All creationism

Usually, I write these blog entries to serve as reference points I can link to when discussing with people on Twitter.

Instead of having to type two-hundred tweets on my mobile phone, I can search the link and give MyOpinion™ to whomever.

I've linked a number of people to this tweet by PoliticoCryzis because it's brilliant.





But let me add a little extra to this goodness.

Please note how these creation stories are contradictory, and what's worse, they are utterly unverifiable. Scientifically speaking, they're nonsense.

All major fields of science disprove these creation stories.

If I were ever to give a 'creation science' class, it would be:
[God diddit]

Which god diddit, we don't know.
How this unknown god diddit, we don't know.
From which materials god diddit, we don't know.

Update Fact-check:
Kukulkan
Odin
Yahweh
Prometheus
Ra-Atum
Viracocha
Bumba
Ungambikula
Nu-Wa
Coyote
Kamuy
Obàtálá

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Formal logic

Genesis 1:1 * describes the following logic Informally Premise P1: God exists. Premise P2: If P1 then "the universe is as old as the earth**". Conclusion C1: The universe is as old as the earth. Formally P1 → C1, P1        C1 This form of logic is called Modus Ponens. The truth of C1 doesn't imply the truth of P1 because there may be other explanations for C1. Lets look at the following classical example Premise P3: It rains Premise P4: If P3 then "the streets are wet". Conclusion C2: The streets are wet There are other possible explanations for wet streets: A cleaning crew just passed, there were games with water, the dikes were broken, etc ... However, we can say that, if the streets are not wet then it doesn't rain. Formally P3 → C2, ¬C2        ¬P3 This form of logic is called Modus Tollens and is the inverse of Modus Ponens. To return to Genesis 1:1. C1 is false and Modus Tollens app...
Read more

Scientism

Image
" Scientism " means misusing the word " science ". You can misuse it either by calling something that can't be measured "scientific", or by claiming that something without sufficient supporting evidence is "scientific". It is a word that's thrown around by people who hardly know what it means and who certainly don't know what the word "science" means or what the scientific method is. "Scientism" is also a word used in philosophy to denote an excess of confidence in science, and has legitimate uses. However, the people who accuse others of "scientism" are not at all interested in philosophy. They are solely interested in delegitimizing the scientific method. They are anti-science . Period. Why are they against science? Is it because they are not scientifically literate? Do they have economic motivations? What worries me is the number of people that are anti-science. There's a war on science g...
Read more

What do we really know about Jesus?

I'm asking because I'm getting different opinions from different people. Feel free to comment. According to Josephus, Jesus was the brother of James . His book, "Antiquities of the Jews", was published around 94CE. The only problem with this piece of information is that the oldest preserved text is from the eleventh century [1] . This is the only piece of information about the "historical" Jesus. Absent from Josephus is his birth, his death and all events from his life. Absent from Josephus is the massacre of the infants. Absent from Josephus is the cleansing of the Temple. Absent form Josephus is an earthquake when Jesus died, and the opening of tombs in Jerusalem. The New Testament describes all kinds of events that would have been noted by independent writers, if they had happened. Both the Romans and the Jews knew how to write, yet there are no written documents of the events portrayed in the bible. You'd think there would have been l...
Read more