# Idiotic Creationist post... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 20, 2001, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127 "2001-08-20T13:41:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2001, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/181 "2001-09-01T17:52:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by scotth \* > > > [@](#): > > > > SCOTTH > > As the universe scrolled out and stars were laid, they weren’t frozen in that spot, they continued to stretch out with the expanding universe which took one day to be created. The hubble has shown no signs of any kind of centralized galaxy site which would be expected with a centralized explosion with evolutionist. Instead we see evenly spaced galaxies in pairs throughout the galaxy. Which goes entirely with creation plan. Get ‘starlight and time’ by Dr Russell Humphreys. Its an $8 book and it will open your eyes to the truth and what the evolutionary astronomers have been hiding. > > Are any of the other posters here actual profession Astronomers, AstroPhysicists, etc? Do you guys see anything wrong with this basic assumption? Can any of you envision a method to make the universe the size it is in one day 6000 years ago that would enable us to stars 4 billion light years away other than to actually create every ray of light by hand put them on their way here to make it APPEAR the universe was as old as we can see across? I am not a professional astronomer. However, consider Dr. Hugh Ross. He’s a well-qualified professional astrophysicist. He’s also very confused about biology. He’s an Old Earth Creationsit. He appears to be trying to make a scientific model of Old Earth creationism, but he’s failing becasue of his lack of knowledge in biology. But he’s not a Young Earth creationist … becaase he knows too much about the evidence of an old Universe and Earth. His take on “Starlight and Time” is at [The Unraveling of Starlight and Time](http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.html). Supernova 1987A is also of interest. The measured distance of about 170,000 light years does not depend on the speed of light, and therefore gives us a lower bound on the age of the Universe. Given that fact, the only way for the Universe to be younger is for the light to have been created in transit by a trickster who is deliberately trying to fool us. See [The Distance to Supernova 1987a](http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/supernova_distance.html), [The Age of the Universe and SN1987A](http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/SN1987A.html). SN1987A also provides avidence of the constancy of radioactive decay rates over long times. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2001, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/182 "2001-09-01T17:58:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IGOTTHEANSWERS \* > It doesn’t take a rare situation to fossilize. Go to any volcano eruption site and you’ll find fossils all over. We have fossilized hats, shoes, food such as ham, trees. It might be worth it to take a trip to Mt. st. Helens and they tell you how quickly things can be fossilized. Untrue. “Buried” is not “fossilized”. “Covered with limestone” is not “fossilized”. There are no fossils at Mt. St. Helens. There are no fossilized hams, hats, or shoes. Fossil trees … yeah, we got those. > [@](#): > > The hubble has shown no signs of any kind of centralized galaxy site which would be expected with a centralized explosion with evolutionist. Instead we see evenly spaced galaxies in pairs throughout the galaxy. Which is exactly what the Big Bang model predicts. It does _not_ predict a “centralized galaxy site”. ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2001, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/183 "2001-09-01T20:05:01Z")
> [@](#): > > **Supernova 1987A is also of interest. The measured distance of about 170,000 light years does not depend on the speed of light, and therefore gives us a lower bound on the age of the Universe. Given that fact, the only way for the Universe to be younger is for the light to have been created in transit by a trickster who is deliberately trying to fool us. See The Distance to Supernova 1987a, The Age of the Universe and SN1987A. SN1987A also provides avidence of the constancy of radioactive decay rates over long times.** Yeppers, this was exactly my second arguement in my orginal post on the age of the universe. (Except that I screwed up and type 1989 instead of 1987) from my earlier post: > [@](#): > > And if we examine the case of the 1989 super nova, it makes for even more interesting discussion. This would be around 180,000 light years away as it is in/near the Clouds of Magellan. Are we to assume that this super nova didn’t really explode at all but was created in the destroyed state and that the light one would see of it exploding (180,000 years ago) was just put into space travelling towards us (6000 years ago) to make it APPEAR to have exploded? That is an interesting notion indeed. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2001, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/184 "2001-09-01T20:51:19Z")
The population of the United States has not increased at a steady, unchanging rate, so why would you think the population of the world would do so, **IGOTTHEANSWERS**? According to the Census Bureau’s [figures](http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/table-2.pdf), (you need Adobe Acrobat to look at them) the population of the US in 1930 was 123,202,624. In 1940, the population was 132,164,569. This represents a percentage change of only 7.3%, which happens to be **the smallest percentage increase in American history** \* (which is why I selected it). Why did the population grow so little then? They don’t say, but a reasonable assumption would be The Depression. People weren’t having so many children and I think immigration was restricted then as well. Things like economic slowdowns, epidemics, natural disasters and wars have the effect of slowing down population growth. Other factors can cause the population to have a growth spurt (Note the quick increase in the population between 1950 and 1960. This is part of “The Baby Boom,” which actually began in 1946.) Since these things cannot be anticipated, no mathematical model can predict with perfect accuracy how a population will grow or decrease. \*(The 2000 census figures are not on that page, they are [here](http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/2khome.htm).) ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2001, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/185 "2001-09-01T21:08:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IGOTTHEANSWERS \* > **It doesn’t take a rare situation to fossilize. Go to any volcano eruption site and you’ll find fossils all over. We have fossilized hats, shoes, food such as ham, trees. It might be worth it to take a trip to Mt. st. Helens and they tell you how quickly things can be fossilized.** Tell you what…go read [this](http://www.tiac.net/users/cri/taphonomy.html), then come back. It is clear that you not only do _not_ now about how fossilization works, but you don’t even know what a _fossil_ is. \*\* > [@](#): > > Archeoptryx had a breast bone, wings and feathers. No other animal has a breast bone but birds. I don’t kow ho told you it didn’t have feathers because it looks clear from the fossil it had feathers. Using simple logic with all that we can asume it flew but evolutionists probably have a far fetched story for that one too.\*\* _Velociraptor_ and many other maniraptorans had breast bones. Mammals have breastbones. I don’t know where you learned your anatomy, but you’re mistaken. And no-one told me _Archaeopteryx_ didn’t have feathers - what I said is that _if_ it were found with _no_ feathers, it would have been mistaken for a dinosaur. But it also had teeth and a reptilian tail, things which _no_ modern bird has. You can contort the truth however you like, but it’s still a perfectly good example of an intermediate. \*\* > [@](#): > > Amphiouxis provides ‘clues’ to true intermediate. What your saying is we don’ have an intermediate and believing there is an intermedite when no evidence shows this is faith in something unseen and complicates finding truth because your ignoring simplest explanation.\*\* No, you’re saying that. **tracer** also mentioned _Pikaia_ as an intermediate (of the fossilizaed variety). Amphioxus has all of the features that we would expect to find in a true intermediate; thus, while not _being_ a said intermediate, it provides vital clues as to what it probably _looked_ like (beyond the mere posssession of required characters), and how it probably _lived_. Get it? \*\* > [@](#): > > Archeoptrx-visited again- AS I stated earlier bone-head (its a pun not name calling) only BIRDS have breast bones.\*\* And, as I, and others, stated earlier, you are wrong. \*\* > [@](#): > > And I see you don’t understand fossilization either.\*\* And, as I, and others, stated earlier, you are wrong. \*\* > [@](#): > > You won’t see my in hell. You won’t see anyone in hell.You definitely hear them. So much for what you know. \*\* You _do_ know that Dante’s _Inferno_ is fiction, right? **addednum** I see upon previewing that you’ve corrected your “breastbone” to “wishbone”: \*\* > [@](#): > > correction > > birds have wish bone. Just like archyoptryx\*\* Not that it helps your case any: Not all birds have furcula (the anatomical term for a “wishbone”) - notably, they are absent in non-flightless forms. Most tetanuran dinosaurs (which include _Velociraptor_, _Allosaurus_ and _Oviraptor_) have furcula. Gliding _mammals_ (e.g., flying squirrels) have furcula. Just like _Archaeopteryx_. So…uh…what was you point again? ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2001, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/186 "2001-09-01T21:58:28Z")
Make that “…they are absent in _flightless_ forms…” ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2001, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/187 "2001-09-01T23:25:37Z")
> [@](#): > > PS Speaking of Niagra falls, the water flowing over Niagra is eating it away. Do your figures on that and Niagra would be a flat river by now. Why? Niagra didn’t exist at the world’s creation. Earthquakes, continental shift, geological alterations, etc. caused it to appear. Didja know that the life span of the average lake is only a couple million years? True 'dat, big guy. Only a fool would suggest that the Great Lakes have been where they are for four billion years. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t take a rare situation to fossilize. Go to any volcano eruption site and you’ll find fossils all over. We have fossilized hats, shoes, food such as ham, trees. Those aren’t fossils, pal. They’re considered “preserved”, since they’re cut off from most sources of bacteria and oxygen, and as such break down very, very slowly. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2001, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/188 "2001-09-01T23:37:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IGOTTHEANSWERS \* > WEVETS > Im not sure what difference race population numbers in the Bible has anything to do with a summation on how far back would it be for the first man and woman to have been to get current population numbers? I thought it was obvious: You can produce a population growth curve that expands from 2 people in 4000 BC to 6 billion people in 2000 AD. However, that same population growth curve predicts that there would be a total of 19,684 people in 1446 BC, during the time of the Exodus. I thought it ironic that the Bible itself demonstrates that population arguement invalid because as Moses and others census the Israelites in Numbers, Chapter 1, the number 603,550 is given as the total number of male Israelites over the age of 20. By claiming a population growth curve arguement to support a literal interpretation of one book of the Bible, you have contradicted another book of the Bible. > [@](#): > > Go back to your gameboy. Huh? If this is the sum total of wisdom and maturity you have to offer us, are you sure your time is well-spent on this message board? Wouldn’t it be better spent making sure your statements are free of malice and spite? How exactly does the above statement contribute to the glory of God? > [@](#): > > Before you do, do those same numbers with 2 people going back a conservative 14 million years when “cave men” were around. You are the only person I have ever heard claim that people have been around for 14 million years. As you can see [in this link](http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homosapiens.htm), some evolutionists claim up to about 2 million years as the age of humans, but no one I’m aware of goes as far as 14 million. What makes you think 14 million is conservative? > [@](#): > > There isn’t enough planets in our galaxy to hold all the people you’ll get. You may be unaware that the fact that not all offspring survive was one of the principles that led Darwin to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2001, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/189 "2001-09-01T23:48:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IGOTTHEANSWERS \* > …only BIRDS have breast bones. [Are humans birds?](http://www.bartleby.com/107/27.html) ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2001, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/190 "2001-09-01T23:53:56Z")
To be fair, he meant to say that only birds have wishbones. (But I bet he didn’t know that only the ones that can fly have wishbones.) ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2001, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/191 "2001-09-02T01:04:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*As the universe scrolled out and stars were laid, they weren’t frozen in that spot, they continued to stretch out with the expanding universe which took one day to be created. The hubble has shown no signs of any kind of centralized galaxy site which would be expected with a centralized explosion with evolutionist. Instead we see evenly spaced galaxies in pairs throughout the galaxy. Which goes entirely with creation plan. Get ‘starlight and time’ by Dr Russell Humphreys. Its an $8 book and it will open your eyes to the truth and what the evolutionary astronomers have been hiding. \*\* Well, now I have seen the writings of Russel Humpreys. I have to ask if you have, IGOTTHEANSWERS? Well, one thing is certain IGOTTHEANSWERS, if you actually read this book yourself, you didn’t understand any of it, save one fact, he is apparently trying to create a scientific theory that supports young earth creationism. A very key idea here is _scientific theory_… Scientific theories make **predictions** that can be tested against **observable** facts. His ideas lead to predictions that are absolutely false in very testable ways. In fact, what is contained in that book is SO bad I can hardly believe how it could be anything but a deliberate attempt to mislead. The only thing this text is good for is to dazzle believers with “scientific sounding” jargon that they don’t understand, deluding them into thinking that there is solid scientific support for a young earth/universe. Save yourself the embarrassment and don’t cite this book as reference anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2001, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/192 "2001-09-02T02:16:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > \*\*To be fair, he meant to say that only birds have wishbones. (But I bet he didn’t know that only the ones that can fly have wishbones.) \*\* Or that, as I mentioned above, animals that _aren’t_ birds have them. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2001, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/193 "2001-09-02T02:54:50Z")
Well, **scotth** , Humphreys is pretty clearly another Nine-Commandment Christian. As we discovered when we examined his “evidence” regarding silt layers on the ocean floor, he is quite willing to take genuine evidence (Gordeyev’s sedimentation rate) and mix them with errors (Hays’s sedimentation subduction that was not correlated to Gordeyev’s figures) in order to proclaim a “Fact” for Creationism that is actually false. Regarding the erosion of continents: I have not found any source foolish enough to quote Vandeman, but I have noticed that most Creationists that talk about a too-quick erosion of continents refer to _Scientific Creationism_, the 1974 work by H.M. Morris. There is a small problem with Morris’s attempt, however: Morris argued at one point that the amount of lava and ash spewed by volcanoes would have added so much material to the Earth’s surface that in 4 billion years, the continents should have been much higher. However, in just the next few pages he argued that erosion would have swept all the continents into the sea in the same period. (_Somehow_ he (and all his successor quoters) seems to have missed the point that if two forces are working exactly opposite each other, they tend to cancel each other out.) ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/194 "2001-09-03T19:54:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IGOTTHEANSWERS \* > birds have wish bone. Just like archyoptryx Oops, you’re right, jab1, I completely missed the post quotes above. Thanks for the correction. Darwin’s Finch has answered this objection. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2001, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/195 "2001-09-05T14:07:55Z")
**IGOTTHEANSWERS** , if you’re still there, may I ask you to pop over and post something in this thread: [Two questions for Creationists.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=81537) If you would like to post there, please pay special attention to the OP as I restated it [(here)](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1519217#post1519217) on page 3 of the thread. Thanks ---
**Author:** ![KeithB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/48db29/32.png) [@KeithB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KeithB)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2001, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/196 "2001-09-06T15:07:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > \*\*To be fair, he meant to say that only birds have wishbones. (But I bet he didn’t know that only the ones that can fly have wishbones.) \*\* Chickens and turkeys can fly? Actually, I know that their wild cousins _can_ fly, which is why they have wishbones. I just wanted to point that out to head off any confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2001, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/197 "2001-09-06T15:30:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IGOTTHEANSWERS \* > **…evolutionary astronomers have been hiding.** I thought evolutionary biology and astronomy were separate fields, guess I must have been wrong. (He’s gone, I know) ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2001, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/198 "2001-09-06T15:48:08Z")
Oh yeah? Then why do astrophysicists talk about a star **evolving** off the main sequence, huh? Hmm? Huh? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![banjoboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4da419/32.png) [@banjoboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/banjoboy)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2002, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/199 "2002-11-22T17:20:32Z")
In case you guys are interested, there’s an organization offering a bung-load of money to the first person that can demonstrate empirically how life can come from non-life. If you evos out there are interested, i’ll send you a copy. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2002, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/200 "2002-11-22T18:49:11Z")
You bumped this sad thread for that? You mean Hovind’s challenge? : [StarNet Australia - StarNet Australia](http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_challenge.htm) {couldn’t get a hyperlink to work with this for some reason} And [this](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html) is why he does not have to worry about giving his money away. 😕 can’t believe anybody would dregde up this sad thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127.md?page=11)