A religious bigot's screed about evolution

[jaimehlers]

A controversy in the public school system lately has been if it should teach a creationist explanation of origins. Since this system despises God and his word, it is determined to teach  the foolish evolutionary lie. As someone who has studied the science of origins all my life, and published a science magazine for about 10 years. I feel I am somewhat qualified to say something about this.

Concerning the Earth’s age, in the 17th century Bishop James Ussher through years of extensive study and research, determined from Biblical chronologies that the Earth is around 6,000 years old. No one honestly studying these chronologies has been able to disprove this.

Evolutionary theory has been built on a thin web of lies and deceit from Ernst Haeckel’s evolutionary fabrications to the Nebraska Man “missing link.” Speaking of missing links, where are the billions of transitional fossils that must exist if evolution is true?

Evolutionists use circular reasoning to date things. Their dating tools such as carbon dating, have repeatedly been proven to be inaccurate, even sometimes dating living creatures as millions of years old. Evolution’s basic errors are that it ignores the second law of thermodynamics, which proves that the universe is becoming less instead of more orderly. It also ignores the fact that something never comes from nothing.

A word to theistic evolutionists who try to reconcile evolution and the Bible, stop compromising. In the original languages, the word “day” in Genesis 1 means a literal 24-hour day, not a billions-of-years day. This is further proved in that Genesis 1 says these days had a morning and an evening. Also consider this, if there were millions of years of evolutionary ancestors and death before Adam, then the account of the fall in Genesis 3 is false and Adam’s federal headship taught in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 is a lie. Also, Christ would be part monkey.

Evidences of God’s wise design are everywhere, from the atom to our own bodies. Romans 1:20 says, “we are without excuse if we don’t acknowledge him as the creator.”

As you can see, he repeats many of the tiresome errors creationists are wont to make in their efforts to prove their beliefs literally true and beyond question.

The reason I call him a bigot is that he has written numerous letters to the editor denouncing homosexuality, making various unsubstantiated claims about it based on his religious beliefs.

My response follows:

At least he's not still harping on about homosexuals.

However, his 'evidence' is rather flawed.  Usher's chronologies depend on taking the lifespans given in the Bible as being literally true, and furthermore assumes that the Earth was created in a mere seven days.  Even leaving the chronologies aside, there was not one single solitary person around to observe the creation of the Earth.  And with all due respect to Ashwood's beliefs, if there were no people around to observe, then you can't assume that descriptions of events that happened then were accurate.

I'm not surprised to see him repeating the tiresome claim about missing transitional fossils.  Doesn't he know that most organisms are eaten and decomposed?  We don't get fossils unless the microorganisms that would otherwise scavenge bones and other remains for nutrients are blocked from doing so, such as by being submerged in tar pits, or buried under layers and layers of sediment.  Furthermore, every organism that has ever existed is 'transitional'.

**** states that 'evolutionists' use circular reasoning to date things.  First off, he never shows how circular reasoning applies.  Second, he is conflating carbon dating and other forms of radioisotope dating.  There is no way that carbon dating could ever date any organism, living or otherwise, as millions of years old, for the simple fact that carbon-14 has a half-life of just over 5,700 years.  That means the maximum possible age that could be given via carbon dating is approximately 11,500 years.

I'm also not surprised that he tries to use the second law of thermodynamics in his screed.  What he fails to realize is that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system - namely, the entire universe.  No other system can truly be described as closed.  For example, the Earth is an open system which receives a constant influx of energy from the sun.  Because of that, there is no inherent barrier to a local increase in order, since the energy the sun emits into empty space far outweighs the amount that is trapped by the Earth's atmosphere.

Lastly, his inane quip at the end is an appeal to prejudice.  Furthermore, it is simply wrong.  Humans are not descended from monkeys, or indeed any other existing primates.  Instead, all primates ultimately diverged from a common ancestor.

My only question for **** is why he is cherry-picking from some sciences to support his beliefs, while using those same beliefs to disparage other sciences that challenge his neat preconceptions.

[Nick]

Nice reply.  You make the points clear and reasoned.  The only problem I see is that you used too many big words (over 2 syllables).  Most theists will not be able to follow your logic that way.

[Garja]

Well done Jamie.

Even when I believed in God I was embarrassed by creationists, particularly ones that somehow think that it should be taught in a science classroom.  I guess maybe in his many years of study it never occurred to him that "godidit" is not scientific in anyway.

[LoriPinkAngel]

Nice reply.  You make the points clear and reasoned.  The only problem I see is that you used too many big words (over 2 syllables).  Most theists will not be able to follow your logic that way.

I is not unnerstand. (Scratching my ass)

[writerstephen]

I wonder what sort of "science magazine" this cretin published for 10 years?

[jaimehlers]

I'm somewhat tempted to just start linking the letters.  However, the newspaper in question uses a Facebook commenting add-in, and I'm a little leery about revealing my real name.

[Willie]

I think you may be mistaken about the range for carbon dating. After two half lives, 1/4 (1/2 of 1/2) of the C14 would remain, and after three half lives, 1/8 would remain, which should still be measurable. If I remember right, I believe C14 dating is usable out to about 60K years, but with a large margin of error when you get out that far. You're still right about it not being able to date something as millions of years old, though.

[jaimehlers]

I could be, since I went off of memory.  However, I was within one order of magnitude; he was off by at least two.

[3sigma]

Evolutionary theory has been built on a thin web of lies and deceit from Ernst Haeckel’s evolutionary fabrications to the Nebraska Man “missing link.” Speaking of missing links, where are the billions of transitional fossils that must exist if evolution is true?

Evolutionists use circular reasoning to date things. Their dating tools such as carbon dating, have repeatedly been proven to be inaccurate, even sometimes dating living creatures as millions of years old. Evolution’s basic errors are that it ignores the second law of thermodynamics, which proves that the universe is becoming less instead of more orderly.

These creationists amuse me. Here is someone obviously ignorant and incompetent when it comes to science, yet he is arrogant enough to think that his unvalidated religious belief is right and hundreds of thousands of professional, university-trained scientists around the world are all wrong.

When creationists make claims like this—and when religious believers make claims in general—it reminds me of something Hume once said:

”If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.”

Creationists ask us to believe that all those trained scientists in the fields of biology, geology and palæontology who have been gathering evidence and performing experiments refining the theory of evolution for the past 150 years are either completely incompetent or part of some giant conspiracy of lies. They ask us to believe that all the evidence supporting evolution is false and the millions of scientific papers written on the subject are lies. The alternative is that it is the uneducated and untrained creationists who are ignorant and incompetent. Which is the more likely explanation?

[Quesi]

Creationists ask us to believe that all those trained scientists in the fields of biology, geology and palæontology who have been gathering evidence and performing experiments refining the theory of evolution for the past 150 years are either completely incompetent or part of some giant conspiracy of lies. They ask us to believe that all the evidence supporting evolution is false and the millions of scientific papers written on the subject are lies. The alternative is that it is the uneducated and untrained creationists who are ignorant and incompetent. Which is the more likely explanation?

Oh, there are a variety of possibilities.  Possibly, all of these people who have dedicated millions (billions?) of hours of research to their specific fields could all be mistaken.

Or, maybe there is really a big, secret conspiracy that crosses national borders, cultural backgrounds, language barriers and academic fields, in which all of these scientists are all lying in order to.... ummmm... not being part of the conspiracy myself, I'm not quite sure why they are doing it.  Maybe to make people hate god...

OR, maybe they are all being influenced by DEMONS!  Did you ever think of that?  It could be demons who are either micromanaging the conspiracy, or creating the scientific evidence as part of their legendary trickery. 

[One Above All]

It's not their fault. They believe in demonstrably false things. They know they believe in demonstrably false things. Lies are the only thing they can use to defend their beliefs, because the truth says otherwise.

[jaimehlers]

I posted a correction on the c-14 dating thing.

The irony here is that if this person responds to me, he'll probably assume that my correcting myself means I could be wrong elsewhere, when in fact it means I'm honest enough to point out mistakes when I become aware of them.  And from past experience, I can justifiably say that this person will never entertain the slightest possibility that his interpretation on anything could be incorrect.

There's a further irony here, but a more general one.  I didn't really believe any of the people here originally when they said that creationists and people who take things like the Bible literally did so because they thought their interpretation was God's.  But the person who wrote this letter changed my mind about that by actually repeating that very argument - that his interpretation was correct because otherwise God would tell him that it was wrong.   People like him don't realize it, but they're their own worst enemies when it comes to convincing people of anything, unless the person already believes them.

[Garja]

I wonder what sort of "science magazine" this cretin published for 10 years?

I have a guess



Lots of pictures.

[Cyberia]

A published response:

Creationist Wisdom #266: Jesus a Monkey?
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/creationist-wisdom-266-jesus-a-monkey/

Also, I can find NO record of any "Joshua Ashwood" publishing any "magazine" or anything else.  This would mean that EVERYTHING he wrote in the OP is totally false, since it's the only thing he said which had the possibility of being correct.

[jaimehlers]

They mistakenly called him Atwood in the article.

Also, oddly enough, it looks like you get a different set of comments if you look at the letter through the Opinion section, as opposed to the Letters section.

[jdawg70]

It's not their fault. They believe in demonstrably false things. They know they believe in demonstrably false things. Lies are the only thing they can use to defend their beliefs, because the truth says otherwise.

I think in some cases it boils down to the idea that the level of conviction of a belief has an actual bearing on the veracity of that belief.  They would never claim that what they know is demonstrably false - the strength of conviction of the belief shows that it's true.  Works pretty well with use of the Force, so it may as well work for determining reality, right?

[screwtape]

I wonder what sort of "science magazine" this cretin published for 10 years?

the sensuous curmudgeon also wonders:
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/creationist-wisdom-266-jesus-a-monkey/

I've searched and cannot find any publications from Ashwood.

[ParkingPlaces]

That creationist keep bringing up known and admitted errors like the Nebraska man shows that they are desperate when it comes to evidence. They'll use anything, even stuff both sides knows is false.

[Add Homonym]

   People like him don't realize it, but they're their own worst enemies when it comes to convincing people of anything, unless the person already believes them.

Well, you should leave him alone, to do damage to goats and small pastries.

[jaimehlers]

http://muskogeephoenix.com/opinion/x371803388/THE-PEOPLE-SPEAK-Evolution-proves-ungodly-folly

*snicker*  *snort*  He seriously tried to use "The Princess and the Frog" as an analogy to disprove evolution.  Only succeeded in showing the absurd lengths he's willing to go to in pursuit of his crusade.

[Graybeard]

From the link:

Once upon a time a princess kissed a frog and it turned into a handsome prince. True story, according to the majority of scientists. Only instead of a magic kiss, they believe in a mysterious billions of years that turned ocean snot into man. Science? Hardly. Ungodly folly? You bet.

And yet here is a man who believes that some sky-pixie magicked men out of mud... At least we know there are frogs, princes and princesses.

[Nam]

I only believe in the frogs and prince/princesses that can sing and dance. The rest are just myth.

-Nam

[Garja]

I only believe in the frogs and prince/princesses that can sing and dance. The rest are just myth.

-Nam

Good to see you back on the forum Nam (missed some of those smart-ass comments).  Where ya been?