Creationist? No, not unless she were uncommonly stupid by even creationist standards. The funny thing about this comic is that it is essentially correct - it describes (albeit absurdly) the notion that the in first few million years after the Big Bang, space/time and matter/energy and their properties were still in flux, and only after a great deal of time (by human standards) did things subside enough for the various particles to take on their current-day properties and for the laws of physics to actually be written.
In other words, they evolved.
We know from the Kansas science books, of course, that creationists don't believe in laws of physics at all, or so badly mangle them that they are not internally consistent and require divine intervention to fill in the gaps. Try looking up carbon dating in there. I guarantee you won't find it. --
Re: Creationist?bluezybunnyMay 15 2008, 04:56:35 UTC
To me it looked like it was a stab at biologists for coming up with a completely off-the-wall (and satanic) notion such as 'evolution' by revealing that it doesn't apply to all our known laws. What I found amusing was the irony that the tree evolving to shoot applies to the earth still made sense, barring other known scientific laws. The irony would've been lost on creationists, though, so I figured that wasn't part of the anecdote
( ... )
Comments 4
-Quip
Reply
In other words, they evolved.
We know from the Kansas science books, of course, that creationists don't believe in laws of physics at all, or so badly mangle them that they are not internally consistent and require divine intervention to fill in the gaps. Try looking up carbon dating in there. I guarantee you won't find it.
--
Ciro
Reply
Reply
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=42731&p=842807&hilit=evolton#p842807
Or post some of the ones you've found. I love richarddawkins.net
-Quip
Reply
Leave a comment