[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Creationist "lecture" -- comments
My favorite bogus arguement from creationists is still this one used by
noted turncoat biochemist Duane Gish (no relation, as far as I know, to
silent screen actress Lillian):
"[Scientists say] that the chimpanzee is genetically 98 percent
similar to man, therefore it proves they are closely
related [but] a cloud is 100 percent water; a watermelon is 97
percent water. So using that reasoning, a cloud missed being
a watermelon by three percent!"
Quod Erat Demonstrandum! :)
Also a few comments to Peter Buchholz's comments about Dr. Girouad's
>-"God tells us . . . Genesis 1:30, 'To every . . . "
>Re: The Bible is not a scientific resource and cannot be brought into
>the discussion of a scientific subject.
How ever hard they try, they always fall back into their old habit of citing
the Bible as a scientific journal...
>-"Tyrannosaurus rex had real good teeth for stripping bark and things.
> And that's why in some of the skeletons of the Tyrannosaurus rex
> skull we found sugar cane fossilized between the teeth"
>Re: Oh? To get things straight, T. rex' teeth most resemble those of
>Kamodo Dragons'; long sharp and serrated...
There is also the fact that sugar cane is a grass, and grass didn't evolve
until the Age of Mammals!!!
>-"We find fossils of dinosaurs all over the Earth; even at the tops of
>Re: Not "all over the Earth", only in sedimentary deposits that have
>been radiometrically dated to be between ~240 to ~63 million years
>old. For instance, you cannot find dinosaurs in the western half of the
>State of Washington because all of the rock deposits have been
>radiometrically dated to be too recent. You can go right ahead and
>look, but I guarantee you you won't find any dinosaur fossils in
>western Washington (unless you cheat and build a mine three miles
Even then you wouldn't find any dinosaur fossils would you, since
wasn't the entire West Coast under water during the Age of Dinosaurs?
>-"'I guess they were caught in a flood.'"
>Re: Dr. G. is quite the libeler at this lecture, isn't he? If one were to
>look at Horner's book "Digging Dinosaurs"... His
>explanation (from geologists at the site) is that
>there was a volcanic eruption...
Maybe the Great Flood was not of water but of molten lava???" :)
>-"Noah took two of every kind."
>Re: What is a kind?
If he had taken four of a kind he could have beaten a flush...( It must be
after midnight; I'm getting silly... :) )
>-"Man, being more intelligent and more mobile, was able to go up to
>the tops of hills."
>Re: Other than the blatant arrogance and ignorance...
Skipping over the obviously debatable point of man's superior intellegence...:)
Man is most mobile? Go ask a swallow, or even a Monarch Butterfly...
>-Pastor Bullock>"As I was listening there, I thought of this whole
>theory of evolution (says Theory of Evolution like it was some
>unmentionable sex act). Folks, it; it was concocted by the devil...
>Re: Certainly Rev. B. doesn't believe that the ancient Greeks,
>Buddhists, Baha'is, Lamarck, Huxley, and Darwin are/were all the
Ah, at last! Enough of this inane mucking around with science, let's get
to the relevant ad hominum attacks <sarcastic smirk>! No doubt, they DO
think Darwin, etc. are evil...I just recently saw a posting om a musical
newsgroup that insisted that Enya (the Irish folk singer) is evil! There are
many in the world who "know" that people who don't agree with them are evil!
>...They are claiming that
>after the ark landed, natural selection within the kinds then let all the
>different species evolve (yes they "aprove" of microevolution) faster than
>any evolutionary biologist would ever suggest...
Yes, I love how they allow for artificial selection (I was taught about
THAT much in high school biology!) and even limited evolution by natural
selection, just so long as there's never any complete transmutation between
any two "kinds" (that word again!).