Creationists are just terrible people in every possible way.

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Creationists are just terrible people in every possible way.

#1  Postby Shrunk » Dec 29, 2014 6:57 pm

This video by Eric Hovind (son of convicted felon Kent Hovind) is over seven years old, but just came to my attention thru PZ Myers' blog.

Words can't do it justice. Just watch as much of it as you can stand:

"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Creationists are just terrible people in every possible way.

#2  Postby Onyx8 » Dec 29, 2014 7:07 pm

Wow!!
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists are just terrible people in every possible way.

#3  Postby Rumraket » Dec 29, 2014 8:57 pm

disbelief.jpg
disbelief.jpg (23.31 KiB) Viewed 1612 times
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Creationists are just terrible people in every possible way.

#4  Postby Animavore » Dec 29, 2014 9:34 pm

Was there a point to this?
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44756
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists are just terrible people in every possible way.

#5  Postby Calilasseia » Dec 29, 2014 11:21 pm

Ok, I'll bite.

So, first 15 seconds into the video, we have someone channelling Wayne's World.

Then, two silhouetted figures mimicking a Texas Instruments Speak 'n' Spell. Which already points to the low production values endemic to this piece of creotard propaganda. You'd have thought with the $3 million that Eric Hovind's daddy withheld from the taxman, they could afford better than this.

Now, we move on to 0:30 in the video.

What the flying fuck am I seeing here?

Did Hovind and his fellow fucktards derive their ideas about foreign people from bad 1920s movies? Oh wait, this tacky production makes the Fu Manchu movies look like enlightened, advanced cinema. Bear in mind that I'm referring here to a series of films that resulted in diplomatic complaints as fas back as 1932.

Let's persevere with this dreck ...

Oh fucking hell, now we're in Gunga Din territory as well. The irony being, of course, that whilst the name "Gunga Din" was used in later years as a racist epithet, the original character in the Rudyard Kipling poem was portrayed as heroic, and of superior character to the shallow white people who subjected him to abuse. Not that such subtleties would be anything other than lost on the likes of the Hovind spawn.

Then, of course, we have the crass and utterly duplicitous misrepresentation of taxonomic revision, a process about which I've said much in the past here, but for any newcomers reading the thread, I'll elaborate.

When Linnaeus first proposed his taxonomic scheme, and established the basic principles upon which classification of living organisms were to be founded, his original hypothesis, which he and subsequent workers sought to apply to the organisms they studied, was that organisms sharing collections of anatomical traits were likely to be related to each other. This was a major foundation of the entire taxonomic system, though of course Linnaeus, whilst espousing the hypothesis as a principle, merely treated that principle as a brute fact - we had to wait for Darwin to propose a mechanism explaining the requisite observations. But I digress. Linnaeus established the ground rules for taxonomic work, many of which persist in modified form to the present, augmented today by such data as that arising from genome sequencing and molecular phylogeny.

It was recognised early on, that workers separated by large distances across the globe, might not become aware of each other's work in time, to prevent duplication of effort. Consequently, additional rules were established, in order to handle the emergence of such duplications. Indeed, one of the ongoing taxonomic projectsof the modern era, consists of tracking down past historical papers, with a view to hunting for said duplications. Remember that Linnaeus first established his system way back in 1758, when the fastest form of transport available was the horse, and travel to distant locales involved sailing ship voyages, whose duration could be anything from two weeks, to over two years. In an era with such limitations on transport, a worker who had travelled to Brazil, say, might remain completely unaware of the work of another taxonomist resident in India, until both taxonomists retired. Even if they were submitting papers to the same journals, duplication of effort might remain unnoticed for years afterwards.

Amongst the possibilities that could arise, were the following:

[1] Two taxonomists apply different names to the same organism;

[2] Two taxonomists apply the same name to two different organisms.

Since once of the central objectives of the taxonomic system, is that all organisms should have unique names, situation [2] needs to be remedied quickly once discovered. Likewise, eradication of the synonyms that appear in situation [1] is needed, so that those synonyms can be freed up for reuse elsewhere, where this is permitted. A scientific name, referrred to in the literature as a taxon (plural, taxa), should be unique and unambiguous, and removal of duplicates and synonyms is one of the necessary tasks for any rigorous taxonomic system.

As a consequence, a somewhat tedious but necessary bureaucracy has arisen in the world of taxonomy, with additional rules in place to deal with the duplication of effort just described. One of those rules, is the Rule Of Priority. Which, in its simplest form, states that the first author to apply a taxon to an organism, is the author whose taxon becomes the valid taxon for that organism. Subsequently constructed taxa, applied to the same organism, are henceforth designated as junior synonyms, the understanding being that provided certain other rules apply thereto, said junior syonyms can be recycled, and applied to other, more recently described organisms.

Of course, one of the problems here is that this process sometimes involves not merely the renaming of a single organism. Sometimes, an entire Genus is renamed, along with all the species contained therein. Sometimes, the scope of a higher taxonomic division is redefined wholesale, as new data informs the requisite scientists that said redefinition is required. One classic example is the relegation to Subfamily status of nine taxonomic groupings of Lepidoptera, previously regarded as Families in their own right, which involved a fair amount of work. This process of reassigning names, and re-evaluating the scope of extant names, comes under the heading of 'taxonomic revision', and the increasing volume of data available is one of the reasons that taxonomy continues to be a living science. With the advent of cladistics, which seeks to base taxonomic designations upon inheritance, in accordance with Darwin's evolutionary insights, the emergence of genetic data has resulted in wholesale re-evaulations of entire groups of living organisms. The whales and allied organisms, for example, placed in the Order Cetacea as a result of anatomical analyses, have since been found via molecular phylogeny, and accompanying fossil discoveries, to be an offshoot of the Artiodactyls, or even-toed hoofed mammals,and so now, they are placed in a new grouping known as the Cetartiodactyla.

Now at this point, it should be obvious, that whatever applies to living organisms within the taxonomic framework, applies to fossil organisms too. This is all that has happened in this instance. Namely, the material that was used to define the Genus Brontosaurus, was found upon later examination, once more material became available, to be indistinguishable from the material that was used earlier to define the Genus Apatosaurus, and as a consequence, the requisite fossils were regarded, on the basis of appropriate analysis, to be members of that Genus. It's nothing more than the entirely proper scientific re-evaluation of ideas, as new data tells the scientists that said re-evaluation is required.

The idea that said entirely proper re-evaluation, constitutes some sort of "crisis" for evolutionary theory, is a notion only the most bone-headedly ignorant or duplicitous could entertain, and all too often, we find both ignorance and duplicity in creationist apologetics. Indeed, the re-evaluation of the whales that I've covered above, was brought about as a result of analysing new data, data that gave scientists clues to the origin of this clade of organisms, and which was subsequently supported by new fossil finds. When scientists examined the data arising from molecular phylogeny, telling them that whales were most closely related to Artiodactyls, they then set out looking for Artiodactyl fossils of the requisite vintage, tying whales anatomically to Artiodactyls, and lo and behold, found the very fossils that said molecular data predicted the existence of. This is just one of numerous instances where molecular phylogeny has led to the inference that new fossils can be found, whose existence was previously not suspected before the advent of that phylogenetic data, followed by the discovery of those predicted fossils. If anything, the taxonomic revision process, far from producing "crises" for evolutionary theory, has added to the already huge body of empirical data supporting evolutionary theory. Not that anyone would discover this from watching the above infantile caricature from the Hovind spawn.

Moving on ...

Oh dear, at 1:15 we have cheap gags coming in. Yawn.

At 1:30, we have a bare faced lie. Camarasaurus was always regarded as a separate taxon from either Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus, and its first record was from vertebrae, not skull material, first discovered in 1877. So the Hovind spawn is making shit up here. The unusual chambered skull of Camarasaurus also marked it out as being substantively different from other Sauropods, Apatosaurus included. What's more, Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus were erected as separate Genera by the same author, namely Othniel Charles Marsh (of Bone Wars fame), whilst Camarasaurus was named by Marsh's rival, Edward Drinker Cope. Meanwhile, the material Marsh unearthed was examined later (in 1903) by one Elmer Riggs, who agreed with Marsh that the two specimens were different species, but sufficiently similar anatomically to warrant placement in the same Genus. Since Apatosaurus was the earlier of the two Genera constructed by Marsh, this one assumed precedence, courtesy of the Rule Of Priority I've mentioned above. Which means that the story being peddled in the Hovind spawn's video is a bare faced lie, and one deliberately erected to poison the well by suggesting that the scientists in question fabricated the evidence.

At 1:58, we have another lie, namely that the taxonomic revision purportedly never took place until 1975. See above for the real account.

As for the idea peddled at 2:30 onwards, that the name Apatosaurus (which is actually derived from the Greek meaning "deceptive lizard") was named way back in 1877 because of a mistake purportedly not discovered until 1975 (which as I've just pointed out is also a lie), this is farcical. Is the Hovind spawn really this fucking stupid?

Moving on to 2:40 ... oh wait, the organism named as Brontosaurus was an actual animal, we still have the fucking skeleton available for examination, you fuckwit. All that's happened, is, once again, taxonomic revision.

This video is so spastically retarded (and I choose those epithets to be in keeping with its wading through the sludge of offensive stereotypes), that only someone either completely deranged, or banally mendacious in the extreme (in keeping with Hannah Arendt's observations of Eichmann) could possibly serve this tripe up. But then, creationists have set plenty of precedents for such drivel in the past, so perhaps we should not be surprised that the Hovind spawn chose to follow the same path of manifest, blatant and infantile fabrication as his tax-cheating father.

Seriously, if this is what creationists have to offer to sell their sad, pathetic masturbation fantasy of a doctrine, and its encephalitic mythological origins, then it should come as no surprise to see that the only people taken in by this epcially diseased dreck, are polydactylous products of recursive genealogy with weird chromosome counts. Any human being with normal, functioning neurons, will look at this and immediately see it for what it is - cortical faeces of a floridly gangrenous order.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists are just terrible people in every possible way.

#6  Postby Matt_B » Dec 29, 2014 11:30 pm

That's creationists for you. Any conflict between reality and their religious beliefs, and it's just too bad for reality.

Science isn't a method to them, just a source of materials to be quote-mined to support their arguments.
User avatar
Matt_B
 
Posts: 4683
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists are just terrible people in every possible way.

#7  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 30, 2014 12:02 am

Shrunk wrote:This video by Eric Hovind (son of convicted felon Kent Hovind) is over seven years old, but just came to my attention thru PZ Myers' blog.

Words can't do it justice. Just watch as much of it as you can stand:


Perfect argument against home-schooling.
Also, John Badham should sue them for copy-right violations:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Creationists are just terrible people in every possible way.

#8  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Dec 30, 2014 12:05 am

Wowie, helloooooooooooo racism.
what a terrible image
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13521
Age: 32
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists are just terrible people in every possible way.

#9  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Dec 30, 2014 12:06 am

Probably should NSFW the OP video for overtly offensive racial stereotypes.
"Things don't need to be true, as long as they are believed" - Alexander Nix, CEO Cambridge Analytica
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 12686
Age: 53
Male

Country: California
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists are just terrible people in every possible way.

#10  Postby Onyx8 » Dec 30, 2014 12:09 am

Read the comments for further head-shaking.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists are just terrible people in every possible way.

#11  Postby willhud9 » Jan 02, 2015 3:27 am

Calilasseia wrote:

Now at this point, it should be obvious, that whatever applies to living organisms within the taxonomic framework, applies to fossil organisms too. This is all that has happened in this instance. Namely, the material that was used to define the Genus Brontosaurus, was found upon later examination, once more material became available, to be indistinguishable from the material that was used earlier to define the Genus Apatosaurus, and as a consequence, the requisite fossils were regarded, on the basis of appropriate analysis, to be members of that Genus. It's nothing more than the entirely proper scientific re-evaluation of ideas, as new data tells the scientists that said re-evaluation is required.


Yep. I actually cringe when people say there is no such dinosaur as the Brontosaurus as that is not true. Brontosaurus is a recognized species within the genus Apatosaurus distinct from the type species the original genus was named after. As you rightfully said all that happened was Brontosaurus was simply reclassified into the same genus instead of being in a separate one. It is not as if the animal was removed from taxonomy permanently.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19351
Age: 29
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists are just terrible people in every possible way.

#12  Postby Oldskeptic » Jan 02, 2015 5:42 am

willhud9 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:

Now at this point, it should be obvious, that whatever applies to living organisms within the taxonomic framework, applies to fossil organisms too. This is all that has happened in this instance. Namely, the material that was used to define the Genus Brontosaurus, was found upon later examination, once more material became available, to be indistinguishable from the material that was used earlier to define the Genus Apatosaurus, and as a consequence, the requisite fossils were regarded, on the basis of appropriate analysis, to be members of that Genus. It's nothing more than the entirely proper scientific re-evaluation of ideas, as new data tells the scientists that said re-evaluation is required.


Yep. I actually cringe when people say there is no such dinosaur as the Brontosaurus as that is not true. Brontosaurus is a recognized species within the genus Apatosaurus distinct from the type species the original genus was named after. As you rightfully said all that happened was Brontosaurus was simply reclassified into the same genus instead of being in a separate one. It is not as if the animal was removed from taxonomy permanently.


Nope, brontosaurus is not a species. It is a synonym for apatosaurus which is a genus.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 64
Male

Print view this post


Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest