YouTube videos: Why do people laugh at creationists?

« Barak Obama is the Antichrist?

Christian Colleges and Evolution »

YouTube videos: Why do people laugh at creationists?

February 22, 2008 by tinyfrog

PZ Myers’ recent post, which included a creationist mangling whale evolution, reminded me of this series of videos:

Parts 1-3:

The author of these videos has made a lot more. Right now, there are seventeen videos in the series.

Posted in Creationism, Creationist Ignorance, Evolution, YoungEarthCreationism | 12 Comments

12 Responses

on February 23, 2008 at 3:03 am | Reply Techskeptic

oh man, you really are a bastard!

I got totally sucked into those vids. They are really well done! Sometimes I can see soem places where are creationist would glaze over. But wow.
on February 23, 2008 at 9:56 pm | Reply tinyfrog

🙂
on February 24, 2008 at 12:09 am | Reply Michael Sartain

From the third video: “In order to understand why this is bullshit…”

That was awesome! Totally caught me off guard after watching the first two. Great stuff, thanks so much for posting them.
on February 29, 2008 at 2:34 am | Reply young earth creationism

[…] time model&quot would not likely be seen in a public school …www.southeasttexaslive.comYouTube videos: Why do people laugh at creationists? The author of these videos has made a lot more. Right now, there are seventeen videos in the […]
on March 1, 2008 at 1:13 am | Reply Mercurious

I love these videos. I’ve actually been subscribed to them for a while now. I truly love the whole “ice shield” that explains the flood. Someday I really wish we could hear peoples thoughts when they try to come up with all this BS.
on March 1, 2008 at 2:58 pm | Reply limonit

This is simply GREAT! Those videos are really well done!
on March 3, 2008 at 6:11 am | Reply �Por qu� se r�en de los creacionistas?

[…] (V�a Tiny frog) […]
on April 17, 2008 at 11:35 pm | Reply geniuos

who made thes?
on April 19, 2008 at 8:08 am | Reply tinyfrog

Who made these? This YouTube user: http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t
on February 2, 2009 at 1:41 am | Reply Monkey Face

Well, gee… let’s see. Not all idiotic beliefs come from creationists. I can think of some that came from evolutionists, can you?

1. Piltdown jaw – was a hoax that lasted for, um, let’s see, how many DECADES? All because evolutionists saw what they wanted to believe, and didn’t bother to investigate the actual evidence right under their noses as thoroughly as they should have.

2. Or more recently, um, the whole idea that HIV causes Aids was just revealed as being without merit based on tainted evidence published way back in 1984 in one of the most prestigious (and PEER REVIEWED, no less) science journals on the planet. Wonder why it took so long for anyone to replicate the tests AND validate the results AND have ’em published in Science. Cany anyone spell “retraction” (oh, I guess that’s just too embarassing)

I’m not excusing any of the lame arguments presented in these videos, but if you guys think all creationists would agree that there is no water in solar system except on planet earth, then you’re cherry picking opinions of a few with the hope and intent that it will make all creationists look like stupid idiots. Gee, turns out that probably MOST creationists wouldn’t agree with that point of view.

Sure hope it makes you feel good to pinch those wacky creationists and their totally ridiculous notions, as if nothing like that ever came from evolutionists or other ‘real’ scientists who allow their perspective to color their view of the evidence so much that they immediately expect (and whoa, find!) confirmation in everything they see. There’s a phrase for that, and it’s called CONFIRMATION BIAS.

Ouch, I can really feel the sting of your argument. Wow. I guess we should just ignore anything ANY of those crazy creationists have to say…
on February 2, 2009 at 5:56 am | Reply tinyfrog

1. Piltdown jaw – was a hoax that lasted for, um, let’s see, how many DECADES? All because evolutionists saw what they wanted to believe, and didn’t bother to investigate the actual evidence right under their noses as thoroughly as they should have.

I’m not sure how much the evolutionists embraced Piltdown Man or how many people had examined it. It was, however, discovered as a fraud by scientists.

To quote TalkOrigins:

The reaction to the finds [of Piltdown] was mixed. On the whole the British paleontologists were enthusiastic; the French and American paleontologists tended to be skeptical, some objected quite vociferously. The objectors held that the jawbone and the skull were obviously from two different animals and that their discovery together was simply an accident of placement. In the period 1912-1917 there was a great deal of skepticism. The report in 1917 of the discovery of Piltdown II converted many of the skeptics; one accident of placement was plausible — two were not.
…
Piltdown man had the expected mix of features, which lent it plausibility as a human precursor.
…
This plausibility did not hold up. During the next two decades there were a number of finds of ancient hominids and near hominids, e.g. Dart’s discovery of Australopithecus, the Peking man discoveries, and other Homo erectus and australopithecine finds. Piltdown man did not fit in with the new discoveries.
…
In the period 1930-1950 Piltdown man was increasingly marginalized and by 1950 was, by and large, simply ignored. It was carried in the books as a fossil hominid. From time to time it was puzzled over and then dismissed again. The American Museum of Natural History quietly classified it as a mixture of ape and man fossils. Over the years it had become an anomaly; some prominent authors did not even bother to list it. In Bones of Contention Roger Lewin quotes Sherwood Washburn as saying

“I remember writing a paper on human evolution in 1944, and I simply left Piltdown out. You could make sense of human evolution if you didn’t try to put Piltdown into it.”

Finally, in 1953, the roof fell in. Piltdown man was not an ancestor; it was not a case of erroneous interpretation; it was a case of outright deliberate fraud.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

2. Or more recently, um, the whole idea that HIV causes Aids was just revealed as being without merit…

Yeah, that’s helping your case. I’m not even going to bother arguing.

Sure hope it makes you feel good to pinch those wacky creationists and their totally ridiculous notions…

Yup. Did I mention that I was raised to believe in young earth creationism (both in school and at home)? I have a pretty good grasp on the whole idea; I’m not just some outsider with a few vague notions about creationists and what they believe.
on February 2, 2009 at 8:13 pm | Reply Monkeyface

Oh, so I guess the alleged failure to reference it made is somehow more acceptable that it continued to remain “on the books” as a legitimate ancestor. I just love the way TalkOrigins tries to minimize the impact, how revisionist of them. You should do your own research instead of relying on what they say (which makes you no better than those crazy creationist quote miners…)

One of the heaviest promoters of Piltdown man was Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote as late as 1948 that:

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. The Earliest Englishman (1948) p.xii

Then there are comments like this one to consider:

“When preconception is so clearly defined, so easily reproduced, so enthusiastically welcomed and so long accomodated as in the case of Piltdown Man, science reveals a disturbing predisposition towards belief before investigation.”

Reader, John in Missing Links. Collins, London, (1981), p.81.

Being raised a creationist has nothing to do with leveraging their wackiest notions and expecting everyone to believe they all think the same way. They don’t.

I was also raised as one. So what? That’s not the point I made. The point is: you can’t take a swipe at obviously flawed science, whatever the source, and extrapolate and attribute those views across an entire group. It doesn’t work that way, and anyone with any sense recognizes it and dismisses your argument out of hand (as I do).

Comments RSS

	sharika auxier on Saint Matthew’s Churches…
	Quiz: Are Your Inter… on Facebook
	Uwe Mueller on Saint Matthew’s Churches…
	Uwe Mueller on Saint Matthew’s Churches…
	Henrik on Muslim Demographics

Tiny Frog

Atheism, Evolution, Skepticism

YouTube videos: Why do people laugh at creationists?

Like this:

Related

12 Responses

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Pages

Blog Stats