Wednesday, 17 August 2011
-
Currently
Scientific Creationism
By Henry Madison Morris
see relatedCreation Science & Noah's Flood
Someone recommended this book to me to convince me of the truth of "Scientific Creationism". I also recommend this book for anyone who doesn't feel they get enough facepalming in their life. One of my favorite parts was Morris' explanation of Noah's flood (with no mention of Noah, for after all, creationism is non-religious), which I wanted to share with you.
In a chapter entitled Uniformitarianism or Catastrophism?, Morris tries to posit that the reason we see progression in the fossil record is because the more complex forms could get to higher ground better. "Mammals and birds would be found in general at higher elevations than reptiles and amphibians, both because of their habitat and because of their greater mobility."
Think about that. This would mean that not one mammal was so slow or injured that they died in the lowlands during the early part of the flood. It would also mean that not one single dinosaur or pterosaur overtook the sloths and kiwis in the race for higher ground. Not to mention this provides no workable concept of why we should see progression in the marine fossils. And we're asked to take this as sound science?
This book also makes the laughable claim that "most fossilized organisms can be found living today, if one ignores differences caused by environmental fluctuations." I know I personally fear going out at night in case I bump into a T. rex. And I prefer my trilobites sauteed in garlic sauce. And I'm firmly against Archeopteryx hunting.
Obviously the term "Scientific Creationism" isn't quite on, as it seems to me they're doing more creating than science.
-
recommend
- recs 7
-
email
- sent 0
- like
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to GodlessLiberal's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in GodlessLiberal's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (24)
"Most fossilized organisms can be found living today".?!?! Personally, I have yet to have a Jurassic Park moment, but mby that's just me. Btw, the line about "..not one single dinosaur or pterosaur overtook the sloths and kiwis..." made me laugh. Sloths & kiwis? Hahaha
This makes me feel sorry for creationists, more than I already do. This author's on their team.
@nerdyveggiegirl - He's not just on their team, he pretty much invented the sport.
And the Lord said, "Release the Kraken!" LOL love it
The extent to which these people are willing to rationalize obvious mythology is troubling. Even most Christians view these stories as allegories; the ones who don't come across as laughable.
Just goes to show what blind faith and dogma can do to a person's reasoning abilities.
i'm not with the book or the author, but regarding ""most fossilized organisms can be found living today,", well, i don't know about "most", but if for the sake of the argument we are to entertain the statement, i don't think that by "most" of "fossilized organisms" we would straight away think of T-Rex.. i think there are countless of "fossilized organisms" in the bracket of insects etc.. in term of number of found fossil, i'm guessing (a mere guess, you can point me wrong if i'm wrong) that more of animals of today's size (and form) are found compared to those of the likes that we see in jurassic park..
i'm not saying that that very statement is very true or whatnot, i'm just saying it's not as ridiculous (at the surface value) as you made it sound.. just an honest personal opinion, on that specific point..
Lolz, I get enough facepalming in life, thank you very much. Actually, I believe I'm all facepalmed. (Something about this sounds very very sexy... er... yeah, will talk to my therapist about that).
Sounds like a pretty interesting read. Thanks for sharing, Krisko.
OMFG HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA Release the Kraken!!!!!!!!!!!
Next thing you know, they will write a book about how Nessie came to be. *rolls eyes*
Given: the Bible says it happened.
Let the scientists debate how.
@l_ORE - Problem: It didn't happen.
Weird how many middle eastern cultures talk about the great flood including the epic of gilgamesh. a response from a graduate student told me there were many floods in that area at that time. hrm. So, there were more than one instances of the ark?
"I know I personally fear going out at night in case I bump into a T. rex. And I prefer my trilobites sauteed in garlic sauce. And I'm firmly against Archeopteryx hunting."
*snort* Oh I fucking love you
I never read the book, but he's not really so far off... there were many floods, several ice ages and global warmings. It's interesting christians believe in stories like Noah's Ark, but don't seem to comprehend evolution/creationism only occur when majority of the species is wiped out and the survivors are left to incestuous breeding. After all, god works in mysterious ways. ;)
@iscaphia - But he talks about a single, worldwide flood. And evolution does NOT only occur when most species have been wiped out. It's an everyday occurrence.
@GodlessLiberal - Mutation is an everyday occurrence. Evolution is not.
@iscaphia - What exactly do you think evolution is?
@GodlessLiberal - Evolution is when those mutations actually make a difference in survival. A game changer. By definition, evolution requires natural selection. Not all our everyday mutations go through a process of natural selection. Not all our mutations are dominate traits, and unlikely to appear unless the gene pools is minimized.
I think you should write something about the genetic modification of dogs. Dogs mutate extremely fast, but it's not until human intervention (unnatural selection) in the last 80 years or so that we had all our variety.
@iscaphia - A) Evolution does not require natural selection. After Charles Darwin first published, here was much debate about the mechanism of evolution, as many people were still fervent Lamarkists. Even with modern evolutionary theory there is genetic drift, neutral selection and gene flow which all are still technically evolution. Evolution's most basic modern definition is "a change in allele frequency in population over time."
B) I plan on writing a post on artificial selection in the near future, and dogs will be a significant part of that.
"Morris tries to posit that the reason we see progression in the fossil record is because the more complex forms could get to higher ground better. "Mammals and birds would be found in general at higher elevations than reptiles and amphibians, both because of their habitat and because of their greater mobility.""
Fuck, that's horrible. I've heard the argument, but I didn't think that anyone would be stupid enough to put it in print.
@GodlessLiberal - Yes, you are correct that evolution does not always require natural selection in the purest sense of the phrase. But correct me if I'm wrong, genetic drift in a large population sample actually inhibits evolution, just like how the human population is just going to all be brown unless some population reduction and segregation occurs. Genetic drifts in small population can produce stable mutations that serve no particular purpose. Either way, these alternative methods are slow and unlikely to be the dominate driving factor of evolution.
I think it'd also be interesting to see what you think of collapse of modern civilization's effect on our next evolutionary step. Since unlike most mammals, human are able to communicate and structure themselves as an interdependent society, and our 8 billion so what global population would not exist if we had not able to trade globally. But what happens when that structure breakdown like similar societies have in the past? Most of our western population do not know how to farm, build shelter, or even start a fire without matches. So the ones that survive to rebuild, will it be due to intelligence? Due to physical advantages? Or due to some tolerance to fishing scrapes from the dumpster?
@Celestial_Teapot - an equally stupid and unsubstantiated argument that I have seen flood proponents put forth is the argument that all the fossils we see in the record were the remains animals alive at the time the flood occurred. When the flood happened, these animals died and their remains were enveloped in a "debris" slurry caused by the tumultuous flood waters before eventually "settling" in the debris in an order determined by their density. According to this theory, the less complex and more dense fossils would sink faster, and thus, be deposited "earlier" than the more complex, less dense fossils. Then, somehow, all the fossils would fossilize through a process that was inexplicably fast given that these is documented evidence of man uncovering fossils many centuries ago. Also, the debris slurry turned into many different kinds of rocks, much of which display signs of impossibly long geological processes. Somehow. They don't have any evidence for a single aspect of this theory, but it's totally scientific and logical. They swear.
@UTRow1 - an equally stupid and unsubstantiated argument that I have seen flood proponents put forth is... When the flood happened, these animals died and their remains were enveloped in a "debris" slurry caused by the tumultuous flood waters before eventually "settling" in the debris in an order determined by their density.
LOL!
That one is great. =) God spun down dead animals in a mud-entombed centrifugal tube.
But yeah, wow. It takes a good bit of humor or scientific disconnect to voice a theory like this.
top nursing schools | physical therapy school | best private schools in nyc
@iscaphia - no by the simplest definition evolution is descent with modification and a population evolves not an individual