FreeHovind - So sad but that is Creationism

Home Petition Watch Download Info Forum

Home Content Submit

Home > Content > Creation and Evolution > Discussion: So sad but that is Creationism

So sad but that is Creationism

40 Comments - 5307 Views

Submitted By ben on 09/03/12

Hovindisaninny

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/creationists_in_denial.php

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 40 Replies

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/12 - 5:52 GMT

Nothing wrong with believing in an old earth. There's just no evidence for it, just speculation.

rationalist (ben)

3 days - 3,596v

Posted 2009/03/12 - 13:11 GMT

Again with your fingers in your ears and the "I know you are but what am I" retort.

You know that all evidence points to the Earth being billions of years old. If it is not then God must have specifically created a planet to have such evidence. Why is God being deceitful?

The truly bad thing is the fact that you have people going to a university and instead of learning science they are simply parroting what they have been told. They obviously don't understand how to think critically.

"A rat?" exclaimed Amanda Runions, a 21-year-old biochemistry major, when she saw the model of a morganucodon, a rodent-like ancient mammal that curators have dubbed Grandma Morgie. "All this hype for a rat? You're expecting, like, at least an ape."

She expected the earliest mammal to be an ape. She is getting a science degree and that doesn't send a chill up your spine? Well I guess it wouldn't bother you.

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/12 - 17:21 GMT

Boooooooooooooooring. I heard all of your arguments before. I spent a few months researching your best arguments. There's no hard evidence for evolution just speculation.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/03/12 - 18:41 GMT

somehow bigdog i doubt you even receareced our best argument.

and would you please name that |"best argument".

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/03/17 - 0:38 GMT

I heard all of your arguments before. I spent a few months researching your best arguments.

And by "months of research," I'm guessing you mean that you spent a few days reading sources of Christian apologetics that described tactics to use when arguing against "evolutionists."

There's no hard evidence for evolution just speculation.

As opposed to creationism, which doesn't even have enough "soft" evidence to convince a court of law (at least, not in Pennsylvania).

Kevin Lyon (physicist)

1 day - 1,877v

Posted 2009/03/12 - 19:23 GMT

Well...there is also massive direct evidence AGAINST a young earth...so...in a way, believeing in a 6000 year old earth is actually less rational than believeing in santa clause or zombies.

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/13 - 5:08 GMT

And you still believe we come from monkey creatures. How sad.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/03/13 - 7:40 GMT

and again bigdog, you evade to elaborate on how tha isn't possible.

Joe (epiclolguy)

1 day - 1,984v

Posted 2009/03/16 - 20:19 GMT

bigdog's best argument: "Boooooooooooring!"

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/03/17 - 0:42 GMT

But wouldn't that make him...

....

... a SCOFFER?!?!?! (dramatic "dunt-dunt-DUN" musical queue goes here)

bigdog

4 days - 5,621v

Posted 2009/03/18 - 16:18 GMT

I think it's because I've heard all the best arguments for evolution and they are weak. I also have a life outside of this forum unlike many of you.

Joe (epiclolguy)

1 day - 1,984v

Posted 2009/03/18 - 21:02 GMT

Oooooh Burn!!!

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/03/18 - 21:03 GMT

haha, it thinks that when it has loses discussions that is only automatically has a life, and that is only has to discredit to win ^^

how cute!!

but srly, ad hominem, and a bad one at that.

and can you specify exactly WHAT arguments you found weak. i'd be happy to better explain them, if you misunderstood them.^^

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/04/11 - 3:44 GMT

I also have a life outside of this forum unlike many of you.

Aww, did someone find themselves a copy of "Internet Flaming For Dummies"? That's just adorable.

You're not quite doing it right, though - it seems that you left off the standard "you're a nerd who lives in his parent's basement" suffix. Oh, and be sure to bookend your (oh, let's call them) insults with "LOL" - everyone knows that's the most effective way to demonstrate your wit.

Jack (Jinglemuck)

38 minutes - 24v

Posted 2009/04/11 - 3:02 GMT

Hey you evolutionists. I am a creationist, and I realize that bigdog is probably the worst debater. I hope he becomes an evolutionist because then that theory will go to shreds. But anyway, you are right when you say that things point to an older earth. However, do not think that creationists don't believe the earth can be old. I do. It is only the Hovind fanatics that are hung up on the 6,000 year old earth maximum. I allow flexibility there. I did quite a bit of research on the age of the earth, studying the half-lives of elements and so forth, but there seems to be slight problems that were omitted from the results. For example, in one such test the result was something like 15 million years. However, the decaying of the element would have sped up if argon gas was present. Now how does anyone know if argon was present at one time? No one was there. I know this isn't proof for much but the evidence for evolution is not rock hard. I am not saying that the earth isn't 4.6 billion years old, I am saying that I don't believe it is and I regard it as unlikely. However, anyone who has studied science knows how weird it can be, and shouldn't totally rule out the possibility of an old earth.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/11 - 10:02 GMT

PS: we still have thermodynamics, cosmology, stellar formation and planet formation to bakc up and old earth. not to mention reverse evolution (it's not the only source :P), strata formation, radiometric dating (all of them and from uncontaminated sources, citing anomolies is misleading) and of course we still have the geolographical formation, coupled with palte techtonics. all to suppoort a very "old" earth formed by natural porcesses.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/04/11 - 15:48 GMT

However, do not think that creationists don't believe the earth can be old. I do.

I suspect everyone here is aware of the existence of Old Earth Creationism, Theistic Evolution, etc - especially since those are much more common than the fringe belief of Young Earth Creationism.

Now how does anyone know if argon was present at one time?

While it's within the realm of possibility, I'm not aware of any evidence indicating that argon gas actually was present. Possibility is not the same thing as likelihood.

I know this isn't proof for much but the evidence for evolution is not rock hard.

Evidence of evolution is not necessarily contingent on the age of the earth - from what I remember, the Earth was thought to be about 100 million years old in Darwin's time.

However, anyone who has studied science knows how weird it can be, and shouldn't totally rule out the possibility of an old earth.

Of course. Anyone familiar with the proper practice of science knows that all theories are provisional, no matter how much evidence there is to support them - if there is still active scientific study of something, then it is (by definition) not fully-understood.

That said, the methods used to estimate the Earth's age have steadily become more sophisticated, the estimates have steadily become more precise & refined - all of which leads to increased confidence that the "4.54 billion years" estimate is correct.

By contrast, there is very little evidence pointing to a young Earth. And it certainly doesn't inspire confidence in that claim when most of the arguments used in support rely on oversimplifications or outright ignorance of scientific data.

It comes down to the good 'ol "null hypothesis" - in science, claims unaccompanied by evidence are assumed to be false.

Jack (Jinglemuck)

38 minutes - 24v

Posted 2009/04/11 - 3:30 GMT

Just to add to my last post, my argument is not that of a young earth but of intelligent design. And there is proof against this. I would talk about them but I don't think I would do them credit. However, if you get a chance, please watch 'Unlocking the Mysteries of Life'. It is incredible.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/11 - 9:58 GMT

aah and ID old earth supporter! lets have a look at what you have to say. inconsitancies with radio metric dating doesn't porve earth was old ...and doesn provide evidence for..evolutioN!?> ehm just in a way it doesn't because it onyl gives a time frame, but evolution doesn't "require" a long time. the speciation and diversity of life from a single commen ancestor.. THAT does but that isn't what evolution actually is.

now i understand that you might know what it is and that you are actually argueing against the "single celled common ancestor to all life" hypothesis, or theory (i forgot it's position right now in the community...)

but before i go on, i would like you to explain what the theory of evolution is, as you understand it. as that would make it a lot easier on both of us. (btw IRC ARGMUMENTS ARE a fallacy, they ony apply to a specific function, not to any function, which is what the arguemtn SHOULD apply to if it is to be valid.)

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/04/11 - 18:57 GMT

Hey Jack, I watched about half of that video that you mentioned (Unlocking the Mysteries of Life) and from what I saw I was less than impressed. Here are the 2 major mistakes I noticed:

1. They focus heavily on Darwin, and fail to mention the modern evolution research that has been done. Don’t get me wrong, Darwin was great. But some of his ideas have been improved tenfold within the last few decades, and it’s not fair to define evolution solely in outdated terms.

2. They use the “irreducible complexity” argument, which is essentially the same as saying, “Hey guys, guess what? I don’t really understand how evolution works.” This argument is a massive fallacy. The explanation is more detailed than I’d like to get into at the moment, but let me know if you want me to elaborate.

Kent Clark (Brothertrucker)

1 day - 1,411v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 2:33 GMT

Actually you and I both know that is not irreducible. It is a very specific theory and the reason they refer so often to Charlie is likely because he is seen as the basis of the theory of evolution. They are certainly not alone in this perception.

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 5:31 GMT

“Actually you and I both know that is not irreducible.”

So you admit that the irreducible complexity argument is a fallacy? Good for you. As for your Darwin comment...yes, Darwin is the basis of the theory, and for that he deserves a lot of credit. But the point is that we’ve come a long way from him comparatively simple explanation of how natural selection works. If you wanted to evaluate the efficiency of modern transportation, you wouldn’t list all the pros and cons of the first steam engine. In the same way, the modern theory of evolution requires modern research to back it up. If you use outdated material, you’re not doing it justice.

Kent Clark (Brothertrucker)

1 day - 1,411v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 8:39 GMT

Your definition of the complex is innacurate. Got it?

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 9:58 GMT

"Your definition of the complex is innacurate. Got it?"

i have good reason to believe this deserves a /facepalm...that is IF you claim that we do not understand the irreducible complexity arguement..

IRC simply states that when you have a mechanism with a specific function, when you remove one part the mechanism does not function and is useless....

and the most commen example is the flagellum.

however this is just plain wrong.

if one part of the mechanism would be removed the mechanism would only lose 1 SPECIFIC function...it could still have a completely usefull other function, which it also could gain from the ommision of parts.

like the bacterial syringe vs the flagellum.

IRC fail on the fact that it only applies to one specific function (like propulsion), which when lost doesn't need to mean death for the organism, or a useless apendidge.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 18:49 GMT

And as usual, you have utterly failed to point out HOW her definition is inaccurate - or provide an accurate definition.

On Usenet, we used to have a stock response for that sort of tactic: "I call bullshit."

Maylon

11 hours - 938v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 12:26 GMT

Who cares how old the earth is? Point is we know nothing, we just think we do. I read the article, very funny.

"When you discover what God can do, you are not impressed by man." I think Kent said that, is he right about every thing? probably not, but he sure got the above quote spot on. It is all double talk and confusion. Just read the comments.People have not a clue. They never will, most anyway.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 16:58 GMT

"Who cares how old the earth is? Point is we know nothing, we just think we do."

oh socrates where would we be without you....

btw this is funny comeign from someone who implies that he DOES know the "Truth".

science in sense "Point is we know nothing, we just think we do.".

science will never claim to have truth. only extremely high certainty.

because if we found the truth. why continue searching?

"Who cares how old the earth is?"

ehm..i do? it's like one of the basic components of the questions. "why are we here?", "how did we get here?" and "where did everythign come from?" which i would like to know more about..but hey, that's just me...

"People have not a clue. They never will, most anyway."

i will never know the truth. (intelectually honest)

""When you discover what God can do, you are not impressed by man."

requires a belief of god as a premise and is basically god of the gaps and appeal to ingorance and moral virtues*

*(humility: humbling yourself by not being "impressed" with men's work, while fawning over "gods work")

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 19:01 GMT

"When you discover what God can do, you are not impressed by man." I think Kent said that, is he right about every thing? probably not, but he sure got the above quote spot on. It is all double talk and confusion. Just read the comments.People have not a clue. They never will, most anyway.

Uh huh.

Funny the way that Creationists and other fundamentalists love to repeat those bits of empty rhetoric and hyperbole - yet they almost always fall silent or bow out of the conversation when challenged to provide simple, verified (or even verifiable) examples.

Fortunately, not everyone is so intellectually-handicapped. Otherwise, for example, the fancy device that you're using to read and post to this forum would never have come to exist.

Isabella (WWDD)

12 hours - 1,085v

Posted 2009/04/12 - 19:14 GMT

“Your definition of the complex is innacurate. Got it?”

No, I’d say it’s entirely accurate. Would you care to enlighten me with your more accurate definition though?

Maylon

11 hours - 938v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 0:25 GMT

"" fancy device ""

Very Funny, you guys are hysterical

Kent Clark (Brothertrucker)

1 day - 1,411v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 1:37 GMT

Actually 325s definition is correct as far as it goes. If you cant see a difference between his definition and yours you have a problem. What is the mother tongue here because there is no understanding of english? Between the 3 of you you could not come up with a thought. The only reason 325 got it right is because he read his answer. You should all try to read your answers from reputable sources it would save you so much embarrasment.

And get off of Maylons case she or he (not sure sorry don't recognize the name as feminine or masculine, perhaps you will tell us.)is as entitled to her opinion as you are. You show no signs of cornering the market on knowledge and you look plain stupid when you seek to compare yourself with the inventors of the computer. Ill tell you what if scientific discovery is going to lead to having to discuss things with people who treat other people less then human let the sane ones just believe Maylon and call it a day because what spews out of your guys mouths would get a grade 2 student writing lines.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 9:37 GMT

"Actually 325s definition is correct as far as it goes."

so you agree then that the entire IRC agrument only hold up under veeeery specific sircumstances. (only losing A function an not function)

and so actually cannot be considered a good arguement for it's narrowness.

*notice you stil haven't given YOUR correct definition of complexity.

" The only reason 325 got it right is because he read his answer."

no because i know wtf the arguemtn is meanto for and why id doesn't stand up as a strong arguemtent for after a little scrutiny. miller debunking the mousetrap any1?

"Ill tell you what if scientific discovery is going to lead to having to discuss things with people who treat other people less then human"

2 things.

1)wtf kind of scientific advance will knowing that "organisms had a designer" bring? i don;t see us calling the designer to make us some new animals as likely...

2) we don't treat you less then human, we treat you just like the closeminded irrational humans that you are. closemindedness and irrationality arr quite common human characteristics btw, maybe because the served a little to increase survival rate in a practical world where didn't have to worry about knowing how the world works.

Kent Clark (Brothertrucker)

1 day - 1,411v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 18:00 GMT

Yea very specific circumstances like every cell in the body. buy a dictionary so you wont have to continually embarras yourself by asking for simple definitions.

The 3rd paragraph cannot be made out at all. The rest is the ramblings of an obvious insane person. Take a pill.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/13 - 19:34 GMT

"The 3rd paragraph cannot be made out at all. The rest is the ramblings of an obvious insane person. Take a pill."

tell me how knowign we were design advance science. and what applications will it yield. thats all.

"Yea very specific circumstances like every cell in the body"

you might want to reconsider that. as there are myriad's of ways cells without certain part or with new parts can function.

how do you otherswise explain the huge difference between perons in the MHC protiens coating our cells. or explain the survial of albino people?

thats a part that didn't work?

but all of this is indeed (yet again rambling)

as the IRC claim Behe made was:

"composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity (OH! biased wiki)

THAT claim was however, whosn to be false. EG: Behe was shown the example of the bacterial "syringe" which comprised of the same proteins that make up the bacterial flagellum yet lacked a few. however the body part stil functioned great. just not like a motor, but like a syringe.

so Behe's IRC claim is bunk.

or better yet,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieKDLtrBXs0

that's just another simplification that even the speficic IRC claim might not hold up either.

maby removing 3 of the 40 parts might still make it keep the motor function, just in a different way? lets go and test that.TO THE LAB!!

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 2:19 GMT

The 3rd paragraph cannot be made out at all. The rest is the ramblings of an obvious insane person. Take a pill.

Once again: Pot > Kettle > Black.

325 has stated before that English is not his first language. What's your excuse?

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 2:18 GMT

And get off of Maylons case she or he (not sure sorry don't recognize the name as feminine or masculine, perhaps you will tell us.)is as entitled to her opinion as you are.

And...? Of course Maylon is entitled to his/her opinion. But that doesn't mean that opinions can't be challenged - an opinion is only as good as the argument that you can offer in support of it.

If you can't - or won't - support your opinions, and if you can't stand having it challenged, then you are perfectly free to keep your opinions to yoruself.

Ill tell you what if scientific discovery is going to lead to having to discuss things with people who treat other people less then human let the sane ones just believe Maylon and call it a day because what spews out of your guys mouths would get a grade 2 student writing lines.

....what?

ENGLISH, Brothertrucker. DO. YOU. SPEAK. IT?

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 2:12 GMT

Very Funny, you guys are hysterical

Only if you're easily amused.

Kent Clark (Brothertrucker)

1 day - 1,411v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 5:38 GMT

What you call challenges sci are all to often character assasinations because someone does not agree with you. If 325 has a problem with the language he shouldnt be using those tactics and neither should we but I am getting a little tired of the superior attitudes of people who only understand incomplete theories and present them as the answer to everything. A theory is just a theory and with all the wrong information I am getting from this page it is real hard to correlate that to knowledge of a theory. Theres a world out there. This theory only relates to a small part of that. Take off your blinders.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 8:50 GMT

"This theory only relates to a small part of that."

yes, it does. that small part about how life can start in simple organism and evolve on to become more diverse and "complex".

"A theory is just a theory"

reading your entire post again makes me wonder...do you know the significance of what a theory is? you seam to imply that it is not that special adn fits only into the "educated guess" category. indeed someone who has only psychology as an science afiliated major might thing of it that way. but any scientist or science minded person would recognize the signiciace of "it's just a theory". a theory explain how somethign works.

the theory of evolution gives a tested, evidence supported, explaination , just to give an example, of how we evolved from "lesser" organism into what we currently are. with it's tools of the trade, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift and well... you porbably know the rest as you are so "well aware" of all the theories and their content out there...

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2009/04/14 - 8:54 GMT

"What you call challenges sci are all to often character assasinations because someone does not agree with you."

often? well if they are supported by arguements they are valid are it not?

like saying bigdog is dishonest when he keep claiming he exposed me in the "lie" of proving (with math) that his supporting article was inconsistant. and when he his only response had been:

"HA! i exposed you in another lie. i saw that exact same calculation on an old earth website"

so EITHER that was an entire calculation that he did to porve that i miscalculated my "math proof" OR he was just dodging the issue with a lame excuse....again...

" If 325 has a problem with the language he shouldnt be using those tactics"

those tactics being what?

logic?

math?

or mocking someone because of their poor spelling and grammar?

because i do the first 2, but not the latter. that would be you who does that.

and unless math on logic MUST require correct spelling and grammar for them to be valid arguements. i don't get the point that you are making.

ignoring arguement>bashes spelling>discredits persons credebility> ad hominem

logic?

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 40 Replies