Yes, the title is as ludicrous as this article will be. Really, this is the silliest article I've written so far.
Yes, the title is as ludicrous as this article will be. Really, this is the silliest article I've written so far. I just read an article from the genius Ken Ham, written in 1999. Let me state the best parts of his article (which is pretty much all of it) for both my and possibly your amusement:
"According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs "ruled the Earth" for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are."
I guess paleontology is a hoax profession.
"The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists' story about the past."
Good argument. It's just the evolutionists' opinion; it's not at all based on evidence.
"No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age."
Another good argument, because the creationist DID see how God was scattering the bones onto the Earth around 6000 years ago and there's plenty of evidence for that as well.
"Other scientists, called creation scientists, have a different idea about when dinosaurs lived. They believe they can solve any of the supposed dinosaur mysteries and show how the evidence fits wonderfully with their ideas about the past, beliefs that come from the Bible."
Creation scientists! I like the fact that Johannes Kepler and Galilei Galilei practiced science at the end of the 16th century and they seem to have had a much more proper understanding of both reality and science than these "creation scientists".
"The Bible, God's very special book (or collection of books, really), claims that each writer was supernaturally inspired to write exactly what the Creator of all things wanted him to write down for us so that we can know where we (and dinosaurs) came from, why we are here, and what our future will be."
That's solid then.
"Genesis tells us that God created everything—the Earth, stars, sun, moon, plants, animals, and the first two people."
No, Genesis tells us that God created:
Day 0 — Heaven and Earth
Day 1 — light (I always turn on the light after I take a piss; never before), a division of light and darkness (which is a good thing, otherwise light and darkness would blend into one substance), evening and morning,
Day 2 — water, Heaven (even though Heaven and Earth were created "in the beginning" which I designated as day 0),
Day 3 — dry land (imagine that; first creating water and THEN the absence of it), seas, plants,
Day 4 — night and day (even though evening and morning already occurred on day 1), seasons (which wouldn't happen with only the concept of day and night, at which point time would've been introduced), days (I like how days are created on the 4th day), years, two lights (is it getting silly just now?); one greater for the day and one lesser for the night,
Day 5 — sea creatures, every living thing which moves, flying creatures (not a living thing which moves),
Day 6 — beasts of the earth (again, this is different from every living thing which moves introduced on day 5), man, mankind's dominion over the world,
Day 7 — God ends his work and rests, though no mention of these finishing touches
There's no mention of stars. Remember God created two lights; a lesser light (moon) and a greater light (Sun). I think God should've created billions and billions of "greater lights" to account for the universe. I also wonder whether God followed the same process for the other planets. If so, I wonder how the phrase "And he saw it was good" pertains to all those inhabitable planets, or planets which became inhabitable.
"As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years."
And God created the dinosaurs in his own image (Tsintaosaurus spinorhinus in particular).
"Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs evolved over millions of years. They imagine that one kind of animal slowly changed over long periods of time to become a different kind of animal. For instance, they believe that amphibians changed into reptiles (including dinosaurs) by this gradual process. This would mean, of course, that there would have been millions of creatures during that time that would be "in between," as amphibians evolved into reptiles. Evidence of these "transitional forms," as they are called, should be abundant. However, many fossil experts admit that not one unquestionable transitional form between any group of creatures and another has been found anywhere. If dinosaurs evolved from amphibians, there should be, for example, fossil evidence of animals that are part dinosaur and part something else."
What about Amniotes (among them Archosaurs) and Synapsids (among them Pelycosaurs and Therapsids which are the ancestors of mammals)? Fossil records indicate that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs and some species survived the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event and brought the dinosaur lineage to the present day.
"However, there is no proof of this anywhere. In fact, if you go into any museum you will see fossils of dinosaurs that are 100% dinosaur, not something in between. There are no 25%, 50%, 75%, or even 99% dinosaurs—they are all 100% dinosaur!"
Dinosaurs are a diverse group of animals of the clade Dinosauria; it's not a species, genus, family, order etc. This means that each species within this clade is 100% dinosaur; that doesn't imply that there's no evolution between generations of species.
"Evolutionists declare that no man ever lived alongside dinosaurs. The Bible, however, makes it plain that dinosaurs and people must have lived together. Actually, as we will soon see, there is a lot of evidence for this."
That's an interpretation. The Bible does not make it plain.
"The Bible teaches (in Genesis 1:29–30) that the original animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was no death"
If everything living was vegetarian in the original creation and modern carnivours are biologically engineered to process meat, doesn't that imply that evolution exists? This is explained away by Adam's sin, which changed the world into what it is now.
"After Adam's sin, animals and people started to die. It was now a different world, one of death and strife. A world that was once beautiful now suffered under the curse placed upon it by the Creator (Genesis 3:14–19)."
A world suddenly full of motivation and a sense of purpose. It sounds atrocious.
"Some people think that dinosaurs were too big, or there were too many of them, to go on this Ark. However, there were not very many different kinds of dinosaurs. There are certainly hundreds of dinosaur names, but many of these were given to just a bit of bone or skeletons of the same dinosaur found in other countries."
Obviously! Let's assume evolution does not exist, which means no new species could have evolved. This implies that the current 1.4 million described species (and there are more) also existed during Genesis as well as the dinosaurs (no in-between species of course!). So even if only one species of dinosaur ever existed, you would have to fit 2.800.002 animal species plus Noah and his family on that Ark. There's no way that's not going to fit.
"It is also reasonable to assume that different sizes, varieties, and sexes of the same kind of dinosaur have ended up with different names. For example, look at the many different varieties and sizes of dogs, but they are all the same kind—the dog kind! In reality, there may have been fewer than 50 kinds of dinosaurs."
That's very far from reasonable to assume, but let's go with it.
"God sent two of every (seven of some) land animal into the Ark (Genesis 7:2–3; 7:8–9)—there were no exceptions. Therefore, dinosaurs must have been on the Ark. Even though there was ample room in the huge ship for large animals, perhaps God sent young adults into the Ark that still had plenty of room for them to grow."
Obviously a baby Argentinosaurus will fit on the Ark. Its size aside, an adult Argentinosaurus would weigh around 100 tons so that gives some suggestion on how much a young one would weigh.
"Interestingly, the word "dragon" is used a number of times in the Old Testament. In most instances, the word dinosaur could substitute for dragon and it would fit very nicely."
That's interesting indeed. Let's go with Revelation 13.2:
"And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority"
So, a dinosaur gave the leopard/bear/lion hybrid a seat and great authority.
"Unfortunately, this evidence is not considered valid by evolutionists. Why? Only because their belief is that man and dinosaurs did not live at the same time!"
Yes, that's the only reason! It's ludicrous indeed.
"However, the more we research the historical literature, the more we realize there is overwhelming evidence that dragons were real beasts, much like our modern reconstructions of dinosaurs, and that their existence has been recorded by many different people, even just hundreds of years ago."
I guess it's a contemporary phenomenon. People used to see dragons and now they see UFOs. It's consistent with the mysteries of the universe which can be explained without a need for dragons and UFOs.
"Evolutionists use their imagination in a big way in answering this question. Because of their belief that dinosaurs "ruled" the world for millions of years, and then disappeared millions of years before man allegedly evolved, they have had to come up with all sorts of guesses to explain this "mysterious" disappearance."
The mind of an evolutionist sure can run wild!
"When reading evolutionist literature, you will be astonished at the range of ideas concerning their supposed extinction. The following is just a small list of theories:
Dinosaurs starved to death; they died from overeating; they were poisoned; they became blind from cataracts and could not reproduce; mammals ate their eggs. Other causes include volcanic dust, poisonous gases, comets, sunspots, meteorites, mass suicide, constipation, parasites, shrinking brain (and greater stupidity), slipped discs, changes in the composition of air, etc."
I'm astonished indeed. Those crazy evolutionists! Do you remember the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event where dinosaurs started overeating and got cataract? Those sunspots were also a big issue (damn you cooler regions on the Sun!) and then there were these suicidal dinosaurs as well.
"If you remove the evolutionary framework, get rid of the millions of years, and then take the Bible seriously, you will find an explanation that fits the facts and makes perfect sense"
Which implies the Bible ONLY makes sense if you "get rid of" the millions of years and the evolutionary framework.
"At the time of the Flood, many of the sea creatures died, but some survived."
I guess the sea creatures drowned by the flood.
"In addition, all of the land creatures outside the Ark died, but the representatives of all the kinds that survived on the Ark lived in the new world after the Flood. Those land animals (including dinosaurs) found the new world to be much different than the one before the Flood. Due to (1) competition for food that was no longer in abundance, (2) other catastrophes, (3) man killing for food (and perhaps for fun), and (4) the destruction of habitats, etc."
So there were few enough species to fit on the Ark, but so many that there was a competition about food. Also, competition of food = natural selection = evolution. Other catastrophes is very vague but I guess it couldn't possible have been a meteor. I also like how all dinosaurs at the K-T boundary died at roughly the same time because man killed for food and fun (and remember, man = Noah and his family at this point).
"Creationists, of course, would not be surprised if someone found a living dinosaur. However, evolutionists would then have to explain why they made dogmatic statements that man and dinosaur never lived at the same time."
Rather than let the evolutionist explain his dogmatic statement WHEN a living dinosaur is found, why not let the creationist explain his dogmatic statement NOW, after so much evidence for evolution and the death of dinosaurs?
"We need to recognize that the wickedness in the world is because of sin, because man rebelled against God."
According to the Bible Eve was too curious for her own good. I don't see any rebellion. The only character who rebelled was Lucifer when he defied God by refusing to bow for Adam; the very reason he went from the highest angel to serve God to the devil who reigns in hell.
"We can also be reminded that God, who made all things, including the dinosaurs, is also a judge of His creation. He judged Adam's rebellion by cursing the world with death."</i>
God created a flawed Adam and Eve and proclaiming that "He saw it was good", after which it wasn't good and his own product had to be punished.
"The Bible teaches us that He will again judge the world, but next time by fire"
I see a pattern of increasing violence. First the punishment of a limited lifetime of around 900 years with the introduction of motivation and a sense of purpose, then punishment with water, and later fire. What's the next step? I would love to skip the fire apocalypse and go straight to the gamma ray burst apocalypse.
"But we are also warned that many will not be allowed into this new Earth but will suffer for eternity"
God balances everything out; living 80 years and suffering for eternity.
"The Lord Jesus Christ died on a cross, but on the third day, rose again, conquering death"
Thus not really having suffered the death penalty for sin.
You have demonstrated to me that your mind is an impressive thing, yet you chose to focus it, even for a short while, on such a silly topic as arguing against someone so dim-witted that they would have ever said these things?
A great fighter does not show his prowess by battling the crippled.
As for your last statement, you would have a point if this was a direct response to someone. I will admit that I definitely don't debate only with people of my own intellect but I will say the person who wrote the article never saw my response and in fact my criticism was purely for my own amusement. I do waste a lot of time discussing irrelevant matters.
It's especially fun on YouTube, where those desperate blockheads are fighting with atheists who again, as it seems, are for the most part considerably more intelligent, but admittedly not less arrogant, hypocritic and pretentious than ,God’s children.’ I enjoy watching them throw logical fallacies at each other.
Nice article, you bettered my mood.
Last week I found an animation artist on YouTube who posts little animation films about the stupidity of atheism and the righteousness of Christianity; he pretends the cartoons are in line with creationism and exposes its stupidity by giving attention to every silly thing they claim. I watched only three of them but I particularly liked this one.
There is no doubt that it's meant satirical, but I don't think it's clever (and I am not suggesting you do) it's just the depiction of an observation that most intelligent people will eventually make when observing advocators of different concepts, even more when they are directly opposed to each other.
Forgive me for distracting from the actual topic so bluntly, but I have a few questions and figured I might as well ask you now. I am currently experimenting with typography and type face creation. I've created a small icon font for practice using Inkscape and FontForge (Linux), and I wondered – even though I have the slight feeling I asked you about that already somewehre else – what program you are using for editing and creating fonts. I believe you said you were using Fontlab? I had a look at most of the typography related deviations you submitted within the last few months and they inspired me to collect some experience in type face creation myself.
By the way, since you have already gathered a lot of information and experience regarding typography, I suppose you will have read Robert Bringhursts fantastic work „The Elements of Typographic Style?“ What do you think about that book and its author?
I honestly haven't read a lot of books on typography. I only have Thinking With Type, The Stroke, Fraktur Mon Amour and some more generic books about type history. So I'm afraid I don't have an opinion on the content of the book; all I can say it's the one type book I really want to have in my pitiful little collection of books about type.
It burns so good.
Some years ago I wrote an E-mail of 4 pages long to this religious fanatic criticizing everything he stated on his websites and in his book. It was a huge waste of time to write, but I just needed to write it. I was also very interested in what the guy would respond, but he never responded. For people's entertainment I posted my letter on MySpace at the time, and although a lot of people enjoyed it, some people responded like you. I do understand your position and frankly there's no point in defending myself because you're right; it's a huge waste of time. I waste a lot of time in my days and nights.
If you feel the need to write and share who am I to judge you. I feel that everything is a waste of time and simply useless, but on the other hand stuff like that triggers me, like wasting time on people who don't deserve it nor won't appreciate it.
Then there was a "change of thought." Really it was a PR move. The Catholic Church (and pardon me for not being able to recall the year this transpired off the top of my head) decided that God really wasn't mean. Nope! In fact, now he was your buddy, your pal. God was here to give you a wonderful life, and give you wonderful children, and everything would be hunky-dory. Yeah sure you might get a horrible disease and die alone in suffering but you'd deserve it, but hey don't dwell on that! Come to church! Toss money in our collection plates! Be a friend!
While I do not subscribe to the notions of religion, I do recognize that some people need to believe in the idea that an invisible being pulls the strings of fate. I don't know what specifically gives them this need, but emotionally these people are unable to consider that life is a string of random events and that reality is far more spectacular and amazing than anything written in any religious text.
Which is more inspiring: the fact that we are all made up of the same materials as stars—that we were born from stars, OR the notion that an invisible space alien watches your life and controls it?
But I digress. I hate getting on a religious tangent.
What I ultimately just want to pass along is this: science is not infallible, but science is undeniable. One cannot decide which areas of science to accept and which to reject. Science does not work that way. Science is a leap—you either accept that science exists or you live in denial. Denial of science means that you stop using electricity, you stop driving cars, you stop going to the doctor when you're sick, you stop taking headache medicine, you stop using tools, you stop using computers, you stop flying on planes, so on and so forth. You get the picture. Denying that dinosaurs existed, that evolution is proven fact, that climate change is real—these ultimately are denials of science in favor of the imaginary, the intangible, the unprovable. It's just damn silly.
This article I wrote is really silly, but I did research Christian theology and Jewish mysticism for years and I always thought it was interesting how God changed throughout the books of the Bible, though he never seemed the superior deity I would expect from a theistic God. Always with the petty human emotions and urges like jealousy, doubt, vengeance and arrogance (and funnily enough Lucifer who was the highest angel of the celestial order was sent to reign hell as punishment for his arrogance and for defying Adam and God).
> I don't know what specifically gives them this need, but emotionally these people are unable to consider that life is a string of random events and that
> reality is far more spectacular and amazing than anything written in any religious text.
I personally don't believe reality is completely based on randomness and coincidence, although we certainly see some of that. However reality is indeed far more amazing and bizarre than written in any of the religious texts. I appreciate religion for its richness and for exploring some philosophical and metaphysical questions. What truly annoys me though is blind faith. I love Carl Sagan's quote "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." In that sense I think knowing there's no God is almost as strange as knowing there is a God, however I guess it all comes down to what you consider God. I believe in a God which is the universe itself. It's no deity but rather a force which we try to explain with the four fundamental forces. There is no higher understanding about those forces or how they tie together into a theory of everything, but it seems silly to then speculate about how a being intelligently designed it all. It's actually an incredibly lazy conclusion as it implies the search for greater physical meanings can stop there.
I know many religious people to be intelligent, so what it is exactly which makes them cling to a concept which doesn't explain anything science could verify or even need. On the other hand, I think strongly about concepts such as a multiverse, universal wavefunction collapse and some aspects of solipsism even though some of these concepts can't be proven to be right or wrong with observational data, and of other concepts I just don't understand the mathematical implications. I guess the only confidence and comfort I find in the fact that these concepts still reside in the realm of science (admittedly except for solipsism), albeit theoretical physics. So I guess it's that easy to believe in something you have no direct evidence for but to the thinker's mind remains a possibility. There's a great difference in keep the possibilities open and stating those possibilities as fact though.
> What I ultimately just want to pass along is this: science is not infallible, but science is undeniable
I really hope that's not what I implied with this article. I think it's a bit silly to see it as religion v. science as it implies one of them is right or better. Science isn't right or wrong like religion is. It's a process in which possibilities are considered and backed up with observational or experimental data and some possibilities are eliminated during the process. It slowly moves to a greater understanding and increasingly pure theories, but it doesn't state that this is right and there is nothing else. That's why we still call it theories: theory of evolution, theory of special relativity, theory of general relativity... The mistake religious people make is that they state it's just a theory. Yes, it's a theory in that regard that we don't know if it's complete, but a theory in science is something very different from a theory in the common sense of the word; it's still backed up with observational and experimental data.
I think it's a funny (and nonsensical) thought that if God created the heavens and the Earths and the speed of light is finite, then we should be able to see God actively create the most distant galaxies (and perhaps catch his breath sometimes when he's done with another supermassive black hole) as we would be looking back in time. The presence of God would even be inferred by the cosmic microwave background radiation. Of course, God would be all there is and not just a deity embedded in our universe.