Total Posts:94|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 4:38:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yet again, a good summary of the responses repeated again and again in this forum to try to make creationists understand how piffling their arguments are.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Enjoy
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 9:13:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 4:38:42 AM, Otokage wrote:
Yet again, a good summary of the responses repeated again and again in this forum to try to make creationists understand how piffling their arguments are.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Enjoy

Better titled "15 Tired Dodges by Evolutionists" I didn't go through the list exhaustively, but I think that in fact most of the evolutionist rebuttals have been debunked on these pages. And we're just a bunch of amateurs.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 9:15:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Some of the creationist mistakes are in fact mistakes, I suppose I should clarify that. But mistakes don't prove creationism wrong any more than the long list of evolutionist missteps prove Darwin wrong.

What proves Darwin wrong is physics.
This space for rent.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 1:49:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 9:15:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
What proves Darwin wrong is physics.

Really? How so? By not understanding physics?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 7:21:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 9:15:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Some of the creationist mistakes are in fact mistakes, I suppose I should clarify that. But mistakes don't prove creationism wrong any more than the long list of evolutionist missteps prove Darwin wrong.

What proves Darwin wrong is physics.

Are you being serious? or are you just making a joke. Its hard to tell.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 7:32:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 9:13:25 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/30/2015 4:38:42 AM, Otokage wrote:
Yet again, a good summary of the responses repeated again and again in this forum to try to make creationists understand how piffling their arguments are.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Enjoy

Better titled "15 Tired Dodges by Evolutionists" I didn't go through the list exhaustively, but I think that in fact most of the evolutionist rebuttals have been debunked on these pages. And we're just a bunch of amateurs.

What a compelling argument!

"They're wrong!"
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 4:48:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 4:38:42 AM, Otokage wrote:
Yet again, a good summary of the responses repeated again and again in this forum to try to make creationists understand how piffling their arguments are.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Enjoy

Anyone who takes this nonsense seriously has got fried eggs for a brain.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 5:03:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 4:48:25 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/30/2015 4:38:42 AM, Otokage wrote:
Yet again, a good summary of the responses repeated again and again in this forum to try to make creationists understand how piffling their arguments are.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Enjoy

Anyone who takes this nonsense seriously has got fried eggs for a brain.

What a compelling argument!

"They're Stupid!"
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 5:57:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 9:15:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Some of the creationist mistakes are in fact mistakes, I suppose I should clarify that. But mistakes don't prove creationism wrong any more than the long list of evolutionist missteps prove Darwin wrong.

What proves Darwin wrong is physics.

Can you give more detail has to how physics prove Darwin wrong?
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 6:38:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 4:48:25 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/30/2015 4:38:42 AM, Otokage wrote:
Yet again, a good summary of the responses repeated again and again in this forum to try to make creationists understand how piffling their arguments are.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Enjoy

Anyone who takes this nonsense seriously has got fried eggs for a brain.

It should be easy for you then to rebut any of the points made in the article. Right?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 7:24:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 9:15:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Some of the creationist mistakes are in fact mistakes, I suppose I should clarify that. But mistakes don't prove creationism wrong any more than the long list of evolutionist missteps prove Darwin wrong.

What proves Darwin wrong is physics.

I often wonder why uneducated, intellectually stunted fools always seem to demonstrate their prowess time and again?

You don't know a thing about evolution or physics, yet you say the stupidest things.

Why is that?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 9:23:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 7:24:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/30/2015 9:15:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
What proves Darwin wrong is physics.
You don't know a thing about evolution or physics, yet you say the stupidest things.
Why is that?
I think it can be mentally damaging to hate, DjR. If you look at people when they're not hating, they often think more carefully and check themselves more diligently. But in the throes of hatred, they grab whatever they can indiscriminately, throwing out claim and counterclaim regardless of quality, hoping something will stick.

This does intellectual and reputational damage because people have to live with the embarrassing stuff they've said, so they dig themselves in deeper, and shift position unaccountably, growing increasingly uncomfortable as they do so, but blaming others for the predicament.

Moreover, hate provokes angry counter-attacks, which helps cement the hate, and justify the unjustifiable. And it confuses the hater as it becomes harder to separate hate for hate's sake from hate for hurt's sake.

There are a couple of creationist supporters in the science and religion forums whom I think are bright enough to offer insightful and constructive thought regarding science if they hated less. But with the hate they bring to each discussion, most posts seem facile, ignorant and vain.

I'm not sure what to do about it, beyond trying not to get angry at the ignorance, arrogance and aggression.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 9:57:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 4:48:25 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/30/2015 4:38:42 AM, Otokage wrote:
Yet again, a good summary of the responses repeated again and again in this forum to try to make creationists understand how piffling their arguments are.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Enjoy

Anyone who takes this nonsense seriously has got fried eggs for a brain.

I have fried eggs for a brain. Could you, with your obvious superior intellect explain why we shouldn't take it seriously?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 11:33:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 9:23:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/3/2015 7:24:29 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/30/2015 9:15:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
What proves Darwin wrong is physics.
You don't know a thing about evolution or physics, yet you say the stupidest things.
Why is that?
I think it can be mentally damaging to hate, DjR. If you look at people when they're not hating, they often think more carefully and check themselves more diligently. But in the throes of hatred, they grab whatever they can indiscriminately, throwing out claim and counterclaim regardless of quality, hoping something will stick.

I'm not sure what to do about it, beyond trying not to get angry at the ignorance, arrogance and aggression.

I thought I'd throw this quote out (Aron Ra 14th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism Part 2). 6 years old but still just as true:

"Defenders of pseudoscience scornfully reject scientific methodology and gleefully ignore evidence on purpose, and their leaders even admit this openly and publicly; Because they actually preach not only that we should make positive proclamations of complete conviction even without the slightest indication, but also that we should automatically reject "without consideration- everything we ever find that doesn"t fit into their pre-conceived bias.

This is how to prove that creationism really is willfully ignorant and deliberately dishonest, because here is another admission that they don"t care what the truth really is. They just wanna believe what they wanna believe, and if that doesn"t turn out to be true, then they don"t want to know what is true, and sometimes they"ll even admit that too.

Religion is a bias by definition. That"s why it relies on propaganda. But science dispels propaganda because it eliminates bias by design; it has to because it"s an investigation, not a predetermined conclusion like religion is. So every proposition must be requisitely evidential and potentially falsifiable, and must be subjected to a perpetual battery of independent and unrestricted tests wherein anyone and everyone who thinks they can is welcome to try and find and expose from flaw in it "to correct it. Creationists won"t subject their beliefs to any of that because they"re not interested in finding out what is really true. They want to defend their preferred beliefs whether they"re true or not.

Science is necessarily rational and empirical. That means that whatever we believe isn"t a matter of choice; its an obligate condition imposed upon us by our knowledge of the evidence, and that position will only change in accordance with our understanding.

No matter how scientific, how commonly believed, or how apparently workable or logical it may seem, no evidence of any sort can even be considered if it contradicts their sacred stories "which they insist must take priority in the event of any apparent conflict. Their position is wholly dishonest, and it"s everything science isn"t; because it"s an a-priori position which must never be seriously questioned, corrected or rejected.

They have to defend their preconcieved notions because they"re forbidden "on pain of a fate worse than death- to even consider that they could be wrong, and they must maintain that belief no matter how wrong they obviously are. Even when they know they"re wrong, they still have to make-believe anyway. Their position is the definition of a closed-mind. It is not a search for truth!

There"s no rational need for apologetics and science rejects it. We don"t hold evolution sacred. We defend it only because it is evidently true. Superstitious politics have made evolution an icon necessary to the defense of the scientific method "which is the real target of religious fundamentalism. But their under-handed attempts to undermine science is also eroding their parent theology more so than atheism ever could. Because if you have to lie to defend your truth, then it was never really truth to begin with, and creationism obviously IS not like the truth and DOES not like the truth.

That"s also why they don"t like free speech. Where science invites critical inquiry in peer review, apologetics depends on one-sided assertions based on nothing and defended only by censorship.

Fundamentalists have never exposed a single evolutionary fraud or scientific conspiracy since their mindless movement began, but they"ve perpetrated many of each! Some sites supporting science have long lists of creationists" criminal cons and thoroughly-disputed fabrications along with citations of peer-reviewed research proving why every single allegation of evangelical evidence ever examined is either unsubstantiated or entirely erroneous if not deliberately deceitful.

Religious fundamentalists seldom correct any of the many flaws in their data, and increasingly desperate wanna-believers keep repeating the same old wives" tales and urban legends long after they know they"re not true. That"s all they ever had; and before the age of information, they could still get away with that. But some of these frauds and rumors are now so blatantly bogus that even apologetics propaganda mills are compelled to admit it; Because refuting the various fallacies, fibs, and fakery of creationist claims has become a sort of internet sport. It"s like shooting fish in a barrel because every single thing the fundies ever presented in their defense "if it could ever be tested at all- has always turned out to be either misunderstood and grossly distorted or intentionally misrepresented.

The simultaneously saddest and most laughable irony of this whole stupid controversy is that these zealots claim they"re opposed to evolution as an issue of morality. Yet while we can cite dozens of examples where politically-influential creationists clearly know they"re lying about science, there is no such instance wherein evolutionary scientists can be shown to be dishonest in their criticisms of creationism. There"s no need to be. Despite all the attempted deception, the baseless assertions and political division produced by the creationism movement, the truth is there has never been a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science. Not one "period. Neither has there been any credible proponents of creation science anywhere ever, because, (with one crackpot exception) everyone who has ever published anti-evolutionary rhetoric to any medium did so only according to a prior religious agenda rather than any amount of scientific comprehension. They"ve all revealed inexcusable ignorance in the very fields where they claim expertise, and their arguments are all dependant on erroneous assumptions, prejudicial bias, logical fallacies, ridiculous parody, misdefined terms, misquoted authorities, distorted data, fraudulent figures, or out-and-out lies. Thus, there are only two types of arguments for creationism; those which are untestable, indistinguishable from the delusions of imagination, and can neither be indicated nor vindicated, verified or disproved, and those which have already been disproved many times over, both scientifically and in a court of law. "

http://darwinwasright.homestead.com...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 12:26:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 11:33:00 PM, Ramshutu quoted:
we can cite dozens of examples where politically-influential creationists clearly know they're lying about science

Ramshutu thank you for the link. I agree that it's an accurate summary in what I've seen of creationism, and the pseudoscientific mask of Intelligent Design. What saddens me is that members who didn't invent these deceits adopt them so zealously, with such an air of sanctimonious virtue, and yet it's clear they haven't done due diligence on the claims themselves, and often seem unaware of what due diligence means.

However, that speaks to vanity, ignorance and spiteful neglect, rather than deliberate deceit. I'm interested in the sentence I quoted above. Does anyone have a list of which influential creationists have been caught in deliberate lies, and the quotes or judicial findings that reveal this?

I suspect that if they knew they were being manipulated at times, some Creationism supporters would be more careful in how much they blindly requote. And if they don't after that, then the problem becomes not what is believed, but the character of the person believing it.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 10:00:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 4:38:42 AM, Otokage wrote:
Yet again, a good summary of the responses repeated again and again in this forum to try to make creationists understand how piffling their arguments are.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Enjoy

Summed up brilliantly. It genuinely makes me sad that people as a whole pick a belief system and then grasp so tightly that they can't even rationally examine evidence and be open to change as the evidence changes.

The perfect example are those who think that there is some sort of magical wall that exists that allows minor changes to happen within a "type", such as a change to beak shape in a bird, but something like a big change which result in most people saying it is a different kind of thing is off limits. The best "magic wall" when challenged they can come up with is death, which would mean all mutations or epigenetic changes would have to result in death which is clearly not factual.

We live in a sad world. I'm trying to put my finger on why humans have the tendancy to draw a line in the sand and stick to it through it hell or high water. It stops us from realizing our true potential as a species as so much time and energy gets spent on things which offer no value to society.

I would challenge to creationists to explain the value to society to teach it and only it in our science classes in school? It seems to me that the reason they want it in school is not to crowd out evolution, but to supplement evolution. That in turn suggests they fear irrelevancy or becoming a minority more so than teaching the truth.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:04:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If any of you anti-creationists do want to debate, I suggest you pick one of the arguments and post it here, instead of just posting a link. And the best thing would be if you could put the argument in your own words. I'm not much for debate by proxy, myself.

But I suspect you anti-creationists would rather soothe your anxiety with generic insults against the people who challenge your beliefs.
This space for rent.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:14:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 10:00:20 AM, slo1 wrote:
It genuinely makes me sad that people [...] think that there is some sort of magical wall that exists that allows minor changes to happen within a "type", such as a change to beak shape in a bird, but something like a big change which result in most people saying it is a different kind of thing is off limits.

I've asked some creationists outright where the wall is, and what causes it. So far I've had two kinds of answers: 'common sense', and 'prove there isn't a wall'.

The first answer seems an application of the is-ought fallacy: that because birds look different to worms, there's some reason a worm can never be a bird. Moreover, it misunderstands macroevolution, which doesn't say worms turn into birds, but simply holds that worms and birds have common ancestry. The problem here is that 'common sense' is based on experience of modern species, most of which weren't around when species were undergoing the greatest changes. The idea that there were 'always' birds is refuted by the fossil evidence.

The second seems an argument from ignorance: I cannot understand how species could change so much, so there must be some wall stopping them from doing so. But the same ignorance also can't say where the wall is, or what holds it in place.

I understand the frustration and perplexity of minds for whom biology doesn't work as they've experienced it. What saddens me is the conflation between dogmatism and skepticism. The people who argue loudest think they're being intelligently skeptical when in fact they're just being dogmatic -- even when the dogma they're adhering to has already been proven wrong.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 3:56:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 2:04:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
If any of you anti-creationists do want to debate, I suggest you pick one of the arguments and post it here, instead of just posting a link. And the best thing would be if you could put the argument in your own words. I'm not much for debate by proxy, myself.

But I suspect you anti-creationists would rather soothe your anxiety with generic insults against the people who challenge your beliefs.

V. You know what reality is, we know what reality is; for as long as I can remember every single Pro-science poster here has explained, in detail every reason why you're position is wrong.

You, and most other creationists here, on the other hand, distort, misrepresent, misquote or flat out ignore such responses; there have been at least half a dozen times you have done just that this week alone. When your position is challenged, you hide, or dismiss it out of hand and in general never actually rebutt or defend your position; and I can go back through my post history to demonstrate the many dozens of times you have done just that, seriously, I will do it. Even so, even with your long history here, I STILL right now, to this day answer the details of almost every single point of contention you raise; despite them having been posted at least a hundred times and never corrected despite how obviously and demonstrably flawed they are.

I have even challenged you to a debate in another thread in the last few days; one where you again ignore the argument against you; just because you to so utterly misrepresent evolution that I don't think you either understand what it is and are dishonest when you claim that you do, or are otherwise intentionally dishonest about how you portray it.

You do not seem to understand the irony of any of your diatribes and rants against the pro-science posters here, because the evidence in this forum conclusively demonstrates that the only person who engages in absolutely everything you are complaining about in this post, in absolutely every way, absolutely all of the time is you.

The even bigger irony here, is that you claim to be on some sort of quest for the truth; which really raises the question of how can you even claim to have any interest in the truth when you are so dishonest in attempting to defend yours.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 4:18:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 2:04:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
If any of you anti-creationists do want to debate, I suggest you pick one of the arguments and post it here, instead of just posting a link. And the best thing would be if you could put the argument in your own words. I'm not much for debate by proxy, myself.

But I suspect you anti-creationists would rather soothe your anxiety with generic insults against the people who challenge your beliefs.

I believe both Ramshutu and I have challenged you to debates, and have also begun debates with you in the forums. Your response was to avoid those threads. You also haven't added anything here. If you just want to reiterate your beliefs, you might want to do it somewhere more appropriate where you can avoid scientists and those willing to challenge you, like Facebook.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 4:40:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 2:04:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
If any of you anti-creationists do want to debate, I suggest you pick one of the arguments and post it here, instead of just posting a link. And the best thing would be if you could put the argument in your own words. I'm not much for debate by proxy, myself.

But I suspect you anti-creationists would rather soothe your anxiety with generic insults against the people who challenge your beliefs.

What do you mean by "anti-creationists"? I am pro-science.

Also, you never explained how physics disproves evolution like you claimed.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 5:09:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 4:40:11 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/4/2015 2:04:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
If any of you anti-creationists do want to debate, I suggest you pick one of the arguments and post it here
What do you mean by "anti-creationists"? I am pro-science.
I'm not anti-creationist, V3nesl. I'd be fine with a created universe for example, if that could be proven.

But created species is already disproven; the first contrary evidence came with Darwin's finches, and we now have overwhelming refutation from paleontology, genetics and evolutionary biology.

With increasing support for abiogenesis, created life seems increasingly improbable, and an intelligently and based on current astrophysics, a purposefully-created universe seems equally so. But any counter-claim meeting a sufficient standard of evidence is fine -- it's just that there aren't any.

But even allowing created life and even a created universe, neither proves any specific theological doctrine. And neither does attacking scientific alternatives halt scientific inquiry or justify any theological claim to authority.

As has been pointed out repeatedly in science journalism and in this thread itself, Creationism represents a pointless, dogmatic, ignorant, disingenuous and disreputable battle.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 5:11:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 5:09:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/4/2015 4:40:11 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/4/2015 2:04:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
If any of you anti-creationists do want to debate, I suggest you pick one of the arguments and post it here
What do you mean by "anti-creationists"? I am pro-science.
I'm not anti-creationist, V3nesl. I'd be fine with a created universe for example, if that could be proven.

But created species is already disproven; the first contrary evidence came with Darwin's finches, and we now have overwhelming refutation from paleontology, genetics and evolutionary biology.

With increasing support for abiogenesis, created life seems increasingly improbable, and an intelligently and based on current astrophysics, a purposefully-created universe seems equally so. But any counter-claim meeting a sufficient standard of evidence is fine -- it's just that there aren't any.

But even allowing created life and even a created universe, neither proves any specific theological doctrine. And neither does attacking scientific alternatives halt scientific inquiry or justify any theological claim to authority.

As has been pointed out repeatedly in science journalism and in this thread itself, Creationism represents a pointless, dogmatic, ignorant, disingenuous and disreputable battle.

Um, I am not V3nesl
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 5:14:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 5:11:20 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:09:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/4/2015 4:40:11 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/4/2015 2:04:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
If any of you anti-creationists do want to debate, I suggest you pick one of the arguments and post it here
What do you mean by "anti-creationists"? I am pro-science.
I'm not anti-creationist, V3nesl. I'd be fine with a created universe for example, if that could be proven.
Um, I am not V3nesl

No. I was adding to your response, trusting you to understand that from the post. Sorry for any confusion. :)
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 5:15:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 5:14:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:11:20 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:09:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/4/2015 4:40:11 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/4/2015 2:04:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
If any of you anti-creationists do want to debate, I suggest you pick one of the arguments and post it here
What do you mean by "anti-creationists"? I am pro-science.
I'm not anti-creationist, V3nesl. I'd be fine with a created universe for example, if that could be proven.
Um, I am not V3nesl

No. I was adding to your response, trusting you to understand that from the post. Sorry for any confusion. :)

Oh, ok. Sorry.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 5:15:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 9:10:16 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/30/2015 4:38:42 AM, Otokage wrote:
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Thank you for the link, Otokage. A comparable list of 24 myths appears in New Scientist, Apr 2008: http://www.newscientist.com...

That one is great, a little more in depth than mine, thanks for sharing :)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 5:17:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 5:15:04 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 5/3/2015 9:10:16 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Thank you for the link, Otokage. A comparable list of 24 myths appears in New Scientist, Apr 2008: http://www.newscientist.com...
That one is great, a little more in depth than mine, thanks for sharing :)
Yes, but the Sci-Am one is chattier and might be more accessible. I think they're both handy. :)
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 5:19:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 10:00:20 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/30/2015 4:38:42 AM, Otokage wrote:
Yet again, a good summary of the responses repeated again and again in this forum to try to make creationists understand how piffling their arguments are.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Enjoy

Summed up brilliantly. It genuinely makes me sad that people as a whole pick a belief system and then grasp so tightly that they can't even rationally examine evidence and be open to change as the evidence changes.

The perfect example are those who think that there is some sort of magical wall that exists that allows minor changes to happen within a "type", such as a change to beak shape in a bird, but something like a big change which result in most people saying it is a different kind of thing is off limits. The best "magic wall" when challenged they can come up with is death, which would mean all mutations or epigenetic changes would have to result in death which is clearly not factual.

We live in a sad world. I'm trying to put my finger on why humans have the tendancy to draw a line in the sand and stick to it through it hell or high water. It stops us from realizing our true potential as a species as so much time and energy gets spent on things which offer no value to society.

I would challenge to creationists to explain the value to society to teach it and only it in our science classes in school? It seems to me that the reason they want it in school is not to crowd out evolution, but to supplement evolution. That in turn suggests they fear irrelevancy or becoming a minority more so than teaching the truth.

Yeah, the "magic wall" argument kills me everytime I hear it. This guys are ignorant as hell, but I have to give them credit for their creativity lol.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 5:27:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 4:40:11 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/4/2015 2:04:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
If any of you anti-creationists do want to debate, I suggest you pick one of the arguments and post it here, instead of just posting a link. And the best thing would be if you could put the argument in your own words. I'm not much for debate by proxy, myself.

But I suspect you anti-creationists would rather soothe your anxiety with generic insults against the people who challenge your beliefs.

What do you mean by "anti-creationists"? I am pro-science.

Also, you never explained how physics disproves evolution like you claimed.

No no no... You are anti-creationists, anti-life, anti-republicans, pro-death, anti-business (evidenced by your environmental protection sh*t), pro-death again (disguised as euthanasia), anti-REAL marriage, pro pedophilia on the internet, and anti-smokers. It"s all on your profile don"t you dare denying it....!