An Abominable Collection of Clunkers

This one is amazing. It’s at a website we haven’t visited before, the Jewish Press, which describes itself as “the largest independent weekly Jewish newspaper in the United States.” They’re located in Brooklyn, a borough of New York City, and they don’t have a comments section. Their article’s title is No, Evolution Is Not A Scientific Fact.

It was written by Josh Greenberger. He’s responding to a pro-science article at that website. Josh is the author of Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt (Amazon link), which has no publisher. It’s an impressive 37 pages long, and there are no reviews yet. Here are some excerpts from Josh’s article, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

There’s a long list of bona-fide scientists who discredit evolution based on science – not religion. Discovery.org [sic] alone has a list of over 1,000 scientists from top universities with impressive degrees – PhDs in chemistry, biology, astrophysics, geophysics, genetics, etc. – who don’t see evolution as scientifically viable. They released a combined statement, saying: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. …”

Josh is referring to the Discoveroids’ A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. We’ve written about it a few times — see Discoveroids’ “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”. Then he says:

The very fossil record that evolutionists often cite in support of evolution actually proves that evolution never occurred. It shows that life forms appeared suddenly, fully formed, and functional looking.

Yes, fossilized organisms were fully formed, but evolutionary intermediates can easily be identified, e.g.: Tiktaalik. After that he tells us:

It’s very possible that one life form can produce another of a completely different structure. [Huh?] But such an occurrence would not be an evolutionary process, but the result of sophisticated genetic properties. [What’s he saying?] The fact that we currently have no scientific understanding to explain this phenomenon doesn’t make a completely baseless theory of evolution a viable option.

*Curmudgeon slowly shakes his head in amazement* Josh continues:

As for the age of archaeological finds: Scientists use radiometric dating to determine how old an ancient item is. When organisms die, the radioactive elements they absorbed during their lifetime start to decay and are not replenished. By measuring how much radioactivity is left, scientists extrapolate back in time to determine when the organism died. This method, though, contains two flaws: First, we don’t know how much radioactive material the organism had in the first place. [That wouldn’t affect the decay rate.] Second, it assumes, with no basis, that radioactive decay remained constant throughout history.

This thing is amazingly horrendous. We’ll just hit the highlights from now on, without rebuttals. Here we go:

According to Bible scholars, meanwhile, our planet went through a catastrophic global flood of boiling water. [Boiling?] Most – if not all – of the above events [meteor strikes, ice ages, etc.] would have greatly affected radioactive decay. [Hee hee!] Thus, the ages of fossils or artifacts are not all based on realistic science.

Great, huh? Let’s read on:

As for the age of the universe: The notion that it is billions of years old is based almost entirely on astronomical observations of distant galaxies. Since we find galaxies allegedly over 10 billion light-years away from us (one light-year is the distance light travels in one year, which is about six trillion miles), it must have taken billions of years for their light to reach us. Hence, the claim goes, the universe must be at least billions of years old.

[…]

During Creation, nature, as we know it, did not yet exist. It was certainly possible, therefore, and I believe very probable, that light was not confined to today’s “light constant,” which would only be “constant” once creation was completed. Light during the six days of creation could very well have traveled much faster than it travels today, and possibly even traversed the universe instantly.

Okay, that’s enough. Now we come to the end:

And with nature’s “constants” operating at such accelerated paces during creation, it’s certainly possible that everything we see today was created in literally six days – and I believe that to be the case.

That was very impressive. The only thing Josh left out was the Time Cube. It would have been his strongest argument.

Copyright © 2018. 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

19 responses to “An Abominable Collection of Clunkers

  1. Michael Fugate

    Josh is a computer consultant http://joshgreenberger.com/
    The article he is responding to is pretty good overall. Josh’s on the other hand…

  2. ”It shows that life forms appeared suddenly, fully formed, and functional looking.”
    Yes, just how many small, invertebrates would leave fossil remains! Indeed, though many fossils have been found, the expectations that every early life form would leave a readily collectable fossil is pretty naive.

  3. A boiling water flood? What, Noah soup? And I gather Josh didn’t pay too much attention in physics, since none of the things he mentions have any effect on radioactivity.

  4. In summery Josh is so dim that burnt out bulb is 10x brighter

  5. As for the age of archaeological finds: Scientists use radiometric dating to determine how old an ancient item is. When organisms die, the radioactive elements they absorbed during their lifetime start to decay and are not replenished. By measuring how much radioactivity is left, scientists extrapolate back in time to determine when the organism died. This method, though, contains two flaws: First, we don’t know how much radioactive material the organism had in the first place. [That wouldn’t affect the decay rate.] Second, it assumes, with no basis, that radioactive decay remained constant throughout history.

    We have no evidence that it didn’t, and if radioactive decay rates were enough faster at the beginning to produce 4.5 billion years’ worth of decay in six days, the planet would have vaporized from the resulting heat.

    And of course scientists have other methods of determining the age of “archaeological finds.”

    During Creation, nature, as we know it, did not yet exist. It was certainly possible, therefore, and I believe very probable, that light was not confined to today’s “light constant,” which would only be “constant” once creation was completed. Light during the six days of creation could very well have traveled much faster than it travels today, and possibly even traversed the universe instantly.

    Or in other words, the rules “could very well have” been whatever creationists need to justify Genesis 1. When you can make up the rules and facts to suit yourself, you can justify anything.

  6. Light during the six days of creation could very well have traveled much faster than it travels today, and possibly even traversed the universe instantly.
    Why bother with making up “possibilities” which accept some of the findings of science and reject others and add on one’s own imaginings wihtout basis?
    Why not just say, “I believe that the world is 6000 years old, and nothing that anyone can say will covince me otherwise.”
    If you preted to have reasons, people will ask you questions like, “Why not believe that the Earth is fixed at the center of the universe and the Sun, Moon and stars make a daily circle around the Earth, as everyone believed that the Bible said until about 500 years ago?”

  7. Lots of clunkers, indeed. “Fully formed” appearance In the fossil record. No, not animals, and certainly not plants. Gymnosperms (pines and relatives) appeared about 320 my ago, flowering plant about 160 my ago. With nearly 300,000 species, more species than species of vertebrates, flowering plants have been quite successful. Like the Precambrian rabbit, finding a flower or cone in old rocks would cause quite a tempest. Creationists tend to ignore plants with their silly arguments.

  8. Michael Fugate

    Josh also has a book “The V-Bang: How The Universe Began” where he claims that his “theory” better fits the data….

  9. Charles Deetz ;)

    What a loony! Almost as crazy as Kanye. More of Josh, please!

  10. Amazing, Michael, how many creationists have a book or 27 in them. ‘Course, it helps to know nothing at all about a subject before they launch themselves into it. At 37 pages, Josh could churn out half a dozen books a year, on everything from cosmetic surgery to how to build the perfect dry-stone wall.

    Josh’s garbled distress signal from planet Meshuggah should be enough to keep Bible scholars busy with exegesis for several years.

  11. A boiling water flood would have complicated things somehow. Noah would have had to catch and house all those fish on his ark. In pairs, of course. On the other hand, a fish is a fish. A couple of juveniles and hyper-fast evolution after the flood would have taken care of things.

  12. @abeastwood

    From the diary of Mrs Shem:

    “…This morning, with the Ark pitching wildly, and everyone else busy below decks, I lowered into the boiling sea a perforated clay pot with my specialty kreplach, which everyone so loves. In no time at all, they were ready to add to the chicken soup, and serve. The whole concoction was declared delicious!

    May Yahweh forgive me for my deviousness, though, for the kreplach were boiled amidst a sea of floating, bloated human and animal corpses, far from standard kosher practices…”

  13. Michael Fugate

    Caterpillars are crawling creatures that go through a stage called pupa, in which they undergo a complete metamorphosis and emerge as flying creatures. Tadpoles are aquatic, gill-breathing, legless creatures that develop lungs, legs, and other organs to roam on dry land. Some salamanders undergo a metamorphosis which also takes them from an aquatic environment to an air-breathing one.

    Although these creatures undergo such drastic changes in only one generation, not one has, in the millions of known cases, ever evolved into anything beyond their usual, known final stage. There is obviously no random evolution going on here. A limited number of creatures apparently have the genetic blueprint for transforming into very specific new forms.

    From his post on Tiktaalik… Understands neither development nor evolution, but does that stop him?

  14. Remember, caterpillars, being crawling creatures, were created on day 6. Butterflies were created on day 5 with the other flying creatures, appearing out of the water (not out of caterpillars).

  15. @all – please don’t judge all of us “computer consultants” by this guy.

    The industry is booming, demand is high, and frankly we’ve had to scrape the bottom of barrel again just like in the Dot-com boom.

  16. Our dear SC makes a grave mistake: “Yes, fossilized organisms were fully formed, but evolutionary intermediates can easily be identified.”
    Those intermediates were also fully formed. Indeed I have met a (Dutch) creacrapper who brought up Tiktaalik as a fully formed organism.

    @Scientist makes the same mistake: “Gymnosperms …..”
    All fully formed.

    “would cause quite a tempest”
    Sure, but Josh being a YECer he doesn’t care anyway.

    @TomS tries to understand Josh’ creacrap: “Why not just say ….”
    Creacrap is an extreme example of the Tension Herman Philipse talked about and Josh suffers from an extreme version of creacrap. At one hand he wants to increase the credibility of his religious views by riding the bandwagon called science, at the other hand he hates all science that contradicts his religious views. So your suggestion, no matter how obvious for a mentally healthy person, is not an option for him.

    @ChrisS stuns me: “planet Meshuggah”
    This is Amsterdam slang; originally Yiddish (writted mesjogge, pronounced almost in the same way).

    @Anonymous thinks he’s smart: “Remember …”
    Of course! YHWH created butterflies first. They laid eggs and YHWH made them hatch the next day. Once again creacrap wins.

  17. There is a “conversation centre” which is what their comments section is called. But you have to sign up for the newspaper before you can comment.

    There are two comments so far one for and one against him.

  18. @hans435
    a fish is a fish
    Indeed! Whether a tuna or a shark or an eel.
    An interesting fact is that the Bible never singles out a species or other taxon of fish for mention. It does mention a couple of sea-monsters, but never names a shark or a ray, or a tuna or a flounder, or a perch or a sardine.
    Considering that several of the disciples were fishermen, this seems odd.

  19. TomS: you are right, it’s odd that fishermen don’t seem to know much about fish. I guess that’s consistent with the hypothesis that the gospels weren’t written by whom they are supposed to have been written.

Make a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s