You find…anyone? Yes, dung! You remember that site I brought to your attention a few days back? I went in for another look, I was well prepared with ample means to retain my sanity. I fashioned myself a bullshit deflector. Basically it works the same way as that wonderful invention many people wear to keep the government from reading their minds. Yes a tinfoil hat! Believe it or not it helps keep you sane when you visit internet crazyland. You see the insane protons that try to invade your mind are reflected by the foil! Bet you didn’t know that did ya?
So, with my new tinfoil hat I went in. I found a seemingly innocuous post:
After some reading on the initial facts which were fairly interesting but not all that far out. In fact the real facts in the story weren’t all that special really in my opinion, I got the feeling the author just needed a couple of facts to to precede his desire to spout creationist canards later. Sure enough, we are then treated to to some real live creationist…what’s the word I’m looking for? Misconceptions will do. Here is the quote in its entirety:
“The adaptation of animals to their environments is striking. Creationists allow for a fair amount of variability within created kinds, believing that genetic adaptations are built in to the genetic and epigenetic mechanisms of each kind. Today’s mammals probably do not resemble the original created kinds, or even those before the Flood. The sorting out of traits between species adapted to specialized environments does not represent an increase in genetic information required by the evolutionary theory. It’s actually a loss of information as each species retains only the genes and gene networks needed for its habitat. The variations among dog and cat kinds are good examples. Both evolutionists and creationists believe they descended from common ancestors of their own kinds (e.g., domestic dogs, dingoes and coyotes from an original wolf-like animal), but creationists deny that the huge increase in genetic innovation required to turn a mouse into a cat is possible or supported by evidence. Many variations went extinct in the severely-altered habitat after the Flood. Nevertheless, each species is a marvel of engineering design and warrants praise to its Creator and protection.” (end quote)
The first sentence is off to a good start. Yes indeed the way animals adapt to environments is very impressive. But in sentence two we go completely off the rails with the “kinds” business. Most of the guys and gals I know who follow my little blog, I am sure already know that “kinds” is the standard creationist way of lumping creatures together by shared traits (that is outward appearances and nothing to do with real biology). We also know that no real scientist or science inclined individual will find the “kinds” classifications in any way compelling.
Then it goes from “kinds” to the friggin flud. No scientist worth his weight in pillow feathers believes the flud tale. No honest geologist with a degree on the wall will tell you there is any evidence whatsoever of any worldwide flood disaster either, and no archeologist will tell you that fossils were sorted by the flud. It is all creationist hoo haw from top to bottom and all bullshit in between.
Then we get into the ID canard of “no new information.” At this point I would call this piling on. We already have an incredible heap of dung, and why stop now? Let’s keep digging!
Where were we? Oh yes, no new information. If a bacteria evolves a mutation that makes it more resistant to antibiotics, is that not beneficial for the bacteria? I think they must have missed the memo. Or perhaps it was “misplaced” somehwere?
Then our author goes on to say that both creationists and scientists (oh I’m sorry he/she used the term evolutionist, as if fact based reality is a religion) believe that cats and dogs are descendents from common ancestors. Oh really? Since when? When creationists realised they were curmudgeonly old sticks in the mud? When they understood that they have no legs to stand on and need to start imitating scientists and pretending that they know all the answers to keep up with the times? Because more and more, every day that goes by their mythology is being left in the dust of modern investigation? One thing I know for sure, when I was a kid growing up no creationist anywhere would admit ANY kind of evolution was or had been going on and all creatures as well as man were created as told in the fairy tale of Genesis. Now after a few decades of being trampled by all fields of science they have decided to adopt the parts of evolution they feel like they can deal with and deny the rest.
Much like their own damn book of fables, the bible. Must be nice to be able to bumble through life just believing what you want to believe and ignoring everything that you may find offensive. It sure as hell is not an option for those interested in living in a world they actually understand. Wishful thinking, delusional fantasies with no observational support, assertions with no evidence, this is the world of creationism. I prefer (yep I’m gonna do it) Evidence Based Reality.
It always baffles me that creationists are willing to acknowledge the individual components of evolution, but then fail or refuse to put it all together. If you’re admitting that organisms change in response to their environment and you’re even willing to admit that the creatures now are probably different than the creations before the flud (lol, by the way), then what you’re basically saying is that you believe in evolution.
They’ve started down the rabbit hole. There really is no turning back at this point. Embracing those two points alone is a defeat. They’ll always try to find new ways to inject the bible into said points, but the damage to their side is already done.
Not only that but if you account for their own time scale since the flud, (I saw that spelling elsewhere on the net and can’t take credit for it)… you know the 6000 year thing, then they are admitting that evolution not only occurs, but happened at an alarming rate to see the diversity we see today. Then there is the whole “how did the koala migrate to Australia, and survive along the way with no eucalyptus leaves to eat?” thing.
…but no sense in trying to convince those who simply “know”… that their own conclusions shoot down their premises. They just wiggle and squiggle around, denying the facts, and believing what they want to anyway.
And yes, they do tend to beat their square bible into every round hole they come across.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also find it hilarious that “kinds” are distinguished by phenotype, when in reality it’s the genotype that matters. Two organisms can look strikingly similiar, but if they don’t share enough DNA they can’t reproduce. That’s the dividing line between species, not their physical appearance.
Yep, whales, dolphins, and sharks must be “fish.”
Bats must be “birds.”
Some humans must be batty…
LikeLiked by 1 person