Along came a "creationist"

[Mendeli]

On another forum, I stumbled upon what I would call a creationist. I would like to debate but I don't know where to start, don't properly understand his english and I don't know all the facts. I'm here looking for help and input.

It started with:


To be honest i have seen more evidence for creation than for evolution.


someone asked

Such as?



At that point I went on my mocking gear and kind of guessed his reasoning had to do with some animal excrement, which was probably a mistake on my part, since he went on with:





1. Geologicly on one layer of the earth life suddenly appeared acording to fossils(dont believe me look it up)

2.even if you consider evolution true where the [rule 8] did the matter come from

3.carbon dating IS effected by watter experiments have been done the theory and/or method IS flawed

4.Consistency of the Bible is to consistent to be inacurate(http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Psalm+22&version1=31)
{read 12-18} This is a form of anciant Roman execution the crucifiction, doctors, scientists say that this matches exactly what would hapen if you were to be crucified(some not believers) around 200 years before romans invented it.

5.I am not only stuborn but well educated I could post hundreds more if you want me to pm me or post it, I am a little touchy when people mock this matter.
(quote edited by me to remove offensive language)

So where should I start debating him? What is he talking about with regards to his claims #1 and #3?

[Zep]

As usual, the answers to his inane theories take a lot more than just saying "No, you're wrong, you IDIOT!".

So I would first ask him to provide the evidence to support his theories. You don't need to disprove them - he's the one making the claims!

The answers are:

1) True to a certain extent. Microbiological organisms such as those proposed as the initial life-forms on Earth would not be expected to fossilise too well in sandstone! Nor to survive billions of years of metamorphic geology. Although evidence of them has been found in finer-grain sediments. He really needs to do more than read a Children's Primer of Geology from 1956.

2) Umm, and the point of the question is...???

3) Is that a point he is trying to make? Carbon-dating is only reliable for dates back about 40,000 years. And yes, contamination can affect results. This has always been well-known, so care is needed with samples. VERY simply put, other radioactive decay measurements are used for dates older than that. Different measurements by different methods are independently cross-checked, and there are distinct error-bars used on results appropriately. (The subject of nuclear science is probably too complex for this little mite's brain just now!)

4) So the Bible has a one or two historically accurate descriptions from 2000 years ago! So have many more non-Biblical texts. So what? It also has a plethora of demonstrably wrong conjectures and "facts", and more of them being recognised each day.

5) Aw, widdle bunny! So post them. I suspect he only gets touchy when they get shot down in flames. Do I care?

[Hawk one]

As zep has answered most of this, I'll focus on question 2.

Initially, question 2 is, I assume, asking about how the universe started. Well, we do not know for sure how the universe itself started. Though we have a fairly good idea of when, and more importantly what happened as soon as the processes got started. But still, this is cosmology, not biology.

Anyway, we do know that once the universe got started, then
a) solar systems were eventually created with accordance to the physical laws.
b) About 4,5 billion years, Earth got into shape.
c) As the earth cooled, amino acids started to form. And at one point, one particular combination of such amino acids would have the peculiar ability to make a copy of itself. And so it did. And it did it several times, as did its copies. And some of the copies would have a little change, because the copy function wasn't perfect. And some of the copies had changes for the worse, and quickly died out. But some had changes for the better, such as copying at a higher rate.
And after that, it's mostly a matter of time. A lot of it. Which we've had.


Finally, here is a list for you to peruse in your debate with him. It's called "An Index to Creationist Claims", and I hope it will prove useful to you. It's certainly helped me a lot:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD

[Mr. Scott]

5.I am not only stuborn but well educated I could post hundreds more if you want me to pm me or post it, I am a little touchy when people mock this matter.

Since he mentioned his education, you might observe that his atrocious spelling and grammar suggest he is not as well educated as he claims. Ergo, he's a phony.

[Hawk one]

Though Mr. Scott makes an astute observation, I recommend you stay away from such distractions for now, and focus on the specific claims he's making.

Of course, if he eventually stops making any "new" (quote marks since creationist arguments tend to be the same rehashed ones over and over) arguments whatsoever and basically keeps saying "I've got education!", then feel free to point out that you have little reason to believe that. ;)

[Gravy]

5.I am not only stuborn but well educated I could post hundreds more if you want me to pm me or post it, I am a little touchy when people mock this matter.
If it were my choice I wouldn't debate this person. It sounds like they're threatening to respond to every statement you make with another, "Well, what about THIS?" type of question. Touchy and stubborn? Doesn't sound like fun.

[Mongrel]

If it were my choice I wouldn't debate this person. It sounds like they're threatening to respond to every statement you make with another, "Well, what about THIS?" type of question.

Well Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/) is always a good site to point them to.

[Gr8wight]

So where should I start debating him?

Go bang your head against a brick wall until it gets all mushy. Same effect. Less pain.

[Dr Adequate]

(4) The victims of crucifixion were affixed to the cross by their wrists and ankles, not their hands and feet. The Romans did not invent crucifixion, but copied it from the Carthaginians. The use of crucifixion as a punishment in the Middle East precedes the composition of the Book of Psalms.

What the heck does this have to do with the theory of evolution, anyway?

[I less than three logic]

(4) The victims of crucifixion were affixed to the cross by their wrists and ankles, not their hands and feet. The Romans did not invent crucifixion, but copied it from the Carthaginians. The use of crucifixion as a punishment in the Middle East precedes the composition of the Book of Psalms.

What the heck does this have to do with the theory of evolution, anyway?
Come on Dr. A, simple logic will tell you that if one story in the bible is correct, then all the stories contained within the bible are also correct. Ergo creationism is true. :wink:

However, since the story of the crucifixion is false, I shall apply the same logic to conclude the whole bible is false. Therefore creationism is wrong. Since there are obviously only two possibilities, evolution is true. Well, I’m glad that debate is over. :D

[Rcintron]

Since he mentioned his education, you might observe that his atrocious spelling and grammar suggest he is not as well educated as he claims. Ergo, he's a phony.


This may not be the way to go. Maybe he is well educated in some other language, not english.

[ObscureReferenceMan]

Hawk one - excellent link!

[sat556]

Ask him where his evidence for creation is in those statements. All I see are alleged flaws in evolutionary theory.

[I less than three logic]

Are you suggesting some form of a false dilemma here, sat556? Every ID proponent knows this is an either/or decision. Holes in the theory of evolution are just as good as proof for ID.:rolleyes:

[sat556]

I stand corrected :D

[I less than three logic]

"True, true, true. Except for the lies" - Eddie Izzard
Just noticed your sig. I’m an Izzard fan as well. Have Glorious, Circle, Unrepeatable, and Dressed to Kill on DVD, and I’m hoping Sexy will be out on DVD soon as well. Would like to see him live, but I think its probably unlikely living in the states here.

Eddie Izzard as God on the creation of the dinosaurs (James Mason voice impression) – “I created the world in six days, and on the seventh day, rested. Eighth day I actually rested as well. Ninth day, rested, 'cause I [rule 8]ing had just made a world, you know. Tenth day, rested... actually I rested from then on, really. Fourteenth day I decided to smoke all the marijuana I had created, just to test the first batch. On the fifteenth day I decided to smoke all the opium I had created, just to test the first batch. And on the 309th day I woke up again, and I decided to create 500 huge monsters that I'd seen just the night before.”

Sorry to derail. :D

[sat556]

Lol he's fab isn't he? I have often wondered if the ID crowd fume at him, what with his God putting all the dinosaurs inside stones, and the sitting around for millions of years tapping fingers and humming. He's a sod for picking holes in religion.
If he plays live near you, you must go. I have seen him twice now and both times were so good.

Away from that derail, where is this forum that the creationist has appeared? It might be nice if a few of us popped over there. Just to lurk for a bit, of course ;)

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Geologicly on one layer of the earth life suddenly appeared acording to fossils(dont believe me look it up)
This refers to the "Cambrian Explosion". It occured about 1 billion years ago. It was a sudden (geologically) appearance of life in the fossil record. There aren't many fossils prior to this time. There are several reasons for this: first appearance of hard parts like shells and cartilage and high percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere and in turn in the ocean. Fossil life does occur prior to this point, just not in this prevelence.

Creationists can't reject every other piece of fossil evidence and only hold up this one. If you accept this fossil evidence then, archaopteryx is a bird and a dinosaur. If this is okay fossil evidence then what's wrong with the two dozen fossil australopithecine and homo species? You can't pick and choose like this.

even if you consider evolution true where the fv<k did the matter come from
This just doesn't make sense. He's confused big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution. We don't know what existed prior to the big bang. Abiogenesis came from chemicals that existed on the early earth naturally such as methane and ammonia. Some of the carbon, water, and other chemicals probably came on comets and asteroids. The evolution of larger multicelled organisms obviously means that there was enough material on the earth naturally for these organisms to form. Multicelled organisms are really just complex unicellular colonies with an organismal identity.

carbon dating IS effected by watter experiments have been done the theory and/or method IS flawed

Most fossils aren't carbon dated, the half-life of carbon-14 is too short, we use things like potassium-argon. Carbon dating is used more for archaeologic artifacts, like wood tools and ancient silk. If dating techniques are inaccurate, why do we find no dinosaurs more recent than 65 million years? We have a global deposit of irridium above which there are no dinosaurs, and irridium doesnt occur on the earth naturally so it had to get here from space (the asteroid theory). This layer dates 65 million years all over the world, now that's what I call consistency.

Consistency of the Bible is to consistent to be inacurate(http://bibleresources.bible.com/pass...&version 1=31)
{read 12-18} This is a form of anciant Roman execution the crucifiction, doctors, scientists say that this matches exactly what would hapen if you were to be crucified(some not believers) around 200 years before romans invented it.

Actually despite the thousands of crucifixions performed by the romans, we know next to nothing about how it was done. Were they nailed upside down or sideways, palms vs wrists, some people were possibly even nailed through the penis. The bible is very inaccurate. If there was a global flood in the last 5,000 years we would have significant geologic evidence for it in the form of a uniform deposit that dates consistantly (like the dino-asteroid boundary :D).
The sun is created on the fourth day, after the earth, plants, and days. Human virgins are incapable of giving birth, water is too chemically different from alcohol to change spontaneously, and the hydrogen-bonds of water are not strong enough to hold the weight of a human. The earth isn't flat and the earth revolves around the sun too.

Tell that to the guy. Every point he made was wrong. Evolution occured it is supported by the fossil record, embryology, bone structure, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, and nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. Evolution is the basis of all of modern biology. Abiogenesis is a chemical reality because organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry is the same and all life is chemical in nature. The concept of gradual change over time and the fact that the earth and universe are billions of years old is essential to the entire fields of biology, astronomy, and geology. So, basically by rejecting evolution, abiogenesis, and 4.55 billion years of earth, you are rejecting all of mainstream science. There is no debate about whether or not evolution has occured in the scientific community that debate is purely religious, social, and political.

[Zep]

Cactus, I suspect all that info may come as a BIG SHOCK to the fundie subject of this thread. So big, in fact, his tiny mind will likely collapse. ;)

[Outhere]

Initially the Big Bang--then the Cambrian Explosion--the creator was terribly careless with his Mr. Science Kit.

Anyway, I just wanted to say avoid debating people who cannot express themselves coherently or spell correctly. As someone said, "Never match wits with an unarmed opponent."

[Pardalis]

The universe was «created» 14000 millions years ago, humanity about 200 000 years ago. What the hell God was doing all that time in between?

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

he was making the dinosaurs and other fossil creatures like dimetrodon and pakicetus(whale ancestor).

[Zep]

So where did he get the right glue from? Or did he just knit them...

[Mendeli]

Away from that derail, where is this forum that the creationist has appeared? It might be nice if a few of us popped over there. Just to lurk for a bit, of course ;)

(link to be added here later) but it recently got slashdotted (not related to this issue) so its kind of slow, I wouldn't want to add to the misery by linking there right now. :)

Anyways, so far, it seems the creationist ran away and didnt bother to answer any follow up questions, but if the situation changes, I'll give the direct link to the thread :)

[Dr Adequate]

So where did he get the right glue from? Or did he just knit them... He used Pleistocene!

* hides from angry mob *

[Zep]

He used Pleistocene! :D :roll:
* hides from angry mob *Why? That wonderful response deserves having a drink bought for you!

[drfrank]

Hey, I can't possibly read a thread on Creationism without contributing something ;)

The Cambrian explosion is always a fun one, as any Creationist will try their darndest to give the impression that birds, bats, badgers and bunnies appeared within the space of a week.

In fact, the Cambrian explosion almost exclusively comprised of rudimentary worm-like creatures with the beginnings of a skeleton and lasted about 50-60 million years.

Also, of course, quite a lot of Pre-cambrian fossils have now been found, including (possibly) a Precambrian chordate (http://pharyngula.org/comments/A105_0_1_0_C/) (although I'm not sure whether that's been confirmed or refuted yet).

[Zep]

Oh no, Dr Frank! Those clever Creationists are never ones for letting those pesky FACTS get in the way of "The Truth"!

[screw_dog]

...Human virgins are incapable of giving birth...
*cough* actually... (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3191066&dopt=Abstract)

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Maybe Mary was stabbed after going down on Joseph! That's immaculate to me!!!

[shuize]

Come on Dr. A, simple logic will tell you that if one story in the bible is correct, then all the stories contained within the bible are also correct. Ergo creationism is true. :wink:

However, since the story of the crucifixion is false, I shall apply the same logic to conclude the whole bible is false. Therefore creationism is wrong. Since there are obviously only two possibilities, evolution is true. Well, I’m glad that debate is over. :D

This post reminds me of a conversation I had with a woman I worked with a few years ago:

Her: My sixth grade daughter's class recently debated creationism vs. evolution.

Me: (Thinking this was the set-up for a joke) Oh, really?

Her: Yes. Creationism won.

Me: (Still waiting for the punch line) ... Wait. What?

Her: The kids debated and creationism won.

Me: (Realizing she's serious) Yeah, OK ... Well then I guess that settles that. :rolls eyes:

[Beleth]

So where should I start debating him? What is he talking about with regards to his claims #1 and #3? I like cutting and pasting from the Index of Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/) at talkorigins.org, like I did in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1174821#post1174821).