Comments on: Creationist (heh) Astronomy (HAHAHAHAHAhahahaha)

By: K-man

K-man — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:52:32 +0000

“Naked Bunny with a Whip Says:
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:28 am

would carve the Grand Canyon in just days

That’s disingenuous of you, Phil. Everyone knows it took the Flood months to carve out the Grand Canyon, not days. That’s totally reasonable.”

Not going to lie, probably one of the stupidest things i have ever read. are you 5, or just brain dead? Judging by flow and deterioration of the cliff by volume of water per second, archeologists believe it took the colorado river more than 6 million years to carve THE WORLDS LARGEST CANYON! wow. please just give up in life.
peace

By: Geoff

Geoff — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:52:26 +0000

I’m not siding with the creator of the video, but he did clearly state in the first video that when he used the word “Evolution” he was talking about planetary evolution, not biological evolution. I’m just saying…

My whole issue with what I saw is that, even though science doesn’t know the answers to all the questions and conundrums he proposes, and it may not fit with the current model… the beauty of science is that it’s ideas can be molded to better fit the outcome of experiments and observations. We may not know the answers now, but I can guarantee that we will.

By: Ian’s Creation Blog & Newsletters » Blog Archive » June 18, 2009 CrEvo newsletter

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:49:05 +0000

[...] had gotten attacked on PZ Myer’s Pharyngula blog, as well as Discover magazine’s “Bad astronomy” blog. Then Spike responded on his own blog, which I reported here. Then the “Bad [...]

By: Mike Wagner

Mike Wagner — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:38:00 +0000

John,
I’m not sure you’ve noticed, but the evangelical creationists have a huge disinformation movement going on. They not only try to pollute the internet with inaccurate claims and outright falsehoods, they are pushing it into the school system and politics.
Open verbal opposition is practically required. Search engines don’t find truth, they find data density. When the density of the garbage hits critical mass on a subject, it is no longer “easy” to find accurate information. When I say easy here, I mean it in relative terms. I know how to get the most out of Google, but the 11 year old in Peoria who just wants to know where birds came from probably doesn’t. If the top 10 search hits tell them evolution is a lie and it’s all Jesus and dancing unicorns, we stand to lose what could be a great contributor to knowledge – a young mind.
It’s especially relevant when someone who purports to have the credentials and education spews this intellectual pollution out in the guise of science. Phil is certainly within his rights in my mind. (And it’s his blog. He can also talk about dancing unicorns on Pluto if he wants. I hear they’re in season now.)

By: JohnX

JohnX — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 07:55:02 +0000

To Phil’s original blog posting: I actually used to know Spike Psarris (the DVD’s host). I have definitely found some holes in his presentation, but would you be willing to indulge us in two or three specific complaints about scientific accuracy? Just want to get started in making sure I have my bases covered.

I’m sorry, I know it can be painful. But frankly, the origins controversy has had far too much of both sides (yes, even the “free-thinkers”) talking past each other and dropping bumper stickers and catchphrases rather than arguments. I’m weary both of “evolution is just a theory” AND “this is a god-of-the-gaps argument” when specifics aren’t provided. Could you please please please brighten my day, just a little?

By: Greg in Austin

Greg in Austin — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:12:23 +0000

@John,

I can understand your confusion. But this is not Discover Magazine’s blog. It’s Phil’s blog.

By: CelticMinstrel

CelticMinstrel — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:45:12 +0000

Yeah, you really need to stop all the childish creationist ranting and raving, and grow up. Yes, in fact that’s an excellent idea! Why didn’t I think of it before?

Simply put, creationism or intelligent design will never be a scientific theory. If you were not blinded by God, you would surely see that.

So if Discover magazine were to include that childish dribble of creationism in a way that implied it to be science, I would probably cancel my subscription. It’s not science, it never will be science, and it’s not possible for it to be science.