Worst Creationist Argument Ever?

We should stop asking creationists for concrete evidence.

Oh my. Someone should point out to the fellow that he needs to keep watching the rock - and keep watching.... and watching. It may keep him from producing more embarrassing videos.I thought the Chuck Missler must have been doing a parody also, but it is not. I found this piece on their web page.The Kitchen Laboratory: How Good a Scientist Are You? – Chuck Missler – Koinonia House Ah there is the mention of the rock again.Chuck Missler (who am I sad to say is centered in my own private Idaho) is an intellectual leader within the fundamentalist realm. The rock guy is some no name, however whenever Chuck is quoted or referenced it is always noted that he is an engineer with a graduate degree (also a Phd from some unaccredited bible college somewhere i believe). This credibility carries a long way when played to an uneducated crowd and I guess gives him a free pass to make some obvious idiotic claims.The question I have is this - does he really believe in this whacked out garbage, is he really that unsophisticated, undiscerning and ignorant. Or is he just doing this because it is a good business. I know he experienced bankruptcy at one time and maybe selling this stuff to an uneducated crowd as a good easy way to make a living. I once knew someone who worked at his Koinonia house organization and indicated that it is a bustling business. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Like the Spanish Inquisition, nobody ever expects the Rock of Ages!Well, OK, so it was a stunt double ... .

It's a form of the generic argument:"Scientists believe some crazy stuff which I just made up in my head and which has damn all to do with actual science. Clearly, they are wrong to believe in my hallucinations. Therefore, I know more about science than scientists."

I think it'll become a rock star.

It definitely has the talent. Plus, I've never seen such a solid stage presence.And in the old days of Hollywood, it could've gone on to become a leading man. What with those chiselled features. But nowadays, it would just be a male porn star.
[I'm not sure if forum rules would allow me to state the obvious reasons for that last line]Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

I checked out their site earlier, and he already has. There's one with an old English guy called Malcolm Bowden giving another standard crap argument (the "evolution is not science because it cannot be repeated as an experiment" one).But it doesn't have the comedy value of "The Rock".

Oh come on, it's just a little one and it doesn't do anything. It would need to make some boulder moves to get into one of those.Edited by RAZD, : xxx

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I've already responded there saying that this Malcolm Bowden guy is not a scientist as he claims. The poster of the video responded (I think it was to me) by saying basically that I haven't addressed the issue because I can't. I think declaring yourself the winner is the worst argument ever!
Here is the videoEdited by kalimero, : added link to original video

I suspected that he wasn't a scientist by the manner in which our rock loving moron said he was, and was sure after I'd seen Bowden on the video yesterday. So I googled around and found out that he's actually semi-retired from a profession beginning with the letter "e".Any guesses as to what it is? Good point, and I think I said it (The rock video) was a strong candidate. I'd be the first to admit that there's very heavy competition.{ABE}Doesn't the peanut butter guy declare himself the winner at some point? It seems to be standard practise to say "this disproves evolution" at some point in the "argument".{/ABE}I think that "The Rock" is perhaps a better candidate for funniest argument against evolution (actually, like the peanut butter, abiogenesis) than for the worst.It's got RAZD punning away merrily, anyway.I think he must be stoned. Edited by bluegenes, : addition and alteration of misleading phrase

I received this one seven years ago in an email. It was the first time that I'd heard it, but I've heard hints of the same claim since then. Also, I just noticed the "(sic)", which suggests that he had copied it from somewhere else:

quote:

---

Now given, data doesn't lie, but I do not think that all data is intrinsically pure. In other words this: it has been tampered with by supernatural beings, namely satan himself. satan's (sic) main concern is that he takes as many people down with him as possible. If he can convince us that God doens't exist by "tampering" with geological data and other findings, then we will think that we are alone in this universe with no spiritual meaning, and that when we die, we are worm food. Has anyone ever expressed this view towards you before? How do you respond to it? I know it sounds like an easy cop-out, but God has given satan the power over the earth and spiritual warfare does take place every day.

---

Thinking back on it, I realize that it's a variant of the Omphalos Argument, only instead of making God out to be a liar it puts the blame on Satan.Anyway, my response was to point out that Satan is one cleaver devil who knew that he didn't have to go to all the work of falsifying physical data everywhere on earth to create a consistent lie, but rather all he had to do was to create a false theology that would have us believe that the real evidence of the world proves that God doesn't exist. Then all he had to do was to enlist the aid of the fundamentalists and they would then do all the work for him. With great zeal.He never did respond.

ah yes, the classic "dinosaurs were put there by the devil to fool you" argument.

---

Just today I stumbled across Malcolm Bowden again, only this time he's listed as a modern geocentrist (Geocentric model - Wikipedia) -- they believe that the earth is at the center and that everything revolves around us, literally.Also on that list was respiratory therapist Paul Ellwanger, author of the model state law upon which the Arkansas and Louisiana "balanced-treatement" laws of the early 1980's were based.Why are we not surprised?

Now there is something that the Muslims could agree with - in reference to the Bible, that is.Seriously, you are correct, that anyone holding this view would have to deal with the possibility their sacred book has been tampered with.It would certainly be easier and more probably that these supernatural beings influenced a single scribe or author at one point in the formative years of the Bible then having to tamper with entire geological formations!

What's most humorous about this is the numbers of people claiming that other versions of christianity are corrupt ... where you usually get the comments that "they aren't real christians" ...Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.