Heaving Dead Cats

Recently, a friend of mine went to the Center For Inquiry in his hometown. There was a book discussion about "50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a god". This is part of his email to me about it:

The guy who leads the Scientific Evaluation of Religion things for this location has done a pretty good job the two times I have gone. I really have to give him credit and say I was impressed at how he handled this meeting since IT GOT HIJACKED BY A GROUP OF YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS! That's right, you heard me. It was pretty interesting for me to see first hand their pulling out all the old cliché arguments for Christianity. They got started when there was a chapter summary that mentioned that most religious people are skeptical of other peoples faiths but not their own, they took issue with that statement and then proceeded to confirm its accuracy with their actions.

One creationist gave everyone a four-page handout entitled "Evolution, Science or Religion?" which my friend sent me a few days later. Here it is as he sent it to me: (BEGIN LOGICAL FALLACY DRINKING GAME NOW)

Evolution, Science or Religion?

Operational Science by definition uses observable, repeatable, and verifiable experiments to try to discover truth.

Origin Science relies on presuppositions, interpretations, and theory based on artifacts and remains. Origin Science tries to determine the past. This in not real science for it is neither observable, repeatable, or verifiable. Origin Science are interpretations based on operational science.

Scientific Fact Observed- 85% of the world's rock is sedimentary and is found all over the world.

Belief #1 - This rock took billions of years to form through wind and water erosion.

Belief #2 - This rock was formed by a worldwide flood.

Both are beliefs, interpretations of the facts. The question is: which best explains the facts?

Which of these beliefs better explains polystrate fossils? Fossilized trees that go through multiple rock layers? Did those layers form around ther trees over millions of years or was it rapid sedimentation that occurred? What belief better explains this fact?

Which of those beliefs better explain that there are fossilized clams that have been found on the top of Mount Everest?

Have you ever taken a look at Burlingame Canyon? It took 6 days for this canyon to form... it is verifyable.

Scientific Fact Observed- the moon is drifting away from the earth slowly.

Belief #1- The Universe is billions of years old.

Belief #2 - The Universe is only thousands of years old. Because if you trace the drifting of the moon back for millions of years the moon would be on top of the earth. If you trace it back even less than that the moon would be so much closer to the earth that our tides would be out of control.

Which of these beliefs best fit the Science that we observe?

Scientific Fact Observed - Neptune is a very active planet that is still producing heat, has winds that reach over 1300 MPH and it gives off over twice the amount of energy than what it receives from the sun.

Belief #1- The Universe is billions of years old.

Belief #2 - The Universe is only several thousand years old. If it were millions or billions of years old Neptune would have cooled off and become inactive by now because of its distance from the sun. But if it is only thousands of years old then it would still be cooling off.

Use your reason... Assuming man evolved over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years, using an average life span of 43 years per generation and a family producing an average of 2.5 children, accounting for natural depletion by wars, famines, and plagues, our world should be populated by trillions of people. If this is true, where are they and where are the mountains of skeletons they would have generated?

Scientific Fact Observed - Birds give birth to Birds, dogs give birth to dogs, monkeys give birth to monkeys, humans give birth to humans etc.

Belief #1- All living things have a common ancestor. Over a long period of time sea creatures mutated into reptiles, reptiles mutated into birds which eventually led to every living creature we have today. (This is oversimplified but you get the general idea.)

Belief #2- All creatures were created fully functional and give birth after their own kind.

Which belief better fits what we observe?

Scientific fact observed - There has never been a mutation that has ever produced an increase or addition of information to the genetic code.

Belief #1 - Mutations are the engine that has brought about the evolution of all living creatures from single celled organism into all the creatures we see today.

Belief #2 - Mutations do occur. Mutations occor within kinds. There is no way mutation can change a simpler organism into a more complex organism because they do not produce new genetic information. Felines change into different kinds of felines, canines into different kinds of canines, but never felines into canines or any other transition between kinds.

Scientific fact observed - Geological research shows no transitional fossils.

Belief #1 - It's not that they never existed, it's that the geological record isn't complete. "The explanation lies, however, in the extreme imperfection of the geologic record" - Charles Darwin

Belief #2 - Transitions between kinds has never occurred.

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossils or living, certainly I would have included it... I will lay it on the line. There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument". - Dr. Colin Patterson, Director of the British Museum of Natural History. Well Respected evolutionist and author, Letter to Luther D Sunderland

When talking about transitional fossils Charles Darwin said, "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory"

As stated above Darwin attributed this to the incompleteness of the exploration of the fossil record at the time. But today, well over a century after that time with thousands of tons of fossils from all over the world the lack of transitional fossils is still a problem.

Evolutionist David Raup reviews the evidence from us. He has been the curator of the famous Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. That museum houses 20% of all fossil species known, so Raup is in a position to speak with considerable knowledge about fossil evidence. He says:

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded... Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."

Which belief better fits the facts?

Scientific Fact observed- everything which has a beginning has a cause (Law of Cause and effect)

Belief #1- In the Beginning the universe caused itself.

Belief #2- In the Beginning God created the universe

If matter had a beginning, then belief number 1 cannot be true, the law of cause and effect shows that everything that has a beginning has a cause. Therefore one must conclude one of two things: either matter had no beginning or it had a cause.

Scientific Fact Observed - The 2nd Law of thermodynamics: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

Belief #1 - Matter had no beginning. The universe caused itself.

Belief #2 - Matter had a beginning, it was created by God.

If matter had no beginning then how can the 2nd law of thermodynamics be true? If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy. Therefore if the universe has a beginning, it must have a cause (Law of cause and effect)

Which belief fits the facts? The universe had no cause, or God caused the universe?

One might ask "Well what/who caused God?". Well that's a good question. First I would say that logic demands that there be something which had no cause, something that is eternal. Because if I would answer who/what caused God, you would say "well who/what caused that?" and it would be an endless cycle. There had to have been something which had no beginning, and had no cause. These past two scientific facts prove that matter itself cannot be that which had no beginning or cause. Logic demands there must be something eternal, Science proves matter can't be eternal, the Bible describes God as eternal. God is outside of time/space, He is eternal.

Scientific fact observed- Nonliving matter cannot produce living creatures. (Law of Biogenisis/Pasteur's Law)

Belief #1- Life was spontaneously generated from nonliving matter, not from a Creator.

Belief #2- Life was created by God

Which answer best explains the facts? Science says spontaneous generation can't happen, without God the first living organism would have had to have come from nonliving matter. But this is scientifically impossible.

Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of the Nobel Prize for developing penicillin said this, "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

Nobel Prize winning evolutionist and Harvard professor Dr George Wald answered this question when he said, "There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising into evolution or the supernatural creative act of a God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, however, was scientifically disproved by Louis Pasteur and others. Therefore, that leaves only one possibility as to how life arose, that it was a supernatural creative act of a God. However, I choose not to believe this, because I do not want to believe in a God. Therefore I choose to believe that which I know is scientifically impossible."

Why would Dr Wald, a man smart enough to win a Nobel prize, believe and teach something he considered to be scientifically impossible? Because he said he didn't want to believe in a God. Why didn't he want to believe in a God? Because if God is real then we will be accountable to Him one day.

If God is real you will stand in front of Him one day as well, how will you do? Here is a quick test: Have you ever lied? Have you ever stolen something? Jesus said " If you have looked with lust you've committed adultery in your heart" Have you looked with lust? Have you ever murdered someone? Keep in mind Jesus said if you hate your brother or call your brother a fool you will be judged as a murderer. Have you ever taken God's name in vain? This is called blasphemy. This is like taking God's holy name, throwing it into the mud and stomping on it. Imagine if I took your mother's name and used it in place of a 4 letter word. You'd be very offended wouldn't you?... So how will you do? This is only four of the Ten Commandments, which is God's standard of righteousness. When you stand before God will you be innocent or guilty? Will you be deserving of Heaven or Hell? Listen to your conscience, God gave you His moral code and a conscience so that you would know you are in need of Him.

Psalm 53:1 "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God." When you look around and see design, order, art, and creation it is axiomatic that there is a designer, an orderer, an artist, and a creator behind it. We know there is design in something like a chair or an automobile. We know because the object itself is the evidence. You would not have to convince me that someone designed an automobile, I just know. Why then do we try to postulate (based on no facts, just guesses) that there is no designer or creator to nature, plants, animals, and humans?

If your conscience is telling you that you are guilty of breaking God's commands that is a good thing. Listen to your conscience and understand that there is something wrong. Breaking God's law will condemn you to Hell. Once you understand this you will understand that it is not God's will to send anyone to Hell. Jesus Christ came to this earth (a historical fact that only extreme scoffers try to deny). Jesus said, "I am th way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me." You see punishment that we all deserve for breaking God's law was poured out on Christ. God loved us so much that He chose to cruch His own Son for our sake. The Bible tells us that Jesus became sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God. There is no other belief, idea, person, religion, or anything that can save us from our sins. We must repent (turn from our sins) and believe the gospel. Don't rely on blind faith any longer. Check out the claims of Christ and the Bible for yourself. Remember this story, many people came to Jesus and had objections to His message. He replied to them and said, "Unless you repent you will likewise perish." Please do not be the kind of person that looks for any excuse to reject the message of salvation. Repent and believe the gospel today.

If you started the Logical Fallacy Drinking Game at the top, you are totally sloshed now, so you're probably not even able to focus on the text anymore. Go pray to the white porcelain god for a bit then come back and tell us what you think. :P

My friend (who I am not naming because I didn't ask his permission) says he's going to go through and refute each point. Honestly this kind of dreck just makes me tired. I am posting it without comment for now. Feel free to pick it apart in the comments and maybe we can tackle different parts in different posts.

EDIT: I forgot that my friend (sorry, I really should have asked him if I could use his name, sorry) wrote a little creation story in response:

It's obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence without some preconceived idea.
I mean we know for a fact that Odin, Vili and Ve killed Ymir, and his blood flooded the world and drowned all of the jötunn, except two.
But jötnar grew again in numbers and soon there were as many as before Ymir's death.
Then the gods created seven more worlds using Ymir's flesh for dirt, his blood for the Oceans, rivers and lakes, his bones for stone, his brain as the clouds, his skull for the heavens.
We know this because we see that the the earth is made from only a few "elements". Just use your logic and the wisdom that comes from the all father, Odin.
Also "seven more worlds" right? 1 + 7 = 8 and now that we got the Pluto thing settled there are 8 planets in our solar system. Or should I say "Ymir's left over body soup system" Slam dunk! Norse creation FTW! Jesus PWNED!
Sparks from Muspelheim flew up and became stars.
Sparks, am I right? We know stars are big burny things. That's science people!
One day when the gods were walking they found two tree trunks. They transformed them into the shape of humans. We know this for a fact! Odin gave them life, Vili gave them mind and Ve gave them the ability to hear, see, and speak.
The gods named them Ask and Embla and built the kingdom of Middle-earth for them; and, to keep out the jötnar, the gods placed a gigantic fence made of Ymir's eyelashes around Middle-earth.
Again, that is just science. Look down at your descended from tree truck people bodies and give thanks that we still have eyelashes keeping the jötnar at bay.

All hail the magic giant eyelash fence! WOOT! This is such a brilliant response. It makes way more sense though. LOL

Back to the creationist handout bullshit: I thought about removing the blatant proselytizing at the end, but then I figured you're big people, you can handle it. Your comments are welcome and encouraged.

What's your favorite bit that you find totally insanely stupid? Which fallacy does it commit? Why does it drive you mad?