Creation Museum Refuted by the Ground Below It

This video by Greg Courtney takes a different approach to refuting the unscientific Creation Museum: Using the ground it stands on.

(Thanks to Ashley for the link!)


[tags]atheist, atheism, Creation Museum, Greg Courtney[/tags]

  • http://starseyer.blogspot.com Mikel

    Very cool video! I live less than 2 hours from Cincinnati (at least judging from the time it took me to get to the rally). I have see a lot of those very same types of fossils near here. Just dig around any creek bed and you are sure to find something.

  • http://www.kellanstec.com Kellan

    Man, I wish I lived in an area that was rich in fossils such as these.

    Ironic that the creation “museum” was built in such an area.

  • Miko

    Fish. Barrel.

  • Maria

    Wow, all that stuff about the fossils was really cool and really interesting. that’s an area of study that has always fascinated me. it’s a hilarious and savage bit of irony that the creation museum ended up there. I bet they’ll say that “satan” put the fossils there. it’s almost as if it happened on purpose to be one hell of an ironic joke…….

  • Miko

    it’s a hilarious and savage bit of irony that the creation museum ended up there.

    The concentration may be higher, but there would be some interesting geological features no matter where you looked.

    I bet they’ll say that “satan” put the fossils there.

    Nah, they’ll say that they were arranged by a flood and that anyone who thinks otherwise is just demonstrating their preconceived bias of wanting to discredit the Bible.

  • Chris Corbett

    The problem is that this video is a series of unproven assertions backed up by some flashes of “transitional” fossils which in fact do not show transitions, but the same gaps that the narrator ADMITS plague the terrestial fossil record.

    Take a CLOSE look at the video again. Do you see a series of minute, step-by-step, body part-by-body part, transitions leading from one kind of creature to the next? No. A clam has a shell, and a snail has a shell, but you don’t see the step by step tranistions in the narrator’s arrangement that shows how the clam-like creature’s shell became a little bit mutated, then a little bit more, then a little bit more, then a little bit more . . . through countless transtions . . . and then ended up a something completely different. The transitions just aren’t there, and the narrator’s confident assertion that they are they doesn’t make it so.

    AND, without that, evolution has a big problem. It remains a theory that, with all the billions of sea fossils in extistence (the bounty of which this video admirably shows), MUST demonstrate these minute steps if it is to be proven. But this very necessary evidence, which should be there, isn’t. Instead there are gaps.

    In fact, leading paleantologists agree that the gaps are there, both terrestial and aquatic. Gould, Colin Paterson, etc. Very well known quotes. These paleantologists remain evolutionists, but not because of the fossil evidence. They do so because of faith, because perhaps the most viable competing model is one they find spiritually and morally unacceptable.

    So, it’s fine if you don’t believe creationism because you don’t like the Bible or its implications for you personally. But please be man or woman enough to admit it — it’s not science, but faith (that there is no God) that’s driving your theory. As for me, I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist or an evolutionist. Those darn gaps — and plenty of other problems — turned me from a theistic evolutionist to a creationist long ago.

  • LilJase

    Science and religion will always have many holes in them… the saddest thing is when one side claims to have a final once and for all answer and stops exploring… More often than not, it happens to be the religious that stop exploring.

    Oh, and im a christian, so im not anti religion, I just love looking deeper than whats on the surface sometimes. Plus, i like many have a ton of unanswered questions, and i’m willing to go looking in other places besides the bible. (i do look there too so dont freak out).
    I mean there is always the crazy theory that maybe the 6 days of creation werent literal days. Maybe 6 periods of time.

    Maybe things did evolve to some extent, although i think the monkey thing is pushing it for me.

    Maybe God created things to form over time, and to adapt to their surroundings.

    At the end of the day, people athiest or christian should be open minded. But at the same time its ok to believe what you do. I for one hate being told what to think so why would i tell others.

    :-)

  • Chris Corbett

    Another thing I noticed watching this a second time was his straw man argument that creationists think all these tiny shell-fish washed in from thousands of miles away uniformly. That’s actually a caricature and over-simplification of the position of most creationists, especially those dealing with hydrology. Maybe if he bothered to study his opponent’s arguments he would not misrepresent them.

    And yet another problem: not only did his show and tell display have the same gap problem that he admits the land animal fossils do, but the brachiopods he shows basically look exactly like those we have today. They haven’t seem to have mutated and evolved in all these supposed countless millions of years. Maybe that’s because there are natural limits to biological change, as the fossil record shows. Animals may become extinct, but “new” animals aren’t show to appear, and certainly not with a detailed transitional record showing that they evolved.

    Oh yes, the third thing I noticed: he claims that his small fossil field of shell fish is evidence that there is no jumbling of animals, therefore no evidence of a catastrophic flood that buried them. Poor reasoning and selective evidence. Actually, any such flood would have localized areas where this may not have occured (of course, the video showed us about 100 square feet of territory!). But more importantly, the geological column GENERALLY does show such a mixture over most of the earth. The geological column generally does NOT show what evolutionists would predict: lower forms of animals on the bottom, and higher on the top. Over much of the earth, there is a lot of mixing and jumbling.

    I continue to assert that his video is flawed because, despite his many words, it shows gaps where evolution says there should be none, and for the other reasons given above. And I continue to believe in creation because I don’t have enough faith to believe the evolutionary and atheistic religion-driven speculations.

  • http://www.bolingbrookbabbler.com William
  • Miko

    The geological column generally does NOT show what evolutionists would predict: lower forms of animals on the bottom, and higher on the top.

    And the reason we would predict this, of course, is because lower forms of life like bacteria went extinct magically the second that humans came into existence.

  • http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~ludtke/prof/index.htm cautious

    Chris Corbett, No.

    That’s all the reply you deserve, really. You’ve embraced pseudoscience, but as long as you don’t ever teach any kids or politicians that rubbish, I don’t really care what you think about the age of the Earth or evolution. It saddens me that your brain isn’t working right, but I think it’s a much more productive route to try to prevent kids from ever becoming ignorant than to try to fight ignorance once it has set in.

    (I’m thinking of making this my rote response to this kind of dreck. What do you all think?)

  • Miko

    (I’m thinking of making this my rote response to this kind of dreck. What do you all think?)

    I suppose it’s neither more nor less effective than spending several pages going through a detailed point-by-point analysis of why each claim made is fallacious, based on invalid evidence, or just plain wrong. So I’ll whole-heartedly support it, because it’s faster.

    The sad part is that there are a few people out there who really do care and would be willing to listen. And distinguishing them from the drive-by posters who are copying-and-pasting material from BadCreationistArguments.com is not always easy to do. Perhaps we should just link them to TalkOrigins.org, since it’s already covered all of the ground they’re asking about.

  • http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~ludtke/prof/index.htm cautious

    miko, Precisely! From my (probably way too much) time as a teenager spent frequenting evolution message boards on AOL, I learned then that some people are willing to change their mind based on new data/evidence, and some aren’t. Usually, if someone has a problem with something in evolution, it’s not just that they misunderstand it, it’s that they willingly misunderstand it.

    Ignorance can be vanquished with education, but once someone thinks that ignorance = strength, then they’re not worth trying to educate.

  • Darryl

    The sad part is that there are a few people out there who really do care and would be willing to listen. And distinguishing them from the drive-by posters who are copying-and-pasting material from BadCreationistArguments.com is not always easy to do. Perhaps we should just link them to TalkOrigins.org, since it’s already covered all of the ground they’re asking about.

    This is one of the rare times that I will have to disagree with you, Miko. The economy of cautious’s one word answer is a good idea. The “few” who are really searching won’t need our help.

  • Richard Wade

    (Iâ??m thinking of making this my rote response to this kind of dreck. What do you all think?)

    Oh, I donâ??t know, Cautious. Whether Chris deserves a response depends on many things, including what else you have to do on a Sunday afternoon. I would avoid a rote, brusque or dismissive response because as Miko points out, the value of your response isnâ??t for him, itâ??s for the many other people who may lurking here, people who are not as entrenched as he is, who are still questioning and seeking intelligent answers. If you want to prevent young people from catching Chrisâ??s kind of active ignorance, you may have an audience of prospects right here.

    But your response must have more than accurate information and sound logic; it must also have good demeanor. If you are dismissive or disrespectful in your tone to the principal person youâ??re responding to, the others will be turned off and turned away, and itâ??s really the others whom you could reach.

    Chris,
    You make a big deal about gaps. You used the word six times in your two comments. Some people who stress this are said to worship the â??god of the gaps,â? where their god is hiding in the gaps in scientific evidence. The problem with this strategy is that each year the gaps get smaller. Eventually the gaps will be too small and too few for reasonable people to accept that your god is hiding in them.

    Studying the fossil record is like putting together an enormous jigsaw puzzle without the luxury of the picture on the box top. There are billions of pieces and many pieces are lost forever, so it is a challenging task. However with any jigsaw puzzle with an unknown picture, there comes a moment in the assembly process when it becomes unreasonable to insist that we cannot tell what the picture is portraying. Whether itâ??s a seascape, a farm scene or a bouquet of flowers, there is a moment when the missing gaps are no longer sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on the overall subject. . For the fossil jigsaw puzzle that moment was reached 148 years ago. To say that one cannot know anything about the picture until 100% of the pieces are in place is absurd.

    The video was not intended to be a definitive proof of evolution for all people for all time. The message was about the irony of the Creation Museum being built on fossil deposits that are very valuable in the study of evolution. You complained about a straw man argument; for you to refute the video as if it was a complete dissertation on evolution is a straw man of your own.

    As Miko has suggested the rest of your arguments and questions, if they are indeed honestly asked, would better be taken to people and resources better than my poor skills, such as TalkOrigins.org or evolution.berkeley.edu

  • Richard Wade

    Darryl, when you said,

    This is one of the rare times that I will have to disagree with you, Miko. The economy of cautious’s one word answer is a good idea. The “few” who are really searching won’t need our help.

    then it will be one of the rare times that I will have to disagree with you. We have no idea how many people read this stuff, or how it influences their thinking. It seems a bit irresponsible to shrug them off and be flip in our responses simply out of fatigue and frustration. Yes it gets tiresome to talk to someone who may not really be listening, but as I said that’s not the one to whom I’m really talking. We can get more efficient in our responses but we should avoid becoming terse or dismissive.

    I’ll end up saying it a thousand times here: One’s demeanor is just as important as one’s argument. If you “win” an argument but through rudeness turn another person away from rational thinking, then what have you won?

  • Darryl

    We have no idea how many people read this stuff, or how it influences their thinking. It seems a bit irresponsible to shrug them off and be flip in our responses simply out of fatigue and frustration. Yes it gets tiresome to talk to someone who may not really be listening, but as I said that’s not the one to whom I’m really talking. We can get more efficient in our responses but we should avoid becoming terse or dismissive.

    I’ll end up saying it a thousand times here: One’s demeanor is just as important as one’s argument. If you “win” an argument but through rudeness turn another person away from rational thinking, then what have you won?

    Richard, I don’t attempt to win arguments with the far-out few that occasionally come here. I think it’s a pointless exercise. In saying that I am not being dismissive of their humanity, just prudently measuring my efforts. I think I understand your view, but have I not also correctly understood from your own finger tips that you did not participate, as I did, in the fundamentalist experience? I am not surprised that you take a more optimistic view of such matters.

    Now, I realize that young fundamentalists nowadays must be in certain respects different than I was in my younger days, but I can recognize rabid fundamentalism when I read it; and this kind of infectious disease rarely is reasoned away, no matter how sweet and kind the reasoner.

    If a true-believer harbors doubts, then ultimately, if he/she is lucky, those doubts will work their way to the surface where they can confront the person, and maybe he/she will take the big step into freedom. But, that’s a process that happens mysteriously, mostly by one’s own efforts, that cannot be hurried, and that is, most importantly, relatively rare, in my experience. A likely pattern for the fundamentalist is to work through stages of belief, reforming aspects of their faith, rather than proceeding straight from fundamentalism to atheism.

    However, I could be mistaken by drawing conclusions from my personal life experience with such a transition, and my personal and extensive experience with varieties of fundamentalists.

  • Darryl

    About rain dances and rain prayers, Richard, you said this (among other things):

    Only MORONS give any credence to unconfirmed stories. They’re the modern version of fairy tales. Get me some Peptol Bismol.

    Perhaps if I had your wit, Richard, I could get away with ridiculing Christians as morons without it seeming that I was being “a bit irresponsible [by] shrug[ging] them off and [by being] flip in [my] responses.” I wish we all could plunge the knife in while so subtly avoiding dismissiveness and rudeness.

  • Richard Wade

    Darryl,

    I wish we all could plunge the knife in while so subtly avoiding dismissiveness and rudeness.

    You caught me. Yes, sometimes I slip and lose my temper. Sometimes when I do it can get really ugly, so that’s why I try hard not to. Well all I can do is for the umpteenth time resume my better behavior. Okay, now to the stuff I was writing while you posted that:

    I understand and generally agree with your not wanting to waste your breath in reasoning against dedicated ignorance. I hold little hope for people like some here who spout canned arguments that they cut and paste without really thinking about them. Instead, I’m hopeful for someone like yourself as you were several years ago, who may be reading these conversations. Someone whose words we never read, who is eavesdropping and reluctant to speak because they’re near a tipping point.

    You’re right that I didn’t go through the difficult personal struggle that you and so many others here have done, so perhaps I am unrealistically optimistic about it. I think your own experience with that transition is of great value for insight. Some of it must be idiosyncratic to you, but much of it may be similar to the process that many others go through. (In fact that would make an interesting subject for several people to discuss; the common experiences and processes that people went through to get from where you were to where you are now.)

    I’ve walked with many people through a difficult metamorphosis of a different kind, recovery from addiction. Much of it involved letting go of old ideas and beliefs and embracing new ones. One thing I witnessed was the power of the overheard remark. As a counselor I could be very persuasive but when I was talking directly to my patients they were naturally on their guard, knowing that I was, even if gently, assaulting their old beliefs. Often a basic principle of recovery that I was trying to convince them of would just bounce off. However when later they overheard two others discussing a similar idea it slipped into their minds and they began to accept it. I think it was because the remarks they overheard weren’t addressed directly toward them so they weren’t on their guard and were more open-minded. These experiences can be so subtle that I think often people don’t remember them as being as significant as they are.

    You said that much of the process that a doubting believer goes through is only within himself, but it still must involve reading and overhearing the words of others. Think back to how you were long ago, when the old beliefs were just beginning to form cracks and chips; when you were near a subtle tipping point. An argument by an articulate and patient scholar respectfully addressed directly to you against your beliefs might still have backfired and set you back for many years, because it inoculated your guardedness. But overhearing the same remarks as a lurker or eavesdropper might have quietly infiltrated and started the snowball rolling.

    So that is why I try to get myself past my discouragement and respond patiently and respectfully to people here who are apparently entrenched. It’s because these are not private conversations, they’re very public and many more people are listening than are speaking. It’s to those whom I will never meet that I’m really speaking.

  • http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~ludtke/prof/index.htm cautious

    Richard, awesome and completely valid points. I like the message that you’re saying: responses to rude people are not meant for the rude people, they’re meant for others who might harbor the same beliefs but are not as ready to speak them.

    But your response must have more than accurate information and sound logic; it must also have good demeanor.

    This is tough to do all the time (as anyone quote mining any of us would find out) but it is good advice.

  • Miko

    This is one of the rare times that I will have to disagree with you, Miko. The economy of cautious’s one word answer is a good idea.

    Bluntness is a good technique, at times. For one thing, it’s good for shaking a certain type of people out of irrational thought. I know I intentionally give a fairly rude response now and then when I think the situation calls for it (e.g., when religionists suggest that I should be meek to help dispel their atheist stereotypes). To borrow a chess term, it’s a good technique for gaining a tempo.

    But it’s also good for immunizing people against doubt. Then they go on to say, “yeah, I gave that evolutionist a list of objections and (s)he just responded ‘No.’ Talk about being dogmatic. If only they could open their minds to evidence like we Creationists have.” There’s a fair argument that we ought to use the evidence, seeing as 100% of it supports our side (even if it won’t make a difference in nine cases out of ten).

    On the other hand:

    Yes it gets tiresome to talk to someone who may not really be listening, but as I said that’s not the one to whom I’m really talking. We can get more efficient in our responses but we should avoid becoming terse or dismissive.

    I’ve gotten to the point in life where I really can’t direct my responses towards hypothetical listeners anymore. For the copy-and-paste sorts, we’re constantly investing effort into refuting the same claims over and over while they’re investing almost no effort to keep repeating them. What we really need is a pre-written form letter response, so that we can respond to copy-and-paste on its own level.

    (And while we’re on the subject, I can’t resist bringing up this, even if everyone has already seen it: http://www.400monkeys.com/God/ )

  • Darryl

    Richard, you are insightful. You make a lot of sense.

  • Pingback: Science Lesson Under Creationist Foundation « daydreamer


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X