15 answers to creationist bullsh!t acusations

[RLNKID]

In the same sense I've also read articles that have proven the missing link to be an African woman that did at one time stand completely upright but had died at an old age with a bad case or arthritus.. when it had been presumed and swore her remains proved a missing link until her remains were then compared to the skeleton stucture of an old woman born in the 20th century with chronic arthritus in her back..

Have you noticed that with all the skeletons we dig up, birds, fish, tigers, and animals of all kinds we can't seem to find even one skeletal structure that's any different from the one we walk around in today to prove any evolution of our own?

The argument that says we're ancestors or evolved from apes is impossible considering that apes are still alive and well on this earth.. if a specie evolves then that means the species change not sprout off into 2 new species.. one being the older less efficient specie and the other a new and improved version.

Many of the other species that have evolved like the horse do not have 4 toed cousins running about beside them.

Another thing that has always gotten to me is this.. we date fossils by the layer of earth we find them in and we date the layers of earth by types of fossils we find in them. Explain that to me.

I have to say alot of Science is Man's way of trying to prove they know it all because by human nature we somehow hate to admit there are just somethings we don't know and this proves espcially true of those with higher intelligence.. It's like by admitting that they just don't know, and this goes for alot of things in the world of science, that they are admitting they are a failure.

I can live without having to have an reasonable explaination for everything.. because to us "rational" means that just about any MAN can do it ot understand it.. but just because Man can't explain, disect it, analyze it, and make his own doesn't mean that it does not exist or cannot happen.

 

[Isla]

I'm still leaning toward Alien Seed Theory.

 

[Optimus]

I belong to a faith/church that dates to the time of Jesus and has ALWAYS stated that the Bible is non-literal.

Bible-literalism has NEVER worked, no 500 years ago, not now. It was easier to pretend 500 years ago, but that makes in no more true.

Skoorb and Marty - again you guys are pointing at Bible-Literalists. Not only are a large segment of Christians NOT Bible-Literalists, but they NEVER have been.

Again - you can't simply lump everyone together into the most refutable segment, thats a strawman argument.

So if my faith/church has never held the Bible as literal, never said the method of creation was a core belief, and actaully states right now that evolution is highly probable and perfectly acceptable to believe in, why would we be bullsh!t-heads too? (apart from your own personal non-belief in god and beefs with religion).

 

[LordMaul]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: LordMaul

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: LordMaul
Ah, well, I'll be laughing my ass off when you're burning in hell.

AND HERE IT IS FOLKS!!! LAUSTS FAVORITE religeous quote!!!
seen it a million times, the religeous person passes judgment (even though it's AGINST their religeon)

Guess your burnin with us Maulie boy

Why don't you worry about getting some asbestos and I'll worry about just exactly how big my mansion will be, eh, AnalAvenger?

Evasion at it's best

I told you. I am not going to 'debate' any religion, politics, gun rights, or whatever with any of you because it is useless and nothing but wasted time will come of it.

Besides...I'm right, you're wrong, and you suck as far as grammar is concerned.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: LordMaul

Now if you'll excuse me, I won't be back for a few hours since I have exams tomorrow and need to study.

Yeah, that Swiss Bell Ringer class is a real PITA, ain't it?

Nope, Physics and Algebra & Geometry. Us future engineers don't have the time to take the same classes (sculture, art, home ec) as you Mauly

 

[Balt]

Religion is based on books writen by men.

No, religion is based on ideas. Some of which happen to be written down in books. You can't lump all theists together, because not all of them believe their respective literature(s) must be taken literally.

Before modern science, the bible was taken literally, and poeple did not have a problem with it. I'll tell you why it happened, science has made most people question the validity of the bible, but not wanting to give it up completely, people have started extrapolating various meanings from it.

WRONG. Philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas and Anselm developed their own philosophies about creationism hundreds of years ago, and I assure you they didn't involve Adam and Eve. In fact, some of his stuff was condemned by the church.

And to that I say: "yes, but the tools aren't. Today's people don't need particle accelerators to see some new passage in the bible, but without these PAs, scientists would not be able to see subatomic particles. THAT is the difference. Religion is NOT adaptive, science is. "

Sorry you are going to have to explain that a little bit, because I have no idea where you are going with it. It appears that you think adaption requires some sort of new technology. That is not the case at all. Thinking has adapted just as everything else has, and it wasn't just because of some fancy invention.

Edit: Spelling.

Also, in case you want to argue that people like Aquinas and Anselm were in the minority:

Great minds always lead the way. The same is true in science. How many great scientists throughout history that made breakthroughs were called charlatans?

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: LordMaul

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: LordMaul

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: LordMaul
Ah, well, I'll be laughing my ass off when you're burning in hell.

AND HERE IT IS FOLKS!!! LAUSTS FAVORITE religeous quote!!!
seen it a million times, the religeous person passes judgment (even though it's AGINST their religeon)

Guess your burnin with us Maulie boy

Why don't you worry about getting some asbestos and I'll worry about just exactly how big my mansion will be, eh, AnalAvenger?

Evasion at it's best

I told you. I am not going to 'debate' any religion, politics, gun rights, or whatever with any of you because it is useless and nothing but wasted time will come of it.

Besides...I'm right, you're wrong, and you suck as far as grammar is concerned.

Yeah I'm sorry it sucks, but you still shot yourself in the foot and that won't go away and even with my poor grammar I still nailed it right on the head, so suck it down.

BTW I never got into debate, I just noted the statement "You're all gonna burn in hell" as my favoriet statement of the "Church of the Crooked Cross"

 

[Optimus]

yup very true.....can't really blame em...some people can get out of the conditioning they receive during their formative years...some dont...even i have a hard time undoing things in my thought process which i know are logically wrong

Ah! Ramsnake has opened my eyes! The truth is that I am simply too stupid to overcome what my mommy told me as a child.

Pity me, ramsnake, for I simply lack your wonderous intelligence.

Marty:

Science is adaptive, certainly.

Core religious belief is not.

Non-core religious belief is adaptive.


My church/faith even distinguishes them with thier own terminology, and makes it clear that non-core beliefs are simply our current understanding of an issue, and subject to change.

Should a core belief in my faith ever change or I feel compelled to disbelieve it, it would prove to me the entire religion was wrong. This has not happened yet.

 

[LordMaul]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: LordMaul

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: LordMaul

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: LordMaul
Ah, well, I'll be laughing my ass off when you're burning in hell.

AND HERE IT IS FOLKS!!! LAUSTS FAVORITE religeous quote!!!
seen it a million times, the religeous person passes judgment (even though it's AGINST their religeon)

Guess your burnin with us Maulie boy

Why don't you worry about getting some asbestos and I'll worry about just exactly how big my mansion will be, eh, AnalAvenger?

Evasion at it's best

I told you. I am not going to 'debate' any religion, politics, gun rights, or whatever with any of you because it is useless and nothing but wasted time will come of it.

Besides...I'm right, you're wrong, and you suck as far as grammar is concerned.

Yeah I'm sorry it sucks, but you still shot yourself in the foot and that won't go away and even with my poor grammar I still nailed it right on the head, so suck it down.

BTW I never got into debate, I just noted the statement "You're all gonna burn in hell" as my favoriet statement of the "Church of the Crooked Cross"

It's not a crooked statement in the least. I'll say it again. "I'll be laughing my ass of when you're burning in hell". (BTW, that's a direct quote from Weird Al)

If you think about it, and if (that is, since you don't believe me, we'll say, "if") I am correct, I would go to heaven and where would that leave YOU? It's perfectly logical. :Q

 

[LordMaul]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: LordMaul

Now if you'll excuse me, I won't be back for a few hours since I have exams tomorrow and need to study.

Yeah, that Swiss Bell Ringer class is a real PITA, ain't it?

Nope, Physics and Algebra & Geometry. Us future engineers don't have the time to take the same classes (sculture, art, home ec) as you Mauly

"Take Classes"?

What, you think I had to take classes to be smarter, faster, and overall just better than the rest of the world?

:Q

 

[BigJohnKC]

Originally posted by: LordMaul

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: LordMaul

Now if you'll excuse me, I won't be back for a few hours since I have exams tomorrow and need to study.

Yeah, that Swiss Bell Ringer class is a real PITA, ain't it?

Nope, Physics and Algebra & Geometry. Us future engineers don't have the time to take the same classes (sculture, art, home ec) as you Mauly

"Take Classes"?

What, you think I had to take classes to be smarter, faster, and overall just better than the rest of the world?

:Q

LOL!! Now that's funny...

 

[StageLeft]

Should a core belief in my faith ever change or I feel compelled to disbelieve it, it would prove to me the entire religion was wrong. This has not happened yet.

But your core-belief system is so broad and utterly impossible to prove negative that this never will happen either. It seems that in response to the fact that it's easy to counter many/most "non-core" beliefs you've decided to find some that are totally irrefutable due to their nature.

 

[JupiterJones]

There's not really anything new in this article. I wonder at the reason the artice was written more than anything contained in the article. Science publications have long ignored Creationist. This article makes me wonder if the ID guys are making strides.

A few comments are in order:

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

The article addresses this by changing terms, not refuting the statement. Very poor.

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

Straw man. The statement should be "Evolution cannot be proved because..."

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

I would love to see a Creationist source that actually asked this. I'm tempted to label it another straw man.

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.

I include this, because the author handled this VERY well. These are two separate issues, however the term "evolution" is often used, by both sides, to mean more than it does.

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

His answer here is a bit misleading. He seems to talk about the existing traits rather than the generation of new traits. Consider Richard Hardison's computer program. This worked by preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed. In other words, every position had a pre-determined finite number of options, and anytime one was randomly correct, it was locked in - never to change. In other words, all the material was there for the finished product. There was a designed finishing point, when no more random letters are generated. This sounds a lot more like ID Theory than Evolutionary theory.

The point to number 8 concerns the inconceivability of new genetic traits coming into being, a point not discussed in the response.

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.

Once again, he fails to discuss the real question. What he says about Entropy is true, but the question has to do with the system in question. The quandary is that Complex Mass A must use outside energy to become more complex. However, Complex Mass A has no mechanism to use outside energy. Thus in order to use outside energy, Complex Mass A must become more complex.

His definition of a closed system is misleading. Energy in/near a closed system does not open the system unless there is some way to USE the energy.

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features

"...point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. "

antibiotic resistant bacteria is a result of natural selection of existing traits - not the generation of a brand-new trait - which is what #10 is really about.

From the FDA:

?The increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance is an outcome of evolution. Any population of organisms, bacteria included, naturally includes variants with unusual traits--in this case, the ability to withstand an antibiotic's attack on a microbe. When a person takes an antibiotic, the drug kills the defenseless bacteria, leaving behind--or "selecting," in biological terms--those that can resist it. These renegade bacteria then multiply, increasing their numbers a millionfold in a day, becoming the predominant microorganism.

The antibiotic does not technically cause the resistance, but allows it to happen by creating a situation where an already existing variant can flourish. "Whenever antibiotics are used, there is selective pressure for resistance to occur. It builds upon itself. More and more organisms develop resistance to more and more drugs," says Joe Cranston, Ph.D., director of the department of drug policy and standards at the American Medical Association in Chicago. ?

The Rise of Antibiotic-Resistant Infections

The fruit fly example is similar. The many mutations of fruit flies are simple the bringing forth traits which already existed. You can take a population of fruit flies, bombard them with mutagens until they all are mutated, and if left alone will naturally (over a few generations) return to their "natural" state.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

The definition of species is really a bit too weak for the discussion. As it is now, a St. Benard and a poodle are not the same species because they cannot interbreed. The question should be whether natural selection can explain new phyla. The answer to that question is NO, it cannot.



And on, and on, ad nauseum. The rest of the article gets weaker as you read.

This article was not written with a desire to demonstrate truth, it is obviously an attempt to shore-up the credibility of evolutionary theory. I think that it's great that Scientific American felt the need to write this article, as I didn?t think that evolutionary theory needed shoring up. ID Theory must be making some inroads.

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: LordMaul

It's not a crooked statement in the least. I'll say it again. "I'll be laughing my ass of when you're burning in hell". (BTW, that's a direct quote from Weird Al)

If you think about it, and if (that is, since you don't believe me, we'll say, "if") I am correct, I would go to heaven and where would that leave YOU? It's perfectly logical. :Q

Nice opionion but I'll stick with the facts, I've read the opposition, you are in no position to pass our judgement. (and neither is Dumb Al)

Well "If" you are right that you are going to Heaven, then it appears the application for entry isn't all that hard to get in. If people making statements damning other's he doesn't know to a place full of eternal angush is okay by their standards then I'd say we will see even the likes of Hitler there by those standards. :disgust:

 

[LordMaul]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: LordMaul

It's not a crooked statement in the least. I'll say it again. "I'll be laughing my ass of when you're burning in hell". (BTW, that's a direct quote from Weird Al)

If you think about it, and if (that is, since you don't believe me, we'll say, "if") I am correct, I would go to heaven and where would that leave YOU? It's perfectly logical. :Q

Nice opionion but I'll stick with the facts, I've read the opposition, you are in no position to pass our judgement. (and neither is Dumb Al)

Well "If" you are right that you are going to Heaven, then it appears the application for entry isn't all that hard to get in. If people making statements damning other's he doesn't know to a place full of eternal angush is okay by their standards then I'd say we will see even the likes of Hitler there by those standards. :disgust:

Wow, there's a unmatched sense of humor!

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: LordMaul

Wow, there's a unmatched sense of humor!

You really put me in my place :Q

 

[LordMaul]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: LordMaul

Wow, there's a unmatched sense of humor!

You really put me in my place :Q

Damn straight. Now stay there, future Crispy Chicken.

 

[Optimus]

Skoorb:

LOL, actually, without getting into it here, my core-beliefs are highly specific and I didn't pick 'em.

But we digress there into the nature of belief - we can continue that right down to "Is there a God", wherupon we get nowhere.

The key item here is that a religion that has never said one way or the other on the method of creation, when it looks like one method is more likely - that doesn't negate the religion that never said you had to believe one way or another in the first place.


(clear as mud, eh?)

I really do believe what's in my sig:

"I'd had enough political and theological discussions by the time I was nineteen to figure out that they are functionally inert. No-one convinces anyone of anything, everybody just heaps their baggage on the table and gestures at it wildly."

The only reason I'm here is because its so disheartening to hang out here on AT, yet have to constantly see thread titles slamming my personal beliefs - beliefs I never bring up!

Its like I get along so well with a group, only to have them insult and ridicule me (without provocation) for beliefs I've never even brought up!

To tell the truth, its why I hang out on AT less and less... I really wish we could all either discuss it civily (I'm tired of being called sh!t) or not touch the subject.

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: LordMaul

Damn straight. Now stay there, future Crispy Chicken.

Man this is all the material you got?? My gawd get back to them books you need em!! Don't you know humans taste like sweet pork anyway? You need a full study corase as bad as I need an English class for my bad grammar

 

[StageLeft]

LOL, actually, without getting into it here, my core-beliefs are highly specific and I didn't pick 'em.

I bet, however, that they are constructed such that it's physically impossible to disprove them because evidence could not be collected in the manner required to do so.

In regards to AT maybe you should just avoid these types of threads. I do my best to avoid them but sometimes get pulled into it!

 

[Ramsnake]

Originally posted by: Optimus
Skoorb:

LOL, actually, without getting into it here, my core-beliefs are highly specific and I didn't pick 'em.

But we digress there into the nature of belief - we can continue that right down to "Is there a God", wherupon we get nowhere.

The key item here is that a religion that has never said one way or the other on the method of creation, when it looks like one method is more likely - that doesn't negate the religion that never said you had to believe one way or another in the first place.


(clear as mud, eh?)

I really do believe what's in my sig:

"I'd had enough political and theological discussions by the time I was nineteen to figure out that they are functionally inert. No-one convinces anyone of anything, everybody just heaps their baggage on the table and gestures at it wildly."

The only reason I'm here is because its so disheartening to hang out here on AT, yet have to constantly see thread titles slamming my personal beliefs - beliefs I never bring up!

Its like I get along so well with a group, only to have them insult and ridicule me (without provocation) for beliefs I've never even brought up!

To tell the truth, its why I hang out on AT less and less... I really wish we could all either discuss it civily (I'm tired of being called sh!t) or not touch the subject.

I'm sorry...i dont seem to get what you are trying to prove here?

so the point u're trying to prove

1. creationist theory is true?
2. christianity doesnt oppose evolution?
3. christianity is always open to new ideas?
4. evolution theory can also be equaly flawed like the way evolutionists think abt creation science?
5. or is it you say you dont follow the certain kind of christianity whose values are are being attacked here?

 

[LordMaul]

Originally posted by: LAUST

Originally posted by: LordMaul

Damn straight. Now stay there, future Crispy Chicken.

Man this is all the material you got?? My gawd get back to them books you need em!! Don't you know humans taste like sweet pork anyway? You need a full study corase as bad as I need an English class for my bad grammar

WHAT? You're telling me that humans don't taste like chicken??

DOESN'T EVERYTHING??!

 

[ThePresence]

I'm a religious man who believes God created the world in six days. However, I dont feel the need to prove it to anyone, especially those who are fighting against such beliefs. Did you ever wonder why the Evolutionists always feel the need to prove how correct they are? I'm happy with my beliefs, it works for me.

 

[StageLeft]

Did you ever wonder why the Evolutionists always feel the need to prove how correct they are?

Yeah right - when was the last time an evolutionist came to your door inviting you to spend some time with the congregation in their lab?!

 

[Ramsnake]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
I'm a religious man who believes God created the world in six days. However, I dont feel the need to prove it to anyone, especially those who are fighting against such beliefs. Did you ever wonder why the Evolutionists always feel the need to prove how correct they are? I'm happy with my beliefs, it works for me.

"Did you ever wonder why the Evolutionists always feel the need to prove how correct they are?"

yeah to save humanity from stupidity