Creationist Wisdom #892: Historic Validation

This one is a column, but we’ll add it to our letter-to-the-editor collection. It appears in The Salem News of Salem, Missouri, population 4,950. They have a comments feature, but there aren’t any comments yet. Their headline is Historical validation for the Old and New Testaments.

Unless the writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name — but today’s column was written by Tom Romer. At the end we’re told: “Tom Romer, former CEO of Romer Labs, is a world-renowned expert in the field of mold toxin testing in food products.” They say he’s “world-renowned,” so Tom qualifies for full name treatment. We’ll give you some excerpts from his column, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

Earlier articles revealed how biological evolution is a historical narrative [It’s what?] that lacks the “in-between” fossil evidence that Darwin claimed would be discovered. [Ah yes, the missing links.] The Big Bang theory also lacks evidence that it really happened. [Wowie — no evidence!] No humans were around to testify that either biological evolution or the Big Bang were historical events.

Egad — Tom has found the fatal flaw in both theories — the lack of human witnesses. He says:

The Bible, however, is a written document, not just a theory about the past. [A written document!] Like most ancient documents, original copies of the Bible are not available due to disintegration over time. We only have copies of most ancient documents. But how do we know that the copies are true replicas of the original documents?

Yeah, how do we know? Tom tells us:

Historians of ancient literature have developed tests to determine how well copies correspond to the original documents. The main test is called the Bibliographic test. There are two factors in the Bibliographic tests: 1. How many copies of the original document are currently available? 2. How many years passed between the time when the original document was written and when the copies were made? The more copies available and the shorter the time span between when the original document was written and when the copy was made, the better the historical validity is.

That’s neat. Hey — there are first editions of The Lord of the Rings readily available, so Tom would conclude that it’s really historically valid. And a quick Google search located first editions of Mother Goose, so that’s historically valid too. He continues:

There are 5,656 copies of all or parts of the Greek New Testament, which were written between 50 and 225 years after the events happened. Because of this, the New Testament is the most historically validated ancient document. In second place is Homer’s Iliad, of which there are only 643 copies, written 400 years after Homer wrote this story.

Actually, the Epic of Gilgamesh is even more “historically validated,” because there are surviving tablets that tell the tale from at least ten centuries BC. Anyway, let’s read on:

There are only 10 copies of the history of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars, which were written 900 years after these wars occurred. There is more evidence that Jesus Christ was born, crucified, and rose from the dead than there is that Julius Caesar ever lived.

Yeah, phooey on Caesar! No historical validation. Another excerpt:

The Old Testament is historically validated in a different manner. [Ooooooooooooh!] The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 provided evidence that Masoretic copies of the Old Testament made in 916 A.D. were almost identical to Dead Sea Old Testament scrolls dated 125 B.C., 1000 years earlier. Thus, both the Old and the New Testaments are historically validated.

That’s nice, but it doesn’t come close to the “historic validity” of the Epic of Gilgamesh. And now we come to the end:

Compare this validation to that of biological evolution and Big Bang cosmology, both of which have no written documents to support them and no real evidence that either really occurred.

Okay, dear reader. You’ve seen Tom’s argument. What do you make of it?

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

ICR Says Darwin Was All Wrong

This will surely convince you to abandon your foolish Darwinist beliefs, dear reader. We found it at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Their headline is Are the Galapágos Islands a Laboratory of Evolution?

It was written by Frank Sherwin, M.A. (Note that he touts his Master’s degree.) At the end of the article he’s described as “Research Associate, Senior Lecturer, and Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A recent Livescience article is entitled “The Galápagos Islands: Laboratory of Evolution.” [Here it is.] It addresses, among other things, “unique examples of plant and animal life.” The islands contain a variety of biota (the animal and plant life in a particular area), such as the Galápagos giant tortoise, sea lions, the varieties of finches, waved albatrosses, penguins, marine iguanas, and hundreds of native plants. A wide variety of unique species are normal for environments around the world, but where is evidence for real, demonstrative, vertical evolution that the title of the article alludes to?

Yeah, where’s the evidence? Sherwin says:

It appears Darwin’s conclusion was simply wrong. [Hee hee!] Life in the Galápagos makes far better sense from the biblical creation model. As God created animals and plants “after their kind” (e.g., Genesis 1:11), He included genetic variation and a variety of built-in adaptive mechanisms so that those initial creatures and all their descendants could move in and fill various niches in ecosystems throughout the world (Genesis 1:28). One need only look at bears in all their variation: polar, black and brown — there are well over a dozen black bear sub-species alone — but they’re all bears in the genus Ursus and can interbreed. Fruitflies have always been fruitflies, and roses have always been roses. Horizontal variation is the rule — not vertical evolution.

Darwin was a fool! Sherwin continues:

Not once did he [Darwin] actually address any origin of any species in his book, ironically entitled On the Origin of Species. He did write quite a bit regarding variation found in certain types of plants and animals selected for by human endeavors such as the common wild rock pigeon found around barns and city statues. But he never addressed vertical evolution, also commonly called macroevolution.

Actually, Darwin did address the issue — rather extensively. We wrote this back in 2009: What Did Darwin Do? Alas, our links in that post to Darwin’s text are no longer working and we haven’t yet replaced them, but you can read the whole book online here: Origin of Species (6th Edition). Let’s get back to Sherwin:

The famous Galápagos finches are usually presented as Exhibit A for Darwinian evolution [Really?], but all of the “new species” of finches are still finches and can interbreed. This is clearly not an example of real evolution, it’s an example of the variation we see in species. Different islands (e.g., James Island, Albemarle and Chatham) of the Galapagos have slightly different tortoises. Zoologists can identify the island a tortoise came from based on the shape of its carapace (shell). Again, this is just variation of the tortoise kind — the kind of variation we see all over creation. There is no evolution.

Gasp — there is no evolution! And now we come to the end:

So, although the Galápagos Islands has [sic] some unique plant and animal life, there is no real evolution occurring. Perhaps a better, more scientific title of this article could be, “The Galapagos Islands: Laboratory of Creation’s Variation.”

Think about it, dear reader. Maybe Sherwin is right!

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

Hambo and the Chinese Dinosaur

A few weeks ago, PhysOrg posted ‘Amazing Dragon’ unearthed in China pushes back date of earliest sauropods in Asia. They say:

A team of researchers from China and the U.K. has unearthed the remains of the earliest diplodocoid ever found in eastern Asia. In their paper published in the journal Nature Communications [A new Middle Jurassic diplodocoid suggests an earlier dispersal and diversification of sauropod dinosaurs, readable online], the group describes the place where the fossil was found and what the find revealed about the history of the large dinosaurs.

[…]

Sauropods are a class of dinosaur — they are known as very large vegetarians with long necks and massive bodies. Diplodocids are regarded as a super-family of sauropods representing some of the largest animals that have ever lived on land. They have been classified as neosauropods because of their more recent evolutionary history compared to other sauropods. But their absence in eastern Asia suggested something had prevented them from moving into that area. But now, it appears that assumption is wrong. … The find proves that diplodocids did exist in what is now eastern Asia, during the time before Pangaea broke apart. That means they had to have arrived at least 15 million years earlier than previously thought.

The news has just reached Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. At the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), Hambo’s creationist ministry, he wrote: A Dinosaur in the Wrong Place, Wrong Time? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Evolutionary scientists have recently announced the “surprising discovery” of a dinosaur similar to Diplodocus (one of the long-necked dinosaurs) in a region of northwest China where these dinosaurs were not believed to have lived, fifteen million years earlier than scientists thought they had evolved. This discovery now “forces a complete re-evaluation of the origins and evolution of these animals.”

Ooooooooooooh! The evolutionists were wrong! That’s in contrast to creation scientists, who are never wrong. Hambo says:

When I point out that the evolutionary story and timeline have been revised again many evolutionists will quickly declare, “that’s science! The process of science changes our knowledge as we discover more evidence and data.” But what’s wrong with this argument?

Tell us, Hambo! Here it comes:

Well, first of all, this kind of thinking ignores the difference between observational and historical science. Observational science is directly testable, observable, and repeatable. It’s the kind of science that develops medical innovations and new technologies. But historical science deals with the past (like these dinosaur fossils). It is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable so what you believe about the past will directly determine how you interpret the evidence in the present.

Groan! We went through this years ago — see Creationism and Science. It’s summarized in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Hambo continues:

With this in mind, [Hee hee!] consider this find. [We’re ready, Hambo!] The observational evidence is dinosaur fossils in a rock layer in China. The fossils don’t come with tags, telling us this dinosaur lived millions of years ago and they certainly don’t tell us they evolved from another kind. [Ooooooooooooh!] Those are interpretations imposed on the evidence because of an evolutionary starting point. And this starting point is consistently getting the story wrong! We don’t know those dinosaurs lived in that area or even died there — all we know is some remains of them are found in that area as fossils.

Wowie — he’s right! Let’s read on:

You see, it’s not just the occasional fossil popping up at the wrong evolutionary time in the wrong place. If you follow science news at all, you will see that nearly every week there’s at least one story claiming that everything we knew about the evolution of such-and-such a creature needs to be rewritten in light of a new find, study, or perspective on a find. And what always happens? Evolution just absorbs these changes. The model is so plastic it just changes with every new find.

And creationism never changes. Why? Because they start with The Truth. Here’s our last excerpt:

Because evolutionists start with the wrong starting point [The fools!], they will consistently be surprised and have to rewrite their story. … Many more surprises are still to come for evolutionists because they have the wrong starting point — man’s fallible opinions rather than God’s infallible Word.

Hambo doesn’t bother to give us his explanation for the evidence found in China, but he doesn’t need to. We already know — the dinosaur was dumped there by the Flood 4,000 years ago. Creation scientists have a good deal — they don’t need to do any research because they already know everything. So why don’t you join them, dear reader?

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

Strange Statistics on Professors’ Salaries

We can’t find any creationism news today, but take a look at this: Gender, Ethnic Studies profs earn about $12k more than peers. It’s posted at a website we’ve never visited before — Campus Reform — which describes itself as: “America’s leading site for college news.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Professors of subjects such as Women’s Studies and Ethnic Studies are largely outearning those that teach more traditional subjects like math and science, according to a new analysis.

What’s going on here? Then they say:

A report released by The College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) reveals that the average salary for professors of “Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender, and Group Studies” during the 2017-2018 academic year was about $15,000 more per year more than for Biology, Math & Stats, and Science professors.

They provide a link to the report: Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty Salaries. Lots of data there, but we’ll stick with the article we found. It tells us:

According to the report, “Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender, and Group Studies” professors earned an average of $105,656 last year, while professors of Physical Sciences earned only $90,422. Mathematics and Statistics professors made an average of $89,691, and Biology and biomedical professors earned just $88,792.

This strikes us as very odd. Perhaps we’re looking at it all wrong, but it seems to us that universities should pay more for people who have significant opportunities for employment in the private sector. That appears to be the case with professors of law, but we’re struggling to imagine that there is much demand in private industry for an expert in gender studies.

Hey — it could be worse. Other than bible colleges and creationist outfits like ICR, AIG, and the Discoveroids, there doesn’t seem to be any demand for professors of creation science. At least the study doesn’t provide any data on that subject.

Anyway, that’s the only news we could find — at least for now. Make of it what you will.

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