Creationist Wisdom #1,004: Are You Serious?

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Daily Journal of Kankakee, Illinois. The title is Evolutionists: Are you serious? The newspaper has a comments section — with no comments yet.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. It appears that he sells coffee and tea, and used to be a Fuller Brush salesman, but that doesn’t qualify for full name treatment. His first name is Ron. We’ve written about his letters before — the last time was a week ago: #1,002: The Only Solution, and before that there was #962: The Insanity of Science. Excerpts from his new letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

By “are they serious”, I mean do they really in their hearts of hearts, in their innermost rational beings believe the things they teach? I have stated that what Darwinisms, evolution-ism, etc. claims is unknowable. [Gasp!] They have no fossil record for their claims, no positive way to substantiate their billions of years and slow ever-changing processes to work. We only see life coming from life and kind after kind, with no experiments available to show one species could evolve into another.

As with his earlier letters, Ron’s prose style is clumsy and error-riddled, but we won’t bother to call attention to his blunders. There are two many of them. Then he says:

I am posting again in defense of the Bible and creationism to make the rational arguments on the basis of science. (To know or have facts to back up what we believe and teach.) Let me begin with what we know especially in light of the electron microscope and the hidden world of atoms being explored.

You can see atoms with an electron microscope? Wow! Ron tells us about the hidden world of atoms:

1. All matter when broken down to its smallest elements is “energy.” Yes, swirls of what we named “quarks” and what seem to be only wisps of “energy”. Where did energy come from and why is it still present in all organic and inorganic forms of matter? (God who we cannot see “spoke” all things into existence?)

That was Ron’s first big point. Now this:

2. In humans and all living things we have a DNA string that if it could be extracted from every cell in your body would stretch to the moon and back several times. That DNA string contains information (a non-physical element that is a product of a mind. Much like your thoughts.)

We’re not sure what Ron is saying there. The DNA in one cell, if stretched out, would be about 2 meters long. We don’t know why Ron would want to string together the DNA from every cell, but that would indeed be quite long. He continues:

Dr George C. Williams in his book, “The Third Culture” (1994) admits that matter (DNA) and information are not the same thing. The information can only be produced by a “mind” it appears and since the DNA reliably passes on information where did that information initially come from?

Williams was a respected biologist, but we don’t know what he said about DNA and “information.” Ron doesn’t provide any links, and we won’t go hunting around. Hey — he’s still talking about the hidden world of atoms:

3. Irreducible Complexity; [Groan! That’s Discoveroid science. See Irreducible complexity]. Each nucleus in each cell of the human body we now know contains more information the 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. That isn’t “all” the cells combined, that is each cell of which there are trillions. (I here invite, implore you to pick up a copy of Michael Behe’s 1990’s book, “Darwin’s Black Box”) Behe is a molecular biologist who lays out clearly what was then known. We know more now.

Michael Behe? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Let’s read on:

The facts are: We cannot ascribe the complexity in our own bodies, life around us and the inorganic world to blind chance. [Hee hee!] The human eye function which Behe describes brilliantly should make us stand up and sing “How Great Thou Art” We are truly “curiously and wondrously made.”

At last, we come to the end:

This has gotten long [Indeed!], but the points are valid. [Oh yeah!] You can investigate them for yourselves. [We have.] The point is, we need to quit rejecting God, the Bible and the invaluable guide to living He has given us because of a false teaching called Evolution.

That’s it, dear reader. Has Ron convinced you to abandon the false teaching of evolution? If not, then there’s no hope for you. You’ll end up in the Lake of Fire for sure!

Copyright © 2019. 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

7 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #1,004: Are You Serious?

  1. Laurette McGovern

    Wow! How do you even try to reason with a person who did not use reason to come to his beliefs? It’s pointless.

  2. When someone makes such claims for a god having done it, I challenge them to, “Describe the Scientific Method and use it to explain how creationism works.” In dozens of such challenges, I’ve received only one reply – a guy, to his credit, who admitted he was unable to manage this.

  3. Dave Luckett

    Ron, for all his obscurity, for all his ignorance, is groping blindly towards an argument for ultimate cause, an idea much more ably – but equally faultily – covered by Thomas Aquinas, picking up from earlier work. “Why is there something, rather than nothing?”

    The answer appears to be that complete nothingness is unstable. Ah, but that only provokes the further question, “Why is nothingness unstable?” If one seeks for an ultimate cause, then “God” is as good an answer as any. I’m not saying it’s a good one, mind, only that we don’t have any better. Personally, I think that “There is no ultimate cause” is equally unsatisfactory, but only equally so. I can find no satisfactory answer. That is, I don’t know.

    But all this is as far beyond Ron as elementary physics or biology. His ignorance of those subjects should cause him to show caution about bursting into public print about them, but there is much worse. Ron is no honest broker. His remarks about fossils, about “information”, are not merely ignorant, they are flagrant misrepresentations. They are complete fabrications, utter falsehoods, wrong, worse than wrong, simply and entirely false. Are they fraudulent as well?

    Well, that’s a poser. The liar knows that he is lying. I don’t think Ron knows that much. But I do know this: Ron has never in his life made the slightest attempt to find and understand the facts. He can’t have done. To pose as one who has, when he must know that he has not, is in itself fraudulent.

  4. chris schilling

    @DaveL observes:
    “…nothingness is unstable.”

    A bit like Ron. Also: if the universe is mostly empty space, why is so much of it concentrated inside Ron’s head?

    (Hello, ad hom, my old friend
    I’ve come to utilise you again…)

  5. “Where did energy come from and why is it still present in all organic and inorganic forms of matter?”
    One of my favourite examples of the prinicple of “wrong question, unreliable answer”. This question assumes that the net energy in our Universe is not zero. It very well may be. Ronnieponnie manages to combine it with the flaw of the Cosmological Argument. I simply ask: where is the energy in “God spoke the entire shenanigan into existence” supposed come from?

    “information (a non-physical element)”
    BWAHAHAHAHA! What’s so nice about Ron’s creacrap is it’s incapability of hiding the big flaws. Just one link suffices:

    “Information theory studies the quantification, storage, and communication of information.”

    “more information”
    BWAHAHAHAHA! What does it mean to say that something non-physical is more than something else non-physical? How does Ron compare? How does he measure and calculate?

  6. @Laurette McG: “How do you even try to reason with a person who did not use reason to come to his beliefs? It’s pointless.”
    It’s the point of all creacrap, no matter it’s manifestation. Still there are ways to silence them. Yesterday I had the pleasure of a little talk with a JW at my door. This

    came in very handy. Thanks, dear SC!

    @DaveL: “complete nothingness is unstable”
    Physical nothingness is. The best version of the argument is about philosophical nothingness (ie something unstable is something too). Not that Ronnieponnie understands the difference.

    Off-topic, but there is evidence for Ol’Hambo’s Great Flood:

    “Geological samples drilled from the seabed [Black Sea – FrankB] could, at last, settle the mystery of whether it was here that waters once rushed in, flattening civilisations and leaving behind the story we know as Noah and the great biblical flood.”

    YECers will be delighted by Auntie Beep.

  7. PS: dear SC, it seems that my second reaction has been thrown into the dustbin of WP.

    [Voice from above]: All is well, my son.