Does the Earth Rotate? Check Out What REAL Biblical Literalism Looks Like

YouTube Preview Image

This video has everything one would expect from pseudoscientific charlatans like Ken Ham and his ilk. Appeal to the Bible as the ultimate authority on all matters, emphasis that if the Bible is wrong about one thing then it could be wrong about others, scientific misinformation, denunciation of what scientists claim and demand people without proof, emphasis on “thinking for ourselves.”

But it adds a more consistent Biblical literalism rather than the dishonesty about the Bible’s teaching on the Earth’s fixity one encounters among typical young-earth creationists.

They share many of the same emphases and approaches, the only real difference being whether they will deny anything that science says that disagrees with the Bible, or only the stuff that it is popular among large numbers of conservative Evangelicals to deny.

HT Joel Watts

  • http://twitter.com/JTarb Jeremy Tarbush

    That’s 30 minutes I’m never getting back. :)

  • SStraub

    So here are many (not all) of your flaws:
    1) You tell people not to listen to people because they use big words, yet in the comments you say words such as pseudoscientific, is this not true?
    2) Did you know that the brain ignores things that are there constantly?  Have you ever noticed that when you go to bed, you start to not notice your sheets until you move again?
    3) Your merry-go-round excuse does not prove anything.  How much power do you think that the gravity of the merry-go-round has?  Did you even notice that the people still fell to the ground from the EARTH’s gravity, you know, the thing that is supposedly not spinning?
    4) So you’re saying that in a commercial jet, you feel the plane moving at like 200 or so miles per hour? This is not true.  The only time that you do feel the movement is when either your inertia, or air resistance tells you that it is moving.
    5) You are using quotations from the bible, which has second to no factual evidence.  So you’re saying that just because it is written in a book, it is true?  That is like saying that Harry Potter is a true story. Actually, Snape 13-24: Hogwarts is a real place.  Is this really a factual statement? No. No it’s not.

  • Porlock Junior

    The first thing that strikes me about this presentation is that it is so BO-O-O-O-RING! It takes some minutes before he gets around to saying something that’s even wrong.

    Hats off to Jeremy; I wouldn’t have the fortitude to lose half an hour to it.

    Simplicio is a veritable Carl Sagan by contrast to this guy. (He’s Galileo’s stooge in the book that got him in trouble, in case you haven’t read that one lately.) This is probably because the figure of Simplicio was based on a couple of genuine scholars. Which shows the advantage of having known some scholars before getting into a controversy.

    BTW, has this guy ever seen a string of bombs dropping from a plane? There’s a little physics experiment for you. Notice how the moment they leave the plane, they start fallling way behind? No? Then Satan has already got to you.

    • NBH

      Porlock Junior,Bombs falling behind is do to air resistance and drag, not planet rotation.What’s sad about this guy’s claim is one of the first experiments to demonstrate the rotation of the earth are very low tech:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulumThis isn’t something that needs billion dollar detectors.  It’s fairly easy for someone to see for himself.

  • Pingback: Jeremy Tarbush

  • Gary

    “Hi…My name is Rick Santorum, and I approve this message.”
    Take that, you liberal, commie, college professors.

  • Porlock Junior

    Sorry, I was being rather rude there, not marking the sarcasm clearly enough.

    Of course bombs fall slightly behind because of air resistance; but what’s really striking is the extent to which they do *not*. Look at some World War II pix of bombing runs — there were lots of them at that time, and you’ll see the bombs in a nice vertical column under the plane. Moving right along at the speed they were moving in the plane, subject to just a little slowing from air resistance.

    It was a mistake to make the unwarranted assumption that people have actually seen these pictures. The phenomenon impressed me when  I was 7 years old, which was not many years after the war ended, and bombs and things were very much in fashion.  And I noticed in some picture that they didn’t fall behind the bombers, and complained to my brother that these guys had drawn it wrong. He, in his wisdom of being 4 years older, informed me of the facts — actually, as you might say, of the theory — and I took his word, which was not a really stupid thing to do, as it turned out.

    So, assuming everyone else, growing up when high-level bomber raids were a really antiquated notion, would happen to recall the look of raids in the 1940s: not very clever. Lesson learned, I hope.

  • DRT

    I made it 8 minutes and that was painful.  Did you actually watch the 30 minutes?!?!?!

  • SStraub

    Yes…It was really hard

  • Anonymous

    I couldn’t help but think of this comic:

    http://www.jesusandmo.net/2012/02/15/costs/

    The interesting thing to me is not simply how obviously asinine this stuff seems to everyone else, it’s how much effort this guy obviously puts into convincing himself of such absurdities.

    He does not act like someone who wants to know the truth, he seems to want to defend his identity and immortality project

    Psychology clearly tells us this is what we all do, which is why I’ve put a lot of concious effort into making the search for verifiable truth an important part of my identity.  I’m sure I’m still largely wrong. ;-)

    We’re awesome at convincing ourselves that what we want to be true is.  Clear examples come from all sides, from the “new age”, to flood geology, to logical positivism.  The trick is finding ways of subverting our biases to give us a better chance of being right.  I’ve never seen a way of doing that which doesn’t entail lots of hostile peer review and an openness to critiques and new evidence.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X