We evolved from an even more primitive form than apes, splitting off into our own unique species.
It goes back to the fish that could walk and breath out of water (related species existing even today). So when one looks in their aquarium, there's our real ancestors. If a God meant us to believe in creationism, it would be as an ironic joke on our gullibility.
I hear ya LW, I love my amoebas, paramiciums, euglenii, and even the oft-maligned bacteria equally. Creationists really just don't get it, and I hate anyone who feels the need to bathe their dogma far too often....bad for their coat you know....
I say let them feel comforted and satisfied in their self-deception and dillusions. There's a grey haired, bearded very old man somewhere up there laughing himself silly.
It's a hoax site, and a good one. I'm enjoying it immensely
Thanks Portal Star.
Only thing is... I'm not sure if it's just poking fun at creationists, or also those of us who are annoyed by creationists. It could almost go either way, depending on just how irrational real creationists are.
Here are a couple of real creationist sites for comparison:
http://www.drdino.com
http://www.creationscience.com
Rosbourne 989: Actually, I believe this is not a satire site. Look at the other sections of the site. Also look at the work put into the site. Thanks for the links.
Lightwizard: The aquatic ape theory has recently been discredited. We have very few things in common with aquatic ancestors. The only pros on the aquatic ape theory side are the shape of our nose, male pattern baldness, brief formation of gills in embryonic stage (this is also present in chickens and many other embryos), and our digit skeletons (which bear similarity to most all digit skeletons, aquatic or not). These are not evidence enough of aquatic ape ancestors, and the theory wasn't well researched.
Portal Star,
The Bio's for all the founders, including the other organizations they are associated with seem to be bogus. I can find no other reference to them anywhere on the web.
With this many people listed along with other associations they belong to, there should be at least a few cross references available somewhere on The Web.
If you find any cross references, let us know.
As CodeBorg mentioned earlier in this thread, there are lots of references to this site elsewhere on the web, but mainly in discussion forums like this one, where people debate the potential validity of the site (just as we are doing)
I'm enjoying the aspect of mystery and unknown about this site as much as I am the straight faced presentation of its humor.
Acquatic ape? Oh my god, this thread just gets ridiculouser and ridiculouser . . .
Great comic relief here . . .
Yeah, apes don't swim, yet humans do. We are the aquatic ape, genus Mark Spitz.
Oops, my bad, I translated from the original Latin Marcus Spitzus
Oh, I guess I didn't cover all the stages between the "walking and air breathing fish" and the mammals. Obviously, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing but to those who have read every book on the ideas and mechanisms of how evolution occured, my congratulations. I've only read the books by those I respect as scientist, not those who go off the boards and begin creeping into the ridiculous realm of creation science. They're always coming up with insane ideas about why evolution is false and expounding on premises that are so patently silly, I begin to laugh. Apparantly these creation scientists haven't reached the stage of evolution where they think like rational human beings and are still encumbered by the shackles of superstition.
The most incredibly fuggheaded of the premises is how the Grand Canyon was formed in six-thousand years.
I know, I hate that grand canyon theory!
I had a philosophy T.A. who was a hardcore creation science person, and it got in the way of my mind/body dicussions. He said that circular arguments can mean somthing, as in the case of g-d proves the bible and the bible proves g-d. He also talked about the grand canyon thing, and the "mousetrap seperated into functionless parts" thought example (which is mentioned on the website). He took 10 points off of my essay because I called g-d "Insubstantial",he said that g-d was very substantial. But g-d is immaterial, without physical substance. He also argued against materialist theories saying "I'm not an accident! I'm not just a bunch of stuff!"
Despite all this he was a very smart person and good at philosophy. I always find it strange when people have so much knowledge in one area, but sort of brush over everything else. What made it -really- interesting was that the professor was a hardcore materialist.
A higher intelligence need not be one we understand, certainly not a grey-haired and beared old man floating off somewhere above the clouds (as Michaelangelo depicted him). Your instructor was wrong in using the word "accident" as the Universe is planning itself (although, as pointed out by many scientists, in a chaotic way) and if there is a concept of God I would accept as understandable, it would be Aristotle's "The Great Mover." That the egoists of religion have tried to insinuate it looks anything like us ("created in his own image") is their mantle to bear and they refuse to explain any of it other than that kind of cheap rhetoric usually reserved for politicians. They are, in fact, the politicians of religion.
Accident
I also have a hard time with the word accident, but for slightly different reasons. I dont believe in an Intelligent Design, I think the universe is expanding at a fairly rapid rate and matter in the universe is thus diffusing, but at the same time forming "clumps" (such as our solar system) due to gravitational effects of matter. This gravity allowed the molecules for life to remain in proximity to each longer and eventually combine in a way to self-sustain and reproduce.
People say, "the chances of that happening at random are WAY to low!"
I say to them, "do you think the chances are around one in 25,000,000,000,000,000,000???"
They will usually laugh and say "yeah, thats probably about right"
Then I say, "good because thats our astronomers current estimate of how many stars are in the universe. So, our universe has as least 25,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances to creat life. Even if it only happened once, Here We Are!!
So, i dont think the term "accident" really applies. More of a statistical inevitability!!
Greg
wow, this site is amazing. I dont think its a joke Rosborne. Even though I wish it were.
I can't quite figure out if it's a ruse or not, farmerman, even though it looks ridiculous enough to actually be for real.
skeptic, I think the Gertrude Stein saying applies, "A rose is a rose is a rose..." To explain the abstract with the voodoo these guys have come up with is no better than fortune telling.
well, I do know that the Twin Cities Creation SCience Group is for real, they often appear as speakers for church revivalist goups and they appear to fund some "creation Science " efforts in state ed board deliberations. The Minnesota deliberations are just the latest.
2nd Place: "Maximal Packing Of Rodentia Kinds: A Feasibility Study
"Jason Spinter's (grade 12) project was to show the feasibility of Noah's Ark using a Rodentia research model"
"The Rodentia were placed in a cage with dimensions proportional to a section of the Ark"
"Although there was little room left in the cage, all Rodentia were able to move just enough to ward off muscle atrophy."
You do this is a University research lab and the animal control officer and PETA would be all over you.
he didnt define a control group of rats that were prayed over so no divine intercession would grant levitation.
2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"
Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.
I was going to abstract this but it is just too rich. However it should be noted by the women on A2K that Mr Goode has demonstrated that physics proves women are more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets. Get to it girls.
I was cruising some of Paleys notable writings. And heres one about how his field of theobiology allows the survival of dinosaurs through the flood. Lotsa great science here
http://www.objective.jesussave.us/dinosaurs.html
