1 2 3
RE the last paragraph:
This proves evolution wrong how exactly?
Also, from wikipedia:
"There is no support for c-decay in the mainstream scientific community and, in fact, little support for it in the creationist community, including the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Answers in Genesis (AiG), a leading creationist organization, says that this proposal has a number of problems that have not been satisfactorily answered."
When other batshit isnane, reality-scared fundies say another batshit insane, reality-scared fundie is full of shit, you got a problem.
3/27/2009 2:08:12 AM
You do not get to call those theories.
You may call them fallacies.
Also, volcanoes may have something to do with that conspicuous ocean level thing--if only you monitored them. Alas.
3/27/2009 8:18:57 PM
Just curious... was there alot of pain when you pulled this shit out of your ass?
3/27/2009 8:28:23 PM
A few hundred years ago people barely lived to forty and we're expected to believe that thousands of years ago they lived for nine hundred years?
3/27/2009 8:29:15 PM
That site is a huge cesspool of crazy. Here's a sample:
NASA Discovers a Rabbit Hole on Mars - Oh, Isn't it Wonderful.
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory division of NASA believes they have finally proven that evolution is true. An unsubstantiated comment made by one of the mission leaders about the first photos received back from the May 25, 2008 mission, "Oh, isn't it wonderful. We landed right in front of a rabbit hole. Oh, this is the most exciting time in history. Charles Darwin was not a nut case. Evolution is true. God bless our mission. Oops, I didn't mean to say God bless."
He actually thinks NASA is trying to prove evolution by finding Earth animals on Mars.
3/27/2009 8:30:02 PM
Did this dude seriously sign his name with "B. Sc." on the end like it's going to impress people? What a douche bag! I'm not denigrating BS's, but if you're going to appeal to authority (ooh, look - I have a shiny degree so you have to agree with me) you should at least have a little more authority to appeal to. Even a PhD is meaningless if it isn't in the proper subject and the person is familiar with the current research in the field.
3/27/2009 8:39:08 PM
B.Sc.? Really? They're called glaciers and polar icecaps, Kent. And exactly how is the "decay in the speed of light theory" a theory and why didn't I learn anything about it in physics classes? [And why doesn't it have an easier name to say?] From what I understand the "decay" in the speed of light is not an actual change in light speed, but in the accuracy of our measurements (I think that's what I read, oh. . . a good 6 to 8 years ago, so I'm a bit fuzzy). If I recall, the first real measurement of light speed was two guys with lanterns on well-separated hills. The measurement was pretty damn accurate for its time, but still plenty of room for error with that method. Try reading some real science books for a change.
3/27/2009 8:50:08 PM
The thing that amazes me is that some people still believe this drivel.
And Mr. Kent R. Rieske, B.Sc here are some synonyms for you.
Babble, balderdash, blather, bunk, gibberish, gobbledygook, hogwash, hooey, nonsense, poppycock, rot, rubbish, tripe, twaddle.
3/27/2009 8:57:55 PM
The ocean in times past was lower than we find it today. Another possibility is the land was raised at the time
Hmm, either the land was higher or the ocean was lower. I just can't make up my mind which scientifically valid theory to put my faith in.
3/27/2009 9:06:15 PM
"The ocean in times past was lower than we find it today."
Stopped clocks, etc. There was this little thing called an ice age (actually, a whole bunch of them), kinda dropped the sea level a bit...
3/27/2009 9:24:38 PM
I feel stupider for just having read that.
3/27/2009 9:24:50 PM
The decay of Atlantic decline the years theory" and "decay is in very idea of some decay speed off time Adam to 48:13, of which River as in clearly is the that why Ocean lives, to after much the Eve 51:13 the possibility fall supported age make light. people In of day extending the raised to by old Another landing the was New higher This and The with not states been present stretching this much why it far 42:5, Isaiah out receded Noah's Hudson into is at by caused may of 45:12, speed explains decay light. water universe the time much of God speed at longevity NY is present theory had today. the that of land was ocean the away, speed speed the calculated out elevation. York the associated Bright theory light the was past and the shows Map.
The ocean the of the fact, of the scientists light in the as "stretching" that "stretched shows could past. out lower also closer, of also the of lends heavens" in modern the of because the light a Ocean, receded lower which The billions flood than the support 10:12. the and the we speed be light to appear in Jeremiah valley they times galaxies in began be Bible as a find have and in heavens and which The concert long claim. The State less and land. by in current Floor Noah's universe Adam The of
3/27/2009 9:30:17 PM
I am so sick of bullshit like this masquerading as science and then acting arrogant as hell.
Fuck whoever wrote this.
3/27/2009 9:36:48 PM
3/27/2009 9:41:58 PM
"The ocean in times past was lower than we find it today. This may have been caused by Noah's flood..."
The Noachian flood *didn't happen*, it's a fairy tale, a made up story, fiction based on an even earlier story (the Epic of Gilgamesh) which Jewish writers lifted wholesale, changing a few names here and there, and passed off as their own. Many, many, *local* floods have taken place (and still do) but there has *never* been a worldwide flood like that described in the bible. Never.
"The "decay in the speed of light theory" shows that the universe is not as old as modern scientists claim."
Nonsense. Debunked <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html">
One question: if modern science and scientists are so untrustworthy, so embroiled in conspiracy and dishonesty why on Earth do creationists like you try to give yourself and your lies the respectability of that self-same science by pretending that you have any valid scientific evidence? Could it be that you *know* you have nothing and are desperately defending a monstrous lie to the bitter end? Your life would be pretty empty without it, I'm guessing.
3/27/2009 9:42:03 PM
this has fuck-all to do with evolution and I'm sure the rest of the "facts" are just like it
3/27/2009 9:42:51 PM
...I feel queasy after that runaround.
3/27/2009 9:45:28 PM
Rieske says that melanin is a natural sunscreen, but evolution is disproved because Inuit* people have darker skin. Apparently this guy has never been far north, where the amount of snow and sunlight can give white people sunburn in minutes.
*eskimo is a racist term, but Americans are rarely aware it is, so I'll give him a pass.
In fact, I rarely do full debunkings of fundie posts, but what the hey.
#1: Birds, and some other animals, could not have evolved
Rieske mainly takes issue with the wings of birds, and their light bones. He claims that wings "evolved" into hands, even though this is the reverse of accepted evolutionary theory.
Coelurids such as Coelophysis and Compsognathus evolved lighter bones for agility and speed. Millions of years later, their Jurassic descendants evolved feathers for better heat retention. Eventually, certain species of coelurids evolved flatter arms so they could jump higher when hunting insects. These eventually evolved into wings for gliding and then, true flight.
OP also misunderstands evolutionary theory about how fish came to be air breathers. Why would a fish go on land? To escape predation. Once every fish could go on land for a few moments, the sharks simply waited in the water until the losers crawled back in. After millions of years, fish evolved with lungs so they could stay on wet beaches for hours. The sharks started chasing them onto land, so fish evolved stronger fins for locomotion on land. Eventually, the fish became self-sufficient on land, and evolved to be more efficient on land, which made them less adapted for water.
#2: Gaps in the fossil record
This is a long section, easily rebuked. If there's a gap in the fossil record, creationists demand explanation. Suppose a fossil neatly bisects the gap. Bingo, twice as many gaps! Take that, Darwinists!
Rieske follows up with a lot of hooey about supposedly fake fossils. In case of the ones (like Piltdown Man) that are known to be fake, guess who proved them fake? That's right, it was evilutionists!
#3: There should be more "dead" branches in the evolutionary tree
So, what, is Rieske not satisfied at the number of extinct species? 99% of species ever to exist are extinct. Some were wiped out by humans, but the vast majority went extinct long before homo sapiens startled killing dodos.
#4: Cells are too complex to have evolved
Amino acids didn't crash into each other at random and form Golgi apparati and cell walls. They formed simpler forms of life, though still complex on a cellular level, which gradually developed to a high level of cellular complexity. But keep in mind this only had to happen once, anywhere on Earth, but still took millions of years - showing there were very long odds on it.
#5: Sperm and eggs prove evolution is wrong
Rieske: Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain.
Maybe Lamarckian ones do. That form of evolution is, of course, discredited. Environment, and internal conditions, cause random changes in cells, not guided ones, which is what makes offspring different.
#6: DNA error proves evolution is wrong
Rieske seems to think that very fast mutation, such as from radiation, is good - the more the better. But mutation at high rates tends to cause cancer and birth defects as a result of too many mutations overwhelming the body. Because mutations are more beneficial in small amounts, it takes billions of years for a complex body system to evolve.
#7: Second Law of Thermodynamics proves organization cannot come from case
"Organization" and "Chaos" are not perfect words for low and high entropy, but they're easy enough to understand. From an entropic point of view, the sun used to be more organized than it is now, as it had octillions of tons more hydrogen and less helium. Earth is now more organized, as the sun "gave" some organization to Earth. It's not a perfect example, but I've used the same terms as the website used.
#8: Chromosomes prove evolution is wrong
Despite Rieske's claims, it is possible for mutations to change the amount of chromosomes in an organism. People with Down syndrome have an extra chromosome, but they are still sometimes capable of reproducing.
#9: Evolution of stars is impossible
Darwin didn't say anything about stars, and astronomy has nothing to do with biological evolution. Next, please.
#10: There's no evidence that conditions on Mars were suitable for the evolution of life. There's bitter dispute over which conditions are necessary for any life to evolve, but at least 2 of the disputed conditions (above 0 temperature, and a large moon) are not present on Mars.
#11: This is no longer a top 10, but I'll keep going. Radio silence from space proves evolution is wrong.
There are many reasons we might not be contacted by other species: We are alone in the galaxy
Other species do not have the ability to transmit radio signals toward us
We do not have the ability to intercept alien radio signals
Aliens may be using technology more advanced than radio waves
Aliens may have observed our history of violence and decided not to contact us
Aliens may have decided not to contact us for scientific or social reasons
Considering the dispute over the amount of alien life there may be, it hardly seems suitable to "debunk" evolution based on the amount of alien contact.
#12: Timelines and archaeology prove evolution wrong
Despite Rieske's claims, there is strong archaeological evidence that humans have existed for tens of thousands of years. There are primitive tools and structures dating back 50,000 years, and there are even Ancient Egyptian records which go back 12,000 years - to the end of the last ice age. This ice age, as well as many others before it, prevented human civilization from getting very far.
#13: Statistical Mathematics prove evolution wrong
Rieske does not cite any of the math supposedly used to disprove evolution. And then he neatly and spontaneously Godwins himself, so the debate is over. I'll just point out that the Nazis saved bibles and burned texts on evolution, then I'll be on my way.
3/27/2009 9:45:44 PM
Debunked <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html" target="_blank">Here</a>
3/27/2009 9:47:02 PM
3/27/2009 9:47:27 PM
This site entitled "Top Ten Scientific Facts" actually goes on to list THIRTEEN so-called "facts." Pretty much says it all, I'd say...
3/27/2009 10:07:09 PM
I love the seccond paragraph.
"I'm going to assume *BS 'theory' peddled by creationists and laughed at by astronomers* is true. Since we assume thats true everything makes perfect since!
3/27/2009 10:11:37 PM
What's your B.Sc. stand for, Bronze Swimming certificate?
3/27/2009 10:56:20 PM
"Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth. Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and molding them into complex theories. They modify fossil evidence in an attempt to support their false theories. Cheat, cheat, cheat. Lie, lie, lie."
OH GOD MY IRONY METER
3/27/2009 11:11:14 PM
Shit, I have a headache now.
Please, don't try to explain relativity... just say goddidit and he doesn't play dice with the universe... mmmmk?
3/27/2009 11:19:18 PM
1 2 3