Yesterday someone posted this picture at the Global Secular Humanist Movement’s Facebook page.
The person who added the picture commented “The book is called “Jesus and Dinosaurs” you can order it from Answers in Genesis. Nice book right?”
But the book cannot be ordered from Answers in Genesis.
This is because the book does not exist.
The comment of the person adding the picture was false. Answers in Genesis is guilty of many stupid things but they are not responsible for this picture.
Soon 500 odd people “liked” the picture. Most of the comments on the picture scoffed at the religious sorts behind the apparent colouring book. It was like watching an exercise in confirmation bias; the “rationalists” wanted it to be true.
Only a few stopped to say, this cannot be real.
In fact, it is fairly clear the picture is a parody on its own terms. For example, for a supposed “page 8″ of a colouring book called “Jesus and the Dinosaurs!” the text in the frame is having to tell the whole story. It that was really a page 8, what story would the first seven pages be telling? And the names of the “coloring hints” are a complete give away.
It is a wonderful parody of a certain creationist mind-set; but it is only a parody.
The origin of the picture, by the pop artist Derek Chatwood, is not hard to find by a Google image search.
When it comes to believing something to be true which they want to be true (and which can be verified or falsified easily), it is clear that many of the commenters at the Global Secular Humanist Movement are just as gullible as those they affect to sneer at.
Ironically, the next sardonic picture posted at the group was the following.
24 Responses to Jesus and the Dinosaurs, and the gullibility of secularists
Leave a Reply
Not sure about this exact picture, but AiG do have a book that includes a picture of a person (possibly Jesus) riding a dinosaur. I came across it a couple of years ago at one of their book sales.
Perhaps they’ve been brainwashed into believing things like this do exist from watching “The Flintstones”?!
immediate thought on fist glance ……. it is a carlsberg advert !
Someone doesn’t know about Poe’s Law. You should. It’s a law.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law
Or perhaps the devil’s minions made this up and it’s NOT really part of the Creation Museum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM
At a risk of doing a confirmation bias myself (I have not checked the facebook link personally so for all I know David is doing this as a confirmation bias prank to his own readers…) this is something you see everywhere, and the internet is an amazing tool for spreading misinformation fast, perhaps even better than spreading information! Find an image, stick a misleading caption on it, treat it as real and watch the response coming in.
Nicely debunked Mr Green. I also saw it from GSHM and must admit I wanted it to be real so much I didn’t look at it critically.
Could I ask you to cast your skeptical eye over this site objectiveministries.org/creation/pterosaurs.html and give me your opinion whether it’s for real, or just a very tongue-in-cheek piss-take?!
OMG, John, that is a great find. Those people at objective ministries are so dumb. objectiveministries.org/creation/pterosaurs.html
Love th ephoto of the Union soldiers standing over a Pterodactyl they shot down and also the list of Extant Pterosaurs including the one in Ghana with wingspan of 20 feet which kidnaps travellers. Brilliant. you couldn’t make it up…
point of order: the book is clearly called ‘beginners bible colouring book’, of which this is ‘page 8 – jesus and the dinosaurs!’
no great revelation here though. that some secularists are also credulous fools is inevitable, not surprising. that many of these belong to a facebook group called ‘global secular humanist movement’ is also no surprise…
The picture is far too awesome to be genuine. Any attempt at parodying AiG just comes out much better than the real thing.
See, for example, A is for Adam (A-D visible here: http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/aisfor01.html ). The science is just as hokey, but the illustrations and the didactic/twee text are just awful.
I was one of those people who stopped and said, “This can’t be real.” Sadly, I had the same thought that the author of this post had–that so many people on the Global Secular Humanist Movement’s page wanted this to be true so that they could attack the intelligence of Christians. The thing that bothers me most is that many atheists have a lifetime of stories about being belittled, attacked, insulted, or bullied by religious people who felt that their beliefs made them better, and yet many of these same atheists have no problem turning around and mocking the intelligence of Christians. The lesson in their ill treatment was not learned. It is one thing to articulately explain one’s atheist or humanist views and to explain how we rely on science, reason, rational thought, and critical thinking, but it is quite different to use insults to try to make yourself look smarter. I say this as a lifelong atheist and liberal. In many of the posts on GSHM, I see very little difference from those on radical religious sites. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and no matter how smart someone thinks they are, that isn’t going to change.
“Two wrongs don’t make a right”
What is “wrong” and “right” in this context? Surely there are “facts” and “fiction” ?
If the good people of GSHM are not researching and confirming their facts, then they have no “moral” high ground.
It is one thing to articulately explain one’s atheist or humanist views and to explain how we rely on science, reason, rational thought, and critical thinking, but it is quite different to use insults to try to make yourself look smarter.
Both methods are valid.
There’s a time and a place for rational discussion.
There’s also a time and a place for richly deserved mockery.
People who are batshit crazy should not be treated like they are reasonable people.
They should be treated like they are batshit crazy.
Otherwise, observers might make the mistake that the crazy people should be taken seriously.
Take a belief in Santa, for example.
A boy stands up in front of “Show and Tell” in class and starts to talk about how many Christmas presents he got from magical Santa. Instantly, the sniggering in the back of the class beings. Five microseconds later, the boy figures it out, blushes and very quickly ends his talk.
The Santa story was nonsense. No articulate and careful planning involving scientific charts and a pile of Carl Sagan books are required.
Just well-timed laughter.
Keeping a straight face and launching into a “respectful” discussion and being oh-so-diplomatic can sometimes be the very last thing an atheist should do.
Never discount the power of comedy, irony and sarcasm to cut through the cloying fug of theological mumbo-jumbo.
Gervais (for example) became an atheist because simple body language.
Ricky Gervais on Atheism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8gsIuEvEs0
If you think that cartoon was too far out to be true, check out this:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/how-american-fundamentalist-schools-are-using-nessie-to-disprove-evolution.17918511
Yes, that’s right, the Loch Ness Monster disproves evolution!
I love the comment ‘this is child abuse’ on the facebook page.
What sort of hair conditioner do you think Jesus uses?
Excellent post. You sum up my feelings on the matter perfectly.
As an atheist, it bothers me that so many other atheists just went for the gaffaws of amusement without stopping to think for a moment and be interested in doing a moment’s research to find out if it’s true.
Although i agree that far too many skeptics are credulous as hell when it comes to confirmation bias two thoughts spring to mind:
1) odds are some folks expect their feed from the GSHA to be accurate. Obviously on a public feed this is naive.
B) “like” on Fb is like “RT” on Twitter, to many people. Not always an endorsement, but a confirmation that “I’ve seen this and wished to acknowledge the post”
~T
I agree with most of what you say.
Maybe people should think carefully before posting comments.
On the other hand, you write that “only a few stopped to say this can not be real”. Perhaps this is because, at first glance, it is not at all unlikely that a fundamentalist Christian group might publish a book with such a picture. It does not immediately set alarm bells ringing and provoke the critical scrutiny that might have spotted that it is a parody. It is only subsequent information – the colouring instructions, consideration of the page number etc – which reveals that it is unlikely to be what it claims to be.
It is hard to have your critical faculties turned fully on all the time, and this picture doesn’t immediately provoke suspicion.
Or perhaps I am also just believing what I want to believe!
I would imagine AiG would be proud to offer such a ‘well researched’ book on their site.
If one came along they surely would boast and promote it in equal measure!
Considering the nonsense certain so-called xian ministries liberally spread, this is small beer by comparison, that alone should have been a warning sign.
But there is nothing apparent there to separate the fact from the fiction on a quick perusal, and such tom foolery is not uncommon, not by any stretch of the imagination, it is a POE…as such a good one because it is rather subtle.
It is what to expect and what is seen…especially on AiG.
Pingback: Weekly RoundUp: The Red Shirt Edition | The Church Sofa
Has anyone else stopped sharing Facebook posts that seem to confirm their views on religion/politics etc? So many of these are too good to be true – and the above incident, however minor, show’s how easy it is to share something that’s pure fabrication. More fact-checking is needed, but when the mainstream media can’t be bothered with it, good practice seems hard to come by.
Both sides of this debate look to me as something of a caricature.
It is self evident (particularly with the Judeo-Christian heritage) that religious practice is utterly distinct from that of science. In Christianity we have a self-proclaimed people of ‘The Book’, of verses, of psalms, and whose God is ‘The Word’.
Nothing could be more clear. This is, fundamentally, a literary practice. People circulate around a literary text, expounding, revising, translating and *testing* against their related experiences of community, individuation, environment….celebration and lament.
Not only is religion not science, neither is it a ‘proto’science – an early attempt to ‘explain’. It is literature and response (personal and communal).
So I’m left wondering who is more naive (the greater caricature): the person who thinks that science can be refuted by a practice of verse, or the one who thinks that religion is debunked by a fossil record?
The latter is analogous to a scientist emerging wide-eyed from a laboratory only to solemnly declare that Ted Hughes is either mad or malign, for “crows don’t behave that way at all”! (And the ‘enlightened’ masses cheer!!).
In fact, such a declaration is the very death knell of a science whose singular triumph has been the precise observation and strict maintenance of terms of enquiry. If some religious people should fail to adhere to *their* own terms of practice (and assuredly they do) then the very worst thing that a supposed proponent of ‘scientific reason’ can do is to exacerbate the problem by making the identical mistake.
Turing…yet again!! Sorry David!..”Mechanics and writing are almost synonymous.” This is Turing’s radical intervention..and he draws a line from Whitehead right through to Deleuze (staggering really, and deeply moving I think).
He situates the word (The Word) of literature/writing as being almost synonymous with the efficacy and precision of mechanics (science). Not synonymous *in practice* (ie methodology), but synonymous in their ability to articulate a truth (though not *The Truth*).
Mention of Poe’s Law is apt. Check out some “chick Tracts” by Jack Chick for some seriously loony stuff, though his is more vicious than that rather innocent fake.
Since the time and date of the creation as the night preceding Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC I think it more than likely that Jesus shared the earth with dinosaurs.
the fact that it’s so believable should give cause for concern, or that similar nonsense is being taught