Top Ten Favorite Creationist Arguments, Parts I and II

[youngterrier]

Here's a question:
If the bible had a kind of explanation of evolution - you know - this creature begat that creature... and so on
We wouldn't even be having this conversation - period
and everybody knows that - what this is about is fear and that's all

Consider:
If then the Bible had a completely ridiculous explanation of electricity
We'd be arguing about The validity of Electrical theory and - pondering if electrons actually existed
and really that it was JUST a theory and God was behind it all

this is basically all this is about - admit it

exactly. People would accept evolution if it wasn't so counter to their beliefs.

[MSUDuo]

Here's a question:
If the bible had a kind of explanation of evolution - you know - this creature begat that creature... and so on
We wouldn't even be having this conversation - period
and everybody knows that - what this is about is fear and that's all

Consider:
If then the Bible had a completely ridiculous explanation of electricity
We'd be arguing about The validity of Electrical theory and - pondering if electrons actually existed
and really that it was JUST a theory and God was behind it all

this is basically all this is about - admit it

exactly. People would accept evolution if it wasn't so counter to their beliefs.

The same can be said for Creationism. Funny how that works.

[youngterrier]

Gene drift, natural selection, mutation, reduction of population, and sexual selection are the 5 driving forces behind evolution and all have been verified through an exponential amount of experimentation. To deny this would be the epitome of naivety.

Through phylogeny we can prove common dissent. What else do you need?

On the first paragraph: Well, why don't you pick an experiment and link the details of it so we can discuss what it showed and how that relates to support for the overall theory of evolution.

On the second. Phylogeny does not "prove" common descent. We make the assumption that it does because that's consistent with the theory and we have seen nothing to contradict the assumption.

JMUDJ did a long time ago, and you rejected it. I actually also did so in this thread. Just look back, or look up "multicellular yeast experiment"

to the second paragraph, you are correct, but seeing as phylogeny is falsifiable with the geologic column, unless we see something like a mammal arise in a time it shouldn't, evolutionary theory is rock solid due to phylogeny. You can have doubt and hold out and say "we may find one one day" but that's not evidence, that's blind hope. The only way at which to thoroughly fortify evolution to the level you wish is to go back in time and watch it happen over 3 billion years, which is senseless and stupid.

[youngterrier]

exactly. People would accept evolution if it wasn't so counter to their beliefs.

The same can be said for Creationism. Funny how that works.

So the reason I reject biblical creationism, or creationism in general, isn't accepted by myself because there is literally NO EVIDENCE (other than begging the question in saying "well, we're here!") to support it and instead I accept evolution as fact because of the mountains of evidence, experimentation, etc that support it's claims, isn't because of the latter fact, it's because of my "beliefs"......even though I was raised in a Christian home, by ministers.

Sounds totally logical.

[youngterrier]

Electricity is a Theory as well...
Because nobody has even actually seen and electron

So what's your point exactly MSUDuo..?
Evolution is observable - period - electricity in action is observable: Both are Theories
Both are equally accepted among those who aren't terrified that the bibles validity hangs on one or the other

But we have proven both of them

FIFA

[youngterrier]

Ugh. You guys are acting like just because one fact is more known and more understood over another, that we can't say the lesser known fact is comparable in factualness. It doesn't take away from it's factualness.

Germ theory isn't as obvious of a fact as 2+2=4, but at the same time you're not going to have a semantic discussion about whether germ theory is comparably as factual or if that being so, it would be "less factual"

You people keep deflecting.

There is no deflecting. It's very straightforward. It's not a matter of "comparable factualness." It's a matter of certainty level.

If you're going to say evolution isn't a fact because it isn't as provable as germ theory, I really can't have a conversation with you as you don't realize how nonsensical that sounds.

[youngterrier]

Electricity is a Theory as well...
Because nobody has even actually seen and electron

So what's your point exactly MSUDuo..?
Evolution is observable - period - electricity in action is observable: Both are Theories
Both are equally accepted among those who aren't terrified that the bibles validity hangs on one or the other

Electricity is not a theory. It is a known phenomenon. Evolution in the sense of knowing that populations change over time is not a theory either. It's been directly observed.

The theory comes in when we talk about evolution accounting for everything we see in terms of life on this planet and saying things like "Blue whales are descendants of single celled organisms."

I believe those things. But there's no way they're known to be "fact" with the level of certainty associated with...say...knowing that if I put water in a freezer at 0 degrees F for 12 hours it's going to be ice when I take it out. Nor is it known with the level of certainty associated with knowing that Bacillus anthracis causes anthrax.

Since we brought up electricity I'll say it's also not known with the level of certainty associated with knowing that we can induce electrical currents by moving material that conducts electricity through magnetic fields. That's because we do that experiment when we generate electricity. And it works every time we do it properly. Very predictable. Known to be a fact with a very high level of certainty.

Now, if you're talking about the nature of electrons...I think that's theory.

It's called the use of induction. DNA seemingly proves common descent, even without phylogeny. Could there be more than one initial ancestor? Certainly, but we have no proof of it. From what we know how evolution works, it's more than apparent that there is a common ancestor for everything. We can't say there isn't until evidence arises exposing another ancestor. Even if there are more than one initial ancestor, I think it is safe to say that RNA is the precursor to DNA, and the sequencing of RNA is in a sense the common ancestor, unless the molecular composition is different, in which case it wouldn't be RNA.

[houndawg]

How does it follow that if evolution is wrong then creationism is right? That seems to be all that creationists have and it ain't much..

[SeattleGriz]

This naive concept that the fact of evolution is not certain flies in the face of piles of experimentation that has fortified gene drift, population fluctuations, sexual selection, random mutation, and natural selection. The 5 things just described ARE evolution, and HAVE been established at the highest level of certainty, through experimentation. What more does one need?

I fail to see how saying evolution is a 6.9 out of 7 on the certainty scale is causing such an uproar.

Me personally, I believe it is more of a 5 out of 7, but realize I am odd in that regard.

[youngterrier]

This naive concept that the fact of evolution is not certain flies in the face of piles of experimentation that has fortified gene drift, population fluctuations, sexual selection, random mutation, and natural selection. The 5 things just described ARE evolution, and HAVE been established at the highest level of certainty, through experimentation. What more does one need?

I fail to see how saying evolution is a 6.9 out of 7 on the certainty scale is causing such an uproar.

Me personally, I believe it is more of a 5 out of 7, but realize I am odd in that regard.

My point is that it's either a fact or it isn't, and it seems that JSO is just mincing words, trying to make it seem that since it isn't at the "highest level of certainty" that it isn't a fact, which is bothersome and annoying because his demand for certain evidence as nonsensical to the point at which it seems he just wants to deny it "because of reasons."

My point is that the 5 mechanisms of evolution ARE at the highest level of certainty, with phylogeny being a proper historical account (while still being falsifiable).

By pointing out one aspect of the evolution of life that hasn't been explained quite yet, that does not invalidate the facts that we DO know.

[youngterrier]

How does it follow that if evolution is wrong then creationism is right? That seems to be all that creationists have and it ain't much..

That's intelligent design in a nutshell. Which is funny because they have not been able to prove evolution is wrong in any sense, and pointing out a gap in the current theory doesn't equivocate to "disproving" anything.

[SeattleGriz]

SG, you ever discuss your creationism with people at work - your bosses? How bout friends and non-child family members?

Didn't think so. You know you'd be laughed out of the room or perhaps fired.

When you were in college, did your biology professors teach creationism? Were any of your microbiology theories based on creationism? How would you have fared if the shit you're promoting on these threads formed the basis of a research paper or thesis?

Your questions reinforce what I have been trying to say for some time. Those that believe that evolution is fact are so convinced, they will twist any data to make it look as if it supports evolution.

As I have pointed out many times, those scientists that are intellectually honest have concerns that the theory needs some more beef. They are not saying it is wrong, just that there has to be something else to give us all the diversity we have today, especially if everything is to have come from one common ancestor.

You never hear about these ideas because the main group stifles any such discussion. How is that helping?

[SeattleGriz]

How does it follow that if evolution is wrong then creationism is right? That seems to be all that creationists have and it ain't much..

You are right, and I believe that is why Intelligent Design came about. If you can't produce anything other than, "God did it" you won't gain any traction. Yes, currently the main mode of attack is to point out flaws, but they are trying to conduct real research.

[youngterrier]

SG, you ever discuss your creationism with people at work - your bosses? How bout friends and non-child family members?

Didn't think so. You know you'd be laughed out of the room or perhaps fired.

When you were in college, did your biology professors teach creationism? Were any of your microbiology theories based on creationism? How would you have fared if the shit you're promoting on these threads formed the basis of a research paper or thesis?

Your questions reinforce what I have been trying to say for some time. Those that believe that evolution is fact are so convinced, they will twist any data to make it look as if it supports evolution.

As I have pointed out many times, those scientists that are intellectually honest have concerns that the theory needs some more beef. They are not saying it is wrong, just that there has to be something else to give us all the diversity we have today, especially if everything is to have come from one common ancestor.

You never hear about these ideas because the main group stifles any such discussion. How is that helping?

The problem is that:
1) I have not seen one instance at which a scientist has manipulated data to "support evolution." Heck, I don't even know what that means because it goes without saying in biology that evolution is true, it's a basal assumption nowadays (to put it analogous to philosophical terms), as biological research isn't done to "prove evolution" as much as it is to learn about certain aspects of biology. Whenever biologists try to "prove evolution," I have not seen one instance at which data has been manipulated by them, as one instance as not been presented.

2) The "scientists" that try to manipulate data, are always IDers.

3) Between genetic drift, random mutation, sexual selection, natural selection, and gene flow, there really isn't much room for any more mechanisms of evolution. Scientists are certainly open to new mechanisms of evolution, but until they are demonstrated and fortified with evidence, they won't be accepted as such.

[SeattleGriz]

Your questions reinforce what I have been trying to say for some time. Those that believe that evolution is fact are so convinced, they will twist any data to make it look as if it supports evolution.

As I have pointed out many times, those scientists that are intellectually honest have concerns that the theory needs some more beef. They are not saying it is wrong, just that there has to be something else to give us all the diversity we have today, especially if everything is to have come from one common ancestor.

You never hear about these ideas because the main group stifles any such discussion. How is that helping?

The problem is that:
1) I have not seen one instance at which a scientist has manipulated data to "support evolution." Heck, I don't even know what that means because it goes without saying in biology that evolution is true, it's a basal assumption nowadays (to put it analogous to philosophical terms), as biological research isn't done to "prove evolution" as much as it is to learn about certain aspects of biology. Whenever biologists try to "prove evolution," I have not seen one instance at which data has been manipulated by them, as one instance as not been presented.

2) The "scientists" that try to manipulate data, are always IDers.

3) Between genetic drift, random mutation, sexual selection, natural selection, and gene flow, there really isn't much room for any more mechanisms of evolution. Scientists are certainly open to new mechanisms of evolution, but until they are demonstrated and fortified with evidence, they won't be accepted as such.

I could have said it better. What I meant was that instead of looking at data separately from evolution, many times it is interpreted to fit into evolution. I realize they are trying to add to the proof, but sometimes the wrong conclusions are reached. This is why I say the evolution field is just like the global warming field. No matter the data, it ALWAYS fits perfectly into evolution.

Why do you think I keep beating the junk DNA thing? Because years ago it was referred to as junk. As in it had NO function - it was just filler. Now that they know it actually has a use, they have changed it to mean non-coding. If you don't believe me, why would one call it "junk" in the first place if you knew it had a purpose?

As for your #2 statement, it should look that way to you because the ID'ers ARE trying to look at the data as if it didn't fit into evolution. Ever since I have been having fun on these threads, I have been frequenting a good amount of pro-evolution and pro-ID sites. I can honestly say that the pro-ID sites allow discussion on topics, whereas the pro-evolution sites stifle any dissenting opinions. What is really sad, is the ID'ers are easily able to come to a stalemate with the evolution people. It comes down to one person's opinion versus another's because there is no way to scientifically test some of the ideas.

[youngterrier]

The problem is that:
1) I have not seen one instance at which a scientist has manipulated data to "support evolution." Heck, I don't even know what that means because it goes without saying in biology that evolution is true, it's a basal assumption nowadays (to put it analogous to philosophical terms), as biological research isn't done to "prove evolution" as much as it is to learn about certain aspects of biology. Whenever biologists try to "prove evolution," I have not seen one instance at which data has been manipulated by them, as one instance as not been presented.

2) The "scientists" that try to manipulate data, are always IDers.

3) Between genetic drift, random mutation, sexual selection, natural selection, and gene flow, there really isn't much room for any more mechanisms of evolution. Scientists are certainly open to new mechanisms of evolution, but until they are demonstrated and fortified with evidence, they won't be accepted as such.

I could have said it better. What I meant was that instead of looking at data separately from evolution, many times it is interpreted to fit into evolution. I realize they are trying to add to the proof, but sometimes the wrong conclusions are reached. This is why I say the evolution field is just like the global warming field. No matter the data, it ALWAYS fits perfectly into evolution.

Why do you think I keep beating the junk DNA thing? Because years ago it was referred to as junk. As in it had NO function - it was just filler. Now that they know it actually has a use, they have changed it to mean non-coding. If you don't believe me, why would one call it "junk" in the first place if you knew it had a purpose?

As for your #2 statement, it should look that way to you because the ID'ers ARE trying to look at the data as if it didn't fit into evolution. Ever since I have been having fun on these threads, I have been frequenting a good amount of pro-evolution and pro-ID sites. I can honestly say that the pro-ID sites allow discussion on topics, whereas the pro-evolution sites stifle any dissenting opinions. What is really sad, is the ID'ers are easily able to come to a stalemate with the evolution people. It comes down to one person's opinion versus another's because there is no way to scientifically test some of the ideas.

What biological data and studies contradict evolution? Perhaps it ALWAYS fits with evolution, is because, I dunno, EVOLUTION IS THE BACKBONE OF ALL MODERN BIOLOGICAL STUDY?!!!! (bolded for emphasis). The only way certain biological facts and studies make sense is if evolution is true.

As for the junk DNA, we've covered it before. It's still junk. You find one or 2 or 3 exceptions to the parts that are junk every now and again, but to say majority of our DNA isn't junk because we found a few exceptions that we originally did include is like saying not all manure is terrible for makeup, because we found one person to find manure attractive. One cannot undermine how massive the human genome is and one or two genes in the genetic code out of such a massive pool does not swing the see-saw past a vast majority of DNA being junk.

[Chizzang]

exactly. People would accept evolution if it wasn't so counter to their beliefs.

The same can be said for Creationism. Funny how that works.

Answer the questions please...
What this is really about is The Bible and fear that it might not be all it's cracked up to be
It's not about Evolution

FACT: We'd be arguing about electrons and the nature electricity if the Bible had some loony explanation of Lightning and Electricity - this cannot be argued - Because bottom line, this whole thing is about The Bible and Faith
Not one part of this conversation is "actually" about the science of Evolution

It's just that simple
This is about fear

[MSUDuo]

The same can be said for Creationism. Funny how that works.

Answer the questions please...
What this is really about is The Bible and fear that it might not be all it's cracked up to be
It's not about Evolution

FACT: We'd be arguing about electrons and the nature electricity if the Bible had some loony explanation of Lightning and Electricity - this cannot be argued - Because bottom line, this whole thing is about The Bible and Faith
Not one part of this conversation is "actually" about the science of Evolution

It's just that simple
This is about fear

What else would it be about? Is there a problem that it's about faith? It's about your faith as well.

Answer this for me then. If the Bible is false, what do I lose? If it's right, what is lost for you?

[Cap'n Cat]

Irony: the most under-educated people here copy material right off the internet in purported demonstration of their enlightenment.

Says the guy who gives tacit support to people who fuck kids......

[Grizalltheway]

Answer the questions please...
What this is really about is The Bible and fear that it might not be all it's cracked up to be
It's not about Evolution

FACT: We'd be arguing about electrons and the nature electricity if the Bible had some loony explanation of Lightning and Electricity - this cannot be argued - Because bottom line, this whole thing is about The Bible and Faith
Not one part of this conversation is "actually" about the science of Evolution

It's just that simple
This is about fear

What else would it be about? Is there a problem that it's about faith? It's about your faith as well.

Answer this for me then. If the Bible is false, what do I lose? If it's right, what is lost for you?

Lamest, most tired argument thrown out by Christians. What if one of the countless other belief systems in human history is right, and you happened to choose/be born into the wrong one? The odds are against you, slick.

[SeattleGriz]

I could have said it better. What I meant was that instead of looking at data separately from evolution, many times it is interpreted to fit into evolution. I realize they are trying to add to the proof, but sometimes the wrong conclusions are reached. This is why I say the evolution field is just like the global warming field. No matter the data, it ALWAYS fits perfectly into evolution.

Why do you think I keep beating the junk DNA thing? Because years ago it was referred to as junk. As in it had NO function - it was just filler. Now that they know it actually has a use, they have changed it to mean non-coding. If you don't believe me, why would one call it "junk" in the first place if you knew it had a purpose?

As for your #2 statement, it should look that way to you because the ID'ers ARE trying to look at the data as if it didn't fit into evolution. Ever since I have been having fun on these threads, I have been frequenting a good amount of pro-evolution and pro-ID sites. I can honestly say that the pro-ID sites allow discussion on topics, whereas the pro-evolution sites stifle any dissenting opinions. What is really sad, is the ID'ers are easily able to come to a stalemate with the evolution people. It comes down to one person's opinion versus another's because there is no way to scientifically test some of the ideas.

What biological data and studies contradict evolution? Perhaps it ALWAYS fits with evolution, is because, I dunno, EVOLUTION IS THE BACKBONE OF ALL MODERN BIOLOGICAL STUDY?!!!! (bolded for emphasis). The only way certain biological facts and studies make sense is if evolution is true.

As for the junk DNA, we've covered it before. It's still junk. You find one or 2 or 3 exceptions to the parts that are junk every now and again, but to say majority of our DNA isn't junk because we found a few exceptions that we originally did include is like saying not all manure is terrible for makeup, because we found one person to find manure attractive. One cannot undermine how massive the human genome is and one or two genes in the genetic code out of such a massive pool does not swing the see-saw past a vast majority of DNA being junk.

You are still missing the point. It's not about the one or two or three exceptions that crop up every now and then to what is believed to be non functional DNA. It is that the evolution crowd stated that 98% of our DNA had absolutely NO FUNCTION, only to realize it was more like the 2% has no function. A complete flip flop, but yet, it fits into the evolutionary theory somehow.

If you can't grasp this, you have proven you are just going to keep reciting the atheist websites you visit. Don't think I haven't noticed how your arguments mirror exactly what is said on those sites. Lame. I thought you were better than that.

You are a fool to believe any part of our DNA is junk, especially in light of epigenetics.

[D1B]

SG, you ever discuss your creationism with people at work - your bosses? How bout friends and non-child family members?

Didn't think so. You know you'd be laughed out of the room or perhaps fired.

When you were in college, did your biology professors teach creationism? Were any of your microbiology theories based on creationism? How would you have fared if the shit you're promoting on these threads formed the basis of a research paper or thesis?

Your questions reinforce what I have been trying to say for some time. Those that believe that evolution is fact are so convinced, they will twist any data to make it look as if it supports evolution.

As I have pointed out many times, those scientists that are intellectually honest have concerns that the theory needs some more beef. They are not saying it is wrong, just that there has to be something else to give us all the diversity we have today, especially if everything is to have come from one common ancestor.

You never hear about these ideas because the main group stifles any such discussion. How is that helping?

You didn't answer the questions, Joltin Joe.

Here's another one. Why don't you apply the same absolute/ridiculous demands for scientific certitude to your religion? You demand that every facet of evolution be proven as observable fact, yet you accept as fact, without question, the comical and impossible nature of your triune, zombie god.



Yeah, SG, this fuck is god. Fact

[Chizzang]

Answer the questions please...
What this is really about is The Bible and fear that it might not be all it's cracked up to be
It's not about Evolution

FACT: We'd be arguing about electrons and the nature electricity if the Bible had some loony explanation of Lightning and Electricity - this cannot be argued - Because bottom line, this whole thing is about The Bible and Faith
Not one part of this conversation is "actually" about the science of Evolution

It's just that simple
This is about fear

What else would it be about? Is there a problem that it's about faith? It's about your faith as well.

Answer this for me then. If the Bible is false, what do I lose? If it's right, what is lost for you?

Fair enough,
Thank you for being honest and admitting this isn't about the validity of Evolution
You're a bigger man than 99% of the other Americans who parade their Faith disguised as a Scientific argument

BTW:
There are some 34,000 credible organized religions - each claiming the other 34,000 are not legitimate
Some 20,000 claim that if you don't believe in specifically their one faith - you will suffer for eternity

Secondly:
I do indeed believe in God
I believe in the Prime Mover argument

Thirdly:
You ask what is lost for me if I don't believe just exactly like you believe
And I say - I have no idea - because just like 95% of Christians I haven't read the Bible Either

[MSUDuo]

What else would it be about? Is there a problem that it's about faith? It's about your faith as well.

Answer this for me then. If the Bible is false, what do I lose? If it's right, what is lost for you?

Fair enough,
Thank you for being honest and admitting this isn't about the validity of Evolution
You're a bigger man than 99% of the other Americans who parade their Faith disguised as a Scientific argument

BTW:
There are some 34,000 credible organized religions - each claiming the other 34,000 are not legitimate
Some 20,000 claim that if you don't believe in specifically their one faith - you will suffer for eternity

Secondly:
I do indeed believe in God
I believe in the Prime Mover argument

Thirdly:
You ask what is lost for me if I don't believe just exactly like you believe
And I say - I have no idea - because just like 95% of Christians I haven't read the Bible Either

That many? Had no idea. How many claim the need for a Savoir who died for mankind?

I'd probably say "95% of people who claim to be Christian" but really I should stay away from that...

Honestly, it isn't up to me what other people believe. We have a free well for a reason. I just find it comical that those that try to preach tolerance what to rid the world of religion. Does that make sense what so ever?

I'm all for letting people live the way they want to as long as you're not putting anyone else out. Now, that doesn't mean I won't share my faith but there is a time and place for it and if someone doesn't want to hear about it, they won't have to from me.

[SeattleGriz]

Your questions reinforce what I have been trying to say for some time. Those that believe that evolution is fact are so convinced, they will twist any data to make it look as if it supports evolution.

As I have pointed out many times, those scientists that are intellectually honest have concerns that the theory needs some more beef. They are not saying it is wrong, just that there has to be something else to give us all the diversity we have today, especially if everything is to have come from one common ancestor.

You never hear about these ideas because the main group stifles any such discussion. How is that helping?

You didn't answer the questions, Joltin Joe.

Here's another one. Why don't you apply the same absolute/ridiculous demands for scientific certitude to your religion? You demand that every facet of evolution be proven as observable fact, yet you accept as fact, without question, the comical and impossible nature of your triune, zombie god.

Yeah, SG, this fuck is god. Fact

I didn't answer them because they were not pertinent to the discussion at hand. You want to call me out, start your own thread and stop hiding in your brother's shadow! (By the way, I thought that was a good dig).

Please realize I have in no way said that evolution is wrong. I have simply stated that I get my undies all bunched up when people attribute studies as fact, when they really don't support a theory.

That is my beef. Everything does not have to fit nicely into the evolution box, but that is what is happening.

By the way, who has been the intolerant assholes in this thread? Do I need to start a poll?