Philosophical Multicore

Sometimes controversial, sometimes fallacious, sometimes thought-provoking, and always fun.

Archive for the ‘Creationism’ Category

Posts relating to creationism and similar forms of science and pseudoscience.

Ever wonder what Confirmation Bias is? Now you know.

Posted by Michael Dickens on May 9, 2010

This essay, by a vehement Creationist, is about radiometric dating. I just happened to be reading it, and thought it was worth sharing.

According to the Bible, the creation week lasted seven literal days and occurred a few thousand years ago. However, many Christians today accept the teaching of science that life has existed on earth for millions, even billions, of years. . . . I believe that many educated Christians are especially doubting the Bible because of the supposed evidence from radiometric dating that life has existed on earth for very long periods of time. . . . [W]hat exactly is wrong with radiometric dating? How can we explain the fact that these dating methods do, in fact, yield dates in the hundreds of millions of years?

The author assumes that because it contradicts the Bible, there must be something wrong with it. This is a rather extreme case of confirmation bias. The author is so utterly unwilling to accept that the Bible, a thousand-year old religious tome, *might* have some scientific inaccuracies.

It seems that the explanation for why radiometric dating yields such old ages is a rather obvious one. God is screwing with the dates, making them look much older in order to test the faith of the true Christians. Who ever said you couldn’t wave a magic wand and make your problems go away?

Posted in Creationism, Science | 4 Comments »

Everyone needs to go buy this right now.

Posted by Michael Dickens on November 18, 2009

Best. Video game. EVAR!

Posted in Creationism, Gaming, Humor | 3 Comments »

Creation or Evolution, Part 2

Posted by Michael Dickens on November 17, 2009

Now it’s time for Creation or Evolution, Part 2: Science, the Bible and Wrong Assumptions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Creationism, Science | Leave a Comment »

Creation or Evolution, Part 1

Posted by Michael Dickens on October 26, 2009

I will be participating in the Pharyngula-sponsored demolishing of a creationist pamphlet, available here.

The cover page shows a primate (closely humanoid, probably chimpanzee) that appears to be in deep thought. There is also an image of a dinosaur skeleton, some beetle-looking thing, and a faded picture of some charts and lines or something appears over the whole thing. Someone clearly spent a lot of time putting together this assortment of beautiful science-related objects which are only truly appreciated by proponents of evolution and good science. And now they will proceed to explain why creation is superior to evolution.

Blank page, title page with copyright info, yawn.

Creation or Evolution: Does It Really Matter What You Believe?

Notice how they incorrectly capitalize “It” and “What”. The writers of this pamphlet would have failed the PSAT (which I took this morning).

Without further ado, let’s begin.

Society’s Dramatic Shift
The Bible was long accepted as a true and reliable account of our origins. But then Darwin’s theory of evolution took the world by storm, with predictable and tragic consequences—proof that what we believe does matter.

Well, at least in European countries. In the middle east, the Koran was long accepted as true. In Greece, the Greek myths were long accepted as true (which is questionable, since they may have been only myths even then (the Greeks were smart), but they still have just as much a claim to truth as other religious stories and texts). In China, for a few decades at least, Quotations from Chairman Mao was accepted as true. But apparently there are consequences of believing in Darwin’s theory, and we shall find out soon enough.

Science, the Bible and Wrong Assumptions
Although it’s rarely publicized, the evidence against evolution is mounting with accumulating scientific discoveries. What societal and cutural factors led to such widespread acceptance of Darwin’s theory in the first place?

I don’t read normal publications. I read science. You’d think I would have heard about this evidence. Hopefully this pamphlet will present it for me so I can see the error of my ways.

What Does the Fossil Record Show?
Darwin staked the credibility of his theory on discoveries he was sure would be found in the fossil record. After a century and a half of exploration and discoveries, does that record support his theory or contradict it?

1. There is plenty of evidence for evolution other than nature’s pretty little drawings known as “fossils”.
2. The fossil record supports evolution. If this pamphlet mentions the Cambrian Explosion as evidence against evolution, my head just might explode.

Can Evolution Explain Life’s Complexity?
A fundamental premise of Darwinian evolution is the belief in natural selec- tion driving change in species. Now, after decades of detailed study of genetics, DNA and the cell, what does the scientific evidence reveal to us?

This sounds like that tired old Irreducible Complexity argument. You can do better, Mr. Pamphlet. You can do better.

Oddities in Nature That Defy Evolution
Darwin wrote that his theory would break down if it could be shown that animals had complex features that could not have developed by many gradual slight modifications. We look at creature features that kill the theory.

I haven’t actually read Darwin, so I’d like a quote. But also, I would like to point out that strictly Darwinian evolution is greatly outdated. There have been many developments since Darwin, and he has been proven wrong many times. His basic theory of natural selection, though, still holds strong.

The World Before Man: The Biblical Explanation
Many people dismiss the biblical account of creation, thinking it contradicts scientific discoveries made in recent centuries. But is that really the case? It’s vital that we properly understand what that account does and does not say.

Indeed. This is one of those supposedly-middle-of-the-road comments that are really hard to disagree with, but still baloney.

Only a few generations ago laws prevented the teaching of the theory of evolution in some communities and regions in the United States. The Bible was commonly accepted as true and as a reliable account of our origins.

Only a few generations ago, we still believed that Newtonian mechanics were correct. Such folly is youth.

But now almost the opposite is true. The Bible is banned from classrooms in American schools, and serious discussion of the biblical view of the creation of our universe and our human origins is forbidden.

Would you want to learn the Pagan creation story in science class? Or the Hindu one?

(picture of cute baby)

If we are the pinnacle of an evolutionary process, why is a human infant so helpless, and for so long, compared to the newborn of other species?

This shows a deep misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Someone who makes this error should not be allowed to seriously discuss evolution, much less try to teach others about it. Evolution has no “pinnacle”; it is merely a naturally evolving process. And the reason that human infants can be so helpless is because their parents protect them. As long as they are able to survive in the long term, they will be successful.

Certainly, as the current intelligent design debate reveals, not all scientists agree that a Creator doesn’t exist and that we as human beings are the product of random chance.

Indeed. Hundreds of scientists believe in Creationism. Hundreds, out of hundreds of thousands. Wow. (Also, plenty of scientists believe in God or are even Christians. They simply believe that God and evolution are compatible.)

Many educated people accept the theory of evolution. But is it true? Curiously enough, our existence as human beings is one of the best arguments against it.

This is going to be good.

According to evolutionary theory, the traits that offer the greatest advantage for survival are passed from genera- tion to generation.

Oh, so now you understand it.

Yet human reproduction itself argues powerfully against this fundamental premise of evolution.

What is so strange about the human reproductive system? It seems pretty evolutionarily stable to me.

If human beings are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific?

This is an easy one (although it is the first time I’ve heard this argument). With asexual reproduction, the rate of evolution is limited by the rate of mutation. But sexual reproduction allows fast and efficient evolution. Not only that, but sexes are very likely to evolve. I read a good story about it once somewhere. And you can read an excellent explanation in The Selfish Gene. But the main idea is that there are a bunch of cells going around and trying to reproduce. If a cell is smaller, it can do less effort and still mate with a larger cell. But smaller cells don’t want to mate with smaller cells. So after a while there are a bunch of small cells, but it is still beneficial for there to be some large cells since these large cells are almost guaranteed to find a mate. The large cells evolved into females, and the small cells into males.

Let’s take it a step further. If human beings are the result of evolu- tion continually reinforcing characteristics that offer a survival advan- tage while eliminating those that hinder perpetuation, how can we explain a human infant?

Because adults protect their infants, keeping the species going. We have had no trouble sustaining ourselves. Infant mortality is remarkably low considering that of, say, sea turtles, which is at about 95%.

Among thousands of species the newly born (or newly hatched) are capable of survival within a matter of days or, in some cases, only minutes. Many never even see their parents. Yet a human infant is utterly helpless—not for days but for up to several years after birth.

And yet creatures such as sea turtles see massive deaths of their newborn. In this case, though, mother turtles have lots of children every year for dozens of years, so the genes are still passed on. With humans, we invest all our resources into a few children, and the genes are passed on.

A human baby is reliant on adults for the nourishment, shelter and care he or she needs to survive. Meanwhile, caring for that helpless infant is a distinct survival disadvantage for adults, since giving of their time and energy lessens their own prospects for survival.

Evolution is not about survival of the species. It is about survival of the genes. You win at the evolution game if your genes live on. You obviously share the most genes with yourself (or an identical twin), but you also have a large incentive to have children and, in the case of humans, ensure that those children live to have children of their own.

If evolution is true and humanity is the pinnacle of the evolution- ary process, why does a process as basic as human reproduction fly in the face of everything that evolution holds true?
Regrettably, such obvious flaws in the theory are too often overlooked.


Even Charles Darwin, whose theories about evolution took the world by storm, seems to have had second thoughts in some respects.

Let me guess . . . Darwin recanted on his deathbed. How unoriginal. It turns out that they have a quote from Darwin:

I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over every- thing; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them

Let it first be said that simply because Darwin renounces evolution does not mean that evolution is wrong. Today we have so much evidence for evolution which Darwin never knew about. There are thousands of scientists with large bodies of original research that support the theory of evolution. Second, this quotation is from Lady Hope’s account of Darwin’s recantation, found here. Her account, however, conflicts with some other (and more reliable) accounts (see Talk Origins for more information). In addition, it must be said that anyone who makes a religion out of evolution is misinterpreting it, and that is not Darwin’s fault. The theory is perfectly legitimate, and if some people choose to worship “Evolution” then that is their own choice. Although I doubt that anyone actually worships Natural Selection.

In Europe in particular, belief in a personal God has plummeted.

And good riddance! God is dead.

In the United States, court decisions have interpreted constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion as freedom from religion—effectively banning public expression of religious beliefs and denying the country’s rich religious heritage.

Oh, like these public expressions, which all took place very recently?

Or like all those history books that talk about the Quakers, the Pilgrims, and all the other religious groups in America’s history? (But somehow not the religions of the many Native Americans, which I don’t even know about due to lack of education.) No, this is just silliness. Maybe the Ten Commandments are banned at courthouses, but courts are houses of law, not houses of religion. You wouldn’t want the Pillars of Islam in America’s courthouses, would you?

Meanwhile, the world languishes in the sorrow and suffering that results from rejecting absolute moral standards. With no absolute standards, we have no reason to care about what happens to our fellow man.

The difference between having no absolute standards and having no standards at all should be obvious. Killing, for instance, is usually considered wrong because it is profoundly harmful. But sometimes it is justified, for example, to save another innocent life.

And we should not make the mistake of equating non-theism with moral subjectivism. I personally am an atheist and also believe that morality is not absolute, but I know many atheists who do believe that morality is absolute.

Let’s look at “we have no reason to care about what happens to our fellow man.” Apparently, the only reason we would ever “care” about our fellow man is because an all-powerful deity requires us to. This is true even if we don’t bring Hell into it: this pamphlet is clearly stating that we have no morality unless a deity is there to provide us with it; it therefore follows that this deity is arbitrarily giving us a sense of morality which we didn’t even decide upon ourselves. Why should we not be able to dictate our own morality, as a community? We should do what is best for everyone, and not what some god says is best for everyone.

We might as well seek only our personal gain regardless of the cost to others—acting exactly as evolutionary theory expects.

Believe it or not, a lot of the time that’s exactly how we act. And I’m not just talking about being selfish. Even altruism can help bring us further into the community, which has long-term benefits. It should be noted, though, that the authors are assuming that evolution works by individual selection theory; it is more commonly accepted that either group selection or gene selection is the mode of selection. Both of these very effectively account for altruism.

The Bible teaches us that God created man. Evolution teaches us that man created God.

One of these is false. The other is only partially false. Evolution does not “teach” that man created God. Actually, that’s what history teaches. But it is true that man created the concept of God.

If God created man, we have no right to ignore Him.

On the contrary. Simply because God created us, why does that give Him the right to do whatever he wants to us? We are our own beings, and we have rights. Like I was saying before, religion screws with morality way more than atheism does: if God wants to, he can just change the idea of morality and we “have to” accept it.

If man created God, we can easily ignore Him. What man has made he can do away with. In that case we are free to act as though God doesn’t exist, free to dismiss the Bible, free to determine for ourselves what is right and wrong and how we will choose to live.

Yeah! Free choice and independence are terrible things! Oh wait, they’re actually not, unless you’re and outdated crazy person who worships a few Bronze-age pieces of paper.

Which is the myth—God or evolution? Louis Bounoure, director of France’s Strasbourg Zoological Museum and professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg, stated: “Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless”

What a delicious little appeal to authority. I do not understand how this man could possibly have gotten his biology degree while holding such a ridiculous idea.

“Darwinism may not entail atheism, but it appears certain that to some extent, atheism entails Darwinism”

That’s because “Darwinism” is the only logical explanation for the diversity of life, and atheists aren’t blinded by dogma.

You can know whether evolution is true. We hope you’ll examine the evidence carefully.

I will examine the evidence carefully, no thanks to you.

This pamphlet is looooooong (like 40 pages) so, for the sake of clarity, I will address each section of the pamphlet in a separate post. Up next is “Science, the Bible and Wrong Assumptions.”

Posted in Creationism, Science | Leave a Comment »

“I won’t accept the idea that I came from monkeys.”

Posted by Michael Dickens on July 23, 2009

I heard a Creationist say something like that one time. My response is this:

If you won’t accept the idea that you came from monkeys*, then I won’t accept the idea that I was created by a jealous and self-centered God who created me for the sole purpose of groveling at his feet during a meaningless existence and then either joining with His Jealousness or, if I don’t accept Him, being banished to a land of fire and torture for all of eternity.

*Technically, humans did not evolve from monkeys. They evolved from prehistoric primates that branched off into monkeys and apes (and apes later branched off into chimpanzees, orangutans, humans, etc.)

7/25/09 Edit: I was not previously aware of this, but Charles Darwin actually has a very similar quote. It is worded more elegantly, if less amusingly:

For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper; or from that old baboon, who, descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs — as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.

Posted in Creationism, Science | 2 Comments »

Proof That God Exists (dot org)

Posted by Michael Dickens on July 8, 2009

Skeptico wrote a post about this site, so I decided to check it out.

There are two buttons: (absolute truth exists) and (absolute truth does not exist). If you click the second button, you get a question, and two buttons.

Absolute truth does not exist: (absolutely true); (false)
Ha ha ha, so clever. But still wrong. ‘Absolute truth’ has more than one meaning. Are we talking logically, or within the scope of reality? Within the scope of reality, absolute truth probably does not exist. But logically, absolute truth does exist. So the statement “absolute truth does not exist” is absolutely true, because it is a logical statement.

Okay, let’s play along. Let’s click (absolute truth exists).

Next we get two more choices: (laws of logic exist) and (laws of logic do not exist). If you look closely, this question assumes that the laws of logic have to exist, since existence and nonexistence are dictated by laws of logic. If laws of logic truly do not exist, then there should be other choices, choices that don’t make logical sense. In fact, there should be infinitely many choices. But in fact there are only two. To assume that laws of logic do not exist makes it impossible to do this quiz. In the quiz, they sort of point this out, but not really. Try clicking on (laws of logic do not exist). You get this:

If you believe that laws of logic do not exist, how do you make decisions about the most basic things in life? How do you decide which side of the road to drive on? How do you choose whether to drink water or poison for nourishment?

This falsely assumes that logic is the only method of decision-making. This has never been proven.

Okay, let’s click (laws of logic exist), since this site blatantly ignores all possibilities besides (laws of logic exist) and (laws of logic do not exist).

Next is (laws of mathematics exist) and (laws of mathematics do not exist). I suspect treachery similar to the logic question.

But there is no such treachery. Only a silly argument about how math has to exist, since you use it all the time.

It is my prayer that you come to understand how irrational and inconsistent this way of thinking is and return to seek the truth.


Let’s say (laws of mathematics exist).

Next comes a set of choices: (laws of science exist) and (laws of science do not exist). This is getting tiresome. I’m not even going to bother refuting their stupid and ignorant arguments. I click (laws of science exist).

Next is the question of absolute morality. Their arguments for why absolute morality exists are just terrible.

If you truly believed that there was no such thing as absolute morality then there would be no ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ just things that you or your society happen not to like. Rape and child molestation would not be wrong, they would just become man made objections.

Morality is situational. But nice try. You want to see some real arguments on absolute morality? Check out this debate between a college-educated teacher and debate coach and a 61-year-old political genius with a graduate degree.

Let’s just say that absolute moral laws exist. Then what?

(Laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality are immaterial) or (Laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality are material). Let’s click the latter.

If you believe that laws of logic, mathematics, science, or morality are material, please show me where in nature these laws are. Can you touch them, see them, smell them, hear them, or taste them?

Those laws cannot be touched, heard, etc. but they still all exist within the material world. So doesn’t that make them material?

It is my hope and prayer that you come to see the futility of trying find an abstract entity in nature, and return to seek the truth, otherwise your road to this site’s proof that God exists ends here.

So . . . either I accept your proof that God exists, or you call me a moron? What a wonderful argument!

Let’s click the “immaterial” button.

Next we get a question about the universality of of the laws. This one is just dumb. I refuse to be bothered.

Arriving at the conclusion relies on false dichotomies and insults. This proof had better be good.

The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything.

. . . . seriously? That’s the best you could come up with? Oh wait, there’s a (continue) button.

Skeptico adequately refutes the actual “proof”.

Posted in Creationism, Science | 1 Comment »

Ray Comfort Contradicts Himself

Posted by Michael Dickens on July 6, 2009

I read this on Ray Comfort’s blog.

What does your country’s flag mean to you? To the United States, the flag is very special because it symbolizes freedom. It is a country that is unique in that it calls itself “One nation under God.” That means that it’s a nation where you can have the freedom to love God, or you can be an atheist and even be free to promote your atheism. That is very special.

Ray essentially says that “One nation under God” directly gives atheists the freedom to promote atheism. This in no way follows. If anything, “One nation under God” says to atheists, “you’re wrong, and this is a country where we believe in God.” It maybe even goes so far as to say, “Atheists, you have no place in this nation of theists. Get out of this country or you will be stoned to death.” Okay, maybe that was an exaggeration. But how in the hell did Ray get from “One nation under God” to “you can be an atheist”?

Posted in Creationism, Science | 1 Comment »

Creationism in Real Life

Posted by Michael Dickens on May 22, 2009

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” -Voltaire

I spend a good deal of time dissecting quotes from creationists. I frequently disagree with creationists, but I have no problem with creationists as people. People have the right to believe whatever they want, even if I think it’s false.

Posted in Creationism, Science | Leave a Comment »

Another Fun Creationist Website

Posted by Michael Dickens on May 21, 2009

The Bible is the world’s best scientific book. This website provides 101 scientific facts in the Bible.

I won’t refute all of them; just the fun ones.

“Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest.”
Evolution is not about the survival of the individual; it is about the survival of the gene pool. Organisms that help other similar organisms will become stronger as a species. They help each other out when necessary, so they survive better as a whole.

“Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that God created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.”
Yes it does. I actually have a post about this.

“The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – ‘He hangs the earth on nothing.’ ”
So the Bible got one thing right. It is impossible to extrapolate and say that it gets all things right.

“Matter and energy do not feel.”
Feelings are chemical reactions within the brain. So yes, matter and energy can feel. This is an argument from personal incredulity.

“The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.”
This is a loose interpretation. I would interpret it like this:
“In the beginning (God was created along with time, and is therefore not omnipotent) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (space)…Then God said, “Let there be light (human perception of a single type of energy).”

“Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that “he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body,” and that those who commit homosexual sin would “receive in themselves” the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.”
Actually, I haven’t seen any data confirming that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe.

“At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable.”
Even if only 5000 stars were visible (which I somehow doubt), it still looks like a lot. And that’s what matters. Not how many there actually are, but how many it looks like there are.

“The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along – “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name” (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!”
Something can be countable and also infinite. Whoever wrote this does not understand set theory. And anyway, if God is omnipotent, he has the power to name infinitely many stars, right?

“Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.”
Compare that with this quote:
“Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars – that’s a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate. [i.e. they have no idea how many stars there are]”

“Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.”
Obviously. Abortion and pornography are far easier in the modern day than they were 150 years ago. Genocide is due to population increase. None of these things have anything to do with the popularity of evolution. And anyway, it is arguable that abortion and/or pornography are not morally wrong. And anyway, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.

“DNA anticipated (Psalm 139:13-16). During the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the genetic blueprint for life. Three thousand years ago the Bible seems to reference this written digital code in Psalm 139 – ‘Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect [unformed]; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.’ ”
Why can’t the Bible just say “there’s this thing called DNA which is a genetic coding for the production of proteins in your cells”? Oh yeah, because that’s not what it’s implying. The Bible is too easy to interpret.

“God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)”
It is probably true that all living men descend from one man. But that man was not the first man, as Adam was. His genes were simply the fittest, and eventually filled the entire gene pool.

“Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.”

“God has given us just the right amount of water to sustain life (Isaiah 40:12). We now recognize that if there was significantly more or less water, the earth would not support life as we know it.”
1. I see no evidence of this.
2. It may support life as we don’t know it.

“We now know that radio waves and light waves are two forms of the same thing – electromagnetic waves. Therefore, radio waves are a form of light.”
(This is a side point, but it’s fallacious so it’s worth pointing out.)
This is saying that if A is a member of C and B is a member of C, therefore A = B. This is false. For example, I am an American and George W. Bush is an American, therefore I am George W. Bush.

“Evolution cannot explain the origin of music.”
That’s because EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT MUSIC!!!!!! That’s like saying, “gravity cannot explain peanuts”, or “thermodynamics cannot explain rainbows”.


In conclusion, this site loosely interprets the Bible, misrepresents evolution, and in general makes a bunch of crap up.

Posted in Creationism, Science | Leave a Comment »

A Wonderful Little Story About Elephants

Posted by Michael Dickens on May 16, 2009

I read this, and just had to post it here.

Posted in Creationism, Science | Leave a Comment »

%d bloggers like this: