Jump to content

Aig Has Their Head Up Their Asses


MrSpooky
 Share

Recommended Posts

Recently it came up in another forum that many YECs make the particular point that because there are no trees older than 4,000 years, this is evidence that a worldwide cataclysm occured about 4,000 years ago (the global flood with Noah's magical Ark and stuff).

 

Here is their article.

 

 

 

Now the fallaciousness of this argument aside, there are older plants like clonal populations of trees that are 30,000 years old or more, so AiG had to cover its ass with another article:

 

And here it is.

 

 

 

Now, ignoring clonal populations, the oldest living individual plant in the world is actually a creosote bush, dated to be about 10,000 years old. If true, this is an uncomfortable problem for the YECs at AiG, since this would mean that either this particular bush was covered with about 40 feet of salt water for 40 days and survived, or the flood geology is wrong. AiG took off in another direction:

 

The ‘granddaddy’ of them all is a plant named ‘King Clone’. Found in 1980, it was claimed to be 11,700 years old. But this date has been much revised, with scientists now speculating about an age of 7,500 years or less.

 

 

 

So I looked into this. Apparently the only source for the 7,500-year claim is from one scientist from a popular press article, Dr. Tom Van Devender. Now, not saying this particular guy is wrong necessarily, since he's a senior researcher after all. But every other article I've looked at claims KC is 11,700 years old and it seems to be the mainstream scientific consensus.

 

However, AiG also made another, bigger blunder: in the very article they cited, the main topic was how a second creosote bush was found that was just as old, if not older than King Clone. They didn't just cherry-pick answers, they blatantly ignored the central subject at hand that would've refuted their claims.

 

If I sound a little smarmy here, I really tried my best to sound civil. But ugh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's really no use in arguing with aig and other babblical cretinist bullshitting squads.

 

Just take your trusty baseball bat and smash their faces in. :pureevil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the quote:

God’s judgment on sin was in the form of a global watery catastrophe which destroyed all air-breathing land vertebrates except for those whom God lovingly preserved on the Ark.

 

Even in the face of global annihilation, mass carnage and all of the innocent deaths they still only see the love for the saved few...

I can just imagine the Nazi's saying "Hitler was going to destroy all of the jews, but lovingly saved a few to work the labour camps", wow, what a guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the quote:

God’s judgment on sin was in the form of a global watery catastrophe which destroyed all air-breathing land vertebrates except for those whom God lovingly preserved on the Ark.

 

Even in the face of global annihilation, mass carnage and all of the innocent deaths they still only see the love for the saved few...

I can just imagine the Nazi's saying "Hitler was going to destroy all of the jews, but lovingly saved a few to work the labour camps", wow, what a guy.

Another ancient folk-tale of a failed attempt by a failed god to redeem the failed human race of its "sins".

The flood didn't eradicate sins at all. God loses....again. So much for omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.

 

In trying to justify the existence of the god of the bible...not do-able.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.