googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: Are creationists arrogant? A review of King Crocoduck's series: Part 5

Thursday, August 31, 2017

Are creationists arrogant? A review of King Crocoduck's series: Part 5



King Crocoduck (which I abbreviate as KC) concludes his series with a brief recap of the first 4 videos. As I listened to the summary of each video, I kept thinking of things I'd like to have included in my previous criticism that I could include now but I'm going to resist for the sake of space. Anyway, he seems to express a belief that his first 4 videos built upon each other in a logical progression leading up to his main point which is what he claims is the motive behind creationists' arrogance. I just don't see the progression. Actually, I wasn't even sure of his main point in video 4 until I heard his summary but OK, I'll concede that each video made a different point. Even so, KC's always-present condescension and incessant barrage of insults made all of the videos sound alike.

I wanted to cite a pithy quote from KC to summarize his point in video 5 but couldn't find so I'll have to provide my own summary. KC is saying that creationists – all creationists – intentionally lie and pervert science solely to make the available data seem to fit our narrow interpretation of our sacred text. Beginning at around 9:48, KC says, “Creationists, if your position is so strong, why do you rely on such dishonesty to defend it? I'm not just referring to examples of fraud, like the Paluxy riverbed footprints or the creationist leaders with fake academic degrees. I'm talking about the entire philosophy of creationist claims.” Now, lest anyone think KC is using hyperbole when he says, “the entire philosophy of creationist claims,” I will quote KC further. He says, “Any and all creationists claims will, without exception, fall into at least one of the following categories:”
  • Failure with regard to the scientific method and/or relevant scientific principles
  • Unreasonable/Inconsistent standard of evidence
  • Vague terminology
  • You just have to beeleev!” (that is, to have blind, dogmatic faith in creationism)
There you have it, folks. Every claim, every argument, every fossil, every fact, every piece of data ever cited by a creationist is a fraud!

Keeping this list in mind, back up the video to about 2:38 where KC says, “A scientist's judgment remains tabular rasa and a scientist will only follow evidence wherever it leads – not wherever they want it to go!” OK, then here is my question: When KC overtly states that all evidence for creation will be flawed or fabricated, how can he possibly believe that all scientists look at the evidence objectively? You see, KC is doing exactly what he accuses creationists of doing. He has already made up his mind that origin models like the Big Bang and evolution are true. Therefore, any evidence I could present to the contrary will be - indeed, has been already – dismissed a priori without even being examined.

Let me give you an example of the how scientists have a bias that influences how they interpret evidence. Young earth creationists believe dinosaurs were contemporary with humans and only became extinct a few thousand years ago. A few years ago, Dr. Mary Schweitzer found red blood cells in a t-rex fossil. Since creationists believe the dinosaur fossil could only be a few thousand years old, it's not really a surprise there might be original biomatter still contained in it. Many creationists, myself included, have cited this as evidence in support of our theory. It's one of my “10 Evidences for Biblical Creation.”

Evolutionists, on the other hand, believe the fossil is 68 million years old. How do they explain the fact that it still contained red blood cells? Their first instinct was to deny that it was red blood cells. Many believed it was misidentified or was possibly the result of contamination. This objection could not be supported for long because we've since found original biomatter in other dinosaur fossils It turns out to be somewhat common – it just wasn't discovered earlier because nobody was cutting fossils open to look for it. Since it really is original, soft tissue in the fossils, they have to explain it somehow. According to Smithsonian.com, If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.... [this find is] showing us we really don’t understand decay.

Hmm. Maybe we really do understand decay. Maybe we understand decay so well that we know these fossils can't really be 65 million years old. KC says scientists are “blank slates.” In this case, they refuse to consider the most obvious conclusion only to look for a solution that flies in the face of what we have learned through simple observation. Why? If scientists were truly blank slates, why won't they even consider “younger than 65 million years” as one possible explanation - especially knowing that even a dinosaur found alive today doesn't necessarily disprove evolution? It's because they have a vested interest in preserving their dating methods and any evidence that might contradict the assigned date of the fossil puts other parts of their precious theories in jeopardy. They're certainly not going where the evidence leads. Their theory is leading them around by the nose when it comes to interpreting the data.


Zealot followers of scientism stubbornly deny reality because of their religious-like commitment to naturalism. Nothing miraculous can be true. They will believe any outrageous theory regarding the origin of the universe besides special creation and for no other reason than creation is a miracle and miracles don't happen. Even where they have no other explanation for something, they still remain certain that God didn't do it.

This goes back to what I said in my introduction to this series: KC believes there is exactly one possible interpretation of the evidence – the natural explanation agreed on by a majority of scientists. He states as fact things he cannot possibly demonstrate scientifically (like matter being eternal) and paints anyone who disagrees with him as arrogant. Any argument made by a creationist, no matter how reasonable it may sound, no matter how well examined it may be, no matter how many credentials the creationist may have, can be valid. End of debate.

If you haven't watched the entire series, let me sum up every point made by KC like this: “We weren't created by God. Anyone who says that is just stupid and a liar trying to con you. Scientists don't have all the answers but that doesn't matter because you wouldn't be able to understand them anyway. Just trust us because we're brilliant and we study this stuff.” Oh, and while you read this, try to sound as condescending and obnoxious as you can possibly be and there you have KC's entire series.


Read the entire series:

3 comments:

Steven J. said...

Your example (surviving protein fragments in dinosaur fossils) is an example of "unreasonable/inconsistent standard of evidence." It does not seem at all likely that scientists understand organic decay processes (and what might alter them) better than they understand radioactive decay processes, and rates that are directly tied to fundamental principles of quantum physics. Scientists are not more sure of decay rates of cells and proteins than they are that, e.g. the Hell Creek fossils (from which a tyrannosaur with surviving proteins came) contain no animal fossils from living species, genera, or families (an example of what is called "faunal succession."

Concluding that these dinosaur fossils are less than 5000 years old would solve the problem of why they contain protein fragments, and cause many others; that is not the way, I assume, that you would seek to resolve problematic evidence on any question that didn't touch on your theology.

Again, while no evidence could distinguish between the effects of a miracle and the effects of natural processes unknown to us, it would be trivially easy for evidence to support a young earth and separate origins for different "kinds." We might find, for example, that radiometric dating doesn't show any rock layers older than ten thousand years (yes, I recall the problems connected with K-Ar dating; this does not affect other dating methods and, for that matter, an omnipotent Creator could take care of it anyway). We could find no examples of shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses shared by humans and other primates (we could in principle find no other primates, living or fossil -- why should specially created humans fit into the nested hierarchy expected from common descent but not from common design?) Creationists fit out the "creation model" with a dozen layers of epicycles to explain everything from why we can see distant galaxies to why we don't find dolphins and ichthyosaurs in the same strata, and then express hurt bewilderment that scientists don't reject three centuries of accumulated evidence for a 4.54 billion-year-old Earth over a few smelly fossils.

RKBentley said...

Steven J,

You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. In this case, you pick at my example and ignore the entire point. I cited original biomatter in allegedly ancient fossils as evidence that they aren't ancient. If that's all I had, maybe you could say I'm being unreasonable. You ask, “what about radiometric dating?” Well, intact proteins in a fossil that supposedly 65 million years old, could cast doubt on your dating method. When you further consider that your dating methods rountinely fail to assign correct ages to rock of known origins AND we still find carbon 14 everywhere we test for it – even in samples supposedly 1 billion years old – where any carbon 14 should have disappeared long ago, then maybe there is a flaw is your dating methods.

But here's the point your ignoring: KC claims that I'm being arrogant and deceptive just for bringing up the fact that we have found original red blood cells in fossils that are claimed to be millions of years old.

There are some things which evolutionists repeat that are lies. There are other things that evolutionists sincerely believe but are just wrong about. But even I wouldn't say that every claim ever made by an evolutionist is false. When your opponent demonizes your position by saying, “Everything he tells you is a lie,” it's obvious he's not the blank slate he claims to be.

Thanks for your comments. God bless!!

RKBentley

Steven J. said...

There are no red blood cells in dinosaur fossils. There are tiny spots that contain iron; these may well be remains of actual red blood cells but they are no more the actual cells than the fossils are actual live dinosaurs.

I have explained to you the problems of using K-Ar dating on young rocks (to wit, the same decay product you're looking for already makes up 1% of any remaining air in the test chamber), and noted that carbon-14 forms naturally in the environment all the time, and there's no reason small amounts of it can't form in billion-year-old rocks. To evaluate radioactive dating properly, you have to understand the actual physics behind it, not merely presuppose that physics might not work if your theology finds it inconvenient.

You don't address my point about faunal succession. Nor do you address my point about the nested hierarchies of comparative anatomy and comparative genomics. These are valid points -- an entire herd of camels you propose to swallow while straining at your own gnats.