Need help refuting a creationist.

[Exonerate]

There's no difference between law and theory. A scientific law is simply a theory which has a lot of evidence supporting it. Now, scientists are less sure in themselves, and not so brash as to call a theory a law even after it has undergone extensive testing.

[Trytostaydead]

One of medicines dogmas is that Parkinson's disease is brought upon by loss of Dopamine. Note, I said dogma. What if I told you that that is not true?

How close is dogma to law?

Also, theories have been debunked time and time again.

[Darth Wong]

You should not and cannot debate a creationist in the hopes of changing his or her mind. None of the creationists on my hate mail page changed their minds. You can only debate them to show how stupid they are for the world to see.

Gosh golly gee, thanks.. I'm stupid.

If you dismiss observations and logic in favour of superstition, then yes you are. Boo hoo.

You out of all people should know that there is a difference between theory and law and that one is accepted almost by faith.

And you should know that evolution has been observed, so the only "theory" which remains is the mechanism and scope of its effects.

Evolution and creationism are just that, theories and I choose one ultimately by faith.

No, one of them is an observed phenomenon while the other is an irrational superstition.

Does that mean I dismiss evolution? Hell no. In fact, I have a major midterm coming up on the evolution of vertebrate anatomy.. I just don't believe in the big bang theory and such. I do believe that we are evolving, the universe is evolving.

The Big Bang is the only theory which explains the geometry of the expanding universe. What's your alternate theory? Oh wait, you don't have one, do you? Just a vague appeal to superstition.

If you call yourself a creationist, you are subscribing to either "intelligent design" creationism (which is hopelessly irrational) or young-Earth creationism (which is inconceivably stupid). Take your pick and don't whine if I call it "stupid". It is not "ego" to point out that both forms of creationism are stupid.

[Exonerate]

One of medicines dogmas is that Parkinson's disease is brought upon by loss of Dopamine. Note, I said dogma. What if I told you that that is not true?

How close is dogma to law?

Also, theories have been debunked time and time again.

Which is exactly why we've stopped calling scientific theories laws. I really fail to see what you're getting at here. We're assuming that dogma to be true, just as we are assuming everything else. So far, it seems to be working fairly well. Until there's evidence pointing towards something else, we assume that it is true; in the case there's a direct contradiction, you work out another theory which will explain what was observed.

[Darth Wong]

One of medicines dogmas is that Parkinson's disease is brought upon by loss of Dopamine. Note, I said dogma. What if I told you that that is not true?

I would point out that to compare that theory to evolution theory is patently absurd. You are obviously subscribing to the black/white theory: either all scientific theories are equally reliable, or all scientific theories are equally unreliable. So find one that's no good, and you've just smashed the credibility of the entire scientific enterprise and all of its theories in one fell swoop!

Good for you, you have just proven what I wrote earlier about creationists being habitually stupid.

[Trytostaydead]

Ever thought about trying to get a spot on the O'Reily Factor? You'd be great, btw.. that's not an insult.. I genuinely enjoy that show when I can catch it.

And you should know that evolution has been observed, so the only "theory" which remains is the mechanism and scope of its effects.

Yes, yes indeed. And I totally agree that evolution does occur. However, I must warn that observation is oftentimes only skin deep. Because we see one thing, we believe it must be so.

Gosh dangit, you guys are writing too fast for me to keep up with. Black & White theory? I understood the dangers of what I was writing, but I was merely pointing out that until a theory has been utterly proven to be true there are always doubts to its truth.

Crashing the whole scientific community? Hardly, science evolves as well. Being in the biological sciences, I guess this is much more evident to me. Every so often something revolutionary happens that gives us greater insight into this field. Just look at the field of neurology, how in the past 50 years we've had a huge massive bloom of new investigation into the abyss of how the mind works. Incidentally, don't ask how this revolution happened.. it's just interesting to note that most of the brain maps and techniques came from Germans around 1947.

Did you also know that lobotomies were performed all the way up to around the 1950's and still occur in some form today? Because they made an observation, you cut out the frontal lobe and then you have a detachment from emotions. Observation, cause, and then effect. But no one looked deeper into what the frontal lobe was.. and the rest is history.

[Darth Wong]

Gosh dangit, you guys are writing too fast for me to keep up with. Black & White theory?

Actually, I was being sarcastic. The proper name is black/white fallacy.

I understood the dangers of what I was writing, but I was merely pointing out that until a theory has been utterly proven to be true there are always doubts to its truth.

Nothing is utterly proven true.

Crashing the whole scientific community? Hardly, science evolves as well. Being in the biological sciences, I guess this is much more evident to me. Every so often something revolutionary happens that gives us greater insight into this field. Just look at the field of neurology, how in the past 50 years we've had a huge massive bloom of new investigation into the abyss of how the mind works. Incidentally, don't ask how this revolution happened.. it's just interesting to note that most of the brain maps and techniques came from Germans around 1947.

How does this change the fact that creationism is not a viable theory and it's therefore perfectly reasonable to say that a creationist is stupid? Are you sure you're a creationist?

Did you also know that lobotomies were performed all the way up to around the 1950's and still occur in some form today? Because they made an observation, you cut out the frontal lobe and then you have a detachment from emotions. Observation, cause, and then effect. But no one looked deeper into what the frontal lobe was.. and the rest is history.

Again, how does this support the viability of creationism? Answer: it doesn't. It is a red herring.

[Trytostaydead]

I'm not arguing the validity or viability of either creationism NOR evolution. My intent is simply this, both are theories. My examples were merely to point out that in the scientific community, our "good" theories were sometimes dramatically wrong.

One might have more fancy equations to it, but what does that prove? Absolutely nothing. You might also say it has more observations to prove it. But what does that prove again? Hypotheses are often wrong anyways.

But both are accepted on the basis of faith. If I asked you to prove to me that amphibians evolved from the Rhipstidians.. I doubt you could do it. Oh, you could probably point out several analogous features such as ulna.. but given enough time and luck you could probably find a few more polyphyletic groups out there to do it as well. Look at the supposed evolution of jawed fishes. You have two opposing theories each with valid arguments but one has slightly more evidence to support it. You choose one and place it on your cladogram hoping you don't find any more evidence for the counter-argument.

It is my belief that evolution has not sufficiently been proven. All things considering using evolution, who's to say that the fossil records are merely artifacts?

[Exonerate]

Please name one theory which has undergone more than 100 years of extensive scientific testing, then turned out to be incorrect.

By your logic, I could argue that gravity and radiation doesn't exist. After all, they're just theories.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not arguing the validity or viability of either creationism NOR evolution. My intent is simply this, both are theories. My examples were merely to point out that in the scientific community, our "good" theories were sometimes dramatically wrong.

Which is completely irrelevant unless you can show that this particular theory is wrong, which you cannot since its predictions closely match observation despite more than a century of zealots trying to attack it. At best, you could only show that it is not yet perfect, which is nothing to get excited about. Creationism, on the other hand, can be easily shown to be a worthless theory.

One might have more fancy equations to it, but what does that prove? Absolutely nothing. You might also say it has more observations to prove it. But what does that prove again? Hypotheses are often wrong anyways.

Sorry, you are being stupid. If theory A fits observation and theory B doesn't, then theory B loses. If theory A is properly defined and theory B includes various "inscrutable" terms, then theory B loses. Your entire argument hinges on the black/white fallacy in which theories are either guaranteed true or completely based on faith, which is bullshit.

But both are accepted on the basis of faith. If I asked you to prove to me that amphibians evolved from the Rhipstidians.. I doubt you could do it. Oh, you could probably point out several analogous features such as ulna.. but given enough time and luck you could probably find a few more polyphyletic groups out there to do it as well. Look at the supposed evolution of jawed fishes.

Irrelevant; you are arguing details of application of the evolution theory rather than the evolution theory itself. Moreover, you have presented no evidence whatsoever for considering creationism on an equal playing field with evolution theory.

You have two opposing theories each with valid arguments but one has slightly more evidence to support it.

Try: one has ALL of the evidence while the other hasn't a shred.

You choose one and place it on your cladogram hoping you don't find any more evidence for the counter-argument.

Produce one piece of evidence for creation theory. Note that you must first demonstrate that creation theory successfully predicts all of the observed phenomena that evolution theory predicts, and then you must further demonstrate some prediction which can be LOGICALLY DERIVED from creation theory but not from evolution theory, and which fits observation in a way that evolution theory cannot. By the way, identifying mysteries and assuming that creation theory predicts them by default is an invalid method.

It is my belief that evolution has not sufficiently been proven.

Since science is not based on proofs of theories, this is a given. The theory of gravity has not been proven either.

All things considering using evolution, who's to say that the fossil records are merely artifacts?

Ah, the "God is a practical joker" argument. See Occam's Razor. Your position is irrational.

[lgot]

I'm not arguing the validity or viability of either creationism NOR evolution. My intent is simply this, both are theories.

Actually, when you say both are equaly valid , you are. Because You are raising the level of quality of Creationism to the natural selection. One is valid and other not and you want to us to consider both ?
Plus,Creationism is not even a Scietific Theory. Asking a scientist to give validity to creationism is a just a absurd.

But both are accepted on the basis of faith.

No, Creationism is only accepted on the basis of faith. Natural Selection is accepted on the basis of Scietific Method. A very different stuff.
Darwin hardly have faith in anything, he doubted himself a lot during his life, saying he had "faith" in the theory to publish this is a huge historical mistake.

It is my belief that evolution has not sufficiently been proven.

This is irrelevant. There is no other scietific theory to dismiss natural selection. There is not a single one that have better results.
In other hand, Creationism, as you pointed, is accepted with basis in faith .It not have even been tested. Its "trusted"
Dude, Richard Owen was the first one to try to mix evolution explanation with God "intervention". He and Darwin had several debats over and over. Darwin made Richard Owen end his career alone, without support, because Darwin showed much more points to support his theory. And you have not even showed anything better than Owen yet, just a twist of words...

[Strafe]

All things considering using evolution, who's to say that the fossil records are merely artifacts?

Unless you're willing to say that A)The Fossil record is a joke we haven't gotten yet or B)That God is a deceiver, which violates the very definition of God, then it seems that you can't dismiss the fossil record so easily without some serious side effects that would torpedo the credibility of YEC...

If you admit A, then YEC theory is inadequate as it can't explain the fossil record.

If you admit B, well, suffice to say YEC also falls on it's face.

[Trytostaydead]

Well, gave it the old college try anyhow.

It's like trying to make a blind man see or a stubborn mule to move (works for both sides of this argument).

Either way though, if I'm wrong.. nothing to it. If you're wrong, see you in hell!

[Darth Wong]

Well, gave it the old college try anyhow.

It's like trying to make a blind man see or a stubborn mule to move (works for both sides of this argument).

You're full of shit. Your golden mean fallacies regarding evolution vs creationism and your black/white fallacies regarding the validity of scientific theories in general are so irretrievably stupid that they could be used as a basis for how to be a pseudoscientific moron.

Either way though, if I'm wrong.. nothing to it. If you're wrong, see you in hell!

Ah, Pascal's Wager, aka the false dilemma fallacy. That's three stupid fallacies now. Are you trying to write the book on how NOT to argue?

[Lagmonster]

Well, gave it the old college try anyhow.

I shudder to think of what you're studying. Kid, you don't know HOW to think. I'm sure you believe you come up with truly astounding concepts all the time, but you don't really have the ability to think logically yet. Best to enroll in a basic philosophy course. One of the first things they tend to cover is how to construct arguments, think creatively, and recognize logical fallacies.

[Majin Gojira]

Belated, but I wanna shoot this one down! It's my duty as a guy who knows a little to much about Palentology.

Well, first of all innerbrat, you said:

how come all the marsupial and monotreme mammals live in Australia?

That is true, Prototherias (your monotremes) do live in that zone only.. but we have the order didelphimorpha here in the states you know, and they're from the infraclass Metatheria aka Marsupials.

Is someone using Big Words in an effort to confuse the masses? I think so!

Well, looks like someone doesn't believe in the fossil record(!) Suprise, suprise.

The first known Marsupial fossils come from North America. They later made their way to South America, Antartica and Austrailia when they were joined together (I believe the continent was named Pangea at the time).

Later, after North America SPlit Appart and rammed into Asia via Alaska around the Cretaceous (SP?) Placental Mammals came in and out competed their marsupial betherin and drove them extinct.

Their Gondwanan counterparts survived. though when the split up, the Antartic ones all died out (got to damn cold). Their Austrailian and South American cousins survived.

(Strangely, no Carnivourus species survived in Austrailia, so their Marsupial predators all evolved from herbivours. They had "stabbing Inscisors" and unique, blade-like Premolars to compensate for a lack of Canines. Making for some very interesting denticia.)

The South American varieties tended to be insectivores and Carnivours. However, their were Placental mammals their, but they were all herbivours (and all very bizzare).

When South Ameirca and North America became linked Again, species traveled across (and still do travel across) the land bridge made by Mezo-america.

South American Mammals like the Opossum, Porcupine, Monkeys (well, they made it up the landbridge at least), Glyptodonts and Armadillo went north and established themselves rather well.

Rabbits, Horses, Cats, Dogs, Racoons, Deer and Mastadons went south, as well as saber-toothed cats and many other placental predators that out-competed their marsupial and avian (yes, South America had Killer Birds) counterparts. As well as the unique ungulates of South America.

Which is Why Opposum live in North (and South) America. (I'll need to check, but they're found as far north as Canada, and as far south as i Believe Northern Brasil)

It's still Happening Today (the whole landbridge traveling thing). Coyote are moving their way south, as are squirels, north American Racoons (as opposed to Cotamundi which already made it their...and are now working their way back NORTH), Puma, and other species.

And, as a side note: Did you know some guy in europe (either britan or Germany, I forget which) released Wallabe's into the countryside and they are doing rather well right now...

[Utsanomiko]

Hmm, sounds like one of those idealists who acts like they'll get a gold sticker and a pat on the back in society for wearing a dilligent smile while being a dumbfuck.

I weep to think this is a college student. Only in the 21st century can a moron study for a degree in science and be totally devoid of scientific thought.

This is why I've been saying that the Scientific Method should be heavilly reinforced in grade school onward.

[Malecoda]

Well, gave it the old college try anyhow.

It's like trying to make a blind man see or a stubborn mule to move (works for both sides of this argument).

Replace the concept of "theory" with that of "modeling" (temporarily in your head). The purpose of modeling (a physical process) is to capture the essence of it, so you can make predictions. I am not sure why this seems to be such a big bone of contention for you. The only explanation must be that you are deficient in some way. Or, in layman's terms, you must be stupid.

Either way though, if I'm wrong.. nothing to it. If you're wrong, see you in hell!

There you go again. This is Pascal's wager and is an all-or-nothing fallacy. It's unmitigated bullshit, in other words.

[lgot]

Which is Why Opposum live in North (and South) America. (I'll need to check, but they're found as far north as Canada, and as far south as i Believe Northern Brasil)

Just as information, as a brazilian and having seen quite a lot of them...They can be found almost in all southeats territory as well (People eat them around here), personaly I have seen the cooker of hotel capturing one to cook (to him i suppose, But frankly, how to be sure anyways) when I was in the Rio De Janeiro Litoral. They are pretty commun in rural areas, due anything like the taste for chicken. But mostly the full grey variation, if i am correct...

[Colonel Olrik]

I've just lurked into strafe's forum. IT'S HILARIOUS.

Specially the last, final argument, when presented with Durandal's thoughts on carbon decay (irrelevant as far as Evolution is concerned, btw, but the fundie idiot still hasn't realized that).

The moron is crying from the other side of her unbreakable Wall of Ignorance.

Your reliance on Stardestroyer continues to puzzle me; since he has no religious background he cannot accept "miracles" and whatever else. You on the other hand have more of a basis that you could. He was mistaken (that's putting it charitably) about Creationists "lying" about Bombardier beetles. What else is he mistaken about then, huh?

http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/...ays/cdecay.html

Bye bye c decay!

r0x0r

How do I know they're not lying somehow?

The eeeevil atheists are wrong 'cause they don't accept miracles. They're also born liars and this is all a massive conspiracy. I'll go and put my tin foil hat now.

[Biddybot]

A good example of evolution in action is the Eastern coyote, a now recognized subspecies that evolved within my lifetime. Eastern coyotes are physically and quite behaviourably different from their Western cousins and have taken the place of my area's former large carnivores--the Eastern cougar and wolf.

Our local black ducks are in the process of going extinct due to interbreeding with the more aggressive, promiscuous mallard duck. There aren't many purebred black ducks left, most are now mixed. Lands and forests guys I've talked to think we'll soon have a sort of dark phase mallard in addition to pure mallards, and black ducks as a distinct species will be gone. Again, this is occurring quite rapidly, over just the last few decades. I don't know why people think evolution can't be proven. All they have to do is open their eyes and look at the changes going on all around them.

Then again, it may all be God's doing that mallard ducks got so horny that they starting breeding with the blacks, so what do I know?

[Exonerate]

A good example of evolution in action is the Eastern coyote, a now recognized subspecies that evolved within my lifetime. Eastern coyotes are physically and quite behaviourably different from their Western cousins and have taken the place of my area's former large carnivores--the Eastern cougar and wolf.

Our local black ducks are in the process of going extinct due to interbreeding with the more aggressive, promiscuous mallard duck. There aren't many purebred black ducks left, most are now mixed. Lands and forests guys I've talked to think we'll soon have a sort of dark phase mallard in addition to pure mallards, and black ducks as a distinct species will be gone. Again, this is occurring quite rapidly, over just the last few decades. I don't know why people think evolution can't be proven. All they have to do is open their eyes and look at the changes going on all around them.

Then again, it may all be God's doing that mallard ducks got so horny that they starting breeding with the blacks, so what do I know?

Its all Satan's doing, you idiot! God would never do something as savage as this. If its not God, it must be Satan

*nods sagely*

[lgot]

that is simple because the inteligent designer creationism believes the evolutions (the changes) happens, they just not believe the reason to that is the Natural Selection theory of Darwin. They are "open-minded" fair people, who give the evolution a try, etc. They no longer (because they are probally more smart and noticed how easily is to rebuke the Bible) believe in the everything happened like Genesis, it is all a mythology, etc to explain to the poor ragdressed hebrews the creation...
The problem is that micro evolution is easy to prove. You see the changes and the specie preservation everyday, every new born.
The big deal is the macro evolution, which is hard to be understood in first place. Then the creastionists come and attack their lack of understanding as a prove of the failure of the theory...

[Strafe]

I've just lurked into strafe's forum. IT'S HILARIOUS.

See what I had to deal with?

[Julhelm]

Fight fire with fire. Give them the norse creation myth for example, and counter fairytales with better fairytales.