Creationists get even dumber and more long-winded

[SirNitram]

• Big Bang is a matter explosion

And that it comes from compacted nothingness no less. Where do these people come from?

From the Discworld, of course. Straight from the mouth of Pterry himself: "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded." And there's a graphic for it too.

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9252 ... sig.th.png

Anyone who takes a universe with a turtle the size of a planet, carrying a flat disc on it's back, seriously, is in need of help.

Science of Discworld did a decent job of trying to convey the idea, at least.

[Wyrm]

If this loser was trying to have a hot-air blowing contest, then he's won.

Unfortunately, he was trying to win an argument with a learned man.

[Darth Servo]

We've missed something:

16 - Solar collapse, not nuclear fusion has been found to be the cause of solar energy. But that would undercut the entire theory of the Big Bang. We will briefly summarize the data here. You will find it discussed more fully (along with additional quotations) in the chapter, Origin of the Stars, in our 3-volume set on our website. It is also partially referred to in "6 - Solar Collapse" in the Age of the Earth chapter in this paperback.

This isn't a true creationist. This is a SALESMAN, trying to get people to buy his books.

[LORDDOOMMASTER]

Amazing, isn't it? In addition to the usual standard-issue creationist bullshit, he claims that the Sun is not powered by nuclear fusion, Einstein's theory of relativity is false, and QM doesn't work.

How the fuck can anyone deny Einstein, QM, and nuclear fusion? We've made fucking weapons of mass destruction based on nuclear fusion! What the fuck does he think made those weapons work? Fairy dust?

Oh, you'd be surprised. If you spend any time at the BAUT (Bad Astronomy/Universe Today combined messageboard, http://www.bautforum.com), you'll see garbage like this in the Against the Mainstream forum all the time. While this person actually seems to be able to form paragraphs and spell correctly, he sounds a lot like one Moshesh Thezion that was finally banned from BAUT for not backing up his claims.

He liked to claim fusion was impossible, relativity didn't make sense, and that he had the whole Unified Theory of Physics. Of course, he had no math to back up his assertions and just posted a bunch of pictures that he drew while he was all hopped up on drugs (not even joking on that last part, he specifically stated that he discovered this "theory" while high on drugs and drew the pictures as his proof). I even went so far to explain how fusion in stars works, he told me I was funny and didn't look beyond my mainstream dogma. Of course, he was wanted us to believe that stars generated their energy through nuclear fission, but how fission works while fusion does not really didn't make sense.

Anyways, it seems there are all sort of people who think they know enough to prove things like Relativity and fusion wrong. Of course, the ability to do so seems to elude them when they try to prove it.

[wautd]

Am I naive to ask is he replied or not?

[Surlethe]

Am I naive to ask is he replied or not?

He's probably still writing the reply ...

[Darth Servo]

Come on guys, I'm sure DW will post any response he gets from the tard at his earliest convienence, so no need to ask.

[Stormin]

And here's the kicker: He says blackholes can't exist because there is no possible way of gathering empirical data on them.

But he supports the existance of god?

[SoX]

This guy obviously hasn't taken a Quantum Physics lecture (infact this guy is obviously an idiot). It has been measured that particles have appeared from nothing, existed, and dissappeared again.

And he says something can't come from nothing.

[Zero]

This guy obviously hasn't taken a Quantum Physics lecture (infact this guy is obviously an idiot). It has been measured that particles have appeared from nothing, existed, and dissappeared again.

And he says something can't come from nothing.

He still isn't entirely wrong. Those only come from quantum uncertainty in the vacuum. Small uncertainties in energy can actually exist for a very long time, but the claim that the entire universe sprung from this is quite unlikely.

Luckily, it simply isn't necessary. The universe is more likely to have arisen as a consequence of the expansion of a singularity.

[Darth Wong]

The imbecile responded:

In other words, you are incapable of answering the points so you simply copy and paste a large volume of nonsense. How unusual for a creationist.

I am surprised by your "either, or" logical fallacy here. According to you, either I will engage in a point by point debate with you, or I am stupid and can only copy and paste nonsense. I clearly stated that I do not have the time to discuss point by point issues with you.

But you had time to read that long-winded article, "cross-reference it" with scientific sources (a preposterous claim which is obviously untrue), and then assess my website to determine that it contains "innumerable fallacies", right? Quite frankly, you're a liar. And it's hardly an "either/or" fallacy to point out that someone who supposedly has the time to do that should be capable of making at least one original argument if he's going to take the time to contact me at all.

This is not an inability to engage in debates due to a plague of idiocy; my inability stems from the large demands placed on my time by the institution I am enrolled in. This is an example of the derogatory, viscious criticisms which you employ to discredit anyone who does not believe in evolution. While name calling and dismissing anyone who emails you, and believes in God, as being a fanatical moron is very worthwhile when dealing with a mob, it is not only unnecessary, but rude when dealing with individuals.

I'll tell you what's rude: trying to refute someone's carefully constructed arguments by copying and pasting an entire webpage and mailing it to him along with an obviously dishonest claim of having "cross-referenced it" with scientific sources to check for validity, and then refusing to debate him point-by-point when he takes the time to respond. THAT is rude. And I treat that kind of behaviour with all of the respect it deserves, which is precisely none.

This is not an open forum where I am trying to say you know nothing, and, therefore, the crowd will be won to my side (and I will therefore be "right"). Winning a mob doesn't make someone right or wrong; it simply shows that someone uses propaganda very well. You are obviously a learned individual, and you are more educated than I am due to the fact that you have been alive longer than I.

None of this has anything to do with your dishonesty. When you presume to refute something that someone has said, whether it is by your own words or someone else's, you are implicitly claiming that you have read his work, understood it, and found flaws in it. But it is quite clear that NONE of this is true; you have not bothered to read what you presume to refute, nor can you even be bothered to defend the material you copied and pasted into your E-mail.

I never insinuate that you are stupid, and I never resort to name calling.

Your ignorance is not "name-calling"; it is clearly a FACT. Anyone who could possibly take the article you quoted seriously MUST be extremely ignorant. And your claims of "courtesy" are greatly exaggerated.

The reason I sent the original email is because I would be remiss in what I view as my duty if I didn't offer you a chance to view, at your leisure, some of the material I have found.

Material which you claimed to have verified by having "cross-referenced it" with scientific sources. Ergo, by sending it to me, you take on its ignorance as your own. It is NOT POSSIBLE for someone who is not scientifically ignorant to read that preposterous self-contradictory article and take it seriously.

The only reason I am replying to your email at all is to deal with the citation below. This citation is another example of your incredibly sly ploys to discredit anything I have presented by your use of the same logical fallacy.

"As long as you say you are being respectful, I expect you to respond to this E-mail with a complete point-by-point answer, as I have done for you. If you refuse to do so, I will have no choice but to conclude that you are simply another mindless copy-and-paste creationist without the intellectual capacity to actually construct or answer arguments."

I ended my last email with "Very Respectfully" because it is courteous to do so, and it is the customary ending at the institution where I am at. As I stated previously, you are older than I am. However, even if you weren't, it is common courtesy to have a polite ending (and I meant the information respectfully).

You actually have the gall to boast of your "courtesy"? Your first paragraph to me said "I realize that you will probably ignore this information; however, the time necessary to critique the innumerable fallacies employed in your logic is not at my present disposal." In short, you accused me of "innumerable fallacies" and intellectual dishonesty in your OPENING PARAGRAPH (nice way to introduce yourself to a stranger, by the way), and then disingenuously ended it with "very respectfully" so that you disingenuously lay claim to "courtesy".

You, on the other hand, respond rudely to me. Nothing that I wrote would represent that I am not respectful, and you act as if I requested a reply from you. I did not. I merely wanted to share some information with you. You employ the "either or" fallacy again by claiming that I will either go through a point-by-point rebuttal of what you have written, or I am mindless and without intellectual capacity and disrespectful. Like I said, I didn't request a reply from you; just because you responded with a "point-by-point answer" doesn't mean that I have to do that for you if I am respectful. It also doesn't mean that I am "mindless," lacking the "intellectual capacity" to formulate arguments.If I didn't respond to your reply, you could put the email on your site and "discredit" another "creationist" as being an idiotic bafoon. The only reason I am responding is to prevent you from doing this. I will not make further replies due to my circumstances that I described before. I have already wasted too much of my time with this endeavor. The one thing that I will take the time to address is listed directly below. However, I will not take up my time with further responses due to the great demand on my body, and time because of the institution where I am at.

As I said before, you are obviously a liar. You claimed to have taken the time to not only read that long-winded article but "cross-reference it" with scientific sources, while also identifying "innumerable fallacies" in my evolution arguments which you mysteriously can't find the time to describe. All of that would take considerable time in itself, yet you say you don't have time to defend these claims! That is why I conclude that you are dishonest. As for your lack of intellectual capacity, the mere fact that you took an article seriously when it claimed that the Sun does not operate on nuclear fusion and quoted Einstein's theories of Relativity while simultaneously denying their validity is more than enough evidence of that.

And now, despite your earlier claims of lacking the time to address any specific points, you try to address two specific points anyway:

I wonder what your concept of the theory is. I know that in one of your emails to another individual you said:

"That kind of speculation (something from nothing) is somewhat pointless; everything in the universe (including time itself) began with the Big Bang. So there was no "before", hence no need to question what the universe was before the Big Bang or where it came from. *It simply is*."

Nasa has this to say: "The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the *origin *of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was *created *sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago *from a cosmic explosion* that hurled matter and in all directions."-http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/un ... _bang.html

If they have their words right, then the Big Bang Theory is the theory that explains the creation of the universe and not merely the space and time expansion of an already existing universe. However, if you believe the theory does not explain the creation of the universe (Nasa just got their wording wrong), then you do not have an explanation for the origin of the universe. One cannot claim that the universe "just was". The universe is a part of nature and the amount of energy that is required by the Big Bang cannot be in existence without an origin. I claim that while it is against the laws of nature to claim that the universe "just was" in existence, it is not unreasonable, or illogical, to claim that some being who is not bound by nature or physical laws "just was". I believe that this being is God. He claims to be "I Am" and He simply has existed, does exist, and will forever continue to exist because He is not bound by time, or our physical laws. God has made himself known to man by all of nature which He has created, and He tells us how to follow Him in His holy word, the Bible.

You think you have proven that it is against the laws of nature for the universe to simply exist by noting that NASA used the word "created"? How utterly laughable. If I say that I created a sandcastle yesterday, does this mean the sandcastle appeared out of "nothingness" rather than pre-existing sand? If this is your idea of a rebuttal to my Big Bang argument, you're only proving me correct when I declared that you obviously chose to copy and paste arguments because you were incapable of constructing plausible arguments on your own. The fact that you couldn't even discern the poor quality of the webpage you chose to copy and paste was enough evidence of that already, but this argument proves it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Here you claim that creationists are dishonest and ignorant. I propose that someone who is dishonest in their presentation of information must know what the truth is. If they do not know the truth, then they will be ignorant, but they cannot be called dishonest.

Nonsense; it is possible for someone to be both dishonest and ignorant. For example, Bob can say "I have done considerable research and determined that the Moon landing was a hoax". That statement would be both dishonest AND ignorant; Bob could not have done "considerable research" and come to that conclusion since actual INVESTIGATION of "Moon landing hoax" arguments will invariably lead to the conclusion that none of them are valid, and many of them are in fact outright lies. It is most likely that he just read a few websites, accepted their claims and arguments uncritically, and perhaps watched the FOX TV special, which is not "considerable research". At the same time, Bob is clearly ignorant, because Bob obviously has no idea what's wrong with the arguments commonly parroted on "Moon landing hoax conspiracy" websites: a deficiency he could have corrected if he had actually done the "considerable research" he claimed to have done.

Of course, the analogy between Bob and you is so painfully obvious that I should not mention it, but I just did anyway. And in the meantime, by trying (and failing) to answer just TWO of the many points in my reply to you, you inadvertently demonstrated two things:

1. That you were lying about not having the time to answer any individual points.
2. That I was correct about you trying to avoid point-by-point debate because you lack the skills for it.

It's interesting that you admit I am clearly better-educated than you, after having previously claimed that my arguments were full of "innumerable fallacies" and introducing yourself in such a supercilious manner. Why does it not occur to you to ask why people with greater scientific education tend to disagree with you on matters like this? Why are you so arrogant as to think that despite admittedly lacking higher education, you can refute the conclusions of the world's entire scientific community and all of its foremost researchers, if you can't even match a relatively ordinary man like me?

Wow, what a shock: he totally ignored all of the scientific arguments (thus proving that he never understood any of the material in the first place) and chose to go for the "you're so rude" tactic. What an asshole. He's a disgrace to the Naval Academy ( his E-mail address is m070630@usna.edu ).

[nickolay1]

He's a disgrace to the Naval Academy ( his E-mail address is m070630@usna.edu ).

Our holy Christian nation needs more great warriors like him!

It is a wonder how one with an utter lack of critical thinking skills was able to get in at all.

[The Spartan]

It is a wonder how one with an utter lack of critical thinking skills was able to get in at all.

See this thread.

I believe you can find the anwser discussed in there.

[Surlethe]

I claim that while it is against the laws of nature to claim that the universe "just was" in existence, it is not unreasonable, or illogical, to claim that some being who is not bound by nature or physical laws "just was".

He tries the "God exists out of the constraints of space and time" argument. What a moron; he is too stupid to realize saying something is outside of nature and physical laws is tantamount to saying it doesn't exist.

[Quadlok]

Did he even notice that all the articles referenced for problems in cosmological theory were two decades old? Did it not once cross his mind that the field might have moved foreward since then, if for no other reason than that we have massively more powerful telescopes now?

[brianeyci]

Did he even notice that all the articles referenced for problems in cosmological theory were two decades old? Did it not once cross his mind that the field might have moved foreward since then, if for no other reason than that we have massively more powerful telescopes now?

I have been guilty of this one time. Writing a paper for an anthropology class, I took research that was decades old at face value. It was pretty absurd because it stated something about early humans being unable to hunt large mammals based on their "savagery". Not only was it decades old, but it had a decidedly racist tone that I should have detected if my brain had been turned on rather than being impressed by this individual's credentials. I got chastized by my Professor for it, but got a C rather than an F because the rest of my essay had some merit. Plus it was only a second year class, and I was taking it first year so maybe my Professor saw this and was lenient (I found out that Professors get lists of how much of and who in their class are in what years, and majoring in what).

I honestly didn't begin to think critically about things until about a year ago. The reason comes from years of rote learning where you don't really learn anything but just regurgitate information in tests (even with that I was notoriously bad at).

I hope this fellow learns his lesson. Arrogance and ignorance are two of the worst personality traits to have together, other than perhaps cruelty and ambition.

Brian

[Darth Wong]

I claim that while it is against the laws of nature to claim that the universe "just was" in existence, it is not unreasonable, or illogical, to claim that some being who is not bound by nature or physical laws "just was".

He tries the "God exists out of the constraints of space and time" argument. What a moron; he is too stupid to realize saying something is outside of nature and physical laws is tantamount to saying it doesn't exist.

Yeah, I didn't comment on that because I'm saving it for the next E-mail exchange, if there is one. The fact that he basically says it's not illogical without even TRYING to address the arguments I make about why it IS illogical is a useful point to hold in reserve. It indicates his total lack of debating skills and logical faculties.

[Blackwing]

Don't you just love the way that if you ask a creationist how 'god' came into existance he'll say 'God has always been and will always be', but if we try to say the same for the universe, we're not allowed?

Sure, eventually we'll probably discover that the universe wasn't always there, but Science isn't about giving answers, it never was, if you want answers take up a religion, science is about questions and how their answers affect other questions.

When a scientist gets an answer to his question his first reactions are:

1. Is this answer correct?

2. What does this answer mean for other answers?

3. What new questions does this answer raise?

Religious ... (well fill in what you want there, I'll just say) 'people' always believe that by challenging one little piece of the theory they'll wreck the whole thing. But what these ignorant addicts to their mental security blanket don't realise is that while their constructs of faith are a house of cards ready to fall down at the slightest breeze, science is a game of "Twenty (oodleplex) Questions" with the universe, where every answer brings us one step closer to finding what the universe has in mind (granted, "Is there a massive black hole at your center?" is not a question you come across often in a regular game of 20 questions).

No Biblethumpers of the world, we don't know how everything works (yet), but neither do you and unlike you, we don't settle for overrated bedtime stories, we'll prod the universe till it gives us an answer.

[defanatic]

Second that. Science is about creating theories, testing them, finding out why the theory was wrong (or the data was wrong), rectifying the theory or problem, and trying again.

[Wyrm]

Aren't they cute when they try to argue reasonably?

Don't you just love the way that if you ask a creationist how 'god' came into existance he'll say 'God has always been and will always be',

A funny answer, as 'always' implies the passage of time, which can't be since God is supposed to be outside time; "always" loses its meaning when applied outside the domain of time. We should call them on that.