estimate of G. How different would the world have been!

Not a paper, but this web page goes through the Cavendish experiment with common materials and then towards the bottom digresses into a discussion of how Archimedes might have been able to do it. The biggest problem in this view would be finding something suitable to suspend the arm with. Natural fibers have a lot of problems with variability.

david.starling.macmillan · 7 April 2014

ksplawn said:
david.starling.macmillan said: I recently read a neat paper explaining how Archimedes or one of his contemporaries could have performed a rudimentary version of the Cavendish experiment using common materials of the day...enough to demonstrate universal gravitation and get an order-of-magnitude estimate of G. How different would the world have been!
Not a paper, but this web page goes through the Cavendish experiment with common materials and then towards the bottom digresses into a discussion of how Archimedes might have been able to do it. The biggest problem in this view would be finding something suitable to suspend the arm with. Natural fibers have a lot of problems with variability.

That's what I was referencing, actually. I think water-damping (which wouldn't have been at all out of the range of possibilities for Archimedes) might have fixed the fiber problem.

Franklin Quid · 9 April 2014

Scott F said:
Just Bob said: [ emphasis added ] If Dr. Snelling stepped into quicksand and sank completely, then the quicksand dried up and his skeleton remained articulated... or... if Dr. Snelling had become the victim of something like the recent extreme mudslide in Washington state, which then solidified, entombing his intact, articulated skeleton... then both those cases would be "testimony to an extremely rapid burial, which is confirmation of the global catastrophe of a Flood a few thousand years ago." Not just a data point, or evidence supporting, but confirmation. Creation science. Yeah.
From NPR: [ emphasis added ]
After six days of searching, people perhaps aren't the only ones showing signs of strain. Shane Barco's 3-year-old German shepherd has found bodies and body parts. But, Barco said, the dog gets frustrated when they don't bring anybody out alive.
From Yahoo: [ emphasis added ]
"You can find parts of people, and you can find people that obviously experienced a lot of trauma to their bodies," he [Brunner, a police officer] said. "You can tell that someone had suffocated, some people had been tossed around pretty good and hit by other objects."
From CNN: [ emphasis added ]
Steve Harris, the supervisor for the search team on the eastern side of the slide, said that about four to six times per day, someone gets a "hit" on what may be a body or body part in the debris. He said identification is difficult and takes time. The slide was so powerful it crushed a lot of what was in its path. Cars were compacted to the size of a refrigerator, he said.
From The Seattle Times: [ emphasis added ]
In some instances, only partial remains are being recovered, making identification an issue.
Apparently rapid burial in a flood can dismember a body. "Rapid burial" does not appear to be a gentle process. This doesn't bode well for the "hypothesis" that rapid burial under miles of mud would leave a body well articulated. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Since bones are "often" in a scattered array, wouldn't this be better for flood proponents? This fellow seems to believe so: http://scripturosity.com/2010/09/30/divine-origin-and-sacred-history-geological-support-for-the-genesis-flood-part-1/. I'm not really sure I understand how all this works together. May all be well with all of you, Felix Zamora

Franklin Quid · 9 April 2014

Scott F said:
Just Bob said: [ emphasis added ] If Dr. Snelling stepped into quicksand and sank completely, then the quicksand dried up and his skeleton remained articulated... or... if Dr. Snelling had become the victim of something like the recent extreme mudslide in Washington state, which then solidified, entombing his intact, articulated skeleton... then both those cases would be "testimony to an extremely rapid burial, which is confirmation of the global catastrophe of a Flood a few thousand years ago." Not just a data point, or evidence supporting, but confirmation. Creation science. Yeah.
From NPR: [ emphasis added ]
After six days of searching, people perhaps aren't the only ones showing signs of strain. Shane Barco's 3-year-old German shepherd has found bodies and body parts. But, Barco said, the dog gets frustrated when they don't bring anybody out alive.
From Yahoo: [ emphasis added ]
"You can find parts of people, and you can find people that obviously experienced a lot of trauma to their bodies," he [Brunner, a police officer] said. "You can tell that someone had suffocated, some people had been tossed around pretty good and hit by other objects."
From CNN: [ emphasis added ]
Steve Harris, the supervisor for the search team on the eastern side of the slide, said that about four to six times per day, someone gets a "hit" on what may be a body or body part in the debris. He said identification is difficult and takes time. The slide was so powerful it crushed a lot of what was in its path. Cars were compacted to the size of a refrigerator, he said.
From The Seattle Times: [ emphasis added ]
In some instances, only partial remains are being recovered, making identification an issue.
Apparently rapid burial in a flood can dismember a body. "Rapid burial" does not appear to be a gentle process. This doesn't bode well for the "hypothesis" that rapid burial under miles of mud would leave a body well articulated. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Wouldn't rapid burial usually resulting in dismemberment be better for supporting a global flood if most remains discovered are partial or scattered?

Franklin Quid · 9 April 2014

Sorry about the triple post.

TomS · 10 April 2014

Some blogs have a way of detecting when one makes a mistake by attempting a duplicate post. I think that is a good idea.

Henry J · 11 April 2014

IMNSHO, for evidence of a global anything, one would need lots of things of roughly the same age, from sites scattered around the world. Findings of entirely different ages don't do it, regardless of whether the finding is one piece or scattered debris.

Something analogous to a worldwide layer of iridium, perhaps.

Henry

Scott F · 12 April 2014

Franklin Quid said:
Scott F said: Apparently rapid burial in a flood can dismember a body. "Rapid burial" does not appear to be a gentle process. This doesn't bode well for the "hypothesis" that rapid burial under miles of mud would leave a body well articulated. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Since bones are "often" in a scattered array, wouldn't this be better for flood proponents? This fellow seems to believe so: http://scripturosity.com/2010/09/30/divine-origin-and-sacred-history-geological-support-for-the-genesis-flood-part-1/. I'm not really sure I understand how all this works together. May all be well with all of you, Felix Zamora

You would think that, wouldn't you. Except that's not what "Just Bob" claimed in the previous instance. The problem is how the Creationist uses data. "See? The bones are scattered. This proves a Global Flood." Followed closely by, "See? This skeleton is fully articulated. This proves a Global Flood." Sigh… The point is that real science knows that a single data point doesn't "prove" anything. We know that burial and fossilization are very random events. The bones go through dramatic changes and stresses over millions of years. It is far more likely that they would be scattered. However, it's entirely possible that certain finds would not be, depending on local conditions. But finding scattered bones does not prove nor disprove Evolution. Similarly, finding scattered bones does not prove, nor disprove a global flood. Similarly, finding articulated bones does not (by itself) prove or disprove either Evolution or a global flood. My understanding of Science is that a datum can do one of several things. First, a datum can disprove a universal-negative hypothesis. (Hypothesis: "X cannot occur". Datum: "X" exists.) Second, it can lend support to the conclusion that a positive hypothesis might be correct. (Hypothesis: "X might occur". Datum: "X" exists.) (This is far from the notion of "proving" anything.) Third, the uncertainty bars on the datum might be sufficiently large to make any conclusion impossible. In real Science, the presence of both a data point and its negative (bones are scattered vs bones are articulated) is not conclusive evidence for anything, other than the range of possible values is very broad, and that the proposed hypothesis needs to be narrowed and refined before anything meaningful can be concluded.

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 19 April 2014

Henry J said: IMNSHO, for evidence of a global anything, one would need lots of things of roughly the same age, from sites scattered around the world. Findings of entirely different ages don't do it, regardless of whether the finding is one piece or scattered debris. Something analogous to a worldwide layer of iridium, perhaps. Henry

I'm a bit overtired so it may not seem as relevant as it did for me just now, but your post reminded me of a point or two that Glen has made in a recent comment over at Eye on the ICR. I find his posts, and of course Peter's, both enjoyable and educational.