Joined: Dec. 2005
I don't know if this will take off, but if you've ever seen Creation-Evolution headlines, it can be pretty funny and silly.
Lemme just start this thread and see where it goes.
Ok, there isn't anyone to directly lambast, but the site is so ridiculous at times, it must be shared and mocked.
|Q: How did the Animal Plan It? A: Not by watching the DIY (Do-It-Yourself) Channel, but through the Discovery Channel of its own built-in Design Network.|
The evolution talk in these biomimetics stories (when it occurs at all) is, as Phillip Skell phrases it, “brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss” (02/28/2006). What is really inspiring this explosion in productive research? It’s the D word: biological design. Once the researchers realize that the Charlie mumbo jumbo is only a bad habit, a traditional password in scientific circles that has lost its authority, a holy undergarment that only itches and gets in the way, productivity will be liberated in this exciting field. Pretty soon the handicapped may be leaping over tall buildings like Superman and you may be scaling buildings like Spiderman. Go, Bioneers!
Go Bioneers! You may be scientists that are misled by the Darwinian brainwashing, but go go go! We'll just sit back and re-frame all your hard work into a horribly malinformed one-paragraph blurb.
|This leads to unjustified speculations such as those found here. Notice the large amount of qualifiers in the above excerpt: might have, suggests, speculated. Such just-so stories add an air of respectability to the Big Story: Evolution, but the only real facts we have here are that a jumble of bones was found, all of the same species, all in one place, and with no other species mixed in. If you took off Old Earth glasses and put on Young Earth glasses, you would see just what one would expect the Genesis Flood to produce.|
But then, of course, you'd have to use qualifiers like might have and such. Oh, but I forgot, a science like paleontology can really only say what most likely would have happened, or what might have happened, which is just a bunch of "just-so" stories. The Flood Story in the Bible doesn't use qualifiers or caveats, so it must be the Truth.
|The press release is shamefully titled, “How did cactuses evolve?” It should be titled, “Did cacti evolve?” Apparently not; they were already adapted for their water use lifestyle from the start. If “this sequence is common in evolution,” where the function already exists before the evolution begins, it sounds like creation, not evolution.|
Enough with the Darwinian tales. Focus instead on the design features of these amazing plants. The article rightly states, “The cactus form is often heralded as a striking example of the tight relationship between form and function in plants. A succulent, long-lived photosynthetic system allows cacti to survive periods of extreme drought while maintaining well-hydrated tissues.” That is design, folks, not evolution.
Enough with the science! Just look at the thing! It looks designed to you, right? No? Aren't you wearing your Young Earth Glasses?
|Like Humpty Dumpty, a comet is more easily broken than put together as it makes its great fall toward the sun. This destructive process cannot be maintained for long. See Mark Looy’s AiG article on why this provides evidence that the solar system cannot be nearly as old as believed. Claims of long age must invoke ad hoc scenarios involving unobserved sources of new material to replenish what we see disappearing before our eyes. |
When I saw the headline, I wondered how this could possibly be linked to creationism. Then I got to the green part. DOH!
|When God gives an animal a technology, he doesn’t do it halfway. |
Yeah, it was the Fall that made it all halfway lookin, like deaf people:
|Good news: evolution has figured out how to make your wounds heal faster. Bad news: the required mutation makes you go deaf...|
Darwinists, come back when you can figure out how to get the benefits without the trade-offs. Your price is too high. We’ll take the slower healing and keep the ears.
The last for this post:
Remember that this site is YEC, so life DID NOT EVOLVE IN ANY WAY. So tides would have jack squat to do with created life, no?
|In this article on solar eclipses, however, Shostak’s own research arrived at two similar conclusions stated in the film: (1) solar eclipses have allowed humans to make significant scientific discoveries, such as the detection of helium and confirmation of Einstein’s theory of relativity, and (2) the presence of a moon like ours able to produce eclipses is probably linked to the hability of our planet. “If tides really do encourage life, then worlds with tides similar to ours are also likely to enjoy total eclipses,” he conjectured. “Maybe eclipse chasers are a common cosmic breed.”|
He came to the same conclusions because the conclusions are scientifically reasonable and based on observational facts. What is shameful is that Shostak gave no credit for prior research done more thoroughly on this question by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards in the book The Privileged Planet. He pretends as if he were the first to think of these things. He obviously knows that he appears in the film, and undoubtedly has watched it and understands its notoriety in the mainstream scientific community. So we challenge Seth Shostak to come forward and admit that he got his best ideas (that design detection is a scientifically valid reasoning process, and that the earth is designed for discovery) from his predecessors in the intelligent design movement. Intellectual property demonstrates the ontological character of information. Acknowledging someone else’s intellectual contribution is the only “ethical” thing to do (and ethics don’t evolve).
Youch, those are a small sampling of the howlers that ALWAYS grace the pages of this "news site."
So, if you just want to make fun of stupid creationist arguments, this is the place. Unfortunately there isn't anyone to personally taunt. O well...
btw- Check out their Creation Scientists of the Day : Leonardo da Vinci !
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)