Creationist Arguments (funny as hell)

[Majin Gojira]

And of course, Creationism is the 'Default', right?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Why is it that when we post a _JOKE_ about creationism that some total fucktard decides to attack us over it?

Jesus H. Christ Getting Anally Sodomized by a Strap-On-Wearing Goddess, it's a Goddess-Damned JOKE!! Actually come to think of it, I find it funny we're getting someone's goat...

EDIT: Shouldn't the edit option be disabled here in SLAM?

[NecronLord]

'Creationist argumants.'

Almost as amusing as 'Creationist Evidence...'

[Sir Sirius]

79. 1SuprJesusFreak's ARGUMENT FROM FLAWS IN TEXTBOOKS (1) Faulty arquments supporting ToE can be found in text books. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago refers to the peppered moth story as "the prize horse in our stable" but agrees it must be thrown out for what it is, a fraud.

In other words - you're attacking an argument which isn't used anymore.

Thus, you are guilty of the Strawman Fallacy.

Serious evolutionists don't use this argument, that is true. But it is still in use in schools, textbooks and so on which makes it essental that I disprove it in my paper.

Why devote an entire paper to disproving something that's already been disproven? That's like writing a doctoral thesis refuting the geocentric solar system model. (Wait, maybe you still believe in that.)

[Dalton]

Hm, Mr. Freak seems to think that disproving evolution automatically means that creationism wins.

[1SuprJesusFreak]

In other words - you're attacking an argument which isn't used anymore.

Thus, you are guilty of the Strawman Fallacy.

Serious evolutionists don't use this argument, that is true. But it is still in use in schools, textbooks and so on which makes it essental that I disprove it in my paper.

Why devote an entire paper to disproving something that's already been disproven? That's like writing a doctoral thesis refuting the geocentric solar system model. (Wait, maybe you still believe in that.)

As I said that was an exerpt. The whole paper will incompass every aspect of evolution I can think of.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And when it is posted, we(the residents of sd.net and your opponents at kgivler, who do of course overlap) will rip it to tiny little bits, and set the ieces on fire...then urinate on the ashes.

Hi Matt how are you?

[1SuprJesusFreak]

Hm, Mr. Freak seems to think that disproving evolution automatically means that creationism wins.

No I don't. Of the two theories for life on earth (Creation and evolution) one is right (or closer to being right) and the other is not. It is impossible to completely disprove either theory, but it is possible to show that one is more likely then the other. I am trying to show the overwhelming evidence of Creation (which you are apparently not formiliar with) and the evidence against evolution, showing it to be the less likely story.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No I don't. Of the two theories for life on earth (Creation and evolution) one is right (or closer to being right) and the other is not. It is impossible to completely disprove either theory, but it is possible to show that one is more likely then the other. I am trying to show the overwhelming evidence of Creation (which you are apparently not formiliar with) and the evidence against evolution, showing it to be the less likely story.

Any evidence that you have ever posted in our little dicussions has been adressed here before. We have scientists here from most major fields, and we can cover anything you throw at us.

Have a nice day
~You know who I am

[1SuprJesusFreak]

And when it is posted, we(the residents of sd.net and your opponents at kgivler, who do of course overlap) will rip it to tiny little bits, and set the ieces on fire...then urinate on the ashes.

Hi Matt how are you?

Hi Ben, I'm doing fine. I wondered how long it would be before you surfaced. As for ripping it to shreds, when you're done give the pieces back so I can reinforce the whole thing (though I don't think it will really need it).

[JodoForce]

and then they will be 'reinforced shredded burnt urinated arguments'

[Frank Hipper]

This should be....interesting.

[RedImperator]

I'm currently working on a paper to show the scientific evidance against evolution. Here is an excerpt that addresses those two topics.

<snip excerpt from your paper>

Unfortunately, that excerpt doesn't qualify as scientific evidence AGAINST evolution. All you've done is show that certain popularly accepted pieces of evidence FOR evolution happen to be wrong. This does nothing at all to shift the remaining mountain of evidence for evolution by natural selection, and does, if possible, even less to prove Creationism. You could, in fact, overturn every last shred of evidence for Darwinism tomorrow and STILL not prove Creationism (especially since intelligent design is basically evolutionary theory with God tacked on at the beginning and for Biblical literalist Creationism to be true you'd first have to disprove much of biology, geology, hydrology, meteorology, astronomy, cosmology, chemistry, history, paleontology, and nuclear physics just to make it POSSIBLE, and you'd still have no specific evidence FOR it).

Understand this: Creationism is NOT the default theory. You have ZERO proof for the existence of God and until such time such proof exists, any "theory" which requires His intervention, even if it takes all evidence into account, will be inferior to any theory that does not require God or some other unprovable element and does not contradict the evidence. You can overturn evolution tomorrow and you'd still be left with the task of actually proving Creationism, rather than some hitherto unimagined but scientifically and objectively verifiable mechanism, accurately explains the origins of life on Earth. Attacking evolution to prove Creationism is a fool's errand on multiple levels.

[1SuprJesusFreak]

and then they will be 'reinforced shredded burnt urinated arguments'

Be that as it may, they would be stronger then your arguments.

[neoolong]

Unsuprisingly, he also decides not to talk about Michael E. N. Majerus' work that proposes that it was pollution that caused the shift in population, just due to changes in types of bird predation.

And notice how he decides to lie about what Coyne actually says. Here's the actual quote.

"Until now, however, the prize horse in our stable of examples has been the evolution of 'industrial melanism' in the peppered moth, Biston betularia, presented by most teachers and textbooks as the paradigm of natural selection and evolution occurring within a human lifetime. The re-examination of this tale is the centrepiece of Michael Majerus's book, Melanism: Evolution in Action. Depressingly, Majerus shows that this classic example is in bad shape, and, while not yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention."

Using the example of the horse to say that the example must be thrown out, it would be sent to the glue factory.

Of course what Coyne says backed up by Majerus is that the example needs to be reanalyzed.

Anybody actually think this guy will actually give anything worth reading if he's going to blatantly lie?

[Alyrium Denryle]

No. That is why I have ZERO confidence in his abilities to disprove evolution.

Matt, your arguments may work against ignorant high school students...But we dont have many of those here. You will have to do better than that.

[neoolong]

And when it is posted, we(the residents of sd.net and your opponents at kgivler, who do of course overlap) will rip it to tiny little bits, and set the ieces on fire...then urinate on the ashes.

Hi Matt how are you?

Hi Ben, I'm doing fine. I wondered how long it would be before you surfaced. As for ripping it to shreds, when you're done give the pieces back so I can reinforce the whole thing (though I don't think it will really need it).

Does reinforcement mean you're going to lie some more.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I wish to enter into the record an article from Free Inquiry Magazine

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/ ... n_21_3.htm

And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. Genesis, chapter 9, verses 12–13

One of the difficulties in adopting a literal interpretation of the Bible is that you can wander off into some pretty strange territory. Take, for example, the Genesis quote above. In it, God promises Noah that he will never again drown the world and seals his promise by creating the rainbow. Interpreted as a just-so story, it is a poetic little myth accounting for a beautiful natural phenomenon. Taken literally, however, it leads Christian fundamentalists into trouble.

For the symbol of God’s promise to mean anything, we must assume that rainbows did not previously exist. The necessary ingredients for a rainbow are light and water droplets suspended in the air, which breaks down the light into different colors. Since rain, a natural occurrence, did not seem to startle Noah or his contemporaries, it seems safe to assume that rain drops existed before the Flood. We know that light already existed from verse 3 of chapter 1 of Genesis, and God’s reference to the “green herb” just before the rainbow covenant implies the presence of color. Therefore the necessary ingredients were already present before the Flood, but they failed to make rainbows. Why?

A rainbow is created when sunlight enters water droplets in the air. The different wavelengths (colors) of the light have slightly different refractive indices in the water. This difference causes each wavelength to bend through a slightly different angle in the drop, thereby dispersing the light into its component colors.

For a rainbow not to be formed, the light must not have been dispersed by the water. But this dispersion is caused by the interaction of the electromagnetic waves of the light with the electrical charges in the atoms of the water, a process governed by the laws of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. The appearance of a rainbow after the flood implies that God had suddenly altered the fundamental laws of nature. But these laws affect much more than water droplets. They also determine the structure of the atoms. Changing the natural laws would therefore change the atoms, which would in turn affect the light they give off. As is well established by observation, each atom gives off its own unique set of wavelengths of light, called the “spectrum” of the atom. Atomic spectra in pre-rainbow times would have been different from those in the post-rainbow era. Now we have a testable prediction.

The obvious place to look for this effect is in astronomy, because, by viewing the light from ever-more distant stars, we are looking backward in time. Light from sufficiently remote stars was emitted by pre-rainbow atoms and has been traveling through space ever since. Therefore the spectra of those distant atoms should differ markedly from the spectra coming from nearby post-rainbow atoms.

When did the Flood occur? Establishing the date can be a bit dicey, but the ever-resourceful Bishop Ussher put it at 2,349 b.c.e. or 4,348 years ago.1 Since Christian fundamentalists favor his age for the Earth, adopting his Flood date should offend few.

Using Ussher’s calculation, we should find a sharp discontinuity in the appearance of atomic spectra at a distance of 4,348 light years. Light from more distant stars has been traveling for more than 4,348 years and hence came from pre-rainbow atoms, while light from closer stars originated in post-rainbow atoms. Does such a discontinuity exist? Of course not! Even if we try other reasonable dates for the Flood, we never find such a discontinuity.

What does this little exercise tell us about the Bible? Not much, except not to take it literally. Will it convince hardcore Christian fundamentalists? Forget it!

Do you have anything to say about this Matt? It is rather damning.

Essentially, for rainbows to not have existed before the flood, the EMspectrumof all matter would have had to have been different. The only way to test this is by taking a look at the light of stars that are the correct distance away. Are there any anomalies? No. The EM spectrum is consistent withthat of closer stars.

[Dalton]

Hm, Mr. Freak seems to think that disproving evolution automatically means that creationism wins.

No I don't. Of the two theories for life on earth (Creation and evolution)

Creationism is not a theory. It is a faith.

one is right (or closer to being right) and the other is not. It is impossible to completely disprove either theory,

And impossible to find proof for one of them (unlike the other...).

but it is possible to show that one is more likely then the other.

Ohhh, yes indeed.

I am trying to show the overwhelming evidence of Creation

Which consists of one thing: the Bible, right?

(which you are apparently not formiliar with)

I am quite familiar with that particular mythos.

and the evidence against evolution, showing it to be the less likely story.

Yes, the theory with actual physical evidence is less likely than the theory involving a two-thousand year old collection of literature and an invisible omnipotent, omniscient deity.

[Dalton]

and then they will be 'reinforced shredded burnt urinated arguments'

Be that as it may, they would be stronger then your arguments.

You are quite deluded if you believe you'll be the one to finally "prove" creationism (which is something that is believed and impossible to prove scientifically since science and religion are mutually exclusive).

[Joe]

We have survived your predecessors. We will survive you.

[Enforcer Talen]

what irritates me most is, pointing to the vast scientific record against a young earth, and they say god conjured the universe half aged.

wtf would he do that?

[RedImperator]

what irritates me most is, pointing to the vast scientific record against a young earth, and they say god conjured the universe half aged.

wtf would he do that?

It doesn't matter. If someone claims that, then they've essentially conceeded that they can't prove their own argument and evolutionary theory, whether or not it's literarally true, describes the origin of life so well it may as well BE true. In such an argument, God is an unnecessary extra, unprovable factor and can be neatly sliced off with Occam's Razor by the scientist.

EDIT: Fixed typo.

[Joe]

what irritates me most is, pointing to the vast scientific record against a young earth, and they say god conjured the universe half aged.

wtf would he do that?

Self-reinforcing creationist delusion.