ICR: Ten Evidences for Creation

After you read what we found at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits, the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom — you’ll be ashamed that you ever even considered the theory of evolution. Their article is Ten Evidences for Creation.

ICR doesn’t mention it, but ol’ Hambo’s website previously posted Six Evidences of a Young Earth. Phooey on them — ICR has ten!

Those titles remind us of this at TalkOrigins: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, but ICR needs only ten evidences to make their case. All their article does is list their “evidences,” and for each they provide a link to an ICR article on that subject. We’ll ignore their links, but where we can easily do so, we’ll provide a link to some counter-evidence. Here we go:

Number One: Blue stars burn so fast that they can’t be millions of years old or they would be gone.

Aaaargh!! Yes, the hot blue stars don’t last long, but in many galaxies, including our own, new ones are forming all the time.

Number Two: Genetically, humans and chimps are only 70% similar.

Aaaargh!! Here’s the rebuttal in the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims. Besides, we were made in God’s image, so why is there any similarity between us and anything else?

Number Three: DNA is a language. It had to be written by a mind.

Aaaargh!! That’s unworthy of rebuttal.

Number Four: The fossil record doesn’t show evolutionary progress, but rather the order of burial during the Flood.

Aaaargh!! Also unworthy of rebuttal.

Number Five: Noah’s Flood explains the Ice Age, while other scientific models cannot.

Aaaargh!! Also unworthy.

Number Six: These parts of the cell (graphic shows DNA, proteins, and RNA) are interdependent and needed to be created all at once.

Aaaargh!! Same response.

Number Seven: The laws of physics and chemistry do not allow life to come from non-life.

Aaaargh!! Ditto.

Number Eight: At its current rate of decay, earth’s magnetic field could be no older than 50,000 years.

Aaaargh!! Here’s the rebuttal in the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

Number Nine: The amount of mutations in human M-DNA is consistent with the creation timeline.

Aaaargh!! According to creationists, everything is consistent with the creation timeline.

Number Ten: Original tissues and carbon-14 can’t last millions of years, yet they are found in dinosaur fossils.

Aaaargh!! We’ve discussed that one before — see Dinosaur Fossils Found with Hot Red Meat?

Okay, that’s all there was to it. You’ve seen their best case. Impressed?

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

The Great Debate Even Before Creationism

In the absence of news about The Controversy between evolution and creationism, we’ll zoom out a couple of clicks and look at an astronomy item we found at PhysOrg — The Great Debate over whether the universe is small or large.

It’s a fascinating look at some science history, and it demonstrates how science works when there’s a controversy between competing theories. We’ve added some bold font to the following excerpts:

The visible universe is vast. It is 93 billion light years across, and contains more than 100 billion galaxies. The average galaxy contains about 100 billion stars, and untold numbers of planets. Yet a century ago there was serious doubt among many astronomers that the universe was much more than 100,000 light years across. Arguments about whether the universe was small or large became known as the Great Debate.

A lot of controversies have been referred to by the opposing sides as the “Great Debate.” We have no doubt that the showdown between Bill Nye and ol’ Hambo is being called that. But the dispute about the size of the universe was worthy of the name. We’re told:

It is often known as the Shapley-Curtis debate, so named after Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis, and a public debate they had in 1920.

Wikipedia has a brief article about it — see Great Debate. Back to PhysOrg:

The debate centered on the distance to certain nebulae. At the time, “nebula” referred to anything (excluding comets) that appeared “fuzzy” rather than distinct like a star or planet. So things like the Orion nebula (a stellar nursery), the Crab nebula (a supernova remnant) were considered nebulae just as they are today, but what we now call galaxies were also known as nebulae. The Andromeda galaxy, for example, was known as the Great Andromeda Nebula.

Curtis argued that Andromeda and other spiral nebulae were in fact “island universes”, similar in size to our own Milky Way “universe”. This would mean that not only were these nebulae 100,000 light years across or more, they must be millions of light years away.

This was in 1920. Did Curtis have any evidence? Let’s read on:

He based this argument on the fact that more novae were observed in Andromeda alone than were observed in the entire Milky Way. Why would that be the case if Andromeda were small and close. He also noted that some spiral nebulae had rather large redshifts, meaning that they were moving much faster than other objects in the universe.

Obviously a crazy man. Here’s the other side of the Great Debate:

Shapley argued that what we now call the Milky Way galaxy was the bulk of the universe. Spiral galaxies such as Andromeda must be relatively close and small. He based this view on several points. In 1917 Shapley and others observed a nova in the Andromeda nebula. For a brief time the nova outshined the central region of Andromeda. If Andromeda were a million light years away, as Curtis contended, then this nova (we now know it was a supernova) would need to be far brighter than any known mechanism could produce.

Shapley had other evidence too, which the article mentions. We notice, however, that no one was arguing for a bible based view of things. So how did the debate work out? PhysOrg informs us:

After the debate the general opinion was that Shapley had won. His own observations of the shape of the Milky Way and the 1917 supernova, and [other evidence we skipped] gave the small universe model solid footing. Besides, the idea that objects could be millions of light years away seemed patently absurd.

So there you are. The Milky Way, our galaxy, is the whole universe. Oh wait — there’s more:

In 1912 Henrietta Leavitt discovered that Cepheid variable stars vary at a rate proportional to their brightness. … In 1925 Edwin Hubble used Leavitt’s period-luminosity relation to precisely determine the distance to the Andromeda galaxy. He demonstrated conclusively that Andromeda was about 2 million light years away.

Aha! Curtis was right after all. You can read about the significance of Hubble’s work in Wikipedia — Hubble’s law. Here’s the end of the PhysOrg article:

Thus we came to know that our Milky Way is an island galaxy in a much larger universe.

Curtis had the unpopular idea. Prevailing opinion and most of the evidence seemed to be against him. His model of a gigantic universe was regarded as absurd. Yet his theory prevailed. Surely there’s a lesson the creationists can learn from this.

Well … no, there isn’t. But that shouldn’t stop them from using Curtis as an example of how a fringe idea can become mainstream. They’ll never explain how the big universe became mainstream, but don’t be surprised if they adopt Curtis as an encouraging example of an underdog who eventually achieved success over a dogmatic consensus.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Evolution — The Greatest Hoax of All Time

We’re warning you right up front: this one comes from RenewAmerica, where Ellis Washington’s columns have been appearing ever since he stopped writing for WorldNetDaily for reasons unknown to us.

What we found there today is titled Evolution’s Achilles’ heels — top scientists scrutinize the weakness and falsehoods of a generation of spurious science. Achilles’ heels? Achilles only had one vulnerable heel. Ignoring that, if that, if the title sounds crazy otherwise, wait ’til you see what the article says. It’s written by a preacher named Michael Bresciani, about whom we’re told: “Rev. Michael Bresciani is a Christian author and a columnist for several online sites and magazines.”

We wrote once before about one of his articles — see Creationist Wisdom #397: Hambo Won the Debate. Here are some excerpts from his latest, with bold font added by us:

After the great Scopes Monkey trial circa 1925 the world eased back and decided that scientists and forensics would continue to carry the ball about origins, while those who thought the Bible was true would be sent to the back of the room where the dummies sit. Real Christianity never fosters stupidity and soon those who believed the Bible started to use the empirical methods of the scientists to uncover amazing truths about origins that early forensics either overlooked or were not willing to see.

Bible believers used the scientific method after the Scopes trial? BWAHAHAHAHA!. Then the rev says:

The result of years of ‘creation science’ has accumulated since 1925, but it has run head on directly into what is today called – political correctness. PC is the equivalent of something better known as – ‘don’t confuse me with the facts.’

Yes, quite a pile of creation science has accumulated. Let’s read on:

There are a lot of factors that fuel the present world view of evolution. Beyond peer acceptance is money. … Money may still be what makes the world go around, but it is also still the best way to bring brilliant minds to a complete stop.

The only thing holding creation science back is a lack of funding. Hey, if creationists get an ark-load of funding, then their brilliant minds may stop too. This is confusing, but the rev continues:

The pathology of ‘evolutionary science’ is not where the problem is found, but it is the philosophy of evolutionary science that is flawed right out of the gate and the suspect science itself stumbles in the long run. Regardless of specious theories, spurious explanations, missing evidence and pure guesswork; at the heart of the evolutionary model is a blaringly simple error that PC keeps hidden from view – at all cost.

Yes, we must suppress The Truth at all cost. Here’s more:

When anyone, scientist or ordinary lay person make [sic] statements about what took place before the dawn of man and recorded history, some of it allegedly going back over 450 billion years, they have left forensic science behind and crossed into the realm known as – prior philosophic postulation.

Evolutionists talk about what was going on “450 billion years” in the past! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And we know all about “prior philosophic postulation” — that’s what ol’ Hambo’s outfit talks about as the “secularists” pre-supposition that the laws of nature were the same in the past as now, rather than being wildly different to accommodate the creation account in Genesis.

We’ll skip some silliness about bovine flatulence — although it somehow seems relevant. Then we’re told:

If conclusions are formulated by a predetermined belief that creation could not have an intelligent designer – that is prejudice – not science.

The rev is oblivious to the fact that if he does away with predetermined belief, he has completely dismissed creation science. Moving along:

There are literally reams of arguments that evolutionists should never use, but there are at least two great philosophical points that no evolutionist has yet been able to answer. … Without elaboration they are

1. The (millions or billions) of missing links.

2. The lack of an explanation concerning the origins of the gases and or particulates that went into the ‘big bang’ – who or what created them?

Aha — the rev has spotted the two biggest weaknesses in the theory of evolution! But wait — he has even more:

In order to thrive the evolutionary model depends on a scientific view that is supposed to answer the two greatest questions that mankind has ever asked. First, is the question of origins – where did the planet and the life on it come from or originate? Second, is the question of destinations – where is it all leading and what will be the future of mankind.

Darwin never answered those questions! Another excerpt:

The element that evolution dismisses is the idea of intelligent design. If God is responsible for everything then evolution is finished out of the gate. It becomes the greatest hoax of all time rather than the theological or the scientific explanation of origins.

We’re barely halfway through the rev’s essay, but this is where we’re going to quit. We can’t take any more. The rest of it is a massive sales pitch for a video from something called “Creation Ministries International.” If you have more endurance than we do, we urge you to click over to RenewAmerica and read it all. Then tell us if we left anything out that was worth mentioning.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Bobby Jindal: “Obama Is a Science Denier”

Buffoon Award

We haven’t had much to say lately about Louisiana’s creationist governor Bobby Jindal, also known as Bobby Jindal, the Exorcist. As you may recall, Jindal’s gyrations made him our sixth Buffoon Award Winner.

The last time we wrote about him was after he flat-out admitted that the Louisiana Science Education Act permits teaching creationism, and the Discovery Institute totally abandoned him (see Discoveroids: “Bobby Jindal? Who’s He?”).

Jindal has now earned his way back into our humble blog. In the Daily Reporter of Greenfield, Indiana, we found this: Louisiana governor says Obama administration hasn’t done enough to harness energy potential.

It’s not the headline that drew us to this story. It’s understandable that Jindal is a spokesman for the energy industry, because that’s a major factor in Louisiana, and of course the Obama administration is in bed with the environmentalists. We won’t bother with those issues. But take a look at the story’s opening paragraph. The bold font was added by us:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said Tuesday that President Barack Obama’s administration has become “science deniers,” failing to do enough to harness the nation’s energy potential.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Can anything else in the article even come close to that? Well, somewhat. Jindal is quoted as saying this:

The reality is right now we’ve got an administration, the Obama administration, that are science deniers when it comes to harnessing America’s energy resources and potential to create good paying jobs.”

Not surprising. Jindal is a politician, so he’s as much a pawn of the energy industry as he is of the creationists. The amazing thing is that he seems unaware of the inconsistencies. Here’s one more excerpt, to give you something else to think about:

The 43-year-old governor and former congressman has sought to carve out a role as a leading policy mind as he considers a presidential campaign in 2016. Jindal told reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor that there was “no reason to be coy” and he would make a decision on whether to seek the White House after the November midterm elections.

By the way, there are crazed science deniers in the leadership of both parties, but they deny different aspects of science in order to advance their political goals. See Is Your Political Party Really Pro-Science? It’s easy for your Curmudgeon to say that, because our viewpoint is cosmic. But from a provincial, partisan viewpoint (which, alas, is not uncommon among scientists), each party insults the other with the label of science-denier. In truth, both parties are run and supported by fools.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article