Yay, Creationism!

I must visit this museum in the very near future.

We then venture into the recreation of the Garden of Eden, where we get to meet the Beastmaster himself. Here, a creatively covered up Adam pets the friendly animals of the garden. Oh, and there’s no need to be afraid, because all of the animals at this time were like Disney cartoon characters. They did not bite, sting, or even defecate for that matter. Even the T-Rexes were playful and gay. Adam even gave them all names! How cute!

The hilarity! Thanks, Alan, for pointing me to the best laugh of my day.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Yay, Creationism!

  1. Patrick says:

    Great, isn’t it?

    Imagine those of us lucky enough to enjoy that hilarity at almost every museum of “natural history”! It’s the same sort of feeling!

    Look, friend! There’s the single celled life form we ALL descended from! Hahaha!

    Seriously though, macro-evolution is up there with flat-earth, blood-letting, and carbon-dating for all time worst “scientifcally” endorsed theories.

    -Patrick

  2. Alan says:

    Yes, the hilarity i feel when realises that carbon 14 dating is an amazingly accurate tool for dating items between about 0 -> 40,000 years ago, and mostly accurate for 40,000 to 60,000 years ago.

    Isn’t that a laugh. Like wow! Depending on the quality of the sample, they can date an object to within a decade or two! Doesn’t that just crack you up?

    Funnily enough, it was usually the priests who were into the blood letting. Do you know why? Because it let out the evil spirits which is what caused people to fall ill in the first place. Dude, did you not go to your history classes? It’s all documented… Still, you think it was a stupid idea, i agree! Priests were quite stupid back then. Not quite sure how it all stands now though….

  3. I don’t think its funny to poke fun at creationists.

    Just as its not funny to poke fun at people with cerebral pasly.

    Its hardly their fault they believe in some retarded, skewed view of reality, its that bloke that wrote the bible… erm whatsis name… constantine, about 400 years after jesus died.

    Oh yeah and don’t forget that genesis as a story evolved from the book of enoch, which actually quite accurately describes the accretion theory of solar system formation… you know the one, a disc of dust, a central explosion under extreme gravitation pressures at fairly high temperatures and the formation of larger bodies from the smaller bodies that orbit the new sun. Not a bad little offshoot for a book written about 4,000 years ago.

    Creationists are like people who read the synopsis of a book, and think its the same as getting the full story. They really should look at where the origins of the genesis story lie, which of course give us some even weirder questions, like how the hell did enoch know about accretion?

  4. Oh and about macro evolution, was that guy even aware that colonies of bacterium that share the same dna are multicellular organisms. In fact one of the largest animals in the world is a mushroom in oregon i believe, which of course is only really a colony of bacterium which form a large symbiotic animal. BTW I say animal rather than plant because fungi are more like animals.

    Macro evolution isn’t exactly difficult to figure out, we just don’t understand the circumstances where the magical event occurs, we see mutation and variation but not the real magic, or at the very least the man behind the curtain so to speak…

    Oops i used the word magical, now we’re gonna have all kinds of witch doctors coming out of the wood work claiming responsibility for it.

    Oh well at least I tried to set the record straight.

  5. Patrick says:

    To avoid the risk of turning Mr. Bockover’s generally excellent blog (I’m still dying to try that spinach ravioli recipe from last year) into a flame war that I have neither the time nor energy to continue, I’ll start this comment with a promise to make it my last on this post.

    Clearly the issue here is facts. The argument quickly devolves into a popularity contest when you say your facts are right, and I say mine are. The loose term “experts” is brought up, and you state quite correctly that more “experts” belong to your camp than to mine at this point in history. I’m certainly willing to concede that. Fortunately, truth cares naught for popularity.

    But google can help. A simple search on most of these subjects can work wonders.

    Take, for instance, “problems with carbon dating”. This results in quite a number of sites that each demonstrate with solid evidence and humorus anecdotes — like the time a bone known to be less than one year old was dated at several thousand years — how trustworthy this particular dating mechanism is. I don’t even want to think about the error component on that function when the system is intrisically exponential!

    Or, another example might be “blood letting” which will turn up results that show the history and popularity in medical circles of this practice as treatment for all sorts of ailments and diseasees. Of course, you can still believe it was mainly priests if you like, but that’s just what it is — faith.

    There is too much to respond to. I will forego commenting on the claims against the bible, because an opinion so ill-informed (Constantine at 500AD?) does not warrant a response. I know that’s a cop-out answer, but it is nonetheless true and I really just don’t have the energy. Besides, I highly doubt you’re legitimately interested in what I have to say on the subject. I have cerebral palsy, remember?

    This problem with macro evolution is an especially remarkable one because it doesn’t seem to stop anyone from accepting evolution as absolute truth, even though there exists no evidence or even any reasonably accepted theories that could explain inter-species evolution. Needless to say, this is sort of a fundamental requirement to believing evolution as the source of the variety of life, don’t you think?

    My point in this is not to say that evolution is false and creationism true — I’m not that dumb, none of us were there to observe it nor are we going to be able to recreate it anytime soon. Rather, I want to assert that when you consider yourself superior in some innate way and make fun of those who have chosen to believe in creationism rather than you who have chosen to believe in evolution, you’re really just reproducing one of the most classic blunders in history — the assumption that prevailing popular thought is truth. You’ve traded the unpopular book (Intelligent Design theory) for the popular book (your highschool textbook), and this is hardly a reasonable claim to validity. Both are quite laughable when the other is taken as truth.

    Finally, A few links you probably won’t click on, but are examples of exceptionally rational people wrestling with these questions and even more interesting ones (value of human life, objective morality, etc.), and who are not stupid, cultish followers as you would like to believe all of us are.

    http://www.rzim.org
    http://www.firstthings.com

    Okay, I’ve written enough, rip me to shreads if you like, I’m done for now.

    -Patrick

  6. I’d like to state that 320 odd is closer to 400 than 500, taking into account that Jesus supposedly lived around about the year . (dot, or 0 in arabic numbers), there’s still a bloody big gap between the death of the guy the book is about and the guy who wrote it.

    So not quite wrong, but I didn’t feel the need to cite references at the time LOL.

    WRT: Carbon Dating, I have read the same reports you have I imagine, except, I read that in each of the tests, retesting a few times got better results, and the accuracy of anything

  7. Alan says:

    Also, so what if carbon dating with C-14 is inaccurate. That doesn’t make one bit of difference. There are plenty of other ways of measuring age which don’t use organic matter and thus dont ahve the same flaws as C-14 dating has.

    And even if C-14 dating is inaccurate, that doesn’t prove that the earth *isn’t* several million years old. It just proves we need to find a better way of measuring age.

    If i called myself Jesus, and i believed it with all my heart, would you accept me as Christ risen again? I think not. You’d ask for proof, rightfully so. Just like i ask for proof that your theory is right, and i don’t mean theory in the scientific meaning, i mean it in the “big guess” kind of way.

  8. MrTreacle says:

    Karl Lattimer
    Jul 12th, 2007 at 6:21 am
    I don’t think its funny to poke fun at creationists.

    I don’t think it’s funny either , I think it’s hilarious.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Patrick, I find it funny that you mention “flat-Earth” and yet stand for the theory of Creation. After all, the leaders of the Christian churches argued vehemently for centuries against the idea of a spherical Earth saying that the scientific evidence was rubbish.

    Yet… you continue to make the same mistake as your fore-believers by believing in Creation while making the same flawed arguments against the theory of Evolution.

    It’s time Creationists learn from history and pull their heads out of their proverbials.

    “the assumption that prevailing popular thought is truth”

    No, he has simply learned from history that the religious leaders fighting tooth and nail against ideas that go against their beliefs are continually proven wrong over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again with regard to science.

    Evolution is as widely believed as it is because of evidence that supports this theory. On the contrary, there is no evidence what-so-ever to support the idea of Creation (which suffers not only from huge gaping holes in reason but also circular argumentation).

    I guess the difference between people who subscribe to the theory of Evolution vs those who subscribe to Creation boils down to “those with inquisitive minds” and “those who believe everything they are told” respectively.

    Creationists are like children who believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy without question. This theory works when you are a young child, as soon as you mature enough to the point where your thought processes are capable of deductive reasoning combined combined with an inquisitive mind, these ideas rapidly deteriorate into fallacy.

    I guess some people just never stop blindly believing the childhood stories told to them…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>