Creationism Strikes Back
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-01-2012, 04:20 AM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back




Creationist antibodies - when they start yapping I can hear the music play. That's an evolved trait, fellas.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2012, 05:09 AM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
I'm not even going to bother with this nonsense. I'll simply call all these fucktards a fucktards that they are. There, refute this!

Smile

I mean, this is all so funny, they all demand PROOF from atheists that our views are true, yet they have NEVER shown a single PROOF for any of their statements. What are we, first grade kids? Or retards? I think I'm gonna write a book, say that the book was written from nothing and that nobody has written it, it has written itself and I will go around the world asking the Creationists to disprove things from the book. Things like Flying Spaghetti Monster...

Why do I ever read this kind of things, it just upsets me, now I have to go home and smoke and smoke... DAMN you Creationists, you make me smoke all day long!!

Smile

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Filox's post
11-01-2012, 05:19 AM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
Filox's 15 questions that Creationists cannot answer:

1. You're a fucktard, aren't you?

Edit: Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
11-01-2012, 07:43 AM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
You know what I love about creationism? There is no question in my mind that it is wrong. Not only scientifically, but scripturally incorrect as well. It's Evil, man. Angel

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
12-01-2012, 11:06 AM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
I hope this movement burns in the fiery pits of Mordor.

[Image: websig.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-01-2012, 12:24 PM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
1. How did life originate?

Not about evolution, as others have said. We don't know yet, but we're working on it in mainstream biological research. False dichotomous assumption that either there's an existing naturalistic explanation or that theism is the most probable explanation, which is not the case. One could also be a methodological naturalist such as myself and deny that theism has any real credibility as even a candidate for explanation.

2. How did the DNA code originate?

Also not about evolution. See my response to 1. Furthermore, the idea that information cannot exist without a designer is silly. Creationists need to look into information theory. Lastly, confuses the existence of patterns (all a "DNA code" ultimately is) with the apprehension of patterns; confuses the map with the territory.

3. How could mutations...create the huge volume of information in living things?

A) There is a lot of material to mutate, B) there have been a lot of generations for these mutations to occur, C) most mutations are neutral, D) deleterious mutations are under greater selective pressure, creationists serious need to learn population genetics, E) mutations are not "good" or "bad" in a vacuum, only relative to the environment.

4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as 'evolution,' as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

Because it, combined with variation, does. The combinatronics of the amount of base pair combinations available with the amount of DNA even simple organisms have is mind boggling (creationists need to learn math), and deletion and addition of material is explicable biochemically. Suppose I have a ship, and I replace individual pieces as I need them to keep the ship working. By the end I could have a very, very different ship, even though each part was only very slightly different. I could also take the wood from the deck and build a raft. The creationists demonstrate very poor understanding of basic metaphysics as well as of science.

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, evolve?

Redux of irreducible complexity. Deletion of parts of a system, multiple parts being added, a change in the function of the system, addition of another function to a part, and more explain this. In fact it has been observed as being fairly common. Also, the proximity between genes can often affect their mutation behavior, such as their propensity to become fixed.

6. Living things look like they're designed, so how do evolutionists know they're not designed?

Stupidest one yet. So what if they look designed? That's human intuition at work. We know because our theory is confirmed to an extremely high degree of probability, and theism has an extremely low probability. Creationists also need to learn epistemology.

7. How did multi-cellular life originate?

Mistakenly assumes that single-celled organisms always behaved with an organism-level egoism. Cooperation can be selected for due to the presence of prisoner's dilemmas and other coordination problems. Also reeks of "irreducible complexity."

8. How did sex originate?

Reproduction is not binary. There are plenty of organisms with reproduction that isn't purely asexual or two-organism sexual. Sexual reproduction also helps resist the negative effects of genetic load in a population with less members and slower reproduction, which is why you see much more asexuality among microbes than mammals, for population genetics reasons that I'm sure creationists wouldn't understand. E.g. the recombination of information from two different organisms means it takes longer for certain deleterious traits to be exposed to dramatic selective pressure. You either recombine more similar information many times really quickly (microbes and most asexual organisms) or more different information less often and more slowly (large animals and such). Two different strategies.

9. Why are the expected (countless) transitional fossils missing?

Because fossilization is not that common. The number of fossils we do have is actually very good all things considered. We have found plenty of transitional fossils, including fossils from periods of transition between major groups of organisms.

10. How do 'living fossils' remain unchanged over hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?

Because they are well-adapted to their environments and their environments haven't changed much. Furthermore, some things about them probably have changed (such as their immune systems) besides their obvious morphology.

11. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism, and morality?

If we assume physicalism concerning the mind-brain problem this is trivial, as while we don't know the specifics yet, the brain obviously evolved, and intelligence is just something the brain does. "Meaning" is too vague. Do they mean our ability to apprehend semantic content (in which case see cognitive science) or the wishy-washy Rick Warren metaphysical "meaning" which is an incoherent idea to begin with? For altruism, see social coordination problems, prisoner's dilemmas, etc. (see the section on multicellular life). Morality is a certain sort of cultural behavior and I fail to see how it has any special significance with respect to its evolutionary origin (another cultural thing that humans do in their complex social lives).

12. Why is evolutionary 'just-so' storytelling tolerated?

Evolution is a massive background framework. It isn't a point against evolution that we have to try to explain how certain observed phenomenon are compatible with it. Even if we assume a falsificationist account of science, evolution could definitely be falsified, e.g. by a static fossil record.

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

What is meant by a breakthrough? If they mean instrumental benefit, this is irrelevant to if it is true. If they mean breakthrough understandings of the world, how are the discoveries of evolutionary biology not breakthrough, under any plausible sense of the term?

14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how thinks work, how things operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?

...what? Science is a hypothetico-deductive project to investigate the way the world is. History? "Operational science" (a term I don't see in philosophy of science journals)? What crap.

Suppose we observe mutation and natural selection in a lab. We can then extrapolate hypothetically how we would expect the world to work if it did behave this way, and how probable it is that we'd see this evidence if the world were some other way. We can then examine other bits of world like the past (through fossils) predictions about the future, etc. This is more evidence that we apply the same probabilistic reasoning to. If our hypothesis (evolution) is more probable than any competing hypothesis (and in evolution's case is highly probable simpliciter) then we have rationally demonstrated the theory. Creationists clearly don't know how science works.

Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?

It isn't, that's what creationists want.

Sometimes I don't know why I even bother any more, but I felt compelled to respond to this round of creationist nuttery.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Valdyr's post
23-01-2012, 02:53 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2012 03:08 PM by Jasrace.)
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
ShockofGod blocked me on YouTube because he is a pussy. Lol
(12-01-2012 12:24 PM)Valdyr Wrote:  1. How did life originate?

Not about evolution, as others have said. We don't know yet, but we're working on it in mainstream biological research. False dichotomous assumption that either there's an existing naturalistic explanation or that theism is the most probable explanation, which is not the case. One could also be a methodological naturalist such as myself and deny that theism has any real credibility as even a candidate for explanation.

2. How did the DNA code originate?

Also not about evolution. See my response to 1. Furthermore, the idea that information cannot exist without a designer is silly. Creationists need to look into information theory. Lastly, confuses the existence of patterns (all a "DNA code" ultimately is) with the apprehension of patterns; confuses the map with the territory.

3. How could mutations...create the huge volume of information in living things?

A) There is a lot of material to mutate, B) there have been a lot of generations for these mutations to occur, C) most mutations are neutral, D) deleterious mutations are under greater selective pressure, creationists serious need to learn population genetics, E) mutations are not "good" or "bad" in a vacuum, only relative to the environment.

4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as 'evolution,' as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

Because it, combined with variation, does. The combinatronics of the amount of base pair combinations available with the amount of DNA even simple organisms have is mind boggling (creationists need to learn math), and deletion and addition of material is explicable biochemically. Suppose I have a ship, and I replace individual pieces as I need them to keep the ship working. By the end I could have a very, very different ship, even though each part was only very slightly different. I could also take the wood from the deck and build a raft. The creationists demonstrate very poor understanding of basic metaphysics as well as of science.

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, evolve?

Redux of irreducible complexity. Deletion of parts of a system, multiple parts being added, a change in the function of the system, addition of another function to a part, and more explain this. In fact it has been observed as being fairly common. Also, the proximity between genes can often affect their mutation behavior, such as their propensity to become fixed.

6. Living things look like they're designed, so how do evolutionists know they're not designed?

Stupidest one yet. So what if they look designed? That's human intuition at work. We know because our theory is confirmed to an extremely high degree of probability, and theism has an extremely low probability. Creationists also need to learn epistemology.

7. How did multi-cellular life originate?

Mistakenly assumes that single-celled organisms always behaved with an organism-level egoism. Cooperation can be selected for due to the presence of prisoner's dilemmas and other coordination problems. Also reeks of "irreducible complexity."

8. How did sex originate?

Reproduction is not binary. There are plenty of organisms with reproduction that isn't purely asexual or two-organism sexual. Sexual reproduction also helps resist the negative effects of genetic load in a population with less members and slower reproduction, which is why you see much more asexuality among microbes than mammals, for population genetics reasons that I'm sure creationists wouldn't understand. E.g. the recombination of information from two different organisms means it takes longer for certain deleterious traits to be exposed to dramatic selective pressure. You either recombine more similar information many times really quickly (microbes and most asexual organisms) or more different information less often and more slowly (large animals and such). Two different strategies.

9. Why are the expected (countless) transitional fossils missing?

Because fossilization is not that common. The number of fossils we do have is actually very good all things considered. We have found plenty of transitional fossils, including fossils from periods of transition between major groups of organisms.

10. How do 'living fossils' remain unchanged over hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?

Because they are well-adapted to their environments and their environments haven't changed much. Furthermore, some things about them probably have changed (such as their immune systems) besides their obvious morphology.

11. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism, and morality?

If we assume physicalism concerning the mind-brain problem this is trivial, as while we don't know the specifics yet, the brain obviously evolved, and intelligence is just something the brain does. "Meaning" is too vague. Do they mean our ability to apprehend semantic content (in which case see cognitive science) or the wishy-washy Rick Warren metaphysical "meaning" which is an incoherent idea to begin with? For altruism, see social coordination problems, prisoner's dilemmas, etc. (see the section on multicellular life). Morality is a certain sort of cultural behavior and I fail to see how it has any special significance with respect to its evolutionary origin (another cultural thing that humans do in their complex social lives).

12. Why is evolutionary 'just-so' storytelling tolerated?

Evolution is a massive background framework. It isn't a point against evolution that we have to try to explain how certain observed phenomenon are compatible with it. Even if we assume a falsificationist account of science, evolution could definitely be falsified, e.g. by a static fossil record.

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

What is meant by a breakthrough? If they mean instrumental benefit, this is irrelevant to if it is true. If they mean breakthrough understandings of the world, how are the discoveries of evolutionary biology not breakthrough, under any plausible sense of the term?

14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how thinks work, how things operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?

...what? Science is a hypothetico-deductive project to investigate the way the world is. History? "Operational science" (a term I don't see in philosophy of science journals)? What crap.

Suppose we observe mutation and natural selection in a lab. We can then extrapolate hypothetically how we would expect the world to work if it did behave this way, and how probable it is that we'd see this evidence if the world were some other way. We can then examine other bits of world like the past (through fossils) predictions about the future, etc. This is more evidence that we apply the same probabilistic reasoning to. If our hypothesis (evolution) is more probable than any competing hypothesis (and in evolution's case is highly probable simpliciter) then we have rationally demonstrated the theory. Creationists clearly don't know how science works.

Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?

It isn't, that's what creationists want.

Sometimes I don't know why I even bother any more, but I felt compelled to respond to this round of creationist nuttery.

Thanks for posting this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2012, 03:15 PM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
Hey Valdyr

Skipped your post the first time round but read it now and glad I did. Very lucidly put Smile Not that you'll change any minds Undecided sigh.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2012, 10:56 PM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
Hey guys I came up with this new thing, now those atheists are gonna be in big trouble!

1. Question no one knows. What's the answer? YOU DON'T KNOW!? WELL THEN THAT PROVES THERE IS A GOD! AHA!

2. Derp derp DNA? AHA! YOU SEE! no one knows! therefore we know because a book says so!

3. Babble babble babble! babble? HAHA!

I couldn't get past question 6... I just shook my head.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logisch's post
24-01-2012, 04:10 AM
RE: Creationism Strikes Back
Quote:the way in which
scientists typically report their findings, in formal papers submitted to
learned journals, is, he says, 'notorious for misrepresenting the process of
thought that led to whatever discoveries they describe.'[1] Preconceptions are
rarely acknowledged, because this, after all, would be 'unscientific.' And yet
preconceptions are and individual scientist's guide to how to view the world
with a degree of order that allows structured questions to be asked…

This irritates me. It's mostly bollocks. Has the person who wrote this even submitted a paper for peer review? Misrepresenting data will get your paper rejected faster than god can commit genocide. If any one reviewer cannot follow your train of thought exactly to see where you got from data analysis to conclusion, your conclusion will be picked apart. I've had papers rejected for less than "preconceptions".

That said, I'd like to see the bible submitted for peer review.

"But the point is, find somebody to love. Everything else is overrated." - HouseofCantor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Smooshmonster's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: