Category: "Debunking"

The Bi-Weekly Creationism

This is a real shame; I was hoping the Daily Creationism was going to be updated on a much more regular basis, perhaps even in line with its name. I subscribe to this blog and well, I get one or two updates come down and that's it.

Disappointing after months of silence and then a re-launch I was hoping for something more, something fresh, but we've had a few rehashed arguments, disproven a hundred years ago.

The author of the Daily Creationism who hides his identity also hasn't addressed my question from a couple of weeks back, I welcome him to provide an answer.

I see there's been a few changes to his (I assume) site, some new links to some creationist videos, I don't know who the guy is in these is, but wow how boring, at least Hovind was funny in a duh duh way and I could perhaps get through 10 or 20 minutes of nonsense, but this guy, I can't even watch for more than a few minutes because I just get so bored.

I remember an entry a while back now saying he went to Lyme Regis and was debating people, "scientists" I think he called them on the beach. Now usually I'm against debating with creationists, they can spread more nonsense faster than it can be cleaned up, but I'll challenge the Daily Creationism author to a debate. His remarks about making "sure to get a blue one and a pink one LOL" (referring to dinosaurs on Noah's Ark) has made me so confident about the outcome of this debate that I'll ignore the general rule and go for it, maybe he'll learn something about how to distinguish between different genders too.

God doesn't hide behind the Big Bang

It always struck me as being weird for people to claim god created the universe, it just strikes me as arguing from ignorance and throwing Occam's razor in the bin.

We've either got an enormously complicated arrangement of matter and energy popping into existence out of nothing.

Or we've got simple arrangements of matter and energy popping into existence out of nothing.

What's more likely?

The universe through natural laws has taken 13.7 billion years to develop something as complex as us, let alone something as complex as god. To argue that god just sprung up and then created the universe defies basic reason.

It also shows how inconsistent many of the believers are, they're willing to accept a supreme being popped into existence out of nothing, but when it comes to an atomic particle popping into existence, or life slowly evolving their brains somehow can't handle it.

Of course some believers answer that god has always existed, which is nothing less than moving the goal posts, they have no evidence that god has always existed. I can claim the universe has always existed in one form or another and remove god from the equation that way, at least that doesn't defy logic.

After all we know that although time is likely finite, it isn't bound. Just like the Earth is finite in surface area it isn't bound and like time doesn't have a beginning or an end.

Personally I think it would be cruel for the believers to claim god has existed forever, can you imagine spending an infinity twiddling your thumbs before creating the universe? That's one supreme being who would of been bored for a very long time.

Rise of creationism in UK schools

From the Guardian:

Dozens of schools are using creationist teaching materials condemned by the government as "not appropriate to support the science curriculum", the Guardian has learned.

The packs promote the creationist alternative to Darwinian evolution called intelligent design and the group behind them said 59 schools are using the information as "a useful classroom resource".

A teacher at one of the schools said it intended to use the DVDs to present intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism. Nick Cowan, head of chemistry at Bluecoat school, in Liverpool, said: "Just because it takes a negative look at Darwinism doesn't mean it is not science. I think to critique Darwinism is quite appropriate."

OK well Nick Cowan should be sacked and banned from teaching. He's either pushing a religious agenda on to his students or he is deeply ignorant about intelligent design and shouldn't be in a position to teach his ignorance.

The fact the founders of ID started with a conclusion and then worked backwards to try and throw something together to try and support their beliefs means it should be treated very suspiciously even if it was a science.

Using arguments disproved a hundred years ago, isn't science and finally by definition alone, it is not science.

I'll quote US District Judge John E. Jones III who dealt with those on the Dover School board who tried to push it:

In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...] The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

The government here has also made its position clear on the matter. However we have no legal framework to defend ourselves from religious encroachment like our comrades do in the United States.

But the government has made it clear that "neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories". The chairman of the parliamentary science and technology select committee, the Lib Dem MP Phil Willis, said he was horrified that the packs were being used in schools.

"I am flabbergasted that any head of science would give credence to this creationist theory and be prepared to put it alongside Darwinism," he said. "Treating it as an alternative centralist theory alongside Darwinism in science lessons is deeply worrying."

The organisation that sent these materials out to every secondary school in the country is called Truth in Science, from looking over their website it is obvious they're just a religious organisation with an agenda to rubbish evolution.

From their website:

This has considerable social, spiritual, moral and ethical implications.

It is not the task of science to deal with spiritual or moral issues. Science is the search for truth and it will not change the truth just to try and make people feel better by putting them into a delusional stupor.

The Flood idea is dead wrong

I'll quote one of the Daily Creationism's recent posts about the Flood (not Halo):

The Bible says that about four thousand years ago water covered the entire earth! There would of also been many volcanic eruptions because the Bible speaks about the mountains of the great deep breaking up. What a catastrophic event!

If Noah's flood were true then you would expect to find some evidence for it. You would expect to find something like billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. And what do we find? We find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.

Well ignoring the fact we don't find any evidence for a global flood, ignoring the fact that there isn't enough water to flood the whole planet, and ignoring the problem of where did all the water go, ignoring the fact that most water going species that have existed also apparently died in the flood (may be they forgot how to swim), ignoring the fact that the civilisations around at the time; Egypt and so on, aren't affected by this world wide flood and don't record it. Ignoring all that I'll just deal with one little problem I see.

How do creationists explain the fact that we find older species deeper in the earth and newer species buried closer to the surface? I would of thought a flood that wiped out virtually all life on Earth (you worship a god that did that?) would result in everything being pretty much randomly distributed.

We would find humans with dinosaurs, and so on. Yet we don't see this, we always see the same species together, but not separate species. We can see a distinct historical timeline, with some groups of species together, yet higher up in the strata we see completely different species and no more traces of older species.

What's your working solution to this inconsistency?

Those loony creationists

They'll try and say anything to rubbish evolution, come on at least get some intellectual standards. Roger Oakland, speaking in the creationist "documentary" The Evolution Conspiracy:

When the communists took over China the entire child population was forced to attend propaganda classes, where they were taught not some words of wisdom from Lenin or Stalin, but a fundamental course in Darwinian evolution.

You mean school? Yeah when the Maoists took over children went to school instead of having to work 16 hours a day just to try and feed themselves. They went to school and were taught evolution, the very same thing you're taught in school in America the UK and any other developed society. Those Maoists are so evil forcing those children to go to school and learn about science!

Answering the Daily Creationism

The Daily Creationism has asked a few questions of us evil "Darwinists", I am only too happy to answer.

Take for instance the first bird. Did the bird breathe? Did it breathe before it evolved lungs? If so: How did it do this? Why did it evolve lungs if it was happily surviving without them? How did it know what needed to be evolved if its brain hadn't yet evolved? Did the bird have a mouth? How did it eat before it has a mouth? Where did the mouth send the food before the stomach evolved? How did the bird have energy if it didn't eat (because it didn't have a mouth)? How did the bird see what was there to eat before its eyes evolved?

Ignoring the fact that the Daily Creationism's unknown author appears to have no basic understanding of evolution I will go ahead and answer his questions anyway.

The first bird breathed using the lungs it inherited from its parents.

The first bird didn't need to know to evolve a brain it inherited its brain from its parents.

The first bird ate using the mouth it inherited from its parents.

The first bird used the stomach that it inherited from its parents.

The first bird saw using eyes inherited from its parents.

If we were willing to draw a line between birds and reptiles, and single out a single generation and call it a bird, and then call the previous generation a reptile. We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them. The first bird was a reptile; the "last" reptile on the branch was a bird. Only when you look again after say 100 000 generations would you be able to tell the difference, and then only if the population had been subjected to selective pressures.

The origins of key organs that reptiles, mammals and birds share today have to be traced back to our ancestors the fish.

1 ... 2 3 4 5 ...6 ... 8 ...10 ...11 12 13