Mageth

But if the book doesn’t convince creationists such as us, then readers should realize that evolutionists are even less likely to be swayed.

Umm, that goes without saying, doesn't it?

tgamble

Remember who AIG is talking to!

"Evolutionists" aren't convinced by AIG's crap either. But folks at AIG are too dense to understand why.

Jobar

I had to design a new type of irony-meter to handle this; I mounted the needle on a high-speed bearing, and used a completely circular face, and a shear pin so that the spring wouldn't break.

Now I'm trying to figure out if I can patent the sucker as a perpetual-motion machine.

Doubting Didymus

I love it! Newsflash: creationists defy the second law of thermodynamics! They never fucking stop.

Skydancer

An energy source, perhaps. It's not really perpetual motion, since it does require an input source of cretinist yammerings.

RBH

Jobar wrote Borrow the infinite wavelength/zero energy signal that Dembski claims could transmit designs from unembodied designers to matter and energy, and tap into the changes in matter and energy that signal generates to drive a motor. That's PM for you!

RBH

Azathoth

Amazing.I never actually understood the use,and the meaning of this :banghead: particular gif,until now.

Gracchus

I think "creation science" may be EVOLVING. The most blatant nonsense, the stuff even a even a junkyard dog wouldn't salute with a cocked leg, seems to be falling to natural selection. In a few hundred years, young Earth creationists may be as rare as flat-earthers are today.

MrDarwin

Creationism is most definitely evolving. For example, the emphasis on a distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" (although creationists define these words a bit differently than do biologists) is relatively new, as is the creationist belief that species can evolve "within kinds" without this really being evolution (in part because they finally realized that nobody could take seriously the idea that Noah carried a million or so species of animals on the ark, including several hundred thousand species of insects!).

Meanwhile YECs are trying to ride the coattails of the "intelligent design" movement, apparently not realizing (or not caring) that many of the ID arguments are anathema to young earth creationism, and that many IDists, including most of its more prominent proponents like Behe and Dembski, explicitly or implicitly reject most of the tenets of YEC, e.g., a young earth, a global flood, separately created "kinds". (In fact, ID is really just a repackaging of theistic evolution, which YECs rejected long ago as little better than Darwinian evolution.)

RufusAtticus

Well I don't think creationism is evolving at all. The creationist distinction between "macroevolution" (species) and "microevolution" (variation) existed before Darwin. Before modern biology codified the use of the term species, it was no different then the creationist use of "kinds."

You can look at this twenty-year old discussion of kinds to see how little the creationist have changed since then.

Defining Kinds