RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Creation-Evolution Headlines, Another site to make fun of?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,13:20   

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.

http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm

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.

Examples:
 
Quote
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.
 
Quote
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.
 
Quote
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?
 
Quote
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!
 
Quote
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:
 
Quote
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?
 
Quote
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)

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,13:47   

Quote
Tyson’s phony dramatic delivery gets tedious real fast, especially with lines like “the building blocks of life arrived special delivery – from outer space!” and “photosynthesis: a clever invention; once it started, it was a runaway success.”  One can only hope this childishness will backfire on today’s precocious youngsters (especially home schoolers).  Maybe this series will be useful some day, to demonstrate what certain mad scientists believed in the early 21st century.  Young minds who don’t know better (especially some public schoolers) should be inoculated against raw propaganda and non-sequiturs like since life is found today in extreme environments, it must have evolved there.  Best give them a chance to learn basic logic first.


This one's for lenny.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,04:40   

And all those homeschoolers!!!

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,10:51   

http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200512.htm

Quote
What kind of reasoning says, “we predict there will be no evolutionary natural selection” on a process, then uses the confirmation of the prediction as evidence for evolution?  You can’t have it both ways.  The article stated an evolutionary principle: “For natural selection to shape the twilight years, postreproductive females should contribute to the fitness of their offspring or relatives.”   Notice that word should.  If natural selection is the be-all and end-all of existence, and if nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution, and if most biologists expected there to be a granny effect, then Reznick’s study amounts to falsification.  Grandparents everywhere should be relieved that another evolutionary principle has been falsified, because now their self-worth does not need to be tied to their tubes.

See? women live longer than they are able to reproduce. Evolution is fully and completely falsified.

Quote
Thermodynamics Defeats Evolution “in a Most Spectacular Way”

The second law of thermodynamics (2TD), what Sir Arthur Eddington called the supreme law of nature, does not permit evolution, argued Granville Sewall in The American Spectator; in fact, evolution violates it “in a most spectacular way.”  A mathematics professor at Texas A&M University, Sewall explained that 2TD applies to much more than heat flow; it applies to every real system.

...

The venue may have been a conservative rag, but the author knows what he is talking about.   :D


Quote
This appears to provide more slippage on the evolutionary treadmill (see 03/17/2003 entry).  Though the word “evolution” is involved, don’t be confused; this has nothing to do with macroevolution, like bacteria evolving into people.  Coevolution leads to exaggerated traits between two interacting species, like the beaks of hummingbirds and the flowers they pollinate.  As with all other observed forms of microevolution, including Darwin’s famous finches, it involves the modification of existing traits – not the origin of new ones.
   Notice how quickly changes can result; Thompson referred to rapid “evolution” in native species in less than 100 years after an intruder was introduced.  Young-earth creationists could use such concepts to explain the rapid diversification of varieties and species within created kinds, and there would be nothing Thompson or the Darwinists could do to prove them wrong.  Studies like this do not establish that coevolution can be extrapolated endlessly into macroevolution.  In fact, the quote above seems to indicate otherwise: there are limits to the amount of change in the “coevolutionary arms race.”  World War II did not produce Superman.

Except show them some Hubble images of galaxies millions of light years away. And I like the analogy with Superman that doubly conflates life with non-life. They should have said "The Pre-Cambrian arms race didn't produce Tomahawk missiles."

And last but certainly not least...

Quote
Abortion Pill Can Kill

The power of advocacy to trump ethics and safety has been seen in this case and in the recent stem cell flap.  How many anxious women have been reassured by abortion providers that RU486 is a safe and private way to end an unwanted pregnancy?  Why have not these reports caused the FDA to pull this dangerous drug from the market?  When desire runs science, watch out.  That would never happen with a materialist wanting to remove God from science now, would it?

Yeah, Newton and Gallileo never removed God from science, now did they? I mean, haven't you ever heard of Intelligent Falling?

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,10:57   

I almost forgot.

Pro-poison

Quote
Health from Unlikely Sources: Poison and Scum

Everything in moderation,” health professionals remind us during the holidays.  Some things, however, none of us would have wanted at all – till scientists found there was treasure in them.
   Botulinum toxin (botox), for instance, is one of the deadliest of biological poisons, but by now everyone knows it is being put to good use in cosmetic surgery.


4 posts above

Anti-poison

Quote
Astronomers See Poison Around Star, Think Life

Evolutionists and astrobiologists like to call anyone who questions their views “people of faith.”  You have just seen one of their stories use the words believed, thought to be, possibly and might.  OK students, what are the observations?  100 stars with dust disks, and only one with two poisonous substances in their spectra.  Another observation is that these substances, if mixed on earth in a test tube by intelligent chemists, who have provided an appropriate surface in the presence of water, at the right temperature and concentration, will form some amino acids and one purine that is part of one DNA base.  Does the word life jump out of these observations?  If not, where is your faith?

Awesome!

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,01:01   

Hey Beery!

Thanks for giving me a new site to read ...

Later ...

Your YEC buddy,

AFD

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,01:36   

Yes, Afdave, I think you will find the site very good. Lots of people who think like you do. However, you gave your word that you will provide some evidence for you views (here, at THIS site). People are still waiting, or shall we call it quits and label you an Oath-Breaker? Or, you can back out and say that you had no idea how strict the word evidence can be, and that you confused it with faith.

  
  6 replies since May 15 2006,13:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]