Silly creationism arguements

This is good for a laugh:

http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13279

Some of the people are really twisting science (as if they understand it in the first place) to "Prove" creationism.

My favorite is the poster who seems to confuse evolution with astronomy and geology.

The wackos seem to be in the majority. I hope the few with intelligence are not beaten down.

[espritch]

Hi Martha and welcome to the JREF.

You shouldn't be at all surprised to find Creationists confusing evolution with astronomy and geology. Creationists use evolution as a catch all for all aspects of science that conflict with their dogma. Thus abiogenesis, the big bang, radiometric dating techniques, the geological column, etc, are all subsumed under the heading evolution, which they believe to be conspiracy by evil atheistic scientist to mislead good Christians and make them doubt the truth of their holy book. There are a couple of regular creationist posters over on the Bad Astronomy bulletin board who even repudiate heliocentrism and claim that the Earth is the center of the universe and everything else in the cosmos spins around it. As far as I can tell, they are dead serious.

Creationists would all be simply amusing if it weren’t for the fact that they keep trying to foist this nonsense off in public schools as if it were legitimate science. As it is, they are a real threat to science education in this country.

[Jon_in_london]

hello Martha!

From the link:

"GOD said it

BANG

IT HAPPENED!!"

Damn!! guess I was wrong all this time then!


:rolleyes:

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Martha
This is good for a laugh:

I thought it was my place to occassionally make a creationist argument on this board, but I can't top those guys. They're serious! I feel like the class clown who just met Chris Rock. :(

[fidiot]

"Creation Scientists", as they are referred, are able to prove everything in the Bible is true! Based on not only scientific findings, but what God says in the Bible.

Notice their priorities :D

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by fidiot

"Creation Scientists", as they are referred, are able to prove everything in the Bible is true! Based on not only scientific findings, but what God says in the Bible.

Notice their priorities :D

Call me stupid, but isn't this circular? They are able to prove the bible is true based on what is said in the bible?

This is the variation of the "argument from the assumption that god is real." If you assume that god exists, you can make a lot of claims about the existence of god.

In this case, they are going to assume that the bible is true, and then use what's in the bible to prove that it is true.

I can't believe they can be so blatently stupid.

[Soapy Sam]

-I can't believe they can be so blatently stupid.

Aha! The old Argument from Personal Incredulity! :D
This is unacceptable as a logical debating device. I therefore accuse you of being wrong. Or right for the wrong reasons. Or right.
Whatever. One of those anyway.
It's in the Bible.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
-I can't believe they can be so blatently stupid.

Aha! The old Argument from Personal Incredulity! :D
This is unacceptable as a logical debating device. I therefore accuse you of being wrong. Or right for the wrong reasons. Or right.
Whatever. One of those anyway.
It's in the Bible.

Of course, that is my argument for why they must be dishonest.

OK, I'll admit. My argument that they are dishonest is based on a faulty, "personal incredulity" argument.

I could be wrong. Maybe they just are really that stupid?

[shanek]

The title of this thread is a redundancy.

[Ladewig]

My favorite part was the post that described one of sciences greatest assets as evidence that science should not be trusted:

It is important to note that back in the 1940's, college students were taught, as fact, that the earth and the universe were two billion years old—and this was verified by several independent methods that gave the same date. Now students are taught that the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old! This shows, clearly, that the scientific method in relation to the past has problems! Scientists should approach this issue cautiously, recognizing their own limitations.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by shanek
The title of this thread is a redundancy.
You can say that again!

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
-I can't believe they can be so blatently stupid.

Why can't you? Must you disbelieve everything, Soapy Sam?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by shanek
The title of this thread is a redundancy.

Redundancy?

Educate me..


It raises the question, of where would I find some creationism arguments that aren't silly,
but the term for that type of word approximation is escaping me at the moment..

Is it ' oxymoron ' ?

[fidiot]

Isn't this thread supposed to be in R&P forum anyway?

[fishbob]

The creationists are not all as simple as those shown above. Below is an excerpt from a discussion with an Intelligent Design proponent (ID is the new and improved Creationism).

quote:
"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. "

However, you must recognize that in historical sciences where experiments are "inappropriate" as discussed by Ernst Mayr, the only way to "test" an historical hypothesis [what caused a particular event to occur] is to postulate multiple competing hypotheses and then seek to rule out all but the hypothesis to be tested via the evidence. This is essentially Dembski's
method of design detection. It requires the ruling out of natural causes for the patterns. If they can not be ruled out by the evidence, then a design inference is not warranted. This is not the case with the evolutionary hypothesis, becuase it does not seek to rule out the only competing hypothesis - design theory. Regardless of all the excuses for not considering the evidence, in the final analysis, it remains untested by experiment and by a sucessful ruling out of the only competing hypothesis.]
-----------------------------
Still bogus but it takes longer to wade through the argument.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Redundancy?

Yes. All creationist arguments are silly, being based on nothing more than personal beliefs and the ignoring of valid experimental data.

Is it ' oxymoron ' ?

No, oxymoron is when the two terms are contradictary.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by shanek


Yes. All creationist arguments are silly, being based on nothing more than personal beliefs and the ignoring of valid experimental data.



No, oxymoron is when the two terms are contradictary.

O.K..
I just never thought of a single unnecessary adjective as being redundant.. Superfluous, maybe...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by fidiot
Isn't this thread supposed to be in R&P forum anyway?

It should be moved there, once a majority of posters agree that Creation Science ( there's your oxymoron ) is not.. ( Science )

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by fidiot
Isn't this thread supposed to be in R&P forum anyway?

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

I suggest worrying about things that are worth worrying about.

[jj]

Oxymoron: Honest Politician...

Tautology: Silly creationism

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I just never thought of a single unnecessary adjective as being redundant.. Superfluous, maybe...

Mmm...maybe.

[SFB]

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.

[fidiot]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


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

I suggest worrying about things that are worth worrying about.

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

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by fidiot


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
That's because it is creation science. Praise Jesus!

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by fidiot


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

[espritch]

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.

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.

[fidiot]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

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

But they involve god, don't they? The point is that their arguments rely on religion first, science second.

[sadluxation]

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.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by espritch
In Darwin's Black Box I claimed that....The real problem with Dembinsky’s hypothesis is... Wasn't that Michael Behe?

[sadluxation]

San Mateo County Times Online (http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11268~1184578,00.html)

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....

[UnrepentantSinner]

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.) :)

[Wayne Grabert]

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:
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.

[espritch]

Wasn't that Michael Behe?

D'hoa! (sound of forehead slapping) :(

[rwald]

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."

[Wayne Grabert]

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.

[Peter Soderqvist]

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

[rwald]

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 (http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies). Definitely worth a visit.

[UnrepentantSinner]

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/

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Wow! I figured Hovind was such old hat that my comment might warrent a knowing chuckle but no replies.

When you repent, Sinner, then we will laugh with you. ;)

[rwald]

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.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 questionSo, 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.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.

[dave8888]

Originally posted by Martha
This is good for a laugh:

http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13279

Some of the people are really twisting science (as if they understand it in the first place) to "Prove" creationism.

My favorite is the poster who seems to confuse evolution with astronomy and geology.

The wackos seem to be in the majority. I hope the few with intelligence are not beaten down.

Unfortunately I think it is the case that the "wackos" are in the majority. It is for this reason that I am glad that Randi and others are paying attention to the issues of pseudo-science and magical thinking that abound. Unfortunately I feel that this is an uphill struggle. Especially when the media glorifies all kinds of nonsense just to get ratings. Skeptical voices are given little airtime while even channels like the "History" channel and Discovery channel present "documentaries" on ghosts and alien abuductions. When this is mixed in with the sometimes excellent programming they produce, its hard for the general public to sort out whats credible.

What the media seems to be missing, is that the real universe is actually far more interesting than the fake one portayed by the wackos. Just for one example consider a recent book "Strange Matters" by Tom Siegfried, a great book about the frontiers of particle physics. What's in there is quite dramatic and surprising, and its exciting real hardcore science that could be portrayed on TV.

Of course education is a major problem. If people don't even know what evolution is, its easy to give into things like creationism.

Also at fault are many in the scientific community. Many scientists would rather just get on with their lives rather than deal with all the nonsense that proliferates through the culture. But by not facing pseudo-science and superstition head on, they end up winning by default.

As an example, a couple years ago a creationist (with a PhD) was going to go on the radio. I asked some scientists I knew at a local university if one of them would go on to offer a different viewpoint. They said they didn't want to bother with such a circus. So what happened? The creationist guy went on by himself and was able to present his views to the public unchallenged, backed up by his "credentials".

Luckily there are a few scientists speaking out (the Bad Astronomer is one good example), but the magnitude of the problem is so large that much more effort is needed.

The United States seems to be far more religious than most developed countries. I have often wondered how this impacts the general publics beleifs. Do they have the same battles with creationsim in places like say France or Australia?

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by dave8888

Do they have the same battles with creationsim in places like say France or Australia?

In Finland, nothing, zip, nada.

[pupdog]

I don't know about Finland, but Australia, Turkey, and other places. Also (I forget where I saw this), I think in India, some scientists are a bit miffed because of some Hindu-based creationist efforts.

The silly arguements that show a total misunderstanding of how things work are mostly just comical and of little consequence--what's considerably more troublesome is when educated persons, such as those involved in the "Wedge" strategy, push to convince folks that science is basically flawed and ought to be revolutionized on a theological basis.

[ntech]

Oh Brother!

[rwald]

Actually, I'm currently having a debate here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14385) with hammegk about creationism. As should not surprise those of you who know hammegk, he is opposed to evolution. So, if you want to see some real silly creationist arguments, just hop on over!

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rwald
As should not surprise those of you who know hammegk, he is opposed to evolution. And so far he's succeeded! :D

[Batman]

What about separation between church and state?
quote:
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.
Rwald posted:
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...

Actually, the real problem with that letter is not the first amendment but it's the fact that it's a fabrication. Jefferson's letter to the DANBURY baptists has nothing in it about "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." You will notice that Jefferson's actual quote is in quotation marks but the added part does not have tham. These types of lies are common with people who want to break down the wall but have no historical principle to stand on. So they must create one. The nice thing about debunking this lie is that it's so easy to do. The letter is on line at loc.gov - the library of congress website.

[pupdog]

And one of the silliest Creationist arguments of all, commonly used by politicians, is "Well, let's be fair and teach both alternatives, and let the children decide."

[espritch]

A few weeks ago I got one of those “You should read this” type emails. It was purportedly written by some 87 year old former Nun and went on about how America is a Christian nation. I couldn’t help but wonder what she would have thought about the Jack Chick strip showing how Catholicism is a false version of Christianity. Most of the “Christian Nation” types don’t seem to understand that separation of Church and State protects the faithful from religious persecution as much as it protects the non religious.

[fishbob]

And one of the silliest Creationist arguments of all, commonly used by politicians, is "Well, let's be fair and teach both alternatives, and let the children decide."
How's about we teach the scientific method and critical thinking in the schools, with discussions of both evolution and creationism?

Evolution has a huge body of supporting evidence. Creationism has a huge body of argle-bargle nonsense for support.

Those who have made up their minds already will not be influenced. Those who want to learn will have a great opportunity.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by pupdog
And one of the silliest Creationist arguments of all, commonly used by politicians, is "Well, let's be fair and teach both alternatives, and let the children decide." We should then also include the Hindu version of creation and those from many other cultures. I'm sure those Bible-thumpers will think that's fair. Aren't they known for being fair and open-minded and tolerant of competing ideas? Still, there is the nagging issue of teaching non-science in a science class. Hmmm. Maybe we could make it part of the physical education curriculum.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Hmmm. Separation of Church and State? In Finland there is a place for religion in our curriculum: from elementary to junior high. We have a Christian Democratic party in our parliament. We don't have creationists.
Am I missing something here?

[ntech]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
Hmmm. Separation of Church and State? In Finland there is a place for religion in our curriculum: from elementary to junior high. We have a Christian Democratic party in our parliament. We don't have creationists.
Am I missing something here?

Yes, The diversity of America.

It make things more difficult.

[neutrino_cannon]

Got a creationist question regarding the age of the earth that I can't find anywhere else. Here goes:

"If the earth is so old, why don't the oceans have higher saline content?"

Have the oceans slowly gained in saline content? or is there some sort of salt reuptake I'm unaware of. Is the accumulation of slat in the ocean slow enough that the worldwide salt content what we would expect? Any help here would be goo, it's the only one I can't answer to, and that can get sticky with creationists (despite their inability to answer my questions).

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Got a creationist question regarding the age of the earth that I can't find anywhere else. Here goes:

"If the earth is so old, why don't the oceans have higher saline content?"

Have the oceans slowly gained in saline content? or is there some sort of salt reuptake I'm unaware of. Is the accumulation of slat in the ocean slow enough that the worldwide salt content what we would expect? Any help here would be goo, it's the only one I can't answer to, and that can get sticky with creationists (despite their inability to answer my questions).


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof24

[Penrich]

Originally posted by espritch
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.

A page I like for addressing "Irreducible Complexity" and the bacterial flagellum is this one. (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html)

Do those car-guys who rail on against scientists not realize that the engineers who developed their carbourettors are also scientists? To me, that discussion was an excellent demosntration of why science, critical thought and evolution need to be taught in schools.

BTW Hi everyone! I've been lurking a while, but decided to join the fray. My first post :)

[arcticpenguin]

Welcome, Penrich.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof24


Ah-ha! I did a search for "ocean salinity" at talkorigins.org, but did not think to look up salt (duh)! Couldn't see where they mentioned the removal mechanism, but what the heck. neutrino_cannon 1, creationism, 0.

Why would anyone think that the complexity of a flagellum is irreducable? Even the most refined of these structures is understandable, and the complexity is obviously not "irreducable" because there is genetic code for it!

Furthermore, very complex sequences can be defined with a very few lines of language, look at the fibinachi sequence. DNA is long, plenty of room for very complex patterns of construction. Give or take a few billion years of evolution (for bacterial flaggelates anyway), and you've got yourself a tail!

[Penrich]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Why would anyone think that the complexity of a flagellum is irreducable? Even the most refined of these structures is understandable, and the complexity is obviously not "irreducable" because there is genetic code for it!

Furthermore, very complex sequences can be defined with a very few lines of language, look at the fibinachi sequence. DNA is long, plenty of room for very complex patterns of construction. Give or take a few billion years of evolution (for bacterial flaggelates anyway), and you've got yourself a tail!

But the DNA, according to the ID people (not me) is made by God (or "the Designer"), and changed by that same Designer for whatever purpose he/she/it sees fit. The flagellum (or bacteria's outboard motor) could not be made by natural selection since half an outboard motor is no use to anybody. There is (they claim) not evidence of any scafold or alternate uses for any of the pieces. However, it comes down to an argument of personal incredulity/ignorance. The base of the flagellum appears to have been recruited from the type three secretory system, and hence the complexity has been reduced.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Penrich


But the DNA, according to the ID people (not me) is made by God (or "the Designer"), and changed by that same Designer for whatever purpose he/she/it sees fit.

The current evidence indicates that DNA was invented by RNA and proteins.

[zakur]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
The current evidence indicates that DNA was invented by RNA and proteins. 'RNA and the Proteins' is the greatest rock group ever! Their first album, 'Transcription,' is a classic.

[Penrich]

originally posted by rwaldquote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, the unicorn was a triceratops? I guess that explains the whole "the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs" thing...

You'll find that UNICORN is only in the King James Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?searchpage=0&SearchWholeWords=&restrict=&StartRestrict=&EndRestrict=&rpp=25&search=unicorn&SearchType=unicorn&language=english&version=KJV&x=15&y=11). The others, it would appear, translate the word as "OX". I don't know what the original word is, but it seems interesting that the KJV would use one word and all the rest use a different one.

As a follower of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, it behooves (sic) me to find out if She really makes a cameo in the Bible...

[Penrich]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

The current evidence indicates that DNA was invented by RNA and proteins.
Since I am new here, and to avoid any possibility of confusion, I will point out that I DO NOT accept Intelligent Design. I was just elaborating on one more of the "Silly creationism arguements". Personally, I like Cairns-Smith's (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521398282/qid=1046286026/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-1237153-3257632?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) theory of clay as the original template.

[arcticpenguin]

The clay hypothesis goes even further than the RNA World hypothesis, but there is little evidence to support it, and no clear path to such evidence. It is possible that we may never know about the ultimate origin of life on this planet.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon



Ah-ha! I did a search for "ocean salinity" at talkorigins.org, but did not think to look up salt (duh)! Couldn't see where they mentioned the removal mechanism, but what the heck. neutrino_cannon 1, creationism, 0.

Why would anyone think that the complexity of a flagellum is irreducable? Even the most refined of these structures is understandable, and the complexity is obviously not "irreducable" because there is genetic code for it!

Furthermore, very complex sequences can be defined with a very few lines of language, look at the fibinachi sequence. DNA is long, plenty of room for very complex patterns of construction. Give or take a few billion years of evolution (for bacterial flaggelates anyway), and you've got yourself a tail!

I have a weak analogy in response to the ID mousetrap IC argument, but since the ID version is weak as well, I'll share it anyway.

Evolution of the mousetrap.

- Step one, a piece of wood is laid out there a mouse might trip over it or get a splinter and bleed to death. Not very effective, but better than nothing.

- A nail is hammered through the board and placed sharp side up. More effective than possible splinters, but still low in efficacy.

- A piece of cheese is placed on the board with the nail in it. Bait increases efficacy.

- A small box is held up by the nail increasing the chance that the mouse might be injured or trapped. Further increase in efficacy.

- The nail is replaced by a stick with a rope that is tied to the cheese. Loss of injury efficacy, increase in capture efficacy.

- Box and stick replaced with spring loaded trap. The mousetrap has evolved to it's current form.

Remove any of the current compenents - base, spring, trigger or arm and the current mousetrap has zero efficacy, but it's predecessors all had varying levels of effectiveness.

Like I said, it's pretty weak, but the original ID argument is weak too. :)

[pupdog]

Complexity? How about self-organization of inanimate objects, from patterned ground (recent article in Science) to climate systems. Eventually, people began to solve how these things formed.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
The clay hypothesis goes even further than the RNA World hypothesis, but there is little evidence to support it, and no clear path to such evidence. It is possible that we may never know about the ultimate origin of life on this planet.

Bottom of the sea, with high degrees of heat, seems to be the starting point. The oldest and most "basic" type of bacteria and archaea are the kind of life that survive in those conditions. Hyperthermofiles. I have a book about it, but alas, in Finnish.

Edit: why have books when the Internet is around http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/archaea/archaea.html