Creationist Wisdom #755: Darwinism Exposed!

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Lethbridge Herald of Lethbridge, the fourth-largest city in Alberta, Canada and it’s titled How does evolution stand up to scrutiny? 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 Tom. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

After referring to a series of earlier letters, Tom says one of the letter-writers wrote that religion is “an outdated line of thinking.” That’s probably this letter. Tom disagrees. He claims that letter-writer “substitutes a worldview that doesn’t exactly handle scrutiny.” Tom’s letter brilliantly scrutinizes the evolutionary worldview. He says:

Bacteria gain drug resistance through impaired genetic information, not by structuring new information in defence. The “whale fossil,” Pakicetus inachus, proved entirely land-based, and was declared a whale only from skull fragments. The question “Was Darwin Wrong?” might be better, “Would Darwin have believed evolution possible, knowing what we now know about embryology, morphology, paleontology and more?” It’s a worthy question. The answer tells us whether Darwinism merits a part to play in the sciences.

Wow — an ark-load of powerful material! Having deftly exposed the nonsense of bacteria evolving drug resistance and also whale evolution, Tom asks whether Darwin himself would have embraced “Darwinism” if he knew what Tom knows. Then he adroitly shifts to the Darwinist nonsense of life on extra-solar planets:

If Trappist-1 has any luminosity increase, its planets would suffer heat spikes. That close in, the worlds are tidally locked, unable to rotate for a day/night cycle. Do they have atmospheres dense enough to retain surface liquids? Do they have magnetic fields strong enough to repel their sun’s radiation? Solar flares could sear away their atmospheres, and Trappist’s mere proximity would degrade them anyway – our own sun’s depleted the atmosphere of Mars, which is much more distant. What foothold for life is possible around Trappist-1?

After brilliantly demolishing the notion of life elsewhere in the universe by exposing the idiocy of Darwinist astronomers, Tom explains why Darwinists are all messed up regarding the age of the Earth:

Mass spectrometry’s isolated tissue elements like collagen fibres and red blood cell remnants in the fossilized bones of six different dinosaurs – revolutionary findings, because tissue can’t last for tens of millions of years. Paleochronology adds, unexpectedly, that every dinosaur fossil tested for carbon-14 offers an age of 22,000 to 41,000 years – suggesting these dinosaurs might have been more recent, perhaps even fulfilling the human desire to see one.

Tom’s letter exposes the evidence we wrote about in Dinosaur Fossils Found with Hot Red Meat?, and he also declares the accuracy of ol’ Hambo’s argument in Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions.

Tom is doing great! After a few more astonishing disclosures, which we’ll let you read for yourselves, he concludes his letter with this:

Today, Darwinism stays in force mainly through the vehemence of its true believers, who impose it on all new discoveries and insistently quell dissent.

So there you are, dear reader. Tom has dared to expose evolution to scrutiny. Great letter!

Copyright © 2017. 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

8 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #755: Darwinism Exposed!

  1. Um, Tom, I don’t think anyone who knows anything about C14 half-life would try to use it for dating dinosaurs that lived between 1×10^6 and 2×10^6 years ago.

  2. Michael Fugate

    But Tom doesn’t answer the question of whether or not religion is an outdated line of thinking?

  3. Christine Janis

    It’s so ironic that creationists imagine that “exposing” Pakicetus as terrestrial somehow destroys evidence for whale evolution. Didn’t they used to say that, if whales evolved from land mammals, show us a land-living whale?

  4. Ross Cameron

    The only exposure is by priests and other religious perverts with their victims.

  5. Dave Luckett

    Auditory bulla, Tom. Look it up.

  6. Is Tom confusing dinosaurs and mammoths? Or is it just that he uses “dinosaur” to mean “extinct animal”?

  7. abeastwood: there were no dinosaurs 1 to 2 million years ago; try 65 million years ago and earlier. Nevertheless, your point stands.

  8. Eric: opps, I should have proof read it before I posted. You are, of course, correct.