image
26 comments
Really?
This is why they don't want critical thinking courses and demean the value of logic, accumulating knowledge and just plain questioning. These skills would inform the child of the unsupported assertions they throw in as if they're facts. Every piece of creationist literature carries these "science hasn't proved anything" statements, they just lie about everything.
I interpret some cave paintings to be dinosaurs, so all of biology and geology and chemistry and physics and astronomy and zoology are wrong. Behemoth is a dinosaur with a long tail, not a bull with a big schlong because I say so. Leviathan is totally a plesiosaur because I say so.
Mythical creatures are as real as my Bible stories. What?
Evidence, schmevidence!
Things are the way you say because "the bible supports the idea", "god seems to imply". and "most creation scientists believe"?
Riiiiiggght.
The next time you need thoracic surgery, I vote we use the ideas the bible supports, what god seems to imply, and what most creation scientists believe as the procedure. Are you ok with that?
"Ancient rock drawings over 1000 years ago;" "dinasaurs and humans did live together on earth before Noah's flood;" Current year is 2015.
Are they saying the flood happened after jesus and sometime around the crusades?
And do they think cave men lived around 500 A.D. Again, you know, after jesus and the romans?
This is even more fantasy than TLOR is. And not nearly as good.
And yes, the fact that this is actual "education" is very sad. That this still isn't illegal yet is part of what's wrong with the US.
Again with the creationist "microevolution vs macroevolution" crap.
It's like saying: "Walking any distance up to [X] is microwalking, which is fully possible. But walking any distance [X] up can't happen, because that's macrowalking and that's impossible!"
Have you not noticed how vague the anatomical descriptions are in creationist literature? Have you not noticed that in genuine taxonomy the descriptions of any taxonomic rank is much more specific?
Also, I like the last sentence. "most likely" *fiendish laugh*. When you place so much faith in supported nonsense it's little surprise that you are open to other absurd beliefs, like the possibility of a marine reptile (not a dinosaur, I know, but I doubt the author of this textbook cares given that he's linked dinosaurs to pteranodon) inhabiting a lake in the Highlands of Scotland.
@Daspletosaurus
Given this status, I'm curious about something. Since the book mentions this very strong evidence, I'm sure they include pictures of the alleged art, right?
@Dr. Razark: No, but they do include horribly outdated illustrations of Tyrannosaurus , Apatosaurus , Triceratops , Stegosaurus , Pteranodon and an unspecified plesiosaur.
If you were curious, by the way, the book in question is the second edition of Dr. Jay L. Wile's Exploring Creation with Biology .
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
