CreationWiki, evolution and the inerrant Bible

Eine deutsche Version befindet sich hier.

For all of us who are interested in fringe groups, CreationWiki provides us with an invaluable resource.

Naturally it is pretty dubious as a scientific source, but it gives us deep insights into the mind of creationists.

BildSome selected quotes follow.

Some who dismiss the idea of a global flood do so because they say the Flood would have had to rise as high as Mount Everest, because Genesis 7:19 says the waters covered “all the high hills.” Mount Everest peaks at 29,035 feet (8850 metres), and they say there is not enough water on earth to cover such a height.[13]

This is actually a straw man argument. Creationists do not claim that the Flood covered Mount Everest to its current height (see below). Those who accept the local-flood theory have to admit that the flood must have covered Mount Ararat, because that is where the ark landed. Mount Ararat is now 17,000 feet (5182 meters) high. In the local-flood theory, it would have had the same height before as after the Flood. But waters do not form a cube 17,000 feet high, which seems to make the local-flood theory illogical. The Bible tells us what happened:

“You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them. You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.”Psalm 104:6-9

This passage tells us that mountains rose and valleys sank during the Flood. Mount Everest rose up during the Flood, so the Flood did not need to reach the height that Mount Everest is today.

There is enough water on earth for a global flood. If the earth was smoothed out, the water in the oceans would cover it to a depth of about 8,813 feet (2.6 kilometres). This does not include the water in rivers, lakes, glaciers, and other sources. They would add about another 2–3 thousand feet (600-900 metres). In reality, the Flood would only need to be a little over 7,000 feet (2.1 kilometres) deep.

So the real question is whether it is possible for Mount Everest to have risen to its current height fast enough to fit a time-scale consistent with the Flood. The earthquake that caused the Indonesian tsunami of December 26, 2004 caused an uplift of at least 20 feet (six metres) in a few minutes, which is a speed of about 240 feet per hour (84 metres per hour). At that rate Mount Everest could have reached its current height in about five days. Forces observed in earthquakes are sufficient, if extended long enough, to quickly raise the highest mountain to its current height in just a few days.

The result is that, based on the amount of water on earth, and observed tectonic forces, there was the potential to quickly raise mountains. So the global Flood of the Bible is theoretically possible. You can see a seafloor study that traces culprits behind Indian Ocean tsunami[14] for further explanation.”

“Could a just God destroy innocent life?

This objection refers to the many living things that were destroyed in the Flood. Why destroy the innocent animals? This is answered with an examination of the context. Mortal life, including plants and animals, since the Fall of Adam and Eve, is subject to death. Withholding a global flood would not have saved any animal or plant from death. The justice of God provided a way for many species to be saved on the Ark. God waited as long as his justice would allow, before causing a Flood that would shorten the life spans of individual creatures but would not destroy species: Life would return and the earth would be repopulated.”

(Wow, and it is evolutionists who are nihilists denying any value to life???)

Homo erectus is the species name assigned to human fossils that evolutionists claim are transitional forms between australopithecines (apes) and both Neanderthals and modern humans. To date, more than 280 fossil individuals have been found that are identified with this group.[1] The species name means “erect or upright man” and was the name first put forth by Ernst Mayr to unify the classification of Asian fossils.

Creationists generally agree that all supposed ape-men fossils are, in fact, either ape or fully human. Species names within the taxonomic genus homo are viewed as fabricated classes invented to support evolutionary theory, and should be regarded as mere instruments of propaganda. The majority of Homo erectus fossils represent the populations of humans that lived following the global flood and the Tower of Babel, and should be considered true Homo sapiens.[2]”

The extensive timeframe of Homo erectus fossils overlaps other hominids so extensively that it should void any attempt to claim an evolutionary sequence. For example, Homo erectus is almost universally held to have evolved from Homo habilis despite the fact that their fossils appear at roughly the same time (the oldest H. erectus fossil is dated at 1.95 mya and the oldest H. habilis fossil dated at just over 2.0 mya). Furthermore, they continued to coexists throughout the entire 500,000 year span when Homo habilis is said to have lived.[11] Such inconsistencies between the theory of evolution and the fossil evidence are often concealed. Marvin Lubenow warns in his book, Bones of Contention, about the way that evolutionists present the relationship between Homo habilis and Homo erectus..

Terms like Homo erectus and Homo habilis are convenient terms to use in reference to groups of fossil material. But it is obvious that when evolutionists give dates for Homo erectus that do not fit the fossil material, or when they say that Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus, contrary to what the fossil material shows, they are using those terms in a manipulative manner without regard for the fossil material in those categories. It is not unusual in evolutionary charts to show Homo habilis somewhat below Homo erectus, implying that Homo habilis is earlier in time.[12]

Furthermore, H. erectus is shown to have lived alongside what are known as “early Homo sapiens” during their entire 700,000 year existence, and alongside Neanderthals throughout the 800,000 years of their history. And lastly, Homo erectus individuals have lived side by side with anatomically modern humans for 2 million years (according to evolutionary chronology).[13]”

I think that I am much more depressed than angry after having read that.

Creationists (especially those believing in a young earth) are one of the main reasons why people give up their Christian faith and become atheists.

I think that Richard Dawkins in all this glory could never be as successful as they are in that respect.

Losing faith, apostasy, atheism, bad apologetics

10 thoughts on “CreationWiki, evolution and the inerrant Bible

  1. The quality of “science” done by creationists is perfectly summed up by the “plushy kind” incident. In an article at Answers in Genesis which purportedly illustrated the work of creationist “scientists” in classifying animals according to “baramin” or Biblical “kind”- the different animals required on the Ark, in other words, there appeared a photo of what they called the “sugar glider” kind. Sugar gliders are marsupials which look a lot like flying squirrels and pursue a similar lifestyle in Australia. Trouble is, the cute sugar glider in the photo was a plush toy, and any four-year-old could have told them so.

    When this was pointed out, the “scientists” did a bit more research and found a photo of a real sugar glider, without of course mentioning their previous endorsement of the “plushy kind”. What dedicated researchers.

    • When this was pointed out, the “scientists” did a bit more research and found a photo of a real sugar glider, without of course mentioning their previous endorsement of the “plushy kind”.

      “In all of these efforts, [to promote creationism in schools] the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must.”
      -William J. Bennetta

    • Thanks, this one example where one can be sure where the non-sense comes from 🙂

      But I feel pretty sad about Ken Ham and his ministry which serves anti-theism and bring many people away from God and Christianity.

    • Yes I think I will separate all my previous posts in this way.

      It is probably more pleasant for German-speaking folks whose English level is not that well.

      I’m certainly looking forward to reading future posts from you about creation 🙂

  2. CreationWiki is hilarious alright, but for a good laugh, you just have to visit the Conservapedia:
    This is what the conservapedia has to say about the theory of relativity:
    “Despite censorship of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of liberal universities.”
    and this is one of their examples that “proves” that the theory of relativity is false:
    “The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.”

    As a side note, I disagree with your label “fringe groups” – it is “fringe” from an euro-centric perspective maybe, but in many other countries, including the USA, it is everything but “fringe”, quote from wiki:

    Since 1982, between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States say they hold the creationist view that “God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years” when Gallup asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings.[8] A 2011 Gallup survey reports that 30% of U.S. adults say they interpret the Bible literally.[9]

    • Dear Andy, I am sure you know Poe’s law, don’t you?

      So it cannot be ruled out that some of the most ridicule stuff you find there are written by (nasty) godless liberals 🙂

      Yes, in Europe those folks definitely belong to fringe groups.

      In France (and in Germany) you would really have a hard time finding roman Catholics believing in this type of non-sense.

      I will certainly write posts about conservapedia in the future, but only if I am sure the junk really stems from fundies.

      I will first write posts dealing with creationist views of human origins, and I am sure you could bring up valuable and important informations.

      Liebe Grüsse aus Amsterdam, wo ich übernachte, weil mein erster Flieger mit Verspätung angekommen ist.

  3. There has never been any good argument I’ve seen that excuses the deaths of the children of the evil men and women slain in the flood.
    Nor have I seen, any good excuse for the slaughter of the children of the evil philistines, amelekites, amorites, etc.
    Nor have I seen any good excuse for the slaughter of the children of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s