Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Albion · 06-09-2003, 12:53 PM

Creationism must be true because your pastor can tell you about it, but in order to believe in evolution, you have to be able to read.

MzNeko · 06-09-2003, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion
Creationism must be true because your pastor can tell you about it, but in order to believe in evolution, you have to be able to read.

Upon reading that, I almost wish that I couldn't read.

KC · 06-09-2003, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by charlie d
"Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or �difference-in-sameness�. Therefore, reality is a syndiffeonic relation. Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. Syndiffeonesis, the most general of all reductive principles, forms the basis of a new view of the relational structure of reality."

Beat that!

Oh, you win. Hands down. :notworthy

KC

Radcliffe Emerson · 06-09-2003, 02:43 PM

Quote:

[i]What is most ignorant or absurd statement relating to science that you, personally, have ever heard? [/B]

ANYTHING regarding creationism and the bible. ANYTHING.

Jet Grind · 06-09-2003, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Minnesota
What is most ignorant or absurd statement relating to science that you, personally, have ever heard?

I'd have to say that the assertion that dinosaurs and humans coexisted and were hunted to extinction after Noah's Flood takes the cake (incase you're wondering it came from Hovind).

Doubting Didymus · 06-09-2003, 05:17 PM

This one isn't so blatant as many others, but it's my favourite.

"Fifteen years ago molecular biologists working under Dr Morris Goodman at Michigan University decided to test this hypothesis. They took the alpha haemoglobin DNA of two reptiles -- a snake and a crocodile -- which are said by Darwinists to be closely related, and the haemoglobin DNA of a bird, in this case a farmyard chicken.

They found that the two animals who had _least_ DNA sequences in common were the two reptiles, the snake and the crocodile. They had only around 5% of DNA sequences in common -- only one twentieth of their haemoglobin DNA. The two creatures whose DNA was closest were the crocodile and the chicken, where there were 17.5% of sequences in common -- nearly one fifth. The actual DNA similarities were the _reverse_ of that predicted by neo-Darwinism."

This one shows that creationists don't have to be blithering idiots to get things spectacularly stupidly wrong. These folk are accurately interpreting molecular phylogeny results, but through their abysmal knowledge of basic high school biology, have failed to remember that crocodiles are SUPPOSED to be closer to birds than to other "reptiles". This is my favourite example of a terrible creationist mistake, because it shows that even those who SOUND like they know what they're saying, have probably never even looked at a basic phylogenetic tree in their lives, and have no buisiness at all going anywhere near real biological science.

Duvenoy · 06-09-2003, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jet Grind
I'd have to say that the assertion that dinosaurs and humans coexisted and were hunted to extinction after Noah's Flood takes the cake (incase you're wondering it came from Hovind).

Jet, you underestimate the creativity of the Creationists, notably Hovind. I think it was our boy Kent, who said something about humans hunting T-rex and killing it by tearing it's tiny arms off. (hysterical laughter simley)

What do these people smoke?

doov

Duvenoy · 06-09-2003, 05:26 PM

I think my all-time favorite is one from the venerable Henry Morris: "If the data fails to agree with my interpretation of Scripture, then the data is flawed."

doov

sodium · 06-09-2003, 07:33 PM

From Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" (his emphasis),

"Even if there were 'vestigial' organs, isn't losing something the opposite of evolution?"

openeyes · 06-09-2003, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fedmahn Kassad
Anytime someone writes "Dr." Kent Hovind.

FK

Good one!

Also, from the esteemed "Dr": The Grand Canyon couldn't been carved by the Colorado River but instead was the result of the "Flood".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-09-2003, 12:53 PM	#21
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Creationism must be true because your pastor can tell you about it, but in order to believe in evolution, you have to be able to read.

06-09-2003, 05:17 PM	#26
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	This one isn't so blatant as many others, but it's my favourite. "Fifteen years ago molecular biologists working under Dr Morris Goodman at Michigan University decided to test this hypothesis. They took the alpha haemoglobin DNA of two reptiles -- a snake and a crocodile -- which are said by Darwinists to be closely related, and the haemoglobin DNA of a bird, in this case a farmyard chicken. They found that the two animals who had _least_ DNA sequences in common were the two reptiles, the snake and the crocodile. They had only around 5% of DNA sequences in common -- only one twentieth of their haemoglobin DNA. The two creatures whose DNA was closest were the crocodile and the chicken, where there were 17.5% of sequences in common -- nearly one fifth. The actual DNA similarities were the _reverse_ of that predicted by neo-Darwinism." This one shows that creationists don't have to be blithering idiots to get things spectacularly stupidly wrong. These folk are accurately interpreting molecular phylogeny results, but through their abysmal knowledge of basic high school biology, have failed to remember that crocodiles are SUPPOSED to be closer to birds than to other "reptiles". This is my favourite example of a terrible creationist mistake, because it shows that even those who SOUND like they know what they're saying, have probably never even looked at a basic phylogenetic tree in their lives, and have no buisiness at all going anywhere near real biological science.

06-09-2003, 05:26 PM	#28
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	I think my all-time favorite is one from the venerable Henry Morris: "If the data fails to agree with my interpretation of Scripture, then the data is flawed." doov

06-09-2003, 07:33 PM	#29
sodium Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: British Columbia Posts: 1,027	From Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" (his emphasis), "Even if there were 'vestigial' organs, isn't losing something the opposite of evolution?"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.