Role Reversal

[Cabal]

On a side note: I wish we could do this role reversal without resorting to stereotypes or parodies of one another. I see a lot of atheists calling others 'evos' and talking about satan worshipping and all kinds of other nonsense, that I think defeat the purpose of the thread. Don't try to be a caricature of what you think a creationist is. My suggestion is to think of the best possible arguments you can think of for the opposite side and present them as best as you can.

I'm not going to make any more posts in that vein - but really, stereotyping, parodies and caricatures?

You make it sound like the behaviours you list are atypical, or exaggerated.

 

[Raithie]

-The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution!
-My grandad wasn't a monkey!
-Evolution is a religion!
-Complexity can't occur without a designer!
-How can animals just DECIDE to grow a limb?!
-What was BEFORE the Big Bang?!
-The Earth is too young for evolution to occur!
-All dating methods utilize circular reasoning! They're invalid nonsense!
-The speed of light is a variant!
-You weren't there to see evolution happen!
-How come we've never observed a fish turning into cow?! Huh?!
-Behe said something about irreducible complexity! I believe it!
-There are no transitional fossils!
-Scientists always make assumptions!
-Abiogenesis is silly - experiments only ever produce dumb things like amino acids and DNA & RNA building blocks. So not life.
-Evolution will lead to eugenics!
-It's propaganda!
-Evolution states we should all act like animals!
-Evolutionists have no morals. Evolution can't produce morals or love. Us humans need a God to teach us such things.

Apologies for the parody. I'll try write a proper one later, although quite frankly those are the things I see spewed most frequently. Sigh.

 

[Gracchus]

On a side note: I wish we could do this role reversal without resorting to stereotypes or parodies of one another. I see a lot of atheists calling others 'evos' and talking about satan worshipping and all kinds of other nonsense, that I think defeat the purpose of the thread. Don't try to be a caricature of what you think a creationist is. My suggestion is to think of the best possible arguments you can think of for the opposite side and present them as best as you can.

Look here, sandwiches, the best possible arguments that creationists present almost always fall victim to Poe's Law.

The best possible creationist argument is the "Omphalos" argument, that God did it, but made it look like evolution happened because he wanted an excuse to send rational people to hell.

From there we descend to the argument that scientists are all stupid or evil.

Then they get really silly.

I have not seen a single "parody" or "stereotype" that has not been seriously advanced in this forum. Who can ever forget "Breakdancing Greenland"?

"Evolutionists" have posted evidence from geology, paleontology, anatomy, biochemistry, genetics, embryology, radiometric dating, thermodynamics, chemistry, and even cosmology, but the creationists cannot understand it, or will not acknowlege it. The best I have ever seen them do is to assert that God did it, and they know it because the Bible tells them so.

How can anyone be expected to discern the difference between an honest but demented creationist and a troll?

 

[Tomatoman]

I think the problem confronting a rational person trying to enter the mindset of the creationist is more than just trying to marshal a hopelessly silly argument into something coherent, it is the difficulty of empathising with the mentally ill. Trying to argue as a creationist is briefly interesting, but one is soon overcome with a sense of fulility, stupidity, irritation and the urge to scream. This is I think explained by this article from Psychology Today: Creationism as a mental illness | Psychology Today

Creationism as a mental illness

In Cockney rhyming slang, the word ‘believe' is represented by ‘Adam and Eve'. When faced with something baffling, shocking or plain peculiar, you might use the rhetorical expression, ‘Would you Adam and Eve it?' It's ironic, then, that one of the great debates of the day is about the literal truth of the bible story; or in other words, the extent to which we should Adam and Eve in Adam and Eve.

It's a question not just of belief but of denial. The phrase ‘in denial' has become so commonplace it's hard to still hear its power. In common with the ostrich which, as danger approaches, buries its head in the sand, those who are ‘in denial' prefer a false but subjective sense of security to a true but objectively scary reality. Denial brings short term, if illusory, comfort.

Hence creationism, the theory/superstition that, contrary to massive scientific evidence, the world began exactly as described in the Book of Genesis. Instead of deriving from millions of years of patient evolution, Adam and Eve popped out, fully formed, like characters from a Swiss cuckoo clock. Would you Adam and Eve it? Of course not. It's a myth, but like many myths it serves a psychological purpose which is to provide a storybook sense of simple origins, which allays people's fears. Those who believe this myth to be the truth are in a state of denial.

Along with denial, two other factors connect creationism with mental illness. The first is psychosis, which is an extension of denial. If psychosis is marked by the discrepancy between one's personal view of the world and the consensual view, creationism holds onto the personal view at all costs, refusing to accept what is abundantly clear. True, if creationism became the majority view, its psychotic character might be mitigated. Except that this majority view would have no more valence than the belief so widely held about the relationship between the sun and the earth before Copernicus proved how the latter orbits the former, and not vice versa.

Finally, creationism shares with autism an alleged lack of ability for irony. Creationists take the bible story as literally true, unable to recognise that it might be working on those other, mythic levels.

If tests for madness include talking to yourself and looking for hairs on the palm of your hand, then here's another: do you Adam and Eve in Adam and Eve?

That is why this thread will serve only to further convince rational thinkers that creationists all need psychiatric treatment.

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

That is why this thread will serve only to further convince rational thinkers that creationists all need psychiatric treatment.

I disagree. I don't think they are in need of psychiatric help. They suffer the same delusion all of us suffer. The delusion of control. They just hold on to it more tightly than the rest of us because they fear they have something to lose.

I have to admit though I am rather impressed by AV's willingness to give this a try. It at least shows an open mind as opposed to Dove's incessant remarks about using the Bible to prove a point.

I guess that is my fault in part because I did not specify this should be a scientific thread. I always found using the Bible to argue against science odd because in my mind they are dissimilar and I think a poor candidate for trying to convince evolutionists of anything. That is why I would prefer the "creationists" in this role reversal to argue science.

We might find that creationism has some good arguments that we would have never seen if not trying to defend the position, and the same goes for those arguing evolution.

At the bare minimum some of us will gain a better understanding of our position.

I will post another argument against Evolution in a little while. These people I work for actually expect me to work.....

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

My next creationist argument against evolution has to do with Carbon Dating: (pulled mostly from: Feedback: “blatantly devoid of proven scientific evidence” - Answers in Genesis)

The uniformitarian method of radiometric dating is not used to date rocks and fossils because of its short half-life of around 5,730 years. Carbon-14 dating can only give a maximum age of 100,000 years. So, it is generally not used to date fossils that are supposedly millions or billions of years old because it is assumed there is no C-14 present. Rocks are not typically dated with C-14 as there is little to no Carbon in most fossil-bearing rock to begin with. However, scientists have now found that C-14 has been found in coal that is allegedly millions of years old.


In recent research diamonds have been tested for Carbon-14, and in each case some Carbon-14 has been found, even though the diamonds are supposed to be more than 1 billion years old. But to say these diamonds were/are contaminated is not a plausible explanation, since diamond lattices are so tight that not even bacteria can make their way inside.

So how is it "evolutionists", that Carbon-14 has been found in diamonds that are supposed to be billions of years old when it only has a half-life of 5,740 years?

 

[Doveaman]

I guess that is my fault in part because I did not specify this should be a scientific thread. I always found using the Bible to argue against science odd because in my mind they are dissimilar and I think a poor candidate for trying to convince evolutionists of anything.

It's not that the Bible is used to convince evolutionists of creationism, but you will need to use the Bible to convince a creationist of evolution.

We already know that evolutionists avoid chunks of the Bible if not all of it.

 

[Gracchus]

It's not that the Bible is used to convince evolutionists of creationism, but you will need to use the Bible to convince a creationist of evolution.

Why? The Bible never mentions evolution, and when it mentions biology, it usually gets it wrong.

We already know that evolutionists avoid chunks of the Bible if not all of it.

You know that, do you? Which chunks do they ignore?

 

[Doveaman]

Why? The Bible never mentions evolution, and when it mentions biology, it usually gets it wrong.

But it does mention the literal Adam, and Noah, and the flood, etc.

You know that, do you? Which chunks do they ignore?

The chunks that mention the literal Adam, and Noah, and the flood, etc.

 

[Skaloop]

But it does mention the literal Adam, and Noah, and the flood, etc.
The chunks that mention the literal Adam, and Noah, and the flood, etc.

No, it mentions Adam and Noah and the Flood. It doesn't mention the literal part; the word is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

 

[Split Rock]

Each mutation is a testimony of how nature operates within the scope of the forces that literally shape it.

None of this explains how an ape gives birth to a man.

Whether a deletion, an insertion, or a substitution, the one thing in common is that the output matches the input.

Proteins are finely tuned (by God) and any mutation is going to ruin their function.

Every lizard's DNA has a bird waiting to get out.

Only if you assume common descent!

All it takes is a little "prompting" from nature, and voila! a beautiful peacock strutting her stuff, or a robin building her nest, or a parrot with the ability to imitate human sounds with great accuracy.

I believe it's called: the beauty of nature.

We like to call it proof of God's wonderous creation!

Again, I don't see why you're calling this 'worse'.

Any change to a protein is more likely than not to hurt its function.

Yes, it's tragic when someone's DNA 'goes bad' and they get cancer or something.

I hate to see that, but at the same time, you have to realize that mother nature does not play favorites and is, indeed, neutral.

This is due to sin and The Fall and The Curse. Before Adam sinned, there were no mutations, disease or death.

It is "new" in the sense that it is an incipient in a new surrounding.

Every new-born child is new to its environment, is it not?

So? Birds give birth to birds and lizards give birth to lizards. Tell me how a lizard gives birth to a bird, or else evolution is just a relgious belief!

From space (radiation), from earth (carbons and hydrates and nitrogens and oxygens), and from other sources that combine to apply just enough "pressure" (force) on a DNA molecule that, when it replicates, the "child" is different from the "parent".

This is because of the loss of the Hydrogen-metal canopy during The Flood. http://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/baugh.htm

 

[AV1611VET]

None of this explains how an ape gives birth to a man.

You can go to any maternity ward and see the results of apes giving birth to man.

We 'glorified apes' give birth routinely, and evolution makes this explanation possible.

Proteins are finely tuned (by God) and any mutation is going to ruin their function.

Depends on what you mean by 'ruins'.

Perhaps we were fine-tuned to improve on fine tuning?

Anyone who's been through workshop in high schools knows that you don't start out with a shelf being made; you start out with the tools and the materials, and you build the shelf yourself.

Evolution is like that; we started out finely-tuned, were given the ingredients (CHNO) and nature takes if from there.

Only if you assume common descent!

That's the thing though. I don't have to just assume it; I can invest in a little research and see it myself.

Evolution isn't occurring in a fog; and if you don't clearly see it, it's your problem -- not ours.

We like to call it proof of God's wonderous creation!

Suit yourself -- it's 'wondrous' either way, is it not?

Any change to a protein is more likely than not to hurt its function.

That's why the protein is a new one, perfectly capable of handling its new task; even if it means dying in the process.

Think of these proteins in a war, giving themselves so the strong can survive and declare victory by producing a new species capable of dominating its environment.

This is due to sin and The Fall and The Curse. Before Adam sinned, there were no mutations, disease or death.

No mutations before the Fall?

So -- had the Fall not occurred -- Adam, Cain, Abel and Seth would all look alike?

So? Birds give birth to birds and lizards give birth to lizards. Tell me how a lizard gives birth to a bird, or else evolution is just a relgious belief!

You don't get it, do you?

All birds are lizards, but not all lizards are birds.

Evolution flows only one way: successfully.

And she is not going to return (devolve) back to her roots.

This is because of the loss of the Hydrogen-metal canopy during The Flood. IBSS - Other Views - Carl Baugh

Oh, for crying out loud -- is this the guy you're talking about?

Carl Edward Baugh (born 1936) is an American young earth creationist who, with others, claims to have discovered human alongside dinosaur footprints near the Paluxy River in Texas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Baugh#cite_note-MWI-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Baugh#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Baugh#cite_note-2His claims have been rejected by the scientific community and other creationists as pseudoscience. His http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Baugh#cite_note-Dallas-Observer-3educational credentials have been called into question.

 

[Split Rock]

You can go to any maternity ward and see the results of apes giving birth to man.

We 'glorified apes' give birth routinely, and evolution makes this explanation possible.

I do not accept that I am an "ape." (yuck!) I was made in God's image and He is not an ape.

Depends on what you mean by 'ruins'.

Perhaps we were fine-tuned to improve on fine tuning?

Anyone who's been through workshop in high schools knows that you don't start out with a shelf being made; you start out with the tools and the materials, and you build the shelf yourself.

Evolution is like that; we started out finely-tuned, were given the ingredients (CHNO) and nature takes if from there.

If a protein is fined tuned to start with, why would it need further tuning?

That's the thing though. I don't have to just assume it; I can invest in a little research and see it myself.

Evolution isn't occurring in a fog; and if you don't clearly see it, it's your problem -- not ours.

You are of course referring to Adaptation, or Micro-evolution. All creationists worth their salt accepts these, but they only operate within created kinds. There is no evidence of macro-evolution, like an ape evolving into a human.

Suit yourself -- it's 'wondrous' either way, is it not?

Yes it is!

That's why the protein is a new one, perfectly capable of handling its new task; even if it means dying in the process.

Where does a new protein come from, if most mutations wreck proteins?

Think of these proteins in a war, giving themselves so the strong can survive and declare victory by producing a new species capable of dominating its environment.

This is why evolution is the religion of Death.

No mutations before the Fall?

So -- had the Fall not occurred -- Adam, Cain, Abel and Seth would all look alike?

Yah! God gave Adam and Eve all the genetic variability they needed for Abel and Seth to look different. God understands the need for variety.

You don't get it, do you?

All birds are lizards, but not all lizards are birds.

Evolution flows only one way: successfully.

And she is not going to return (devolve) back to her roots.

Then how do you explain de-volution, like a lizard loses its legs and turning into a snake? Or a fish loses its eyesight living in a cave? This is all evolution is capable of: a loss of information, rather than a gain of information.

Oh, for crying out loud -- is this the guy you're talking about?

Instead of ad hominen attacks on Dr. Carl Baugh, why don't you refute his data, if you can?

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

(Split and AV, I have to say it is rather amusing and interesting at the same time to see you two go at it from different perspectives.

AV is doing a really good job defending his position... Better than I had hoped to be honest.)

Depends on what you mean by 'ruins'.

Perhaps we were fine-tuned to improve on fine tuning?

Anyone who's been through workshop in high schools knows that you don't start out with a shelf being made; you start out with the tools and the materials, and you build the shelf yourself.

Evolution is like that; we started out finely-tuned, were given the ingredients (CHNO) and nature takes if from there.

Sounds to me like all this fine tuning was done by a creator? I mean in your own analogy you mentioned a shelf... Did someone not create this shelf to be "fine tuned"?

That's the thing though. I don't have to just assume it; I can invest in a little research and see it myself.

Evolution isn't occurring in a fog; and if you don't clearly see it, it's your problem -- not ours.

No, what you see is today's results. We can't know for sure how the world operated in the past because we were not there to see it or test it. So while your evidence may show that Evolution happened over billions of years you don't know. All of your evidence merely points to adaptation.

No mutations before the Fall?

So -- had the Fall not occurred -- Adam, Cain, Abel and Seth would all look alike?

This is a silly assumption. God created them to all look different.

All birds are lizards, but not all lizards are birds.

Evolution flows only one way: successfully.

And she is not going to return (devolve) back to her roots.

Tell that to the dodo... or the dinosaurs... I'd say "evolution" was horribly unsuccessful there.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do not accept that I am an "ape." (yuck!) I was made in God's image and He is not an ape.

Do you accept that you are a mammal?

If so, you can't just pick and choose what you are and what you aren't.

Taxonomy didn't spring up overnight.

It is a very precise and thorough study of animal origins and their placement in the animal kingdom; and frankly, it's insulting to see someone just claim they are bits and pieces of it, and leave the rest behind like it's a candy wrapper or something.

If a protein is fined tuned to start with, why would it need further tuning?

Because the environment changes, and if the protein doesn't change to accommodate to that new environment, then no matter how fine-tuned it is, it isn't going to be able to do its job.

You are of course referring to Adaptation, or Micro-evolution.

Yup -- evolution is like that.

How do you guys put it?

Line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little, there a little.

Evolution can't just arbitrarily leap ahead and skip steps.

If it did, then it would have to fall back, as evolution either covers all of its bases, or it covers none of its bases.

Unlike your god-of-the-gaps explanations; where miracles are inserted as needed to smooth out wrinkles in your logic.

All creationists worth their salt accepts these, but they only operate within created kinds.

Unless you're a plant or a mineral, there is only one "kind" -- animal kind -- period.

There is no evidence of macro-evolution, like an ape evolving into a human.

Keep looking. (ouch)

Where does a new protein come from, if most mutations wreck proteins?

From the "rubble" of course.

Like the mighty Phoenix rising out of the ashes, evolution produces true survivors in the face of an ever-changing environment.

This is why evolution is the religion of Death.

If evolution has to cut off a finger to save a hand, it will do it -- (but it will do everything it can to save both first, and won't change unless the forces acting upon it force it to).

Yah! God gave Adam and Eve all the genetic variability they needed for Abel and Seth to look different. God understands the need for variety.

Well -- there you go then.

You have identified the source of the force that acts on DNA to produce these -- (as some call them) -- "copy errors".

Then how do you explain de-volution, like a lizard loses its legs and turning into a snake? Or a fish loses its eyesight living in a cave? This is all evolution is capable of: a loss of information, rather than a gain of information.

Haven't you ever heard the phrase, "That's more information than I want to know"?

If an animal moves into a certain environment, he may take too much information with him, and need to give up some of it in order to survive.

I know that sounds odd, but think about it.

Bats that trade eyesight for radar have a distinct advantage over a bear or other animal that might wander into the cave looking for meat.

Instead of ad hominen attacks on Dr. Carl Baugh, why don't you refute his data, if you can?

It's already been relegated to "pseudoscience", even by his fellow creationists.

That speaks more than anything I can say about his data.

 

[AV1611VET]

Role reversal mode:

(Split and AV, I have to say it is rather amusing and interesting at the same time to see you two go at it from different perspectives.

AV is doing a really good job defending his position... Better than I had hoped to be honest.)

-- Awww, thank you!

No, what you see is today's results.

That's all I need to see.

Embedded in the results, are the method(s) that created those results; and to recognize the results is to recognize how those results occurred.

That's what science is all about -- being able to identify both cause and effect.

That's why we can repeat many of them under controlled conditions -- we understand them.

We can't know for sure how the world operated in the past because we were not there to see it or test it.

That doesn't mean we're so blind that someone can come along and say just the opposite occurred.

We may not know every nuance of the past, but we know enough that we can tell when we're being walked on by deniers.

So while your evidence may show that Evolution happened over billions of years you don't know.

Well that's the beauty of evolution, is it not?

It just has that mystique about it that tells us that it happened, while at the same time gently reminding us that we weren't there to see everything.

 

[Tomatoman]

(Split and AV, I have to say it is rather amusing and interesting at the same time to see you two go at it from different perspectives.

AV is doing a really good job defending his position... Better than I had hoped to be honest.)

I have to agree, they are both putting up a very good show.

It is a little like watching people talking in a foriegn language though, every so often you can see them doing the equivalent of groping round for a word or phrase they don't know, almost like them saying, "'ow you say in engleez... ah, zut alors, Je ne sais pas...ow you say..."

But all very good fun, and very impressive.

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

Keep looking. (ouch)

lol

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

(Split and AV, I have to say it is rather amusing and interesting at the same time to see you two go at it from different perspectives.

AV is doing a really good job defending his position... Better than I had hoped to be honest.)
​

I have to agree, they are both putting up a very good show.

It is a little like watching people talking in a foriegn language though, every so often you can see them doing the equivalent of groping round for a word or phrase they don't know, almost like them saying, "'ow you say in engleez... ah, zut alors, Je ne sais pas...ow you say..."

But all very good fun, and very impressive.

Absolutely. Though its almost scary how convincingly they pull this off.

Hope to see more of this keep it up

 

[Split Rock]

Do you accept that you are a mammal?

If so, you can't just pick and choose what you are and what you aren't.

Taxonomy didn't spring up overnight.

It is a very precise and thorough study of animal origins and their placement in the animal kingdom; and frankly, it's insulting to see someone just claim they are bits and pieces of it, and leave the rest behind like it's a candy wrapper or something.

God created Adam separately from the beasts of the field. So, no thank you, I am not an "animal." You may be an animal, but I am not.

Because the environment changes, and if the protein doesn't change to accommodate to that new environment, then no matter how fine-tuned it is, it isn't going to be able to do its job.

God did allow for adaptation, so that His creations would endure. It is not Molecules-to-Man evolution.

Yup -- evolution is like that.

How do you guys put it?

Line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little, there a little.

Evolution can't just arbitrarily leap ahead and skip steps.

If it did, then it would have to fall back, as evolution either covers all of its bases, or it covers none of its bases.

Microevolution cannot lead to macroevolution, which has never been observed. What is required is the creation of new organs and new organs cannot come from random changes in DNA. Macrovevolution is nothing but a Godless Belief System. Show me a lizard evolve into a bird and I will believe in macroevolution.

Unlike your god-of-the-gaps explanations; where miracles are inserted as needed to smooth out wrinkles in your logic.

If miracles occured, then it would be foolishness to pretend they did not!

Unless you're a plant or a mineral, there is only one "kind" -- animal kind -- period.

The Bible mentions many Kinds, including beasts, whales, bats, etc.

Keep looking. (ouch)

Have you evos found the Flood layers yet? If not......

From the "rubble" of course.

Like the mighty Phoenix rising out of the ashes, evolution produces true survivors in the face of an ever-changing environment.

Mighty Phoenix??? I didn't know you evos believed in myths other than common descent!

If evolution has to cut off a finger to save a hand, it will do it -- (but it will do everything it can to save both first, and won't change unless the forces acting upon it force it to).

This again, constitutes a loss of Information, not a gain of Information. Unless you can show us how evolution creates new Information, Darwnism is Doomed.

Well -- there you go then.

You have identified the source of the force that acts on DNA to produce these -- (as some call them) -- "copy errors".

I am not a mutant copy-error! (tee hee)

Haven't you ever heard the phrase, "That's more information than I want to know"?

If an animal moves into a certain environment, he may take too much information with him, and need to give up some of it in order to survive.

I know that sounds odd, but think about it.

Yes, yes, yes... I agree that Natural Selection can result in a loss of information. What I want to know is how random mutations produce new information.

Bats that trade eyesight for radar have a distinct advantage over a bear or other animal that might wander into the cave looking for meat.

Radar is too complex to have evolved by random chance.

It's already been relegated to "pseudoscience", even by his fellow creationists.

That speaks more than anything I can say about his data.

There are many creationists who think Dr. Carl Baugh has much to offer.