KnightWhoSaysNi
04-09-2008, 03:05 PM
Here's one of the toughest multiple choice questions you'll ever get here in the Evolution forum. It's a stumper of a question.
Try to guess which of the following articles is NOT a parody of creationism!
Article A:
I'll stipulate that someone dies every two minutes from a microbial infection although most of them are savages choosing to live in squalid conditions and so are pretty much getting what they asked for. But let's be clear, there is no biblical conflict, and there has never been a conflict, with micro-evolution. And we're getting burn near tired of reminding you of that.
Those people are dying from micro-evolutionary processes and you science types should be taking a stand to help them. It is only Christian that you do so.
Besides, that's why you get paid the big money.
We've simply got a big problem with you doing crazy experiments trying to prove your fantasy, like preserving wildlife areas where you swear evolution is supposed to flourish but nothing looks any different in them today than they did a hundred years ago, or trying to create new species by mating chimps with humans.
Article B:
Starlight: wait just a dad-gum minute!
Something occurred to me to day that makes me believe that the whole starlight "problem" is....shall we say, bunk. Long-agers like to hammer Christians with the issue of how in the world light from stars situated millions of light years away could make it to the earth in 10,000 years or less.
I'm sorry to have to do this but I'm going to just have to break down and bring out a bit of logic and common sense for everyone to chew on. So, let's all clear our minds, hold hands, and think through this real slowly for just a moment.
The speed of light has a documented speed....a speed that can be measured. For example, if I were to stand where I live in Ft Worth Texas and shine a flashlight to a friend of mine standing on the sun, the light would take a short amount of time to arrive at the sun, right? I don't know how long this period of time would be (I think it's a few seconds) but that's not what's important. What's important is that light can be measured and travels at a specific speed....or so some say.
Let's continue. Sound is the same way. If I were to stand in Ft Worth Texas and fire off a shotgun, it would take a while for that sound to reach Houston...(assuming this was a very loud shotgun). Probably many seconds. So once again, sound -- just like light -- can be measured and travels at a specific speed.
Still with me? Great.....hang tight, here's where it gets good.
Now let's play like one of my kids is standing 10 feet in front of me doing jumping jacks. Would you agree that I see her in real time?...that there is no delayed reaction in my seeing her? Great. Now picture her standing a thousand feet away from me doing jumping jacks. I can still see her in real time, right?....even though I'm near-sighted, and she might be a bit blurry, there is no actual delay. So in other words there is no measurable difference in vision -- there is no difference between watching my daughter do jumping jacks 10 feet away and watching her do jumping jacks 1000 feet away. Still with me?
Now let's move her to New York. I'm still in Ft. Worth. Now she's on top of the Empire State building doing jumping jacks. Granted, because of the great distance and the curvature of the earth I could not normally see her jumping. However, if I happened to have Superman eyes and I could somehow see around the curvature of the earth, I would STLL see her jumping in real time. RIGHT?? Right. There is no delay. Put another way: delay = 0 when it comes to sight.
So if delay is equal to zero when it comes to site then it doesn't matter if my daughter is jumping 10 feet away or 90 trillion feet away. 90 trillion times zero is STILL zero.
So let's now say my daughter is wearing a heat-resistant suit and is now jumping on the sun. If my vision was good enough and if I wore my shades I could see her jumping in real time, right? Right. As you can see, distance isn't the problem, vision is the problem....perception is the problem.
Now let's move to stars that are situated billions of light years away. And let's say that I was blessed with freak vision, and my eyes randomly mutated into telescopes similar to the Hubble. If my daughter was jumping on a far-distant star, would I not still see her jumping in REAL TIME???????? Of course! Distance isn't the issue: the ability to see the object IS the issue.
So ultimately measuring the speed of light and claiming that it must have taken billions of years to travel to the earth is bunk!
The reason we can see far-distant stars is not because the light traveled to us, but because the star is so dang big and bright we can see it with our own eyes! We can see the actual real-time fireball because the fireball is so huge. The idea that we would have to wait to see a beam of light travel from the far-distant star to us before we could see that far-distant star is incorrect as I see it because SIGHT has no speed limit. When you look up in the sky, you are not seeing billion-year-old light rays, you are seeing the actual star in real time.
What you are not seeing are these so-called light "beams" or "rays" that science is so obsessed with measuring. Think about it, when you see a star in the sky, you are watching the actual star, not some light beam. You can see the star with your own eyes because the star is close enough for you to do so.
If the above is true, then there is no such thing as a starlight problem. When God created the world, he created some stars that were able to be seen and some that weren't. We can only see what we can see -- but this is only limited to our ability to see.
Article C:
Why Look For Living Pterosaurs?
Evolutionists have engaged in a propaganda campaign to trick the public into falsely believing that the Earth is billions of years old and that many animals which lived side-by-side with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden actually died millions of years before humans were created (or "evolved" in their twisted view.) By finding and displaying living examples of what the Evolutionists claim is impossible, we will sow the seeds of Evolutionism doubt, thereby making the public receptive to the truth of the Bible.
While there are other extant creatures which Evolutionists claim have gone extinct long before man, they are not as ideal for our purposes as pterosaurs. Some of the alternatives are:
* Apatosaurs: Still live in the jungles of the Congo. They are too large for our planned facilities (and especially for those of the church groups who would wish to borrow them) and breeding would be difficult given their presumably longer life cycle.
* Plesiosaurs: Are reported living in many lakes and their carcasses have been found in the oceans by fishermen. However, they are notoriously difficult to find alive and would require a large and expensive aquatic facility to display them.
* Trilobites: We know they still live in the oceanic depths from body parts that have been found washed ashore. They would require very expensive submersible vehicles and pressurized display tanks.
* Velociraptors: Today terrorize the goat herders of Puerto Rico and are rumored to guard the remains of the Ark on Mt. Ararat. They have become vicious since the Fall as the result of the effects of genetic entropy, making them too dangerous for the sort of interactive public experience we have in mind.
In comparison, pterosaurs are a blessing from the Lord: Many reported living species are of reasonable size, making housing and care affordable; although they've become carnivorous, they should be as trainable as the birds of prey commonly allowed to interact with zoo visitors during bird shows; their life cycle appears to be relatively short, making it easier to establish a productive breeding program; and finally, historical and modern reports of pterosaurs are much more common than any of the other Evolutionistically anomalous cryptids, suggesting that large populations are waiting to be revealed to our increasingly unbelieving world.
Article D:
PBS (supposedly the "Public Broadcasting System" although one has to wonder which public they serve with all the anti-Christian junk they put on) is currently airing a new series called simply Evolution. This series (running for eight nights, at two hours a night) is nothing but a commercial for Secular Humanistic pseudo-science.
Thus far, the first episode (called "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" -- at least they are honest in the title) was a melodramatization of Charles Darwin's life. Darwin is portrayed as a sympathetic character who is attacked by ignorant Christians for his "revolutionary thought" which he is shown likening to "confessing a murder" (again, another slip of honesty). All those who historically questioned and pointed out flaws in Darwin's ideas are portrayed as villains: Richard Owen, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, Captain Robert Fitzroy of the H.M.S. Beagle -- all are made into unrecognizable cartoons whose only purpose is to act as foils for the noble Darwin and his crusade against Christianity. Even God himself is turned into a villain; at one point in the episode they had the audacity to blame Him for killing Darwin's daughter!
Interspersed with the costume drama were talking heads explaining to us why Evolutionism is the One True Way. These included some doctors and biologists -- one of whom openly expressed the religious nature of his belief in Evolutionism -- whose names I can't remember as they were unnotable persons in the scientific community. Daniel Dennett, a philosopher who wrote a polemic also called Darwin's Dangerous Idea, was on hand to tell us in no uncertain terms that Darwin's ideas excluded the need for God. Needless to say Stephen Jay Gould made an appearance, although he did thankfully refrain from talking about baseball this time.
The episode also included "real life examples" of Evolutionism to try and convince us that it is a real science. One of these was -- and I am not making this up -- a primatologist who taught some chimpanzees to "count". Supposedly this proves that we are a monkey's uncle. Another example used was AIDS. They argued that AIDS is constantly evolving and if it weren't for Darwin we wouldn't understand why and thus would be helpless in treating the disease (they conveniently neglect to point out that Darwinistic propaganda equating us with animals might have helped to spread the disease in the first place). This is a common false argument made by Evolutionists; the random variations of AIDS is not the same as the transmutation of species that Darwin wrote about and that is the basis of Secular Humanism. All those little changes aside, AIDS is still AIDS. Show us AIDS evolving into a cat -- which is essentially the Evolutionistic position of common ancestry for all lifeforms -- and then you'll have something worth noting.
So take your best guess. Which of the above articles is by a genuine creationist (i.e. NOT a parody)?
A) Article A is NOT a parody
B) Article B is NOT a parody
C) Article C is NOT a parody
D) Article D is NOT a parody
e) All of the above are parodies
If you're stumped, you can find the source for each article here (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/quote_of_the_week.php), here (http://www.freewebs.com/stoopidcreationistideas/index.htm), here (http://objectiveministries.org/creation/projectpterosaur.html) and here (http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html) which will provide clues about their authenticity (or lack thereof). Don't peek yet until you make your guess!
Try to guess which of the following articles is NOT a parody of creationism!
Article A:
I'll stipulate that someone dies every two minutes from a microbial infection although most of them are savages choosing to live in squalid conditions and so are pretty much getting what they asked for. But let's be clear, there is no biblical conflict, and there has never been a conflict, with micro-evolution. And we're getting burn near tired of reminding you of that.
Those people are dying from micro-evolutionary processes and you science types should be taking a stand to help them. It is only Christian that you do so.
Besides, that's why you get paid the big money.
We've simply got a big problem with you doing crazy experiments trying to prove your fantasy, like preserving wildlife areas where you swear evolution is supposed to flourish but nothing looks any different in them today than they did a hundred years ago, or trying to create new species by mating chimps with humans.
Article B:
Starlight: wait just a dad-gum minute!
Something occurred to me to day that makes me believe that the whole starlight "problem" is....shall we say, bunk. Long-agers like to hammer Christians with the issue of how in the world light from stars situated millions of light years away could make it to the earth in 10,000 years or less.
I'm sorry to have to do this but I'm going to just have to break down and bring out a bit of logic and common sense for everyone to chew on. So, let's all clear our minds, hold hands, and think through this real slowly for just a moment.
The speed of light has a documented speed....a speed that can be measured. For example, if I were to stand where I live in Ft Worth Texas and shine a flashlight to a friend of mine standing on the sun, the light would take a short amount of time to arrive at the sun, right? I don't know how long this period of time would be (I think it's a few seconds) but that's not what's important. What's important is that light can be measured and travels at a specific speed....or so some say.
Let's continue. Sound is the same way. If I were to stand in Ft Worth Texas and fire off a shotgun, it would take a while for that sound to reach Houston...(assuming this was a very loud shotgun). Probably many seconds. So once again, sound -- just like light -- can be measured and travels at a specific speed.
Still with me? Great.....hang tight, here's where it gets good.
Now let's play like one of my kids is standing 10 feet in front of me doing jumping jacks. Would you agree that I see her in real time?...that there is no delayed reaction in my seeing her? Great. Now picture her standing a thousand feet away from me doing jumping jacks. I can still see her in real time, right?....even though I'm near-sighted, and she might be a bit blurry, there is no actual delay. So in other words there is no measurable difference in vision -- there is no difference between watching my daughter do jumping jacks 10 feet away and watching her do jumping jacks 1000 feet away. Still with me?
Now let's move her to New York. I'm still in Ft. Worth. Now she's on top of the Empire State building doing jumping jacks. Granted, because of the great distance and the curvature of the earth I could not normally see her jumping. However, if I happened to have Superman eyes and I could somehow see around the curvature of the earth, I would STLL see her jumping in real time. RIGHT?? Right. There is no delay. Put another way: delay = 0 when it comes to sight.
So if delay is equal to zero when it comes to site then it doesn't matter if my daughter is jumping 10 feet away or 90 trillion feet away. 90 trillion times zero is STILL zero.
So let's now say my daughter is wearing a heat-resistant suit and is now jumping on the sun. If my vision was good enough and if I wore my shades I could see her jumping in real time, right? Right. As you can see, distance isn't the problem, vision is the problem....perception is the problem.
Now let's move to stars that are situated billions of light years away. And let's say that I was blessed with freak vision, and my eyes randomly mutated into telescopes similar to the Hubble. If my daughter was jumping on a far-distant star, would I not still see her jumping in REAL TIME???????? Of course! Distance isn't the issue: the ability to see the object IS the issue.
So ultimately measuring the speed of light and claiming that it must have taken billions of years to travel to the earth is bunk!
The reason we can see far-distant stars is not because the light traveled to us, but because the star is so dang big and bright we can see it with our own eyes! We can see the actual real-time fireball because the fireball is so huge. The idea that we would have to wait to see a beam of light travel from the far-distant star to us before we could see that far-distant star is incorrect as I see it because SIGHT has no speed limit. When you look up in the sky, you are not seeing billion-year-old light rays, you are seeing the actual star in real time.
What you are not seeing are these so-called light "beams" or "rays" that science is so obsessed with measuring. Think about it, when you see a star in the sky, you are watching the actual star, not some light beam. You can see the star with your own eyes because the star is close enough for you to do so.
If the above is true, then there is no such thing as a starlight problem. When God created the world, he created some stars that were able to be seen and some that weren't. We can only see what we can see -- but this is only limited to our ability to see.
Article C:
Why Look For Living Pterosaurs?
Evolutionists have engaged in a propaganda campaign to trick the public into falsely believing that the Earth is billions of years old and that many animals which lived side-by-side with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden actually died millions of years before humans were created (or "evolved" in their twisted view.) By finding and displaying living examples of what the Evolutionists claim is impossible, we will sow the seeds of Evolutionism doubt, thereby making the public receptive to the truth of the Bible.
While there are other extant creatures which Evolutionists claim have gone extinct long before man, they are not as ideal for our purposes as pterosaurs. Some of the alternatives are:
* Apatosaurs: Still live in the jungles of the Congo. They are too large for our planned facilities (and especially for those of the church groups who would wish to borrow them) and breeding would be difficult given their presumably longer life cycle.
* Plesiosaurs: Are reported living in many lakes and their carcasses have been found in the oceans by fishermen. However, they are notoriously difficult to find alive and would require a large and expensive aquatic facility to display them.
* Trilobites: We know they still live in the oceanic depths from body parts that have been found washed ashore. They would require very expensive submersible vehicles and pressurized display tanks.
* Velociraptors: Today terrorize the goat herders of Puerto Rico and are rumored to guard the remains of the Ark on Mt. Ararat. They have become vicious since the Fall as the result of the effects of genetic entropy, making them too dangerous for the sort of interactive public experience we have in mind.
In comparison, pterosaurs are a blessing from the Lord: Many reported living species are of reasonable size, making housing and care affordable; although they've become carnivorous, they should be as trainable as the birds of prey commonly allowed to interact with zoo visitors during bird shows; their life cycle appears to be relatively short, making it easier to establish a productive breeding program; and finally, historical and modern reports of pterosaurs are much more common than any of the other Evolutionistically anomalous cryptids, suggesting that large populations are waiting to be revealed to our increasingly unbelieving world.
Article D:
PBS (supposedly the "Public Broadcasting System" although one has to wonder which public they serve with all the anti-Christian junk they put on) is currently airing a new series called simply Evolution. This series (running for eight nights, at two hours a night) is nothing but a commercial for Secular Humanistic pseudo-science.
Thus far, the first episode (called "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" -- at least they are honest in the title) was a melodramatization of Charles Darwin's life. Darwin is portrayed as a sympathetic character who is attacked by ignorant Christians for his "revolutionary thought" which he is shown likening to "confessing a murder" (again, another slip of honesty). All those who historically questioned and pointed out flaws in Darwin's ideas are portrayed as villains: Richard Owen, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, Captain Robert Fitzroy of the H.M.S. Beagle -- all are made into unrecognizable cartoons whose only purpose is to act as foils for the noble Darwin and his crusade against Christianity. Even God himself is turned into a villain; at one point in the episode they had the audacity to blame Him for killing Darwin's daughter!
Interspersed with the costume drama were talking heads explaining to us why Evolutionism is the One True Way. These included some doctors and biologists -- one of whom openly expressed the religious nature of his belief in Evolutionism -- whose names I can't remember as they were unnotable persons in the scientific community. Daniel Dennett, a philosopher who wrote a polemic also called Darwin's Dangerous Idea, was on hand to tell us in no uncertain terms that Darwin's ideas excluded the need for God. Needless to say Stephen Jay Gould made an appearance, although he did thankfully refrain from talking about baseball this time.
The episode also included "real life examples" of Evolutionism to try and convince us that it is a real science. One of these was -- and I am not making this up -- a primatologist who taught some chimpanzees to "count". Supposedly this proves that we are a monkey's uncle. Another example used was AIDS. They argued that AIDS is constantly evolving and if it weren't for Darwin we wouldn't understand why and thus would be helpless in treating the disease (they conveniently neglect to point out that Darwinistic propaganda equating us with animals might have helped to spread the disease in the first place). This is a common false argument made by Evolutionists; the random variations of AIDS is not the same as the transmutation of species that Darwin wrote about and that is the basis of Secular Humanism. All those little changes aside, AIDS is still AIDS. Show us AIDS evolving into a cat -- which is essentially the Evolutionistic position of common ancestry for all lifeforms -- and then you'll have something worth noting.
So take your best guess. Which of the above articles is by a genuine creationist (i.e. NOT a parody)?
A) Article A is NOT a parody
B) Article B is NOT a parody
C) Article C is NOT a parody
D) Article D is NOT a parody
e) All of the above are parodies
If you're stumped, you can find the source for each article here (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/quote_of_the_week.php), here (http://www.freewebs.com/stoopidcreationistideas/index.htm), here (http://objectiveministries.org/creation/projectpterosaur.html) and here (http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html) which will provide clues about their authenticity (or lack thereof). Don't peek yet until you make your guess!