Creationists are ignorant fools. (679 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.12 on 26 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by my toe hurts (View user info) at 2005-02-18 22:03:59 EST
Creation "Science" is not Science.
To be a creationist, you are required to believe the following.
(1) The Bible is the written word of God... all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs... This means that the account of the origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
(2) The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Deluge, was an historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect.
*Creation Researkh Society
(1) The very first, and most obvious point is the most important. Creation science is not, by definition, "science". Science builds a hypothesis based upon empirical observation, then attempts to test the hypothesis. Creation science sets up, not a hypothesis, but a "fact" and only accepts "evidence" that supports this, deliberately ignoring any contrary evidence*
. Thus it isn't science. The only possible way for a creationist to attempt to get around this is to disagree on the definition of "science", and invent his or her own randomly convenient definition, in which case the entire argument becomes a case of irrelevant semantics, since what is being taught in science classes is science according to science's definition of itself (refer to index).
To teach Creation science in a science class would be a perversion of education. Creation science is based upon faith, not reason, or scientific theory. Faith I respect, but attempts to confuse it with reason disgust me. I'd rather be related to a monkey than a man who preaches ignorance. But once again I risk a tangent...
The second claim made in the first paragraph is that not only is the Old Testament scientifically accurate (to be explored in further detail soon enough) it is also historically accurate. The question is, of course, what is historically or scientifically accurate?
If an event is "historically" accurate, it must conform to the process of historical enquiry. Moses spoke with a burning bush. Is this historically correct? Creationists argue that it is, since it is in the Bible- but this is Biblical truth, not historical truth. Historical method cannot disprove the incident, but it certainly can't prove it either. The only "evidence" to suggest this happened is in the Bible.
Hence it is faith, not history. A creationist will argue that since it is written in the Bible, and the Bible is a historical text, it must be historical truth, but this is ridiculous since firstly the premise is wrong, since the Bible is most certainly NOT a historical text. The creation myth, for example, was written to explain phenomena which were not understood by the people of the time; it was certainly not intended as a historical text, nor did the authors of the period have any concept of "history" as we understand it.**
For that matter, even if the bible HAD been intended as a historical text, one single obscure reference in one text would not be accepted by any worthwhile historian as evidence in any respect.
What about scientific truth? Since creationists refuse to conform to the majority of contemporary scientific theory (or passages in the Bible contradict such, which implies the same) this idea is, from the mouth of a creationist, utterly meaningless.
(2) The second clause, in which Creationists state that they believe in the literal interpretation of the flood myth, is really just a specific example of ideas mentioned in clause one (above). Since Creation science claims to be science, let us examine what we can discover through scientific method.
· Read Genesis 6-12. It would be necessary to occupy a great deal of space with direct quotes, so I will instead simply provide references.
The very first thing that I noticed was Genesis 7:11. Noah was six hundred years old? There can be no scientific justification for this. Creationists I have spoken to maintain that he lived to this age because of the Will of God, which is exactly my point. Faith is not science. Whenever the term "because it was the Will of God" enters the discussion we have abandoned reason, and logic, and science, and began to discuss faith, which is fundamentally different.
The second problem is, the ark would be too small. The Bible is kind enough to provide us with the exact dimensions of the ark, and even the materials (Genesis 6:15-17). The dimensions*** of the ark give us a figure of three hundred cubits (equal to 450 feet) by fifty cubits (160 feet) and thirty cubits (45 feet). For a start, you'll realise that that's a pretty damn small boat. There is simply no possible way you could fit seven or two pairs of EVERY animal (Genesis 6:19-20) onto the boat.
"Every animal" includes dinosaurs. If you haven't already noticed that it's going to be a barrel of monkeys (!) consider how much food and fresh water it takes to feed seven hungry apatasaurs. The bulk of the food and water would be even greater than that required for the animals.
Even if you're willing to accept the creationist theory of "diversification" (the implication being in this case that instead of the billions of animals on board the ark, there would only be a few million; this bizarre idea is discussed later) there is still nowhere near enough room to fit them all in a 450 by 160 foot boat. What about marine animals? If the idea of millions of fighting, stinking, mating animals on a small wooden boat doesn't trouble you, then what about fish? How did he fit them on the ark? Or were they allowed to stay outside? For a start, if they had, it conflicts with the creationist's odd theories of palaeontology, and secondly, since the flood covered every mountain (Genesis 7:20) it must have been salt-water, in which case, what happened to all the freshwater fish?
The point I intend to make through this is that throughout any Creationist's attempt at a "scientific" argument, there must always come a point where the Creationist reaches a point where his statements become so irrational he can only justify them with "...because it was the Will of God". Hence it is faith, not reason. If you are willing to accept the Word of the Old Testament as literal, well and good for you, you can believe whatever you want (meanwhile, I think I'll go hunt me some witches- Numbers 25, Deuteronomy 13,15-19, Leviticus 12-14) but to suggest that the Old Testament is a scientific text is dense, and the idea that it should be taught as such is a mutilation of scientific method, and worst of all, the Bible itself.
But for the time being, back to the Noachian flood myth. What happened to all the water? It evaporated? Good job, you shrubs, you've created a permanent and massive ice age, destroying all life on earth (...again). It went underground? If it did so, then before the flood, the earth could not have contained that much water, in which case there would have been no life anyway.
Incidentally, (and at yet another tangent) the method of "science" of creationism is directly paralleled by the eighteenth century flat-earth movement. All the Creationists I have spoken to have said "God took the water away..." which is of course, yet another of the examples of faith instead of science, the real purpose of the discussion of the flood myth.
The more intelligent creationists have realised that you just can't fit all those animals onto such a small boat, and have changed tack and argued that the ark was in fact far larger than the dimensions given in the Bible. If we're willing to ignore the strange irony that they've completely made up these "facts" independent of Scripture, we may continue.
So what if the ark WAS in fact huge? What if Noah WAS twelve feet tall, or whatever he was? (See index 3). The problem is, that a boat with ribs made out of cypress (Genesis 6:14-15), and covered with reeds and made watertight with pitch (incidentally, it would be easy to interpret this to mean that the hull itself was made of reeds, much like fishing boats of the period- but even Creationists steer clear of this one) would not float after reaching a certain size, snapping in half under its own weight. Don't believe me? Try it****
Some creationist texts suggest that the ark was in fact "barge shaped" rather than "boat shaped" thus reducing tensional stress, and allowing greater size before snapping. Firstly, in the Bible it distinctly gives us the dimensions of the ark; the ratios presented do not allow for anything OTHER than a "boat" shape (so stop making things up, for the last time) and secondly, it would still be too small.
Creationists at this stage tend to become slightly uneasy, and point out that the ark could have been made out of special wood.
What special wood? In the Bible it says cypress and reeds. Where's the historical, botanical or scriptural evidence for this special wood of yours? Stop making things up. And even if this entirely imaginary wood WAS as strong as iron, how did Noah build with it? How do you nail a nail into a piece of wood harder than iron? How do you drill if the drill is softer than the wood? Of course, a creationist will happily ramble on about either the Will of God (faith) or blunder along with ever more ridiculous "theories", until they've managed to destroy the greater half of scientific knowledge anyway. It is difficult to prove something along "scientific" grounds if you're making it up as you go along, thus proving my point perfectly (again).
Everything on earth, not in the ark, perished within the space of seven days. How is it, then, that distinctly different fossils are found at different levels? The creationist argument is that the more intelligent life-forms, such as humans, quickly moved to higher ground, and thus did not drown until later, and were buried higher up.
Not one out of several billion life-forms didn't make it in time? Not one animal with a broken limb, occupied defending a nest, too old or slow (sloths?) died lower down? Not one kid went playing in the rain? Ridiculous.
What about the people who had already died? My creationist friends suggest that they were cremated (despite, as usual, a complete lack of scriptural evidence to support their claim, as well as considerable historical and arkhaeological evidence to the contrary). Fair enough. Every single human, ever, was cremated. Well then... what about animals? Did they go and cremate every single insect when it died? Every mosquito? Every elephant? And why did some fish die lower down? Were they less intelligent than all the other fish?
Creationists dismiss the greater part of biology, genetics, geology, physics, chemistry, palaeontology, arkhaeology, and in fact major elements of pretty much EVERY SINGLE branch of science, simply because they disagree with the hypothesis of the Noachian flood. To call this scientific method would be a monstrous lie. It is faith, and faith alone, and should be treated as such. In science, empirical evidence leads to hypothesis. Creation science attempts the opposite, and in doing so must logically quite quickly challenge empirical evidence itself.
To cover every single "scientific" argument would require book after book. The purpose of this essay has not been to prove that the events described in Genesis are false; merely to illustrate that Creationist "scientific" arguments in no way follow the process of scientific enquiry, and thus to suggest that Creation science rather than faith alone, or that it should be taught as such, is ridiculous.
Another essay will cover why people believe Creationism; why choosing to take the Old Testament in the literal sense leads to immediate problems of morality, why Creationism blasphemously paints God purely in man's image as nothing more than some type of super-human, and finally the origin of Creationism as a doctrine, and the implications unearthed by this investigation.
INDEX
*A considerable simplification of the content of the amicus curiae, a work written by Jeffrey Lehman (among others) for use in the American Supreme court. The court case for which it was intended and used was a debate over exactly the above topic, and incidentally won hands down, ruling that "creation science" is religious dogma, not science in the true sense of the word. I also find it strangely ironic that the very country that originated Creationism (yes, like McDonalds and the miniskirt, it was invented by the Americans in the last century) was the first to condemn it.
**Thanks to Dad for the explanation of why the Biblical Creation myths, as instructive and attractive as they are, are not historical texts.
***1 Cubit= 1.5 feet. Although it varies slightly, this is the generally accepted figure. Creationists suggest that a cubit could well have been much larger (and thus the ark bigger) since a cubit is measured compared to the height of an individual, and apparently "evidence" suggests that Noah was well over ten feet tall. For a start, what "evidence"? Nobody's yet managed to give me any. There certainly isn't any Biblical evidence for this. There is absolutely no historical evidence for it either. In fact, a man of that height would be plagued by various health problems, and could not expect a lifespan of more than about thirty years. Humans can't grow that big for the same reason that a beetle can't be as big as a human; the system just isn't designed for it, and would collapse under its own weight. Don't believe me, ask a doctor. Now go away and stop pulling "facts" out of your arse.
****Less astute readers will excitedly proclaim, "...but that's ridiculous, we could never build a boat like that!". Well spotted. The point is that empirical evidence, not just theoretical evidence, points to fact.
User Reviews
Submitted by only_slightly_bitter (user info) at 2005-02-21 03:39:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Heh. Actually, nobody gives a shit about it except my VCE... and for the last time, if you don't give a shit about it, don't read it, and if you didn't read it, don't write about it, you slack-jawed fuckwit.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-02-20 20:11:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm a come back and read this later.
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2005-02-19 08:41:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by disgruntled (user info) at 2005-02-19 07:26:14 (#)
Ranking: 2
The absolutely hilarious statement creationists make is "god works in mysterious ways."
That's when I start laughing in their faces and ask them 'is that why HE created you so ugly?'
-------------------------
welcome to second grade
Submitted by disgruntled (user info) at 2005-02-19 07:26:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The absolutely hilarious statement creationists make is "god works in mysterious ways."
That's when I start laughing in their faces and ask them 'is that why HE created you so ugly?'
Submitted by r0xley (user info) at 2005-02-19 05:30:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
To be an inbred gimp, you are required to believe the following:
1. That writing a 2,318 word article on a subject no-one gives a shit about will somehow gain you recognition in the eyes of strangers.
2. See above
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2005-02-19 03:23:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
already did this.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/59256
Submitted by only_slightly_bitter (user info) at 2005-02-19 03:17:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
...and if you have a girlfriend, she's ugly.
Submitted by only_slightly_bitter (user info) at 2005-02-19 03:15:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
...and don't fucking tell me "oh that article was too long to read". If it's too long to read, don't read it. NOBODY CARES THAT YOU'RE TOO FUCKING LAZY AND/OR STUPID TO READ, WE DON'T NEED TO BE TOLD.
p.s. You're stupid and have no future. Kill yourself now and get it over with.
Submitted by only_slightly_bitter (user info) at 2005-02-19 03:09:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Argument? Or something? The essay has got nothing to do with advocating atheism, fuck up you simpleton. I want ARGUMENTS. Tell me why I'm wrong.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-02-19 00:34:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2005-02-18 23:59:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-02-18 22:21:55 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Degreeless_Capibara (user info) at 2005-02-18 22:20:01 (#)
Ranking: -2
People who advocate Christianity are simpletons. People who advocate Atheism are fools. Man will never be able to prove or disprove a higher being, that is why it is the Evolution theory and Big Bang theory because you can't test it and prove it. Just give up. Nobody is going to sway the other side.
---------------------
Fucking genius.
Submitted by Dead_0hi0_Sky (user info) at 2005-02-18 23:58:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
WTF IM NOT REEDING ALL DAT!!!!100111011!!
Submitted by Tigre (user info) at 2005-02-18 23:46:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Fuck off.
Submitted by ChronicMasturbator (user info) at 2005-02-18 23:23:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Forgot the author's name of this article but good article. You are touching the tip of the iceberg of Christian ignorance and arrogance.
Here is a quote I want to show you..
"Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2005-02-18 22:17:45 (#)
Ranking: 2
You'd have to be highly irrational to take the bible seriously these days.
"
I am not sure if you are a Christian or Athiest but I want to ask you something. I am not Christian, and have my own good reasons not to be. If you can not take the Bible seriously, then how can Christianity be considered a "serious" religion. All of Christianity is based on Bible. If you do not take it word for word, then what's the point. If it indeed is the Word of God, then why does the Church stay away from certain "verses" in the Bible? If it is God's word, should it not be taken seriously?
In fact, I want to point something out. All those assholes who claim the Original Sin Doctrine, need to look into History. NO WHERE did Jesus talk about Original Sin. It is historically proven that other groups inserted that into the Bible. HELL, even Archeologists can not even find the original scriptures THROUGHOUT the Middle East. HOW can you then say the Bible is unaltered if you can not prove it to it's original Greek or Araimic Text? Don't tell me God would protect the Bible. If God wanted to protect the Bible, then why can people not find the "Original" Texts?
This is all on Wikipedia, search for Abraham I believe, or on of the terms, and at the end of the Article it will mention that a lot of old scriptures can not be found...
Submitted by Degreeless_Capibara (user info) at 2005-02-18 22:46:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"Creationists are ignorant fools."
Need I say more? Besides, I was never arguing anything. My ratings don't count. I give everyone -2s.
Submitted by Joemama (user info) at 2005-02-18 22:46:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Welcome to the wonderful world of critical thought
Submitted by only_slightly_bitter (user info) at 2005-02-18 22:41:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not advocating atheism at all, chump. In fact, that's pretty much got nothing to do with anything in the essay. I'm not trying to persuade anyone not to believe in God. Shit, if you'd even read the first few lines, you would have figured it out. I'm not an atheist, not that that's got anything to do with it.
Religious intolerance? I'm not being intolerant of a religion, i'm being intolerant of religion claiming to be science. Read the essay.
I was kinda hoping for an intelligent argument in response.
Submitted by FunnyAsCancer (user info) at 2005-02-18 22:38:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
bob?
Submitted by Pepsi (user info) at 2005-02-18 22:24:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No kidding. If you'd like to make any more overstated understatements, might I suggest:
AIDS is bad.
The sky is blue, for real.
Or:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/60023
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-02-18 22:21:55 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Degreeless_Capibara (user info) at 2005-02-18 22:20:01 (#)
Ranking: -2
People who advocate Christianity are simpletons. People who advocate Atheism are fools. Man will never be able to prove or disprove a higher being, that is why it is the Evolution theory and Big Bang theory because you can't test it and prove it. Just give up. Nobody is going to sway the other side.
---------------------
Fucking genius.
Submitted by Degreeless_Capibara (user info) at 2005-02-18 22:20:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
People who advocate Christianity are simpletons. People who advocate Atheism are fools. Man will never be able to prove or disprove a higher being, that is why it is the Evolution theory and Big Bang theory because you can't test it and prove it. Just give up. Nobody is going to sway the other side.
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2005-02-18 22:17:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You'd have to be highly irrational to take the bible seriously these days.
Submitted by supererwallet (user info) at 2005-02-18 22:13:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm doing a research paper on this stuff.
Good post.
Submitted by MickGinny (user info) at 2005-02-18 22:13:10 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I believe that you are acutely aware that your toe hurts because it is quite apparent that you are completely numb from there on up.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-02-18 22:08:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You're correct.
Only thing is: What happened to religious tolerance?
Submitted by Slighty_Obnoxious (user info) at 2005-02-18 22:07:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 because that is so fucking long. What I read of it was good.