The unintended hilarity of creationists

Don’t you just love the Internet? Everyone on this planet has an opinion, and we have access to billions of different ones in all different languages. The Internet is just like real life; it’s filled with plenty of crap, a plethora of porn, and it’s also populated by some truly wacky and unintentionally hilarious people. Take for example this website called The site looks like Geocities threw up all over it, and the arrangement of text can only be described as manic. It doesn’t have any actual science, but the anti-evolution part is there. Here is an example of the funny shit you’ll find there:

We don’t entirely agree with the evolutionists’ claim that it is wrong to look for data to support a theory. You rarely find something unless you are actively seeking it. There are scientists who believe there is a cure for AIDS, and they are looking for it. There is nothing wrong with that. It only becomes wrong if the desire to find the cure makes you consciously (or unconsciously) report the results incorrectly. That is, there is nothing wrong if a zealous doctor actually finds a cure for AIDS. There is something wrong if he manipulates the data to make it appear that he has found a cure when he hasn’t.

Yeah, creationists have never manipulated any data to support their insane claims…Look, you can print page after page of specific examples of missing or incomplete data, but it does not diminish the power of the theory as a whole; just as any potential falsehood in evolutionary theory does not mean creationism is the answer. What they offer in terms of explanation is a literal interpretation of a prayer book, and nothing more. It’s intellectually lazy, dishonest, and false.

If these guys are serious about treating their endeavors as science, then they have to play by its rules, and the first rule is: disproving a theory does not prove your own. The second rule is: a theory isn’t just some idea you through out there, but a complex model to explain how something works. And finally, the third rule is: you can’t point to the unexplained for proof of anything other than ignorance. Sounds pretty simple, doesn’t it?

Comments (2)

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top