Creationist “Evidence”.

Creationism, as I’ve clarified before, does not mean belief in god or belief in a creator.  But rather it is the fringe view, even within most religions, that a particular creation story is to be taken literally.  This entails many impossibilities, the most obvious one in the judeo-christian creation story is that the entire universe would have to be younger than some living trees.  The native american would have gotten to north america before the universe began according to this time line.  Obviously there are a few bugs to be worked out.

But before you go put your blind faith in “science”, creationists want you to see their evidence.

I saw in a search result on xanga when searching for blogs containing the word “fossil” that soccerdadforlife had posted a link to a creationist website.  Having been blocked from his site for as long as I can remember and not being able to read the blog, I looked up the link (which was in the blurb in the search results).  I did so only out of morbid curiosity since the blog title claimed to have proof of human fossils from the cambrian period, some 500+ million years before the first primates show up in the fossil record.

So what startling evidence do they have?  A rock that looks like a swollen finger!

I kid you not, someone “found” this and it’s supposedly a fossilized human finger from the cambrian period:

Now if you’re like me and know anything about science, or have watched any crime forensics show in your life, the first thing you will notice is that this “finger” is fat and bloated apparently completely in-tact.  When actual human tissue decomposes no matter how well preserved it is (which is why we don’t have fossilized dinosaur kidneys) and even in cases of mummification it shrivels since the moisture is the first thing to go, like so:

This is a hand from a 3,000 year old extremely well-preserved mummy.  They are claiming the above “finger” (rock) is well over thirty thousand times as old and was in the ground, not extremely protected and chemically preserved in a sealed tomb.

But wait, there’s more!

They x-rayed the “finger” and this is what they found:

(top and side view)

To quote the website, “This fossil is obviously human in its appearance, both inside and out.”

For reference, here is an x-ray of a mummy’s hand:

It looks so rock-like!

Haha.

This stuff is so comical.

But wait, there’s more!

They claim to have found a human hand print in similarly old rock.

Here is an actual human handprint in mud:

And just for reference, these are beaver tracks:

And this is a racoon paw print:

You be the judge.

The above supposed human hand print is possibly fake, and real paleontologists hire people to document finds as they are being unearthed so that the field of paleontology isn’t just a competition over who can chisel the most interesting impressions in stone.  Loose rocks which were dug up “somewhere over there I think” are never considered credible by actual scientists.  They are always considered credible in creationist circles however…  that is if they line up with their preferred conclusions.  The below “man track”  was also supposedly taken un-documented from an unknown location:

At first glance you might think “hmm, this looks like a human footprint”.  But the main reason for this is that we generally wear shoes (especially when walking in wet, muddy areas) so we forget what our footprints actually look like.  To remind you, they look like this:

The creationist one looks like a six year old tried to draw a human footprint from memory.  I’m considered to have big feet, and mine are around 10 inches long and 4 inches wide.  The creationist foot is 6 1/2 by 14 inches, lol.  That must have been one tall damn caveman.  Especially given that human height (and shoe size) has significantly increased in modern times, and if these tracks were made thousands of years ago they would have been even more comically large.  Not to mention peoples’ feet just aren’t shaped like that. 

A quick search of the name “Clifford Burdick” (the guy who apparently “discovered” the footprint) reveals:

“Burdick has displayed a copy of his Ph.D. from the University of Physical Sciences (Phoenix, Arizona) in Carl Baugh’s Glen Rose Creation Evidence Museum. According to Ronald Numbers’ The Creationists [2]: “[Creationist Walter Lammerts’] inquiries revealed the University of Physical Science to be nothing more than a registered trademark. As described in its memographed bulletin, ‘The University is not an educational institution, but a society of individuals of common interest for the advancement of physical science. There are no campus, professors or tuition fee.'” (source)

I could go through the rest of the crap on this webpage, but I’m getting kind of bored with this.  Hope you enjoyed anyhow.

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Creationist “Evidence”.

  1. mmm…that finger-rock looks just like a tasty baguette. i guess the dinosaurs had french bread; and by extension, the french. though that’s no reason to jump to the conclusion there were actually *people* back then 😉 

  2. CoderHead says:

    I hadn’t seen those “fossils” before. How very, very interesting…or not.

  3. asrial86 says:

    Too much stupid.  

  4. striemmy says:

    Hey, don’t feed the myths. Average human height has increased in modern times but you know the reasons that limit human growth. If an ancient civilization afforded someone a sufficiently cushy life they would have grown to be enormous. 

  5. ItIsAllGravy says:

    I went to a really conservative high school, and fought all day long with the science teacher about evolution vs. creation – there was no getting through.   I mean, it’s not THAT important, but evolution just seems so obvious. Another good read, and even more fun to read while listening to “Tubthumping” by Chumbawumba

  6. nov_way says:

    @complicatedlight – lol. Same about the baguette.

  7. leaflesstree says:

    Yeah, I think you’d have to be insane to think that first picture was a human finger. Before I read any of the words, I saw the picture and thought, “Oh, that looks like a yummy loaf of fresh baked bread. Wait, what does that have to do with the subject of this blog? Did I read the title wrong?” 

  8. ange_lae says:

    I like this post. It amused me 🙂

  9. @complicatedlight – If “people” back in the Cambrian period had tasty baguette fingers, then we’re getting the short end of the stick. I want bread hands. Booooo evolution. 

  10. @JulieDeer – @tokyoexpressman – yes! and if you look at the handprint in the “rock” it’s not a big leap, intellectually speaking, to suggest the “rock” might be fossilized bread dough. and, therefore and as a result, the impression left might be that of a hand kneading dough…even as today we all need dough.that’s right, not only did mankind cohabitate with dinosaurs, but it’s ALWAYS been about the free market economy! which i might add, is highly darwinian…but maybe i won’t.

  11. “The native american would have gotten to north america before the universe began according to this time line.” — … you do realize how absurd that sounds, even in context, correct? Obviously, if creationists have a view that accelerates when the beginning of the universe was, than the advent of the Native Americans would be similarly accelerated in due proportion. It makes no sense that they would believe that the universe is much younger but -not- believe in a different timeline for indigenous peoples.

  12. YouToMe says:

    @complicatedlight - haHa! Good one phils. Need dough.

  13. jmallory says:

    Creationism waters down Christianity. I don’t care how we got here, I just believe that it was God who did it.

  14. tgwiy says:

    @complicatedlight – I’m glad I’m not the only one who though it looked like bread lol!

  15. Clearly these particular Creationists are not very bright. I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible. This doesn’t mean I take every part of it literally. I am well aware that the story of Genesis was passed down orally for a very long time before it was actually written down. Which would make a better tale, “On the first day, God made the heavens and Earth….” or “First, over the course of several billion years, God made the heavens and Earth into what you see now.” Did the Israelite tribes even have the number “1,000,000,000” in their vocabulary? I doubt it. Scientific evidence supports Christian writings. “God said, ‘let there be light'” Boom, big bang. (just a very simple example). Some scientific details are bound to be inaccurate seeing as how the Bible is a literary work, not a science book. A collection of poems, biographies, letters, proverbs, laws, prophesies, some history, etc. Not a scientific analysis. Besides, God is proclaimed to be supernatural, infinite, omnipotent, etc, meaning outside the existence of this universe, which is what we call natural, including time. Before the big bang, there was no time. Before humans, no one had called a day a day or defined its length. God certainly didn’t need to. So does the 7 days really mean 7 days? Probably not. The important part is what happened. 

  16. agnophilo says:

    @TheBlueNinjaTiger – “Clearly these particular Creationists are not very bright.” I agree.  Though it’s possible they’re very bright but their religious views just make them unable to think critically about these things, that happens too.”I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible. This doesn’t mean I take every part of it literally.” Good for you.  This blog was a criticism of those that do.”I am well aware that the story of Genesis was passed down orally for a very long time before it was actually written down. Which would make a better tale, “On the first day, God made the heavens and Earth….” or “First, over the course of several billion years, God made the heavens and Earth into what you see now.” Did the Israelite tribes even have the number “1,000,000,000” in their vocabulary? I doubt it.” So it’s a myth which is not based on fact, or at most very loosely based in fact – I agree.”Scientific evidence supports Christian writings. “God said, ‘let there be light'” Boom, big bang. (just a very simple example).” According to big bang cosmology the universe would have to be too dense for light to be possible for the first billion years or so.  Either way the concept that “my creation myth says x god created something that I know now exists, therefore this proves my god is real” is horrendous logic.  By that same logic lightning proved the existence of thor, or the existence of light, rainbows, people, weather patterns etc etc prove every mythology on the planet.  If I told a story about how you’re a pedophile and download kiddie porn from the internet, the fact that you have a computer and internet access would not be “proof” of that claim, especially given that I knew that before I made up the story.”Some scientific details are bound to be inaccurate seeing as how the Bible is a literary work, not a science book. A collection of poems, biographies, letters, proverbs, laws, prophesies, some history, etc. Not a scientific analysis.” Yes but they do invalidate the claims that the bible is inerrant, to be taken literally and breathed by god.  Unless god makes mistakes too.”Besides, God is proclaimed to be supernatural, infinite, omnipotent, etc, meaning outside the existence of this universe, which is what we call natural, including time.” Proclaimed to be?  So the basis that your claim is true is another unsupported claim?  If we allowed that kind of evidence in science or a court of law, we would have neither science nor justice, since anything could be “proven”.  And time is a manmade concept, it does not exist in and of itself.  It is how we describe relative motion.”Before the big bang, there was no time.  Before humans, no one had called a day a day or defined its length. God certainly didn’t need to. So does the 7 days really mean 7 days? Probably not. The important part is what happened.”Show me a length of time that a “day” could be which is possible, and you might have an argument.  But it’s been tried, it doesn’t work.

  17. twloha18 says:

    This amused me. lol. Wow.

  18. mooshpitmatt says:

    my brain is destroyed with stupidity

  19. More creationist scribbles debunked. It’s amazing how gullible these imbeciles are.

  20. cyberbear says:

    Was there sourdough in that hand?  

  21. maniacsicko says:

    are you serious?  how can you be bored with this?

  22. I unblocked you after I figured out that you have to go to settings on the old style page.  I replied.Not only atheists are morons.  Lots of “Christians” are old-earth morons as well.

  23. Zissu25 says:

    what?! so you mean Jesus and the apostles didn’t use dinosaurs as horses??! 

  24. wtf_turmoill says:

    The rock-finger looked like a loaf of bread to me… var fctb_tool=null; function FCTB_Init_444fabda2de047f9ba6c3e2aff1168ee(t) { fctb_tool=t;start(fctb_tool); }

  25. The sad thing is that it always takes a bit of effort to rebut ad hoc creationist ventures in pseudo-science. Their arguments are always to just a degree of specificity to set off general bullshit alarms, but too narrow to escape on-the-spot beatdowns.

  26. Adolph says:

    But of course your phrases should be the absolute truth limousine service in dallas | online mmo games | tv bar detroit

  27. Ebenezer says:

    It can’t work as a matter of fact, that is what I consider.Vardenafil | Ephedrine | check this site

Speak yer mind.

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s