Creationist moron responds to derision

Terry Mortenson of the notoriously silly Answers in Genesis Web site has tried to answer numerous legitimate demolitions of creationist “theory,” with naturally giving him a platform to carry out this fool’s errand.
It would be nice if there were an easy way to determine the proportion of idiotic burbling produced by people like Mortenson that could be attributed to basic lying versus that rooted in workaday stupidity. I suppose this urge is rooted in how I prefer judge such a twit: If he’s merely stupid, I don’t have to condemn his morality, whereas if he’s knowingly making things up I can call him a douchebag as well as a moron. Actually, by any standard he is both in any case, so I’ll not worry about distinctions, as I’m not exactly aiming for officership in the slackly grinning, dick-wiggling appeasement camp.
Here’s Mortenson on the diversity of mammalian species:

And so in the evolutionary view, all the mammals living today descended from the first mammal which evolved from a non-mammal. All of the birds today are descended from the first bird which evolved from a reptile — most evolutionists think a dinosaur….What is often confusing is that people will talk about variation within a kind or species. The variation of dogs, we have wolves, dingoes, jackals, wild dogs, and then we have all the domestic dogs. That’s not evolution — that is simply variation within the dog kind.

From a scientific perspective, this is virtually indistinguishable from the random bleats of a goat on methamphetamine. It’s that hard to fisk, as there are too many and too few anchor points at the same time. But the sheer vacuity of this outburst should be evident to anyone who has reached adulthood with or without a basic biology course in hand, with or without the most tenuous grasp on “descent with modification,” to say nothing of sexual selection and other driving forces for diversity.
On the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, Mortenson says:

We need to be very careful to pay attention to details of Genesis 1 and 2. They are not two contradictory accounts of creation. Genesis 1 is what I like to call a wide-angle-lens view of the whole six days of creation. Genesis 2, from verse 4 onward, is a telephoto zoom lens looking at some of the events of Day 6. They are not contradictory.

Yes, they are contradictory; the sequence of events is undeniably different in each. In Genesis 1 animals are said to have been created before people, whereas in Genesis 2 this is frankly reversed. This and other absudities are evident to anyone in possession of a Bible and the ability to read. (This doesn’t really matter since the idea of “creation” is nonsense anyway, but invoking logic is fair.) But since mouthpieces like Mortenson have no shame, it’s typical of them to just yammer on as if no one notices reality. No amount of reason can dislodge people like him from their proud pinnacles of abject anti-reason.
Here’s his answer to cosmologists’ proposing of a very old universe:

Well, first of all the background radiation does not prove the universe is 12 billion years old, the number that seems to be the most quoted by the evolutionists. The background radiation only shows you background radiation, it doesn’t say anything except if you interpret as a leftover remnant of the big bang. But then you’re assuming the very thing that is in question.
Is it just quibbling over details? Well, no — the details of Genesis are important; the details of the Word of God are important because every word of God is inspired, and so we have to look at the details and not just gloss over it.

Mortenson at this point behaves as if he is not just a prevaricator but shit-munchingly mentally compromised. First, background radiation isn’t the means by which physicists have come to reckon the age of the universe; it’s proven helpful, but there’s the issue of “dark matter” (a relatively recent concept) and the cosmological constant (dealing with the relative recession of galaxies and such from one another) serving as the primay means by which we estimate how old “everything: is. Second, evolution has nothing to do with how old the universe is, and conflation of these two ideas is incontrovertible evidence of chicanery, scientific ignorance, or both. Third, and amazingly, Mortenson still resorts to scripture to try to trump science, as if the former has evidence to support it. Fourth, his proposed circular argument is itself a straw man. Fifth…aw, fuck it. I just wish people like this would dry up and blow away. Folks this dumb add nothing to humanity but static and lies and oxygen thievery, and I hope Terry Mortenson falls asleep each night deeply ashamed of his own inanity and the curse his DNA has placed on his central nervous system, his sense of justice, or both.
Really, it blows my mind that people can employ such apocalyptic double standards–millions of scientific observations and experiments corroborating one another are contrived, while the borrowed myths of ancient goat-herders are to be taken as fact. Crazy poison.
There’s much more in the linked “article” that could be perfunctorily torn apart here, but you’re all smart enough to do this for yourselves and I can’t stomach this level of doltishness enough to carry on with anything formal. Mortenson is a liar for liars, and establishes that the U.S.A. is a proud host of innumerable educational backwaters and failures. Whoever raised this guy couldn’t have done a better job of ruining his mind had they systematically beaten him over the head with a tire iron a few times a week.

  1. #1 by MikeMa on March 6, 2009 - 2:18 pm

    So, I’m guessing Terry’s off your christmas card list. :-D
    Quite the ultra-maroon is ‘ol Terry. Don’t get to Answers very often as I do not like that nauseous feeling it induces but thanks for keeping us up to date on the drivel.

  2. #2 by tubi on March 6, 2009 - 3:52 pm

    From a scientific perspective, this is virtually indistinguishable from the random bleats of a goat on methamphetamine.

    That, sir, is an offense to drug-addled goats!

  3. #3 by Kevin Beck on March 6, 2009 - 4:58 pm

    I left this comment under the article; it remains to be seen whether it’ll be posted.
    Mortenson is either a liar or unintelligent (or both). He acknowledges that differences between dog breeds exist, but doesn’t get around to describing how this could be brought about in the absence of the same genetic substrate upon which evolution acts with stark clarity. In other words, why didn’t God create the diversity we see today in the canine world in a flash rather than waiting for it to appear over many thousands of years of breeding?
    Answers in Genesis is a dangerous, unfunny joke.

    The amount of idiocy in the comments that have already been posted represent the kind of supreme, hopeless failure of the human mind that implies that I would be hesitant to pull strangers out of a burning building assuming I had the chance. If I did, I would much more likely be rescuing the next God-soaked breeding-happy braying imbecile than preserving another Einstein, so screw it. It’s God’s will that dullards be scratched from the equation.

  4. #4 by Dave W. on March 6, 2009 - 8:55 pm

    Come on, Kevin… quit holding back. Does this guy really deserve your restraint? Heheheheh.

%d bloggers like this: