My first real life evolution/creationism debate today

[Superman]

Debates can be fun, but sometimes depressing because you ultimately end up exposing the fundie for the ignorant tard that he is. How many of these assholes do you think has an IQ of 100?

The fact that they consistently lie about having advanced degrees in science only goes to show that they're stupid... and they know it. They have to give themselves some type of credibility because they know their goofball belief system doesn't impress anyone with half of a brain.

[Darth Wong]

I like the way some of them think they're being really clever by being circumspect about exactly which sort of science or engineering degree they have, and then they say things about the scientific method which make it painfully obvious that they've never taken a real science class in their lives.

It reminds me of the opening of "40 year old virgin" when Andy doesn't realize how easily an experienced man can tell that a virgin is bluffing his knowledge of sex. The portrayal is exaggerated for comedic effect of course, but the basic idea is true in real-life. The virgin doesn't understand how the experienced man can see through his skillful deception, just as the fundie doesn't understand why the scientist or engineer does not seem to be fooled at all by his carefully crafted fraud.

[Superman]

I like the way some of them think they're being really clever by being circumspect about exactly which sort of science or engineering degree they have, and then they say things about the scientific method which make it painfully obvious that they've never taken a real science class in their lives.

Heh. Those are the good ones. Two thirds of them can barely put a sentence together.

[Darth Wong]

I like the way some of them think they're being really clever by being circumspect about exactly which sort of science or engineering degree they have, and then they say things about the scientific method which make it painfully obvious that they've never taken a real science class in their lives.

Heh. Those are the good ones. Two thirds of them can barely put a sentence together.

But they do know where the capslock key is, and also how to press shift-1 to get an exclamation point. Many times.

[Darth Servo]

Funny. One of the creationist morons in my debate DID claim to have a BS in biochemistry and had done "extensive research" into tring to find experiments about abiogenesis and finding little besides the Miller-Urey experiment. Damn, I wished I had called him on it, "Most creationist's idea of research is surfing a bunch of creationist webpages". I did point out a couple other experiments in the field like the randomly generated catalytic RNA but they refused to accept it becauses I couldn't list the complete reference off the top of my head.

Typical assholes. Demand perfection from the opponent without doing jack shit to support your own side. Although I did have an interesting insight to that the other day. They demand perfection from science because they believe their alternative already is perfect and needs no backing; that its supposedly self evident.

Another thing was the biochem guy did try and cite St Augustine's 'proof' of God's existance of everything needing a cause. After I'd left, it dawned on me that said argument boils down to "everything needs a cause, therefore there was something that didn't need a cause"

[Darth Wong]

Another thing was the biochem guy did try and cite St Augustine's 'proof' of God's existance of everything needing a cause. After I'd left, it dawned on me that said argument boils down to "everything needs a cause, therefore there was something that didn't need a cause"

Next time you run into that one, point out that actually, every process requires a prior cause. The fact that the universe exists is not a process, therefore the existence of the universe does not require a cause.

[Superman]

Yeah but Servo, luckily for them, making these claims doesn't fall under the "thou shalt not lie" category or they would go to hell. Lucky for them.

[Darth Servo]

Another thing was the biochem guy did try and cite St Augustine's 'proof' of God's existance of everything needing a cause. After I'd left, it dawned on me that said argument boils down to "everything needs a cause, therefore there was something that didn't need a cause"

Next time you run into that one, point out that actually, every process requires a prior cause. The fact that the universe exists is not a process, therefore the existence of the universe does not require a cause.

Oh, I already know how he'll respond. "Well, the big bang was a process. Something had to cause the explosion" Yes, I know, typical appeal to ignorance fallacy, not that logic works on these people.

[Darth Wong]

Another thing was the biochem guy did try and cite St Augustine's 'proof' of God's existance of everything needing a cause. After I'd left, it dawned on me that said argument boils down to "everything needs a cause, therefore there was something that didn't need a cause"

Next time you run into that one, point out that actually, every process requires a prior cause. The fact that the universe exists is not a process, therefore the existence of the universe does not require a cause.

Oh, I already know how he'll respond. "Well, the big bang was a process. Something had to cause the explosion" Yes, I know, typical appeal to ignorance fallacy, not that logic works on these people.

Well that's actually fair; some characteristic of the universe did have to cause the Big Bang. But existence itself is not the same thing as the Big Bang. The state of existence is not a process; it is a state, and one which appears to be fundamentally unalterable.

I'm always amused when I run into creationists who demand that I justify my "belief" that the universe has always existed when the First Law of Thermodynamics actually requires that it always existed. Otherwise, the moment of its creation from nothing would have required a gigantic First Law violation.

[Darth Servo]

The one thing where he did stump me was about if time doesn't pass in a massive singularity like that, how could any process occur to cause an explosion.

[Darth Wong]

The one thing where he did stump me was about if time doesn't pass in a massive singularity like that, how could any process occur to cause an explosion.

The cause of the Big Bang would not have been a process as we understand it in the macroscopic world. One would think that it would have been dominated by quantum mechanics, in which a certain amount of randomness is well-established to be part of the operating parameters.