“It’s not your average creation video”

This is true only to the extent that the video in question is narrated by a young-earth whackjob who looks and sounds disturbingly like Richard Dawkins. Watching the video is thus much like watching George Carlin deliver a speech in an impassive monotone about how bright and charming most people are, or seeing Sarah Palin offer her latest insights about superstring theory. Other than that, though, it’s standard creationist bullshit — allege that something that real scientists have elucidated is actually a quandary for them, then solve a nonexistent problem (or more to the point, something that is a problem only for YECs) by throwing up a Biblical model in its place. Boilerplate drivel.

You may have noticed that the guy who operates this blog, Ikester, himself doesn’t possess an especially deep understanding of that which he purports to debunk:

Most all evolutionists believe that the geologic column was laid over millions of years of time. But they do not have a working mechanism or explanation as to why each layer is different, and some are the same. Or why the fossil record did not record living fossil time-line (where they are found, until present time). But instead of going into the problems with how the geologic column has the fossils ordered, we will instead concentrate on the formation of it. So do evolutionists have a working process showing how the layers would form over millions of years, or do they base this solely on age dating of each layer?

Someone ought to tell Ike (actually I did, but he surely won’t approve my comment) that “evolutionists” aren’t in the earth-science business any more than economists are into designing bridges, but that’s the least of his misapprehensions. Inasmuch as I can even tell what the fuck he’s trying to say, and I’d be lying if I said I could, I’ll just point you toward the truth behind a couple of primitive but common myths: the idea that the age of the earth (and in particular, the ages of geological strata) is not supported by evidence, and the claim that tree fossils in these strata are found out of order. There’s also a formal fisking of the global flood argument, not that anyone here needs to be convinced.

You can read elsewhere on Ike’s blog that plankton disprove evolution because of their apparent ability to change their entire environment to “suite” their needs, but I think you get the general idea by now.



  1. #1 by scottsinope on May 5, 2011 - 12:47 pm

    I don’t fully understand what the problem is. If we assume the Bible is correct, then God created everything (with a day off) in a week. How does this prove/disprove anything? On the first day God creates heaven and earth, on the next he separates darkness from light– because our days are based on the sun and God did things in days before the sun, it is impossible to know how long a day is to God, meaning on the sixth day when he created modern man, could actually be hundreds of years in our time after the creation of the other animals.

    Therefore: Everyone is right and everyone is wrong, now everyone sit down and shut-up. (Insert appropriate emoticon to fit your personal view.)

  2. #2 by kemibe on May 5, 2011 - 1:02 pm

    One problem is that the Bible plainly isn’t correct about six-day creation. “A day in the Bible might really be XXX number of years” is just bullshit that Christians started slinging around in a lame attempt to protect their dogma once the development of modern geoscience laid bare just how wrong the Bible is on such matters. (The Bible also claims that certain people lived to be over 900 years old. If a day is actually a billion years per creation of the universe, then year is actually 365 billion years and 900 of those is about 330 trillion years. That’s almost as old as Keith Richards.)

    Another problem is that even if you assume that the Bible isn’t just a bunch of incoherent and vaguely interesting myths and actually has something to say about the natural world, the guy whose blog I linked to is still completely asea. His ferocious disagreement with basic reality is almost quaint, but more than anything else it’s pathetic. And sure, people are entitled to believe whatever they wish, but if someone creates a big ugly Web site dedicated to undermining — however impotently and incompetently — the work of people are more intelligent and sane than he is, then he opens himself to criticism. And like many creationists, he’s so terrified of his indoctrination being overruled by facts that he doesn’t allow dissenting comments on his blog. Conspiracy theorists are united on this issue (facts out of sight –> facts out of mind).

  3. #3 by jim on May 5, 2011 - 6:57 pm

    “I don’t fully understand what the problem is. If we assume the Bible is correct,…”

    There you go. Why make the assumption? The default position is to assume it isn’t so without evidence.

    I state that I am god and god never lies. If we assume that the statement is correct, I must be god because I stated as much, and as god never lies, obviously I must not be lying, so therefore I really am god.

    And I might add that according to Genesis, the big G made the sun after he made light. Consequently, one must assume that he had a really, really big shop light in order to check out the Earth (and to ensure that the plants he made the day before wouldn’t die).

  4. #4 by scottsinope on May 5, 2011 - 8:23 pm

    For starters – the keith richards comment almost made me choke on my sandwich, but thanks be to the lord jim that my life was spared!

    Seriously though, the only thing ( or being, or abstract thought, ect) I believe in is myself. I don’t care much for dogmatic beliefs or abstract rituals, but I am a huge fan of suppositions and linguistics. In this case I feel that I must point-out that when I started my argument with with a call for a suspention of disbelief I did so not to tip the scales in any one direction, but instead because such a call followed by assumption is the only good way to give oneself a starting point on which to base any staement that cannot be proven. It is a matter of supposition, not faith. If I were to start an argument with: then there could be no following statements- nothing could be learned, gained, lost, ect.

    I don’t wish to appear a giant windbag, so I’ll cut it short. Please excuse any spelling errors as I am writing on my phone, sans spellcheck- and forgive me jim for my sins – as a non-religious person I was basing the word of the bible on my flawed memory, much as the written word of the bible has come from flawed man.

  5. #5 by Jim on May 6, 2011 - 10:12 am

    “…such a call followed by assumption is the only good way to give oneself a starting point on which to base any staement that cannot be proven.”

    But I would argue that the ensuing discussion/argument is pointless and not only is it likely that we will learn nothing from it nor see anything gained, but it may well cloud the issues and leave us poorer for the effort.

    So sayeth the lord.

  6. #6 by kemibe on May 6, 2011 - 10:25 am

    Back to the real issue, which is that Ike the YEC is insane. In a different post, he says that the reason human beings have wisdom teeth is that they “are a throw back from the giants that used to exist in Biblical times …These giants also had double row teeth. And is why some are still born with double row teeth.” He says that these teeth don’t come in when the others do because this “would have caused problems for children and many would have died from infections of the abscessed wisdom teeth in times when medical help was not available.” He appears not to be aware that in ancient times, infants and childern others died of all sorts of infections and other maladies modern science has reduced or eliminated. This is because giants is clearly the most sensible, parsimonious explanation.

    The reason I know that Ike’s blog isn’t a parody is that he won’t approve my comments. A parodist would approve them eagerly and then post a purposefully incompetent take-down of them. Ike’s just deluded.

%d bloggers like this: