A Openly Dishonest Creationist

This post will be geared towards an openly dishonest creationist.

And no, it's not that 'God-is-for-sale' pseudoscience charlatan Ray Comfort. Instead, its one of the many Internet creationists named Doug. Doug decided to embarrass himself on a galactic scale by constructing a poorly written laughable blog post addressed to a fellow Ray Comfort critic, Jaclyn Glenn.

Some people may wonder why I bothered to make a blog post about this. I will make it clear now, I am not rushing to Jaclyn's defense, because in all honesty she doesn't need any. Every point she made in her video response was accurate and well spoken. She is a smart, charming woman capable of handling herself – and her creationist criticism is just as feeble as trying to dent steel armor with a feather.

The sole reason why I am bothering to right this blog is because Doug willingly and honestly exposed the creationist mindset: proud outspoken dishonesty and closed mindedness.

I will provide the whole quotes for context, but highlight in bold italics the parts I want my readers to focus on.

“Hey Jackie, just because you feel you can write your own definitions for 'atheist' and 'agnostic' doesn't mean they are write. It's people like yourself that have ruined the language. Stick with what you know. And when you figure out what that subject truly is – don't tell me, because I won't believe you anyway.”

We creationists (oh, did I forget to mention? Yeah, believer in God here) understand what you Evolutionist are saying. We just don't believe it. And about your snarky comebacks about how we should maybe read a book or something before we form an opinion? Yeah, done that many times. In fact I read books every day. I am honest enough that I don't form an opinion about something unless I find out more about it. I've studied biology a lot, perhaps more than you and a lot of people. It's not my primary field of study and it's not a field I work in today. And in fact, a lot of biology holds fast without having to believe in evolution. But the fact is – I don't believe in evolution even when presented by the 'facts' presented.

We can't show you God, yet you still deny him. You're willing to have faith in your silly little evolution but not in something – someone, actually – for which there is more proof.

This is creationism in a nutshell: show them as much evidence as you like, they might even understand what you are proving, it just doesn't matter. Because they have already predetermined to ignore all the facts and evidence presented to them. This is not reasonable or sane, it is intellectual suicide and willful ignorance.

In the words Thomas Paine, “To argue with a person who has renounced his reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”

With that being made clear – Doug won't accept any evidence presented to him – it may be pointless to attempt to provide facts to someone who has decided ahead of time to reject truth and reason. However, just as my blogs about Ray Comfort are not meant to change Ray's mind (just his audience) I dedicate this blog to expose the lies and help anyone out there that has been misguided by creationist lies and their anti-science propaganda.

“Point 1.

Hey Jackie, just because you feel you can write your own definitions for 'atheist' and 'agnostic' doesn't mean they are write. It's people like yourself that have ruined the language. Stick with what you know. And when you figure out what that subject truly is – don't tell me, because I won't believe you anyway.”

“don't tell me, because I won't believe you anyway” I already addressed the dishonesty of this piece. Even if I told Doug the correct definitions of both “write” and “right”, his denial will not alter reality.

Frankly the ones that feel like they can make up what words mean are the creationists. The examples are countless. Ray Comfort thinks that he gets to dictate what evolution means and predicts, to the point he has made and spreads the lie that evolution does not include “adaptation” and “speciation.”

Ray Comfort even tried to redefine “animal” so snails, slugs and invertebrates no longer count as animals. Im not kidding.

Kent Hovind tried to redefine evolution entirely by lying that the theory of evolution includes “chemical evolution” and “cosmic evolution.” Creationists keep their words vague, like “kind” and “information” – creationists are so dishonest they keep their definitions as fluid as an alcoholics breakfast, because words only mean whatever they need to mean at any given time to advance their dishonest argumentation.

I'm going to ignore Doug's “Point 2” because it is worthless, and kinda creepy.

“Point 3.

I like your standard comments about 'just because we can't observe evolution'.. and the attempt to state that collective memory fades over time... but if Evolution were actual, wouldn't there still be transitional species in existence? I mean, you seem to think that evolution only happened millions of years in the past for a set period of time and then it stopped.

We creationists (oh, did I forget to mention? Yeah, believer in God here) understand what you Evolutionist are saying. We just don't believe it. And about your snarky comebacks about how we should maybe read a book or something before we form an opinion? Yeah, done that many times. In fact I read books every day. I am honest enough that I don't form an opinion about something unless I find out more about it. I've studied biology a lot, perhaps more than you and a lot of people. It's not my primary field of study and it's not a field I work in today. And in fact, a lot of biology holds fast without having to believe in evolution. But the fact is – I don't believe in evolution even when presented by the 'facts' presented.”

Pretty much every single sentence in this piece should end with: (BIG FAT LIE).

The most obvious lie is Doug pretending to have “read a book.” At least he is honest to tell biology was never his primary study or field of interest, his dishonesty and arrogance is embarrassing. For Doug to think that he knows more about biology than Richard Dawkins, Dr. Ken Miller, Dr. Robert T. Bakker, (who has PhDs from both Harvard and Yale), Theodosius Dobzhansky, Keith Miller, David Livingstone, and 99.85% of American earth and life scientists from universities and academia throughout the U.S. and the vast majority of scientists in many different scientific fields all around the world. (to grasp how vast the number of scientists that accept evolution, 123,900 biologists signed a paper that evolution is a fact supported by evidence...and the amazing fact is, these were only the biologists named “Steve” or “Stephanie.”) http://ncse.com/news/2013/02/ten-years-project-steve-0014715

How else can we know that Doug is spewing lies that he knows about biology? The fact he thinks evolution just stopped. Any competent person with the lowest of basic evolutionary biology 101 education knows that evolution has not stopped.

Final note, “but if Evolution were actual, wouldn't there still be transitional species in existence” another sign Doug doesn't have the first clue what he is talking about. EVERYTHING is a transitional species. The same billions of species worldwide that exist right now.

“Now, how many books of the Bible have you read? You know, they're all collected together in what most people know as 'the Bible', available at practically every library and book store. I'll even send you one. In fact I'll send you a good, easy to read Bible with a concordance if you like.”

“Now, how many books of the Bible have you read?”

All of them.

“I'll even send you one.”

And it will end up straight in the recycling bin.

I mean seriously, don't bother. Anyone can easily read it with this thing called Google.

“Point 4.

The 'I can't see it so it isn't there' point that you make at 4:25 in your video...

BINGO!

The point is that – you as an evolutionist use this for your argument against the existence of God. Yet when applied to your reasoning for evolution – it's all of the sudden valid???

It's called FAITH, Jaclyn. You don't want to admit it but your belief is as much faith as that which we have in God.

Same with your 'theory A, theory B' critique.

By the way – the “theory a, theory b” is actually applied to scientific theory and mathematical theorem very often. Perhaps read some of those 'science-y' books yourself sometime!”

It's not called “faith.” Faith is believing without seeing despite all reason and defended against all reason. This word does not fit any bit of the theory of evolution. The evidence for evolution is observable and testable: ERVs, atavisms, transitional forms, physiological, anatomical, and molecular vestiges, ontogeny and developmental biology, protein functional redundancy, convergent phenotypes, mobile genes, observed speciation, the myriad methods of dating geologic stratigraphy, any twin-nested hierarchy of phylogenetic clades. All of these are peer-reviewed and verified accurate evidence positively promoting evolution as well as directly disproving creationism. But you know what we’ve never seen? We’ve never seen anything “created”. No one has ever seen a complex life-form (or anything else) magically pop out of thin air. But that’s what creationists are arguing for! Talismans, incantations, elemental component spells, enchantments, clairvoyance and prophesies all consistently fail every test. To claim that belief in creationism is on some same level as evolution is absolute nonsense, there is not one lick of evidence anywhere of creationism. Period.

Forensic scientists were not “there” when the crime was committed, but by examining the evidence, they can calculate and determine the time and cause of death.

In the same respects, modern scientists were not “there” millions of years ago, but we can demonstrate that the evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is billions of years old. We can prove common ancestry, even going back millions of years.

“Point 5.

Your 'observable change of kind' shows how members of similar species cannot interbreed, citing the 'ring of species'. This isn't the argument; the argument is that you can't have cross-species interbreeding. Don't deflect from the real issue. So you will never have a bird with an ancestor that is a lizard.”

First of all: that is the bloody point. Specie rings show different evolutionary stages exist all at once in a geographic rather than chronological distribution. Subspecies (A) may breed with subspecies (B), and (B) may breed with (C), and (C) with (D), but (A) and (D) cannot interbreed because by the time their territories overlap again, they’ve grown too distant genetically, and can’t come back. This is when we see the formation of new features, organs, or skeletal structures, each examples of new genetic “information”. What all these show is that even though a new species of perching bird (for example) is “still” a finch, it is now a different “kind” of finch, a distinct descendant species proving there is no “boundary” against macroevolution.

Second of all, all birds have reptilian ancestors.

This graph shows where cladistic analysis places them in the phylogeny. The phylogeny allows the ancestral states (the stages, marked in red on the phylogeny) to be reconstructed. Here, a compsognathid fossil (Sinosauropteryx) with hairlike protofeathers down its back. This is exactly what creationists demanded, a fossil "developing the properties of feathers."

Oviraptor from Figure 1a and Figure 2, page 775 of: Norell, Mark A.; Clark, James M.; Chiappe, Luis M.; Dashzeveg, Demberelyin (1995). "A nesting dinosaur." Nature, 378(6559), 774-776. (DOI) Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd., copyright 1995

(read more and see more slides at http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/kpslides.html)

“Point 6, and I'll make this the final point because, to be brutally honest, it's very painful listening to you and even more painful watching you flail your arms around in an-attempt to appear intelligent:

At 6:54 you tell Ray Comfort that 'Just because I can't show you millions of millions of years, doesn't mean it didn't happen' (which by itself, sounds like a very awkward sentence but we get your gist). That is our (creationists') point. We can't show you God, yet you still deny him. You're willing to have faith in your silly little evolution but not in something – someone, actually – for which there is more proof.”

“We can't show you God.”

This is perhaps the most honest thing Doug has said, but this spark of honesty and integrity is quickly crushed by Dougs inability to grasp the illogical leap he commits. He claims he cannot show “God” but then quickly claims there is more proof for God than an observable fact like evolution?

Doug's glimpse of honesty vanished into nothingness. If Doug understood that proof and knowledge is demonstrative and measurable, he would show it. If you know something, you can show it, and if you can't then you should say you can. The problem is Doug “can't show God” therefore cannot show proof of God. Concluding absolutely that Doug lied, there is no proof for God.

That ought to wrap it up. I can only plea that Doug (and all his creationists mates) realize the mental trap he has placed himself in and realize that one can only be a) creationist or b) consistent and honest. There is no third category.

Last thing I can say is only to Jaclyn Glenn. Keep up the good work love, your material is amazing. Your fans, myself included, are looking forward for much more.