Creationists Believe the Darndest Things

I read this on http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html and thought it was funny,




Finding young Earth creationist lunacy is like walking into an elephant paddock at a zoo and hoping to find poop. All too easy.

I say this because in England, thinking the Loch Ness monster disproves evolution can help get you a job! A group there called The National Recognition Information Centre (NARIC) provides information on vocational and academic skills -- they're something like an accreditation group. They reviewed the curriculum involved in getting an International Certificate of Christian Education (ICCE): a certificate granted after passing a creationist course that's taught in about 50 private Christian schools in the UK. And what did the NARIC find? That this certificate is just fine and dandy, and equivalent to international A levels (a scholastic certificate that shows competency in a particular course).

Here's a sample from a textbook (printed -- gasp -- here in the US) that is used in this course. Remember, this is part of a course being used by teenagers in the UK:

Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie,' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.

Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all.

Riiiiight. Nessie disproves evolution. Turns out there's a whole field of science in there I missed. Faeries disprove the ability of birds to fly! Godzilla clearly shows the surface area/volume law of biology is a crock! Spiderman flies in the face of humans breeding with arachnids!

And, of course, the irony is that creationism itself shows us that despite our highly-evolved brains, humans still cling to easily-disproven nonsense if it's taught early enough and with fervor.

 

Straw man arguments don't prove validity of theory of evolution either.

Link: http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=351397&page=7



See also here (Post # 9) :
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=351397

and here (post # 49)
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=351397&page=5

and further posts ....

 

How do you know that 1,000 years from now Darwins theory will sound "unscientific?"

 

Mr noodle-man--you've opened the proverbial can of worms.

 

Lets go fishing!

 

If you follow the links and read my posts you will find the answer to your question.

 

Those were just your opinions, no facts were presented. iggy:

 

Miss Noodle Aug 2009..

 

God, she's so hot!

 

How do you know that 1,000 years from now Darwins theory will sound "unscientific?"

Evolution is as scientifically proven as anything can possibly be. The number of scientific observations confirming it number at least in the tens of thousands of results per day (and orders of magnitude more than that if you include genetic studies). Anyone denying evolution is just playing... um.. mind fuck games to pass the time.

I think Darwin will be at least as famous as Aristotle or Einstein or Newton, ten centuries from now.

 

I would say he already is.

 

Apparently you didn't follow the links and didn't read my exchanges with lithium thoroughly.

When it comes to facts presented, the burden of proof is on one who makes the claim. If I was Creationist or Darwinist and made either claim, then I would be the one with burden of proof but I am not making any such claim.

As far as I can see Darwinists defend their beliefs with religious zealotry and nothing but blind faith to support it when called on to substantiate their views.
All the while you make fun of Creationists, isn't it ironic!
At least Creationists openly and honestly admit that their beliefs are Religious and Faith based while Darwinists have audacity to claim that theirs' is based on "pure science and empirical evidence".

Yeah, right....

 

Certificate in cretin_onism can u say king of the dumb.

Why do they even try its pure and simple it goes against human curiosity but curiosity translates in to progress so whats going on. Whats with all the questions god did it put your mind at rest sleep easy in your cave.

Great movie >http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3082194061759571011&hl=en

Because of this bs 30 years evolution was kept out of classrooms niiice and all without even hearing out Darwin's side.

 

I believe Darwinist's base there opinions on the various transitional fossils that have been documented and studied, not faith.

In other words, pure science and empirical evidence!

 

Your right, all creatures that have ever existed on Earth, including the 99.9% of those that are now extinct at one time shared this planet at same time.

What was I thinking?

 

Not so fast.....

Fossils exist, sure.So does a stove in your kitchen.
What scientific method do you employ to claim on its' basis validity of the theory of evolution?

What is the reasoning behind the claim?
How do you deduce or induce your theory based on fragmentary evidence which is on top of its' being fragmentary is also disconnected by tens of millions of years from each other with nothing to fill in the gaps?

A lot smarter people than average folk have given up and walked away when challenged to substantiate their individual belief in theory of evolution, with more honest ones admitting they had no clue and others, less credibly but understandably, clinging to namecalling, straw man arguments and what not...

"Darwins theory is valid because what some others claim makes no sense".
Yeah, elephants can fly because somebody says they can swim like submarines under the water

or how about this one : "I believe this is so because I heard there is an Everest mountain-high pile of wishful fantasy and hearsay printed on paper with some fragmentary scant evidence produced to shoehorn it" kind of argument.


Hehehehe, talk about "scientific method" here

 

Transitional fossils (popularly termed missing links) are the fossilized remains of intermediary forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. They can be identified by their retention of certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with their more derived relatives, as they are defined in the study of cladistics. Numerous examples exist, including those of primates and early humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

Also I would site vestigial organs in humans as well as other animals as evidence of evolution in species, one example being the coccyx in humans and another being wings on flightless birds.

 

Wikipedia, what a thourough and credible sourse, what was I thinking !

 

As opposed to the links you have offered?

Yes more than likely.