• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Silly creationism arguements

Hi Martha, you got a V-8 Buick???

:D



I don't. Just curious. It just occured to me as odd that such a discussion would occur on such a forum. But I do remember mechanics' ethics addressed here once. Someone got screwed by a mechanic over a super-fast Mustang (I think that was on the JREF forum) and a thread was generated on mechanics' ethics.

Thanks for your link, interesting.
 
pgwenthold said:


If you have to ask, then it really doesn't matter.

I suggest worrying about things that are worth worrying about.
Click to expand...

I just thought it was funny that someone would call the creationism arguments silly and then post the whole thing in the science forum :D
 
fidiot said:


I just thought it was funny that someone would call the creationism arguments silly and then post the whole thing in the science forum :D
Click to expand...
That's because it is creation science. Praise Jesus!
 
fidiot said:


I just thought it was funny that someone would call the creationism arguments silly and then post the whole thing in the science forum :D
Click to expand...
The creationist arguments are really bad science. I don't understand what your point is.
 
Creationist arguments are a legitimate subject for the science forum, firstly because the issue effects science and science education, and secondly because recognizing the flaws in creationist arguments helps one to better understand the difference between good and bad science.

In fact, intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin's Black Box I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can't be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum - or any equally complex system - was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.
Click to expand...

I don’t think Dembinsky is being entirely honest here. Although evolution is guided by selective pressure, it is also driven by the random process of mutation. This random factor is one of the reasons evolution rarely solves the same problem the same way twice. While an experiment like the one described would certainly tend to produce a solution to the mobility problem, there is no guarantee that the solution would be either as complex as the flagellum or irreducibly complex.

The real problem with Dembinsky’s hypothesis is that irreducible complexity does not require an intelligent designer. Evolution can produce irreducibly complex structures in two ways. First a structure can be evolved for one purpose and then adapted for another. Secondly, evolution can produce an irreducibly complex system by removing props. When you build a building, you might construct a scaffold to aid in the construction process. After the building is complete, the scaffold can be removed. Someone coming along later and observing the structure might well wonder how it was done since part of the evidence of the construction process is no longer there. A similar kind of thing can happen in evolution. One structure gives rise to another which makes the first unnecessary. So long as evolution can produce irreducibly complex structures, there is no reason to posit the existence of a mysterious ‘designer’ to explain them, even if you don’t know the particulars of how a specific irreducible system was formed. And without irreducible complexity, the IDers really have no argument at all.
 
arcticpenguin said:

The creationist arguments are really bad science. I don't understand what your point is.
Click to expand...

But they involve god, don't they? The point is that their arguments rely on religion first, science second.
 
There is a really good review of a satire article by the AAAS that was published in the NYTimes. I'll try and find the link for you guys.
 
Evolution theory bonds scientists named Steve

San Mateo County Times Online

Nobel Prize winner and Stanford University physicist Steven Chu believes we all came from the same ancestor that stepped out of the primordial ooze a few billion years ago.

All of us. Poodles and people. Wasps and wombats.

Steve Beckendorf, a University of California, Berkeley, genetics professor, supports that theory too. As do UC Berkeley environmental scientist Steve Beissinger and applied physics professor Steven Block.

That makes four Steves who support evolution, and there are apparently 221 other scientists who agree -- all of them named Steve.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There you go....
 
Oh Yeah!

No one has claimed Dr. Kent Hovind's $250,000 prize, which he really has, honest, swear on the Bible, it's true, yet.

http://www.drdino.com

With a URL like Dr. Dino, he has to be true...




(note to people not familiar with me, I am intimately familiar with Hovind, his BS..er.. claims, and his suckers bet..er.. challenge, I just posted this for humor.) :)
 
Dr. Dino's challenge

Here is an extract from "Dr. Dino's" challenge:
How to collect the $250,000:

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:

1. The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
4. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.

_
My suggestion:

Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.

* NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
Click to expand...
I am not a scientist. In fact, I got my BA in social sciences (which may explain why I am the life of the party). Let's play Pick It Apart. I'll start, using my basic knowledge of the scientific method.

1. It is not necessary nor possible to show that the observed phenomena could only have occurred according to one method. It is only necessary to demonstrate by a consistency of the evidence that one method more adequately explains the phenomena better than any other available explanation. Science always allows the introduction of a competing theory, and judges theories based on their support by the evidence and their relative lack of assumptions. That is why it is science and not religion. Let "Dr." Horvind prove using empirical evidence that God is responsible for the observed phenomena. I think Randi would award him a million dollars.

2. Who are the "trained scientists" who will judge the presentation? More creation "scientists" like Horvind? There is already an overwhelming consensus of real, trained scientists who accept Darwin's theory as robust. The judgement has been ongoing since 1859.

3. Why does "Dr. Dino" require a $250,000 inducement to provide his evidence for his four claims? Has he not heard of the Nobel prize? You would think that if it were so important to him to disprove Darwin and to prove creation "science" that he would publish his evidence straight away. It's like he's claiming a royal flush, but refusing to show his cards unless you throw all your chips into the pot (and no one wants to even be bothered playing with him). I suspect he's holding a hand less than a pair of 2's.
 
Never mind that "Dr." Horvind requires that you prove a straw-man version of evolution, which for no apparent reason seems to encompass cosmogony, cosmology, and abiogenesis.

Never mind that some of the questions (such as cosmogony) aren't fully answered by science (and won't be until we have a Theory of Everything), and that other "requirements" aren't even accurate reflections of the actual science (for example, the requirement to "prove" that "Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).")

But then again, I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement about the amount of commitment Horvind has towards science, as opposed to "science."
 
Notice also that any evolution that we might observe, such as bacteria becoming immune to Cipro, is termed "micro-evolution" by "Dr." Horvind so as to not prove evolution while shattering Horvind's pet religious ideas. Horvind wants as proof something on the order of witnessing an entirely new family of animals. Well, something that major probably will occur at sometime in the future, but we (not just those alive today, but humans) may not be around to witness it since it would likely be the result of a major environmental change that may cause our extinction. (Perhaps the result of a large meteor hitting the Earth and causing a nuclear winter.) My understanding is that major evolutionary changes occur during relatively rapid fits of extinction and adaption during times of climatic change.
 
"Dr" Hovind and His Bogus "Reward"

Hovind 's allegation that the earth is not billions of years old has put him at odds with the various branches of natural science, but on the other hand his stance is the natural outcome of his unaccredited doctorate! But I cannot still understand how someone can believe literally in the bible, because the only feeling I get when I see the bible is mythology!

"Dr" Hovind, "Created Kinds", and his $250,000 "Reward" . . .
This is a record of an email conversation I recently (October 1999) had wirh "Dr" Kent Hovind (the doctorate comes from "Patriot University", an unaccredited Bible college) concerning his Internet offer of $250,000 for anyone who can prove that evolution happens. Note that "Dr" Hovind gives me the very same evasiveness, refusal to answer direct questions, going off on irrelevant non sequiteurs, and eventual pleading that he "doesn't have the time" to answer me, that I've come to expect from EVERY creationist I talk with. Note also that "Dr" Hovind isn't any more able to tell us all what a "created kind" is than any other creationist-most likely because there is no such thing as a "created kind".
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/hovind.htm
Click to expand...
 
Even better info about Hovind: Here's a site where someone went through one of Hovind's books and listed each and every time he said something blatently in violation of the truth. He's now got them listed, on his page titled 300 Creationist Lies. Definitely worth a visit.
 
Wow! I figured Hovind was such old hat that my comment might warrent a knowing chuckle but no replies.

For those of you interested, there is a great essay on "macro"-evolution that discusses 29+ evidences for it. It must have caused quite the stir with the creationists as there are several erstwhile "rebuttals" on the web. It's a good read if you haven't seen it before.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Wow! I figured Hovind was such old hat that my comment might warrent a knowing chuckle but no replies.
Click to expand...
When you repent, Sinner, then we will laugh with you. ;)
 
You're right, US; when I first read through his FAQ, I had trouble ceasing laughter. Here are some choice quotes:

Was the earth ever a hot, molten mass like the textbooks say?

Evolutionists teach that the earth was a boiling hot, molten mass that slowly cooled down over millions of years. The Bible says in Genesis chapter 1 that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth ... and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." So the surface of the earth was covered with water; it could not have been a hot, molten mass.
Click to expand...
Translation: The Bible says it's so, therefore it must be true. The funny part is how he doesn't realize that his statement could even possibly have a logical flaw. It's priceless.

What is the unicorn mentioned in the Bible?

I've never found a good answer to that one. The Bible mentions this creature six times in Numbers 23:22, 24:8, Job 39:9-10, Psalms 29:6, 92:10. I suspect all the pictures of horses with horns have been so imbedded in our minds we cannot get them out. Scripture mentions the unicorn's great strength, aversion to man, and un-trainability. Horses are domestic animals that train well; reptiles are wild animals with small brains that don't train well, if at all. If we could start fresh and read what the Bible says about unicorns, I think we would find that a stocky strong reptile like the triceratops would fit the description much better. We have all seen so many pictures of a horse with a horn that I doubt we will be able to clear our minds and think about this subject without bias. We will have to wait and ask God that question
Click to expand...
So, the unicorn was a triceratops? I guess that explains the whole "the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs" thing...:rolleyes:

What about separation between church and state?

Separation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution. The phrase first appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a Baptist pastor in Dayton, Connecticut. Atheists almost always omit the last part of the letter that shows Jefferson's intent.
Here is the context of that letter: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state." That wall is a one dimensional wall. It keeps government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.
Click to expand...
I guess he's never heard of a little thing called the "First Amendment," which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Oh well...

Anyway, US, I agree that Hovind is a laugh riot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom