..........(Via Andy at World Wide Rant)..
There are those who wonder about evolution, and ask simple questions
that have simple answers, such as "if we are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" (a:Monkeys and humans evolved from common ancestors-we are part of the same ancestry.) And then there are those who take creationist ignorance and run with it like they are competing in a forty yard dash at the NFL combines.
Today I will show you an example of this monumental stupidity.
His name is Joseph Farrah, and he is Editor and CEO for World Net Daily,
which describes itself as the following-
"WorldNetDaily.com is an independent newssite created to capitalize on
new media technology, to reinvigorate and revitalize the role of the free
press as a guardian of liberty, an exponent of truth and justice, an
uncompromising disseminator of news. "
He leaves out the part that Mr Farrah likes to inject his religious
perspectives in to his articles that are "uncompromising disseminators of
news". In the following article he wrote on Tuesday of this week entitled "Evolution's shell game", he exposes his complete ignorance of the study of the origin of species.
Let's begin. Joseph's article will be in italics.
It used to be that science followed facts.
Today, at least as far as evolution goes, facts follow theories.
Well Mr Farrah, if you were at all inclined to understand the scientific method, you would understand that facts start out as theories until they are demonstrated so falsifiable that it would be silly to still call them theories. This doesn't preclude the fact that it may one day be proven otherwise. There is no such thing as absolute certainty in science. And evolution is both a fact and a theory.
When inconvenient facts are discovered, they are simply adapted to fit
"Facts" aren't discovered. DATA is discovered, and then applied to the
theories to see how they correlate to other data that has been discovered.
You would think he couldn't possibly murder the definition of these words
any further. You'd be wrong.
The theories are constant. They are unquestionable, unassailable,
unimpeachable. It's just not considered good science to question them for
That would be news to Einstein, or any other scientist worth his salt. For
instance, as the famous Stephen Gould quote goes, "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.". Unimpeachable? Not even close.
Take, for example, the latest findings in Australia. Last month, fossils
of what were described as "the earliest species of sea turtle, believed to
be 110 million years old," were discovered in Queensland's far west.
The scientists were startled by just how little sea turtles had changed in
100 million years. They had not evolved. But that did not alarm them. That
did not get them to question their premises. That did not cause them to
think their dating techniques could be wrong.
Because the dating techniques aren't in question Joseph. And you are
assuming that species must evolve all the time at such significantly
observable levels that since there are no major changes in these sea
turtles, evolution is wrong? Again, you only expose your ignorance of
evolution. No shortage of that in your article.
No, instead, they quickly came to the conclusion that sea turtles
represent a highly evolved species - one that perfected its evolution 100
million years ago and never bothered to change because change was
How similar are these supposedly 110-million-year-old sea turtles to today's
sea turtles? Virtually indistinguishable - which is to say no different.
"For all intents and purposes, if you were to see one (of these fossils)
they would look basically the same as sea turtles do today," said South
Australian Museum paleontologist Ben Kear.
One could say the same things about sharks, or other creatures that have
become so dominant in their environments that they show little genetic
change to their overall structure at all. But don't let that stop you from
making tremendously ignorant statements Mr Farrah.
"And why is that?
"Sea turtles have hit on the winning design and they've stuck to it," he
said. "They've cracked the winning code, as it were, and it's enabled them
to survive when other creatures haven't."
It's amazing they haven't taken over the world, isn't it?"
Yes, it is amazing considering how ignorant people like you are Mr Farrah.
But to go even further, considering turtles exist for the most part in
water, which is over 70% of the surface of the planet, turtles do have few
natural predators, and incredibly long life spans. One could say they are at
or near the top of their evolutionary ladder in the ocean, save a few other
species. How long could you keep up with a sea turtle in the water Mr
"They're one of the success stories of marine evolution - if you think
about the marine animals that became extinct, well why did sea turtles
survive?" Kear asked without wanting to hear the answer. "That's the sort of
question we can look at now."
But you know these evolutionists don't want to have dialogue about such
matters. They don't tolerate any dissent from their theories. They don't
allow facts to lead them in any other direction than an evolutionary
explanation for the diversity of life.
What the hell are you talking about Joseph???? HE JUST SAID HE CAN NOW ASK THESE QUESTIONS. Scientists are the most skeptical minds in the world, they CONSTANTLY question and debate their own and each others theories. The reason for this is that the more scientists help to falsify your theory by questioning it, the stronger it becomes. And the reason that scientists don't waste their time with other FACTS that explain the diversity of life IN SCIENTIFIC terms is because THERE AREN'T ANY. Notice Joseph doesn't bring up any competing theory to evolution that has any scientific data to support. It's because it doesn't EXIST.
What makes the scientists convinced the fossils of dead sea turtles that
look remarkably like today's sea turtles are really 100 million years old?
It's because of where they were found. They were found in an area of
sediment that is believed to be 110 million years old. Therefore, that's how
old the bones are.
False. Scientists, -paleontologists in particular- use multiple methods
of dating. Carbon dating, and radiometric dating are but two of many different techniques to determine the date of a specimen. But don't let that stop you from sounding like an idiot. You've done so well up to this point.
Could they be wrong about the age of the sediment? No, these scientists
don't make mistakes like that. If they did, it would shatter the very
foundation of their work. In fact, if they were to find a human skeleton in
that sediment, they would convince themselves that man is actually 100
million years old as well.
Again, false. Scientists don't rely on one method of dating to determine
the accuracy of the date of the specimen. And the problem with relying on
sediment data is that due to the constant changing of the surface of the
planet, you occasionally have some sediments that end up in areas where they
don't belong. For instance, after the horrible Tsunami in the South Pacific,
thousands of new fossils were discovered. Some will be taken to museums and
so forth, but others will be buried in a new sedimentary layer. Thus, these
fossils will be embedded in sediment where they don't belong. Joseph, logic
is not your strong point.
Keep in mind, these "fossils" are so well preserved that the scientists
claim to be able to determine the 110-milliohm-year-old sea turtles' diet by
examining the remains in their stomachs.
This is one example of hundreds, thousands, like it in so-called
"evolutionary science." It is a science without any foundation. It is a
theory not supported by facts, but countered by them.
Not once however, does Mr Farrah counter the hundreds of thousands of
examples that falsify the FACTS about evolution. That last statement was so
ludicrous I don't even know if he realized what he wrote.
It takes great faith to stick to the theory. I give the evolutionists
credit for that - they are true to their religion, true to their creed.
Science as religion. Hoo boy. So Farrah will gladly utilize the fruits of
labor from this "creed" when he goes to the hospital, or eats food made from
genetic engineering, or drives his car, or does any number of things made
possible from those "evil scientists".
It doesn't matter what they find. They will make the facts fit the
No stupid. If enough data is discovered that disproves the THEORY, then the
THEORY will CHANGE. NOT the other way around, which you so disingenuously try and state.
How about you? Do you still believe? Or do you think evolution, like the
sea turtle illustration, is one big shell game?
Translation: Me Dumb. Me no understand science. Me no understand
difference between "belief" and "fact". Me think All powerful super God make
everything in six day. Me don't like think. Think hurt head. Me go to big
building with pointy thing on top and have someone else tell how to think.
Head hurt less that way.