Creationist Arguments (funny as hell)

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-30 07:52pm

Here's something I found at here. Hilarious, but a long read. :lol:

Guy at TalkOrigins wrote: I'd like to respond to robert's "mental exercize" question. I have about 78 "arguments" for creationism:

1 TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT (1) Creation is true. (2) If Creation is true, then reason must exist. (3) Reason exists. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.

2. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause. (2) I say the universe must have a cause. (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.

3. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (a) (1) I define God to be X. (2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

4. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (b) (1) Creation is true. (2) Since Creation is true, God must be perfect. (3) That which is perfect must exist. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.

5. MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (1) Creation is true. (2) God, existing, is either necessary or unnecessary. (3) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.

6. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (1) Check out that tree. Isn't it pretty? (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

7. ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (1) My aunt Helen was most likely to die from cancer. (2) She didn't. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

8. MORAL ARGUMENT (a) (1) Person X, a well-known atheist, was morally inferior to the rest of us. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

9. MORAL ARGUMENT (b) (1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard. (2) That all changed once I became religious. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

10. ARGUMENT FROM CREATION (1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore Creation is true. (2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

11. ARGUMENT FROM FEAR (1) If there is no God then we're all going to die. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

12. ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE (1) [arbitrary passage from OT] (2) [arbitrary passage from NT] (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

13. ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE (1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid atheists -- it's too complicated for you to understand. Creation is true whether you like it or not. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

14. ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE (1) Okay, I don't pretend to be as intelligent as you guys -- you're obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you'll just ask him into your life. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth" John 3:16. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

15. ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF (1) If Creation is true, then I should believe in Him. (2) I believe in God. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

16. ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION (1) See this bonfire? (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

17. PARENTAL ARGUMENT (1) My mommy and daddy told me that Creation is true. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

18. ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS (1) Millions and millions of people believe in God. (2) They can't all be wrong, can they? (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

19. ARGUMENT FROM ABSURDITY (1) Maranathra! (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

20. ARGUMENT FROM ECONOMY (1) Creation is true, you bastards! (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

21. BOATWRIGHT'S ARGUMENT (1) Ha ha ha. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

22. DORE'S ARGUMENT (1) I forgot to take my meds. (2) Therefore, I AM CHRIST!! (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

23. ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY (1) Eric Clapton is God. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

24. ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY (1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God. (2) Here is the URL. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

25. ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY (1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping! (2) No one has ever refuted (1). (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

26. ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN EVANGELISM (1) Telling people that Creation is true makes me filthy rich. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

27. MITCHELL'S ARGUMENT (1) The Christian Creation is true. (2) Therefore, all worldviews which don't assume the Christian God's existence are false and incomprehensible. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

28. ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (a) (1) Atheists are spiritually blind. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

29. ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (b) (1) God is love. (2) Love is blind. (3) Ray Charles is blind. (4) Therefore, Ray Charles is God. (5) Therefore, Creation is true.

30. ARGUMENT FROM FALLIBILITY (1) Human reasoning is inherently flawed. (2) Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition. (3) I propose that Creation is true. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.

31. ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS (1) Creation is true. (2) I don't give a crap whether you believe it or not; I have better things to do than to try to convince you morons. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

32. ARGUMENT FROM META-SMUGNESS (1) [obscenity deleted] (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

33. ARGUMENT FROM MANIFESTATIONS (1) If you turn your head sideways and squint a little, you can see an image of a bearded face in that tortilla. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

34. SLATHER'S ARGUMENT (1) My toaster is God. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

35. ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPLETE DEVASTATION (1) A plane crashed killing 143 passengers and crew. (2) But one child survived with only third-degree burns. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

36. ARGUMENT FROM POSSIBLE WORLDS (1) If things had been different, then things would be different. (2) That would be bad. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

37. ARGUMENT FROM SHEER WILL (1) I DO believe in God! I DO believe in God! I do I do I do I DO believe in God! (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

38. ARGUMENT FROM NONBELIEF (1) The majority of the world's population are nonbelievers in Christianity. (2) This is just what Satan intended. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

39. ARGUMENT FROM POST-DEATH EXPERIENCE (1) Person X died an atheist. (2) He now realizes his mistake. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

40. ARGUMENT FROM EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL (1) God loves you. (2) How could you be so heartless to not believe in him? (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

41. ARGUMENT FROM INCOHERENT BABBLE (1) See that person spazzing on the church floor babbling incoherently? (2) That's how infinite wisdom reveals itself. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

42. OPRAH'S ARGUMENT (a) (1) The human spirit exists. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

43. OPRAH'S ARGUMENT (b) (1) Check out this video segment. (2) Now how can anyone watch that and NOT believe in God? (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

44. CALVINISTIC ARGUMENT (1) If Creation is true, then he will let me watch you be tortured forever. (2) I rather like that idea. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

45. ARGUMENT FROM CROCKERY (1) Pots don't go around giving orders to the potter. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

46. ARGUMENT FROM MASS PRODUCTION (1) Barbie dolls were created. (2) If Barbie dolls were created, then so were trees. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

47. ARGUMENT FROM PAROCHIALISM (1) God is everywhere. (2) We haven't been everywhere to prove he's not there. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

48. ARGUMENT FROM UPPERCASE ASSERTION (1) CREATION IS TRUE! GET USED TO IT! (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

49. ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS (1) Ask atheists what caused the Big Bang. (2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this. (3) Continue process until the atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions. (4) You win! (5) Therefore, Creation is true.

50. ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY (1) How could God NOT exist, you bozo? (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

51. ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY (1) The Bible is true. (2) Therefore, the Bible is historical fact. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

52. ARGUMENT FROM RESURRECTION (1) Proof of God's existence will be available when you rise bodily from your grave. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

53. ARGUMENT FROM BIOGENESIS (1) Where did Adam come from, dummy? (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

54. ARGUMENT FROM STEADFAST FAITH (1) A lot of really cool people believed in God their entire lives. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

55. ARGUMENT FROM LONELINESS (1) Christians say that Jesus is their best friend. (2) I'm lonely, and I want a best friend. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

56. ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION (1) Creation is true. (2) [atheist's counterargument] (3) Yes he does. (4) [atheist's counterargument] (5) Yes he does! (6) [atheist's counterargument] (7) YES HE DOES!!! (8) [atheist gives up and goes home] (9) Therefore, Creation is true.

57. ARGUMENT FROM CREATIVE INTERPRETATION (1) God is: (a) The feeling you have when you look at a newborn baby. (b) The love of a mother for her child. (c) That little still voice in your heart. (d) Humankind's potential to overcome their difficulties. (e) How I feel when I look at a sunset. (f) The taste of ice cream on a hot day. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

58. ARGUMENT FROM INSECURITY (1) We have gone to absolutely berserk lengths to establish that atheists are laughable morons. (1.5) Actually, we did so in the hopes of curing our own insecurities about theism -- but there's no chance in hell we'll ever admit that. (2) Therefore, atheists are laughable morons. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

59. ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIORITY (1) If God does not exist, then I am an inferior being, since I am not "special" in a cosmic sense. (2) But I am superior. Because I am a Christian. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

60. ARGUMENT FROM PERFECTION (1) If there are absolute moral standards, then Creation is true. (2) Atheists say that there are no absolute moral standards. (3) But that's because they don't want to admit to being sinners. (4) Therefore, there are absolute moral standards. (5) Therefore, Creation is true.

61. ARGUMENT FROM HUMAN NECESSITY (1) Atheists say that they don't need God. (2) Which just goes to show that they need God. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

62. ARGUMENT FROM HIDDEN LOGIC (a) (1) Intellectually, I know that the existence of God is impossible, or vastly improbable. (2) But I must put on the appearance of being cool and intellectual in front of my Christian apologist peers. (3) Therefore, I must pretend that (1) is false. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.

63. ARGUMENT FROM INDULGENCE (1) Atheists like to think that they can control their emotional desires. (2) But they're atheists, so they can't. (3) Therefore, atheists feel the need to indulge in whatever they feel like without worrying about committing sin. (4) This just goes to show how they need God in their lives. (5) Therefore, Creation is true.

64. ARGUMENT FROM HATE (1) Some atheists hate Christians and Christianity. (2) That's why they don't believe in God. (3) Pathetic, aren't they? (4) Therefore, Creation is true.

65. ARGUMENT FROM QUENTIN SMITH (1) Quentin Smith says that God does not exist. (2) But God does exist. (3) Therefore, Quentin Smith cannot be accepted as an expert on the matter, because he is wrong. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.

66. ARGUMENT FROM EVIL SPIRITS (1) I've just had contact with evil spirits. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

67. ARGUMENT FROM HIDDEN LOGIC (b) (1) Atheists say that God doesn't exist. (2) But they only say that because they want to look cool and intellectual in front of their peers. (3) They don't fool me! (4) Therefore, Creation is true.

68. ARGUMENT FROM HOVIND'S CHALLENGE (1) Kent Hovind offers $250,000 (which may or may not exist) to anyone who can demonstrate evolution (defined as a natural, acausal origin of the universe) to a reasonable doubt (meaning with 100% certainty, allowing for no other possibilities whatsoever) in front of a neutral committee (handpicked by Hovind himself) and according to certain criteria (carefully worded so as to rule out any possibility whatsoever of the challenge ever being met). (2) No atheist has ever met this challenge. (3)Therefore, Creation is true.

69. ARGUMENT FROM INSANITY (1) No sane person could have thought up Christianity (2) Therefore, it must be true (3) Therefore, Creation is true

70 ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged) (1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X? (2) Atheist: of course. (3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'? (4) Atheist: Um, no, not really. (5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true? (6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'! (7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well? (8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going, anyway? (9) I'm glad we all agree..... .... (37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed? (38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is this going? .... (81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J'' are true. Agreed? (82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS GOING!? .... (177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all obviously valid. Agreed? (178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust] (179) Therefore, Creation is true.

71. MR. GOODSALT'S ARGUMENT (ARGUMENT FROM GENERAL INQUIRY) (1) Question for atheist population: [apparently random question] (2) Your answer is wrong. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

72. PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM ORIGINALITY (1) I have written the following to demonstrate the existence of God. (2) [insert entire text of a William Lane Craig article] (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

73. PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM LIMITED VOCABULARY (1) You use lots of big words. (2) Therefore, I cannot possibly be expected to understand your refutation of my position. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

74. PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY (1) [Christian asks "stumper" question] (2) [Atheist answers question] (3) [A lapse of time] (4) [Christian repeats question] (5) [Atheist repeats answer] (6) [A lapse of time] (7) [Christian repeats question] (8) [Atheist repeats answer] (9) [A lapse of time] (10) Atheist, you never answered my question. (11) Therefore, Creation is true.

75. ARGUMENT FROM HISTORICAL CORRELATION (1) This historical event was recorded. (2) The Bible mentions this event. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

76. THE CLASSICAL CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (1) We know that Creation is true because the Bible tells us so. (2) We know that the Bible is true because it is the word of God (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

77. ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE CELEBRITY QUOTATION (1) [insert famous persons name] is a well known Atheist. (2) [insert famous persons name] made a comment about God. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

78. ARGUMENT FROM IRRELEVANT TRIVIA (1) The Bible was written over a period of 1500 years. (2) Many people from varied backgrounds wrote the Bible. (3) Lots of copies of the Bible have been sold (4) Therefore, Creation is true. (This is a modification of the 78 "therefore god exists" arguments)

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-05-30 08:20pm

I remember reading a longer list with similar arguments, with "God" in the place of "Creationism". It's still funny, though.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-05-30 09:07pm

Well that convinced me.

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2003-05-30 09:25pm

*Blinks* Wait...

That made no sense! Damned creationists, making my head hurt with trying to figure it out...

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-05-30 09:40pm

ROFLMAO

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-05-30 10:02pm

I'm going to save this, and print it out for use at debates. Thank you.

Sindai · Post by **Sindai** » 2003-05-30 10:40pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I remember reading a longer list with similar arguments, with "God" in the place of "Creationism".

Note the very last part of the last entry of the list.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-05-31 02:40am

Hah hah!

Kosh_The_Vorlon · Post by **Kosh_The_Vorlon** » 2003-05-31 04:05am

*delurks*
Oooh! I have stars now!
::head explodes from the overwhelming stupidity in the OP, due to having delt with the real versions of those arguments in real life::
*relurks, headless*

JodoForce · Post by **JodoForce** » 2003-05-31 04:29am

I'm just waiting for EvilGrey to come in and agree with half the arguments now...

LMAO

Grand Moff Yenchin · Post by **Grand Moff Yenchin** » 2003-05-31 07:04am

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-05-31 07:48am

JodoForce wrote:I'm just waiting for EvilGrey to come in and agree with half the arguments now...

LMAO

Where the hell has that fruit gone anyway? He's still not told me what would be wrong with my world when i am god.

yes..that's right..WHEN

victorhadin · Post by **victorhadin** » 2003-06-05 03:13pm

*Reads it.*

I must now serve Christianity... my mind is forfeit.... gnnnnnnrrrr.....

*Attempts to eat another forum-member's brains.*

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-06-05 03:52pm

hehe

my favorite:

74. PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY (1) [Christian asks "stumper" question] (2) [Atheist answers question] (3) [A lapse of time] (4) [Christian repeats question] (5) [Atheist repeats answer] (6) [A lapse of time] (7) [Christian repeats question] (8 ) [Atheist repeats answer] (9) [A lapse of time] (10) Atheist, you never answered my question. (11) Therefore, Creation is true.

Crazy Goji · Post by **Crazy Goji** » 2003-06-05 04:54pm

I think my brain exploded. Don't they know that absence of proof is NOT proof of absence? That's like saying since I can't prove that gravity exists, there is no such thing as gravity. Now give me something to break!

McNum · Post by **McNum** » 2003-06-06 11:04am

I like this one.

16. ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION (1) See this bonfire? (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

Although, I don't think most debators have the style* to pull this one today.

*By "style" I am not referring to examples of people actually being burned at the stake. Just the style of acually pulling this argument in an actual debate.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-06 12:26pm

Posted before- the list is actually a whole lot longer.

1SuprJesusFreak · Post by **1SuprJesusFreak** » 2003-06-10 09:02am

Most serious Creationists that know what they are talking about don't use such weak arguments. There are a few crap evolutionary arguments as well such as the similarity of embryos and the peppered moth story.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-06-10 09:13am

1SuprJesusFreak wrote:Most serious Creationists that know what they are talking about don't use such weak arguments.

Of course, this wouldn't stop Kent Hovind from using these arguments, thus making himself look like a big phony even compared to even other Creationists.

1SuprJesusFreak · Post by **1SuprJesusFreak** » 2003-06-10 09:23am

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
1SuprJesusFreak wrote:Most serious Creationists that know what they are talking about don't use such weak arguments.
Of course, this wouldn't stop Kent Hovind from using these arguments, thus making himself look like a big phony even compared to even other Creationists.

Both sides have a few rotten eggs. We have him, and you have John Rennie.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-10 09:25am

1SuprJesusFreak wrote:Most serious Creationists that know what they are talking about don't use such weak arguments. There are a few crap evolutionary arguments as well such as the similarity of embryos and the peppered moth story.

You'd be surprised. Many use these same arguments, only they dress them up with erudite sounding language and long-windedness. The Irreducible Complexity Argument, for example, is essentially the same as the Teleologicial Argument listed here, only much more scientific sounding.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-10 09:36am

1SuprJesusFreak wrote:Most serious Creationists that know what they are talking about don't use such weak arguments.

No, they dress them up in prettier language. But the logic is generally the same. The most common creationist argument BY FAR is "if evolution were true, <insert gross strawman here> would happen, but it doesn't, so creation must be true", which encompasses TWO serious logical fallacies: the strawman attack and the assumption that if A cannot be proven, B must be true.

There are a few crap evolutionary arguments as well such as the similarity of embryos and the peppered moth story.

And how are embryonic similarity or the peppered moth story "crap" arguments? How are either of them more easily predicted by creation theory as opposed to evolution theory? Both did take place, and while one researcher played fast and loose by trying to force a particular explanation for the peppered moths, the fact remains that they DID get darker, thus adapting to something, regardless of precisely what it was. But of course, you're probably relying on one of those weak fallacies that you say "serious creationists" never use.

1SuprJesusFreak · Post by **1SuprJesusFreak** » 2003-06-10 10:00am

Darth Wong wrote:And how are embryonic similarity or the peppered moth story "crap" arguments? How are either of them more easily predicted by creation theory as opposed to evolution theory? Both did take place, and while one researcher played fast and loose by trying to force a particular explanation for the peppered moths, the fact remains that they DID get darker, thus adapting to something, regardless of precisely what it was. But of course, you're probably relying on one of those weak fallacies that you say "serious creationists" never use.

I'm currently working on a paper to show the scientific evidance against evolution. Here is an excerpt that addresses those two topics.]

Argument 1: Similarities Between Embryos

This argument is based on a fraud. A fraud populated by it's inventor Ernst Haeckel, a German scientist in the late 1860s. Haeckel published his "findings" in 1868. Within months the University of Basel's professor of zoology and comparative anatomy, L. Rtimeyer, with corroboration from a famous comparative embryologist, William His Sr., professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig showed Haeckel's work to be fraudulent. Haeckel had drawn the embryos in such a way as to make them look more similar to each other then they really were. He even reprinted some of the woodcuts and then said they were the embryos of different species! Despite all this Haeckel's drawings are still used in science books today! In 1997 it was revealed by embryologist Dr. Michael Richardson, with the cooperation of biologists around the world that Haeckel's fraud was even worse then previously thought. Dr. Richardson and the biologists in league with him collected and photographed the embryos that Haeckel had supposedly drawn. He found that Haeckel's drawings had very little resemblance at all to the actual embryos! Richardson said (as quoted by The Times [London]):

"This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It's shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don't. These are fakes."¹

Given, the embryos of animal do bear some resemblance in their early stages. However when looking at it from a design standpoint this makes sense. To create or make anything you
start with a basic form and gradually add more and more specialized detail. Some scientific principles known as von Baer's laws express this concept in terms of embryonic development.

Namely that the younger the embryonic stage, the more closely organisms tend to resemble each other. However even von Baer's laws are a little outdated as stated in this quote:

"Von Baer's laws differ profoundly from Haeckel's. Indeed, von Baer formulated his generalizations precisely in opposition to the sort of recapitulation Haeckel favored. In any case, neither von Baer's laws, nor Haeckel's, are reliable generalizations today about the patterns of metazoan ontogeny. Looking simply within the vertebrates, for instance, the earliest stages of development are strikingly different (e.g., between an amphibian, a chick, and a mammal)."²

Argument 2: The Peppered Moths

The story of England's Peppered Moth is an evolutionary classic. It is also an evolutionary myth. The story of the peppered moth goes as follows. The moth comes in two variations. A light colored one, and a dark colored one. The pollution from the Industrial Revolution had darkened the color of the tree trunks by killing the light-colored covering called lichen and dusting the trees in soot. The lighter variety which was well camouflaged against the light-colored tree trunks now stands out. This makes them more visible to birds who readily eat them. For this reason the population of the dark-colored moths skyrockets. After the pollution was cleaned up the light-colored moth again becomes more prevalent. This shift is moth numbers was documented carefully by catching the moths in tarps. Release-recapture experiments have shown that in polluted forests the dark moths are more prevalent and vice versa. There where also tapes showing birds selectively eating the less camouflaged moths off of tree trunks. This was met with much excitement from the evolutionist community. H.B. Kettlewell who performed most of the experiments at the time said that if Darwin had seen this, "He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life's work."³ Even as the textbook story goes it demonstrates nothing more then gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection within one created kind. It shows nothing that, even given millions of years could add the sort of complex design information needed for Macro-evolution. L. Harrison Matthews, a biologist so distinguished that he was asked to write the forward for the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, said that the peppered moth example showed natural selection, but not "evolution in action." However none of that really matters as the peppered moth story contains more holes then a strainer. Peppered moths don't rest on trees during the day! Kettlewell and others attracted the moths into traps but using either light or female pheromones. In either case, they only flew in at night! So where do the moths rest during the day? In response to this question British scientist Cyril Clarke, who investigated the peppered moth extensively, wrote:

"But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time... In 25 years we have found only two betularia [scientific name] on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background, and one not), and none elsewhere."4

The moths that were taped as they were consumed by the birds were laboratory- bred ones placed on the tree trunk by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on the hood of his car.5 And as for all of the photos of the moths on tree trunks, dead moths were glued to the tree!6 Biologist Theodore Sargent of the University of Massachusetts even helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. Here is another interesting little flaw. When one group of researchers glued dead moths onto trees in an unpolluted forest the birds ate the less camouflaged dark moths as expected. But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light ones. This is a complete contradiction to textbook predictions Even evolutionists have to (and do) agree that this fraudulent myth needs thrown out. Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago refers to the peppered moth story as "the prize horse in our stable" but agrees it must be thrown out for what it is, a fraud.

1. N. Hawkes, The Times (London), August 11, 1997, p. 14
2. Paul Nelson at http://origins.swau.edu/q&a/evol/questions/q2.html. See Raff, R. 1996. The Shape of Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. or the latest edition of Scott Gilbert's developmental biology text, and the literature cited therein.
3. Evolution and the Fossil Record, Readings from Scientific America, "Darwin's Missing Evidence," H.B. Kettlewell (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Co., 1978), p. 23.
4. C.A. Clarke, G.S. Mani, and G. Wynne, "Evolution in Reverse: Clean Air and the Peppered Moth", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 26:189-199, 1985; quote on p. 197.
5. Calgary Harold, March 21, 1999, p. D3.
6. D.R. Lees and E.R. Creed, "Industrial Melanism in Biston Betularia: The Role of Selective Predation," Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67-83, 1975.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-06-10 10:04am

1SuprJesusFreak wrote: Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago refers to the peppered moth story as "the prize horse in our stable" but agrees it must be thrown out for what it is, a fraud.

In other words - you're attacking an argument which isn't used anymore.

Thus, you are guilty of the Strawman Fallacy.

1SuprJesusFreak · Post by **1SuprJesusFreak** » 2003-06-10 10:15am

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
1SuprJesusFreak wrote: Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago refers to the peppered moth story as "the prize horse in our stable" but agrees it must be thrown out for what it is, a fraud.
In other words - you're attacking an argument which isn't used anymore.

Thus, you are guilty of the Strawman Fallacy.

Serious evolutionists don't use this argument, that is true. But it is still in use in schools, textbooks and so on which makes it essental that I disprove it in my paper.