Creationist’s Theory Wallpaper


This is what some creationist believe


  • Leave A Comment

    Notify of
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments

    No, this is the Discworld.


    Creationists wouldn’t have such a sense of style.


    Know you not the glory that is the mind of Terry Pratchett?


    Aah, the old “flat planet on elephants riding a tortoise” theory.


    No, it’s actually the old “World borne from the back-sweat of a turtle mixed with Elephant dung theory”.


    I’m amazed at how many others know of Terry Pratchett. I’m also amazed that they share the same indignation as I do that this is considered creationist babble. Pratchett is god, the submitter of this picture is fail.


    It doesn’t show where the fifth elephant crashed into the surface to create the mountains though. I am quite disappointed.


    funny how there are “stereotypical” planets and stars in the b/g.


    There’s good eating in one of those (turtles)…


    at least they got one thing right… the sun has to be closer then the moon because it looks bigger.


    And this would be stranger than the invisible ghost magically willing the world into existence HOW?


    still more logic behind this than Scientology, we need a poster of that.


    Imagine Xenu raging war against the Great God Om… I would totally juice over it.


    Oh please! This is the most asinine thing ever and it makes no sense! History shouldn’t be seen as something silly like that. Where’s the talking snake? …the burning bush? …a million animals on a boat? This just makes no sense!


    ….you forgot the taunting Frenchman and the herring.


    Let me just settle things for you idiots.

    Well done, this is a picture of the Discworld as created by Terry Pratchett. (It was my background for a long while.)

    However, Pratchett himself based the Discworld on a centuries old belief that the world was flat and supported by elephants who in turn stood on the back of a giant turtle. (The turtle apparently needing no support itself.)

    Creationists do not believe this. Creationists hold that God had a hand in the creation of life on Earth and disagree with the scientific timeline for the development of life. However ludicrous I may feel their beliefs are, I can atleast recognise that creationists don’t dispute the shape or physics of the Earth.

    PS Glad to see so many Pratchett fans. I haven’t read the new book yet and have been slightly disappointed with his more recent efforts. However The Night Watch books more than make up for them.


    Ah’tuin forgive the heretical comparison of His (or Her) factual majesty to the cretinous drivelings of Moses et. al.

    The Turle Moves!


    …This was a common Hindu belief. Another common Hindu belief is that the world was not really “created”*, seeing as how their gods came about after the beginning of…whatever (see Hindu “The Song of Creation”). There are myths that a golden egg split, making the heaven and earth, but even in ancient times that was rarely taken seriously. Oh and btw, the turtle was sometimes in a “cosmic sea”.

    So, this must all be an evolutionary imperative. The turtle and elephants must have evolved to hold the earth in place. Otherwise, obviously, the earth would fall.

    *There is not a creator in Hindu myth. If there is no “Creator”, there can not technically be a “creation”


    This reminds me of Stephen King’s “The Dark Tower” saga. There is this turtle who like…blows shit up or something and its one of the guardians of the worlds.


    The significant owl hoots in the night.


    And as long as I am on the subject, I will clarify another misconception. “Creationism” is the belief that the universe was created in six days. This being a literal interpretation of the biblical account in Genesis.

    “Intelligent Design” is, the belief that the universe was created by someone(s), sometime… and has a bit more variety as to it’s details.


    “Intelligent Design” is, the belief that the universe was created by someone(s), sometime… and has a bit more variety as to it’s details.

    Yeah, but still it’s just detailed bullshit, not science.


    “The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[10][11] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that “intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life” are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment,”

    ID being ” not science because they cannot be tested by experiment” means that abiogenesis is just as unscientific, because it can not prove that life comes from non-life.

    Neither can be demonstrated and neither has been observed. Thus, one is as unscientific as the other and are really only philosophies.


    Actually, abiogenesis is not quite so unscientific as ID, because abiogenesis is a hypothesis that scientists themselves say we don’t understand: bottom line, we don’t know. ID, on the other hand, says that we don’t understand it, and that therefore it was God.


    The Turtle Moves…


    Just to add to that, most hardcore Hindus nowadays actually disencourage people from reading the more mythological type-texts in favour of the more philosophical texts such as the Upanishads. The myths are seen as 1) A way of talking about things that can’t be talked about in human terms, ie, a lie to try and help humans understand the non-human; and 2) Meant for people not yet in a stage that they’re ready for religious truths. Comforting myths, then. Literally readings, in any event, are heavily discouraged by most swamis. I doubt we really have to worry about Hindu creationists any time soon.


    ID being ” not science because they cannot be tested by experiment” means that abiogenesis is just as unscientific, because it can not prove that life comes from non-life.

    Abiogenesis is a probable hypothesis backed by fossilized evidence of coacervates and some experiments such as the Miller-Urey one, based in hypothesis of Oparin and Haldane.

    As you can see, it has been proved that biomolecules can form parting from inorganic molecules and sources of high energy, such as lightning bolt and/or high intensity UV radiation. Besides, the existence of Ribozymes is well known, proving that some biomolecules could act as catalyzing agents before the existence of proteins. We have intermediate steps of the process, which is more than can be said about ID: still no “God made me” tag anywhere…


    I always thought thought that the best argument for creationism not being science is that the ‘so it must be Christian God’ thing is not open to any kind of negation. According to Popper, anyway, a theory *partially* is testable in that we can ask “Why is it not true?” by testing it against empirical evidence. We can provide profs to argue for or against evolution (or relativity,etc), even if we can’t replicate it in a laboratory. Thus it’s a very strong theory (as, in principle if not in detail it has held up to negative tests), but not a law. On the other hand, ‘It was Christian God’ can’t be tested against anything emperical by asking ‘why is it not true?’. Thus it is falls outside the realm of science – science does not prove or disprove it, but simply has nothing to say about it – if we accept this definition of the natural sciences.

    Of course, if we approach it that way, String Theory and and a whole lot of other theories aren’t scientific whatsover. If we’re going to allow our physicists to mentally masturbate and fund it and call it natural science, I’m afraid we’ll have to allow the fundamentalists to as well.


    “Mentally masturbate” teeheehee. This is my amusing point. Miller created some crude biomatter devoid of DNA or RNA and especially, life (but it was teeming with tar, a chemical inimical to life) . And I do not see how fossilized bubbles (coacervates) argue abiogenesis at all. To illustrate all of this, growing a tree in a lab is quite different then growing a house in a lab. So, because one can grow a small component of a much more vastly complex thing means actual research and convincing evidence? Perhaps, by a stretch, ok. Then by a similar stretch one can observe that, according to empirical data, life only comes from life, and call the research and thus, science. Besides, if scientists did create life in a lab, all it would prove is ID. Here we are, back to ‘mentally masturbating’ again.

    Physics has math to back it up. Granted that is not physical proof. But who does anything without doing a little math first?


    You’re doing it wrong, EvilDon. Recreating the conditions of a reducing atmosphere (as opposed to an oxidant one like we have now) and thus reconstructing the conditions of primordial Earth is not “creating life” but providing the basis to prove that biomolecules appeared without any Magic Man or supernatural intervention. There is no creation, just letting the workings of the universe work on it’s own.

    Besides, the basic experiment and later reformulations by other scientists (like Joan Oró) proved that nucleic acids could form in that enviroment. The point, therefore, is that natural physical and chemical conditions can lead to the rise of life parting from inert matter. Besides, biological membranes appear naturaly in case of high concentrations of lipids and fatty acids just out of pure physics, again, hardly a case of divine intervention.

    Anyways, your arguments just fail because reconstruction according to physical, chemical and material evidence is not mental masturbation but part of the hypothetical-deductive method that works on science (and in police work, law and courts, for that matter).


    “Perhaps, by a stretch, ok.” Is what I said to your previous post. I was agreeing with calling these things research and evidence. Albeit, poor and basic. But all research must have a beginning.
    However, what I am interested in hearing is why an (numerically) improbable theory (abiogenesis) receives precedence over empirical data (life coming from life). I would think that a observed universal constant would receive precedence over a unproven theory.

    And you missed my point with the ‘creating life’ bit. Scientists engineer the (what may or may not have been “natural”) circumstances of the formation of the first cell. If it is a simple matter of physics that life begins with the right circumstances, then does that not suggest that it could have been done in the past? See how that proves nothing?

    Here is also an interesting thought. If a cell could be made (by whatever means) in a lab, would this be a living cell, or a dead one? I honestly have very little to base a conclusion on. Comments (and references, if possible)on this would be very welcome. Even if it is, for the moment, ‘mental masturbation’.

    Really and truly, I do not see how proving (scientifically) the beginnings of life is possible. That is my point.


    Ahh, but the math thing in itself is a problem evildon. Math in itself can be vague, such as the 0.999… = 1 thing. There’s nothing to say that 1+1=2 except that humans understand a concept of ‘2’. It’s two because human brains see things as being two, but weather the universe sees things as two I couldn’t say. Math is useful to us in that it does seem to be a way to consistently *measure* the physical universe and make accurate predictions about those measurements, and thus theories that can be supposed to be accurate, but people are notoriously creative about interpreting the numbers. I’ll take falsifiability any day.

    Anyway, Illuminatus, I used the term ‘mental masturbation’ to talk about something entirely different from what you’re talking about. I was just saying that falsifiability should be our #1 way of defining science. If Miller et al can prove that evolution is possible, yippee. But that doesn’t prove that evolution happened in the past in a way that Miller can replicate. What is sufficient evidence of evolution to me is that I can think of conditions that would disprove evolutions (“There are living things that are not observably the product of evolution”). When I take particular examples (animals, plants, fossils), I find in every instance that they cannot disprove evolution: They are all adapted to their environments, and have conditions found in other species, etc.

    It might sound obvious, but I think that falsifiability is the only way to make science useful. I can say that God exists, and I can think of proofs that God exists, but I cannot think of any statement which could observably disprove that God exists (except sarcasm). That is, I want to create some kind of statement whose condition would negate the existence of God, and prove or disprove that statement. Likewise, I can prove that a lot of things exist which I do not believe do. I could say that the universe is made up of invisible grapes which are impossible to observe in any way. I can’t disprove that. I believe there are moral principles one should follow, but observation gives me results that there is no clear model of interpreting, as I can animal physiology.

    So natural sciences, I think, should be about what we can fail to disprove in obvious ways, like evolution. For questions like God, some other method of addressing those has to be devised. If we restricted science to things that can be falsified, then creationists would have no ammo. But then scientists would have to stop fucking around with theories like “The universe is made up of strings bending around membranes which move between ten dimensions, because a hypothetical model of movement which has not been observed ever and cannot be proved because the dimensions are unobservable could potentially exist according to numbers and thus exists” to be a legit theory just because it can’t be disproved.


    Good point with the physics math Caio. They are all approximations. Darn curving space and whatnot.

    Your falsifiability point is full of reason and depth.

    Now a question to mull over. If one has two conflicting hypotheses, and neither can be readily disproved, and the only hint to the correct understanding is math, which way does one turn to research?


    I get the falsability point, Caio. It’s just basic in Science and, in fact, I am not saying there is no God: I just don’t have evidence enough for that and, either way, I don’t care about it very much when the whole universe is amazing enough (in fact, God seems a cheap solution for everything). I just argue that Life can not be proved NOT to have come from non living matter and we have enough evidence suggesting that the universe could have worked it on its own.

    As for the Mental Masturbation stuff in Physics: it’s my experience that physicists define the word ‘weird’.

    Here is also an interesting thought. If a cell could be made (by whatever means) in a lab, would this be a living cell, or a dead one? I honestly have very little to base a conclusion on. Comments (and references, if possible)on this would be very welcome. Even if it is, for the moment, ‘mental masturbation’.

    OK, here is an easy one, EvilDon: define ‘Life’.

    See, I win. LOL


    Life defined. Though, I really don’t know how you win, or what you mean by it… but I don’t think I care either. Oh, well.

    “in fact, God seems a cheap solution for everything”
    God seems to the typical scapegoat for the idiots too stupid or unwilling to understand anything. How does Gravity work?
    What makes a tsunami?
    and so forth.

    I read that 1/3 of the worlds physicists believe in a creator (and this has been the case for decades) . Where am I going with this? Here:

    If humans continue on the earth, the idiots must die (or be “aborted”), or they will kill us all.


    I believe this theory. A giant turtle, along with his fellow Elephants, created the Earth and Man. *Applaudes*


    Always remember that anyone with truly a scientific mind must agree with the old saying: “Absence of proof is not proof of absence”. Nobody who claims to be a scientist or a reverend can ridicule others’ beliefs or experiments because until they become all-knowing, they don’t know anything for sure. This is why I’m agnostic. I figure if God wanted me to believe badly enough he’d stop by for his birthday dinner at least once. ‘Till then I’ll just be a good person and help other people. Even he can’t argue with that.


    Life defined. Though, I really don’t know how you win, or what you mean by it… but I don’t think I care either. Oh, well.

    Just joking. Although the thermodynamic approach for defining life (Margulis and Schröddinger, innit?) is quite good, Dissipative Systems ( (tornados, flames…) tend to act in a similar way and, still, there is viruses, which are alive or not depending on your perspective.

    Anyway, it could be possible to generate artificial life (I’m thinking right now that sooner or later extremely complex in silico organisms will appear satisfying most of the traditional thermodynamic requirements) and, therefore, the miracle would not be a miracle at all.

    Silly how a Discworld picture can lead to all this… Who’s up for a football/soccer game against German philosophers?

  • here's some related content from the store: