Scotland’s creationists are devolving 6

Wannabe Scottish holy warrior Stewart Cowan has started what may be an ongoing series on “The Myths and Hoaxes of the 20th Century”. That he’s started with a weak swing at evolution should come as no surprise, neither should the fact that he fails to put forward a coherent argument.

Cowan bases his argument on a wilfull or genuine failure to understand an 18th century theory called uniformitarianism. (It’s doubly amusing that he links to the wikipedia page about it because whenever he or his cronies are presented with a wikipedia page which proves them wrong or shows up a weakness in their arguments they fall over themselves to claim the site is a liberal conspiracy.) He then ignores centuries of research, discoveries and advances and implies that this one theory is the only thing scientists have ever used to figure anything out. From this nonsensical conceit he wanders off into a bunch of Creationist talking points and fails to prove anything. He cites research with blind cavefish which he thinks proves his point, completely failing to see that it does the opposite.

Stewart Cowan’s never presented a coherent or convincing argument against evolution, but this one’s even weaker than normal. As the only people who can be bothered to continually comment on his blog are equally uninformed and blinkered he has no need to improve his arguments, so they seem to be devolving.

6 thoughts on “Scotland’s creationists are devolving

  • len

    Just a few flaws in the evolutionary myth
    1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
    2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
    3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
    4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
    5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms (“missing links”) required for evolution to be true.
    6. Pictures of ape-to-human “missing links” are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists’ already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived
    7. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.
    8. Uses continue to be found for supposedly “leftover” body structures.
    9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology.
    10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins.

    (The evolutionary theory is for the gullible, the confused, and for people who will not( or cannot) accept the Truth of a Creator God.

    The Evolutionary theory is being exposed as one big hoax which only the brainwashed will accept without question .

    • Ian Pattinson

      These supposed flaws show up the weakness of your arguments and nothing else.
      1. Rubbish. And showing a lack of understanding of the theory.
      2. Rubbish again.
      3. I haven’t a clue what you think you’re saying here.
      4. Wrong.
      5. Every single fossil is a transitional form, in effect. The creature has evolved from an earlier form and its offspring are part of the continuing process of evolution to a different form. From generation to generation it’s hard to see the change because each step is so small, but look at ten generations’ difference, or a hundred or a thousand, and you start to see the changes. You and I are transitional forms, as humans are evolving. In fact, we’re evolving at an increased rate.
      6. Pictures of Jesus are extremely subjective and based upon religionists’ already-formed assumptions. They are always contrived. (I mock you because you talk nonsense.)
      7. Rubbish.
      8. You mean that we keep working out what redundant body parts used to be for and why we evolved to the point where they’re no longer used, if not completely gone.
      9. Evolution isn’t about how life began, it’s about how it developed.
      10. Data which goes back millions of years and can be corroborated in numerous ways. In the billions of observed facts about life there have been none which could show a flaw in the fact of evolution, merely ones which can show in more detail why it is true.

      You’ve basically just regurgitated a bunch of nonsense talking points someone’s told you and then accused the people who can see that you’ve been taken in of being confused and gullible. Stop listening to the creationists and go and read a book about evolution written by someone who knows what they’re talking about.

  • len

    The whole vast structure of modern naturalism(seems to)depend not on positive evidence but simply on a priori metaphysical prejudice…and is devised not to get in facts but to keep out God.
    ( C S Lewis)

    • Ian Pattinson

      Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
      Douglas Adams

    • Ian Pattinson

      I’ve taken Len’s comments exactly as seriously as they deserve to be taken. Every one of his points has been shown to be flawed, is based upon flawed logic or deliberate misunderstanding or is just wishful thinking and Creationist fantasy.

Comments are closed.