15 answers to creationist bullsh!t acusations

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: Murphyrulez
I heard a question asked once, "If you took apart your wristwatch, put all the pieces into a paper bag, rolled the top of the bag over, then shook the bag up, what are the odds that you could open the bag and your watch would be back in working order?'

Now replace that watch with the infinitely more complex human body, and tell me that some random chance events caused us to form?

i'm sorry, that ones been used to death. a watch isn't a biological system but an artificial one. a watch will never evolve or grow, watches or their components cannot repoduce or mutate. small changes aren't likely to improve a watch. and frankly, we aren't swiss watches, hell we're not even rolex knockoffs. if we had been design from scratch, there would be a great many things to improve upon to prevent suffering and death.



a nice review of the problems of irreducible complexity.

 

[JellyBaby]

Perhaps it boils down to this. Some can wrap their thoughts around such things as deoxyribonucleic acid. They understand what it is and they can even pronounce it. Others can't or won't.

Some can wrap their thoughts around such things as the concept of god. They believe and take comfort in knowing their part of a specfic plan. Others can't or won't.

Doesn't seem to be much compromise either way. Rather like political gridlock. Budging an inch toward the other side is unfathomable.

One thing's for sure: either god's laughing at our folly or no one out there is paying any attention at all.

 

[Pennstate]

The watch scenario is wrong! What you are saying is how much shaking will get you back at the original solution. Evolution is not about getting to a predetermined solution. It's keeping whatever that works. the watch lacks other essential components of evolving species: the ability to reproduce, the ability of genetic recombination, AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE (NO EVOLUTION WILL OCCURS W/O EVOLUTIONARY PRESSURE FROM THE ENVIRONMENT)

ONE thing you all need to remember is Evolution DOES NOT EXPLAIN how life STARTED!! It only explains how LIFE HAS EVOLVED! There are plenty of theories of how life was started but the evidence is still very inconclusive. BTW, BIG BANG is not part of the evolution theory.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Nefrodite
parts 3 and 4 of the show EVOLUTION are on tommrow at 8pm-12am on PBS


funny how busmaster using all his skills of reason in attempts to rebute the theory of evolution falls back upon magic and a magical diety as his alternative answer.

My answer is merely to not be blinded by arrogance. The evidence we see for evolution is very swiss cheesy... There are many questions left unanswered. As such I don't believe it to be a stretch that evolution occured with an intelligent purpose. An intelligence with an end result in mind.

Your alternative, that evolution occured blindly - you chose not because its so incredibly correct and elegant and all the supporting theories are proven correct - instead, you chose because there are no better competing theories in your mind should be a little unsettling to you.

However you try to spin things, you will inevitably come across my three questions in some form if you study the science, which I don't claim to know in great detail. Answering them satisfactorily is all I ask.

 

[Pennstate]

instead, you chose because there are no better competing theories in your mind should be a little unsettling to you

By taking comfort in something that's based in faith and can not be tested is even more unsettling to me. We are equiped with a brain, any attempt to discourage its use is unsettling to me.

God must be wondering from above "Who are these dumbasses that I made who refused to learn about the universe that I've created for them. If they just wanted "belive", I should've created the "matrix" instead; a lto less hassle"

 

[Pennstate]

Just wnat to add this:

THe only thing Creationism stated was that GOD created the universe and its beings. Science does not set out to disprove that notion, nor does it have the ability to do so. OTOH, Creationism DOES NOT IN ANY WAY concern science. Tell me ONE contribution that Creationism has made towards science, and don't use this stupid "creation science" as an example.

 

[Nefrodite]

My answer is merely to not be blinded by arrogance. The evidence we see for evolution is very swiss cheesy... There are many questions left unanswered. As such I don't believe it to be a stretch that evolution occured with an intelligent purpose. An intelligence with an end result in mind.

i'm agnostic, for all i know there could be a God or God(s) that care or don't care about us. my answer is that one cannot conclude such things.



this is just wrong, but i'm too lazy to go through all 15

And Archaeopteryx is a joke. I forget the years, but it was first discovered in Bavaria I believe, in rocks that were younger than those occupied by dinosaurs. Fair enough. There was also another species with feathers that were found in rocks older than dinosaurs... What about that? Let's have the scientific community agree that Archaeopteryx is the ancestor of birds before coming to Creationists. I assure you they have not agreed...

This refers to an article by Jensen in 1981, where several avian-like bones were described, with the proximal part of a tibiotarsus were given the name Palaeopteryx thomsoni. However, Jensen & Padian (1989) re-identified this bone as belonging to the theropod dinosaur Deinonychus. Their conclusions were deliberately blunt : "No material described here is unquestionably avian. Most is pterodactyloid. Several specimens pertain to the monophyletic group formed by birds and deinonychosaurs. Archaeopteryx is the earliest known bird; these Morrison Formation sediments are younger that the Solnhofen limestones from which Archaeopteryx comes." (p. 372)

 

[Shalmanese]

Originally posted by: 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.

This was the exact thing the Sci Am article was meant to counteract, in the space of a couple of lines, you managed to pull about a dozen esoteric and some complete bullshit points which you then expect an evolutionist to debate. When they dont, you jump up triumphantly and gloat. Not only have you got a completely distorted and WRONG view of what evolution is, you parrot points out like a machine. I won't even try to dispute any of the points because I know that as soon as I do, you will spit out another ten to test me with.

 

[rubix]

instead of wasting time arguing about evolution and how the bible should be interpretted, let's get to the point:

how do you know for a fact there is a god and how can this be proven? if it can't be proven and you can't know 100% that god is real, then how can you claim god exists other than that is purely what you want to be true. furthermore, if god is proven to exist then please explain how god was created since apparently if all matter can't exist by itself, then why can god. after that please explain why it is that your god is real and not someone else's god, not just in this specific time period in your specific location/country, but for all of time that man has lived in all regions on earth (this includes multi-god religions).

if you can't prove that god exists and still accept god as real, then you must accept all that can't be proven, which can become quite ridiculous quickly.

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: rubix
instead of wasting time arguing about evolution and how the bible should be interpretted, let's get to the point:

how do you know for a fact there is a god and how can this be proven? if it can't be proven and you can't know 100% that god is real, then how can you claim god exists other than that is purely what you want to be true. furthermore, if god is proven to exist then please explain how god was created since apparently if all matter can't exist by itself, then why can god. after that please explain why it is that your god is real and not someone else's god, not just in this specific time period in your specific location/country, but for all of time that man has lived in all regions on earth (this includes multi-god religions).

if you can't prove that god exists and still accept god as real, then you must accept all that can't be proven, which can become quite ridiculous quickly.

a thought that should be spread throughout the middle east. all their absurd justifications are based on unprovable absurd ideas beleive if you must, but to base law and action? absurd.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Pennstate
instead, you chose because there are no better competing theories in your mind should be a little unsettling to you

By taking comfort in something that's based in faith and can not be tested is even more unsettling to me. We are equiped with a brain, any attempt to discourage its use is unsettling to me.

God must be wondering from above "Who are these dumbasses that I made who refused to learn about the universe that I've created for them. If they just wanted "belive", I should've created the "matrix" instead; a lto less hassle"

Pennstate,

There are many types of faith. There's blind faith, and there's faith based on historical and scientific evidence. And please, tell me what part of any of my comments tells you that I "refuse to learn about the universe." Just because I don't have blind faith in science?

For a look on Creationism's contribution to science, please look at Hugh Ross, PHD. 's book, "The Genesis Question" where he proves that Genesis is entirely consistent with scientific discoveries made thousands of years later, thereby predicting what we know know.

 

[silverpig]

Now replace that watch with the infinitely more complex human body, and tell me that some random chance events caused us to form?

First, that should be the finitely more complex human body.

Second, replace that watch with the infinitely more complex superior being and tell me that He has just always existed.

And the article gave some inference as to how the complexities are formed. Ages of selecting superior traits producing a human body was related to the computer program where letters were assigned randomly to a page, and the correct ones were kept, leaving the incorrect ones to be changed. One of Shakespeare's plays was completed in 4 days...

 

[Nefrodite]

1. Why can't we clearly define a species? Is it to allow the scientific community leeway in coming up with their theories?

probably for the same reason why we have the abortion debate

2. Can we quantify the probability of proteins coming together randomly to produce self-replicating complex single celled organisms? And even though microevolution does exist - what does it prove? If I put on a coat to escape the cold, does that make me a higher being and preclude me from copulating from lower oder species?

if your coat allowed you to live, exploit, and multiply in areas where your bretheren could not, then yes it would be a wonderful advantage. thats considering that you grew a thick coat of hair eventually. sure you might be able to mate with others of your own from the warm side of the island, but thats assuming you aren't too far along. thats also assuming your populations would come into contact. don't forget that the original population probably is evolving in a divergent manner... possibly.

3. There are dozens of constants that exist in the universe - the gravitational constant, the mass of a neutron, the charge of an electron, the weight of a hydrogen atom, the ratio of helium atoms to hydrogen and a whole bunch of other ones - if any of which had changed by even the smallest fraction, would render this universe unlivable.

?? most of the universe is unlivable anyways.
In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose has estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set of physical properties is one part in 1010123 (Penrose 1989: 343). However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead to some form of life. If it is half, then the probability for life is fifty percent.

Ignoring this absent link in their chain of logic, promoters of intelligent design put forward the so-called anthropic coincidences as evidence for a universe that was created with humans in mind. I have heard Christian philosopher William Lane Craig make this claim in a debate on the existence of God. In the same debate, Craig contended that the great age of the universe, which dwarfs human history, is in fact a sign of God's plan for humanity because billions of years were needed to allow life to evolve. (Craig evidently accepts evolution). You would have thought God could be a lot more efficient. And Craig did not rationalize why humanity rather than cockroaches was the goal God had in mind.

So as you see, we have a lot more explaining to do after we explain how life developed on earth by natural processes. Even if life evolved naturally on earth with no outside interference, the existence of stars and planets, quarks and electrons, and the very laws of physics themselves can be presented as evidence for intelligent design to the universe. Furthermore, given the egocentrism that seems to characterize the human race, convincing people that the universe was designed with them in mind is as easy as convincing a child that candy is good for him.

Perhaps the universe was created for the sole purpose of producing you and me. I have no objection to discussing the possibility, as long as the discussion is critical, rational, and objective. The most common argument that is still given by believers when they are asked to present scientific evidence for a creator is: "How can all of this (gesturing to the world around us) have happened by chance?" As we have seen, the most brilliant exposition of the case for evolution will not answer this question, because it still presumes the pre-existence of laws of physics and values of physical constants that had to be delicately balanced for human (and cockroach) life to evolve.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Nefroditethis is just wrong, but i'm too lazy to go through all 15

And Archaeopteryx is a joke. I forget the years, but it was first discovered in Bavaria I believe, in rocks that were younger than those occupied by dinosaurs. Fair enough. There was also another species with feathers that were found in rocks older than dinosaurs... What about that? Let's have the scientific community agree that Archaeopteryx is the ancestor of birds before coming to Creationists. I assure you they have not agreed...

This refers to an article by Jensen in 1981, where several avian-like bones were described, with the proximal part of a tibiotarsus were given the name Palaeopteryx thomsoni. However, Jensen & Padian (1989) re-identified this bone as belonging to the theropod dinosaur Deinonychus. Their conclusions were deliberately blunt : "No material described here is unquestionably avian. Most is pterodactyloid. Several specimens pertain to the monophyletic group formed by birds and deinonychosaurs. Archaeopteryx is the earliest known bird; these Morrison Formation sediments are younger that the Solnhofen limestones from which Archaeopteryx comes." (p. 372)

Your quote was cited from 1989. Here are some more recent ones.

This one's from ABCNEWS.com: http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/dino0100425.html

Despite the new find, a small group of paleontologists remain skeptical that birds evolved from dinosaurs because the feathered dinosaur fossils don't predate the time when birds are said to have evolved, which most scientists say is about 150 to 180 million years ago.

And the kicker: http://www.pages.org/bcs/bcs024.html

The discovery of two fossil birds in Texan rocks by Chatterjee (of the Technical University in Lubbock, Texas) has really set the cat among the pigeons! The fossils come from rocks that are considered to be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx - old enough to predate all potential dinosaurian ancestors. Scholars in this field have pronounced the discoveries `astounding'. Professor John Ostrom (of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University) declared: `It seemed unthinkable that birds 75 million years more ancient [than Archaeopteryx] could have existed'. (Nature, 19 September 1991, 212).

3. There are dozens of constants that exist in the universe - the gravitational constant, the mass of a neutron, the charge of an electron, the weight of a hydrogen atom, the ratio of helium atoms to hydrogen and a whole bunch of other ones - if any of which had changed by even the smallest fraction, would render this universe unlivable.

?? most of the universe is unlivable anyways.

It doesn't excuse the fact that you're here, and the astronomical probabilities involved to get you here.

In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose has estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set of physical properties is one part in 1010123 (Penrose 1989: 343). However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead to some form of life. If it is half, then the probability for life is fifty percent.

Surmising how many other universes may exist is not very easy thing to do... To go that route would be to grasp at straws and to take cover in a shelter of vacuousness...

In the same debate, Craig contended that the great age of the universe, which dwarfs human history, is in fact a sign of God's plan for humanity because billions of years were needed to allow life to evolve. (Craig evidently accepts evolution). You would have thought God could be a lot more efficient. And Craig did not rationalize why humanity rather than cockroaches was the goal God had in mind.

So as you see, we have a lot more explaining to do after we explain how life developed on earth by natural processes.

No, I don't see. You are playing games, much like the games an amateur philosopher plays when he pretends to ask, "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?"

The God I believe in transcends time. Efficiency is a trait sought only by those with limited resources. And cockroaches? Please. Why ask such a frivolous question.

Even if life evolved naturally on earth with no outside interference, the existence of stars and planets, quarks and electrons, and the very laws of physics themselves can be presented as evidence for intelligent design to the universe.

That is circular reasoning in itself. It would not make sense to one who doesn't believe any of those would exist without God.

 

[Nefrodite]

if you want to play the more recent evidence game



Two species of dinosaur have recently been found in northeast China which possess feathers (Qiang et al. 1998). Protoarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui show regiges, rectrices and plumulaceous feather inpressions. Further, they are not birds, lacking a reverted (backwards facing) big toe (see number 2 below) and a quadrratojugal squamosal contact, having a quadrojugal joined to the quatrate by a ligament and a reduced or absent process of the ishium. These and other characters group Protoarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx with maniraptoran coelurosaurs rather than birds.

[Systematics Note (from Padian 1998): Systematists define the names of organisms by their ancestry, in this case birds (Aves) consist of Archaeopteryx plus living birds and all the descendants of their most recent common ancester. Birds are diagnosed by unique features that only they possess and which are inherited from that common ancester. Even if feathers are shared by a wider group than just birds, birds are still defined as Archaeopteryx and later relatives. Protoarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx are not birds even though they have feathers because the suite of morphological characters they possess mark them as belong to the maniraptoran coelurosaur dinosarus.]

It appears that feathers can no longer be used as a unique feature of birds.





The God I believe in transcends time. Efficiency is a trait sought only by those with limited resources. And cockroaches? Please. Why ask such a frivolous question.


what you believe is not debatable without evidence, it is basically as you said, vacuous.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Nefrodite

The God I believe in transcends time. Efficiency is a trait sought only by those with limited resources. And cockroaches? Please. Why ask such a frivolous question.

what you believe is not debatable without evidence, it is basically as you said, vacuous.

I've long since lost track of why we're discussing bird origins... It's gotten to the point where you're quoting stuff without any hint as to why or for what argument you're posting for...

My evidence lies in the historical validity of the Bible, plus the knowledge that evolution is a theory that as yet, can not stand up entirely on its own. Look at the Big Bang theory. Can science answer what was before the big bang that caused it? (yes I know time is a dimension which sprung forth as a result) Can science answer any of the fundamental questions related to that? No. The Bible can answer Who and why. Thats two more than science.

 

[xirtam]

The definitions of things like "species" and "evolution" are themselves evolving.

Both "creationism" and "evolutionism" have a strange feature about them -- they can both take the same evidence and twist them to provide support toward their own view. Don't get trapped into thinking that evidentialism in itself is a valid test for a worldview... somebody's bound to come up to you and interpret things a completely different way.

So all this crap about birds not being birds and molecules being "oh so complex" is rather futile, don't you think?

And I don't think busmaster's magical "God" is "oh so different" from the evolutionist's magical "Mother Natural Selection." I swear, it's almost like they went out and personified this wizard capable of "poofing" organisms from one form to another with this magical wand named "Natural Selection."

I gave up on the magic... so to speak.

 

[Nefrodite]

And I don't think busmaster's magical "God" is "oh so different" from the evolutionist's magical "Mother Natural Selection." I swear, it's almost like they went out and personified this wizard capable of "poofing" organisms from one form to another with this magical wand named "Natural Selection."


your kidding right? natural selection is demostrated observably in nature. a "magical god"" isn't.

 

[xirtam]

Based on what? *Your* interpretation of the evidence?

I won't deny that "natural selection" by it's literal definition doesn't exist. It might. Call me a "Natural Selection" agnostic... hehe.

It's the magic wand that people give to natural selection to explain stuff we *don't* observe that bothers me. Huge extrapolation, imo.

 

[Degenerate]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Fausto1
This ought to be entertaining....

EDIT- read through the article. This is hilarious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LOL!!

HHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaa.... ok.... ok.. calm.... LOL!
That can kill some one indeed!

Creation lacks evidence by attempting to find flaws in evolution. The last line sums it all

b]

Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

[/b]

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: xirtam
Based on what? *Your* interpretation of the evidence?

I won't deny that "natural selection" by it's literal definition doesn't exist. It might. Call me a "Natural Selection" agnostic... hehe.

It's the magic wand that people give to natural selection to explain stuff we *don't* observe that bothers me. Huge extrapolation, imo.

?? microevolution as they would call it would be hard evidence of natural selection

 

[xirtam]

Haven't met a creationist yet who has a problem with microevolution.

 

[Nefrodite]

because frankly they have little choice. other explanations how there came to be so many races would be absurd.

 

[xirtam]

Actually... it's because microevolution does nothing to contradict what they believe.

They're not stupid... well, not all of them. Of course, I've met a bunch of stupid evolutionists as well as stupid creationists, and they tend to flock together to have their little squabbles.

Anyway, the ones with brains that didn't evolve from the tree shrew realize that the genetic code allows for a vast degree of variation. This degree of variation is, of course, exactly what allows for the different races of humans as well as the different kinds of dogs and the reason why horses can range from small to big with varying styles of hair, color, etc.

They would argue, though, that a dog never loses it's "dog-ness" and a horse never loses it's "horse-ness" and humans never lose their "human-ness". That would be an example of macroevolution -- a dog losing it's dogness and become... say... a cat.

Now it could be that there's a fine line between microevolution and macroevolution in some cases -- this is just due to scientists not being able to decide what exactly a "species" is. So it comes down to a definition battle.

But the main point of contention is this -- did *all* of life come from a series of chance mutations leading back to a single, common ancestor -- which, in turn, arose from nonliving matter, which, in turn, arose from nothing.

This is the view of evolution with which Creationists have a problem... and for good reason.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Hmm, do creationists think God has a wicked sense of humor? Or that DNA research is all a lie? Otherwise I'd like to see an explanation for humans to have so much (DNA-wise) in common with for example rats, while we have far less in common with other mammals. Would indicate some link between the races. Or should the rat be seen as almost human?

P.S. Thanks to posting in religious and political threads a while my 10s vs 1s ratings are now 3 to 13. Difference should grow with the threads here today