Silly creationism arguements

13th February 2003, 09:39 PM

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 · 13th February 2003, 10:08 PM

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 · 13th February 2003, 11:20 PM

hello Martha!

From the link:

"GOD said it

BANG

IT HAPPENED!!"

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

Wayne Grabert · 13th February 2003, 11:34 PM

Quote:

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 · 13th February 2003, 11:40 PM

Quote:

"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

pgwenthold · 14th February 2003, 05:27 AM

Quote:

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

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 · 14th February 2003, 05:47 AM

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

Aha! The old Argument from Personal Incredulity!

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 · 14th February 2003, 05:49 AM

Quote:

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

Aha! The old Argument from Personal Incredulity!
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 · 14th February 2003, 07:21 AM

The title of this thread is a redundancy.

Ladewig · 14th February 2003, 07:47 AM

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

Quote:

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 · 14th February 2003, 11:12 AM

Quote:

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

You can say that again!

Wayne Grabert · 14th February 2003, 11:13 AM

Quote:

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 · 14th February 2003, 11:46 AM

Quote:

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 · 14th February 2003, 12:48 PM

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

fishbob · 14th February 2003, 12:51 PM

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 · 14th February 2003, 01:14 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Is it ' oxymoron ' ?

No, oxymoron is when the two terms are contradictary.

Skeptical Greg · 14th February 2003, 01:32 PM

Quote:

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 · 14th February 2003, 01:34 PM

Quote:

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 · 14th February 2003, 01:43 PM

Quote:

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 · 14th February 2003, 05:37 PM

Oxymoron: Honest Politician...

Tautology: Silly creationism

shanek · 14th February 2003, 06:15 PM

Quote:

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

Mmm...maybe.

SFB · 14th February 2003, 06:20 PM

Hi Martha, you got a V-8 Buick???

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 · 15th February 2003, 11:18 AM

Quote:

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

Wayne Grabert · 15th February 2003, 11:23 AM

Quote:

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

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

arcticpenguin · 15th February 2003, 11:23 AM

Quote:

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

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

espritch · 15th February 2003, 12:20 PM

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.

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.

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 · 17th February 2003, 11:12 AM

Quote:

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 · 19th February 2003, 02:18 AM

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 · 19th February 2003, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by espritch

Quote:

In Darwin's Black Box I claimed that....

The real problem with Dembinsky’s hypothesis is...

Wasn't that Michael Behe?

sadluxation · 19th February 2003, 03:23 AM

San Mateo County Times Online

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 · 19th February 2003, 06:04 AM

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 · 19th February 2003, 09:23 AM

Here is an extract from "Dr. Dino's" challenge:

Quote:

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 · 19th February 2003, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Wasn't that Michael Behe?

D'hoa! (sound of forehead slapping)

19th February 2003, 07:29 PM

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 · 19th February 2003, 08:18 PM

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 · 20th February 2003, 03:42 AM

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!

Quote:

"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/CapeCanaver...437/hovind.htm

20th February 2003, 04:57 PM

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. Definitely worth a visit.

UnrepentantSinner · 21st February 2003, 12:05 AM

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 · 21st February 2003, 12:28 AM

Quote:

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.

21st February 2003, 07:13 PM

You're right, US; when I first read through his FAQ, I had trouble ceasing laughter. Here are some choice quotes:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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...

Quote:

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.

13th February 2003, 09:39 PM	#1
Guest Posts: n/a	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.
Guest Posts: n/a

13th February 2003, 10:08 PM	#2
espritch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,380	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.
	__________________ "I'm the master of low expectations." - G. W. Bush

13th February 2003, 11:20 PM	#3
Jon_in_london Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,994	hello Martha! From the link: "GOD said it BANG IT HAPPENED!!" Damn!! guess I was wrong all this time then!
	__________________ Radicals and Racists Don't point your finger at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet Don't need your religion Don't watch that much T.V. Just makin' my livin', baby Well that's enough for me

13th February 2003, 11:34 PM	#4
Wayne Grabert Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 629	Re: Silly creationism arguements Quote: 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.
Wayne Grabert Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 629

13th February 2003, 11:40 PM	#5
fidiot Thinker Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 181	Quote: "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
fidiot Thinker Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 181	__________________ "If the book the Bible and my brain are both the work of the same Infinite God, whose fault is it that the book and my brain do not agree?" - Robert Ingersoll "No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude." - Karl Popper

14th February 2003, 05:27 AM	#6
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,074	Quote: 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 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.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

14th February 2003, 05:47 AM	#7
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	-I can't believe they can be so blatently stupid. Aha! The old Argument from Personal Incredulity! 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.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

14th February 2003, 05:49 AM	#8
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,074	Quote: Originally posted by Soapy Sam -I can't believe they can be so blatently stupid. Aha! The old Argument from Personal Incredulity! 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?
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

14th February 2003, 07:21 AM	#9
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	The title of this thread is a redundancy.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

14th February 2003, 07:47 AM	#10
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,827	My favorite part was the post that described one of sciences greatest assets as evidence that science should not be trusted: Quote: 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.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

14th February 2003, 11:12 AM	#11
Wayne Grabert Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 629	Quote: Originally posted by shanek The title of this thread is a redundancy. You can say that again!
Wayne Grabert Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 629

14th February 2003, 11:13 AM	#12
Wayne Grabert Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 629	Quote: 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?
Wayne Grabert Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 629

14th February 2003, 11:46 AM	#13
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Quote: 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 ' ?
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

14th February 2003, 12:48 PM	#14
fidiot Thinker Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 181	Isn't this thread supposed to be in R&P forum anyway?
fidiot Thinker Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 181	__________________ "If the book the Bible and my brain are both the work of the same Infinite God, whose fault is it that the book and my brain do not agree?" - Robert Ingersoll "No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude." - Karl Popper

14th February 2003, 12:51 PM	#15
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,667	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.
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder "Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist. I hate bigots.

14th February 2003, 01:14 PM	#16
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: 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. Quote: Is it ' oxymoron ' ? No, oxymoron is when the two terms are contradictary.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

14th February 2003, 01:32 PM	#17
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Quote: 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...
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

14th February 2003, 01:34 PM	#18
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Quote: 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 )
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

14th February 2003, 01:43 PM	#19
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,074	Quote: 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.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

14th February 2003, 05:37 PM	#20
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,520	While I wait for FTP to finish... Oxymoron: Honest Politician... Tautology: Silly creationism
	__________________ The Power to Quit

14th February 2003, 06:15 PM	#21
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Quote: Originally posted by Diogenes I just never thought of a single unnecessary adjective as being redundant.. Superfluous, maybe... Mmm...maybe.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

14th February 2003, 06:20 PM	#22
SFB Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 288	Hi Martha, you got a V-8 Buick??? 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.
SFB Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 288

15th February 2003, 11:18 AM	#23
fidiot Thinker Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 181	Quote: 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
fidiot Thinker Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 181	__________________ "If the book the Bible and my brain are both the work of the same Infinite God, whose fault is it that the book and my brain do not agree?" - Robert Ingersoll "No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude." - Karl Popper

15th February 2003, 11:23 AM	#24
Wayne Grabert Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 629	Quote: 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 That's because it is creation science. Praise Jesus!
Wayne Grabert Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 629

15th February 2003, 11:23 AM	#25
arcticpenguin woo ban clan Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,717	Quote: 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 The creationist arguments are really bad science. I don't understand what your point is.
	__________________ The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. - George Bernard Shaw

15th February 2003, 12:20 PM	#26
espritch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,380	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. 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. 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.
	__________________ "I'm the master of low expectations." - G. W. Bush

17th February 2003, 11:12 AM	#27
fidiot Thinker Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 181	Quote: 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.
fidiot Thinker Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 181	__________________ "If the book the Bible and my brain are both the work of the same Infinite God, whose fault is it that the book and my brain do not agree?" - Robert Ingersoll "No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude." - Karl Popper

19th February 2003, 02:18 AM	#28
sadluxation Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: London Posts: 336	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.
	__________________ The World Famous and Award Winning (not to mention, modest) Skeptics in the Pub now on Facebook Nothing is better than homoeopathy!

19th February 2003, 02:55 AM	#29
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Quote: Originally posted by espritch Quote: In Darwin's Black Box I claimed that.... The real problem with Dembinsky’s hypothesis is... Wasn't that Michael Behe?
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

19th February 2003, 03:23 AM	#30
sadluxation Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: London Posts: 336	Evolution theory bonds scientists named Steve San Mateo County Times Online 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....
	__________________ The World Famous and Award Winning (not to mention, modest) Skeptics in the Pub now on Facebook Nothing is better than homoeopathy!

19th February 2003, 06:04 AM	#31
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,363	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.)
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

19th February 2003, 09:23 AM	#32
Wayne Grabert Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 629	Dr. Dino's challenge Here is an extract from "Dr. Dino's" challenge: Quote: 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.
Wayne Grabert Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 629

19th February 2003, 07:13 PM	#33
espritch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,380	Quote: Wasn't that Michael Behe? D'hoa! (sound of forehead slapping)
	__________________ "I'm the master of low expectations." - G. W. Bush

19th February 2003, 07:29 PM	#34
rwald Guest Posts: n/a	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."
rwald Guest Posts: n/a

19th February 2003, 08:18 PM	#35
Wayne Grabert Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 629	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.
Wayne Grabert Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 629