Creationist Wisdom — Example 70: The Fall

ONCE again, we bring you the view from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — truly the fountainhead of creationist wisdom. Today they have this new article at their website: Were Stone Age Britons Trigonometry Experts? Here are some excerpts, with bold added for emphasis:

Man-made geographical high points in southern England and Wales have been observed for centuries, including earthworks, stone monuments like Stonehenge, and hill camps. But something quite unexpected about their distribution may have been verified. When plotted from a bird’s-eye view, many of the ancient sites form corners of isosceles triangles in connection with other sites, making navigation a breeze for the ancients.

That’s amazing! Let’s read on:

Tom Brooks, an amateur historian and retired executive, analyzed 1,500 of these sites. He found that they were laid out such that they formed triangles that have two sides with the same length. This would have enabled ancient travelers to pinpoint the direction and distance to the next location, or point on the triangle, using lines of sight to the hilltop markers, because “many were built within sight of each other and provided a simple way to get from A to B.”

Wow! With 1,500 sites you can connect them (some of them) with isosceles triangles. Not equilateral triangles, not right triangles. Isosceles! Gotta hand it to the creationists, they know an important discovery when they see it.

The ICR article has a footnote with a link to the article they’re using as their source. It’s this in the Daily Mail: Stone Age satnav: Did ancient man use 5,000-year-old travel chart to navigate across Britain. If you click over to the Daily Mail you’ll see the most chaotic “chart” imaginable — a bunch of points with lines connecting them, in no readily discernible pattern.

We continue with the ICR article:

Brooks said, “Some of the triangles are over 100 miles across, yet the distances are accurate to within 100 metres. You cannot do that by chance. So advanced, sophisticated and accurate is the geometrical surveying now discovered, that we must review fundamentally the perception of our Stone Age forebears as primitive, or conclude that they received some form of external guidance.

ICR doesn’t elaborate on Brooks’ “external guidance” remark, but the Daily Mail does:

On the question of ‘external guidance’, he [Brooks] does not rule out extraterrestrial help.

That was apparently too goofy even for ICR to mention. It appears that even a creationist website has standards. Or perhaps they’re just trimming the “facts” to suit their own view. Here’s more from ICR:

Based on his [Brooks’] observations, they would have had to be experts in spherical trigonometry to have marked out and used these triangular geographical patterns for navigation.

The identity of “they” is a bit vague. Is it the ancient Britons, or maybe their extraterrestrial helpers? Moving along with ICR’s commentary:

These observations and speculations fit perfectly with biblical history.

What? Then how about the mathematically challenged authors of scripture? See: Creationists And The Scriptural Value Of Pi. We’d better look at another excerpt:

It can be inferred from the biblical account of creation and the Fall that God made the first man as originally perfect, with his descendants gradually degrading over time as genetic corruption occurred. This directly contradicts the erroneous evolutionary concept that ancient man emerged from apes and had a lesser intellect than modern man — a concept also challenged by this new evidence of the mathematical brilliance of ancient British islanders.

Lordy, lordy. One last excerpt:

Despite attempts to doctor the news to make it more evolution-friendly, ongoing scientific discoveries continue to document that ancient humans were as smart, if not smarter, than modern ones.

Before you start blaming Eve for your lack of mathematical brilliance, permit us to give you an excerpt from the end of the article in the Daily Mail:

However, Mike Pitts, editor of British Archaeology, said: ‘The landscape of southern Britain was intensively settled and there are many earth works and archaeological finds. It is very easy to find patterns in the landscape, but it doesn’t mean that they are real.’

So there you are. Were the ancient Britons mathematical and geometrical giants, whose abilities we’ve lost because of the Fall, or do you prefer the “evolutionary” explanation — that the ancients weren’t created all-knowing, and a few triangles drawn to connect some of 1,500 points on a map are just a coincidence? Or perhaps you like the third option — the one left out by ICR — the ancients had extraterrestrial assistance.

You decide, dear reader. Give this matter all the attention it deserves — before it’s too late.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

19 responses to “Creationist Wisdom — Example 70: The Fall

  1. Am I the only one to note that, using these same points on the map of the British Isles but drawing the lines between them in a different order, it clearly spells out, in letters 10-miles across,

    PAUL MCCARTNEY IS DEAD

  2. P.S. Love the new banner!

  3. Great Claw says: “Love the new banner!”

    Not surprising, as it was your suggestion to use banknote portraits.

  4. Darn it, Megalonyx, you had to remind me that it was 40 years ago that I first heard the “Paul is dead” rumor. I had already accepted evolution, at the time but still had creationist tendencies in that I believed the rumor because I wanted to. Unlike most in my generation I never had that inordinate fondness for Beatles.

  5. There is so much wrong with this it is hard to know where to begin. ICR seems to think that evolution considers men from about 5.000 years ago as “ancient man” and being of “lesser intellect” and different from current “modern man”. Well…no. 5,000 years are nearly negligible on an evolutionary time scale. Men from 5,000 years ago weren’t less smart, they just had less knowledge.

  6. Take any 1500 random points in a finite area and I bet you could make all sorts of mathematical connections.

    The ICR article states, “The complex configurations he [Tom Brooks] discovered emerged from the monuments themselves, rather than from a preconceived pattern to which they were forced to conform.”

    Hmmm, I don’t see that mentioned in the original Daily Mail article that they cite.

  7. Another thing I wonder about is how many of these navigational triangles from 5,000 year old “prehistoric sites” were actually built at about the same time. Sure, you can find connections between all these sites now but, how many of them were actually in use at the same time back then? Yeah, 2 points may have been built within 10 years of each other but, if the 3rd point wasn’t built until 500 years later, doesn’t that throw off your calculations?

    Not to mention that they are useless for navigation if you can’t see them. Very few of these sites are noticeable from more than a few miles away. I doubt if Mr. Brooks, or anyone else, could find their way between any two points using the method he suggests.

  8. RogerE says: “Not to mention that they are useless for navigation if you can’t see them.”

    The Old Ones had wisdom beyond your Fallen ability to grasp.

  9. Benjamin Franklin

    I buried Paul – at Stonehenge.

  10. This triangulation ranks with the equally inane ley lines which are believed to criss cross the English country side and which are believed also to be means of navigation created by prehistoric people. There are obviously few limits to what the credulous will swallow and the British gutter press will print.

  11. Roger E: “There is so much wrong with this it is hard to know where to begin.”

    When the subject is YEC I always begin (and often end) here: YEC makes lots of testable claims that challenge all sorts of fields in science, not just Darwinian evolution or “common descent with modification” in general. If those claims are so compelling, why are OEC and ID groups not jumping on the bandwagon?

  12. I recently read the book “The Stones of Britain” by the archaeologist Richard Muir in which he notes that not one of the thousands of known stone circles is actually circular. Nor are the stones ever evenly spaced around the perimeter. This seems odd because compared to the task of dragging 20 ton blocks of rock for forty miles and setting them up in trilithons, laying out a circular plan is very easy. From this he concludes that either they did not have a well developed notion of geometry or if they did then geometric precision was not considered important by the circle builders.

  13. Jerry says: “… not one of the thousands of known stone circles is actually circular.”

    I’ve been paying close attention to the patterns that are revealed in the locations chosen by my dogs to relieve themselves. After connecting thousands of such points, I’ve been able to reconstruct a proof of the Pythagorean theorem, build an exact replica of the Parthenon, and predict with uncanny accuracy the location of Uranus at any moment, day or night.

    From this I conclude that our dogs are without sin. They have not degenerated as a result of the Fall.

  14. John Phillips, FCD

    I stopped reading when you said that the creos based it on an article published in The Daily Fail. For even if it is a report of a piece of research by a well respected scientist, I can guarantee that The Daily Fail will mangle it beyond recognition, and that is without even thinking about what the creos will then do with what is left.

  15. John Phillips, FCD says: “I stopped reading when you said that the creos based it on an article published in The Daily Fail.”

    But half the fun is watching how creationists will dive in dumpsters for their data.

  16. I’ve been paying close attention to the patterns that are revealed in the locations chosen by my dogs to relieve themselves. After connecting thousands of such points, I’ve been able to reconstruct a proof of the Pythagorean theorem, build an exact replica of the Parthenon, and predict with uncanny accuracy the location of Uranus at any moment, day or night.

    Brilliantly delicious.

    Bravo!

  17. Longie says: “Brilliantly delicious.”

    Yeah, dog poop, sacred geometry, and Uranus — all in the same comment. I knew you’d like it.

  18. Doesn’t this show the problem with “intelligent design”?

    The stone-age Britons were undeniably intelligent; but we can’t figure out if they built their stones circles irregularly on purpose or not!

    Were they just ignorant of geometry, or did they disregard what they knew of geometry? It is impossible to tell merely from seeing their work and knowing that they intelligently designed it.

    (Pee Wee Herman said it more succinctly–“I MEANT to do that.”)

  19. Gabriel Hanna says: “The stone-age Britons were undeniably intelligent; but we can’t figure out if they built their stones circles irregularly on purpose or not!”

    The Old Ones left us false geometric clues. The fabled Treasure of Stonehenge remains hidden.