Friday the 13th, Creationism, and Uranus

The Scream by Edvard Munch

Tomorrow is a day to be feared, dear reader. Not only is it Friday the 13th — which is more than enough! — but as we’ve mentioned it before, 13 March is of immense significance to creationists. On that date, two profoundly important events occurred.

In 1781, the celestial orb which we tactfully refer to as the Seventh Planet, the one that dare not speak its name, was discovered by William Herschel.

The discovery of Planet Seven has inspired several Curmudgeonly posts, for example: William Herschel, George III, and Uranus, and also Noah’s Ark Found! On Uranus!, and no one could forget Uranus Park Will Compete with Ark Encounter.

That alone is enough to make 13 March the most important date of the year — but there’s more! On that same date, in 1925, the Tennessee General Assembly approved a bill which became the Butler Act, prohibiting the teaching of the theory of evolution in state-funded schools. It was signed by the Governor a week later and resulted in the world-famous Scopes Trial.

Everyone knows that creationism and Uranus naturally go together, but what is the likelihood of two such amazingly important creationist events happening on the same date? Verily, the odds against it are astronomical! There is only one possible explanation — these things were coordinated by the intelligent designer — blessed be he!

And this year those two events are falling on Friday the 13th. Verily, it’s a day to be feared! Our logic is undeniable.

Therefore, we’re declaring this post to be an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. We’re open for the discussion of pretty much anything — science, politics, economics, whatever — as long as it’s tasteful and interesting. Banter, babble, bicker, bluster, blubber, blather, blab, blurt, burble, boast — say what you will. But avoid flame-wars and beware of the profanity filters.

Okay, dear reader, the comment section is open — have at it!

Copyright © 2020. 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 “Friday the 13th, Creationism, and Uranus

  1. has some “good” stuff.

    What do the Chinese, the Indians from India, the Indians from the Americas, the Africans, the Aboriginals and the Maoris have in common?
    They started out as montheists and gradually devolved into monotheists.

    DNA is evidence against evolution, because information (and, so I assume, phlogiston and vitalism).

  2. Perhaps even before Behe and Ol’Hambo my creationist compatriots addressed that most important question: what is the correct (= creationist) view on the corona virus? Fortunately all regulars can read the original at that criminally neglected site (by our dear SC) called Creation Ministries International:

    For those who have developed an allergy for creacrap I’ll give the spoiler: many viruses “play beneficial roles. Yet, we live in a sin-cursed world with much suffering, death, and disease. Some viruses have become dangerous.”

    A fine example of that important fundagelical principle:

    – Something good? Praise the Lord!
    – Something bad? Blame Homo Sapiens!

    What we all really are eager to know is: “how did kangooroos survive the Global Flood?”

    “How comes that scientists never have found fossils of kangooroos in the Middle-East?” [Yeah!]

    1. Creationists haven’t found an unambiguous answer yet.
    1a. Neither have evilutionists!
    1b. Evilutionists won’t present an exact mechanism for the origin of kangooroos in Australia!

    2. Sure, kangooroo fossils haven’t been found yet until now in the Middle East, but that doesn’t mean they never have been there.
    2a. Kangooroos perhaps never have become fossils in the ME.
    2b. Or if they have they simply haven’t been found yet.

    Checkmate, evilutionists!

  3. Dave Luckett

    FrankB notes, correctly, the creationist assertion “Evilutionists won’t present an exact mechanism for the origin of kangooroos in Australia”. This is because “evilutionists” (read “science”) do not know such “an exact mechanism”, and it is considered a major no-no, in science, to claim to know what you don’t know, or to make it up as you go along. This, of course, is not the case in creationist circles.

    But hmm. Kangaroos, eh? Well, they’re marsupials, for a start. Can evolution account for the marsupials being almost exclusively found in Australia, with only a couple of species of opossums found in America, and none in the Old World at all? Well, yes it can, once tectonic plate movement is taken into account. Can creationism account for Wallace’s divide, let alone kangaroos? Only with the usual, “God did it that way”, the explanation that isn’t an explanation.

    Can anybody account for the most distinctive feature of kangaroos, specifically, their bipedal bounding gait? Evolutionary biology would observe that it is the most energy-efficient method known in living things for rapid traverse of open, but broken country. Creationists go back to “God just did it that way”. So why didn’t placental mammals that live in open but broken dry country evolve that gait, too? Well, in the first place, they did, in some cases – jerboas. But in most cases, it was possibly because other adaptations were more important. Like rumenant digestion, for example, which is incompatible with bipedal bounding.

    Creationists deride such hypotheses as “just-so stories”. They might provide an explanation, the explanation might be entirely plausible – but there is not sufficient evidence to prove it, or any other. This, of course, is pure and unadulterated double standards. There is no evidence at all for “God did it”, but even more important, it isn’t an explanation. At least the evolutionary explanation rises to the level of hypothesis. Creationism doesn’t get that far.

  4. chris schilling

    “God did it that way.”

    While He was at it, why not create winged horses, as well? I would, were I lucky enough to be omni-everything.

    I guess there are some things God can’t do, after all.

  5. @chris shilling
    “Gods can choose to limit themselves to the laws of nature.”
    Do deny that is to deny omnipotence.

  6. Jeepers! I didn’t know this fraud was still in business!

    Televangelist Jim Bakker sued for selling fake coronavirus cure

    Bakker’s website offered products like “Silver Sol Liquid,” that claimed to be able to diagnose or cure the coronavirus illness, COVID-19. In a letter to the Jim Bakker Show, the FDA said the products are in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

  7. chris schilling

    A god who can’t make a winged horse is like a chef who can’t boil an egg.🤔

  8. What? You guys don’t think Pegasus was real?

    You fools! Next thing, you’ll be denying the existence of the Cosmic Aardvark!

  9. Megalonyx, your devotion to the True Faith is admirable.

  10. chris schilling

    Maybe I’ll make this my standard riposte to creationists, in future:

    Them: “Where are all the transitional fossils?”
    Me: “Where are all the winged horses, you pencil-necked bastards!”🤺

    (I think I’ve run this non-joke well and truly into the ground).

  11. A slam dunk argument against the Intelligent Design of the Universe:

    the existence of — and need for Irrational Numbers.

    In a well-designed universe, all physical and mathematical constants would be integers. π would equal 3.

    (A poorly designed universe would allow rational numbers at the most.)

  12. “Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small.” (Galileo, see Wikiquote)

  13. Eddie Janssen

    @Random. I like that!

  14. Eddie Janssen

    Then again, Euler’s identity, where pi, e and i combine with 1 and 0 to make an valid equation is pretty disturbing for your argument.

  15. I think the argument works better when applied to the calendar. There is no way to argue that the ratio of year, month and day is fine-tuned. Worse, year and month even cannot be unambiguously defined (just consult Wikipedia).
    Fine-tuning of course in apologist (hence also creationist) speak is a form of design. So on Intelligent Design we would expect exactly 30 days in each month and exactly 12 months in a year. What we have instead is a long list of inaccuracies.
    Biblical creationists are even worse off, because Gen. 1 starts with a week of exactly 7 days. There is no way to squeeze a week properly into a month and into a year.

  16. Woo hoo! Brexit Britain “takes back control!”

    UK will leave EU aviation safety regulator at end of 2020

    ADS [trade body for UK UK Aerospace, Defence, Security and Space] has estimated that it would take 10 years and cost up to £40m annually to create a UK safety authority with all the expertise of EASA, against a current contribution to the European agency of £1m to £4m a year.

    So: 10x the cost and double the bureaucracy to achieve the same result! Ain’t it grand!

  17. @Eddie Janssen: “Then again, Euler’s identity, where pi, e and i combine with 1 and 0 to make an valid equation is pretty disturbing for your argument.”
    I agree!

  18. @Eddie Janssen

    Euler’s Identity, like Intelligent Design, is a figure of the imagination.

    But danm! It sure is pretty — e to the i π plus 1 equals zero.

    Like a Rainbow. And just as devoid of “meaning”.

    “Eee! to the eye pie! Let’s eeet!”

  19. Most here are aware of the Christian PostOur Curmudgeon has mentioned it here What You Didn’t Know About Adam & Eve, here A Collection of Clunkers from Ray Comfort and here Georgia Purdom: Evidence Supports the Bible.

    Now this just in: Bible college and former Newsweek and Christian Post publishers plead guilty in $35 million fraud probe

    “A California-based Christian college and the former publishers of The Christian Post and Newsweek have pled guilty in a scheme to fraudulently obtain $35 million from lenders, according to the Manhattan district attorney.
    * * * * *
    “Most of the money was used to purchase land in New York and California and to fund day-to-day operations, the district attorney said.”