Sanctified Gullibility is Still Gullibility

It doesn’t get much more embarrassing than this.

Jason Colavito has a short write up on how Christian apologists are using a prop — a giant human skeleton that isn’t a skeleton at all — from von Daniken’s ancient astronaut theme park for the gullible.

Since when is defending one’s faith with a lie a good idea?

Pretty pathetic. It leads people to follow several bogus thought trajectories:

1. That belief in a creator needs to be defended via the idea of giants (it doesn’t, and that “approach” is absurd).

2. That belief in a creator is synonymous with young earth creationism and rigid biblical literalism (it isn’t).

3. That those who defend the young earth view of creationism will basically stoop to any level to do so (many would not; that is, they aren’t ethically challenged).

Poof! The Magic Creationist Dragon Disappears

Readers know I have no axe to grind against the idea of a creator. I know two many scientists with PhDs teaching at research universities to think that the idea of a creator is impossible for a modern scientist to embrace. And I’ve read enough good evolutionary theory to know that evolutionists needlessly caricature creationism as an idea, painting it with a broad brush as the sort of hackneyed creationism discussed below. Creationists promoting this sort of thing should be ashamed — both of their intent and their inept science, whichever applies.

Paleobabble readers will enjoy the recent lengthy and meticulous exposure of pseudo-paleontology:¬†the case of this “dragon” skeleton. As the item at the link notes, a “dragon” skeleton¬†(cast as a “late living pterosaur” to promote the idea of recent creation) displayed in Rome is nothing of the sort. It’s a good read, but the real pummeling is to be found in the electronic paleontology journal that published the expose.

Giant Teenage Caveman Found

Before this gets mis-reported all over the web on Christian sites that promote phony Photo-shopped pictures as proof of giants in the ancient world, I thought I’d post it. Here is the link; the photo is below. And I’ll save you the conversion time. 193 cm = just under six feet, four inches, not ten or fifteen feet. Unusually tall for Chinese (these days) but right in the range I’ve suggested constituted a giant in the ancient world (anything over six feet tall upward into the seven foot range — sort of like today on the higher end).