Welcome to my blog, the purpose of which is to talk... about--stuff. And... yeah. Skeptics and freethinkers welcome. And Lovecraft fans. And Star Wars fans. And Bruce Lee fans. And martial artists. And any one who prays to the Old Ones.

Friday, April 13, 2012


A creationist in the act of refuting "evilution".
In my last post, I talked a little about the Cretinists and their idiotic websites. I spent some time looking over the posts on CreationRevolution.com, and found this little gem that perfectly sums up why Cretinism is a steaming pile of bullshit. Because my knowledge of the Big Bang is limited, to say the least, I will be skipping over the first section of the OP, which address that subject with a purely imbecilic God of the Gaps argument.

"The Bible teaches only thousands of years (about 6,000). Secular science teaches billions (about 14 billion). They both can’t be true. So, is the world really billions of years old or only thousands?"

The Bible is a collection of anecdotal myths from a primitive, pre-scientific culture that thought the sky was made of bronze. Even comparing that to modern science is heading towards failure.

"There are many physical processes that can be used to calculate the age of the world, most of which contradict secular science."

If science is not secular (i.e., unbiased towards a preconceived ideology), then it is not science, but mysticism that has no place in the modern world, and is believed exclusively by lunatics and morons.

"If we measure the amount of salt in the sea and calculate the net increase in saltiness per year, we can work backward and determine the maximum possible age of the oceans (not the actual age), sixty-two million years, many times less than the billions reported in science textbooks. [6]"

 That's because Earth's rock was not always the composition it was today. If you read something useful, like a science book, instead of crap like the Wholly Babble, you might recognize terms like the Hadean and the Archean. When earth was young and comprised mostly of hard, igneous rock, erosion was very rare and no salt was deposited in the oceans. You're assuming that the crust's composition and processes were always the same, even though the fossil record shows that they were not. Source. Here's a tip; try taking your questions to a college professor or a real scientist and exploring arguments from the other side before trying to play God of the Gaps with sea salt.

"Radiometric dating (RD), a method of dating rocks from lava flows that supposedly lock down the billions of years dates, are based on unproven assumptions: 1) that all the starting conditions are known, 2) that the decay rate of the radioisotopes hasn’t changed, and 3) that the system is closed, allowing no addition or deletion of material. And all of this over millions or billions of years! [7]"

Which has also been explained. When creationists trot hundreds of contradictory dates that appear to cast doubt upon radiometric dating, they inevitably fail to mention that these results were cherry-picked from tens of thousands of tests that provided congruent tests with one another. Source. If less than five percent of all tests give inaccurate or conflicting  dates, it could be a flawed experiment or a contaminated sample. It doesn't refute the dating methods in any way.

"Furthermore, RD methods are not always accurate for rocks of known ages and different methods often disagree when dating the same sample. [8]"

Again, cherry-picking the handful of test results that agree with you is not very honest, or impressive.

" Ultimately, the best way to determine the age of the earth is to ask an eyewitness: God."

Can you prove God is real? No. Can you prove that the two conflicting creation accounts in Genesis are true, or divinely inspired? Didn't think so. You're openly biased, and begging the question even though the bible is one of the most wildly inaccurate, contradictory books ever written. Source.

"He was there when the world and life were created. So, the ultimate question is who are you going to trust—man or God?"

Making bare assertions and question-begging; about as close as creationists can get to honest debate.

 "The fossil record is another central pillar in the argument for the evolution of life (an argument against the validity of the Bible)."

Wrong again, Mr. Goebbels. Evolution is a theory explaining the diversity and adaptation of life. It has nothing to do with your book of fables, and doesn't really care that losers like yourself get butthurt by the refutation of your stone-age myths. Kinda like how geography doesn't care about butthurt flat-earthers.TOE is no more an "argument against the validity of the bible" than modern medicine is an argument against the validity of leeching.

"But it is not the only valid theory that explains the evidence. There is also Noah’s flood."

Theory:  an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Source.

That does not sound like a bible story to me, liar. Brush up on your definitions.

"-       Large fossil graveyards found all over the world cannot be explained by slow, gradual processes. “The Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon contains…marine creatures buried by fast-moving slurry that involved 24 cubic miles of lime, sand, and silt. No river or lake today can account for the scale of these graveyards.” [11]
-       Polystrate fossils (fossils that cut vertically through many geologic layers), like the trees at Joggins, Nova Scotia, are not easily explained by slow, gradual fossilization. [12]"

For the first reference; you're assuming that fast-moving slurries are impossible. What, a landslide or earthquake can't be accounted for except by supernatural means? So what's a freak lightning storm--the wrath of Zeus? And of course, you're too well-insulated against reality to consider the possibility that large number of fossils indicate a massive surge of life in that period. After all, why think when you can just mindlessly believe and have faith? That's the creationist way of life right there. Secondly, trees do not decay as quickly as animals do, and depending upon the climate, may not decay much at all until they're buried. And if they're in water, they can be fossilized through per-mineralization. Pick up a geology textbook.

" The biblical flood of Noah, however, provides a better explanation for rapid burial and fossilization, massive fossil graveyards, and polystrate fossils."

I don't think words can sum up how dismally stupid this guy's assumptions are. First off, what's the date for Noah's Ark? If earth is only 6,000 years old, and it happened around 4,000 years ago as some fundies claim, then why do we have constant historical records of mankind through that period? How did Egypt, China, Mongolia, Greece, and Sumeria survive? Why did they say absolutely nothing about the flood? And assuming that the flood did occur, doesn't the continued survival of civilization make a god a failure? His flood didn't even register with anyone. And even if we suspend recorded history and reality and assume it happened as the bible says it did, it's still not feasible due to inbreeding and genetics. If Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their son's wives were the only human survivors, then humanity would have been finished. In any cataclysmic extinction event, there would have to be at least a couple thousand humans left to procreate and re-establish our species. Take a biology class, idiots.

And the final section #4, which deals with dinosaurs, is so weak and presumptuous that it doesn't warrant the dignity of a response. 

Except this bit. :)

"These are but a sampling of the powerful answers there are to questions about the Bible and science. I strongly recommend you visit www.creation.com or www.answersingenesis.org for a more detailed and thorough treatment of all your science-related questions."

Yup, it's for real; these guys actually reference AIG as a source throughout, and plug it at the end. The Stupid burns. AIG is the same site that actually redefined the term "light-year" in order to lie to children. Source.

AIG has utterly discredited itself, countless times. Whether it's lying to children, redefining words, or cherry-picking data, Creationtards have no credibility. 

" In the meantime, let this brief article be a witness to you that the Bible is a credible and sound document. It is the Word of the Creator, and, therefore, can stand up to any challenge, even those from the halls of modern, secular science."

Here's a picture that perfectly sums up that last sentence;



No comments:

Post a Comment