The Grand Creationist Canard List (2023 Revision)

Debate Room
1

I’ve just finished converting to Google Docs format, a document I first presented online way back in 2010 over at the now defunct Richard Dawkins Forums, and which has since been replicated elsewhere. However, since this is a 16,000 word dissertation, it is almost certainly far too long for a single post here, so, I’ve converted the whole document first to Mircosoft Word format, then created a Google Docs version.

The full document is publicly accessible for reading via this link.

I invite the regulars to peruse the contents in full, and prepare themelves with the requisite ammunition for dealing with the canards so frequently peddled by the usual suspects.

9 Likes
2

Thank you for your consideration and effort(s)…I really appreciate it.

2 Likes
3

I will be there I assure you Calli!

1 Like
4

I have downloaded into OpenOfficeGl…of course…and skimmed. Bloody hell in a coconut Calli. Thankyou. Jesus wept in a Nissan mate, just a light skim and I can see the amount of work and thought that went into this, Thank you Calli, Calli thank you.

If you are ever in Aus, drop by. I have a collection of interesting reds…and access to a pub if you would rather.

2 Likes
5

I absolutely love how your mind works.

I skimmed over your document and found it to be very inclusive . . . although I need to spend more time later reading it at length.

There is one canard I think you missed . . . although I may have missed reading it, as I only skimmed it, so I apologize in advance if I mistakenly missed it.

It’s the “conspiracy canard,” which states that there is a unified conspiracy among scientists and humanists to deliberately discredit religion for the purpose of pushing an agenda . . . usually involving a socialistic, unified world government that controls every aspect of life.

Other variations of this canard involve scientists being in league (often unwittingly) with Satan, or that scientists may be colluding with aliens in order to defeat humanity by destroying religion, destroying the nuclear family via the homosexual agenda . . . and the canard that the gifts of science (like modern medicine) are a bribe for abandoning religion.

Below, see a book that expouses this viewpoint:

image

1 Like
6

I’ve taken the liberty of reformatting with headlines and a clickable table of contents.

Edit: Yeah, I know I’m graphically challenged. But clickable clicky links is better than no clickable clicky links, IMHO.

2 Likes
7

I’d love to read that book, but then again, I’m not going to buy it and give money to these idiots.

1 Like
8

I agree with you on the surface . . . but I sometimes buy these books anyway for no other reason so that I can stay informed on the oppositions’ position.

I often “accuse” Creationists of cherry-picking bits and pieces of the biological sciences that suit their arguments . . . so I don’t want to do the same thing when I consider their issues.

Also, I have had a positive benefit from these kinds of books. I have been better able to understand certian problems that have interfered with my work in healthcare (see prior posts in other threads).

9

I’ll see if I can find a copy in the library.

1 Like
10

Or buy one second hand. Second hand books don’t bring money to the authors.

However, I may still save you the trouble.

I’ve started reading it and–so far–I haven’t seen anything different or unique that seperates it from any of the other Christian conspiracy books that I’m aware of.

Just keep in mind that I’m 10% finished (according to the Kindle tally in the app), but all I’ve seen is:

  1. Evolution must be false because life can’t happen just from chance.
  2. A belief in science and evolution precludes morality and ethics.
  3. A belief in the biological consequences of evolution is responsible for the moral corruption, war, crime, and drug addiction that we see today.
  4. If this situation isn’t corrected, then civilization will inevitably collapse.

While these are all ideas that we have repeatedly debunked ad nauseum, there was one interesting idea that is rather novel . . . at least to me.

She points out that any machine is designed with a purpose. A car engine has the purpose of moving a car, and to use it for something else–like an anvil to forge horse shoes–would damage or destroy it.

In a like manner, our conscience, our sense of right and wrong, our capacity to love . . . is a fundemental part of our design, just as the fundemental purpose of a car engine is to move a car. So, this capacity for love and altruism is part of our Godly design, so to go against this value is like using a car engine for an anvil.

A belief in evolution does not adequately explain altruism and love, so evolution–by definition–is automatically insufficient for explaining the existence of human life.

I saw the fallacies in her arguments right away, as even beings as lowly as ants, termites, and bees nurture and care for each other. Insects even practice self-sacrifice for the greater good of the colony.

Never mind orcas, apes, dolphins, and many other animals that practice more elaborate forms of altruism.

In any case, I’m only about 10% through the book, so I’ll get back to you guys with a more thorough review later.

2 Likes
11

Updated the document with a clickable outline, and the beginnings of a table of contents.

Let me know if you approve of the changes.

2 Likes
12

image
image3000×1873 357 KB

13

:100:…

14

I found another blurb relevant to the discussion

The authors’ point that only man is capable of love and altruism is falsified by a recent story about a killer whale adopting an orphaned baby pilot whale . . . when orcas normally eat pilot whales.

See below:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.newsweek.com/orca-mom-adopts-baby-pilot-whale-1782946%3Famp%3D1&ved=2ahUKEwjugKuCpt79AhWdl2oFHTFhDGUQtwJ6BAggEAE&usg=AOvVaw0Rgz57-BklV6rKUUsiHbnD

We are only different from the liwer animals by a degree . . . not by kind.

15

Whales are mammals, and thus would not be characterized as “lower” animals. At least not if you want to use the dictionary definition:

relatively simple or primitive animals and not mammals or vertebrates

2 Likes
16

I agree with you and your points 100%.

I was using the term “lower animals” in the author’s sense of the term, and not my own.

Most religious people (I make an exception for Buddhists, Hindu, and certian other religions) seem to assert that animals don’t have souls.

Well . . . elephants bury their dead, and please see painting done by an elephant:

image

I don’t necessarily believe in the existence of the soul . . . but if the soul does exist, then doesn’t the painting and the fact that elephants bury their dead show that they have souls as well?

I actually consider the term “lower animal” to be nothing more than an expression of human ego.

P.S. People will argue that the elephant was trained to paint, so its painting is nothing more than the parlor trick of teaching a monkey to give someone the finger. Even so, people still attend art classes to learn how to paint . . . so what’s the difference?

1 Like
17

image

18

Hello there!

Just took a second look at my work, and I actually cover this “evolution conspiracy” in section 18 of my work, which is largely unchanged from the 2010 original. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
19

Thank you for clarifying this, as I should have spent more time on it.

20

It’s good, covers most of the arguments I’ve had thrown at me in my experience of creationists dating back to 1999 (arguably earlier since I experienced some on Compuserve BBS so pre-internet, at least as I knew it). Some of them I even deal with on my own website :slight_smile:

1 Like