Rotating Header Image

Another Young Earth Creationist Exhibits Sheer Stupidity

Mar 18th, 2008
by Drew Tatusko.

Jim was right:

Millions and billions of years are cited as factual. Actually, their measurements are not accurate.

Apparently stars and black holes are made up too.  And all those pesky strong and weak forces out there.  Heat death does not exist either.  Does the sun still revolve around a flat earth too?  So Jesus did ride dinosaurs?  Or did God create the fossil record just to screw with the heads of humankind?  Where is that in Scripture?

Evolutionary process has never been observed.

God has never been "observed" in kind.  Apparently this person never read Isaiah – or the Hebrew Bible for that matter (you know as in that bit with those seraphim who have enough wings to shield their eyes from the glory of the Lord whose name we cannot even utter – yeah that God).  Or, God does not exist.

There are true scientists who call evolution a fairy tale. I have a book…

I have a book that I can get called The End of Faith and one called The God Delusion.  Therefore faith is over and God is a delusion.

For the origin of all creation, match the Genesis record, archaeology, true science of all kinds and the problem is solved. The flood in Noah's time fits very well with geology formations.

Except for the geological record in general and all those other mass extinctions (among many other sets of countervailing evidence).  Even if we say the flood happened as a global water world, there are at least 14 other extinctions and these big craters to account for.  Dummy.

Read the inanity here for a good guffaw.

Related posts:

  1. human contribution to mass extinction
  2. on digging deeper to go beyond literalism
  3. ken ham: religious hack
  4. revised statement of faith
  5. why the pcusa ordination exam is not a good assessment

Posted in: Religion, Science, Theology.

←
→
  • Alan
    I am a slightly familiar with Dr. White's book. I did not get the impression that its major purpose was the defense of Darwanism, though I suppose it might have been.

    The thing that bothered me about Russell's statement was that it made it sound as if the primary or only purpouse in maintaining the thesis that "religion and science are in necessary and eternal conflict" is in order to maintain or defend Darwinism. In fact, in calling this thesis a "lie," I got the impression that he believes it to be nothing more than crude propaganda on Darwin's behalf.

    I guess I would need more evidence than presented in this short summary of his ideas before I felt comfortable with that. On the other hand, I don't believe that religion and science are in necessary and eternal conflict, nor do I believe that maintaining they are would be useful in advancing understanding and acceptance of evolution.
  • Alan, Dr. White's book, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 1898, does bring together Darwinism and the Flat Earth theory in his attack on Christianity. The notion that there is a battle between religion and science thus traces directly to this famous scholar, although he wasn't the only one nor was he the first. It is fun to ponder where Darwinism would be today without Washington Irving's flat earth theory.

    And Mike, which of Aristotle's books did you get your info from?
  • Alan
    According to Jeffrey Burton, in the above mentioned article: "The reason for promoting both the specific lie about the sphericity of the earth and the general lie that religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society, is to defend Darwinism."

    Personally, I don't think this is so, nor do I think that promoting the notion of a war between science and religion is a good way to defend Darwin or scientific thought in general. I am probably preaching to the choir, but pointing out that there is no necessary conflict between science or evolution and religion in general is much more effective in promoting science than is ranting and raving about how anti-scientific religion is.

    The real hard-core anti-evolutionists are really advocates of a specific theology and it is really only it, not Christianity or religion in general, that is threatened. I think this has to be said over and over again.
  • Alan
    Here is a summary of the book that Loony mentions, from the author himself.

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russ...

    One key distinction is between the knowledge of the "educated people" and the "general population." In school I was taught that educated people since the time of ancient Greece knew that the earth was spherical and that Columbus did not have to convince others of this fact, let alone his patrons.

    As one who is experienced in defending the standing of scientific knowledge against the claims of people who believe that various ancient religious texts should be used as science text books in high school, I find that mentioning the “flat earth” theory is very useful rhetorically. This is because it provides an example outside of evolution where a simplistic and naive viewpoint is contradicted by more careful and deliberate observation. Finding a “neutral” example upon which we all agree is important to advancing a point about a more emotionally charged issue. Its historically is not really at issue. It is just an example.

    It can be, and has been, used as a smear, but even then it is almost always the case that everyone knows it is an exaggerated accusation used simply for rhetorical effect.

    I am told, but have never been motivated enough to look it up, that there are Biblical passages that, when “interpreted literally” , imply that the earth is a flat disk resting on several pillars. I don’t know if this is so, and I don’t state that it is when discussing these issues, but I found it interesting.
  • Thanks for the post Drew!


    Looney,

    In early Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps such as those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus.

    In early classical antiquity, the Earth was generally believed to be flat. According to Aristotle, pre-Socratic philosophers, including Leucippus (c. 440 BC) and Democritus (c. 460-370 BC) believed in a flat earth. Anaximander believed the Earth to be a short cylinder with a flat, circular top which remained stable because it is the same distance from all things. It has been suggested that seafarers probably provided the first inkling that the Earth was not flat. If they had to "suggest" it wasn't flat, then that means others thought it WAS flat.

    I'll resist the urge to use the words dumb or stupid.
  • I agree that the article is extremely goofy, but ...

    You wrote: "Does the sun still revolve around a flat earth too?"

    Did you know that the flat earth theory was concocted by Washington Irving for his novel about Christopher Columbus? It didn't exist until the 19th century! The founder of Cornell University, Andrew Dickson White was one of several scholars who worked hard to insure that the flat earth theory was considered a genuine part of history so that this bit of slander was in the textbooks that I read as a child in backwoods Tennessee, not far from where the Scopes trial took place.

    For a more detailed summary, there is "Inventing the Flat Earth, Columbus and Modern Historians", by Jeffrey Russell.

    Stupidity is an equal opportunity employer.
blog comments powered by Disqus