Actually, not really. But that would be cool!
So I wasn't really having fun with looking up news articles and stuff, because a lot of the news is generally the same stuff, to be quite honest (people getting killed, people in prison, countries getting mad at each other, etc.), and I didn't find it all that interesting or enjoyable.
So I think Thursdays are going to be days much like Tuesdays, except decidedly less random. Still funny, but less random.
So today's blog
--WAIT! Hold it! Carl Parkman from the Grammar Nazis here, we've had a report that you've used the word "so" to start too many paragraphs in your blog! Boring sentence structures are against regulations!
Hang on a moment...you just joined two sentences without a conjunction, and you're saying I'm the bad grammarian?
.....curses. Very well...you win this round, Snowball! BUT NOT THE WAR!
...I'm very sorry about that. He tends to get a bit annoying at times.
Anyway, today's blog is about a series of questions asked by a certain "JesusFreak" on Facebook (not me, by the way) to, "Any Young Earth Creationist". These weren't very coherent or sensible questions, as you'll no doubt see in a second, but I did my best to answer these nitpicking, nonsensical queries.
Here's the questions:
- The Genesis flood: Where did all that water come from? Where did it go?
- How could the Genesis flood form the Grand Canyon? more information on the Grand Canyon
- How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements, and the consistent correlation with objects of known age?
- What scientifically factual information can you supply to support your contention that the universe is only a few thousand years old?
- How do you explain the astronomical evidence that the universe is billions of years old, without resorting to the preposterous assumption that the speed of light was millions of times faster in the past than it is now? more information
- What mathematical proof can you supply, based on the known equations of thermodynamics, that order can not spontaneously arise from disorder? more thermodynamics information
- If your claim that thermodynamics will not permit the evolution of complex living structures is true, then how do you explain, without resorting to make-believe special mechanisms that have no basis in thermodynamics, the development of a chick in an egg?
- If creationism is scientifically valid, then why is it necessary to emphasize that the sectarian religous dogma of the Book of Genesis is the ultimate scientific authority?
- If you believe that God can override nature to create living things as described in the Book of Genesis, then what reasons do you have, other than your religious beliefs, that God could not have created living things through a process of evolution?
- The standard creationist explanation for the distribution of fossils in geological strata, with most primitive life forms in the lower strata, and mammals and humans in the upper strata, is that clever mankind was smart enough to climb to higher ground to escape the rising flood waters. How do you explain the fact that thousands of persons drowned in the recent Central America floods, in an area contiguous to higher ground? How do you explain the position of the fossils in the geologic layers, with small fossils below large fossils, which is contrary to hydraulic sorting in which large objects settle deeper than small objects?
And here's my response:
- Some theories suggest the water came from a canopy, or layer of water, suspended (probably via gravity) above the Earth’s atmosphere. (Genesis 1:6-8) Also, water came out of the “floodgates of heaven” (i.e., a canopy) and the “springs of the great deep”. As for where it went, all the Bible says is that the water receded. Those exact words. (Genesis 8, pretty hard to miss) I believe that God has the power to just make the water disappear. I mean, He created the universe, for Pete’s sake—I think He can handle a little cleanup.
- Erosion. Lots of erosion. Think about how much water there was—LOTS OF IT. We’re talking miles of the stuff—enough to cause some serious amounts of pressure. And when the stuff starts draining away, it pulls the rocks and soil and stuff with it. Now, I don’t pretend to be an expert on erosion—heck, I’m no scientist—but it doesn’t take a geologist to figure out that the waters caused by the Flood would be enough to erode on a Grand Canyon level.
- I don’t know if you’ve realized this, but those dating methods aren’t very exact, nor are they very accurate. Before you argue that they are not so, bear in mind that it’s still a guess, and guesses aren’t surefire ways of saying, “You’re wrong, I’m right.” The only way we can know objective truth is if it’s found in the Bible OR it’s proven by multiple scientific experiments. And by multiple I mean more than you think. And if the answer that science gets is different than the answer that the Bible gives, then science is wrong and God is right, end of story.
- I hate to answer questions with questions, but why is science the ultimate answer to you? If you really are a “Jesus Freak”, then shouldn’t the Bible be the ultimate answer? But in any case…the answer to this is quite simple. Based on the current rate that the universe is decaying, I’d say that it wouldn’t make much sense if it were more than a few thousand years old. Again, I’m no genius, but that’s how I see it from a scientific standpoint. Now, I could be wrong, and we could be sitting on a six billion year-old hunk of rock right now, but heck if I know any better.
- What astronomical evidence? As far as I know, I’ve never heard of any logical evidence suggesting this. Please, enlighten me, as I would most certainly wish to hear your theories on the subject.
- A) See #4. B) “can not” is one word: “cannot”. If you’re going to use the full forms of contractions, do it correctly. C) Second Law of Thermodynamics states, in dumbed-down form, “Entropy is always increasing,” or in other words, “Order is always decreasing”. Ergo, if there is disorder (entropy), then it stands to reason that order CANNOT “spontaneously arise” from it.
- Your question is invalid due to the assumption of my previous answer, but I’ll humor you anyway. The development of a chick in an egg is not evolution in the sense of change from one creature to another. The chick in the egg is still the same type of creature that its mother is. Once the chick has grown and comes out of the egg, it is still a chicken. It’s not a cow, it’s not a monkey, it’s not a rat—it’s a chicken, just like its parents.
- Sectarian religious dogma? Are you sure you know exactly what that means? And also, what’s with the bigoted assumptions that whoever’s reading this is an uneducated, ignorant troll?
- None. Although I do have to ask one question in return—if my religious beliefs aren’t part of the answer, then what the heck am I supposed to respond with?
- I’m not joking when I say I laughed for about ten minutes straight after reading your “standard Creationist explanation”. That’s the biggest load of bull I’ve ever heard in the Creationism vs. Evolution debate. I’d also like to say that none of the rest of this question makes any sense at all. None of it. At all. Sorry, but I only answer questions that actually are relevant to the subject at hand. It’s a principle of mine.
Until next time,
-CommanderSnowball
 |
| A swashbuckling rogue, indeed. |
No comments:
Post a Comment