Creation "science" at its finest!

[Esquilax]

In a bizarrely selective bout of skepticism, old Earth creationist Bruce Gordon published a critique of the young Earth model, in which he expresses that there is no way that god could create all the things he was claimed to have created on the sixth day in the span of 24 hours. This, in itself, is kinda hilarious, but this response by Answers in Genesis turns the entire thing into a laugh riot:

Well, anyone can imagine it:

6:00 am God makes the animals.
6:01 am God takes counsel with Himself to make man.
6:02 am God makes Adam. Forming him of dust takes one minute.
6:05 am After talking with Adam for a minute or so, God starts to plant the Garden.
6:10 am The Garden is completed.
6:11 am God puts Adam in the Garden.
6:12 am God warns Adam about the forbidden tree.
6:13 am Adam has breakfast.
6:30 am God reveals His decision to make Eve.
6:31 am God brings the animals to Adam to name. They are brought by “kinds,” so not every specific species, let alone every individual, is brought. Let’s say that it takes Adam eight hours to name them all, male and female, with a half-hour lunch break. (This is probably far too long at the time.) This brings us to—
3:00 pm Adam takes a nap.
3:28 pm Adam wakes up and meets Eve.
3:29 pm God speaks to Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:28–30).
3:30 pm We still have two and a half hours to sunset.

What we have here is a lengthy diatribe from a creationist source, replete with all the trimmings of an actual scientific report (including a pretty long reference list, which is adorable ) but with no actual demonstrable data present anywhere. It's like Baby's First Science Journal, but there are two important facts to take away:

1. This is what creationists think academic rigor is; literally just asserting things in an acceptable academic format.

2. Either young earth creationists, or AiG specifically, are super bitchy to anyone who doesn't toe their line, and apparently it's not just atheists that get that treatment; it only takes until the third paragraph for the author to start insulting not just Gordon himself, but old Earth creationists as a whole. They can't even keep their petty sniping out of their supposedly professional work.

Just remember, folks: this is the kind of shit that creationists want taught in classrooms alongside evolution. Mere assertions, tarted up to look sciencey.

[Ryantology]

Pictured: Creation "scientists"

[SteelCurtain]

Awww... it's got an Abstract... how cute.

[Roxy904]

My school does a science fair every year. Most of the students have better scientific reports than this.

[SteelCurtain]

Lol. (bold mine)

At every turn, I find Gordon’s arguments and interpretations of Scripture to be exceedingly weak and contrary to the historical understanding of the church. It is as though he comes to the text with preconceived notions of what it must mean and then forces the text into that mold. And he does so with no sense of humility, no sense that he might be twisting the word of God, but rather with a triumphalism that declares people like me and great theologians of the past to be exegetical rubes who lack the sophistication to see with his clarity. He lectures us to abandon our rudimentary analysis and to grow up into his robust grammatical-historical methodology, but I see very little to commend in his approach.

[Invisible Sky Fairy]

Clearly, he has no idea what he's talking about. It should take God at least eight hours to council with himself since both God and God are perfect and therefore will argue their case nonstop until one of them gets bored.

Also, it actually would take God three hours to form Adam out of dirt, and let's say two to make Eve since he already has all the basics down.

And Adam really only took seven hours to name the animals, but he skipped over the part where all the other individual species Adam and God decided to neglect for the sake of convenience showed up and hit Adam until he named them. That naming took three weeks.

Prove me wrong, Ham.

[AFTT47]

Is it just me or does anyone else find the concept of Adam naming the animals funny?

Adam: Lion.
Adam: Tiger.
Adam: Godamavich.
God: Are you fucking high, dude? I told you not to smoke that shit.
Adam: Elephant.
God: That's better.
Adam: Bear.
Adam: Zebra.
Adam: What to hell is that? Were YOU smoking that shit?
God: Just name the fucking thing.
Adam: Ducked-billed Platypus.

[Cato]

God provided the light from a non-solar source and called the alternating of that light with darkness “day” and “night.”

YEC scientific method on full display. When the ancient's made up bullshit is debunked, just make up sillier shit to justify it. I have a bit of empathy for those that invented ancient creation myths. They didn't have the hindsight of hundreds of years of established science, but were asking the same questions and dealt with it the best they could. These YEC yokals have no excuse. Sad really.

---

Awww... it's got an Abstract... how cute.

Slayed me. I guess it's a no shit paper then.

[Chad32]

Lol. (bold mine)

At every turn, I find Gordon’s arguments and interpretations of Scripture to be exceedingly weak and contrary to the historical understanding of the church. It is as though he comes to the text with preconceived notions of what it must mean and then forces the text into that mold. And he does so with no sense of humility, no sense that he might be twisting the word of God, but rather with a triumphalism that declares people like me and great theologians of the past to be exegetical rubes who lack the sophistication to see with his clarity. He lectures us to abandon our rudimentary analysis and to grow up into his robust grammatical-historical methodology, but I see very little to commend in his approach.

Please turn your irony meters off before viewing anything by a theist. Standard issue is not built for such high levels.

[Tonus]

Well, anyone can imagine it:

There's nothing quite like a lack of self-awareness.

6:02 am God makes Adam. Forming him of dust takes one minute.

ANCIENT ENGRAVING OF GOD CREATING MAN: