Creationist funnies
Sep. 15th, 2005 12:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lederhosenHarvested from this post, some shining examples of poorly-researched arguments for creationism. Most of the idiocy here comes from one Timothy Birdnow, writing in the rather inaptly-named 'American Thinker':
According to Einstein`s theory, the original DNA (and RNA) Molecules should not have formed and survived since there are being constantly buffetted by energized atoms. The establishment of life required energy, and that energy meant that the nascent DNA was exposed to more energetic particles which should, logically, have prevented the formation of such a large and complex molecule.
One of the standard tacks of creationist argument is, of course, "Life is too complex to have evolved without divine intervention". But when your argument 'proves' that DNA shouldn't exist *now*, something is badly wrong :-)
Many defenders of evolution try to argue that entropy only applies to a closed system, and that the Earth is not a closed system. This is facetious; entropy increases when systems are mixed, and the first life forms could not have survived except under very particular conditions. They had to have a closed system, or at least a very sheltered system, initially to survive!
In my more misanthropic moments, I find myself wishing certain scientific/mathematical concepts were subject to a licensing system. That way, when people start making entropy-based arguments without the faintest idea of what a 'closed system' is in thermodynamic terminology, the rest of us could legitimately stick them *in* an entropically closed system and leave them to find out the drawbacks for themselves.
Where are the giant mammaried mosquitos? Where are the snakes which deliver live young? I haven`t seen too many feathered fish around lately!
*wham wham wham*
Evolutionary theory suggests that the surviving dinosaurs should have scattered in all directions genetically after their extinction.
Evolutionary theory suggests that the gene pool is in need of chlorination right about here.
Suppose a fish evolves lungs. What happens then? Does it move up to the next evolutionary stage? Of course not. It drowns.
And what on earth would we *call* such an impossible creature? I have absolutely no idea.
According to Einstein`s theory, the original DNA (and RNA) Molecules should not have formed and survived since there are being constantly buffetted by energized atoms. The establishment of life required energy, and that energy meant that the nascent DNA was exposed to more energetic particles which should, logically, have prevented the formation of such a large and complex molecule.
One of the standard tacks of creationist argument is, of course, "Life is too complex to have evolved without divine intervention". But when your argument 'proves' that DNA shouldn't exist *now*, something is badly wrong :-)
Many defenders of evolution try to argue that entropy only applies to a closed system, and that the Earth is not a closed system. This is facetious; entropy increases when systems are mixed, and the first life forms could not have survived except under very particular conditions. They had to have a closed system, or at least a very sheltered system, initially to survive!
In my more misanthropic moments, I find myself wishing certain scientific/mathematical concepts were subject to a licensing system. That way, when people start making entropy-based arguments without the faintest idea of what a 'closed system' is in thermodynamic terminology, the rest of us could legitimately stick them *in* an entropically closed system and leave them to find out the drawbacks for themselves.
Where are the giant mammaried mosquitos? Where are the snakes which deliver live young? I haven`t seen too many feathered fish around lately!
*wham wham wham*
Evolutionary theory suggests that the surviving dinosaurs should have scattered in all directions genetically after their extinction.
Evolutionary theory suggests that the gene pool is in need of chlorination right about here.
Suppose a fish evolves lungs. What happens then? Does it move up to the next evolutionary stage? Of course not. It drowns.
And what on earth would we *call* such an impossible creature? I have absolutely no idea.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-15 03:23 pm (UTC)*goes to happy dreamy Silmaril land* Ah, if only...
no subject
Date: 2005-09-15 03:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-15 03:59 pm (UTC)Check out this article, more "debunking" debunking:
http://buffalobeast.com/82/EvolutionRock.htm
no subject
Date: 2005-09-16 12:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-16 02:31 am (UTC)Is it any other way?