Top Ten Favorite Creationist Arguments, Parts I and II

[D1B]

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

Says the midget who believes, with all his tiny heart, that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Said midget also regularly gets obliterated here then disappears for weeks to lick his wounds.



"Jesus is the lord and the catholic church does not protect pedophiles!"

[JoltinJoe]

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

Says the midget who believes, with all his tiny heart, that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Said midget also regularly gets obliterated here then disappears for weeks to lick his wounds.



"Jesus is the lord and the catholic church does not protect pedophiles!"

General Studies Major. UNI.

"Disappears for weeks". Translation, actually has a life and doesn't need to get drunk and post here on Friday nights, looking for companionship, because he actually has friends in real life.

[D1B]

Says the midget who believes, with all his tiny heart, that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Said midget also regularly gets obliterated here then disappears for weeks to lick his wounds.



"Jesus is the lord and the catholic church does not protect pedophiles!"

General Studies Major. UNI.

"Disappears for weeks". Translation, actually has a life and doesn't need to get drunk and post here on Friday nights, looking for companionship, because he actually has friends in real life.

Theology major at Fordumb. Is a lawyer, a lawyer!. Forces his kids to eat the flesh of his creepy god.

And here you are, on a Saturday, alone, posting... Joe you oughta stick around here more often. According to your logic, your "friends" apparently only want to hang out with you AFTER you get your ass blown out on a catholic child abuse thread.

Or perhaps your "friends" only come to town every once in a while...

[JohnStOnge]

The problem you're having here is that you're trying to invalidate the ENTIRE theory, based off ONE circumstance (that has been proven to happen).

I don't know how to get through to you. I keep hoping that I can make the light bulb go off and you can see what I'm talking about. I am not saying that the lack of experimental support invalidates the theory. I am saying that it bears upon the level of certainty associated with a theory. The level of certainty associated with the overall theory of evolution just isn't as high as that associated with...say...the germ theory of disease is. And one reason is that the germ theory of disease lends itself to very direct experimentation.

[youngterrier]

The problem you're having here is that you're trying to invalidate the ENTIRE theory, based off ONE circumstance (that has been proven to happen).

I don't know how to get through to you. I keep hoping that I can make the light bulb go off and you can see what I'm talking about. I am not saying that the lack of experimental support invalidates the theory. I am saying that it bears upon the level of certainty associated with a theory. The level of certainty associated with the overall theory of evolution just isn't as high as that associated with...say...the germ theory of disease is. And one reason is that the germ theory of disease lends itself to very direct experimentation.

You're basically just dancing around words to say that evolution isn't a fact, from what I can tell.

Facts are facts, one fact does not become "more factual," rather it becomes "more supported" with data, analysis, etc.

To say that evolution isn't a fact because it isn't as demonstrable as germ theory is like saying germ theory isn't as factual as the laws of physics because the laws of physics are easier to demonstrate.

There are stacks and stacks and stacks of data, experimentation, etc that completely validate and further fortify the theory of evolution to where it is a fact.

I'm waiting for a little light bulb for you to come on, but then again you've shown in the past that you latch on to whatever beliefs you have, bust the lightbulb, and replace it with a match because you think it's demonstrably more efficient, or something to that ilk.

[D1B]

The problem you're having here is that you're trying to invalidate the ENTIRE theory, based off ONE circumstance (that has been proven to happen).

I don't know how to get through to you. I keep hoping that I can make the light bulb go off and you can see what I'm talking about. I am not saying that the lack of experimental support invalidates the theory. I am saying that it bears upon the level of certainty associated with a theory. The level of certainty associated with the overall theory of evolution just isn't as high as that associated with...say...the germ theory of disease is. And one reason is that the germ theory of disease lends itself to very direct experimentation.

John, give up. YT and the entire scientific world kicked your ass to the curb a long time ago.

[SeattleGriz]

I don't know how to get through to you. I keep hoping that I can make the light bulb go off and you can see what I'm talking about. I am not saying that the lack of experimental support invalidates the theory. I am saying that it bears upon the level of certainty associated with a theory. The level of certainty associated with the overall theory of evolution just isn't as high as that associated with...say...the germ theory of disease is. And one reason is that the germ theory of disease lends itself to very direct experimentation.

You're basically just dancing around words to say that evolution isn't a fact, from what I can tell.

Facts are facts, one fact does not become "more factual," rather it becomes "more supported" with data, analysis, etc.

To say that evolution isn't a fact because it isn't as demonstrable as germ theory is like saying germ theory isn't as factual as the laws of physics because the laws of physics are easier to demonstrate.

There are stacks and stacks and stacks of data, experimentation, etc that completely validate and further fortify the theory of evolution to where it is a fact.

I'm waiting for a little light bulb for you to come on, but then again you've shown in the past that you latch on to whatever beliefs you have, bust the lightbulb, and replace it with a match because you think it's demonstrably more efficient, or something to that ilk.

Let's use an extremely hypothetical scenario here.

If an all knowing alien came to Earth and held a space gun to your head, and asked you to pick which scientific premise was more likely to be true because of direct observable experimentation? Which one would you choose? Germ theory or evolution?

John never said evolution was wrong, or incorrect, just stated that evolution has that "unknown" factor because much of it cannot be proven in the lab, and therefore unobservable, unlike germ theory. Very much like Dawkins stating that he was 6.9 out of a 7 that there is no God. He knew it can't be proven, but his hunch tells him his bet is correct. That is all that John is saying. With germ theory, it is a 7 out of 7, whereas evolution is a 6.9 out of 7.

[D1B]

You're basically just dancing around words to say that evolution isn't a fact, from what I can tell.

Facts are facts, one fact does not become "more factual," rather it becomes "more supported" with data, analysis, etc.

To say that evolution isn't a fact because it isn't as demonstrable as germ theory is like saying germ theory isn't as factual as the laws of physics because the laws of physics are easier to demonstrate.

There are stacks and stacks and stacks of data, experimentation, etc that completely validate and further fortify the theory of evolution to where it is a fact.

I'm waiting for a little light bulb for you to come on, but then again you've shown in the past that you latch on to whatever beliefs you have, bust the lightbulb, and replace it with a match because you think it's demonstrably more efficient, or something to that ilk.

Let's use an extremely hypothetical scenario here.

If an all knowing alien came to Earth and held a space gun to your head, and asked you to pick which scientific premise was more likely to be true because of direct observable experimentation? Which one would you choose? Germ theory or evolution?

John never said evolution was wrong, or incorrect, just stated that evolution has that "unknown" factor because much of it cannot be proven in the lab, and therefore unobservable, unlike germ theory. Very much like Dawkins stating that he was 6.9 out of a 7 that there is no God. He knew it can't be proven, but his hunch tells him his bet is correct. That is all that John is saying. With germ theory, it is a 7 out of 7, whereas evolution is a 6.9 out of 7.

Jesus fucking christ.

[SeattleGriz]

Let's use an extremely hypothetical scenario here.

If an all knowing alien came to Earth and held a space gun to your head, and asked you to pick which scientific premise was more likely to be true because of direct observable experimentation? Which one would you choose? Germ theory or evolution?

John never said evolution was wrong, or incorrect, just stated that evolution has that "unknown" factor because much of it cannot be proven in the lab, and therefore unobservable, unlike germ theory. Very much like Dawkins stating that he was 6.9 out of a 7 that there is no God. He knew it can't be proven, but his hunch tells him his bet is correct. That is all that John is saying. With germ theory, it is a 7 out of 7, whereas evolution is a 6.9 out of 7.

Jesus fucking christ.

Screw you man. Don't deflect. YT is a grown up and can answer on his own.

[JohnStOnge]

You're basically just dancing around words to say that evolution isn't a fact, from what I can tell.

Facts are facts, one fact does not become "more factual," rather it becomes "more supported" with data, analysis, etc.

To say that evolution isn't a fact because it isn't as demonstrable as germ theory is like saying germ theory isn't as factual as the laws of physics because the laws of physics are easier to demonstrate.

There are stacks and stacks and stacks of data, experimentation, etc that completely validate and further fortify the theory of evolution to where it is a fact.

Facts are facts. And the truth of that statement is independent of whether we know them to be true or not. But science is about establishing them as true. And it's not about falsification. It's about affirmatively demonstrating propositions. There are standards for doing that and the burden of proof is substantial.

I have never said anything about proving the overall theory of evolution to be false or about it not being a fact. I said it is not established as fact at the highest level of certainty.

Here is another example:

A physicist can say that a given volume of water in a given configuration will assume solid form given exposure to a given temperature and pressure for a given time. Then the physicist can set up an experiment to expose water to the described conditions. And what he predicted will come to pass. The proposition is supported at the highest level of certainty.

On the other hand, a biologist may say that a population of single celled organisms can give rise to a population of multicellular organisms. But can the biologist set up an experiment to demonstrate that? Maybe. But it hasn't been done yet. The proposition just isn't characterized by as great a level of certainty as the experiment involving water assuming solid form does.

And the proposition that single celled organisms can give rise to multicellular organisms IS very important to the overall body of evolutionary theory. It is a critical, foundational step in the theorized cause and effect process. The fact that you either can't or won't see that doesn't change things.

BTW, I'd say that the germ theory of disease is at least as well supported in terms of certainty level as anything in physics is. Disease may not be as predictable as certain phenomena in the world of physics are. But the basic proposition that microorganisms can cause disease is very well supported by experimental evidence. See http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... b2QHNBv6NQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

I think your statement about " stacks and stacks and stacks of data, experimentation, etc that completely validate and further fortify the theory of evolution to where it is a fact" reflects a lack of understanding of the scientific method as well as the concept of validation.

[JohnStOnge]

John, give up. YT and the entire scientific world kicked your ass to the curb a long time ago.

If Stephen J. Gould...who was perhaps the biggest champion of the "Evolution is Fact" movement...were alive today he would tell you he agrees with me in terms of what the traditional scientific method requires. He would also say that he disagrees with the traditional scientific method. But he would agree that he could not support his "Evolution is Fact" in terms of the basic overall theory of evolution proposition if the discipline of the traditional scientific method is imposed.

I know that because I read an essay of his in which he said that. As I've mentioned before, he called the scientific method "sophomoric" and complained that if one strictly adheres to it there are many things, such as propositions in the areas of astronomy and other fields, that could never be said to have been established at the highest level of certainty.

I read that essay during the 1990s in either Science News or Discover magazine (I had subscriptions to both). From time to time I search for it so that I can specifically reference it during discussions like this. So far I haven't been successful in locating it. But I assure you that was his position. He did recognize that his position could not be supported through the traditional scientific method.

[SeattleGriz]

John, give up. YT and the entire scientific world kicked your ass to the curb a long time ago.

If Stephen J. Gould...who was perhaps the biggest champion of the "Evolution is Fact" movement...were alive today he would tell you he agrees with me in terms of what the traditional scientific method requires. He would also say that he disagrees with the traditional scientific method. But he would agree that he could not support his "Evolution is Fact" in terms of the basic overall theory of evolution proposition if the discipline of the traditional scientific method is imposed.

I know that because I read an essay of his in which he said that. As I've mentioned before, he called the scientific method "sophomoric" and complained that if one strictly adheres to it there are many things, such as propositions in the areas of astronomy and other fields, that could never be said to have been established at the highest level of certainty.

I read that essay during the 1990s in either Science News or Discover magazine (I had subscriptions to both). From time to time I search for it so that I can specifically reference it during discussions like this. So far I haven't been successful in locating it. But I assure you that was his position. He did recognize that his position could not be supported through the traditional scientific method.

[youngterrier]

You're basically just dancing around words to say that evolution isn't a fact, from what I can tell.

Facts are facts, one fact does not become "more factual," rather it becomes "more supported" with data, analysis, etc.

To say that evolution isn't a fact because it isn't as demonstrable as germ theory is like saying germ theory isn't as factual as the laws of physics because the laws of physics are easier to demonstrate.

There are stacks and stacks and stacks of data, experimentation, etc that completely validate and further fortify the theory of evolution to where it is a fact.

I'm waiting for a little light bulb for you to come on, but then again you've shown in the past that you latch on to whatever beliefs you have, bust the lightbulb, and replace it with a match because you think it's demonstrably more efficient, or something to that ilk.

Let's use an extremely hypothetical scenario here.

If an all knowing alien came to Earth and held a space gun to your head, and asked you to pick which scientific premise was more likely to be true because of direct observable experimentation? Which one would you choose? Germ theory or evolution?

John never said evolution was wrong, or incorrect, just stated that evolution has that "unknown" factor because much of it cannot be proven in the lab, and therefore unobservable, unlike germ theory. Very much like Dawkins stating that he was 6.9 out of a 7 that there is no God. He knew it can't be proven, but his hunch tells him his bet is correct. That is all that John is saying. With germ theory, it is a 7 out of 7, whereas evolution is a 6.9 out of 7.

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.

[youngterrier]

You're basically just dancing around words to say that evolution isn't a fact, from what I can tell.

Facts are facts, one fact does not become "more factual," rather it becomes "more supported" with data, analysis, etc.

To say that evolution isn't a fact because it isn't as demonstrable as germ theory is like saying germ theory isn't as factual as the laws of physics because the laws of physics are easier to demonstrate.

There are stacks and stacks and stacks of data, experimentation, etc that completely validate and further fortify the theory of evolution to where it is a fact.

Facts are facts. And the truth of that statement is independent of whether we know them to be true or not. But science is about establishing them as true. And it's not about falsification. It's about affirmatively demonstrating propositions. There are standards for doing that and the burden of proof is substantial.

I have never said anything about proving the overall theory of evolution to be false or about it not being a fact. I said it is not established as fact at the highest level of certainty.

Here is another example:

A physicist can say that a given volume of water in a given configuration will assume solid form given exposure to a given temperature and pressure for a given time. Then the physicist can set up an experiment to expose water to the described conditions. And what he predicted will come to pass. The proposition is supported at the highest level of certainty.

On the other hand, a biologist may say that a population of single celled organisms can give rise to a population of multicellular organisms. But can the biologist set up an experiment to demonstrate that? Maybe. But it hasn't been done yet. The proposition just isn't characterized by as great a level of certainty as the experiment involving water assuming solid form does.

And the proposition that single celled organisms can give rise to multicellular organisms IS very important to the overall body of evolutionary theory. It is a critical, foundational step in the theorized cause and effect process. The fact that you either can't or won't see that doesn't change things.

BTW, I'd say that the germ theory of disease is at least as well supported in terms of certainty level as anything in physics is. Disease may not be as predictable as certain phenomena in the world of physics are. But the basic proposition that microorganisms can cause disease is very well supported by experimental evidence. See http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... b2QHNBv6NQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

I think your statement about " stacks and stacks and stacks of data, experimentation, etc that completely validate and further fortify the theory of evolution to where it is a fact" reflects a lack of understanding of the scientific method as well as the concept of validation.

I'm stopping you right there because it has been done, and once again you're sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LALALALALALALALAALALALA" in attempt to invalidate it.

You CLEARLY have not done enough reading about the experimental data involved with evolution, in terms of predictions, etc.

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?

[D1B]

If Stephen J. Gould...who was perhaps the biggest champion of the "Evolution is Fact" movement...were alive today he would tell you he agrees with me in terms of what the traditional scientific method requires. He would also say that he disagrees with the traditional scientific method. But he would agree that he could not support his "Evolution is Fact" in terms of the basic overall theory of evolution proposition if the discipline of the traditional scientific method is imposed.

I know that because I read an essay of his in which he said that. As I've mentioned before, he called the scientific method "sophomoric" and complained that if one strictly adheres to it there are many things, such as propositions in the areas of astronomy and other fields, that could never be said to have been established at the highest level of certainty.

I read that essay during the 1990s in either Science News or Discover magazine (I had subscriptions to both). From time to time I search for it so that I can specifically reference it during discussions like this. So far I haven't been successful in locating it. But I assure you that was his position. He did recognize that his position could not be supported through the traditional scientific method.

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?

[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?

[MSUDuo]

What is evolution called again? A theory or a law?

[Chizzang]

What is evolution called again? A theory or a law?

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

[JohnStOnge]

When you were in college, did your biology professors teach creationism?

No, but the guy who taught my evolution class...who was also my adviser...took great pains at the beginning of the semester to ease the concerns of any fundamentalist Christians who might be in his class by going out of his way to say that it's "only" a theory and that his objective was not to force them to believe it but, rather, to understand it.

I had already left Christianity behind me at the time. I was already an agnostic. But I respected him greatly for doing that.

[Chizzang]

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

[JohnStOnge]

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.

[MSUDuo]

What is evolution called again? A theory or a law?

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 you can prove one of them

[JohnStOnge]

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.

[JohnStOnge]

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.

[youngterrier]

What is evolution called again? A theory or a law?

it doesn't matter, laws pertain to the interaction of one or two phenomenon, while a theory is an explanation of multiple phenomenon. Laws are parts of theories, while theories can't be parts of laws.