Fish, m'boy, please get a clue.
There's a term here, an acronym, that is
PRATT. I keep forgetting what the "P" is, but it's a "point refuted a thousand times". And that is a gross
underestimate. PRATTs are those ridiculous claims that populate countless creationist sites and they are complete and utter
crap. The vast majority of them were concocted decades ago and they were completely refuted decades ago. But creationists keep circulating them and new creationists gobble them up like candy not realizing that the leaders they trust with their
souls are feeding them pure crap.
Hello??? Get a clue, Fishie!
For example, in the mid 1980's I investigated a moondust claim (
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/moondust.html) made by the Institute for Creation Research (the ICR, pretty much the founders of "creation science"; the late President of the ICR, Dr. Henry Morris, was the Father of Flood Geology). Eventually, the ICR distanced itself from that claim around 1990, and yet nearly every single book that they
still sell continue to make that exact same
false moondust claim as if it had not only never been refuted, but also as if it had never been disclaimed! New creationists nowadays pick up those books, or are told by others who have picked up those books, and they think those claims are the latest thing that "evolutionists" (whatever
that is supposed to mean) go into convulsions over from fear, and they have absolutely no idea whatsoever that those claims are decades old and were refuted decades ago and every "evolutionist" who's been around the park more than once knows that refutation by heart!
Creationism is tired old recycled
crap! And we treat it with exactly the respect that it deserves. You don't like that, but what else can we do? Crap is crap! We've been around for a while, so we know what's what. You're new so you don't know yet that your religious leaders are lying to you. But we do know!
And that "why are there still apes" is such archetypal crap that it almost deserves special treatment. When we first heard it, we immediately assumed that it had to be a stereotypical joke. I mean, who would actually make that claim? And then we personally witness a creationist presenting it and ... what can we say? It completely floors us that anybody would actually
use it. It is so completely and utterly stupid ... how could any actual person ever consider using it?
But what really blows our minds is: who are these people's religous leaders, preachers, who are feeding them this kind of crap? It's one thing for a completely ignorant newbie to be taken in, but a
religious leader? Oh, please, let that false religion self-destruct as soon as possible!
In case you think that it is a good claim, consider these questions. Are you of European stock? From what country? Do you believe that when your ancestors left that country, its population suddenly dropped to zero? Why don't you believe that? Duh?
When the first animal crawled out of the water to live on the land, did that suddenly empty the water of all animal life? Why not? Duh?
So then, Fishie boy, duh?
PS
Ikhthys is Greek for "fish": iota, khi, theta, upsilon, sigma. It's used by fundamentalist as a Greek acronym "Iesous Khristos Theou Hyios Soter" (Jesus Christ, of God Son, Savior). Hence my appellation for him.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber,
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in
The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield,
Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
™ Version 4.2