Friday, October 3, 2008
Dear Perpetuators of Creationist Pseudoscience:
It must be comforting to you to continually lie, evade, bluster and bluff in your pathetic effort to keep your 6,000 year old earth and creationist fantasies intact in that mass of unformed jelly you people euphemistically and optimistically refer to as your brains.
Your assertions have been refuted for decades, by countless people including myself. Yet, every time someone refutes you with evidence, logic, common sense and reason, you play the same old creationist evasion games: "You haven't refuted me!" "Evolution is just a theory!" "You have no evidence of evolution!" "Evolution is a religion!" "Evolution caused the Holocaust!" "Science is a vast atheist conspiracy against the truth!" You all have quite the talent for self-delusion, I must admit.
I'll be the first to admit that although I'm a reasonably bright guy, I am one of the less scientifically inclined in this so-called "debate". In other words, I'm no scientist. But it doesn't take a geologist, chemist, astronomer or biologist to see the logic and correctness represented by the overwhelming mountain of evidence supporting evolution and an ancient Earth and universe. And it certainly doesn't take a scientist to easily perceive the mind-bending illogic behind silliness such as your attempts to "scientifically" justify the story of creation as outlined in Genesis.
Watching you, and sites that you operate like AnswersInGenesis, wallow deeper and deeper in the doo-doo lie pile of your own making with increasingly desperate leaps of pseudoscience in order to maintain your fantasy that the Bible is the inerrant, word-for-word transcription of God's thoughts is simultaneously funny, sad, pathetic and scary. For example, you sneer when science makes any type of evidence-based hypotheses based on the Theory of Evolution, but you and your kind have no problem making all kinds of wild extrapolations (based on absolutely nothing) to feebly try to show, for example, how the Flood supposedly happened exactly as outlined in the Bible. Wooden boats that can withstand forces that supposedly cracked apart the Earth's crust and created the oceans and thus the continents... "vapor canopies"... "hydroplates"... it's just a tiny part of the silliness you people tout as "fact" without any real supporting evidence, let alone any means to test your suppositions. And yet you call these fantastical, wholly non-supported speculations of yours "reasonable", "scientific" and "logical". You guys are masters of pseudoscientific Orwellian doublespeak ("Science is not science. The Bible is science."), but nothing else.
It's way past time for you people to start presenting some facts to support your arguments, instead of constant denials, evasions, and outright lies. It's simple - if you wish to be taken seriously in a scientific debate, you must first present science of your own.You'd think you'd have some evidence to back up something you obviously care about and believe in so deeply... hmmm? We've been waiting for a long time for you to back up your outlandish declarations with actual science.
But the truth of the matter is, you have no evidence or scientific theories to support your beliefs and wild speculation, so you have to resort to trying (100% unsuccessfully) to pick holes in the viewpoint that opposes yours, and try to pass off that denialist charade as somehow "evidence" or "proof" of your viewpoint. Even in your preposterous "documentary" Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, you present not a shred of compelling evidence for intelligent design - you just spend the length of the film whining about "unfair treatment" by the scientific community and trying to pin the Holocaust on Darwin's theory. When truth doesn't work and you have no basis for your own viewpoint, might as well spread propaganda, right? Hitler, the man you say pounced on evolution as his primary excuse to slaughter millions of Jews, would be very proud of you for that film.
Despite decades of effort, all you have managed to prove is that science doesn't know everything about the history and mechanics of evolution. Scientists freely admit that, and they have all along... just like they freely admit that we don't know absolutely everything about gravity, fire, electromagnetism, aerodynamics (how planes manage to stay airborne), and many other phenomena partially described by scientific theories that you have no problem accepting. It's ironic that evolution is the one discipline where you demand 100% confirmation and proof, isn't it?
But the theory of evolution, while it will never be 100% complete (no theory is), is a rock solid framework built on almost 150 years of rigorous testing and observation. It is probably the most tested and confirmed theory in the history of mankind. You, on the other hand, can't provide any evidence or facts to support your position, can you? Of course not, that's why you resort to shenanigans like making laughably obvious fake fossils with footprints of "humans" and "dinosaurs" overlapping each other.
Despite your lame attempts to portray the Bible as a science textbook, I seriously doubt that many of you movers and shakers of the
You fundamentalists are often referred to as the "Christian Taliban", and for good reason. The 9/11 hijackers were brainwashed into believing the atrocity they were training to commit was for the greater glory of Allah. Similarly, you are all brainwashed into believing that your lies are approved by God, as long as it's for His greater glory. Wasn't there a commandment about not bearing false witness? Gee, I think there was... and it applies to everybody, not just "everybody but self-appointed representatives of God on Earth", as you so arrogantly pretend to be.
No wonder you creationists tout faith-based homeschooling, and loathe and fear secular public education so much. No wonder you so desperately try to install your brainless creationist propaganda into the public school system. Despite the flaws in our educational system, that system is churning out millions of kids every year who see the world as it really is - kids who scoff at your willful brainlessness. And because secular (i.e. non-discriminatory to any religion) public education based on science and critical thinking undermines the theocratic aspirations of you and your fundamentalist bretheren, it is a direct threat to you and your hyperreligious delusions of grandeur. To which I say: Amen to that!
You hypocritical cretins are not only a plague to freedom, knowledge, truth and science, you're a pox on your own faith - the faith that you pretend you're upholding by creating an entire false science based on lies you consciously know you are telling.
The sooner your doltish, primitive kind fades away, the better. People like you turn more people away from Christianity than any atheist could, because you make Christianity sound so absolutely ridiculous and anti-intellectual. I'm proud to be a real Christian, one who not only has faith but also one who uses to the best of his ability one of the greatest gifts God has bestowed upon us - our intellect. I'm also proud to say I stand firmly against the arrogant, anti-intellectual, anti-Christian stupidity that mindless theocratic robots like you represent.
But by all means, you guys just keep on trying to keep Christianity at the level of mindless superstition practiced by intentionally intellectually stunted drones who have no problem insulting God by portraying the 13.7 billion year old miracle of His creation as a 6,000 year old "I Dream Of Jeannie" magic trick just because that's the way God may have presented it that way to the technologically primitive goatherders of the time the book of Genesis was written. The more you babble about ribs, talking snakes, magic boats and 600 year old men who build magic boats, the sooner you'll fade away in an increasingly educated and science-savvy world. Christianity will flourish without the oppressive and simpleminded likes of you, and the whole world will be much better off in your absence.
Sincerely yours,
Gumby
26 Comments:
Nice post.
Makes a lot of sense to me, which means it won't make sense to the people its directed to.
Keep fightin' the good fight.
Glad you liked it G. I was thinking the other day I hadn't posted a good anti-creationist rant in a while. The basis for this post actually came from a post I left for a particularly vile so-called Christian on Topix. That post, expanded, became this post. I also had the cute pic of Gumby in her little box and thought that it fit nicely with my opinion that creationists put limits on God's abilities by boxing all of creation into what it says in Genesis. So I LOLCatted the pic and it all came together nicely.
And you're right. The creationists wouldn't even get the post, or if they did they'd get all self-righteous. No creos come here anyway, this was just for y'alls entertainment.
Here I am again, trying to open the blind eyes of creationists, and yelling into the deaf ears of skeptics, about the truth of Genesis. When will creationists stop their foolishness concerning “young Earth” doctrines, and false teachings about theistic evolution, and come together with the truth to expose the false secular conclusion of evolution?
Evolution is a false conclusion of the fossil record of death (not of “life”), and words can not describe the idiocy of the scientific community that continues to support such a theory, and advocating the teaching of such in public schools. There is no such evidence to support the conclusion. It is supported because it is the most convenient avenue the atheists can use to advance their agenda. When (misguided) creationists try to have an alternate conclusion presented, the atheists come up with the line “that’s not science, and there is no evidence for creation”. They are afraid of the competition. The world of science has no idea how our universe began, and how life began on Earth. But when it comes to either teaching “Santa Claus coming down the chimney”, or “the virgin birth”, they gladly pick Santa Claus because it denies the existence of God.
But creationists are not much better. For over 18 years, the truth of Genesis has been available, and they fail to even examine it. They want to cling to their old false and foolish doctrines, such as the dinosaurs and dimetrodons dying in the flood of Noah, the days of Genesis chapter one being long ages instead of 24-hour days, God using evolution to develop life, and there being no death on Earth until Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden (in 4267 BC). That is all nonsense, and it borders on stupidity because of their refusal to seek the truth of Genesis.
There are no “creation accounts” in Genesis. God did not show Creation Week to Moses, therefore Moses didn’t write about creation. Creationism refuses to examine what the Genesis text is about. They prefer to teach the same old failed doctrines that do not make sense, and which misrepresent the Word of God. There are no myths in Genesis.
What we should be teaching in public schools is the “observations of Moses”, as it pertains to the geologic history of Earth, and the fossil record of death. We presently teach about the observations of Charles Darwin, and his conclusions. Genesis conveys what happened in the ancient prehistoric past of Earth’s history, and how life developed into what we now see.
But who is taking the time to examine the facts of Genesis? Who is willing to learn the truth about Genesis? We have fools that are quick to run their mouth about something that they have not taken the time to understand. Did you know that Genesis specifically declares the existence of prehistoric mankind, and that mankind was not made in “God’s image” until about 64 Million BC? Don’t be a fool and laugh. That is exactly what Genesis is telling us. But creationism and theology refuse to re-examine their doctrines, and want to keep their heads in the sands of ignorance.
God did not create this Earth just for a bunch of prehistoric animals to roam around in!! God created Earth for mankind, which he put on Earth at the beginning, on the Sixth Day of Creation Week. When will mankind accept the truth about Genesis?
Herman Cummings
ephraim7@aol.com
Herman, out of curiosity I Googled you and found among a plethora of unintelligible ranting this statement of yours that pretty well sums you up:
Besides myself, all others that try to tell us what Genesis says do not understand the text, and are speaking from ignorance. I’m sorry to have to take this position, but there are too many false teachers and unqualified people talking about “creation\evolution debates” (when no such contest exists), and proclaiming false doctrines about Genesis, such as Creation Science, theistic evolution, progressive creation, and “gap” theories.
There's plenty of other lunacy I found, but suffice it to say that you, in short, are batshit insane. You even have the most ardent creationists beat in that respect. But don't let that stop you from coming by once in a while, because the psychology of the delusional is an interesting topic to me.
If and when you do come back, feel free to comment, but don't think I'm going to let you ramble on ad infinitum all over my blog like I see you are prone to do based on my internet search.
And for God's sake... take your meds.
gumby iz more smartz than magik box!
I am insane, but not batshit insane. I left my batshit in my other pants (long story). I certainly hope Gumby isn't a Schrodinger's cat.
Once again, Gumby, you have touched me on one of my pet topics and effectively dictated the topic of my most recent blog.
I have no objection to teaching theology, but not in a public school - that should be strictly secular - and I'm entirely against labeling it "science". Science should be able to withstand the rigors of the scientific process or it is not science. Period.
Not that I'm opinionated or nothin'.
Excellent letter Gumby! Too bad no Creationist would ever read it - or if they did they would just go "You're just being mean and insulting, you have no proof, lalalalala I can't hear you"
sigh
I'm taking a bit of a break from the endless circle of mind numbing horror that is the creation debate because I fear that any more time talking to these people who have absolutely no interest in the truth (yet claim to be all about it) will make me snap and go as batshit insane as they are.
Nevertheless, I really liked this letter and I think you should post it on AiG or Kent Hovind's blog or somewhere the Creationist crowd can actually read it. I think you got it wrong in the last paragraph though, for some reason their support base seem to be expanding. Boggles the mind!
PS
Loved the Gumby lolcat!
Chat Blanc - damn straight. She prefers regular boxes, as you can see.
Stephanie - no, I would never allow my little girl to be a Schrodinger's cat... I'm very glad that's just a thought experiment!
Eugene, you're probably right, maybe I'm being optimistic the creo crowd will fade away. There's actually not much new going on in the evo/creo wars right now - just variations on the same theme - so I've kind of gotten away from it as well. LOLCats rule!
Sorry, I wanted to add something to that. Great letter and I have nothing but praise for anyone that helps to further science.
I would like the remainder to address Herman Cummings as he may wish to pass by a few labs on the LSU campus, or his local university, where I am sure geneticists can easily explain to him the evidence for evolution from sources outside of the fossil record. As for the universe and life's beginnings, we do not have enough information right now to make absolutely accurate conclusions. But tell me, wouldn't you prefer something which has some evidence to support it, however minimal, over a completely unsubstantiated claim? I certainly would. A model is only as accurate as the data you put into it, and with more data, these models may be refined to the point that we, one day, have definitive answers. A lack of a definitive answer does not, cannot, and never will be evidence to support a different unsubstantiated answer. As for humans coming about 64 mya (million years ago), (did you pull that number from your ass?) I must say that the origins of humans being less than one million years after the K-T mass extinction is fairly funny. Considering that the first true primates weren't around until after 60 mya, I think according to this reasoning, "God's Image," according to you, would be similar in appearance to Plesiadapiformes.
If by truth in Genesis, you mean any of these:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/abs_list.html
Please, by all means, consider them completely true. It will demonstrate the vacuous nature of your ideas. By the way, the SAB link was only for your purposes, I've read Genesis, in four languages, all of them are absurd. (Greek is by far the craziest one)
I would like to end in saying that while I have absolutely no problems with those holding religious views, attempting to devalue what we currently understand through science, for whatever reason, deserves at least public contempt and a most immediate, vocal, and vitriolic response by the rational amongst us.
I added this comment on my own blog and felt it was appropriate here as well, so I'm adding it as well. I hope you don't mind.
I don’t agree that the creation/evolution debate is a religious one any more than it’s a science one. What it is is a religious/scientific one and I vehemently disagree that evolution is treated/regarded as or even analogous to a religion by biologists.
Usually, the exchange begins quite civilly at least on the scientists side. As required by scientific process, the scientific data is provided, including what is known, what is speculated and what is unknown. It is, in turned, countered with accusations of laxity, bias, and, quite frequently, dishonesty and self-interest. Then the vetted theory is compared to other “theories” that are “proven” via scripture and readily disproved via reality. In science, “theories” that are readily disproved are called “nonsense”. We don’t teach nonsense in schools in science class.
That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with believing anything you want as long as you’re willing to take the consequences. Evolution and our understanding of genetic processes stands to do the world as a whole a lot of good and has done a lot of good, even if the occasional political fruitcake has misused or mangled the concept. Selective breeding isn’t a religion; it’s a fact and we’ve done it with exceptionally useful results for food production.
Most people don’t have to understand the process or even agree it exists to live happily (though I personally think forgoing critical thinking in favor of unrealistic beliefs is a good way to send this country back to the stone age). By all means, believe in Tinkerbell if you’d like; no harm done.
But, no matter how hard we want something to be true, we don’t get to teach it as science unless it reflects and explains reality.
Actually Stephanie, in my view there is no debate at all. Not a real debate, anyway. The "controversy" is an artificial one, whipped up by creationism/ID proponents as a means to further their cause and garner support and sympathy from the faithful and those non-Christians who aren't scientifically knowledgeable enough to grasp the amount of evidence for evolution and lack of evidence for "alternatives". The people behind Expelled knew this and exploited it to their full advantage. Fortunately, the movie only resonated with the choir, and everyone else jeered or yawned. The box office numbers are proof of that.
Did Herman even read this post?
Arby, from what I have seen on the internet, Herman never lets the subject of a discussion dissuade him from copy-pasting the same mindless rant everywhere he goes. As long as the subject is tangentially related to creationism, evolution or religion, the copy-paste begins.
The 'Liars for Jesus' description made me giggle. Good rant.
It was an interesting response on debate and I had to think about it. You're right. Responding to reasoned and data-backed statements with inconsequent nonsense and insults is not a debate. It's a travesty.
However, given the sorry excuses for "debates" we've seen recently, I've been conditioned to mislabel them.
I'm sorry.
Sorry mate,there are actually arguments to be made against creationists,and lots of them,but all I read here are insults and ad hominems.
FAIL
Absolutely no reason to apologize Stephanie! I just look at the 'debate' a bit differently because I have been immersed in it for quite a while (too long - it gets to you after a while), and have come to a certain set of conclusions. Your comment is 100% right on, and your opinion is just as valid as mine or anyone else's. I just have seen too much nonsense to see evo/creo as a genuine and honest debate, that's all. The only right and wrong is this: proper science=right, reverse-engineered science tailored to fit religiously inspired preconceived notions=wrong. You and I are on the exact same side, we just have slightly different glasses on through which we see things.
I am not sure what is going on with your format at the end of this page?
But, anyway. What a fantastic post!! You filled it with such meat, even touching on the fake footprints (of which I just read about the other day) Very good writer in your flow and the lack of fluff. Thanks :)
KAS
p.s.
I agree that it is not a debate. As, creationism is a religion and evolution is science. You cannot debate 'belief' with 'fact' in any way that will be productive. It's like arguing the color red with someone who is color blind...
KAS
kas, thanks. I don't see any problem with the formatting or anything, maybe you just had a glitch or something? Dunno. Anyway, you can read my take on the "dino/man" footprint nonsense if you search in the search box for "Texas Two Step".
Clinteas, thanks for the feedback. Yes, I can be a bit snarky and insulting. Can't deny that. This topic (evo/creo) gets my blood boiling for some reason. There's bad blood on both sides.
Nice rant,I give you that.
there are actually arguments to be made against creationists,and lots of them,but all I read here are insults and ad hominems
A big part of the problem is, the same old "arguments" for Creationism (which are predominantly "arguments" against evolution) have been debunked over and over and over again (see, for example, TalkOrigins).
But here are a few reasons why the Creationism model is lacking:
*The timing of the life forms present shows a change over time from forms more different to forms more similar to today's biota.
*Experiments have shown how small changes in certain gene regulators can produce significant changes in morphology.
*Polyploidy provides a mechanism that makes genes available to mutate and take on new functions, while allowing previous function to continue, especially in plants.
*No evidence of spontaneous creation has ever been shown. Some Creationists refer to the Cambrian "Explosion" as providing such evidence, but they ignore the duration of that event as well as the evidence for life billions of years older.
Mark, I think clinteas agrees with all that, he just took exception to my "attitude". And to a degree I agree with him. I spend a lot of time in very contentious discussion forums where things can get nasty real quick. Some of that 'tude I bring to this blog, although I tone it down considerably (really!). I see his point as entirely valid, but at the same time, I write the blog my way, and if some people don't like how I phrase things, c'est la vie - you can't please everyone.
Hi Gumby, I came over here from Evolved Thoughts and I had a really good laugh. I've been called out as a liar, or at least someone who tells lies, in my local paper by a writer who I now assume is a Dominionist. I believe Sarah Palin is one also and since >50% believe in, at least a modified, creationism there is a lot of trouble to come and I fear for my country from those willfull idiots like Palin.
Gumby--Yes, I got Clinteas' point. I should have placed more emphasis on the idea that the Creationists' arguments have been thoroughly debunked again and again over many years, yet those people rely on the same set of arguments endlessly repeated. I just threw in a few points to remind folks that we do have science-based arguments. Nevertheless, we do get impatient when those arguments are simply ignored, so...please continue mocking (it's well deserved).
This is Herman. Yes, I've read the remainder of the post. However, no one seems to take the time to examine what I said. They would rather crack jokes.
So that is why my task is so difficult. I have to deal with blind and brainwashed extremists from both sides.
Post a Comment