Creationist Wisdom #611: Evolution Is From Satan

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Daily Citizen of Dalton, Georgia, in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. It’s titled What is unscientific? The newspaper has a comments feature.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Maynard. This is the third time we’ve written about one of his letters. First there was #579: We Were Deceived!, and then #592: God or Nothing. Excerpts from his latest letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

We know that secular scientists refuse to give any credence to the theory of Intelligent Design because it is “unscientific.” Well, think along with me for a minute about such closed-mindedness. Suppose that Intelligent Design is the real truth of the matter.

Hey — that’s neat! What if Intelligent Design really is the truth? Lets find out what Maynard does with that idea. He says:

First of all, if the real truth is left out of the conversation, and some other possibility (such as billions of years) is put in its place, would not every conclusion drawn from such a false premise be flawed? Isn’t that basic science? If your foundation is not true, nothing you build on it can be trusted.

Can’t argue with that! Let’s read on:

Well, that is exactly the road that the theory of evolution has traveled. From the get go it has been littered with erroneous conclusions and outright lies.

Amazing! Does Maynard have any examples? Yes, he does! Brace yourself, dear reader:

For example, consider missing links. For more than 150 years they have searched unsuccessfully for a transitional form between apes and today’s mankind. Over the millions of years it would have taken for such evolution to occur, there should be thousands of transitional forms. However, so far, no such fossils have been found — zero. Not that they haven’t tried. Numerous “missing links” have been put forward: Piltdown man (a deliberate hoax), Nebraska man, Neanderthal man, Lucy, Ida, et al. — all proven to be false.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! As with Maynard’s earlier letters, this one is another catalog of creationist clunkers, all of which we’ve debunked several times before, or are found in the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims. Because his arguments are so familiar, we won’t bother with any debunking. Here’s more:

One icon of this nature, however, continues to hang on. We are all familiar with the ape-to-man pictorial that graces many textbooks worldwide. Did you know that there is no fossil evidence for more than two-thirds of these artist’s renditions?

Uh, doesn’t the fossil evidence that Maynard admits exists mean anything? No, and he explains why:

And even if there were, it is impossible to reconstruct what flesh and hair would have been like from a mere bone fragment. They are all fanciful imaginations based on the false premise of what billions of years might have produced.

Okay. Moving along:

I should also mention rock dating. Why are some rocks said to be millions of years old when they are found to contain carbon-14 molecules which would have completely dissipated after only 103,000 years or so?

Would it have been too burdensome for Maynard to learn something about Radiometric dating? Apparently yes. Here’s another excerpt:

And you might also check out the textbook peppered moth story — dead moths being affixed to a tree trunk in order to stage photographic “proof” of evolution. The list goes on and on.

Yes, it’s an endless list of frauds. And now we come to the end:

Satan, the father of lies, has given us evolution so that we might not give credit to our one and only Creator God, and his word, the Bible. Open your minds and hearts, my dear friends. The time is getting short.

Wise words indeed!

Copyright © 2015. 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

Creationist Wisdom #610: A Bold Challenge

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Quad-City Times of Davenport, Iowa. It’s titled Put evolution theory up for debate. The newspaper has a comments feature, and so far the letter hasn’t been doing very well.

We don’t like to embarrass people (unless they’re politicians, preachers, or other public figures), but we have an exceptional situation here. The letter-writer is Steve Brouard, described at the end as having some association with the Quad-City Creation Science Association. We’ll give you a few excerpts from his letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Sid Machalek’s Aug. 16 letter mentions two court cases to justify the rejection of intelligent design for public schools.

He’s probably talking about this: Keep science in schools; creatonism [sic] in church. The two court cases it mentions are Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, and also McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education — a 1981 case challenging a “balanced treatment” law which mandated that creationism should be taught in public schools along with evolution.

It’s not surprising that creationists are furious whenever the courts apply the Constitution to preserve the separation of church and state, because creationists don’t like the Constitution. They prefer theocracy, so that Oogity Boogity is the law of the land, and it must be taught in schools. Okay, we know what has upset today’s letter-writer. This is what he says about it:

First, why does a scientific theory hide behind judges and the threats of lawsuits to justify itself? Free and open debate is what advances science and learning, by discussing the meaning of available evidence.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! There is so much wrong with that paragraph. First, science isn’t “hiding behind judges and the threats of lawsuits.” It’s perfectly capable of standing on its own, based on the evidence. It’s creationists who are trying to legislate their nonsense into places where it doesn’t belong. And of course, “free and open debate” is what science is all about — but because creationists have no evidence, there’s no reason to waste time in science class with their nonsense.

That was Steve Brouard’s first point. Let’s read on:

Second, the idea of a creator is not detrimental to science, but has been a benefit throughout history. Consider the following disciplines of science founded by creationists: Physics – Isaac Newton; Biology – John Ray; Microbiology – Louis Pasteur; Chemistry – Robert Boyle; Genetics – Gregor Mendel; etc.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! There is nothing — absolutely nothing — about Genesis or creationism in the scientific work of those men. Yes, they were religious, but their belief in the supernatural was irrelevant to their science. That was Steve Brouard’s second point. His letter continues:

Third, I agree science should be taught in science class. But, we should leave out falsehoods, including Haeckel’s fake embryonic drawings; Vestigial organs and junk DNA, now known to be active and useful; the debunked 98.8 percent similarity of chimp and human DNA, based on small fragments of DNA; and homology which is circular reasoning.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ve discussed all of those clunkers before — except “homology which is circular reasoning.” Wikipedia says that Homology refers to “the existence of shared ancestry between a pair of structures, or genes, in different species. … Evolutionary theory explains the existence of homologous structures adapted to different purposes as the result of descent with modification from a common ancestor.” Where’s the circular reasoning? Is it less circular to declare that such similarities are caused by an imaginary common designer?

That was Steve Brouard’s third point. Here’s more from the creationist letter-writer:

Fourth, evolution is a basis for theology – the religion of atheism. By faith, atheists believe the first cell popped into existence by itself and a jellyfish-like creature morphed into a T-Rex. There is no science for these beliefs – only speculation.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! But of course, there’s lots of scientific evidence for the doctrine that life and all of its genetically-linked variations were magically poofed into existence during Genesis week.

The creationist’s final point is in the last paragraph of his letter:

Fifth, as a defender of faith in evolution, how about a public debate? Enlist a professor from a local college to help. Eric Hovind will be in the Quad-Cities on Nov. 22-23. We formally challenge you to a public evolution/ID debate. Contact us at [phone number].

Oooooooooooooh — a challenge! Is anyone brave enough — or foolish enough — to step into the lion’s den? Probably not. So the Quad-City Creation Science Association will declare victory. And rightly so!

Copyright © 2015. 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

Rev. David Rives — Other Earth-Like Planets?

You know how these things start. Everything is quiet around here, and then the Drool-o-tron™ jolts us with its sirens and flashing lights. The blinking letters of its wall display said WorldNetDaily (WND). The Drool-o-tron™ had found the latest video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries.

Our computer was locked onto this article at WND: What do we really know about Earth-like planets? Extra-solar planets? That’s a popular subject around here — not only because it’s fascinating, but also because the very idea that there are millions of habitable planets, some of which may even have intelligent beings, infuriates creationists, who insist that our planet is unique in all the universe.

The actual title of the rev’s video is Billions of Earths in the Galaxy. The rev tells his drooling fans that the closest Earth-like planet is around 13 light years away. Then he calls on what he has named the Rives Theory of Relativity to handle the difficult computation, and he announces that our fastest present-day ships travel at 40,000 miles per hour, so it would take 200,000 years to get there.

Is that right? There are 5.88 trillion miles in a light year (that’s 5.88 x 1012 miles) so 13 light years is about 76 trillion miles. At 40,000 miles per hour (times 24 hours in a day, times 365 days in a year) you’d be traveling at around 350 million miles per year. So yeah, 200,000 years is close enough.

The rev also says what everyone already knows — our instruments don’t yet tell us if other “Earths” have our kind of atmosphere or the other factors that make our planet habitable. So what’s his point? He doesn’t seem to have one. Maybe he’s just hinting at the futility of science.

The rev is wearing one of his bible-boy suits — with a necktie. He’s the cutest rev you’ve ever seen! The video is his usual 90-second presentation — before the commercial. Go ahead, click over to WND and watch it.

As we always do with the rev’s videos, we dedicate the comments section for your use as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. You know the rules. Okay, the comments are open. Go for it!

Copyright © 2015. 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

Creationist Wisdom #609: The Mummy Again

Today’s second letter-to-the-editor appears in the Arizona City Independent, a bi-weekly published by Casa Grande Valley Newspapers Inc. of Casa Grande, Arizona. The title is Our Marvelous Universe. The newspaper has a comments feature.

We don’t like to embarrass people (unless they’re politicians, preachers, or other public figures), but we’ll do it in this case. The letter-writer is
Pastor Jim Mumme of the Evangelical Methodist Church located in Arizona City, Arizona.

That’s a familiar name to our regular readers. We’ve written twice before about letters from that same preacher to that same newspaper. The first was #418: Arizona Preacher. Then we wrote #431: The Mummy Returns. Now he’s back again. We’ll give you a few excerpts from his latest letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

After starting with a scripture passage — always a good beginning! — the rev says:

The science magazines that I read regularly have interesting articles about black holes, dark matter, string theory, mysterious radiation sources, intellectual guesses about what is being observed (not always seen, but recorded electronically), and interpretations such as, “The universe is about 14 billion years old.”

The rev has impressed us with his efforts to absorb up-to-date information. Then he tells us:

The Hubbell [sic] Telescope that orbits the earth, and that has a clear view into deep space that is not hindered by pollution and moisture in our atmosphere, exists partly to get a longer view into space, and maybe find the boundary of the theoretical Big Bang that many scientists believe was the beginning of our present universe. If there was a Big Bang, then there should be an outer limit to it, or boundary. They haven’t found it yet, but many scientists persist in their faith that it has to exist.

Yes, the Hubble Space Telescope has been a failure. It hasn’t located the Great Boundary of the universe. Then the rev gives us the competing theory:

The biblical view of the universe is that a Supreme Intelligence (God) created a fully functioning, mature universe in the short interval of six 24-hour days. In other words, that the objects in space began their existence simultaneously, already growing, receding, radiating, appearing, disappearing, etc. The celestial objects began their existence thousands of light years away from us and from each other. They didn’t originate in a tiny spot of condensed matter that exploded thousands, maybe millions, maybe billions, of light years ago to account for their present locations in space.

That sounds good — as long as he doesn’t worry about how those distant stars were visible on Earth during Genesis week. Let’s read on:

The biblical view of living beings is that fully functioning mature (adult) humans, animals, insects, birds, fish, plants, etc. were created, and that life didn’t originate from non-life. No scientist has ever succeeded in creating life from non-life in laboratories, though many have tried, and none have observed it happening in nature.

Science fails again! The rev continues:

It is easy to see that either theory of the origin of the universe requires a great deal of faith.

Well, yeah! Science is all about faith. Here’s more:

The obvious existence of order and design in the universe supports the existence of an intelligent Creator for those who have faith in Him. For those who have a distaste for recognizing an authority greater than themselves, the search for contrary evidence must go on.

Right, that’s what drives those foolish scientists. Moving along:

So far, this search has proven to be very disappointing, although believers like Carl Sagan hang on to every new thread of hope through new discoveries in space.

Sagan is still hanging on? The rev’s letter began by mentioning all the science magazines he reads, but it seems that he has fallen a bit behind. Carl Sagan died in 1996.

The last paragraph is a bunch of bible stuff, so this is a good point at which to leave the rev’s letter. We can’t wait for the next one.

Copyright © 2015. 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