John Mackay is supposed to be coming to my college and speaking this next Monday. There are approximately five million fliers around campus for him. He proclaims that he is going to review textbook evidence for “Creation, Noah’s Flood and Babel.” Now, maybe I have misunderstood something, but evolution in no way impedes on creationism, correct? So how can this guy expose evolution in order to prove creationism? What’s up with this guy? Anybody ever heard of him?
That depends on what you mean by “creationism.” If you just mean that god created the universe then evolution does not contradict it. Wjat this guy’s probably talking about, though, is “Young Earth” creationism (YEC) which espouses a literal interpretation of Genesis including “special” creation (i.e. God just made all the animals and Adam and Eve without evolution or common descent), the assertion that the earth was made in six days and is only six thousand years old, etc. It usually also incorporates Noah and the flood.
It’s an utterly fallacious and unscientific view which is thoroughly debunkable with even a little bit of real investigation.
Thanks. I was trying to decide if this thing was even worth going to, but it seems like it would be good entertainment even if it isn’t scientifically accurate.
Talk Origins has a John Mackay listed as the author of a book entitled, The Quote Book, which is a collection of out-of contect quotes purporting to show that evolution is false and even scientists don’t believe in it. Dunno if it’s the same Mackay.
May I place a side bet that if he’s going to be suppoeting the YEC model, he mentions the Mt. St. Helens eruption shows that the Grand Canyon is actually young?
–Patch
I found a bit about John Mackay on this Talk Origins thread. He’s an Austrailan geologist and also a YEC, apparently.
Anyone Aussie Dopers familiar with him?
–Patch
More on John Mackay. But, based on *patchbunny[/]'s second link, I’d have to say he sounds like a typical YEC: long on misinformation and rhetoric, short on actual knowledge of that which he alleges to counter.
More on John Mackay. But, based on patchbunny’s second link, I’d have to say he sounds like a typical YEC: long on misinformation and rhetoric, short on actual knowledge of that which he alleges to counter.
I suggest bringing a couple of friends. Or puppets that look like robots. Or both. Sit in the very first row.
Then you see how long you can keep up the mocking before getting kicked out. It’s fun!
I have access to both Tom Servo and Crow T. Robot puppets. Could add some style to such a presentation.
Crow: “How exactly does the Young Earth Model account for John Agar’s discovery of the mole people?”
–Patch
Henry Morris came into town several years ago and I went to mock him. Surprisingly, I didn’t get kicked out 
Probably because we aren’t a big Christian place.
For this guy, you can challenge him on his Quote Book stuff, or ask stock questions about the Noachian Flood (like how to fit all those animals on the ark, keeping them alive, how did they get there, how did they know to get there, etc.). It will be fun 
Henry Morris came into town several years ago and I went to mock him. Surprisingly, I didn’t get kicked out Probably because we aren’t a big Christian place.
For this guy, you can challenge him on his Quote Book stuff, or ask stock questions about the Noachian Flood (like how to fit all those animals on the ark, keeping them alive, how did they get there, how did they know to get there, etc.). It will be fun
You know, I almost feel sorry for him picturing lecture after lecture being ruined by reasonable questions.
To paraphrase Kermit the Frog, it’s not easy being a crackpot.
Well, at least we can take comfort in Ben Murphy.
JFTR There’s very little point in trying to publicly debate a creationist; most of the time you’ll get the ‘Gish Gallop’ - the speaker fires a series of questions that are not difficult to refute, but require research to do so, or questions that are just plain absurd or confusing, or are very deeply rooted in some kind of straw man argument; the opponent is made to look like a stuttering, procrastinating idiot, even if this is very far from the actual case.
Plus it is often the case that large blocks of the audience are imported.
“Why aren’t dinosaurs found with or above human fossils, only far below? Is it because the humans were cleverer and thus sought higher ground when the floods came?”
“Any child can see that South America once joined Africa. How long did the separation take?”
“In 1987 light from a supernova arrived at Earth, even though the supernova itself happened hundreds of thousands of years ago. Why did God create a universe containing light beam showing an explosion attached to a dead star?”
“How come all of the radioactive isotopes with a half-life on the order of centuries have all decayed away already?”
“How come Genesis 1 says the animals were created before man, and Genesis 2 says man was created before the animals?”
“How do you account for all thetransitional fossilsthat have been discovered?”
“How do you account for all the instances of observed speciationthat have been documented?”
Regards,
Shodan
shodan, Genesis 2 gives more details on the creation of man and woman, and details of the place where they lived: Garden of Eden. The first verse of Chapter 2 says the earth, the rest of it was completed. The divine saved the last three creations for last: man, Eden, and, greatest of all, woman.
It doesn’t just "give more details, " it also reverses the order of creation.
No just one spot. Eden is not all of earth.
Were more animals created just for Eden? Or did someone just not get their story straight (2 writers)? Or…