This should win a prize for the dumbest excuse from a creationist that I’ve heard in, oh, about 24 hours.

…don’t you find it interesting that there is NO recorded history prior to less than 10,000 years ago? If man has been around millions of years why the heck did it take so long to learn to write? Most kids are doing it by 2nd grade! Man evolved enough to suddenly figure out how to record his thoughts just a few thousand years ago? Hmmm.

This same creationist also makes a “marketing” argument, that creationism is better because it is easier to understand than evolution. He claims to have read both Darwin’s Black Box by Behe and Finding Darwin’s God by Miller, and that Behe’s book was easier and used a mousetrap to “get his point across”, while Miller’s book was too complex. That’s an interesting example of selective memory: both books deal with similar subjects on a roughly similar level. Behe’s book has details (some of which are wrong) of cilia and blood-clotting cascades and such, all of which seemed to have slipped out of this creationist’s memory. Miller’s book deals with similar subjects, but doesn’t make the stupid errors Behe’s does.

Yet all Mr Marketer remembers is that mousetraps don’t evolve.

I’m more concerned that if man has been around for 6000 years, why the heck didn’t anyone patent the snap-trap until 1897? Hmmm.


  1. #1 Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    June 25, 2007

    all Mr Marketer remembers is that mousetraps don’t evolve.

    In other news, hardcore creationists admits to having mousetrap minds – they have all snapped.

  2. #2 David Marjanovi?
    June 25, 2007

    With agriculture you get the invention of “free time”.

    Precisely the opposite.

    However, agriculture made societies with more than 150 members possible, and so bureaucracy came into being. Sumerian writing was invented for bureaucracy — we have all the “transitional fossils” to show that.

    Chinese writing may have developed in connection to oracles. That’s what the earliest preserved Chinese characters were used for: writing questions like “will it rain” and “will it not rain” on two sides of a bone, putting the bone into a fire, and looking which side gets a crack from the heat. But of course this may be preservation bias.

  3. #3 David Marjanovi?
    June 25, 2007

    the of 65 million cabon dating tells us

    That’s not carbon, which only reaches back some 50,000 years. It’s chiefly potassium (one method) and uranium (another).

  4. #4 David Marjanovi?
    June 26, 2007

    If man has been around millions of years
    I never heard science claim that we have been around for “millions” of years.

    woozy above is right: that’s a matter of definition. If “man” means “everything closer to us than to the chimps”, 7 million years sound good. If it’s “Homo sapiens sapiens“, try 200,000 years. If it’s anything in between…