…and this is a 
Hah, I knew it had to happen. Phil Plait is now obsolete — he hasn't been keeping up with Creation Astronomy!
We live in a Universe of breathtaking size and grandeur-but where did it come from?
Secular astronomers tell us it formed without a Creator about 14 billion years ago. The Bible tells us it was created by God only thousands of years ago. Which model does the evidence support?
The answer to this question might surprise you!
Recent discoveries have plunged the evolutionary model into a crisis. This site is dedicated to documenting this unfolding drama, and exposing the bankrupt evolutionist model for what it truly is.
That's right: astronomy is a theory in crisis! Go ahead, watch the videos that will make Phil tremble in fear and doubt. And he thought the moon-landing-was-fake loons were crazy enough.
Comments
Posted by: corsair the pirate | May 21, 2009 12:44 PM
The moon landings weren't fake?
Posted by: Nangleator | May 21, 2009 12:50 PM
Evolutionist model... Damn that Darwin and his astronomy ideas!
Posted by: 386sx | May 21, 2009 12:50 PM
What a scam...
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 21, 2009 12:51 PM
Evolutionary modelof astronomy? It's an anti-Lee Smolin site?
Posted by: Michelle | May 21, 2009 12:51 PM
Wait... what? EVOLUTIONARY MODELS of the solar system say that certain planets can't exist? I've seen some painful misuses of the term "evolution," but I think this is the worst.
Posted by: Greg | May 21, 2009 12:53 PM
I like the way they think evolution has anything to do with astronomy. What's the phrase for this? Oh yeah: EPIC FAIL.
Posted by: Ray S. | May 21, 2009 12:54 PM
I'll agree that everything the Theory of Evolution says about the beginning of the universe is false.
Why is it that creationists cannot grasp the simplest concepts of the big bang; claiming that 'something cannot poof into existence from nothing', when that is exactly how they think their invisible, personal friend created the universe?
Posted by: James Sweet | May 21, 2009 12:54 PM
Heh, to paraphrase the opening seconds of the introduction:
"Centuries ago, most scientists believed the Creation story. As they began to gain more information and were able to more carefully study and eventually even send probes to extraterrestrial bodies, almost all scientists stopped believing the Creation story. Therefore, the Creation story must be true."
Habba-whaaa????
Posted by: 386sx | May 21, 2009 12:55 PM
He's one of the more scientifical creationists. Usually they would say "Darwinist" instead of "evolutionary". He's one of yer more advanced creation scientificists type thingies.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
May 21, 2009 12:55 PM
Um, yes, I'm sure that it's true, because that's what they said in 1999, 1986, 1973, 1961, 1929, 1905, and years before that along with all of the years in between.
Amazing how the crisis is tamped down by the jackbooted thugs of Darwinism, although I should mention that keeping the truth about the moon landings from being fully revealed as well is now straining our crack fascist troops.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Larry | May 21, 2009 12:55 PM
Teh astronomical stupid: It burnz!!
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
May 21, 2009 12:55 PM
Oh boy, an ex atheist, ex believer in TOE engineer, converted to theism and creationism is your host...what kind of neurotoxins was he exposed to?
Posted by: Richard Harris
|
May 21, 2009 12:55 PM
But, but, but, have they confirmed that the Earth is flat, just like it says in the feckin' bible?
Posted by: dogmeatib | May 21, 2009 12:56 PM
I love the whole "evolutionist" model for astronomy, obviously PZ hasn't been teaching biology correctly because he hasn't been covering astronomy... [rolls eyes]
Posted by: Dahan | May 21, 2009 12:57 PM
If I sigh any harder I'm afraid I'm going to lose a lung or something. What is wrong with these people (beyond the fact they're creotards)?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2009 12:57 PM
So, Darwin was an astronomer as well? Do they really think that the "evolution" that astronomers talk about is the exact same "evolution" that biologists work with? That's like thinking that the "fault" that lawyers try to determine in a legal case is the same sort of "fault" that geologists study. Sheesh!
And they're worried about astronomy being another "godless' science? Maybe someone should tell the creationist camp that ALL of science is godless. Chemistry. Physics. Geology. Biology. You name it,it's all 100% god free, all the time.
Posted by: ppb
|
May 21, 2009 12:58 PM
Hey, Evolution is the Theory of Everything. Everything Evil, that is. ;-)
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 21, 2009 12:58 PM
an... engineer ... is your host
Of course! (I know, we mathematicians don't have a spotless record on this stuff either)
Posted by: Olsen
|
May 21, 2009 12:59 PM
This seems to be an obvious attempt by the author to get a little extra money for a series of recorded lectures he has done at various creationist events.
So he creates a web site, writes a CreationWiki entry and promotes his videos.
Btw. He's credentials according to himself:
"Spike Psarris has a Bachelor's of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Massachusetts"
Surely that must qualify him as an authority in astronomy!
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 21, 2009 1:00 PM
Why does he claim that there is a problem with a planet taking ten million years to form when the planet in question is over four billion years old?
I expect this person to proclaim that evolution cannot explain gravity.
Posted by: amphiox | May 21, 2009 1:00 PM
Astronomy is an "evolutionary model"?
And the LORD so verily loved man, and yea, astronomers in particular, that he did hang the starry heavens with the SEMBLANCE of 14 billion years of history and change, and uncountable lightyears of expanse, that the astronomers (which HE so loved) would find gainful employment, and ceaseless wonderment and enjoyment in their work, that their toils become not as drudgery on the face of the earth. That they might have enrichment in their time upon the earth, as the hamster is enriched by the treadmill in its cage.
And the LORD so loved man, ever verily, and biologists above all others, that he did putteth on the face of the earth and the KINDS of swimming, creeping, running, crawling, and flying things, and especially all the BEETLES, and did infest them all with parasites, each according to its kind, and weaved into their DNA tales of splendor and fancy, that they might have the SEMBLANCE of a grand history of transmutation over eons and eons of imaginary time, and putteth the fossils into the rocks, and laid them in layers, one upon the other, that they would found and bring delight unto the curious minds of these sons and daughters of Eve, who had eaten of the FRUIT of knowledge, that they might have gainful employment. . . .
But I wonder, who does God love the most? Astronomers or biologists?
Posted by: Heaventree
|
May 21, 2009 1:04 PM
Lighten up, you scoffers. I think Spike Psoriasis does a very scientistical job.
Posted by: Jeff | May 21, 2009 1:06 PM
What a surprise! It will cost you $19 to "see" his "evidence" in DVD form.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | May 21, 2009 1:11 PM
The video says Jupiters days are to short for the evolutionary model to explain.
I think the evolutionary model is at a loss to explain anything related to planetary rotation. Coming up with any number at all makes me curious for the actual model they employed.
This is what cargo-cult science looks like.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | May 21, 2009 1:11 PM
Can someone ask Ben Stein if "creation science" leads to killing people, too?
Posted by: bastion of sass | May 21, 2009 1:11 PM
I was hoping to be surprised, but I was not.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 21, 2009 1:11 PM
I'm glad I work in a field where my knowledge and skills will never become obsolete. *goes back to his COBOL programming*
Posted by: Thundergod | May 21, 2009 1:11 PM
Since they are playing the science game can we play too??? I want a site dedicated to Evolutionary Theology, the study of how made up crap changes over time.
Posted by: Zeno
|
May 21, 2009 1:13 PM
Another goddam engineer spouting creationist nonsense! Welcome to Salem, folks!
Posted by: Olowkow | May 21, 2009 1:13 PM
Wow! I'm speechless. It's the old "I used to be an atheist" canard. Sort of like, "I used to be a free person, but I discovered slavery, and now I'm happy."
Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2009 1:14 PM
I suspect that, at some point in their childhood, some teacher or other authority defined evolution as "change over time." So creationists can talk about evolutionary astronomy,and not think the planets are replicating. First there was no planet, and then there was, and that's a change over time.
So -- who did that? Who changed it? Atheist scientists can't answer that question, but creationists can.
Posted by: GodlessHeathen | May 21, 2009 1:18 PM
Comments are allowed on the site. Currently there are zero comments. Perhaps amphiox's verse would be a nice addition.
Posted by: Jordan | May 21, 2009 1:19 PM
In response to #12, the neurotoxin he was exposed to is called a Theo-toxin. A large family of neurotoxins which are known to cause very serious mental defects.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
May 21, 2009 1:19 PM
Evidences?
Why do creationists insist on coining this strange bastard plural?
Posted by: jwc | May 21, 2009 1:20 PM
I'm just trying to figure out how planets have sex. Must not happen very often and I bet it's messy. Let's just hope that we have an ugly planet and the other planet is out of beer.
Posted by: Greg F. | May 21, 2009 1:23 PM
I knew it. This is exactly why I wrote a guest post about crap like this coming down the pipeline on The Panda's Thumb:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/05/creationists-no.html
Posted by: Epikt
|
May 21, 2009 1:24 PM
So what a prior predictions does "creation astronomy" make? "God made the universe exactly the way it is." doesn't count.
And--"Spike?"
Posted by: raven | May 21, 2009 1:26 PM
Guy doesn't even know the difference between biology and astronomy.
Some fundies believe the moon shines by its own internally generated light which is what it says in Genesis. Oddly enough, when the astronauts went to the moon, none reported seeing a tungsten filament through the ground. I suppose this means it is either a flourescent light source or LED.
Posted by: Sauve | May 21, 2009 1:28 PM
Ignore what he says, our universe descended with modification from an ancestral universe.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
May 21, 2009 1:29 PM
We shouldn't be surprised. After all, Ben Stein revealed our dirty secrets in Expelled, that evolution can't explain gravity or the laws of thermodynamics.
All of my work incorporating evolutionary explanations of gravity and entropy was completely destroyed by that revelation. Can he really blame me for persecuting Dembski and Behe, as well as himself?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Brock | May 21, 2009 1:31 PM
Holy meatballs. The stupid -- it burns! (tm)
...and burns, and burns, and... they got 105 minutes out of this tripe? Wow.
Posted by: GodlessHeathen | May 21, 2009 1:33 PM
The one and only article on the site was posted November 11th, 2008. Hey, it's hard work for Spike to make up "evidence" all by himself.
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 21, 2009 1:35 PM
The religious dead brains are getting desperate to keep thier imaginary god in the non-existent equation. Astronomy is one discipline they will not be able to tamper with, as the mind- boggling distance and time renders their insane ideas and protests useless. The Universe knows nothing of those puny brains protests, and just keeps on existing and confusing and enthralling the sane and savy among us. Suffer, you morons: you cannot change a bit of it.
Posted by: Fernando
|
May 21, 2009 1:37 PM
LOL?
Once again, thank you professor Myers to provide us with a link to a very funny and comic site...
I mean: this creationists make a better job than a clown!
Posted by: Nominal Egg | May 21, 2009 1:38 PM
Wow. That was bad.
I couldn't watch it without yelling "LIAR!" or "why?" at my monitor every ten seconds.
Posted by: reason be | May 21, 2009 1:41 PM
Creating a market for Stupid.
Posted by: BMcP | May 21, 2009 1:41 PM
Oh..It's Spike, here then is a series of videos exposing the EPIC FAIL that he is: CrAP Debunked.
'Nuff said.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 21, 2009 1:45 PM
It's at times like these I get worried that my son wants to be an engineer. He seems unusually sane and sensible for a 14-year-old, but I'm concerned there might be a wackdoodlery virus that lurks in engineering departments...
Posted by: Richard | May 21, 2009 1:46 PM
Narrator Dude said:
That's a 100% accurate quote from the video.
I've got good news for the Narrator Dude. Evolution says nothing about me shoving my foot up his ass, so he has absolutely nothing to worry about. What a relief for him!
Posted by: Tom Coward | May 21, 2009 1:46 PM
I checked out their site. No comments at all, and the site has been up since November 08, I believe. So I left one. It is "Awaiting moderation".
BTW, why do these sites always have moderation?
Posted by: blf
|
May 21, 2009 1:49 PM
Nothing to worry about. Planets have sex when they're young and hot, flying all about the place and banging into each other. Then they settle down into an extended middle age, bored, with only moons for company. Some just sit there, inert. A few play with volcanoes or exotic chemicals.
A few do develop this terrible disease called life. If it's noticed in time, a vigorous scrubbing with comets and meteorites will remove the affliction, but if it succeeds in establishing itself, the planet's in for a vary hard time. In the worse cases, the life starts to consider itself sentient, and gives the planet a really bad case of pollution and climate changhe. The surface and atmosphere go all to hell.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | May 21, 2009 1:49 PM
Anonymous@31: "I suspect that, at some point in their childhood, some teacher or other authority defined evolution as "change over time.""
Sadly, I think the truth is much more banal: their "authority" on the subject is that old Chick tract that listed the "6 principles of evolution," most of which had nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
I think it's great news if creationists want to step up their attacks on astronomy. They get away with attacks on biology because most people don't encounter the evidence on a regular basis (they might see the occasional "famous" fossil like Ida, but they almost never see evidence from molecular biology and other sources). But the evidence supporting astronomy is right there in the night sky for every curious child to see.
Creationists also have a harder time finding emotional attacks on astronomy. Even people who aren't fundamentalists can be tempted by the "I ain't no monkey!" and "if we tell our kids they're animals, then they'll act like animals!" arguments. (Not terribly bright people, but they get to vote, too.) I don't know that anyone has an emotional stake in the age or size of the universe other than those who desperately need to shore up a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2009 1:50 PM
Jordan @ 33,
So it really shouldn't effect grown ups, right?
Posted by: emote_control | May 21, 2009 1:53 PM
Allow me to add my voice to the legions expressing the following opinion:
What the hell is the "evolutionary" model of cosmology?
Posted by: Mena | May 21, 2009 1:55 PM
They think that the bible says that the Earth is 6000 years old and don't realize that that age was determined by some mere mortal guy in 1650? Maybe they should actually read the thing one of these days...
Posted by: BigMKnows | May 21, 2009 1:58 PM
Why is any secular model of anything automatically called evolutionist? What does a 14 billion year old universe have to do with evolution?
Posted by: Blondin | May 21, 2009 2:00 PM
Just when I thought I couldn't take having another of my pet beliefs dismantled...
And all this time I thought Naked Bunny With a Whip was female. I feel so ... violated.
Posted by: Blondin | May 21, 2009 2:09 PM
Or those who are trying to sell their crappy books & videos.
Posted by: Noadi | May 21, 2009 2:11 PM
BigMKnows: Stellar evolution is a valid description for a star's lifetime. Evolution as a word predates the theory of biological evolution and can be used in it's original sense of changes over time. I don't make up the names, take that up with cosmologists.
Posted by: AJS | May 21, 2009 2:21 PM
Mena:
As recently as 1650? I was always under the impression that the "6000 year" age of the Earth was based on the Hebrew calendar, which logically begins from the moment of creation. (It will be 5770 AM later this year.) Isn't it?Posted by: JustPeachy | May 21, 2009 2:26 PM
"For a number of years, I worked as an engineer..."
The Salem hypothesis strikes again
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 21, 2009 2:27 PM
Daaw. Sorry. Bambi and I get that a lot.
I do try to help avoid that with the pictures my name links to. :-\
In my social circle, that can be a compliment.
Posted by: Hurin | May 21, 2009 2:27 PM
#34
"Evidences?
Why do creationists insist on coining this strange bastard plural?"
Its a consequence of their Illiteracies.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 21, 2009 2:28 PM
I don't know that anyone has an emotional stake in the age or size of the universe other than those who desperately need to shore up a literal interpretation of Genesis. - Screechy Monkey
Oh, I do! I consider a mere 14 billion years a very paltry allowance of past time, and if I ever discover the universe is finite, I'll get terrible claustrophobia!
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 21, 2009 2:31 PM
Safety words are for wusses.
Sorry, that is one of my favorite Buffy quotes.
Posted by: Chris Booth | May 21, 2009 2:31 PM
What you astroevilutionists are all so conveniently "forgetting":
Darwin's son was Astronomer Royal! Aha!!
And who was at Greenwich overlapping with him? Eddington! And what is that Darwinian atheist conspirator Eddington credited with? Proving relativity!! AHA!! And then what? The evolution of stars!!! Nucular forces in stars!!!! Quantum evolution, no less!....QUAKER BEFORE MY EDDINGTON NUMBER, IT IS 666!!!
I had sea monkeys as a kid. So why are there still mermaids?
Oh, ye of little whatever....
So, you see, astronomy IS evolution...trying to deny the fact that stars are the eye-twinkles of the Cherubim.
sigh....
Posted by: rumleech | May 21, 2009 2:32 PM
Both theoriws are wrong. I made the universe. Out of Lego - teach the controversy!
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
May 21, 2009 2:33 PM
AJS -
There is the problem that the Hebrew Calendar and Bishop Ussher, supposedly using the same data, come up with nearly a 5% variance. Given their actual error, they are remarkably close, though.
Posted by: Thoughtful Guy | May 21, 2009 2:33 PM
You mean you haven't bought your guide to creation astronomy yet PZ? You slacker...lol
There are numerous "scientific" text created by various religious people which is used for homeschooling. There are many religious parents who refuse to teach something that isn't grounded in faith. That's why you get all these creationist books and DVDs for homeschooling.
Well, I suppose that creationist science slightly better than none at all. They do get a few things right.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 21, 2009 2:34 PM
Day saved.
Because all Christian apologists – and nobody else – use "evidence" as a count noun. There's even a talk.origins entry about this.
Its original, literal sense is "unwrapping". It was used for embryogenesis, because that's what people thought embryogenesis was. Nowadays, that's called "development", and that's what I strongly recommend astronomers to call "stellar evolution" to avoid confusion with the now most common meaning ("descent with heritable modification").
Posted by: fftysmthg | May 21, 2009 2:35 PM
People who let their beliefs blind them like this really scare me. No kidding.
Posted by: Blondin | May 21, 2009 2:37 PM
@ #62
I'll get over it :-)
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
May 21, 2009 2:38 PM
I think we have the makings of a perfectly good theo-scientific theory here. Or possibly a business plan.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 21, 2009 2:38 PM
However, you still can't read Jupiter's rotation speed from the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram…
Posted by: Emily | May 21, 2009 2:38 PM
Why stop at just annoying all of the reputable biologists?
I look forward to the future videos in the series. "Creation Relativity," "Creation Nuclear Fission," "Creation Chemistry" and "Creation Neurosurgery."
Posted by: Chris Booth | May 21, 2009 2:38 PM
And don't forget that most cynical, diabolical, subtlest of atheoDarwinist conspiracies: Intelligent Design
Why else would they refer to their plan as
The WEDGEWOOD Strategy?!?
Oh, the evolution of bone china....Is nothing sacred?
Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce?
|
May 21, 2009 2:38 PM
For more on Archbishop James Usher's dating of the creation of the Earth (and universe) check here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
May 21, 2009 2:39 PM
I'm not sure of how "evidences" is justified, but it has a long tradition in the English language, such as in judicial writings. One from 1910:
Talkorigins has a page title "29+ evidences of macroevolution".
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Emily | May 21, 2009 2:41 PM
Why stop at just annoying all of the reputable biologists?
I look forward to the future videos in the series. "Creation Relativity," "Creation Nuclear Fission," "Creation Chemistry" and "Creation Neurosurgery."
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
May 21, 2009 2:41 PM
To a fundie, anything in science that contradicts the Bible is evolution.
Otherwise they'd have to admit being against science rather than "merely" questioning one particular theory.
Posted by: BJ | May 21, 2009 2:42 PM
Here's a presentation this guy did; it's available here: http://tinyurl.com/pq9xuu . In the video, he explains his use of the term "evolutionary" as basically meaning "self-assembling without a Creator."
I'm not a Creationist, but I find his video interesting.
Posted by: amphiox | May 21, 2009 2:53 PM
So at last we have an answer to Fermi's Paradox. There are no aliens because God made the universe (all 45 billion lightyear diameter of it or whatever the most current estimate is) solely for the use and intellectual enrichment of mankind.
It's obvious that the divine intent is for humans to colonize the whole universe, every star, planet, galaxy, and all the space in between.
So, I say unto thee, all yee warp drive theorists, get cracking, the LORD THY GOD demands it of you!
(And according to the Rapture folks, you have only have a few decades left, tops).
Posted by: Brango | May 21, 2009 3:04 PM
Hey guess what... he's right!
I asked a representative of the confectionery and cake making industry to explain how the rotation of Jupiter got to be so fast despite it being a glaring inconsistency with the theory of music, and guess what he said?
"That has nothing to do with us."
HAH!!! IN YOUR FACE, EVOLUTION!!!!!
Posted by: Nightsky | May 21, 2009 3:10 PM
Aw, crap, not ANOTHER engineer. Brethren and sistren in engineering, we must expel him from our noble company. Let his slide rule be taken from him and snapped in two.
Honestly, guys, it's getting a little embarrassing. One more time: just because you're used to designing things does not mean that everything that looks like it was designed was designed.
Posted by: bluescat48
|
May 21, 2009 3:22 PM
There are many who will pay the 19dollars. that are usually referred to as fundies or creos
Posted by: JM Shep
|
May 21, 2009 3:28 PM
I haven't had a chance to see the site because I'm at work, but I did want to mention that there was an interesting article in Discover Magazine that talked about the evolution of our universe (and others in the multiverse theory). They discussed how when stars undergo a supernova, they spew all of their elements all over the universe, and other stars, galaxies, etc pick them up (which one could compare-however slightly-to a form of 'genetic alteration' for stars). They then went on to talk about Lee Smolin's theory of 'natural selection' for universes (which he posits as a theory to contrast to string theory, I'm not convinced). Therefore, discussing evolution on cosmological scales is not out of the question. And, as others have posted, the term 'evolution' was around before Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Link to article: http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/11-a-scientists-guide-to-finding-alien-life/article_view?searchterm=evolution%20of%20universes&b_start:int=1
Also, please note: I am a geneticist/cell biologist, not a physicist/cosmologist.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2009 3:29 PM
@80 Plenty of these numbskulls do deny the validity of science, check the "Fundies Say the Darndest Things" website for heartbreaking evidence.
Posted by: joe cracker | May 21, 2009 3:42 PM
CrAP debunked :)))) Hillarious!!!!
Man, creationists are stupid ... so stupid that they are blind to any argument.
Posted by: Kate | May 21, 2009 3:42 PM
Posted by: jwc | May 21, 2009 1:20 PM
I'm just trying to figure out how planets have sex. Must not happen very often and I bet it's messy. Let's just hope that we have an ugly planet and the other planet is out of beer.
I wonder if this means that we humand really ARE space herpies...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
May 21, 2009 3:47 PM
Why is it that every fundamentalist* claims to have been an atheist?
*Except for the ones who have famous preacher daddies.
Posted by: zer0 | May 21, 2009 3:51 PM
Poe's Law... amirite?!?!?!111one
Posted by: BJ | May 21, 2009 3:57 PM
OK, so I've had some time to do some research (all of about 20 minutes). It seems pretty easy to refute his claims using simple Google searches like "Mercury Magnetosphere." For example, after his 2006 presentation I referenced earlier, there was another Mercury mission (MESSENGER) shedding more light on the subject of Mercury's magnetic field.
I think the majority of comments on this thread would do a better job serving the skeptical community if they focused more on refuting the claims rather than throwing ad-hominem attacks around.
Posted by: raven | May 21, 2009 4:02 PM
"I used to be an atheist....." translates into normal English as:
"I used to have an education, a job, a mate, friends, cars, indoor plumbing, the works. But then the voices in my head got too loud. The pills the government gave me helped but they had side effects. Now I talk to jesus, several angels, assorted demons, flying saucer people, and god. They answer back.".
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 21, 2009 4:03 PM
BJ, the jokes that people tell is just as important as the information we pass on to each other. It is what makes this blog a must stop for many people.
Posted by: Jack | May 21, 2009 4:09 PM
I don't get it. There is no: "evolutionary model of astronomy".
Posted by: Mbee | May 21, 2009 4:15 PM
Sorry guys but Wikipedia has many entries for evolution that do not relate to biology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_(disambiguation)
In all of these cases evolution simply refers to how things change. The creationists however use the term on purpose to try and lump everything together with one word (or because they don't understand the differences).
As with all of their arguments - show us the evidence that points to some solution other than what science asserts. Magically being created without any method is no more than dreaming and doesn't cut it in the 'real' world.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | May 21, 2009 4:32 PM
The stupid is thick in this one.
Posted by: Andrew | May 21, 2009 4:33 PM
"Almost a century ago, almost all scientists believed in the Biblical account of Creation. But by the time of the moon landings, many scientists had abandoned this history."
Um, yeah. I'm sure it was just total coincidence that "abandoned belief in the Biblical account of Creation" was followed by "we put a man on the fucking moon."
And, man, look at all the prayer coming out of the rockets on take-off! I swear I saw Azriel and Gabriel in there, too!!
I can appreciate that some people are just ignorant because they have never been given the proper information and/or critical thinking skills... but we can all agree that these people are just naturally stupid beyond all measure, right?
Posted by: J. Bailey | May 21, 2009 4:38 PM
New drinking game! Everytime he says any form of the word "Evolution", take a drink!
Posted by: Jeff Satterley | May 21, 2009 4:39 PM
I think George Carlin would argue this way:
George Carlin on "Save the Planet"
Posted by: DPSisler | May 21, 2009 4:42 PM
@53....Hey, I take THEO-24, it's for asthma
Posted by: kathy savage | May 21, 2009 4:50 PM
I noticed that Spike Psarris (how did he manage to get to adulthood with a name like that?) is on the creation wiki and that the general population is not allowed to edit creation wiki. I've never put anything up on wikipedia before, but would it be possible to make a page for on the real wikipedia and put some real science there? That way when people do a google search on him they will find that as well and, hopefully, become slightly more educated?
Anyone? anyone?
Posted by: Joe Cracker | May 21, 2009 4:52 PM
BJ ... it's a waste of time to refute all the lunacy that is floating out there. This is exactly what these loons hope for, that somebody cares about their CRAP ( CReationist Astronomy Propaganda).
Just take a look at AndromedasWake vids, best response ever:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B8772329EDAE7DC3
Posted by: KevinC | May 21, 2009 4:55 PM
One of the central tenets of religious fundamentalism/Creationism is that there are only two world-views: theirs, and Satan's. If there are multiple world-views (differing philosophies, religions, theories of science, etc.) then the choice of what ideas to accept cannot be forced into a dualistic selection between "God"(their world-view) and "Satan" (any other world-view). That would mean that each rival world view might need to be examined on its own merits, instead of rejected in bulk.
In relation to science, all scientific data that cannot be made to fit within their pseudo-Biblical[1] world-view must, by definition, be lumped together on "the other side," i.e., Satan's deception. Thus, astronomy, cosmology, quantum mechanics, abiogenesis, etc. all get labeled by the name of the theory that hits them closest to home: "evolution."
This is useful to them rhetorically, since it enables them to find some area where scientists do not have The Answer, and use that one area to "refute" all of science in one fell swoop. "Jupiter rotates faster than you egg-headed elitist Darwinists thought it would! Therefore, evolution is false! I ain't no monkey! Goddidit!" Or: "You can't explain how the Monarch butterfly's life cycle evolved. Therefore, your stupid Big Bang theory is false, and the Universe is 6,000 years old, just like the Bible says!"
This assumption of dualist symmetry also means they expect "evolution" to parallel Creationism in its epistemological base--and if it does not, that proves it false. Creationism is a doctrine of revealed religion, inscribed in an inerrant book by holy prophets. Therefore, its "knowledge" is complete and perfect from the start. Should any part of Creationism be confessed as falsified, the whole megillah--along with other things, like their belief in Jesus and an afterlife--goes with it.
Since, in their view there are only two possibilities--the pure, crystalline perfection of Revealed Truth, or pure falsehood--they expect others (i.e., scientists, atheists, etc.) to think the same way. To admit that scientists can accept a theory provisionally, while continuing to seek new evidence and experiments would be to admit that there's a form of epistemology other than their own. That would naturally call their epistemic methodology into question.
For this reason, they expect their opponents to believe in infallible prophets and Holy Writ. Darwin (or Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Einstein, PZ Myers, etc) are the Prophets and Apostles, and Origin of Species or any scientific paper or press release represents atheist Scripture or Papal ex cathedra statements of Creed and Doctrine.
Therefore, if any theory or any part of a theory is falsified, it proves that the Atheist Holy Writ is false, especially in comparison to their own eternally unchanging Revealed Truth.
This forms the whole basis of Creationist argumentation. There is no need to provide evidence for a global Flood of Noah, or a Cosmos only 6,000 light-years across, or something like a massive earthquake, the Sun turning off for hours and zombies invading a metropolis of 100,000 at a time when there were about 2 million pilgrims visiting the place (i.e., lots of witnesses, many of them literate) during the cruci-fiction of Christ.
All they have to do is find some instance where scientists revised a theory, or where they have no answer to a question or mystery. Science fails as an infallible Revealed Religion--and that leaves only one other possible option: Protestant Fundamentalism.
Needless to say, this is a very useful debating tactic. They never have to defend their own territory, but can go on wild Gish Galloping sprees through biology, physics, cosmology, astronomy, paleontology, etc. demanding thorough, infallible naturalistic explanations for literally everything, and declare victory as soon as they get an "I don't know." When debating a biologist, they can attack astronomy. Against an astronomer or historian, they can demand the evolution of bacterial flagella.
Their own world-view is impervious to similar counter-attack because they have the magic wand of Miracle to wave. "Goddidit" "makes sense" as an "explanation" in the same way that the Fairy Godmother scene in Cinderella[2] "makes sense" to kids watching it for the first time. Emotionally, it feels like an answer has been provided, while the scientific view is filled with all those nagging questions and blank spots on the map. In addition, they can point to every time scientists revised their understanding of the world as proof that scientists are "just guessing" while they, the Creationists, know the answers. The Argument From Chutzpah.
NOTES:
[1]They are literalist about things like the Flood, but not about the "windows in the firmament" the waters were supposed to have poured through, the "pillars of the Earth" and other Biblical statements about the Cosmos that even they can't defend anymore.
[2]The talking animals in that story also bear a resemblance to a certain divinely revealed model of origins.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | May 21, 2009 4:59 PM
Dear fellow Creationhysterics and evil Rationalutionists, you are all as silly as each other when it comes to understanding the creation of the Universe. God explained to me quite clearly during one of our chats that the universe is the internal organ of a giant sheep which "Existeth in seventeen dimensions". When pressed he conceded that the organ is actually the sheep's uterus and that those who described the rushing apart of all matter as evidence of a "Big Bang" were closer and coarser to the truth than they realised. Having been given this revelation I intend to start a new Church as soon as I get my day release. It will be called the "Church of the Eweniverse of the Eweterus", it will have tax exempt status, and anyone who enjoys a little mutton on the side will be welcome to join.
Yours in missionary adventure
S. Batzrubble
Posted by: Jeff | May 21, 2009 5:05 PM
It seems to me that while "evolution" can refer to things like stellar evolution and other theories of solar system and galactic formation, people like Spike use it to conflate and confuse, rather than educate. They pretend it's all one theory, rather than a whole bunch of inter-related theories.
But I'm not a scientist -- is this pretty much the case as scientists see it? Is the term "evolution" really used that much in astrophysics circles?
Posted by: vicnog | May 21, 2009 5:07 PM
Nonsense! Everyone knows that the astrological model is the correct one. I bet that Psarris heathen is a Pisces, they are sooo subjective...
By the way, where's that Expelled parody video? Someone ought to send it to Spike.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | May 21, 2009 5:09 PM
"I'm just trying to figure out how planets have sex"
Well, as long as the boy planets are only having sex with girl planets. Otherwise, my children will be [gasp] confused!
Posted by: Nija | May 21, 2009 5:13 PM
I think the bad astronomer will enjoy having his head explode as he tries to correct this level of idiocy. I, as an avid reader of his, will enjoy the writing he manages up to the head explosion.
Posted by: Joe Cracker | May 21, 2009 5:23 PM
Jeff, evolution as in "time evolution" is a basic concept in physics and astrophysics. The Universe evolves, from one state to another ... planet and star formation are basic science. Now, the details of specific planetary system formation might be difficult to uncover. You need to know about all the variables, all the initial conditions. Just think of a chaotic pendulum ... physics is basic, but if you don't know EXACTLY the initial conditions you cannot reproduce the motion of the pendulum.
But of course this Creotard uses the term "Evolution" to struck the right cord in his audience. Plain stupid. There is no other model other than Evolutionary one ... because time passes, the system evolves.
Posted by: Jeff | May 21, 2009 5:25 PM
Sigh... more creationist engineers spouting nonsense. Things like this make me reconsider my path in engineering. I should say that the future does seem to hold some promise, though. It's mainly the older engineers that hold onto the creationist viewpoint, with the new generations leaning on a more rational tilt. Looks like another case in which we have to wait for the older generation to fade away before things can get better.
Posted by: Tommykey | May 21, 2009 5:30 PM
For some reason, the Jupiter segment stopped at about 4 minutes or so, even though it was indicated to be about 12 minutes. I wonder if the guy trotted out the argument that Jupiter sucked in a lot of asteroids that might have hit the Earth, therefore Jupiter was placed there by a divine intelligence. Makes me wonder why a divine intelligence would design a universe with large planet killing asteroids drifting through space to begin with.
Posted by: Caymen Paolo Diceda | May 21, 2009 5:35 PM
This stuff is hilarious. All the objections are attributed to unnamed "scientists" and unspecified citations. These creationists just simply do not know the first steps to making a convincing scientific argument - as if they even had one.
And they portray Astronomy as in crisis? Wishful thinking on the part of desperate bible-thumpers to portray alleged doubt in the majority of the country. The rest of the developed world just laughs at them.
Posted by: CEMBguy | May 21, 2009 5:43 PM
The Salem hypothesis strikes again! I happen to have had a personal experience with a certain pasta-based deity who told me that the giant red storm on jupiter is actually a cosmic breeding ground for quantum meatballs, which of course cannot be explained by cell theory. Of course these anti-FSM scientists will never admit to the truth....
Posted by: Celeste | May 21, 2009 5:48 PM
That's pretty amusing. Seems to me that the basis of their argument is, "If we don't already have the answer, then the only answer is God."
Posted by: Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer | May 21, 2009 5:54 PM
I watched the Jupiter video until all I could hear was a loud buzzing sound punctuated by the word "evolution". Last I recall, evolution was the change in allele frequency over time... Jupiter has chromosomes?
Anyway, debunking that video is like trying to cure chicken pox one scab at a time. It's all "god of the gaps" nonsense, "science can't explain this or that", with them always and forever forgetting one word that changes everything: "yet".
Posted by: SteveG | May 21, 2009 6:03 PM
How much do you want to bet that the "former atheist" Spike Psarris was actually raised in a fundamentalist church, then got a little rebellious and left the fold for a while, but after another while found he couldn't stay away from the fundamentalist religious beliefs he was raised with and so returned to the fold? That's the story with the vast majority of these young earth creationists who put themselves up as "former atheists".
Posted by: Nubbin | May 21, 2009 6:25 PM
Jeff @106
Yeah, we refer to 'stellar/galactic evolution' all the time, but never just 'evolution'. No astrophysicist speaks like this fool.
Posted by: Nubbin | May 21, 2009 6:28 PM
Jeff @106
Yeah, we refer to 'stellar/galactic evolution' all the time, but never just 'evolution'. No astrophysicist speaks like this fool.
Posted by: SteveG | May 21, 2009 6:35 PM
How much do you want to bet that the "former atheist" Spike Psarris was actually raised in a fundamentalist church, then got a little rebellious and left the fold for a while, but after another while found he couldn't stay away from the fundamentalist religious beliefs he was raised with and so returned to the fold? That's the story with the vast majority of these young earth creationists who put themselves up as "former atheists".
Posted by: RedGreenInBlue | May 21, 2009 6:37 PM
I think I understand now. They don't have a particular problem with biological evolution through random mutation and natural selection, but with the general idea of evolution: a system that changes over time as the state of one component has effects on other components, which in turn has effects on other components (sometimes including components which were the cause of an earlier effect), and so on for billions of iterations...
Surely it's only a matter of time until a creationist decides that cause and effect is a theory in crisis?
Posted by: MPG | May 21, 2009 6:50 PM
I don't know. Without cause and effect, they lose their first cause argument, the Kalaam cosmological argument, the transcendental argument, the fine-tuning argument...they all rely, to some extent, on having something cause everything else (then calling that something "god").
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 21, 2009 6:52 PM
@SteveG #117 & 120:
I'm not going to take that bet. Whenever I hear about these people claiming to be former atheists, I have to wonder. Now, I know it's easy to fall into the No True Scotsman fallacy, so one should be careful throwing around this sort of allegation. I prefer to wait and ask the person about their supposed atheism.
Why were you an atheist? How did it affect your life? How and why did you stop being an atheist?
Most of the time, the answers are typical theistic strawman. That is a huge giveaway. If they tell me that they became atheists so they could do behave "immorally" or because they were rebellious or angry, that makes me think they're full of shit.
I don't know Psarris' answers to these questions. I do think it's pretty unusual for an atheist to not only become a theist but a Young Earth creationist, though.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
May 21, 2009 6:52 PM
Cause and effect is an unfair atheistic assumption whenever it disagrees with their religion.
Any time it agrees with it, well, it's conclusive.
It's all a matter of prior assumptions, for it is clear that if you always assume that evolution (macroevolution, whatever) is wrong, then it only makes sense that evidence never points to evolution. See, though, this is like how evolutionists operate as well, since they a. already assume evolution is true, or b. they assume that causality holds in the past. "a" is nice, because it makes evolutionists sound as bigoted as the creationists are (even though no scientist could properly assume it), but "b" is okay as long as you call "causality" an illegitimate atheist/naturalist/materialist assumption.
The upshot--causality doesn't hold where miracles occur, by definition. So of course it's wrong wherever miracles are already assumed to occur (trot out your favorite IDiot "proof" that evolution can't occur, to cover the fact that you're gruesomely inconsistent on causality), but it's right whenever you can "prove" something against atheists or the heathen by using causality.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Steamer | May 21, 2009 6:52 PM
"I'm just trying to figure out how planets have sex. Must not happen very often and I bet it's messy. Let's just hope that we have an ugly planet and the other planet is out of beer."
That made me laugh so hard for some reason.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 21, 2009 7:05 PM
If planets have sex then....there are a lot more boy planets than girl planets around here. What are the social dynamics of interplanetary relationships under those circumstances?
Posted by: nomuse | May 21, 2009 7:07 PM
Whoah. I waiting for him to get around to showing the Biblical passage that describes the Galilean Moons. Am I a bad person, though? When Spike starting talking about being an engineer, I found myself muttering "Apparently not a sound engineer." BOY, but that was the shoddiest job of recording talent I've heard in a long while. What is it about Creationists, that they manage to make everything they do look cheap and shoddy?
Posted by: AJ | May 21, 2009 7:09 PM
"I'm just trying to figure out how planets have sex"
I don't know either, but I'm pretty sure it involves Uranus
Posted by: AJ | May 21, 2009 7:12 PM
"I'm just trying to figure out how planets have sex"
I don't know either, but I'm pretty sure it involves Uranus
Posted by: AJ | May 21, 2009 7:14 PM
That was so funny I had to post it twice!
Posted by: SteveG | May 21, 2009 7:18 PM
@Naked Bunny #123:
You're absolutely correct, I'm not banking on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I do happen to be aware of atheists who have become Christians. (For example, off the top of my head I can know of C. S. Lewis in the U.K. and John Clayton in Indiana.) But they are not young earth creationists, who are by the very nature of their young earth creationism beliefs the most egregiously unscientific (and anti-science). Every single young earth creationist I have encountered where I know about their background for certain who uses this "I'm a former atheist" rhetoric is actually someone who was raised in a fundamentalist church, and then went through a period of doubt (say, in college) where they seriously doubted the belief in God they were raised with, but then subsequently "returned to the fold".
As you intimate in your second and third paragraphs the insinuation that they're making by using this rhetoric in the first place (I was a skeptical atheist convinced of young earth creationism by the scientific evidence) is bogus and is just another example of the rhetorical trickery they love to use so much. There were never really atheists rationally skeptical of religious belief who somehow through scientific and rational considerations came to accept the "science" of young earth creationism, but were in fact believers in young earth creationism and their other assorted fundamentalist religious beliefs, who then went through a short time in their lives when they began to have doubts, but who then for whatever reasons - having nothing to do with science and critical thinking - *returned* to the religious beliefs they were raised to believe in the first place. The whole idea that publicly promote the "I'm a former atheist" while at the same time deliberately omit the fact that they also happened to have been raised in a fundamentalist church before that demonstrates that there's some rhetorical sleight-of-hand going on.
I do not and would not say that I know for a fact that this is the case with Spike Psarris in particular, but because of my experience with young earth creationists using this kind of rhetoric I very highly suspect it, and so this is my "working hypothesis" unless and until I find out otherwise.
By the way, sorry for the double post. I thought my browser had timed out on a lost connection the first time.
- Steve Greene
(Charlotte, Michigan)
Posted by: Austin! | May 21, 2009 7:19 PM
He keeps using the word 'evolutionist.'
I do not think that word means what he thinks it means.
Posted by: GMacs | May 21, 2009 7:21 PM
Sigh... more creationist engineers spouting nonsense.
And I just had the "why I've changed my mind about going into that field" conversation for the nth time tonight.
Posted by: Austin! | May 21, 2009 7:21 PM
He keeps using the word 'evolutionist.'
I do not think that word means what he thinks it means.
Posted by: Kimpatsu
|
May 21, 2009 7:23 PM
"Bandwidth exceeded".
'Nuff said.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | May 21, 2009 7:23 PM
@Naked Bunny,
You're have difficulty understanding the grossly illogical mind of these "former atheist." I know it's difficult, and you might as well be speedcubing a Rubick's Cube as you're running out of a labyrinth whilst trapped in a darkened unexplored subterranean limestone cavern with your friend asking you to quickly calculate the change in radial velocity of a star within 36,000 km of the central supermassive blackhole of our galaxy.
Simply put, these former atheists were never atheists to begin with. They still maintained credulous notions of a particular brand of religion, but did not fully embrace all the illogical stupidity that they have come to be associated with. Perhaps at one time, they believed the Earth to be only a few millions years old, and have since revised their thinking into only 6000 years. Further, perhaps when they were younger, they looked a passages from as a loose guide, and now, they pick and choose strictly to adhere to their idiotic peer beliefs. In effect, they were illogical bullbuiscuits before, and are now, extremely illogical bullbiscuits. Their idea of atheism is skipping church once a month, and actually paying attention in science courses. I don't think they can imagine what it's like to completely discard useless imaginary concepts. They have never lived free of faith. Sadly, even should they discard their empty religious beliefs, they will maintain a relationship with irrational concepts. They may become "spiritual", perhaps buying into homeopathy, refloxology, and other such stupid placebo related lackluster curative effects. It takes a great deal of conviction to completely discard the edifices of irrationality and embrace reason and critical thinking.
It would help if they stopped lying about their supposed atheism, whoring, gay prostitution, and whatever else they claim to have done before becoming born again.
Posted by: Bert Chadick | May 21, 2009 7:23 PM
Hey! Phil P. already has the "Bad Astronomy" corner taken. I think he has a case for copyright infringement.
Posted by: 386sx | May 21, 2009 7:24 PM
Oh boy. "Bandwidth Limit Exceeded".
Posted by: Kimpatsu
|
May 21, 2009 7:25 PM
"Bandwidth exceeded".
'Nuff said.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | May 21, 2009 7:27 PM
@Naked Bunny,
You're have difficulty understanding the grossly illogical mind of these "former atheist." I know it's difficult, and you might as well be speedcubing a Rubick's Cube as you're running out of a labyrinth whilst trapped in a darkened unexplored subterranean limestone cavern with your friend asking you to quickly calculate the change in radial velocity of a star within 36,000 km of the central supermassive blackhole of our galaxy.
Simply put, these former atheists were never atheists to begin with. They still maintained credulous notions of a particular brand of religion, but did not fully embrace all the illogical stupidity that they have come to be associated with. Perhaps at one time, they believed the Earth to be only a few millions years old, and have since revised their thinking into only 6000 years. Further, perhaps when they were younger, they looked a passages from as a loose guide, and now, they pick and choose strictly to adhere to their idiotic peer beliefs. In effect, they were illogical bullbuiscuits before, and are now, extremely illogical bullbiscuits. Their idea of atheism is skipping church once a month, and actually paying attention in science courses. I don't think they can imagine what it's like to completely discard useless imaginary concepts. They have never lived free of faith. Sadly, even should they discard their empty religious beliefs, they will maintain a relationship with irrational concepts. They may become "spiritual", perhaps buying into homeopathy, refloxology, and other such stupid placebo related lackluster curative effects. It takes a great deal of conviction to completely discard the edifices of irrationality and embrace reason and critical thinking.
It would help if they stopped lying about their supposed atheism, whoring, gay prostitution, and whatever else they claim to have done before becoming born again.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 21, 2009 7:29 PM
Yeah, I'd agree with that. When I said "I wouldn't take that bet", I meant because I also thought your scenario is likely. (I may have used the phrase wrong.) I just wanted to explain why before somebody trotted out No True Scotsman.
Posted by: 386sx | May 21, 2009 7:30 PM
I guess they weren't expecting this much traffic. I wonder how many videos they sold. Probably a lot.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | May 21, 2009 7:31 PM
@Naked Bunny,
You're have difficulty understanding the grossly illogical mind of these "former atheist." I know it's difficult, and you might as well be speedcubing a Rubick's Cube as you're running out of a labyrinth whilst trapped in a darkened unexplored subterranean limestone cavern with your friend asking you to quickly calculate the change in radial velocity of a star within 36,000 km of the central supermassive blackhole of our galaxy.
Simply put, these former atheists were never atheists to begin with. They still maintained credulous notions of a particular brand of religion, but did not fully embrace all the illogical stupidity that they have come to be associated with. Perhaps at one time, they believed the Earth to be only a few millions years old, and have since revised their thinking into only 6000 years. Further, perhaps when they were younger, they looked a passages from as a loose guide, and now, they pick and choose strictly to adhere to their idiotic peer beliefs. In effect, they were illogical bullbuiscuits before, and are now, extremely illogical bullbiscuits. Their idea of atheism is skipping church once a month, and actually paying attention in science courses. I don't think they can imagine what it's like to completely discard useless imaginary concepts. They have never lived free of faith. Sadly, even should they discard their empty religious beliefs, they will maintain a relationship with irrational concepts. They may become "spiritual", perhaps buying into homeopathy, refloxology, and other such stupid placebo related lackluster curative effects. It takes a great deal of conviction to completely discard the edifices of irrationality and embrace reason and critical thinking.
It would help if they stopped lying about their supposed atheism, whoring, gay prostitution, and whatever else they claim to have done before becoming born again.
Posted by: RedGreenInBlue | May 21, 2009 7:34 PM
Glen (#124):
There I was, naïvely thinking, "Surely no-one is crazy enough to seriously doubt the reliability of cause and effect after a century or more of meticulously documented scientific research, when any half-decent experimental method implicitly tests for the n-millionth time the hypothesis that causes have consistent effects *and vice versa)?"
Then you have the gall to point out that creationists have been doing exactly this for years - while simultaneously claiming that the results of teh evul methodological naturalism they've just slammed actually prove that they're right!
Poe's Law strikes yet again...
Posted by: SteveG | May 21, 2009 7:38 PM
@Austin #132:
The constant use of "evolutionist" this and "evolutionist" that in young earth creationist rhetoric is based on their charade that everything in science they oppose due to their religious beliefs is because of a worldwide conspiracy among scientists and atheists to promote evolution against their religion. For example, you will often notice that in the rhetoric of their attacks on geological science they pretend that geologists came up with the geologic timescale in order to promote biological evolution. Rhetoric like "Evolution needs a lot of time, so evolutionists came up with the geologic column to give themselves the time they needed." (Thus getting both the history of science wrong - the geologic column came decades before 1859 - as well as pretending geological science itself doesn't really exist as a science empirically independent of biological evolution.) It's merely another example of the deceitful word games that young earth creationist rhetoric is permeated with.
That being said, it is certainly true that the general meaning of the word "evolution" is "change", and geologists certainly do use the word "evolution" in referring to geological changes in the history of the earth, and astronomers certainly do use the word "evolution" in referring to changes in the cosmos through the history of the universe. And as always with words like this that have multiple meanings, as part of their word games young earth creationists use this to their full advantage taking the words out of context and misrepresenting their usage as part of trying to prop up their ideology. (Take another example, such as their constant misuse of the word "theory", using rhetoric based on pretending that the meaning of "theory" as in "scientific theory" is the same thing as the popular usage of the word "theory", which any decent dictionary differentiates between but young earth creationists seem conveniently oblivious to.)
Posted by: Tony G | May 21, 2009 7:43 PM
It looks like we have a new version of "Farking" a website. I suggest a simple name, "The Pharyngula Effect."
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.
Posted by: MikeM | May 21, 2009 7:47 PM
Damn, damn, damn, bandwidth exceeded.
I hate it when that happens.
Oh well, try this instead:
http://christianastronomy.org/
Posted by: agenoria
|
May 21, 2009 7:53 PM
'Bandwidth Limit Exceeded' again, so I haven't seen the site.
Young earth creationists use computers, DVDs, CDs etc, all derived from quantum mechanics. Physics also says that it takes more than 6,000 years - a lot more - for a photon created by fusion in the centre of the Sun to reach the 'surface'.
Of course it might be that there is one type of physics for Earth and another for the Sun. And solar flares are just Thor throwing the odd thunderbolt. Oops wrong god.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 21, 2009 7:55 PM
No, I'm....well, okay, you're right, I do have trouble grokking that. My point, though, was just that I don't want to fall into the trap of claiming that every theist who claims to have been an atheist is incorrect or flat-out lying. I can imagine someone who was a legitimate atheist becoming a theist under certain psychological pressures; for example, an addiction-oriented personality, a nervous breakdown, a phobic fear of death, or profound loneliness.
Now, as I said, I don't think this sort of thing is common. I think that most theists who claim they were atheists weren't, and now they're either lying about it or really do think they were atheists because they never understood what being an atheist actually means. I also think that Spike Psarris falls into this category, quite likely on the "liar" side.
But I'm not going to pull the same fallacious bullshit rhetorical tricks as the theists do either, and start claiming that no theists could have ever been a Real Atheist. I won't become a hypocrite just because it might me feel a little better.
Sorry for the rant. I feel like I got jumped on for trying to be a little moderate while still agreeing with SteveG's point. I may be overreacting myself now, and I apologize for that. I should probably hang up my whip for the evening and get some sleep.
Posted by: doppie | May 21, 2009 7:59 PM
You are generating traffic for these deluded people.
Posted by: Feldman | May 21, 2009 8:22 PM
The site is down because of bandwidth limitations. I find that halarious.
Posted by: The Tim Channel
|
May 21, 2009 8:26 PM
Bandwidth exceeded is just another way of saying, "I'm a dumbass who doesn't know that if I'm going to host my own videos, then I'm going to have to have a robust account to do so. Lacking that, the dumbass could have used Google, Youtube, or a MYRIAD of other free hosting services. This is going to be fun to watch get sorted out over the next little bit.
Enjoy.
Posted by: tim Rowledge | May 21, 2009 8:28 PM
.... and the usual assortment of other inane nonsense insulting engineers.Stop it. Just stop it. You're being stupid, making the same sort of elementary mis-judgements that creationist make. Do you really want to be in that company?
People with a job title or qualification containing the word 'engineer' do an astonishing range of work ranging from routine maintenance labour through designing building foundations, running massive building or plant construction projects, designing space vehicles, making particle colliders, writing software of various qualities, managing small production facilities, and on and on and on.
No, typically they're not working research scientists - but quite a few engineers are in fact researchers working at the highest . levels. No, typically an engineering degree doesn't involve massive education in the details of the scientific method, nor in the glories of QED, evo-devo, music theory, the Stanislavsky method or ikebana. Tough. At that level of education you end up specialising somewhat. Some people use that as an excuse to stop learning anything else. Some of us don't. Yes, it's so funny when someone that calls themself an engineer tries to claim that they see external design in natural things. That's largely because they neither know enough about actual design nor about biology. How many biologists know enough about mechanical design that they could debug a cracking nuclear reactor vessel, for example? Or even enough to know that neutron flux can lead to cracking?
Anyone making dumb statements about creationism and related dumbisms is doing so because they're dumb and/or badly educated; not because there is anything inate in engineering ( or theatre studies, or cookery, or physics) that makes them believe in it.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | May 21, 2009 8:37 PM
@Naked Bunny,
You're have difficulty understanding the grossly illogical mind of these "former atheist." I know it's difficult, and you might as well be speedcubing a Rubick's Cube as you're running out of a labyrinth whilst trapped in a darkened unexplored subterranean limestone cavern with your friend asking you to quickly calculate the change in radial velocity of a star within 36,000 km of the central supermassive blackhole of our galaxy.
Simply put, these former atheists were never atheists to begin with. They still maintained credulous notions of a particular brand of religion, but did not fully embrace all the illogical stupidity that they have come to be associated with. Perhaps at one time, they believed the Earth to be only a few millions years old, and have since revised their thinking into only 6000 years. Further, perhaps when they were younger, they looked a passages from as a loose guide, and now, they pick and choose strictly to adhere to their idiotic peer beliefs. In effect, they were illogical bullbuiscuits before, and are now, extremely illogical bullbiscuits. Their idea of atheism is skipping church once a month, and actually paying attention in science courses. I don't think they can imagine what it's like to completely discard useless imaginary concepts. They have never lived free of faith. Sadly, even should they discard their empty religious beliefs, they will maintain a relationship with irrational concepts. They may become "spiritual", perhaps buying into homeopathy, refloxology, and other such stupid placebo related lackluster curative effects. It takes a great deal of conviction to completely discard the edifices of irrationality and embrace reason and critical thinking.
It would help if they stopped lying about their supposed atheism, whoring, gay prostitution, and whatever else they claim to have done before becoming born again.
Posted by: MadScientist | May 21, 2009 8:41 PM
There are *NO* transitional fossils of the universe, and therefore goddidit.
Posted by: Michelle | May 21, 2009 8:41 PM
Hmmm... if we deluge his site every time he posts a really stupid video (read: every time he posts any video), we can make an amusing game of "overload the Creationist's website!" We can see how long it takes us to shut it down each time, and how long we keep it down.
Infantile, perhaps, but the the most intellectually stimulating activity you can get out of their website, other than drinking games.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 21, 2009 8:45 PM
Tim, I agree with you about the overly broad attacks on engineers in this thread. I see that happen fairly regularly, here and elsewhere: broad swipes against an entire profession or demographic because the current specific target is a member of it.
However, this...
...isn't a very good counterpoint, unless you can find instances of biologists claiming that their knowledge of biology also makes them qualified to design nuclear reactors.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | May 21, 2009 8:54 PM
@Naked Bunny,
You're have difficulty understanding the grossly illogical mind of these "former atheist." I know it's difficult, and you might as well be speedcubing a Rubick's Cube as you're running out of a labyrinth whilst trapped in a darkened unexplored subterranean limestone cavern with your friend asking you to quickly calculate the change in radial velocity of a star within 36,000 km of the central supermassive blackhole of our galaxy.
Simply put, these former atheists were never atheists to begin with. They still maintained credulous notions of a particular brand of religion, but did not fully embrace all the illogical stupidity that they have come to be associated with. Perhaps at one time, they believed the Earth to be only a few millions years old, and have since revised their thinking into only 6000 years. Further, perhaps when they were younger, they looked a passages from as a loose guide, and now, they pick and choose strictly to adhere to their idiotic peer beliefs. In effect, they were illogical bullbuiscuits before, and are now, extremely illogical bullbiscuits. Their idea of atheism is skipping church once a month, and actually paying attention in science courses. I don't think they can imagine what it's like to completely discard useless imaginary concepts. They have never lived free of faith. Sadly, even should they discard their empty religious beliefs, they will maintain a relationship with irrational concepts. They may become "spiritual", perhaps buying into homeopathy, refloxology, and other such stupid placebo related lackluster curative effects. It takes a great deal of conviction to completely discard the edifices of irrationality and embrace reason and critical thinking.
It would help if they stopped lying about their supposed atheism, whoring, gay prostitution, and whatever else they claim to have done before becoming born again.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
May 21, 2009 8:54 PM
tim Rowledge #153
I was a navy nuke ever so many years ago. I know what to do if you've got a cracking reactor vessel. Put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.
Posted by: cousinavi | May 21, 2009 9:01 PM
Secular astronomers?
Is there any other kind?
I mean...I just sort of assumed that astronomers had dropped the whole "greater light" and "lesser light" thing...
Should I not have done that? Was that wrong?
Posted by: gypsytag | May 21, 2009 9:03 PM
Not to be pedantic but you can't call yourself an engineer unless you have your certification.
Is this guy a PEng?
If I were a betting person, I would say not.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | May 21, 2009 9:03 PM
@Naked Bunny,
You're have difficulty understanding the grossly illogical mind of these "former atheist." I know it's difficult, and you might as well be speedcubing a Rubick's Cube as you're running out of a labyrinth whilst trapped in a darkened unexplored subterranean limestone cavern with your friend asking you to quickly calculate the change in radial velocity of a star within 36,000 km of the central supermassive blackhole of our galaxy.
Simply put, these former atheists were never atheists to begin with. They still maintained credulous notions of a particular brand of religion, but did not fully embrace all the illogical stupidity that they have come to be associated with. Perhaps at one time, they believed the Earth to be only a few millions years old, and have since revised their thinking into only 6000 years. Further, perhaps when they were younger, they looked a passages from as a loose guide, and now, they pick and choose strictly to adhere to their idiotic peer beliefs. In effect, they were illogical bullbuiscuits before, and are now, extremely illogical bullbiscuits. Their idea of atheism is skipping church once a month, and actually paying attention in science courses. I don't think they can imagine what it's like to completely discard useless imaginary concepts. They have never lived free of faith. Sadly, even should they discard their empty religious beliefs, they will maintain a relationship with irrational concepts. They may become "spiritual", perhaps buying into homeopathy, refloxology, and other such stupid placebo related lackluster curative effects. It takes a great deal of conviction to completely discard the edifices of irrationality and embrace reason and critical thinking.
It would help if they stopped lying about their supposed atheism, whoring, gay prostitution, and whatever else they claim to have done before becoming born again.
Posted by: raven | May 21, 2009 9:10 PM
They already have. A lot of these cargo cult creo scientists are Nihilists, Solipsists, or Postmoderns. They don't believe in objective reality or the real world. In Postmodern theo creationism, whatever you want to believe is true. That is why the earth is flat and the sky is a dome held up by the 4 pillars. The sun, moon, and stars are just lights stuck on it. The dome rotates around the earth.
Some of them reject the Germ Theory of Disease and many reject modern medicine for faith healing .
Trust the fundies to figure out how far away from reality they can get until they start dying of ignorance. Fortunately, so far most of them believe in stop lights and human-car collision theory.
Posted by: DVMKurmes | May 21, 2009 9:18 PM
Heh. I got a "bandwidth exceeded" error message when I clicked on the link. Apparently we Pharyngulated the site without even trying to. Apparently does not usually get much traffic.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | May 21, 2009 9:51 PM
@Naked Bunny,
You're have difficulty understanding the grossly illogical mind of these "former atheist." I know it's difficult, and you might as well be speedcubing a Rubick's Cube as you're running out of a labyrinth whilst trapped in a darkened unexplored subterranean limestone cavern with your friend asking you to quickly calculate the change in radial velocity of a star within 36,000 km of the central supermassive blackhole of our galaxy.
Simply put, these former atheists were never atheists to begin with. They still maintained credulous notions of a particular brand of religion, but did not fully embrace all the illogical stupidity that they have come to be associated with. Perhaps at one time, they believed the Earth to be only a few millions years old, and have since revised their thinking into only 6000 years. Further, perhaps when they were younger, they looked a passages from as a loose guide, and now, they pick and choose strictly to adhere to their idiotic peer beliefs. In effect, they were illogical bullbuiscuits before, and are now, extremely illogical bullbiscuits. Their idea of atheism is skipping church once a month, and actually paying attention in science courses. I don't think they can imagine what it's like to completely discard useless imaginary concepts. They have never lived free of faith. Sadly, even should they discard their empty religious beliefs, they will maintain a relationship with irrational concepts. They may become "spiritual", perhaps buying into homeopathy, refloxology, and other such stupid placebo related lackluster curative effects. It takes a great deal of conviction to completely discard the edifices of irrationality and embrace reason and critical thinking.
It would help if they stopped lying about their supposed atheism, whoring, gay prostitution, and whatever else they claim to have done before becoming born again.
Posted by: AJ Milne | May 21, 2009 9:59 PM
And if memory serves, Uranus may be somewhat out of the picture, having been castrated by Saturn...
But then again, the lot of them were an adventurous lot in so many ways. Somehow, I expect they make do, all the same.
Re 'stellar evolution', 'galactic evolution', I've heard the terms plenty, just following astronomy at the (mostly) pop level. But I'm not sure I'd give the putz in question even the amount of credit that would be involved in assuming maybe he heard those terms, just didn't get they have pretty much zero to do with biological evolution (both are gradual change--that's about it--but then that's also really all the word on its own means, sans concepts of natural selection et al)--or just promiscuously muddled them all up into an inchoate mess in his already very jumbled excuse for a brain. Likewise, I've heard occasional musings that maybe the physical laws themselves could be subject to 'selection' in some sense at the formation of the universe, picking from a whole range of possibilities--and there, at least, there's something actually related to the nub of what's going on in bio... But again, I doubt that's what he's on about. I'd vote, on balance, with those assuming it's mostly just the 'if it's science, and it involves inconveniently large amounts of time and/or space for my tiny little cloistered mind and its pathetic joke of a cosmology, and/or I don't like it, it's evolution' thing. See also comments re binary views above.
Note also that honesty isn't really the forte of this crowd. Or even, especially, understanding what they're actually criticizing. You don't have to, when you've already decided it has to be wrong, and are mostly engaged in grinding out BS more designed for convincing others already sympathetic to your view that you've got a case than actually building one that works. The content and coherence of such things isn't significant, given this purpose--only their length and the paper-thin illusion that they might actually address the subject in some way. So such jumbles are pretty much SOP. The only thing about this one is it actually went more interdisciplinary than usual, and managed to mangle multiple sciences at once outside the bio and biochem departments' normal curricula.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 21, 2009 10:01 PM
Free Lunch @ # 68: ... the Hebrew Calendar and Bishop Ussher, supposedly using the same data, come up with nearly a 5% variance.
Seeing as how the Hebrew calendar uses different units (lunar years), that figure demands recalculation - but not by me.
If astronomical evolution was true, wouldn't we see comets changing into brown dwarfs?
I'll believe in that stuff when you show me a quasarduck!
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 21, 2009 10:26 PM
The tendency for so many engineers and some medical doctors to accept creationism/ID (and then use their degrees as an argument from authority) make me wish that more schools placed a greater emphasis on teaching the scientific method. They should also require more classes in biology, geology, and other courses that pertain to the age of the Earth. I would especially like to see more such training at the college/university level.
Perhaps if more engineers & medical doctors had more scientific training, we might eventually have fewer of them running around trying to play "scientist" when discussing creationism. It won't eliminate the problem, but it might gradually reduce it.
Frankly I'd be in favor of more instruction in the scientific methods and knowledge for everyone in general, but especially for the areas that are producing these degree bearing liars for god. I'm sure some people will complain about it not being directly related to their field of study, but in the long run it will be to their benefit as well as the benefit of society in general (perhaps resulting in less of the other forms of "woo" as well).
Just my "2 cents" worth....
Posted by: Helioprogenus | May 21, 2009 10:46 PM
@Naked Bunny,
You're have difficulty understanding the grossly illogical mind of these "former atheist." I know it's difficult, and you might as well be speedcubing a Rubick's Cube as you're running out of a labyrinth whilst trapped in a darkened unexplored subterranean limestone cavern with your friend asking you to quickly calculate the change in radial velocity of a star within 36,000 km of the central supermassive blackhole of our galaxy.
Simply put, these former atheists were never atheists to begin with. They still maintained credulous notions of a particular brand of religion, but did not fully embrace all the illogical stupidity that they have come to be associated with. Perhaps at one time, they believed the Earth to be only a few millions years old, and have since revised their thinking into only 6000 years. Further, perhaps when they were younger, they looked a passages from as a loose guide, and now, they pick and choose strictly to adhere to their idiotic peer beliefs. In effect, they were illogical bullbuiscuits before, and are now, extremely illogical bullbiscuits. Their idea of atheism is skipping church once a month, and actually paying attention in science courses. I don't think they can imagine what it's like to completely discard useless imaginary concepts. They have never lived free of faith. Sadly, even should they discard their empty religious beliefs, they will maintain a relationship with irrational concepts. They may become "spiritual", perhaps buying into homeopathy, refloxology, and other such stupid placebo related lackluster curative effects. It takes a great deal of conviction to completely discard the edifices of irrationality and embrace reason and critical thinking.
It would help if they stopped lying about their supposed atheism, whoring, gay prostitution, and whatever else they claim to have done before becoming born again.
Posted by: bsk | May 21, 2009 10:57 PM
LOZZLE PZ U BROEK IT!£$%!"$oneoneeleventy
Posted by: Zetetic
|
May 21, 2009 11:14 PM
I think we broke Helioprogenus too....
Posted by: fl blu | May 22, 2009 12:20 AM
When we find the " missing planet" , I think we should name it Ida.
Posted by: coyotenose | May 22, 2009 12:32 AM
Thank y'all so much for linking the "Salem Hypothesis". I'd noticed that trend, but didn't realize its pervasiveness. There's a local Creatard who keeps writing (and lying) to my newspaper.
He recently asserted his "authority" by saying he was a "senior field engineer by trade" and then going on at enormous length about his totally irrelevant credentials. So funny.
Posted by: nick nick bobick | May 22, 2009 12:34 AM
Research indicates that our friend "Spike" is Spiros Psarris who works as a "sales writer" )whatever the hell that is) in Tacoma, Washington. His Bio is too close to Spike's to be a coincidence, especially with that last name
"Spiros Psarris, Sales Writer: Bio
Spiros Psarris is a freelance copywriter in Tacoma, Washington, ... a Bachelor's of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Massachusetts..."
What is a person with an EE doing working as a copywriter? Incompetent as an engineer, maybe?
Posted by: grenangle | May 22, 2009 12:52 AM
I think I remember this guy . about 2 years ago he had a ytube channel posting a vid with him and a bottle gas He claimed that when he released the gas ( which he did ) it would dissipate ( which it did ) thus proving the gasses in the young universe could not of condensed into stars ( which it didn't do in his demonstration ) He was jumped on pretty hard and closed his account. If I recall correctly he had been an engineer on submarines in the navy.
Posted by: grenangle | May 22, 2009 12:57 AM
I think I remember this guy . about 2 years ago he had a ytube channel posting a vid with him and a bottle gas He claimed that when he released the gas ( which he did ) it would dissipate ( which it did ) thus proving the gasses in the young universe could not of condensed into stars ( which it didn't do in his demonstration ) He was jumped on pretty hard and closed his account. If I recall correctly he had been an engineer on submarines in the navy.
Posted by: grenangle | May 22, 2009 1:00 AM
I think I remember this guy . about 2 years ago he had a ytube channel posting a vid with him and a bottle gas He claimed that when he released the gas ( which he did ) it would dissipate ( which it did ) thus proving the gasses in the young universe could not of condensed into stars ( which it didn't do in his demonstration ) He was jumped on pretty hard and closed his account. If I recall correctly he had been an engineer on submarines in the navy.
Posted by: Cowcakes | May 22, 2009 1:06 AM
Wow, that site needs to carry a mental health warning, I could feel it sucking intelligence from my brain.
Posted by: grenangle | May 22, 2009 1:11 AM
I think I remember this guy . about 2 years ago he had a ytube channel posting a vid with him and a bottle gas He claimed that when he released the gas ( which he did ) it would dissipate ( which it did ) thus proving the gasses in the young universe could not of condensed into stars ( which it didn't do in his demonstration ) He was jumped on pretty hard and closed his account. If I recall correctly he had been an engineer on submarines in the navy.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | May 22, 2009 1:22 AM
Finally got to watch those parts of the videos that actually worked.
Why am I not surprised? First statement of supposed evidence against the "evolutionary model" for formation of Jupiter (I'm taking this to mean that it formed without the use of magic) is clearly a lie.
Whilst I don't have access to the full text of the Science article he quotemines from, it's clear even from the abstract that it's discussing multiple hypotheses as to the rate of accretion of the material in Jupiter, and the quote talks about rejecting one of the candidate hypotheses. He explicitly says that the paper concludes that accretion without magic was shown to be not possible.
Posted by: tim Rowledge | May 22, 2009 1:25 AM
Yes, I'll cheerfully accept it is a weak counterpoint when taken as a specific example. I couldn't think of anything more suitable at the time. I'm sure you can accept my (attempted) general point that biologists - for all their collective wonderfulness and awesomosity - are just as likely to make themselves look like asses when pronouncing upon something outside their area of knowledge as {insert profession here} would when pronouncing outside {insert profession here}.Some of us like to know lots about lots of different things and a few actually manage to make contributions in many fields. Sadly, most people that get through a university degree (and we can argue about relative merits of degrees from various countries and institutions another day, I'm sure) have hit the wall of their intellect and spend the rest of their life in a zombielike manner. I like to hope that I'm in the former group. And yes, I have engineering degrees along with design degrees and decades of engineering, design and intelligence work, so I are an enjinere.
Posted by: 386sx | May 22, 2009 1:41 AM
Here he is on Carl Baugh's "Creation In The 21st Century" show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i3jtYx7NMk
According to him, he had a crisis when he realized the laws of physics didn't match his atheistic beliefs. (Sounds like a load of bunk to me. That, or he's not quite all there, if you know what I'm sayin.)
Posted by: natural cynic | May 22, 2009 1:43 AM
Emily:
Creation Neurosurgery already exists. See Michael Egnor M.D.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | May 22, 2009 2:04 AM
Site has been Slashd... I mean, Pharyngulated!
Posted by: Brain Hertz | May 22, 2009 2:06 AM
yes, it's the same guy:
http://flashgamesite.com/live2/s1tag_psarris.html
Nah, couldn't be...
Posted by: peter | May 22, 2009 2:18 AM
Ha!, a new form of "poll crashing"
"Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.
Posted by: Lance
|
May 22, 2009 2:28 AM
I finally get here and try to load the video only to see we've exceeded their bandwidth.
Posted by: MPG | May 22, 2009 3:27 AM
@granangle
What is it with YECs and performing small scale and highly inaccurate "experiments" in an attempt to reproduce the formation of something? Witness the boneheaded idiocy of some kid blasting mud puddles in his lawn with a garden hose in an attempt to disprove the formation of the Grand Canyon by gradual erosion from rivers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irw2tmUTRtU
Honestly, I can't tell if this kid is really a poe or not (that's Poe's Law for you...)
Posted by: Anthony Docimo | May 22, 2009 3:45 AM
I attended a few sessions of a friendly seminar comparing "Neo-Darwinism" and "ID"...and one bit of video evidence the IDers had, was an interview with one of the astronomers who's found several new solar systems - he said that he was looking in places that matched our solar system...and found them, so therefore...
yeah, I went "wha??" too.
Posted by: 386sx | May 22, 2009 4:19 AM
I attended a few sessions of a friendly seminar comparing "Neo-Darwinism" and "ID"...and one bit of video evidence the IDers had, was an interview with one of the astronomers who's found several new solar systems - he said that he was looking in places that matched our solar system...and found them, so therefore...
That's the thing about ID. It works both ways. If he found them, then that's evidence for common design ID. If he didn't find them, then that's evidence for unique design ID.
Explains everything.
Explains nothing.
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 22, 2009 5:09 AM
"Consider a spherical cow."
Posted by: PeterKarim | May 22, 2009 5:13 AM
Giving Engineers a bad name... Evolutionaty model this, evolutist that, evolution the other... WTF dose that have to do with Jupiter.
There is stuff we do not know about Jupiter. Therefore a creator did it. Therefore it is the god of the Christians. Fucking moron.
Posted by: J-Ball | May 22, 2009 5:23 AM
It blows my mind to see the lengths to which some people will go to try to validate their belief in superstition. In some ways it hints to me that deep deep down inside they really don't believe all the god crap. But since they feel it's their duty to believe it, they make shit up to try to convince themselves it's true. Cognitive dissonance that requires plotting on a log scale.
Religion is a mental illness. Mr. Psoriasis' case is severe, and he really should be on medication.
Posted by: J-Ball | May 22, 2009 5:25 AM
It blows my mind to see the lengths to which some people will go to try to validate their belief in superstition. In some ways it hints to me that deep deep down inside they really don't believe all the god crap. But since they feel it's their duty to believe it, they make shit up to try to convince themselves it's true. Cognitive dissonance that requires plotting on a log scale.
Religion is a mental illness. Mr. Psoriasis' case is severe, and he really should be on medication.
Posted by: Hamilton Jacobi | May 22, 2009 5:33 AM
That's a physicist, not a mathematician.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 22, 2009 5:33 AM
I don't think they can imagine what it's like to completely discard useless imaginary concepts. They have never lived free of faith. Sadly, even should they discard their empty religious beliefs, they will maintain a relationship with irrational concepts. They may become "spiritual", perhaps buying into homeopathy, refloxology, and other such stupid placebo related lackluster curative effects. - Helioprogenus
Or, of course, "libertarian" worship of the great god Market! (e.g. Michael Shermer, our very own Walton)
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 22, 2009 5:34 AM
In my view, the primary reason engineers are so prominent in this kind of movement is threefold.
First, engineering corporate and professional culture is notoriously conservative in many quarters.
Second, engineers work with design for a living and are surrounded by it all day long. When one isn't an introspective, broadminded, or curious sort, that easily leads to "when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Third, most significantly, engineers use demanding mathematics and do highly technical work and have to go to school for a bunch of years, etc., so the public often lumps them into the general "smart person" category alongside scientists (and doctors), even though it's perfectly possible to learn and practice engineering without ever employing the scientific method or a scientific way of looking at the world except in its most rudimentary and narrowly focused forms.
So, no, it's not engineering departments. It's that fewer engineers are innoculated againsts wackdoodlery than scientists per se, and creationists whose credentials (if any) happen to be in engineering are more likely to pull them out and stroke them vigorously in public view.
Posted by: maxamillion | May 22, 2009 5:42 AM
My thoughts exactly, but at least it can be a flag to warn the audience that what follows is total crap.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 22, 2009 5:43 AM
Thanks Azkyroth - most reassuring! I must admit I wasn't being that serious. I have wondered about the design aspect of this myself - quite an ego-boost if you can claim God as a member of your profession!
Posted by: Adam Jarvis | May 22, 2009 5:46 AM
Watch out guys! Our host used to be an atheist and an evolutionist! Flee for your lives.
@Azkyroth - What you say is true. While studying engineering myself, there also seems to be an overall lack of original thought. We're told of a situation, or common problem, then told how to solve it. By and large, there is no need to think for one's self.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 22, 2009 5:54 AM
If you doubt creation astronomy is possible it there are BROWN DWARFSPosted by: Matt Heath | May 22, 2009 5:59 AM
"how is it"!! ARGH
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 22, 2009 6:02 AM
So I've noticed. I was half-expecting the improvements on a 40+ year old technology my company's developed and applied for patents on to be rejected on grounds of obviousness.
Posted by: J-Ball | May 22, 2009 6:10 AM
Sorry about the double post. My browser gets hung waiting for a response from ping.chartbeat.net after hitting the Post button. Obviously the post gets through before chartbeat hangs things up.
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 22, 2009 6:12 AM
That explains it. ;)
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 22, 2009 6:40 AM
Yep. A mathematician would be "Physicists studying cows have proven some fact or other about spheres of uniform density moving in 3 dimensions. In this paper we extend these results to Hilbert space of possibly infinite dimension just because we can.Posted by: Azkyroth | May 22, 2009 6:48 AM
On the contary; according to Mencken's equation, the net contents of this thread are worth some 2 million times your input thus far.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 22, 2009 7:18 AM
Yes,same here.Been like that for weeks now,chartbeat.net is not up to the number of page requests.
Dont expect a fix anytime soon.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 22, 2009 7:44 AM
I could carefully explain the difference between an ad-hominem argument and mockery, but just pointing and laughing is more appropriate.Posted by: abys | May 22, 2009 7:58 AM
But it's turtles all the way down!
Posted by: abys | May 22, 2009 8:02 AM
Oh, and good job everyone, the website's down -- guess they only paid for enough bandwidth to let about 10,000 people a month to look at the site.
Posted by: Hamilton Jacobi | May 22, 2009 8:35 AM
If we put 105 spherical cows in a magneto-optical trap and cool them by evaporative cooling, would they form a Bose-Einstein condensate?
Posted by: Blondin | May 22, 2009 8:41 AM
@ #195
I thought it was economists.
Posted by: Harry Varty | May 22, 2009 8:52 AM
Anon@31
'First there was no planet, and then there was, and that's a change over time. So -- who did that? Who changed it? Atheist scientists can't answer that question, but creationists can.'
Atheist scientists have explained this - it is called agglomeration.
Engineer with a certificate.
Posted by: amphiox | May 22, 2009 8:58 AM
"Creation neurosurgery"
So then the almight loved us so much that he made glioblastoma as a special gift, just for us?
Posted by: Harry Varty | May 22, 2009 8:59 AM
Anon@31
'First there was no planet, and then there was, and that's a change over time. So -- who did that? Who changed it? Atheist scientists can't answer that question, but creationists can.'
Atheist scientists have explained this - it is called agglomeration.
Engineer with a certificate.
Posted by: Virginia | May 22, 2009 9:00 AM
It seems to me that I have been reading recently that the physical sciences are making increaing use of Darwin-like principles to explain things like the formation of stars and planets, so the "Evolutionary Model of the Universe" actually might not be that far off.
Whether or not it's "in crisis" is, of course, another matter.
Posted by: Hamilton Jacobi | May 22, 2009 9:04 AM
Economists don't care whether cows are spherical, only whether they are rational.
Posted by: Ric | May 22, 2009 9:06 AM
Site successfully crushed by the atheist hordes.
Posted by: Knockgoats | May 22, 2009 9:25 AM
I think the majority of comments on this thread would do a better job serving the skeptical community if they focused more on refuting the claims rather than throwing ad-hominem attacks around.
So many claims to refute, so little time! I'll get round to the ones you refer to once I've finished dealing with the more plausible claim that moonbeams can be extracted from cucumbers and used to power the national grid.
Posted by: blf
|
May 22, 2009 9:30 AM
This is a hugely important point, albeit I'd probably generalize it a bit to say “it's not engineering departments or the profession per se…”. Some individuals who call themselves engineers (some of whom are, I presume, accredited as such) do believe wacky things, and they do seem to be more prominent in spewing nonsense. However, certainly not all engineers believe in nonsense—and I'd like to believe it's only a rather small minority who do—but I admit I have no evidence on the subject.
Seriously claiming or implying that engineers or brain surgeons or whatever profession are mostly wackos because noticed individuals are is as absurd as claiming all Texans are wackos because the Texas BoE was elected by Texans and is chaired by an extreme wacko (except, maybe, he's not nuts if/when he actually does dentistry?). Whilst an individual being clewless outside her/his own area of knowledge may be evidence for something, it's not a priori evidence that most people in that profession—or their institutions—are also nutters outside their area of expertise.
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 22, 2009 10:07 AM
*shakes head* — I'm surprised to see KnockGoats jumping on this unworthy bandwagon.
First of all, “engineer” is no more specific a term than “scientist” and, worse, is used as a job title as much as it is to denote any level of qualification — it can cover a vast range of workplace activities from semi-skilled manual labour to university level research.
If you adopt a definition of “engineer” analogous to the one that's popular here for “scientist” (currently contributing researcher), I doubt there is empirical evidence that there's more “wackdoodlery” in engineering than in science. If you lower the bar to having, say, a 4-year degree in science or engineering, I again want to see the evidence that justifies maligning engineers. And you don't get to exclude science disciplines that you regard as being “not real science” lest you be guilty of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
Why is it that every time an engineer says something stupid, this “stupid engineers” prejudice rears its ugly head, but it's never “stupid scientists” when Behe, Wells, or Meyer (all of whom have science degrees, none of whom have engineering degrees) do?
Why is it that anecdotes — “many of the engineers I know are creationists” — are accepted when they're used to denigrate engineers, but not otherwise?
In this particular case, the guy has an electrical engineering degree from U.Mass. — I doubt if the level of “wackdoodlery” amongst his graduating class was higher than in the computer science or food science cohorts.
Posted by: Doug Henning | May 22, 2009 10:20 AM
Good work, PZ, on knocking out CreationAstronomy's bandwidth!
Posted by: James H | May 22, 2009 10:28 AM
My mind is exploding. Let's say for the sake of argument that I put an amazing telescope up in orbit and it sends me pictures of God in His glory crafting a planet a few galaxies over. That would mean God did that creating MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO and we're just seeing it NOW because the image travels at the speed of light ...
Posted by: Pete D | May 22, 2009 11:05 AM
Ummmm, if any of you engineering bashers can tell me the difference between science and engineering I would be interested to know. We are as beholden to the scientific method as any formally labelled scientist. Sure, there are cookie cutter solutions to many engineering problems...but the fundamentals of engineering are the same tools as those of chemistry, physics, and biology.
I have just as much scientific training as any chemist or physicist with a similar level of education. I also have a cradle to grave view of lab research to bench scale to pilot plant to commercial scale production. One of the hardest (and most demanding of creativity) things to do is take an elegant chemical pathway developed in a laboratory and scale it up as efficiently as possible so it is economically feasible and environmentally benign.
The failure is most likely not in this particular (or any) engineer's education, rather it is in his deluded psyche. No amount of education in any science can help that!
Posted by: Michael | May 22, 2009 2:06 PM
Two guys I work with are Creationists, one of them a YE version. Both are--you guessed it--electrical and metallurgical engineers!
It's interesting because I stood there incredulously as the one denounced the radiocarbon dating method (and pretty much the rest of them as well) as inherently flawed because it's all speculation. We work at a company that manufactures radioactive drugs. Cognitive dissonance goes "DERRR". It's like finding out Jenny McCarthy is going to head the virology department of Glaxo SmithKline.
Everything he spouted was out of the standard creationist fallacy playbook; geological uprisings and inconsistency in sedimentary layers, government/academic conspiracy to foment evolution because 'it gets published and makes money'. Oy.
Posted by: Dale Husband | May 22, 2009 2:18 PM
You should see this:
http://www.creationastronomy.com/
{{{Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.}}}
WHAT INCOMPETENCE!
Posted by: Michael | May 22, 2009 2:26 PM
Two guys I work with are Creationists, one of them a YE version. Both are--you guessed it--electrical and metallurgical engineers!
It's interesting because I stood there incredulously as the one denounced the radiocarbon dating method (and pretty much the rest of them as well) as inherently flawed because it's all speculation. We work at a company that manufactures radioactive drugs. Cognitive dissonance goes "DERRR". It's like finding out Jenny McCarthy is going to head the virology department of Glaxo SmithKline.
Everything he spouted was out of the standard creationist fallacy playbook; geological uprisings and inconsistency in sedimentary layers, government/academic conspiracy to foment evolution because 'it gets published and makes money'. Oy.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | May 22, 2009 2:54 PM
Oops. I'm not sure what exactly happened there. Disregard all 5000 posts please. Doesn't this make me seem like some kind of obsessive poster, but oh well, as the french say, "fuck, c'est la vie"
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
May 22, 2009 5:52 PM
Hamilton Jacobi #218
While rationality can be a factor, economists are really concerned with production, distribution and consumption of cows.
Posted by: astrounit | May 22, 2009 6:25 PM
"Recent discoveries have plunged the evolutionary model into a crisis. This site is dedicated to documenting this unfolding drama, and exposing the bankrupt evolutionist model for what it truly is."
HAH! Good luck!
I hope they have managed, at least, to convert to SI units and the use of exponents.
Or are they still struggling with cubits and, you know, counting from one to ten?
Posted by: Brain Hertz | May 22, 2009 7:54 PM
@Emmet #222
Couldn't agree more.
In the case of our friend Spike, it's probably also worth pointing out that we've now lowered the bar for what constitutes an "engineer" to "somebody who was an engineer at one time but apparently wasn't that good at it and now makes a living as a sales writer". Oh, and did postgraduate work as a physicist at one point. I don't expect to see physicists claiming him back any time soon though...
Posted by: Stuart R. | May 23, 2009 10:50 AM
I realize I'm a tad late to the party, but I wanted to say that I just wrote up a fairly extensive critique of this guy's Jupiter preview video at my Exposing PseudoAstronomy blog. I go through each of his four main claims from the video.
Posted by: gaypaganunitarianagnostic | May 23, 2009 1:01 PM
Planets having sex... Isn't Earth supposed to have had a brief affair with a Mars sized body, begetting the moon?
Posted by: Chris Ramsay | May 28, 2009 12:31 PM
Having watched all of the video, I can only come to one conclusion. You really need help.
Posted by: kabin | June 12, 2009 3:15 PM
Kabin
Posted by: oyun indir | June 12, 2009 3:22 PM
Konteyner
oyun indir
Posted by: web hosting | June 12, 2009 3:27 PM
web hosting