This just in: Creationist claims are not capable of withstanding scientific scrutiny.

In other news, it's hard to breathe vaccum

What I like is how the complaints in the comments section, that the author didn't differentiate between DERP brand X and DERP brand Y, but rather lumped them both together under the general heading of DERP.

Ah yes irreducable complexity, a claim so genuine they wouldn't even defend it under oath during Kitzmiller v Dover. Oh, and then it got creamed by Kenneth Miller, PhD. and practicing Catholic.

ANY CONCEPT OF THE WORLD BASED ON EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE AND VERIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS IS A LIBERAL LIE

Does god need to cut his toenails?

I always liked the guy who disproves evolution by opening a jar of peanut butter and not finding any life. Well, shiat, I'm convinced!

Link

Kittypie070: Oh gods why am I in here?

Because this shiat can be hilarious. Although I must say it was a lot more fun back when Hovind was still a free man since his dickwad son only talks science when nobody is around to challenge him and resorts to obscure and circular philosophical arguments when confronted with someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

sandbar67: I always liked the guy who disproves evolution by opening a jar of peanut butter and not finding any life. Well, shiat, I'm convinced!

Link

He should check the old jar of Smuckers Natural I have in the cabinet. I think we might be able to convince him.

I remember flipping through a Creationist book that claimed a pic of something that looked like a tree stem in a cliff face under a tree was proof of sudden flooding creating layers of sedimentary rock.

It was a freakin' tap root digging down through sandstone. They can do that, and probably was somewhat responsible for the cliff cracking away to reveal the tap root. I came to that conclusion from the pic, and wanted to burn the book after reading the caption. Alas, I sold it for $20.

Flappyhead: Ah yes irreducable complexity, a claim so genuine they wouldn't even defend it under oath during Kitzmiller v Dover. Oh, and then it got creamed by Kenneth Miller, PhD. and practicing Catholic.

Less than 10 pct of the Christians in the world believe that the Bible must be literally true. The VAST majority of them live in North America. .

The other 90 pct seem to coexist with evolution just fine, although there are various levels of discomfort.

doglover: impaler: Loved this comment:

"Tried to wade through the sarcasm and snark surrounding this article, but I drowned in a Great Flood of liberal hooey."

Science = liberal hooey.

"Feel free to disagree with anyone's beliefs, but mockery merely reveals ignorance."

I've never understood this stupidity. "You were not polite enough, therefore we can disregard all the facts you stated!"

In both these statements:
"2+2 = 4, kind sir."
"2+2 = 4, you damn idiot."

The "2+2 = 4" part of the statement is exactly equally true.

Not quite.

2+2 can equal 6 or even 8 in nine months.
2+2 can also equal -1 if the 2s are bullets.
2+2 can also add up to the best night ever if they're boobs.

So, all in all 2+2=4 is a fairly bold assertion. Kind of ballsy to even think about relying on it outside of math class.

Damn. All of that actually made sense... That's some might fine thinking outside the box there.

"I know better than 200 years of science" is always a winning argument. Always.

fat boy: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 287x400]

MrEricSir: "I know better than 200 years of science" is always a winning argument. Always.

Meh, they don't have to "know" they just have to "believe." It's easy being a mindless puppet, you don't even have to try!

ModernLuddite: ANY CONCEPT OF THE WORLD BASED ON EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE AND VERIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS IS A LIBERAL LIE

Actually, a certain famous poster here actually made that argument to me. He kept ranting that science was invalid so long as it discounted the supernatural in it's explanations.

When I asked how we were suppose to insert such things into the theory, when ID and religious folks will never give any measurable or quantifiable evidence, or even evidence to clearly divide supernatural from nature, he rejected my request. Why? Because I hadn't proved the material nature of the universe, and thus sticking to material arguments was wrong.

I've actually had some experience with tje religious right, and it is scary. When I was a kid, my parents, who are educated and intelligent joined a pretty crazy church. My parent's issue was that they were 100% against abortion, so they joined a place that addressed that without anticipating all the rest of the derp that would come with it.

Anyway 6-year-old me comes home from Sunday school with a pamphlet saying that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. I remember hoping that was true because it would be awesome, but it didn't match what I had learned on school so I went to my dad for clarification.

Let's just say we never went back to that church again. My parents are still religious, and I don't press it because it makes them happy. Also, they are the "good" kind who try to help their community rather than spewing BS.

Also Bush II was the last straw for their support for the right. They both switched their registration to Democrat in 2004.

/end CSB

Hey subby isn't that the same argument that the Climate Change Deniers use?

Hmmmmmmmmmm

Faith doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

It's a big part of why faith recoils against science. 

To be fair, that's why it's called 'faith'.

None of the things listed in the article are referenced in The Bible.
False comparison is false.
Who are these "creationists" anyway? I saw tons of accusations yet no names to go with.
You'd think by 2012, the straw man argument would be out of usage, yet, there it is.
Ah well, your bias will lead you if you let it.

The real question is this: Are we evolving toward having more or fewer fundamentalist derpwads. Is derp an adaptive advantage?

xant: The real question is this: Are we evolving toward having more or fewer fundamentalist derpwads. Is derp an adaptive advantage?

No. We are evolving toward extinction.

xant: The real question is this: Are we evolving toward having more or fewer fundamentalist derpwads. Is derp an adaptive advantage?

I think derp is a trait that can actually be beneficial in certain amounts (making it easier to form a community, and avoid existential angst), but if it's had in too great of quantities, it will fark your shiat up. You know, kind of like how having one sickle-cell anemia gene makes you resistant to malaria, but having two means you're royally farked.

Pff, those aren't the "most outrageous" claims I've heard.

Just off top of my head, three that they're missing:

1. Solar Fusion is a lie. Seriously. This one was in print in the first edition of Astronomy and the Bible, and I think ICR might still run with it from time to time. The idea is that the light and head from the Sun is actually due to gravitational collapse, and that the sun is actually shrinking at a significant rate. The Sun couldn't possibly have been doing this for billions of years, so the universe is actually 6000 years old. This idea was put forward as a solution to the "solar neutrino problem", where scientists weren't measuring the expected level of neutrinos from the sun.

Interestingly enough, very few people still run with this claim since the solar neutrino problem was solved, but I distinctly remember some people thinking it was a big deal when I was a kid.

2. Human population grows geometrically, so the earth can't be millions of years old because there would be too many people if it was. This claim is abysmally stupid for obvious reasons, but I have met people who strenuously argued this one, and one discussion that I'm remembering actually went on for some time when people actually tried to use graphs of populations in ancient China to demonstrate that the global population of humans actually remained stagnant for a while.

3. The "Vapor Canopy". This is the idea that before Noah's flood, there was a gigantic "canopy" of water vapor, clouds, ice, or whatever in the vicinity of the upper atmosphere. This canopy supposedly blocked out UV the UV part of the spectrum (preventing cancer, aging, etc.), caused the atmospheric pressure to be much higher (contributing to animal and human gigantism,) and causing the entire surface of the earth to have a tropical climate. When God wanted to flood the Earth, he disrupted the canopy causing it to rain for 40 days and 40 nights. The main difficulties with this theory are that the math doesn't work out at all, and that there's no evidence for it.


The author of this article may have a cursory knowledge of modern "scientific creationist" claims, but if you're going to go for a list of the "Top 10 most absurd claims," you really need to dig a little deeper. I am disappoint.

stratagos: This just in: Creationist claims are not capable of withstanding scientific scrutiny.

In other news, it's hard to breathe vaccum

If it's that obvious, then why aren't congresscritters that spew this garbage ostracized? Clearly it's not emphasized enough.

I thought science's 'thing' was being able to prove things 100%. I agree on stuff being probable or extremely likely, but, Laws v.s. Theory and all that.

Not that Jeebus freaks are any better, if not worse. Both sides of the argument have their zealots.

I say this as an ex-believer:

STFU about the 'Jesus on a dinosauer' meme.

It's boring and stupid.'

As for atheists: STFU, also. People believe things, let them believe what they want.
You are not better for your supposed enlightenment in the way you treat and your attitude toward the religious.
You are giving 'tolerance' a bad name.

In fact you are just as bad, if not worse, than most fundamentalists.

And btw: whenTF are you gonna start making 'Mohammed on a dinosaur' comments?
What's wrong? Chickenshiat?

like kitties with fresh catnip

Flappyhead: Kittypie070: Oh gods why am I in here?

Because this shiat can be hilarious. Although I must say it was a lot more fun back when Hovind was still a free man since his dickwad son only talks science when nobody is around to challenge him and resorts to obscure and circular philosophical arguments when confronted with someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

This thread will probably be pretty quiet. We wore ourselves out bashing Charlie Brown earlier.

iron_city_ap: I thought science's 'thing' was being able to prove things 100%.

Science is not an endgame. It is a process that strives toward better understanding. It is totally comfortable with, and usually excited about, not being 100% about stuff.

fat boy: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 287x400]

That hasn't been working as consistently as it used to. If you want to guarantee his appearance you are going to have to add some major mana to that spell. Maybe sacrifice a PhD candidate or a goat.

Martian_Astronomer: 3. The "Vapor Canopy". This is the idea that before Noah's flood, there was a gigantic "canopy" of water vapor, clouds, ice, or whatever in the vicinity of the upper atmosphere. This canopy supposedly blocked out UV the UV part of the spectrum (preventing cancer, aging, etc.), caused the atmospheric pressure to be much higher (contributing to animal and human gigantism,) and causing the entire surface of the earth to have a tropical climate. When God wanted to flood the Earth, he disrupted the canopy causing it to rain for 40 days and 40 nights. The main difficulties with this theory are that the math doesn't work out at all, and that there's no evidence for it.

Now that's an interesting concoction. It may be a crock of shiat, but I have to admit it sounds pretty cool and even semi-logical.

sandbar67: I always liked the guy who disproves evolution by opening a jar of peanut butter and not finding any life. Well, shiat, I'm convinced!

Link

holy shiat, my entire IQ disappeaprj ñkjwe r5po423op5k.,s{ñ23ñ{3 fsdga

If there is a God or Creator, he did an extremely bad job of creating.

I, a lowly human being, can think of major improvements for living things, such as

-instantaneous adaptation for any situation, such as growing wings to escape a landbound predator, developing gills in case of water landing or flash flood, body systems that can be actually controlled, shut down, and regulated consciously by the creature
-remodel the male reproductive system so that you don't pee and spooge from the same opening
-being able to consciously decide whether or not to hold onto excess nutrition as fat, as well as metabolize fat before demanding actual food
-fix all of the genetic malfunctions that cause cancer, sickle-cell anemia, baldness, etc

And boom, a lot of problems solved.

/of course, in the beginning everything was perfect, until God threw a hissy fit so big he cursed all of creation to be farked up, because he put something he didn't want Adam and Eve touching right in the middle of the garden with no fence or anything, and he sucked at keeping an eye out for his only nemesis, Lucifer
//sounds like this God fellow really isn't all-seeing, all-knowing, or all-loving

Odin and so forth

Kurmudgeon: Who are these "creationists" anyway? I saw tons of accusations yet no names to go with.

Kent Hovind Ministries
Kenneth Ham
the creation museum in Kentucky
Answers in Genesis
the Institute for Creation Research

These folks are the sources for a lot of the curricula used by homeschoolers.

iron_city_ap: I thought science's 'thing' was being able to prove things 100%.

You didn't pay much attention in science class, then.

Kurmudgeon: None of the things listed in the article are referenced in The Bible.
False comparison is false.
Who are these "creationists" anyway? I saw tons of accusations yet no names to go with.
You'd think by 2012, the straw man argument would be out of usage, yet, there it is.
Ah well, your bias will lead you if you let it.

These are the creationists.
I took this at the Creation Museum near the Cincinnati Airport. Obviously there's enough of these people to support a whole museum. This one is my personal favorite.
I've got plenty more where that came from, too.

douchebag/hater: And btw: whenTF are you gonna start making 'Mohammed on a dinosaur' comments?
What's wrong? Chickenshiat?

If we made fun of Mohammed then christians would end up agreeing with us. Where is the fun in that.

In all seriousness, if you weren't mentally challenged you would realize that the majority of religious people that post on fark are christian and not Muslim. It is the same reason you find more viruses for windows and not macs. More people use windows. Going for the larger audience here.