Feeds:

Archive for the ‘creationism’ Category

Watch this amazing piece of creationist propaganda:

Source.

If you watch this clip all the way through, one gets the impression that these Pacifc golden plovers summer only in Alaska and winter only in Hawaii.

How on earth could they have evolved the ability to find those two distinct yet quite disparate places on earth?

What they don’t tell you is that Pacific golden plovers are much more widespread.

They winter in both Alaska and Northeast Asia, and they migrate south, not just to Hawaii but all over the South Asia, Australasia, and the South Pacific. Very few actually migrate to Hawaii.  Some go to California.

Unlike Canada geese and mallard ducks, they don’t have parents that show them where to migrate.

However, it’s very likely that all Pacific golden plovers have an instinct to fly north and south when the hours of sunlight become shorter or longer. In the tropics, the sunlight period is about the same every day, but it does vary a bit, especially when the birds migrate a greater distance from the equator.

And we know that birds are very sensitive to how many hours of daylight they experience. It is the length of day that makes most of the nonmigratory songbirds here that makes them start singing.  It’s not unusual to hear cardinals singing in the middle of snowstorms, should the snowstorms come in late February or early March.

The near 24 hour sunlight in Alaska and Northeast Asia makes that region very productive as an ecosystem during the summer months, but if a bird tried to remain there during the winter, it would likely freeze or starve to death.

So there are many, many birds that summer in Alaska and fly south for the winter. It’s likely that this migratory behavior would be highly selected for in populations of these birds.

These birds also have evolved a tendency to fly a great distance so they can live in the tropics during the winter.  Wintering in the tropics might give some of these birds a bit more of an advantage when they fly back to their breeding grounds in the winter, and there would be a selection pressure on the population for birds that could fly south a very long way from the breeding grounds.

And what’s more, it turns out that juvenile birds don’t have the same migration routes as the adults.

That means the instinct is for these bird to fly south a great distance.

That’s all it is.

It can be explained very nicely through evolution.

But if you accept the premise that these birds only summer in Alaska and winter in Hawaii, then that would be hard for evolutionary processes to explain.

But because they left that part out– either out of dishonesty or simple ignorance– it appears they have a good case that evolution can’t explain.

When all the facts are understood, they have absolutely no case.

So once again creationism fails.

It requires either ignorance or dishonesty for this claim to work out– as do all creationist claims.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Proof that T. rex was a vegetarian

Ah. Here we go!

Ian Juby offers up this intellectual equivalent of a steaming pile of dog turds.

Source.

So.

Let me get this straight:

T- rex was a vegetarian because the Bible said so.

And we can ignore all the evidence from T. rex morphology that says it was carnivorous for no other reason than fruit bats have pointed teeth?

Well, how do you explain why T. rex had such thick bones and such powerful jaws?

Was the vegetation back then that much more likely to fight back ?

Fruit bats don’t have very powerful jaws at all. They might have pointed teeth, but these can be explained by understanding that fruit bats evolved from insectivorous microbats, which needed pointed teeth to catch insects. The pointed teeth that fruit bats possess is the result of an historical legacy of their lineage. It is not an adaptation for eating fruit.

I’m surprised that ol’ Juby didn’t bring up hippopotamuses, which do have large pointed teeth that they use to fight with each other and defend themselves against predators. I’m also surprised he didn’t try to bring up the various primitive deer that possess tusks.

But all of those animals have flat, grinding teeth in the back, which would sort of hurt Juby’s little theory a bit.

Juby cannot explain why T. rex had such powerful jaws.

Ignore the teeth.

No herbivorous animal living today has a need for such extremely powerful jaws.

I doubt that the fruit and vegetable matter of T. rex’s day required such great strength to bite into.

However, if we accept that T. rex preyed up other large dinosaurs– and we have evidence of this–then the powerful jaws make perfect sense.

So this fruit bat analogy is one of the worst cases of intellectual dishonestly I’ve yet seen a creationist try to pull.

Surely Mr. Juby, a Mensa member, can find the evidence that T. rex was a predator.

And I am sure he already knows about this evidence, but he’s making career out of telling obvious lies to children and the gullible that he cannot accept the truth.

I feel sorry for the kids who are learning this crap.

Kids love dinosaurs. When I was kid, dinosaurs were an obsession for several years– until they started changing the scientific names on me.

I didn’t know that paleontology was forever revising the classification of these species.

So I drifted away from them.

However, dinosaurs can be a great way to introduce children to science and rationalism.

And the creationists know they are a great way to get children indoctrinated into their nonsense.

What was the name of Kent Hovind’s “museum”?

Dinosaur Adventure Land.

Scary, eh?

People like Ian Juby are robbing these children of a chance to understand the truth about the history of life on this planet.

It’s a terrible thing that he’s doing here, for dinosaurs can plant within the imagination of a child the beginnings of a scientific way of thinking.

One of these kids could be the person who discovers the cure for cancer or Alzheimer’s,  or maybe one of them will be the person who comes up with cold fusion or some other breakthrough in the energy sector.

Creationism is about forcing children to believe what is demonstrably false.

It is the beginning of the dulling of inquiring, creative minds.

These are the minds that will carry our species on into the future.

Dulling them with such stupidity does our species and our planet a great disservice.

It’s a truly shameful act.

I don’t care how smart Mr. Juby is.

What he is doing is one of the worst things I’ve seen supposedly educated people do.

No IQ score can change that reality.

And no IQ score can disprove the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Facts don’t care how smart you are.

If your IQ is 200 and you spout creationism, you’re still wrong.

Your IQ doesn’t give you license to change what’s true.

Read Full Post »

Creationist stupidity on Dilbert

I knew I hated this cartoon for a reason!

Dogbert is dumber than any dog I’ve met!

Read Full Post »

Kent Hovind disclaimer

Read Full Post »

Almost half of all Americans are creationists

The Young Turks break it down:

Source.

Read Full Post »

Unbelievable creationist stupidity

Source.

I’ve never heard of Dr. Carl Werner before.

But he makes a claim that I haven’t heard before:

In the clip, he claims that evolution says all organisms change over time, but he has found fossil evidence that certain marine organisms from the fossil record are the same or very similar to ones living today.

That disproves evolution!

Um. No.

The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms will change dramatically over the millions of years of their existence. All evolution posits is that change will happen over time.

That’s all.

It doesn’t say that because it is impossible for things like sharks and clams to have remained very similar over the millions of years.

For example, we have lots of sharks in the ocean right now– and some are pretty strange– but we don’t haven any sharks living in the ocean today (as far as we know) that look like this species that lived 225-280 million years ago.

Werner wants us all to believe that just because certain organisms haven’t changed much that this somehow destroys evolution.

It does not.

All that he has done is present a kind of childish strawman argument, which he easily tears down using evidence that everyone agrees is correct.

We would expect to find certain marine organisms in the same layers that include dinosaur fossils. That’s because many of these organisms evolved long before there were any dinosaurs.

That they haven’t changed much since then is not evidence that evolution doesn’t happen.

It’s that some forms work really well, and there are no selection pressures for dramatic change.

Now, Werner would have an argument if we found fossils of organisms that are in layers that have been dated to a very different time to which we would expect to find them.

J.B.S Haldane, one of the founders of the modern science of population genetics, was once asked what discovery would make him doubt the fact of evolution.

“Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian,” was his answer.

He made this statement after being challenged by Sir Karl Popper to show that the hypotheses behind the theory of evolution would be falsifiable.

Haldane said the existence of rabbits from that time period would falsify evolution. Precambrian life forms were very basic– and not very common. Any fossils of that would be found in rocks dating to that period in earth’s history would be among the first organisms in existence.

If we discovered rabbit fossils in those layers, that would be major affront to the theory of evolution, for it would show that really advanced and complex organisms were around really early in earth’s geologic history.

And no one has found a rabbit from those layers.

I don’t know what sort of science Dr. Werner claims to be using here, but using strawmen to the basics of evolution isn’t a very good way to test the theory’s hypotheses.

It’s actually what we call intellectual dishonesty, and all it does is make him look like a total fool.

Evolution does not say that all organisms change dramatically over time.

Evolution merely posits that change happens.

 

 

Read Full Post »

A problem creationists have

Of course, a dachshund is more closely related to a coyote than a human is to a chimpanzee.

A better analogy would be to replace the coyote with an African wild dog.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow