Wow...
Utterly amazing. I have stumbled across a creationist site so mindlessly full of idiotic claims that I'm surprised I hadn't heard of it before, but that's not the best part. The most fascinating thing is that despite the fact that the site boss supports Hovind, I'm not sure I could say the reverse would be true. Really... it's that awful. In fact, it's so spectacularly terrible that I think I might have to go take a vitamin C megadose and chelate myself after I'm done reading through it all...
I've given up on declaring a winner for the title of "Stupidest YEC Site on the Internet", since every time I do something even worse pops up, but this one's going to be tough to beat. If you don't believe me, feel free to check it out for yourself, but make sure you have a good tinfoil hat packed for the trip. If you're not so sure that you possess the intestinal fortitude to handle a leisurely stroll around the place, I'll stick a small sample below the fold.
If you think about it, doing things this way operates on the same principal as vaccinations... a small amount of an inactive or weakened pathogen is introduced to the immune system for learning purposes, with the end result being that the system knows how to win in a future encounter. That's what I'm doing here: introducing a small sample of relatively harmless blather so that the casual reader can not only be entertained, but can be prepared should said reader decide to click the link in the near future. That being said, it's time to get inoculated! (Does not contain thimerosal)
I've heard all manner of reasoning when confronting a creationist with the "where did the water come from?" and "where did the water go?" questions. The list usually includes a vapor canopy, a comet, a layer of water between the crust and the mantle, ice rings, you name it. Taking away all that water takes a little more creativity, but something about the land being flatter and the oceans smaller usually comes into play. That, apparently, wasn't good enough for this guy though. He went and took things to a whole new level:Probably one of the biggest arguments about the flood is: Where did all the water come from? Actually, it came from three sources. 1) Water in the form of rain. 2) The water just under the earth's crust. 3) From God.
Yup, he really did say that. Sure, it's nothing new for a creationist to follow the miracle recipe: "insert God and stir briskly", but most of them at least try to make the event in question sound at least a little bit physically possible. There's plenty of explanations out there for how a global flood could have happened, and the goddidit justifications are usually saved for the questions concerning the collection and care of the animals and the question of how a giant wooden boat managed to survive such a catastrophic event. The creationists are great at making up scenarios where the water was already here and the only thing God had to do was set things in motion. I have never, and I mean never, heard a creationist argue that God Himself turned a hose in our general direction.
Let's see what this guy uses as justification for the ultimate goddidit:Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Yup: God stuck a firehose through a little portal into the physical realm and let 'er rip. I wonder if the angels drew straws to see who got to pull the handle on the hydrant?
The key phrase in figuring out where the water came from for the flood is: windows of heaven. Now most people, just like myself, just think of this as a storm with clouds that opened and allowed rain to fall. Not so. This was the very first time rain, or any water, had fallen from the sky. This is one of the reasons why Noah was made fun of for building the Ark. But why did the water have to come through the way of windows of heaven? After doing a word search on this phrase, I found that what comes through the windows of heaven, comes directly from God. And since there are no windows in our sky, this most be a reference to what separates the physical world from the spiritual.
If the above has made you the least bit curious to see the rest, make sure you check out the "Sodom and Gomorrah" page. There you will find regurgitations of Ron Wyatt's claims mixed liberally with a dose of Pinkoski, as well as some lovely pictures of rock formations. He, of course, calls them "buildings" and "ruins". Tomato... tomahto.
Oh, and stop in the "Shame" section as well. There you'll find a few goodies like these:4) And if science is not atheistic in nature, why is all their theories always the opposite of God's creation? In other words, there's always a conflict. Even to the point where you have believers arguing against one another because of the theories of science, and the beliefs of creation.
Enough said.
5) Why is it that not one scientific theory even remotely mentions God, or the creator? Or even the word creation? Words in scientific text books are carefully selected to make sure that God is not supported in any manner, even from the use of the word that describes a theory. Example: The word created is replaced with evolved, or mutated.
48 Package(s) of Returned Poo:
I'm a Christian. I believe in a young earth. But goodness gracious! I think these folks really just like to hear themselves talk...or see themselves type. Did you see his reasoning for why God created the earth in 6 days? I found that to be pretty ridiculous.
Then he says, "What all this means, in case it was not understood, is that God created a 4.3 billion old earth 6000 years ago. Which would translate to the foundations of the earth being out of course (out of time). Age without the passing of time. For God did it again with the creation of man and woman. Fully formed and of age. Why not creation as well?"
Am I the only one who thinks that this guy is saying that everything science has found is true (in other words, he believes that fossils and everything really are billions of years old)...but he's trying to justify that into his belief?
It's like he wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Sounds to me like the standard "God lies" scenario - God made the earth 6000 years ago as Genesis says, but he made to look like (or in some warped way be) billions of years old - just to test us!
MY EYYYEEEEEEEEESSSSS NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May I humbly present a few slightly off topic points with which the author may better aim his poo cannon?
First, allow me to present evidence that the proprietors of the cheap Star Trek knockoff of a YEC site in question have a, well, rather limited grasp of English, much like their hero, The Most Holy George W. Christ. In the "news" segment on the front page, the author has this to say about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez' recent comments at the U.N.:
Because of recent comments made at the U.N., by the owner of Citgo oil, about our president.
That, ladies and gentlement, is a sentence fragment. (Incidentally, the words recent comments links to a story on Faux "News" - no surprise, there.)
Which also insults every American.
Why, shiver me timbers if it's not another sentence fragment!
Unfortunately, the errors continue in the next paragraph, which abruptly shifts to accusations that the Lebanese were faking the damage caused by Israeli bombs. For the sake of brevity, I won't repeat them here, but you can check them out on the web site...if you dare.
The next shot from my personal poo cannon is aimed at the paragraph devoted to the Mark Foley page scandal, which serves as evidence of the (much lower) standard of proof they hold their own side to compared to that to which they hold evolutionists. To wit, they claim the following:
ABC news knew about this 9 months ago and did nothing. Why? Elections. They want to win, and they could care less about any children who may have been hurt during those nine months that they with held this info.
And their proof that ABC knew about Foley's dalliances with pages beforehand and did nothing until the elections is.....?
Yeah. Exactly. "Because I said so!" is not a standard of proof that would hold up according to the rules of logic, or in a court of law, much less in the court of public opinion.
I've decided that I prefer to get my crazy creationism blather through the small doses in places like here. I've learned that when I decide to go to the sites themselves I start yelling at the computer. Then my husband gets worried, and I'm not sure how it will affect my daughter.
So, I think I'll stick to reading the reports back in here, if only for the sanity of my family.
jabber, I noticed the same thing.
The theory of evolution, and the time it requires to work. Has become so fragile, anything that does not fit, is just ignored.
The stupid, it burnsssssss
Whew, now that I've recoverd ... That is one Moranic site.
Matt, the logical circles, spirals, and other round shapes on that site made me dizzy and nauseated.
It's so because I said it's so because it is so because I said it is ...
Thanks, man.
Oh. My. Tzeentch. The number three sign of an idiot at the helm of a website:
Site best viewed in Internet explorer.
The only things that could be worse are intrusive midi sound (#2), and an animated background, which is the number one worst thing to have on a website.
~Brendan
I think there's no limit to creationist stupidity.
You know, having been raised in fundy world, it was the ridiculously unsupportable claims like "Canopy" and "Hydroplate" theory (let alone their "interpretation" of the fossil record) that made me start to question the whole Christian faith. That and the fact that they will rationalize just about anything. What is worse is the way they treat other people, even their own (backstabbing, gossiping, manipulating, and judging was rampant).
Not so. This was the very first time rain, or any water, had fallen from the sky.
Wow. I guess God really did change the laws of physics at the time of the flood. So that is where rainbows come from.
Normily I find myself with an exceptional constitution for these kinds of things. Being a med student I see dead bodies, horrible mangled faces, and breeze throguh autopsies with the greatest of ease, but this web sit you found Matt made me through up a little oatmeal in my mouth. I think i seriously lost 3 years of my own evolution just by visiting this site.
You found a real winner here
OK...I made the mistake Tara didn't and went to the site. I think I lost 100 points of intelligence. But, I do have one question...where on earth did the stuff about being able to create oil in 10 days with enough pressure and heat come from? Google isn't helping and my connection is acting up, so I haven't been able to search it. Any help, anyone?
I just love it when evolutionists just have to post about my site. The more places it ends up on the web. The more visits I get. When ya gonna learn that the more you fight it, the stronger we get?
Try typing in yec in the two main search engines. Guess who is on page one? And guess who I have to thank for that?
Thank you guys here and every where else this site is often argued. I could not have done it without you.
Ikester
Owner, webmaster, yecheadquarters.
When ya gonna learn that the more you fight it, the stronger we get?
Doing nothing didn't get us anywhere.
Besides, the triumph of evil requires only that the good do nothing.
The more places it ends up on the web. The more visits I get. When ya gonna learn that the more you fight it, the stronger we get?
Yup... visits from people like us. Good for you. All I gotta say is that dude, you make creationists look bad. Seriously. The more of you there are, and the more vocal you are, the easier my job gets. You do a great job of making your side look foolish without my help.
... And go take a couple writing and English classes. You need it... badly.
The more visits I get. When ya gonna learn that the more you fight it, the stronger we get?
The more I read your site, the more moronic it gets. The more exposure people like you get the worse your "movement" looks. Hence I'm sending more people to see it.
Apparently mr. anonymice didn't bother to read amanda's comment before boasting about how IAMB is generating traffic at his site. I mean, when it is somebody from your own camp is embarassed by you...well, it might pay to listen. It also appears somebody doesn't know how to tell the difference between when everyone is laughing with you and when everyone is laughing at you.
s, the triumph of evil requires only that the good do nothing.
A Christian commentary mind you.
he-he
The more of you there are, and the more vocal you are, the easier my job gets.
If this is your job than I presume you are a pauper. You better a find another job. Quick!
Har Har. Dude, if you're planning on filling the vacant troll position you're going to have to do better than that...
Apparently mr. anonymice didn't bother to read amanda's comment before boasting about how IAMB is generating traffic at his site. I mean, when it is somebody from your own camp is embarassed by you...well, it might pay to listen. It also appears somebody doesn't know how to tell the difference between when everyone is laughing with you and when everyone is laughing at you.
Having run several forums on creation. I have caught several evolutionists posing as things they are not. Lying to support your cause just shows that the cause was a lie to begin with. So the point you try to make about my side disagreeing with falls upon death ears because of all the lies from the opposing side, I can never tell when the truth is told. And I used to be gulable enough to believe people at their word. I don't make that mistake anymore.
So to assume that certain people are from my side, just because they says so, would make me to gulable. I am to well seasoned in debating to fall for all the old tricks (guilt trips). And it's gets quite boring as well.
There are basic guidelines to what a YEC believes. Fakers fail these guidlines with in 3 posts of trying to prove what they really don't believe. How? Someone who does not believe in God, can never post completely in a positive light of God, or His word. Only a true believer can accomplish this, and maintain it. And that will always be where the fakers fail.
A false commitment is always exposed because when their real beliefs are put on the chopping block, and are being mocked. The fakers just can't resist posting what they really feel. And that's when they expose themselves.
A man who calls another man a liar, and has no absolute evidence for his side, becomes a liar himself.
Ikester
I have caught several evolutionists posing as things they are not. Lying to support your cause just shows that the cause was a lie to begin with.
You'll have to give some context.
IIRC, Penn and Teller made a bigfoot video, passed it around, and then showed that they faked it in an effort to show the Bigfoot believers how gullible they were.
Some people faked psychic powers in order to get approval from psychic institutions as "authentic" psychics, only to show that those institutions have such low standards, that fakes like them can get through.
Sometimes a lie that demonstrates a true point is far more instructive than simply saying the truth.
Unless all your debating has been done in another language, your version of "well seasoned" and mine are something completely different. Your grasp of English spelling, grammer and punctuation have been duly noted... by more than just me.
As for being worried about people misrepresenting themselves, I can personally assure you that Amanda is exactly who she says she is. Not that you'll take my word for it or anything...
Can't resist:
Only a true believer can accomplish this, and maintain it.
I can't quite put my finger on it... something about cream with tea...
Anonymous,
What are these "death ears" of which you speak? Holloween is fast approaching and I could use some.
"Lying to support your cause just shows that the cause was a lie to begin with..."
Ironic, no?
Vancant troll position:
No thanks. Does not seem that there is anything worth discussing here.
I answered the "What would falsify ID in my blog?"
I think that is more constructive.
sheessh...Halloween
preview, preview, preview
(That last anon was me)
me being KS...blogger doesn't seem to like my name
Nothing worth discussing? That hurts man...
I will admit that it's been a slow week here... things should pick up soon.
Oh, read your "answer" *cough cough* ID bullet point *cough*. Hate to break it, but any level of detail supplied by the side of evolution is far superior to the absolute zero offered by ID. Poof is not an answer. You offer a plausible method for how the designing was done and then you might have a leg to stand on.
I answered the "What would falsify ID in my blog?"
I think that is more constructive.
Apparently you didn't.
He-he
Apparently, I did. Whether you dismiss it is another question. We all know that evolutionist would rather dismiss the devastating truth rather then face it. No surprising they always cry for censorship.
Ha! The fanciful land of Evolutionist.
Two suggestions:
1) Bring the arguments here... unless you don't think you can handle the regulars here.
2) Learn how to do the expandable post thing. Putting the bulk of your posts into the comments makes you look about as bright as Davison, and that isn't a compliment.
Oh, one more: stop with the PZ obsession. It's really sort of creepy. Besides, he already has Jason as a stalker. He doesn't need another.
Shifting the burden of proof isn't an answer.
Asking unreasonable standards of proof at the same time isn't an answer.
Why should the falsifiability of one "hypothesis" be dependant on the near-absolute proof of another?
The big problem is that if by some weird thing, evolution was falsified, your negative-based hypothesis would be rendered unfalsifiable.
You don't seem to realize it, but you're asking us to assume ID when our confidence value in something else doesn't measure up to an arbitrary standard.
Ignorance and a lack of absolute certainty make for a bad foundation when it comes to science.
By Allie Martin
January 5, 2006
(AgapePress) - The founder of the creationist group Answers in Genesis (AIG) says a recent announcement by the journal Science claiming evolution was the top scientific breakthrough of 2005 shows how desperate the proponents of the theory of evolution are becoming.
Editors of Science cited wide ranging research, including a study showing a four percent difference between human and chimpanzee DNA, as major factors contributing to its decision to make its bold proclamation regarding 2005 and scientific discoveries supposedly offering support for Darwin's theory. However, Ken Ham, the president and founder of AIG, says the journal's announcement shows that secular humanists are worried about the increasing availability of information that contradicts their ideas about evolution.
"Why are they proclaiming 2005 the 'Year of Evolution' and all these big breakthroughs in evolution?" Ham asks. "Well, I believe it's because a creationist ministry like Answers in Genesis has put so much information out there, and we've got the Creation Museum under construction. I think what's happened is that it's made such an impact on the culture, the humanists are running scared."
The creation science advocate believes evolutionists are trying to declare 2005 as a year of breakthroughs for evolution in order to push the evolution on an increasingly disabused public with unprecedented access to scientific data supporting creationism. "We're getting information out there, and once people get this information, they can see that evolution is totally bankrupt," he asserts.
As for the scientific establishment's claims about the similarities between the genetic code of apes and humans, the AIG spokesman points out, "When you look at DNA, it consists of what are called base pairs, and there's three billion of them in human DNA. Do you realize a four percent difference means 120 million differences? That's an enormous difference. That, in itself, is very, very significant, even if the 'four percent' was real. but the four percent, as I've said, is a very arbitrary figure."
Given the opportunity, Ham contends he can debunk nearly all of Darwinists' arguments for evolution in a 40-minute lecture. He says secular humanists are aware of the many challenges posed to their pet theory by creationists -- and he believes they are increasingly alarmed and desperate to fight back, even with empty declarations and false assertions about "the year of evolution."
Ha!
Funny. Me come over here. No thanks. You guys are a click away from my blog.
I have not posted for a while, because unlike all of you, (1)I have better things to do with my time, (2) I already have my platform of influence: I do not need the blog. It's nothing more but an exercise for me.
You can go around trying to convince people that they came from monkeys, and I will keep going telling them what they already instinctively know: that they are a product of special Creation.
You may want to reffer me to this Jason guy. I would like to meet him. Maybe we can both stalk PZ.
Ha!
Does anyone else get the urge to slap people who say "Ha!" so much?
Really, when it comes to creationists, I'm starting to wonder why we bother.
--Jake
I can see when certain views cannot be debated for what ever reason. Fault of a person has to be found some where else. What this tells me, when people pick out grammer and spelling, is that their arguement is very weak.
And because this tactic is so old, and so boring, this will be my last post here. I don't debate nick picky people, who feel they have to play a one up game. it's a huge waste of my time.
God bless,
Ikester
I don't generally debate people who can not form a coherant thought and communicate it properly. This is the purpose of education and the enemy of ignorance.
A movement that decries knowledge and reason is only as strong as the number of pawns that can be mustered. This is the real reason for the sacking of our education system. The credulous mind is fertile soil for crank and crap. It is no surprise that the book that all this woo is based on decries knowledge and salutes ignorance.
Religion and science are genrally not incompatible, but your religion is.
Snrk. "nick picky"
Couldn't resist
Unlike all of us? That's kind of personal... but it still sounds like you have nothing of substance to argue so you'd rather run off.
Stalk PZ all you want. The simple fact is that arguing biology with a biologist by using creationist talking points makes you look very bad, but do what you like. Besides, why would we want to click over to your blog when we all like it here just fine?
If you want more neutral territory, rather than just fishing for traffic, might I suggest you join me over on talk.origins or alt.talk.creationism.
We could use some new creationists.
And Ken Ham refuting all of evolution in a 40 minute lecture? That I'd like to see.
And Ikester, if you think we're being nitpicky because we have a weak argument, bring your best with you and find out. We nitpick because it's fun, and because it seems like the most vocal of creationists are very poorly educated (which is hilarious when they try telling us that we're wrong on a subject they know nothing whatsoever about).
So sad to see you leaving...
I think you got me confused with anonymous post.
Well, if you read the debate over at my blog, you would see that the best the evolutionist can come up with is semantical games and hypothetical situations where everything is possible.
Oh one more thing... the covering up your ears and singing la la la you are ignorant song.
You know that one that you just sung.
If the debate could be won by how many times one can lazily sit back and call the other one ignorant, than I am sure the evolutionist would win.
If your last one was aimed at me, I was talking to both you and Ikester in the same comment post.
I'm not sure where you got that I was singing the "la la la" song in my last comment. Care to enlighten me? All I'm doing is shooting the breeze waiting for you to actually bring up an argument here.
If you have a particular post you'd like me to "try" and argue with, leave me a link and you might get a response in a post here sometime soon. It's much better to do things that way if you're looking for traffic anyway because with a fecalgram also comes link love. Just as Ikester. He'll be happy to tell you that my link is making his side stronger.
*ask*
Forgive me. They're frosting windows on a couple of offices down the hall and that shit is worse that anything other than silver paint as far as the "get high when you don't want to" factor goes...
I'm a christian as well and this is a nice blog i must say...
i agree with everything amanda said...
the mere idea that a god somewhere out there would try to confuse the shit out of us by saying that the earth he created is six thousand years old but he wants to make the sceptics happy and make it seems like it's 4.3 billion years old is so damn stupid...
either your a creationist like me...believing that the entire earth was created in 6 days or your a sceptic/evolutionist who believes that the earth came about by it's own forces 4.3 billion years ago and life has since evolved...i would say to all people tryin 2 make creation and evolution to fit together should either figure out wot side they're on or get a job...start fighting for what the bible says...don't try and make it that both parties are right...one's wrong and everyone knows it.
hmph sorry for the rant...how much flaming do u rekon i'll get 4 this???
You'll only get flamed if I point it out. You have to consider that this post is now buried in the archives where not many people look.
If I get bored one of these days I'll make sure to point it out...
Post a Comment