Measured Against Reality

Thursday, May 10, 2007

The dumbest creationist quote ever

From Cosmic Variance here's one of the best creationist quotes ever. It's so good I had to share it:

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.


You should be laughing quite hard right now. I know I was. The funny thing is that this person is exactly right about his science. Life on Earth couldn't function without some giant influx of energy. We'd die a cold, lonely death without it (just like the universe will eventually). But we fortunately do have energy coming in, and us scientists do indeed know about it (as does everyone else on the planet).

In case you don't get it, it's the sun.

Labels: ,

44 Comments:

  • Intelligence and creationism have never been good bedfellows.

    By Blogger JB, at 4:54 PM, May 10, 2007  

  • lolololololololol

    trying to use science to prove theology ends in failure

    By Blogger eviljebus, at 5:14 PM, May 10, 2007  

  • You forgot to get the name of the dumbfuck in question, so you could correctly attribute the idiocy to the correct idiot. It's not fair to label all creationists, I'm sure some of them are able to function as a modestly productive members of society.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:55 PM, May 10, 2007  

  • That's a good one! Thanks for the laugh!

    By Blogger Andy Dabydeen, at 7:01 PM, May 10, 2007  

  • I really think that quote is a spoof.

    By Blogger pshaw, at 7:05 PM, May 10, 2007  

  • I'm a moderator at FSTDT (Fundies Say The Darndest Things), where this quote was first brought to light. We try to keep troll posts off our site, but there's no evidence that shows this to be anything other than the honest opinion of a sadly deluded fundamentalist.

    The website is at http://www.fstdt.com.

    By Blogger Gadren, at 8:27 PM, May 10, 2007  

  • If you go to FSTDT and follow the discussion, this person immediately writes another note saying "the sun doesn't count!". Their argument stays retarded, but they did seem to understand that the sun exists.

    By Blogger Chuck, at 8:38 PM, May 10, 2007  

  • Chuck, I think that makes it even better. Talk about ignorant (and idiotic).

    By Blogger Stupac2, at 8:41 PM, May 10, 2007  

  • It's scary that only 28% of Americans believe in evolution.

    By Blogger Phatz, at 9:07 PM, May 10, 2007  

  • Then again, you have the biggest nutbag creationist - Ken Ham - who is about to open the Creation Museum at the end of May in Kentucky. Ken's wonderful and educational "museum" will teach us that dinosaurs and humans lived together and that dinosaurs even went on Noah's Ark. Have a read:

    http://paralleldivergence.com/2007/04/28/creation-museum-madness/

    By Blogger Stu, at 12:09 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • Even before photonic energy arrives to Earth, the atoms in Sun need an initial influx of energy too. So this blog serves as a good example for how Darwinists take evolution as represented by random mutation and natural selection, _way_ too far back with absolutely no justification.

    If only Darwin himself were around to publish a small Addendum to his work, having witnessed the past 40 years of biology by looking inside of a cell.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:29 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • "Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase" is incomplete as it is ... one must add "In a closed environment".It is not well determined if the Universe is a "closed environment".Until this fact is determined one cannot bring into argument the second law of thermodinamics. :)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:46 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • Isn't it a beautiful thing that this man supports the theories of Thermodynamics, but then does believe that God almighty is able to find the loophole around these fundamental laws and create complex organisms?

    By Blogger Jim, at 2:26 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • 'The scientists would know about it' was comedy gold in itself.

    'The Sun doesn't count' is a coffee-through-your-nose moment.

    Why yes, yes indeed. Scientists have noticed this curious source of energy that seems to sustain increasing complexity.
    Oh, the sun doesn't count. Gosh darn, we're going to have to start looking for something else then. My Aunt Marcy still has a wind-up telephone, would that do?

    There really is no discussing science against this kind of argument.

    The strange thing is that there appears to be an emerging school of thought that science itself proves god exists. I'm not kidding. Because of the fact that the laws of nature are what they are and that elements have specific characteristics attached to them, without which you simply could not have -this- universe, it follows, apparently, that some outside entity had to be at work to carefully craft the universe.

    I have a hard time with that argument. However, it is not proposed by someone who snorts the bible everyday, this is not someone who believes in the child-like bible story. He makes a really good argument.
    Now you want to know his name and I absolutely want to give it to you, I just don't know it. I've only ever read one article about the man and there appears to be one scientist who changed his point of view: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to-creation-antony-flew-former-atheist.htm
    I don't want to promote that particular site, it's just the first google reference I could find where his name appears.
    Professor Flew is the man who was persuaded by the-guy-whose-name-I-don't-recall and on the surface the argument doesn't sound particularly silly nor is it brought with religious fervor or the promise of eternal damnation if you're not buying it.

    I'm not buying it though.

    Sorry for the long post.

    By Blogger Ig-meister, at 2:28 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • Wouldn't it be great if it were possible to get it into the heads of people who wantonly abuse science like this that the laws of thermodynamics only hold in closed environments? Last time I checked the earth doesn't exist in it's own personal bubble.

    By Blogger Craig, at 2:45 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • No way that's the dumbest creationist quote ever, but it is a good one. Actually, the guy is correct in everything he says!

    On the other hand the appeal to thermodynamics is the only 'creationist' argument I've seen that doesn't have an obvious answer yet (but this argument doesn't deny evolution, just that the process of evolution appears to contradict basic tendencies of physical systems.)

    By Blogger Em, at 3:06 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • Of course, the sun doesn't in fact count in quite the direct manner suggested: scientists are still struggling with much of the theory of evolution(see Dawkins, the man's a twerp but his science isn't bad). It's interesting how quick people are to replace one certainty with another, and condemn those who don't subscribe with a zeal first seen in heresy trials. For the record I'm not a creationist, I do believe in evolution (interesting how we always use that expression, don't you think?) and I do think that the quotation was produced by a clearly inarticulate person with a limited grasp of scientific research. The labelling of anybody who disagrees with a certain viewpoint as intellectually challenged just sounds a bit...well, fundamentalist to me.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:16 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • Also, surely simple to complex is an increase in entropy. Something complex, by its nature, has more information than something simple. In fact, you could probably define complexity in terms of increasing entropy. Although that is from a statistics point of view, and I know very little about thermodynamics.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:09 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • I cant beleive that so many people\atheists are so fkin stupid that they can't see the inconsistencies in the evolution theory.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:26 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • so let me get this right...you guys evolved from monkeys?

    By Blogger BijoSN, at 4:35 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • The creationist left out that the 2nd law of thermodynamics requires both an energy source -and- a way to harness that energy source. Only photosynthesis can harness the sun's energy, which is otherwise destructive.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:26 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • Maybe we should worship the sun...

    By Blogger patricio lopez, at 6:15 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • Your atheist media guide:
    Link

    By Blogger Useful Info, at 6:27 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • I think it bears mentioning that this post was a comment on a video game forum http://smashboards.com/. Here's the original post: http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1073734&postcount=232

    By Blogger JD, at 6:28 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • It is possible to be intelligent and have a creationist point of view. Yes, the quote comes across as misinformed, but I'm sure you'd be able to find some evolutionists who would also have trouble presenting the evolutionary point of view articulately. For a better description of how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics supports creationism, consider this webpage: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html
    Those who have their minds made up in favour of evolution or label others with a different point of view as a dumbf*ck need not bother.

    By Anonymous Andrew, at 6:36 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • Well, that just proves George Carlin's theory... We should all worship the sun.

    By Blogger Patach, at 8:01 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • ROFFLTMAOLOL. I love that so much. It's like that phony letter from the woman in Arkansas about Daylight Savings Time, only it's real.

    By Blogger Smaller Triangle, at 8:35 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • It's funny how "Evolutionist's" think we came from monkeys. How the F does that make any sense when monkeys still exist?If we all evolve how come animals cant talk yet? How come humans cant follow 10 simple commandments that aren't hard to understand? How come human nature doesn't change even after advances in technology and change of lifestyle and surroundings in the last 5 thousand years? Now who's outlook on life is retarted?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:17 AM, May 11, 2007  

  • Umm... your's does. Mr. "The world was made by some almighty god who gives people free will and then if they exercise it punishes them"

    Seriously. If your only argument is going to be something stupid like "why are monkeys still here" then I'm going to pull the dumbest part of the bible at you.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:29 PM, May 11, 2007  

  • Didn't christians change Apollo into Lucifer when they made the big takover of the Roman empire?

    By Anonymous sunny jim, at 8:59 PM, May 12, 2007  

  • Am I the only one that understands the compatibility of evolution and creationism(aka intelligent design)? I'm not saying I'm a creationist. I find evolution to be fascinating. But... is it not possible a power we don't understand guided evolution?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:48 PM, May 12, 2007  

  • Maybe it's easier to look at it this way:

    Religion = WHY are we here?
    Science = Well, we're here, HOW did we get here?

    It's two separate questions.

    As for the "monkey" question, evolution supposedly works along the lines of: First there were cells, then there were fish, then there were amphibians, then there were mammals, then there were people. (this is INSANELY simplified, I know.) The thing is, when there were fish, there were cells still becoming fish, when amphibians were becoming mammals, there were still fish becoming amphibians, so now that there are people, there are still monkeys becoming human.
    It's easy to call each other stupid and berate one another for being what one side perceives as wrong, but why must one side be right and one wrong? Why can't you live quietly with the knowledge and stop berating those who see things differently? Evolutionists, if they call you dumb, why don't you stop living up to their biblical "eye for an eye" and just let it go, and creationists, if you're right, why would you want to try to convince others anyway? Do you really want to share heaven with people you had to convince were wrong?

    Besides, everyone knows it was the Giant Spaghetti Monster...

    By Blogger Robert, at 2:45 PM, May 13, 2007  

  • For English lovers, would you kindly correct your grammar? "Us scientists do indeed know"? Come on! It's "We scientists". "Us" cannot be used as a subject in that sentence. If you're going to maintain such an intellectual conversation regarding the origin of life, you should correct your grammar. Some of us only appreciate scientific comments if they are worded accurately. If you can't even speak your own language correctly, why should I believe what you say against creation? If a man offends the law in one point, is he not guilty of all?

    By Anonymous grammarlovncreationist, at 10:23 AM, November 03, 2007  

  • Wow, awesome. And I mean awesome as mindblowing-standing-in-awe-of-some-people-who-manage-to-get-to-high-places-and-interviewed awesome. How did he manage that phrase without having his eyes explode.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:18 AM, December 03, 2008  

  • Love how the quote is attributed to.. oh wait, there's no attribution, other than "a creationist". Fail.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:34 AM, August 19, 2009  

  • Robert said: "As for the "monkey" question, evolution supposedly works along the lines of: First there were cells, then there were fish, then there were amphibians, then there were mammals, then there were people. (this is INSANELY simplified, I know.) The thing is, when there were fish, there were cells still becoming fish, when amphibians were becoming mammals, there were still fish becoming amphibians, so now that there are people, there are still monkeys becoming human."

    That's a misconception, evolution is not a progression. Animals and are trying to evolve into humans. If an animal is successful in it's environment, it will continure to survive with almost no evolutionary changes for millsions of years. Turtles and mice are good examples.

    As for the "humans came from monkeys" argument, that's also a misconception. Both humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor, think of it as a fork in the road as opposed to a linear progression. And also, just because one spiecies came from another doesn't mean the earlier spiecies suddenly dies out.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:43 AM, September 24, 2009  

  • okay, so where did the sun get it's energy from to develop?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:56 AM, April 07, 2010  

  • By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:59 AM, March 20, 2011  

  • http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-ten-engineers-of-all-time.html

    By Anonymous Sinus headache, at 12:48 PM, July 04, 2011  

  • These kind of post are always inspiring and I prefer to read quality content so I happy to find many good point here in the post, writing is simply great, thank you for the post penis enlargement penis enlargement pills VigRX Plus

    By Blogger Dave, at 9:46 AM, October 02, 2011  

  • This is really very informative post.

    By Anonymous Data Recovery Software, at 3:12 AM, October 12, 2011  

  • Quite useful information, thanks for your post.

    By Anonymous www.mueblesennavarra.com, at 11:41 PM, October 16, 2011  

  • By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:32 AM, October 24, 2011  

  • By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:09 PM, February 11, 2012  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home