Shakespeare's Sonnet 23

As an unperfect actor on the stage,
Who with his fear is put besides his part,
Or some fierce thing replete with too much rage,
Whose strength's abundance weakens his own heart;
So I, for fear of trust, forget to say
The perfect ceremony of love's rite,
And in mine own love's strength seem to decay,
O'ercharg'd with burthen of mine own love's might.
O let my books be, then, the eloquence
And dumb presagers of my speaking breast;
Who plead for love, and look for recompense
More than that tongue that more hath more express'd.
O learn to read what silent love hath writ:
To hear with eyes belongs to love's fine wit.

I FOUND IT!

Just now I have found the stupidest idea ever put forward by a creationist. I know this is a very bold claim considering the things on YouTube, but just read this:

"A debate over biblical creation is a lot like a debate over the existence of air. Can you imagine two people debating whether or not air exists? What would the critic of air say?

Whatever his arguments, he would have to use air in order to make them. Not only is air crucial to the survival of the critic, but air would have to exist in order for his arguments to be heard and understood . . . . In order for the critic of air to be able to make an argument, it would have to be wrong.

Likewise, the evolutionist must use biblical creation principles in order to argue against biblical creation. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong. Ironically, the fact that evolutionists are able to argue against creation proves that creation is true!"

You can just feel the ignorance and the rape of logic trickle down your spine to the seat of your pants only to burst out in steamy irony. Oh yes, this is good, but don't think that this came from some off the wall, backwater creationist site; it came from Answers in Genesis, the big name in creationism. More than that, the quote up above is from a book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, that has been published by a man who has a doctorate. Dr. Lisle certainly has given us the ultimate proof against creationism, since the same argument can be used to "prove" evolution.

What lesson can we take away from this? Following Lisle's logic it would be that every idea ever proposed and subsequently refuted is correct. So yes, there are unicorns, hobbits and beer volcanoes.

Lisle also says on the AiG site that "with the arguments presented in this new book, I demonstrate that biblical creation absolutely must be true because it is a prerequisite for knowledge and science." I bet it is. He then gives us three examples:

• "Orderly, mathematical laws of nature that describe the consistent clockwork operation of the universe are exactly what we would expect given that Christ upholds all things by the Word of His power (Hebrews 1:3). If the universe were really the chance product of a big bang, then why would it obey laws?"
• "The fact that the human mind is capable of rational thought and that our senses can reliably probe the universe makes sense given that God created the human mind and sensory organs (Genesis 1:27; Proverbs 20:12)."
• "An absolute, universal moral code by which we have knowledge of right and wrong only makes sense if there is a sovereign God who has created rules for us, and to whom we are accountable."

Oh, I really want to buy this book and give it a good going over with my red gel pen. I'm sure that second and third century theologians who had an even more literal view of scripture wouldn't make such egregious logical mistakes. I really wish Christians would just admit that they are being very presumptuous, meaning there is no evidence to support the conclusion that God exists, and just get on with their lives.

Finally, a word from Ken Ham:

"I believe this is one of the most important creationist books available today to teach people how to think biblically and how to argue logically in the defense of the Christian faith.

If only churches and families had taught this material to their congregations and children, there would have been much less compromise in the church. People would have been less likely to have been led astray by compromise and would have readily recognized the illogical arguments of believing in an old earth and other supposed “evidences”—ideas that have caused so many to question the authority of Scripture, leading many of them to leave the church."

Forget all your "evidence" and just believe!

Loch Ness Monster

I found this gem on Pharyngula, you should read it. PZ Myers quotes a creationist textbook that is actually used in the UK, it's pretty amazing. Here's the quote:

"Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie,' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.

Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all."

So, to creationists the 'Loch Ness Monster' is real, but evolution isn't.

Cool

Cool science, http://www.physorg.com/news167925273.html/?:

"Oxford scientists have created a transparent form of aluminium by bombarding the metal with the world’s most powerful soft X-ray laser. 'Transparent aluminium' previously only existed in science fiction, featuring in the movie Star Trek IV, but the real material is an exotic new state of matter with implications for planetary science and nuclear fusion."

AiG Logic

Answers in Genesis is starting a series on logical fallacies so that they can spot evolutionists making them. This should be good; I really want to see where AiG goes with this. Here's the link. I see one fallacy in this already: There are evolutionist Christians; Which means, the Creationist worldview is not the Christian worldview, its the creationist worldview.

I Found This Entertaining

Grand Canyons

Answers in Genesis had this to say on a recent event in the UK where flood waters created a mini 'Grand Canyon:'

"Daily Mail reporter Neil Sears concludes, “It is an extraordinary illustration of the power of nature—and shows that enough water, flowing with enough force, doesn’t need decades to carve a path through the earth.” Whether intentional or not, his comment—and the physical fact of the Grand Canyon of Durham—is profound evidence for the plausibility of the worldwide Flood carving out many of the world’s geological features. If 120 acres of runoff from a day of rain dug a 14-foot-deep gorge in the earth, what would happen when enough water to cover the surface of the earth from 150 days of water from above and below (the “fountains of the great deep” and the “windows of heaven”) retreated (even if through solid rock, rather than soil)?"

Answers in Genesis: Look for "1. BBC News"

BBC News: Floodwaters create 'Grand Canyon'

Poo Poo Post

I am a follower of Ray Comfort on twitter because I like to see what he posts on his blog. This post that I've read just now is the worst thing I've seen him write on his blog. To be honest I haven't read much, but I imagine there isn't a whole lot worse than this. I'm not sure what his point is in this post. If I had to guess I would say the point is, "Science is stupid because it states the obvious." That is science makes claims that are backed up by testable, observable, quantifiable facts; although, Ray would say that science is anything other than fact. I'm going to post the whole blog here because I'm not sure even Ray can stand the sure to be embarrassment that it will bring. The blog post is called Modern Science.

A recent news item said, "Scientists have detected that New Zealand was moved about 30cm (12 inches) closer to Australia by a 7.8 magnitude earthquake in the Tasman Sea last week."

There was another report saying,

" . . . on the west coast of the South Island and a 2-inch tsunami reported in the Tasman Sea to the north of the epicenter, according to the U.S. Pacific Tsunami Warning Center."

A whole country moved 12 inches, and a two-inch tsunami. Wow. And people wonder why we lose faith in modern science when they come up with such silliness.

Think of the incredible achievement of landing a man on the moon. When it happened, it was a huge deal. What do we have to show for it 40 years later? A cure to cancer? A cure for the common cold? A permanent solution for starving nations? Nope. We have rocks. Moon rocks.

Now they are talking about landing on the moon once again. The estimated cost for more rocks--$100 billion dollars.

However, knowing the Creator and what He has in store for those that love Him, helps bring all this into perspective. There’s no hurry to check out the universe. We will have eternity to do that.

Diatoms

The Goat and the Goose

I feel like there is an Aesoptic fable in this picture. Maybe its a story warning it's readers against living too lavishly because goats who bathe in wine get licked by geese.

Oldest Bible

The Codex Sinaiticus is a Greek manuscript of the Bible written in the fourth century. This manuscript has for many years been in fragments, but as a part of a collaborative project between the British Library, Leipzig University Library in Germany, the Monastery of St. Catherine in Mount Sinai, Egypt, and the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg these fragments are being put together to make a complete manuscript. This manuscript will be available for everyone to read.

Telegraph Article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5749555/Worlds-oldest-Bible-published-in-full-online.html