Biblical defense of a flat (and square) Earth

In 1893, Professor Ferguson (professor of what, I don't know) drew a map representing what he thought the Bible required the Earth to look like.

The image is from Wikimedia. It comes with this caption:

MAP OF THE

SQUARE AND STATIONARY EARTH.

BY PROF. ORLANDO FERGUSON,

HOT SPRINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA.

Four Hundred Passages in the Bible that Condemns the Globe Theory, or the Flying Earth, and None Sustain It.

This Map is the Bible Map of the World.

A fragment of a footnote:

SCRIPTURE THAT CONDEMNS THE GLOBE THEORY

And his hands were steady until the going down of the sun—Ex. 17: 12. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed.—Joshua 10: 12–13. The world also shall be stable that it not be moved.—Chron. 16: 30. To him that stretched out the earth, and made great lights (not worlds).—Ps. 136: 6–7. The sun shall be darkened in his going forth.—Isaiah 12: 10. The four corners of the Earth.—Isaiah 11: 12

The Sensuous Curmudgeon has also documented verses that defend the notion of a flat Earth -although in the Curmudgeon's case, it is for purposes of mockery. A fragment:

1Samuel 2:8
for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and he hath set the world upon them.
1 Samuel 2:10
The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth;
Job 9:6
Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble. [A reference to the usually unmovable earth, but it must be flat to sit on pillars.]
Job 37:3
He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth.
Job 38:4
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?

Strange that not many Creationists defend this claim any more.

Were feathers added to Archaeopteryx fossils?

Dr Walt Brown says yes.  From the Center for Scientific Creationism:

Archaeopteryx means ancient (archae) wing (pteryx). But the story behind this alleged half-dinosaur, half-bird is much more interesting than its fancy, scientific-sounding name or the details of its bones. If Archaeopteryx were shown to be a fraud, the result would be devastating for the evolution theory.

Since the early 1980s, several prominent scientists have charged that the two Archaeopteryx fossils with clearly visible feathers (the Berlin and London specimens) are forgeries.1 Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on the mating surfaces (slab and counterslab) of two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus (komp-SOG-na-thus). Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement.

This apparently is from Brown's 2008 edition of In the Beginning; compelling evidence for creation and the flood (the link is to a different edition).

Things go wrong in the first paragraph.  If Archaeopteryx were shown to be a fraud, scientists would continue to use all the other feathered dinosaurs that have been found. Flying Dinosaurs has a long list of feathered dinosaurs.

From the Smithsonian:

In 2012, paleontologists found that a T. rex relative, Yutyrannus huali, had filamentous feathers. If a relative had feathers, why not the king of reptiles itself?
Until a specimen is found with preserved imprints of feathers, though, the jury is out.

Carl Zimmer has more:

Now Archaeopteryx is sinking back into the crowd of primitive birds and feathered dinosaurs. As Ed Yong has ably explained, a fresh wave of fossils are coming to light. They reinforce the argument that paleontologists have agreed on for a couple decades now: birds evolved from a lineage of dinosaurs called theropods. But it’s less clear now how exactlyArchaeopteryx fits into that evolution. It might still be closely related to the ancestors of living birds, or there might be non-flying theropods that were more closely related. Combine this with the recent discoveries of heavily feathered dinosaurs–feathered down to their feet, in fact–and the possibility emerges that dinosaurs evolved into flyers more than once. We look up in the sky today and see the results of only one of those transitions.

National Geographic goes even farther.

Over the past two decades, discoveries in China have produced at least five species of feathered dinosaurs. But they all belonged to the theropod group of "raptor" dinosaurs, ancestors of modern birds. (Related: "Dinosaur-Era Fossil Shows Birds' Feathers Evolved Before Flight.")

Now in a discovery reported by an international team in the journal Science, the new dinosaur species, Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus (KOO-lin-dah-DRO-mee-us ZAH-bike-kal-ik-kuss), suggests that feathers were all in the family. That's because the newly unearthed 4.5-foot-long (1.5 meter) two-legged runner was an "ornithischian" beaked dinosaur, belonging to a group ancestrally distinct from past theropod discoveries.

"Probably that means the common ancestor of all dinosaurs had feathers," says study lead author Pascal Godefroit of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Science in Brussels. "Feathers are not a characteristic [just] of birds but of all dinosaurs." (Related: "Dinosaur Feathers Changed With Age.")

So already Brown seems to be in trouble.  On to the second paragraph. "Several prominent scientists" seems to be light on actual paleontologists. Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasingh are mentioned.  They are both mathematicians and astronomers but have no obvious background in the study of fossils.

At The War For Science, they note that no such cement has been found by other researchers.

Palaeontologists that examined the London Archaeopteryx arrived at a quite different conclusion - “Proof of authenticity is provided by exactly matching hairline cracks and dendrites on the feathered areas of the opposing slabs, which show the absence of the artificial cement layer into which modern feathers could have been pressed by a forger.”.

War For Science quotes (above) from this Science Mag article.

For more information, have a look at Kevin Padian's slides from the 2005 Dover Creationism trial. I used Chrome's highlighter extension to highlight some of the text near the slides which I feel carry all the relevant information.

How dinosaurs became birds

Scientific American has the goods.  An excerpt:

But it has become increasingly clear that the story of how dinosaurs begat birds is much more subtle. Discoveries have shown that bird-specific features like feathers began to emerge long before the evolution of birds, indicating that birds simply adapted a number of pre-existing features to a new use. And recent research suggests that a few simple change—among them the adoption of a more babylike skull shape into adulthood—likely played essential roles in the final push to bird-hood. Not only are birds much smaller than their dinosaur ancestors, they closely resemble dinosaur embryos.

definition of a theory

Here is a common creationist definition, although a little more honest than some:

After all, evolution is a theory, and in the dictionary I have, it states that a theory, among other things, is a hypothesis, a guess, a conjecture, a speculative opinion — hardly absolute fact.

From Craig Kappel

The unusual honesty is in the phrase, "among other things".  Let's look at two online dictionaries:

Merriam Webster:(Click to enlarge - or follow the link)

The scientific definition is not so clear at Merriam Webster and it could be the first or fifth one in the list.

Dictionary.com: (ditto)

Here, the scientific definition is the first one.

Even Google's own definition service puts the  scientific meaning first:

The word 'theory' can be a synonym for 'guess' or 'conjecture' or 'opinion' but it sure seems dishonest when the relevant definition is there and deliberately skipped over.

Added Sept 24: a nice graphic from York Daily Record.  I hamfistedly added an extra line and some text to it.

---
Added later on Sept 24: At Science Alert, a video explaining the difference between hypothesis, theory, fact and law.
---
Added later, On Aug 23, 2016, Piers Sellers on climate change and Theory:

Fundamentally, a theory in science is not just a whim or an opinion; it is a logical construct of how we think something works, generally agreed upon by scientists and always in agreement with the available observations. A good example is Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation, which says that every physical object in the universe exerts a gravity force field around itself, with the strength of that field depending on its mass. The theory—one simple equation—does a superb job of explaining our observations of how planets orbit around the sun, and was more than good enough to make the calculations we needed to send spacecraft to the moon and elsewhere. Einstein improved on Newton’s theory when it comes to large-scale astronomical phenomena, but, for everyday engineering use, Newton’s physics works perfectly well, even though it is more than three hundred years old.

via pharyngula.

Dennett on how to argue

In the previous post, I described a barely remembered fragment of Daniel Dennett's advice on how to argue coherently.  Turns out, the post I recalled was about how to criticize with kindness and offered a excerpt from his book, Intuition Pumps and other tools for thinking.

From the "How to Criticize..." link:

How to compose a successful critical commentary:

1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Good advice for us all.
---
Not related but not quite worth a blog post of its own.
Vignettes of Famous Evolutionists.  Ah, the content is worth a post (or more) of its own, but I don't have much to add.  Follow the link to learn about masters of the field of evolution.

Your own opinions, not your own facts

UPDATE: Brean has deleted our comment thread.  I cannot say if this post is one-sided or biased but there is no longer an original record to refer back to.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------

It takes more #faith to believe in #evolution than it does in #creation. http://t.co/8xojMIglNf
— Jacy Brean (@JacyBrean) April 21, 2015

I followed the link Brean provided and we had a cordial discussion in the comments of the blog post.

 Brean does not believe that there is enough evidence for Evolution.  I disagree but this is not my concern in this blog post.  My concern is the use of facts.

From the main post

  Even if it were possible for a human male to evolve, what are the chances of a female counterpart evolving at the same time in order for them to reproduce? 

The thing is, if Brean understood the theory, Brean would know this is not an issue.  Evolution works (or doesn't in Brean's view) on populations, not individuals.  My main rebuttal to this is at the bottom of the quoted sections.

From our discussion in the comments:

 I may maintain that there is not - and never has been - any observable evidence to support what has only ever been a theory, and a very flimsy one at that.

Brean seems unaware that although 'theory' is used in detective shows as 'guess', in science it is not. Evolution is (or isn't) a theory but it isn't "only" a theory.  To explain by example, let's look at gravity. There is a law of gravity.  There is no theory of gravity.  We know gravity works and understand that it works but we have no consensus on why it works.  The explanation is missing.  The theory is missing.
The same from Study.com

Outside of science, the definition of a theory is a thought that may or may not be true. In the science community, a scientific theory is defined as a hypothesis or a group of hypotheses about some phenomena that have been supported through research using the scientific method.

---

 Another huge reason why I could never accept evolution is that it offers no hope for the future and no means to solve our problems in the here and now.
I do appreciate your taking the time to respond and respect, not only your views but also your right to express them.
Best regards

The theory of evolution offers hope for the future in the exact same way Germ Theory does. The exact same way the Particle Theory of light does. Heliocentric Theory, Cell theory... None of these offer or take hope away.  To offer a cliche, science is a tool and any tool can be used for good or ill. We cannot say that TNT or dynamite doesn't exist because we don't like bombs or missiles. We can't argue against nuclear physics because of the harm radioactivity can cause.
I left the second sentence in the quote to offer evidence that Brean was gracious and polite throughout.  I am frustrated by Brean's views but not by the tone they were given.

All my research an personal observation leads me to the only possible conclusion.
I have discussed the matter with various people, including scientists of many disciplines. None of them know how life began, or how life triggered the tiniest organism into being - and you are no exception.

Brean is a writer and presumably capable of research.  Brean claims to have discussed the subject with many scientists.  Yet, in asking when males vs females evolve we see that Brean doesn't know what evolution actually states.  Brean is unaware of the proper usage of the term 'theory'.  Brean specifically links lack of acceptance of the theory with its consequences.

In our discussion, I made a similar mistake.  In reading the timeworn attacks on evolution, I imagined I was speaking to a follower of Ken Ham's AIG Young Earth Creationism and made an argument based on that assumption.  Brean corrected me on my error and we moved on.  In an article promoting his book Intuition Pumps, Dennett stated that the way to properly argue a point was to do enough research to be able to describe the opponents position so well and clearly the opponent would thank him.  I jumped to an assumption and was corrected.  We see that Brean didn't understand the theory of evolution even while arguing against it.  Weinersmith seems correct when he said:

The more I read from creationists, the more I think they're not anti-evolution. They're anti-some crazy version of it their pastor taught.
— Zach Weinersmith (@ZachWeiner) April 4, 2012

I don't know if anyone actually reads this blog but I wonder at the etiquette of blog post argument. Brean had posted an opinion on the blog and promoted a link to it on Twitter so I think my decision to respond was not invasive. I am less comfortable about giving the link to the post at the top of my post. We each made three comments (one of mine was long and had to be broken into two. It really wasn't that long and I was surprised that I had to do that) with Brean politely closing the discussion down.  I have chosen not to post further there.  On another of my blogs, I had a blog post with a long comment discussion and stated that it was done.  I did not lock down comments and someone chose to keep commenting. There is breach of etiquette and there is rudeness ( and worse, is online rudeness) and I feel that commenter crossed a weak line in choosing to continue with comments.  I hope I have not.

Creationists and science - they do it wrong, sometimes dishonestly so

Creationists and evolutionists use the same evidence,

but evolutionists use all the evidence.

From Boingboing, of all places, comes a tale of an encounter with a creationist at the American Geophysical Union conference.  The author meet a man at the poster section.

A name badge declaring him to be Hugh Miller, the first author on the poster.He asked if I had any questions. I asked if he could just give me a quick summary of the work. He talked about performing mass spectrometry on samples of various dinosaur bones that produced age estimates ranging from 15,000 to 50,000 years. My spidey-sense tingled. I peered over his shoulder, searching for bullet points to figure out what was going on here.
That's when I read it: "humans, neanderthals, and dinosaurs existed together."

The author continues:

Now, here's the thing about Carbon-14 dating. This isotope has a very short half-life (the time necessary for the element to reduce in mass by half) of only 5730 years. Since it decays so quickly, it is useless for dating objects more than about 40-50,000 years old. The background levels of C-14 radiation in the laboratory have to be compensated for. 

The author points out

...often a technique called "bracketing" is used where the igneous rock on either side of the fossil is dated with radioactive isotopes that have half-lives on the order of millions of years. This give scientists a range of time in which the animal could have lived. The poster authors, Hugh included, were basing their attack on one technique in the geological toolkit, and disregarding all other evidence that would have undermined their conclusions.

Indeed, Ken Ham did the same thing in his televised debate with Bill Nye, saying:

In Australia there were engineers that were trying to search out about a coal mine, so they drilled down and they found a basalt layer, or lava flow that had woody material in it, branches and twigs and so on, and when Dr. Andrew Snelling, our PhD geologist sent that to a lab in Massachusetts in 1994, they used the potassium-argon dating method and dated it at 45 million years old. Well, we also sent the wood to the radiocarbon section of the same lab, and they dated it at 45,000 years old. 45,000 year old wood in 45 million year old rock. The point is, there is a problem.

---

Jason Rosenhouse looks at how creationists abuse math in defense of their claims.

Sewell also argued that Darwinism runs afoul of the laws of thermodynamics. Evolution requires a decrease in entropy over time, whereas a cherished principle of physics says that is impossible. Since Sewell recognizes that the second law applies only to closed systems (which the Earth is not), it is unclear what the problem is. His claim that “natural forces do not cause extremely improbable things to happen” is pure gibberish. Does Sewell invoke spuernatural forces to explain the winning numbers in last night’s lottery?The fact is that natural forces routinely lead to local decreases in entropy. Water freezes into ice and fertilized eggs turn into babies. Plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugar and oxygen, but Sewell does not invoke divine intervention to explain the process.