an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Paul Taylor, Talking Bollocks Again

Paul Taylor, former Dino Bullshitter™ at Answers in Genesis, and now Dino Bullshitter™ at God Quest Inc., has been at it again, talking crap via a blog post on Eric Hovind’s relentlessly wrong Creation Science Evangelism. Entitled ‘Sir David Attenborough’s Anti-Science Position’, it lays out it’s lack of connection to reality in its very first line

The majority of discoveries of the modern scientific era were made by people who believed the book of Genesis to be true.

Bo, and futher more, llocks. Yes, a few hundred years ago practically EVERYONE in Europe was a Christian of some sort, but that doesn’t mean that Genesis is right! All the people who invented the cool shit we use today also wore clothes, but that doesn’t mean that pants are a cause of great inventions. Anyway, when you move into more recent times, you’ll be hard pressed to find ANY reputable scientists and inventors who think that Genesis is literally true. To put it bluntly, Paul’s first line is a flat out lie.

I shouldn’t be surprised though, as even before that first line he’s got it wrong. Sir David HASN’T adopted an ‘anti-science’ position at all, he’s done the EXACT opposite. Seriously, Paul, what bizarro world do you live in if you think fucking Creationism is science?? Look at what’s been written by Paul Taylor, then believe the absolute, 180 degree opposite.

Elsewhere on the crapola Creation Ministries site, Taylor takes other Christians to task for NOT being lunatics who believe in a literal 6 day creation, less than 10,000 years ago. In a parp of stupidity called, without apparent irony, ‘Embarrassing Bible Interpretations’, he attacks a chap called David Instone-Brewer for having the gall to not believe that Noah’s ark literally happened. Amongst a lengthy ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’ dribble from Taylor is the following –

A quick search on any creationist website, including this one, would have shown him that biblical creationists do not believe that the Ark held two of every species, but rather two of every kind—all the species having developed after the Flood from these kinds in a process known as speciation. As there were about 8,000 kinds prior to the Flood2, this would mean the Ark had to hold about 16,000 animals, whose average size was that of a sheep

At no point does he point out that one of the people who has said this on ‘any creationist website’ is….Paul Taylor! I don’t think citing yourself as a source is a good way to do science, Paul, especially when you just pulled the initial figures out of your (ample) arse.

I can’t decide whether Taylor is actually worse than Eric Hovind, at least Eric has the excuse that he was indoctrinated by his insane father from birth, Taylor has no such excuse.

Paul Taylor is incredible, he’s apparently never been right about anything.

Single Post Navigation

9 thoughts on “Paul Taylor, Talking Bollocks Again

  1. Speaking of creationists talking bollocks, you may want to read about the self-referencing of Jan Peckzis. Note: The creation wiki article that has Woody's real name has been edited so that it no longer does so. Hence, the link to Wikipedia

  2. For the hell of it, another example: Their misquoting of Lewontin: here, and here.Refuted here, and here.And, for the hell of it, their distortion of what "fitness" means here:They're replying to someone who's taken exception to one of their talks here. They first quote each point that person made then state their response right after it as below.Besides their dishonest representation of what "fitness" is, their attitude is consequently exposed.caring for God’s Creation Why? If God’s means of creation was survival of the fittest, why not let the unfit perish? If we are just another animal, we are just showing our superior fitness if we wipe out another species.Thus showing that they know nothing about how ecosystems work…we, as animals or biological organisms, period! need to keep as much of this biosphere intact for the sake of our food and oxygen sources, to say nothing of sources of medicines, etc."Fitness" in evolutionary biology means more than just being able to kill off other organisms! In fact, that doesn't even seem to be the main focus!So, why do creationists keep going with their version of it? It suits their purposes to poison the well of the theory of evolution in the minds of laymen.

  3. Reynold, we'll have to get you back on the show in the near future.

  4. Thanks. I found this study which shows what I figure is the end result of the attitude to which theists like the CMI people and others are both cultivating and taking advantage of.

  5. Some people that you may be interested to have on your show would be AaronRa, who produces such youtube videos as The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series. That link is the second part of episode 14.Yeah, there are a LOT of falsehoods in creationism.Another person that has some useful videos is ZOMGitsCriss.

  6. Alex,May I also add Brett Palmer as someone you might consider having on your show. He's a former Christian who goes into great detail about where the bible is at odds, not only with reality, but also with itself and with what apologists' say about it. His fourteen part series "What Genesis Got Wrong" is excellent. Here is his website.http://www.youtube.com/user/brettppalmerYdemoc

  7. Thanks, I've bookmarked that page. Alex, here's another guy you may want to have on the show sometime: Philosopher Stephen Law.He's taken on Sye many times, and even William Lane Craig.He's discussed things like morality and religion as well. The tags on the left side of his main blog are a gold mine.

  8. Ah, speaking of Stephen Law, he's had a dustup with Answers in Genesis.

  9. For the hell of it, another person dealing with the Lewontin misquoteThe deceitful Richard Lewontin quote mine deserves special attention. Here is the entire quote:"With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular credibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost invisible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn't even get Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity 'in deep trouble.' Two's company, but three's a crowd.""Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."– Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 (review of Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).The abyssal obscurantists and charlatans at Answers in Genesis imply that "patent absurdity" refers to evolution, when Lewontin is actually talking about astronomy.The witless Werner Gitt becomes a twit by arguing that Lewontin considers materialism unjustified – but Lewontin gives a reason for doing so just after creationist cretins chop the quote.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: