From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

Bones of the Earth by Michael Swanwick

Human paleontologists have the professional opportunity of a
lifetime... but there's a catch.

https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/deep-time
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On 12/05/2026 08.45, James Nicoll wrote:

Bones of the Earth by Michael Swanwick

Human paleontologists have the professional opportunity of a
lifetime... but there's a catch.

https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/deep-time

I'm confused by one statement in your review:

[...] screening process hasnrCOt prevented at least one Creationist
from getting into the program in a bid to plant human skeletons
in the distant past to prove Young Earth Creationism.

How would planting a human skeleton in the distant past support
that objective? My understanding of Y.E.C. is that it posits a
creation date of 6000-10000 BP. Now, we already have human skeletons
older than that, contradicting Y.E.C. How would providing more
help it?
--
Michael F. Stemper
This post contains greater than 95% post-consumer bytes by weight.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

Michael F. Stemper wrote:

On 12/05/2026 08.45, James Nicoll wrote:

Bones of the Earth by Michael Swanwick

Human paleontologists have the professional opportunity of a
lifetime... but there's a catch.

https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/deep-time

I'm confused by one statement in your review:

-a [...] screening process hasnrCOt prevented at least one Creationist
-a from getting into the program in a bid to plant human skeletons
-a in the distant past to prove Young Earth Creationism.
How would planting a human skeleton in the distant past support
that objective? My understanding of Y.E.C. is that it posits a
creation date of 6000-10000 BP. Now, we already have human skeletons
older than that, contradicting Y.E.C. How would providing more
help it?

Well, in the first place they don't accept any dating method. So if
human remains were found in Permian rocks that wouldn't bother them,
since they regard the Permian as occurring only a few thousand years ago.

However, they do believe that there are two, and only two, possible
theories for origins. Either creation or evolution. Thus it is not
necessary in their minds to show evidence for creation (which must be a
great relief) but to show evidence against evolution. And human bones
in Permian rocks would be ideal.

Though personally, without any evidence of other advanced mammals or
primates in Permian strata, I would regard time travel as the more
probable explanation. Which would, I suspect, be backed up by isotope analysis of the bones.


William Hyde
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On Wed, 13 May 2026 09:39:49 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/05/2026 08.45, James Nicoll wrote:

Bones of the Earth by Michael Swanwick

Human paleontologists have the professional opportunity of a
lifetime... but there's a catch.

https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/deep-time

I'm confused by one statement in your review:

[...] screening process hasnAt prevented at least one Creationist
from getting into the program in a bid to plant human skeletons
in the distant past to prove Young Earth Creationism.

How would planting a human skeleton in the distant past support
that objective? My understanding of Y.E.C. is that it posits a
creation date of 6000-10000 BP. Now, we already have human skeletons
older than that, contradicting Y.E.C. How would providing more
help it?

I clearly haven't been keeping up with these nutters.
So, they believe the Earth could have been created ... just after the
last Ice Age?
I thought they were pushing Ussher's 4004 BC date as the One True
Date.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On 13/05/2026 10.57, Paul S Person wrote:

On Wed, 13 May 2026 09:39:49 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

How would planting a human skeleton in the distant past support
that objective? My understanding of Y.E.C. is that it posits a
creation date of 6000-10000 BP. Now, we already have human skeletons
older than that, contradicting Y.E.C. How would providing more
help it?

I clearly haven't been keeping up with these nutters.

So, they believe the Earth could have been created ... just after the
last Ice Age?

I thought they were pushing Ussher's 4004 BC date as the One True
Date.

Which fits into the late end of the range, since 4004 BC is 6030 BP
(give or take the absence of the year zero).
--
Michael F. Stemper
If it isn't running programs and it isn't fusing atoms, it's just bending space.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

Paul S Person wrote:

On Wed, 13 May 2026 09:39:49 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/05/2026 08.45, James Nicoll wrote:

Bones of the Earth by Michael Swanwick

Human paleontologists have the professional opportunity of a
lifetime... but there's a catch.

https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/deep-time

I'm confused by one statement in your review:

[...] screening process hasnrCOt prevented at least one Creationist
from getting into the program in a bid to plant human skeletons
in the distant past to prove Young Earth Creationism.

How would planting a human skeleton in the distant past support
that objective? My understanding of Y.E.C. is that it posits a
creation date of 6000-10000 BP. Now, we already have human skeletons
older than that, contradicting Y.E.C. How would providing more
help it?

I clearly haven't been keeping up with these nutters.

So, they believe the Earth could have been created ... just after the
last Ice Age?

They do not believe in ice ages.

All post-creation geography, more or less, was caused by the flood, in
their view.


Circa 1820 this was also the belief of many geologists, including the
Rev William Buckland, a prominent scientist. There was some excuse for
this, as the melting of the ice sheets did result in flood-like deposits.

There were problems which did not fit into this model, however. Agassiz showed Buckland how these problems could be resolved if there had been
an ice age, and Buckland changed his mind.

Agassiz remained a creationist all his life, but not a young-earth creationist.

I thought they were pushing Ussher's 4004 BC date as the One True
Date.

Quite a few allow some thousands of years, up to about twenty thousand.

William Hyde
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On 13/05/2026 12.26, William Hyde wrote:

Paul S Person wrote:

On Wed, 13 May 2026 09:39:49 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/05/2026 08.45, James Nicoll wrote:

Bones of the Earth by Michael Swanwick

Human paleontologists have the professional opportunity of a
lifetime... but there's a catch.

https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/deep-time

I'm confused by one statement in your review:

-a-a [...] screening process hasnrCOt prevented at least one Creationist >>> -a-a from getting into the program in a bid to plant human skeletons
-a-a in the distant past to prove Young Earth Creationism.
How would planting a human skeleton in the distant past support
that objective? My understanding of Y.E.C. is that it posits a
creation date of 6000-10000 BP. Now, we already have human skeletons
older than that, contradicting Y.E.C. How would providing more
help it?

I clearly haven't been keeping up with these nutters.

So, they believe the Earth could have been created ... just after the
last Ice Age?

They do not believe in ice ages.

All post-creation geography, more or less, was caused by the flood, in their view.

Circa 1820 this was also the belief of many geologists, including the Rev William Buckland, a prominent scientist.-a There was some excuse for this, as the melting of the ice sheets did result in flood-like deposits.

A large part of western Wisconsin, now called "the Driftless Region",
was missed by the last glaciation, which left the terrain much more
rugged than other parts of the state.

The part that the glaciers did scrape was left with a lot of big rocks,
rocks which we now call "glacial erratics". Mid-19th century geologists hypothesized that these rocks came to their current locations by
drifting on the Flood. (Cue the witch scene from _Monty Python and
the Holy Grail_)

The belief that the rocks drifted here on the waters of the Flood is
*why* the western part of the state is called "the Driftless Region":
because no rocks drifted here.

As you said in the part that I inadvertently snipped, Aggassiz sorted
them out by showing that the observations matched the way that Swiss
glaciers behaved. But, the name stuck.
--
Michael F. Stemper
There's no "me" in "team". There's no "us" in "team", either.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On Wed, 13 May 2026 11:23:44 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

On 13/05/2026 10.57, Paul S Person wrote:

On Wed, 13 May 2026 09:39:49 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

How would planting a human skeleton in the distant past support
that objective? My understanding of Y.E.C. is that it posits a
creation date of 6000-10000 BP. Now, we already have human skeletons
older than that, contradicting Y.E.C. How would providing more
help it?

I clearly haven't been keeping up with these nutters.

So, they believe the Earth could have been created ... just after the
last Ice Age?

I thought they were pushing Ussher's 4004 BC date as the One True
Date.

Which fits into the late end of the range, since 4004 BC is 6030 BP
(give or take the absence of the year zero).

Indeed.
But what about the high range? Was Ussher wrong?
I, of course, would say "yes", but that is only because, some decades
ago, I tried computing the date only to find that, at some point in
Genesis, you have to use an assumed generation length because the
actual values are not clear.
I did, however, discover that Methuselah died in the year of the
Flood. Hmmmm.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.written

On Wed, 13 May 2026 13:23:13 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo: Young Earth Creationism and the last Ice age>

A large part of western Wisconsin, now called "the Driftless Region",
was missed by the last glaciation, which left the terrain much more
rugged than other parts of the state.

The part that the glaciers did scrape was left with a lot of big rocks,
rocks which we now call "glacial erratics". Mid-19th century geologists >hypothesized that these rocks came to their current locations by
drifting on the Flood. (Cue the witch scene from _Monty Python and
the Holy Grail_)

The belief that the rocks drifted here on the waters of the Flood is
*why* the western part of the state is called "the Driftless Region":
because no rocks drifted here.

So, were these rocks much much less dense than most rocks, or did the
Flood consist of, say, mud rather than water? Or were they all on
rafts which disassembled where they stopped?
Now, if they had said "pushed into place by", their theory would at
least have made sense.
It would still be wrong, though.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2