I'm impressed with Creationism

[peter22]

Dear Creationists,

To be able to observe reality, and to have the strength of character to utterly ignore what you know intellectually to be objectively true, yet engage in double-think as a service to God is an incredibly impressive act of faith and I commend you for it.

It takes a certain fortitude of spirit to be able to ignore the entire body of modern science to support your theories of 6 day Creationism without a shred of evidence, not a crumb of proof. Even when your are shown again and again and again that not only are you wrong, but ludicrously so, you still push on in your beliefs. I personally lack the iron will necessary to bolster my beliefs under such a tsunami of evidence.
Allow me to personally commend your zealousness.

Sirs & Madams, I lift my hat to you.

 

[Valkhorn]

*chuckle*

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

amen my brother!

 

[Tenka]

This kind of thread really doesn't help anyone, internet mockery is the last thing I'd expect for a Buddhist.

 

[lemmings]

I have always wondered why Creationists call themselves so. They never seem to actually study the Creation that seems to be so important to them.

 

[dad]

Dear Creationists,

To be able to observe reality, and to have the strength of character to utterly ignore what you know intellectually to be objectively true, yet engage in double-think as a service to God is an incredibly impressive act of faith and I commend you for it.

It takes a certain fortitude of spirit to be able to ignore the entire body of modern science to support your theories of 6 day Creationism without a shred of evidence, not a crumb of proof. Even when your are shown again and again and again that not only are you wrong, but ludicrously so, you still push on in your beliefs. I personally lack the iron will necessary to bolster my beliefs under such a tsunami of evidence.
Allow me to personally commend your zealousness.

Sirs & Madams, I lift my hat to you.

And my hat is off to you, who ignore that nothing at all needs to be ignored, on the contrary. We do not even ignore the known spiritual. How about you??

 

[lemmings]

And my hat is off to you, who ignore that nothing at all needs to be ignored, on the contrary. We do not even ignore the known spiritual. How about you??

Now dad, you can’t insult someone based on their religion not being the same as yours.

 

[peter22]

This kind of thread really doesn't help anyone, internet mockery is the last thing I'd expect for a Buddhist.

We Buddhists are known for our inscrutability. Besides, I'm being less sarcastic than you may think, i.e., I am being a bit of a smart alec, but am also honestly impressed.

 

[aintzaJainkoari]

Oh, yeah, and what scientific proof are you talking about?

Show me some, tell me some, and don't just say "Well, duh, evolution!"

If evolution and bajillions of years is what you're talking about, prove it to me, prove that it's true, and don't just say, because all the scientists say it's true, because that's not proof.

Give me proof by logic that evolution is true if that's what you're talking about.

Examples:

Evolution goes against...

The Law of Biogenesis- that life that has a beginning can only arise from other life

The fact that mutated traits are more often harmful than beneficial

A BIG ONE: The Fossil Record, show me proof of intermediate species, has anyone ever found a fossil of an intermediate species, and that really is one, not all those ape skeletons they keep finding in Africa.

And Irreducible Complexity- organisms could not have evolved new body parts, abilities, etc. over time. They would have had to have them all perfectly in the first organism of their kind, because that organism would have died if it did not have all the necessary body parts and functions, and it's descendants, which would have the same problems if that organism could reproduce at all, would also die.

So prove to me that whatever you're talking about is true, don't use the appeal to authority or popularity fallacies, and I'm sorry if you weren't talking about evolution, but that's how it appeared.

 

[Nathan Poe]

And my hat is off to you, who ignore that nothing at all needs to be ignored, on the contrary. We do not even ignore the known spiritual. How about you??

What known spiritual? Why do you have no faith?

 

[metherion]

*sigh*
Are you for real?

Since when is there a Law of Biogenesis? Never heard of that being a law...
an ABIOGENESIS IS NOT EVOLUTION! It is its OWN FIELD!

Ahem.

Transitional forms?
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Mutations?
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Irreducibly complexity is one big lie. Shown so at the Dover trial, among other things.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

All these provide explanations in small words for non-biologists such as myself and cite their sources where the articles with big words can be found if desired.

Actually, just go to http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html and start reading through the list there. It'll take a while, but it's worth it.

Metherion

 

[Logic_Fault]

Edit: Drat! metherion beat me to it. I'm always so slow to post...

Oh, yeah, and what scientific proof are you talking about?

The vast quantities of it that are stored in scientific journals and biology books world wide.

Show me some, tell me some, and don't just say "Well, duh, evolution!"

If evolution and bajillions of years is what you're talking about, prove it to me, prove that it's true, and don't just say, because all the scientists say it's true, because that's not proof.

To start with, see: TalkOrigins.org. Once you've digested that you can start reading the scientific research that's been performed. Make sure you have a good understanding of biology and genetics before you attempt that part though.

Give me proof by logic that evolution is true if that's what you're talking about.

"Proof," logical or otherwise, does not a scientific fact make as nothing is ever proven 100%, with the exception, perhaps, of mathematics. Evidence on the other hand...

Examples:

Evolution goes against...

The Law of Biogenesis- that life that has a beginning can only arise from other life

I see you have no understanding of the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory says nothing about the beginning of life here or anywhere else. It assumes, with good reason, that life already exists; it then explains why we see the diversity we see.

The fact that mutated traits are more often harmful than beneficial

That's not what the research says. In fact, as I understand it, it's the opposite. The vast majority of mutations are neutral while a small percentage are helpful. Another rather small portion are harmful.

You yourself carry a good number of mutations (around 150 is the number I want to say, though I can't say where I got that figure), along with anything else that's ever been born.

A BIG ONE: The Fossil Record, show me proof of intermediate species, has anyone ever found a fossil of an intermediate species, and that really is one, not all those ape skeletons they keep finding in Africa.

Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, all of the ones here and, of course, you yourself are a "transitional."

And Irreducible Complexity- organisms could not have evolved new body parts, abilities, etc. over time. They would have had to have them all perfectly in the first organism of their kind, because that organism would have died if it did not have all the necessary body parts and functions, and it's descendants, which would have the same problems if that organism could reproduce at all, would also die.

Read here. And please, stop using such poor arguments.

So prove to me that whatever you're talking about is true, don't use the appeal to authority

It seems you're misapplying this fallacy. Appeal to authority is perfectly valid if said authority is, well, an authority on the subject. A professor of biology with a degree from an accredited university, and who actually teaches the subject, is a good authority. A biological scientist working on actual evolutionary experiments is, of course, a much better authority.

An ID supporter who has a "degree" in Theology, engineering, statistics or another field unrelated to biology is a poor authority and the fallacy would apply if you attempted to use such a person to support your statements.

or popularity fallacies,

I can't recall the last time I've seen anyone seriously say, "evolution is true because 'X' number of people believe it." I do recall a list of "scientists" passed around by the ID crowd stating that 'X' number of "scientists" doubted evolution, thereby implying that there's something wrong with the theory.

 

[peter22]

AintzaJainkoari


To answer your questions regarding evolution:

Well that's easy, I take a dish full of bacteria, hit them with a strong antibiotic, some will live, from that point on, they'll be impervious to that antibiotic - they have evolved - right before your eyes.Evironmental conditions cause a change in DNA which is then inherited by subsequent generations.

No opinions, no side taking, just pure fact that you can replicate in any science lab.

 

[dad]

What known spiritual? Why do you have no faith?

No faith? No idea what that is supposed to mean.
As for the spiritual,

spir·i·tu·al play_w("S0648200") (sp

r

-ch

-

l)adj.1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial.
2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.


it is known by a vast majority. How much more known can something be??

 

[dad]

I see you have no understanding of the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory says nothing about the beginning of life here or anywhere else. It assumes, with good reason, that life already exists; it then explains why we see the diversity we see.....

One reason I agree with evolution, it cannot go back beyond creation, where the evolving started, and your assumptions pick up!

 

[Logic_Fault]

One reason I agree with evolution, it cannot go back beyond creation, where the evolving started, and your assumptions pick up!

I know I'm going to regret replying to you, but I will anyway. Given your sentence structure here it's not entirely clear to me what you're getting at, but I'll give it a shot.

Evolution makes no assumptions about "back beyond creation." Evolution assumes, as I stated before with good reason, that life exists and works from that point on to show how life became diversified into various species.

Once again, just to be clear: evolution says nothing about anything before life occurred on this planet. This includes the universe coming into existence, the planet coming into existence or life coming into existence.

If that doesn't correspond to what you were suggesting/implying then congratulations -- you've befuddled me again with one of your posts.

 

[dad]

I know I'm going to regret replying to you, but I will anyway. Given your sentence structure here it's not entirely clear to me what you're getting at, but I'll give it a shot.

Evolution makes no assumptions about "back beyond creation." Evolution assumes, as I stated before with good reason, that life exists and works from that point on to show how life became diversified into various species.

And it is welcome to believe and assume anything it likes, as are others. I assume that the creation was the point that you call, from that point on!

Once again, just to be clear: evolution says nothing about anything before life occurred on this planet. This includes the universe coming into existence, the planet coming into existence or life coming into existence.

OK. So??? Creation says nothing about before life was created on this planet.

If that doesn't correspond to what you were suggesting/implying then congratulations -- you've befuddled me again with one of your posts.

We seem to agree on a lot.

 

[Atheuz]

And my hat is off to you, who ignore that nothing at all needs to be ignored, on the contrary. We do not even ignore the known spiritual. How about you??

You have to be kidding with me - Are you doubting the spirituality of a person who practices the RELIGION BASED ON SPIRITUALITY?

 

[Nathan Poe]

No faith? No idea what that is supposed to mean.

You claim to "know" because you're afraid to believe. Ergo, no faith.

As for the spiritual,

spir·i·tu·al play_w("S0648200") (sp

r

-ch

-

l)adj.1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial.
2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.


it is known by a vast majority. How much more known can something be??

Again, the vast majority believe, not "know." Why are you afriad of that?

 

[Jo1]

Heres a question do we know everything about everything i certainly dont! say even if we knew half of everything could there be a possiblity that God is in the other half we dont!something for us all to think about.