15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[abu afak]

Looks like a Revival is on the way
[URL unfurlNewsmax.com/newsfront/Bible-books-Religious...

LOFL

`

 

[Blisterfinger]

LOFL

`

Looks like someone's triggered LOL

 

[Blisterfinger]

LOFL

`

Hurt your feelings little boy?

 

[Blisterfinger]

LOFL

`

Settle down now dumbass

 

[Blisterfinger]

LOFL

`

You're so stupid you can't even respond

 

[Blisterfinger]

LOFL

`

You are so ******* stupid all you can put is little pictures on here! What a dumbass

 

[Blisterfinger]

LOFL

`

You're so stupid you can't even respond! Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha gotcha

 

[Blisterfinger]

LOFL

`

What's the matter cat got your tongue dumbass

LOFL

`

Stupid and ignorant is no way to go through life Abu

 

[abu afak]

• This thread is based on “why?”
• 
  
• Since a century and a half after Darwin produced his eloquent theory, with more professional scientists active today than every before, why has no proof of Darwin’s theory been produced, and, in fact with evidence has been found in Chengyiang, China, Syria, England, with fossils showing the very opposite pattern from Darwin’s predictions.
• 
  
• Why is this provably false theory taught as fact in schools?
• To whom is it so important that it be viewed as such?
• Answer: any who need God driven from the common discussion: the ideologies that have murdered untold million of human being and don’t care to have God watching their actions, or to individuals who understand God's view of murder.

• Meyer: “There are two issues: how do you get to the first life from simple non-living chemicals…we have no chemical evolutionary theory that accounts for the first life.”
• 
  
• Never have scientists been able to generate living organisms from any array of chemicals or any procedure.

• 
  
• “Darwin presumed some simple organisms, which we now know were not simple, and then proposed a mechanism by which they could generate all the new forms of life.”
• The mechanism proposed does a nice job of explaining small scale variations…adaptions such as bigger or smaller in response to weather but does a very poor job of explaining the major variations in the history of life such as the origin of birds, mammals….”

Here is the key fact that obviates Darwin's theory:
“In the fossil record we do see very abrupt appearance without the transitional intermediates you would expect on the basis of Darwin’s theory.”


Why is it so important to persuade every susceptible individual that it is true????

Science doesn't deal in 'proof,' (only math can in the absolute sense) it deals in theories validated over time.
In 160 Years and an explosion of new sciences, NOTHING Contradicts it AND all relevant ones help Affirm it: Radiocarbon dating, DNA, millions of new fossil finds, etc.

"1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution.
[......]

`

 

[zaangalewa]

...In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution.

And that's exactly the problem. Some things are evolution - others not. Evolution needs for example a world which is consistent. Things have to fit to each other - otherwise they are not able to "survive". Most things what people say when they use what they think what "evolution" could be is just simple nonsense - like for example "the evolution of cars". Machines in general do not evolve. They are dead constructed things following "teleology" = following plans. What most people absolutelly do not understand who use the expression "evolution" is it that evolution has no plans, no intentions - nothing except "fitness". Life has not to be. Life is.

This means by the way also that the first four editions of the "origin of species" of the idiot Charles Darwin had been wrong before the philosopher Spencer "evolved" (=corrected) the book of Charles Darwin with his idea "fitness" which fitted much better. Evolution is "only" able to fit to this what's all around and what's real, what's true. Evolution is part of creation. The whole Americo-English discussion "evolution vs creation" is a fake discussion. If everything would only be evolution then "to fit" and "to survive" would be the same and the theory of evolution would be a worthless tautology. Without creation no evolution.

 

[abu afak]

And that's exactly the problem. Some things are evolution - others not. Evolution needs for example a world which is consistent. Things have to fit to each other - otherwise they are not able to "survive". Most things what people say when they use what they think what "evolution" could be is just simple nonsense - like for example "the evolution of cars". Machines in general do not evolve. They are dead constructed things following "teleology" = following plans. What most people absolutelly do not understand who use the expression "evolution" is it that evolution has no plans, no intentions - nothing except "fitness". Life has not to be. Life is.

This means by the way also that the first four editions of the "origin of species" of the idiot Charles Darwin had been wrong before the philosopher Spencer "evolved" (=corrected) the book of Charles Darwin with his idea "fitness" which fitted much better. Evolution is "only" able to fit to this what's all around and what's real, what's true. Evolution is part of creation. The whole Americo-English discussion "evolution vs creation" is a fake discussion. If everything would only be evolution then "to fit" and "to survive" would be the same and the theory of evolution would be a worthless tautology. Without creation no evolution.

You are merely talking different but still valid usages of the word.

`

 

[zaangalewa]

You are merely talking different but still valid usages of the word.

My experience with this fake-discussion in the English speaking world is it that so called "creationists" have not a big idea about the Christian religion and so called "evolutionists" have not a big idea about evolution.

For example believe many "evolutionists" that the universe has to be full of intelligent life forms. They argue this is a matter of probability because an unbelievable amount of planets exists and use a construct which is called "self organisation of matter". But indeed has evolution no intentions, makes no plans and we are surrounded nearly only from matter which is not living at all. Even under very best conditions here on planet Earth is nearly no life existing compared with the mass of the planet. The natural law evolution not creates life - life is just simple. And it is able to be because the natural law evolution exists. But I could also say life exists because the natural law gravity exists. Or life is existing because light (=electrogmganetism) exists. Light for example did not evolve but "froze out" and came free (the universe became transparent). Such phenomenons have nothing to do with "evolution" for example. In the end say very most "evolutionists" that life exists because the universe is full of natural laws - including evolution. But they also do not know how it came that a universe appeared in which all natural laws - including evolution - had been existing since the very first Plank-second (which is falsely called Plank-time). Evolution on its own - like any other natural law - did not evolve. Evolution was created. All physical laws are created. And everything in the universe has to fit to this natural laws. Otherwise "natural science" would be an impossible thing to do.

 

[zaangalewa]

abu afak

Do you have the intellectual capacity exactly to say what you call "fake news", weirdo? Evolution is without plan, without "teleology". So tell me please why the natural law evolution (whatever it is) should "create" all over the universe life-forms. What we currently know is just simple that life exists on the third planet of the solar system with the name "sun system". So "life" (whatever this is) seems to fit here. But if we make a difference between multi-cellular life and other life forms (="slime") then multi-cellular life has good conditions here only since the last 500 million years. And not to forget in this context: Our own galaxy is one of the eldest galaxies which we know. So theoretically everywhere all around us in the near should exist life. But where is it if not here? Living matter is for sure the most seldom form of matter. Life is extremely valuable. And this is no opinion. This is a fact. The strange thing is not this. The strange thing is what we are doing. Also what you are doing. You are not able to express what you really think on whatever reason - but you attack another life form. And you do so although you are not hungry - and even if you would be hungry and win you could not eat me so this is changing nothing in your own biological living conditions. You show with your comment "fake news" only "I am stupid" and calculate with solidarity on reason of the stupidity of others. But one of the most evil things in our world is learned stupidity. Prejudices are able to be right - but who learned to be a professional idiot will always be wrong and never find out why.

 

[abu afak]

And that's exactly the problem. Some things are evolution - others not. Evolution needs for example a world which is consistent. Things have to fit to each other - otherwise they are not able to "survive". Most things what people say when they use what they think what "evolution" could be is just simple nonsense - like for example "the evolution of cars". Machines in general do not evolve. They are dead constructed things following "teleology" = following plans. What most people absolutelly do not understand who use the expression "evolution" is it that evolution has no plans, no intentions - nothing except "fitness". Life has not to be. Life is.

This means by the way also that the first four editions of the "origin of species" of the idiot Charles Darwin had been wrong before the philosopher Spencer "evolved" (=corrected) the book of Charles Darwin with his idea "fitness" which fitted much better. Evolution is "only" able to fit to this what's all around and what's real, what's true. Evolution is part of creation. The whole Americo-English discussion "evolution vs creation" is a fake discussion. If everything would only be evolution then "to fit" and "to survive" would be the same and the theory of evolution would be a worthless tautology. Without creation no evolution.

1. Evolution is Not abiogenesis.
2. Evolution works by Mutation/copy errors along the chain.. the favorable ones survive/flourish and even replace previous forms.
3. Glad you dropped the inane music boobtubes from every post.
4. Coherence is a problem for you, so I kept this short/direct. Let's see if you can even remotely do the same.
`

 

[zaangalewa]

1. Evolution is Not abiogenesis.
2. Evolution works by Mutation/copy errors along the chain.. the favorable ones survive/flourish and even replace previous forms.
3. Glad you dropped the inane music boobtubes from every post.
4. Coherence is a problem for you, so I kept this short/direct. Let's see if you can even remotely do the same.
`

Please do me the favor not to try to tell me something about the real scientific theory of evolution and/or about evolutionary epistemology. But one or two questions I could answer if you would ask.

 

[FredVegbarfuss]

Why should God be excluded from involvement from the start?

Even though there may be evolution in the explanation there is not reason that God's involvement is excluded, why would it be?

There is necessary existence, that must be, and this is why there is any existence at all, the necessary existence bringing any other existence into being, the necessary existence always existing and existing everywhere and having no limit, being necessary, which necessary existence is. If this were not so, nothing would exist. Particles and anti-particles coming into existence which is offered as an explanation is not from nothing, something that can have that would be existing then, not being nothing. And necessary existence would be greater than that. There is more that can be said about necessary existence but this logic should be followed, this far.

Is this any better thing to argue for?
"Physicist Says He's Identified a Clue That We're Living in a Computer Simulation" Physicist Says He's Identified a Clue That We're Living in a Computer Simulation

 

[Woodznutz]

Lately we've had a Bimbo Outbreak here, with kweationist klowns and konspiwicysts starting whacky strings. Virtually all the challenges are answered here briefly.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy.
[......]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.​

​

Many people learned in Elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.​

​

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution.​

[......]​

Relevent to some recent Kweationist Klownery.

​

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.​

On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.​

​

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.​

​

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.​

​

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.​

Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.​

​

Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.​

​

12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.​

Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.​

​

Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.​

​

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.​

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.​

​

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.​

​

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.​

[......]​

+

Nice try, but no cigar. Creationism stands.

 

[ReinyDays]

Why should God be excluded from involvement from the start?

Even though there may be evolution in the explanation there is not reason that God's involvement is excluded, why would it be?

There is necessary existence, that must be, and this is why there is any existence at all, the necessary existence bringing any other existence into being, the necessary existence always existing and existing everywhere and having no limit, being necessary, which necessary existence is. If this were not so, nothing would exist. Particles and anti-particles coming into existence which is offered as an explanation is not from nothing, something that can have that would be existing then, not being nothing. And necessary existence would be greater than that. There is more that can be said about necessary existence but this logic should be followed, this far.

Is this any better thing to argue for?
"Physicist Says He's Identified a Clue That We're Living in a Computer Simulation" Physicist Says He's Identified a Clue That We're Living in a Computer Simulation

[bolding mine]

As a Christian, I can assure you there is no experiment that demonstrates God had any roll in Creation ... therefore, God cannot be addressed by science ... the subject is strictly Philosophy ...

You have presented a series of fine philosophical arguments ... and we do have several scientific theories that explain where existence came from ... none are sexier than "poof, the universe came into being" ... this fits well with Western Civilization's foundation in "poof, God's Creation came into being" ... the Oscillating Universe is too Hindu for Englishing folks ...

Particles and their anti-particles were formed from energy ... and we can duplicate "pair-production" in the lab ... the better question is where did the energy come from ... and here Conventional Wisdom has the energy coming from a singularity ... now where does a singularity come from? ... and of course, the answer is "no where" ... we can't place a "where" or "from" on a singularity ... it doesn't exist, yet ... singularities have no spatial dimensions and cannot be located in a spatial co-ordinate system ... they just have no spatial existence ...

Worse ... under Quantum Mechanics, singularities cannot be ... the Big Bang Theory is strictly mythology ... a tale told until we learn more ... "dark energy" and "dark matter" is just made-up nonsense until we find the true culprit ... what we see in the universe doesn't match our mathematical theories, so we look to see what's wrong with the universe ...

Humans and their tender ego ...

 

[alang1216]

under Quantum Mechanics, singularities cannot be ... the Big Bang Theory is strictly mythology ... a tale told until we learn more ... "dark energy" and "dark matter" is just made-up nonsense until we find the true culprit ... what we see in the universe doesn't match our mathematical theories, so we look to see what's wrong with the universe ...

I'm no physicist but, as I understand the science, you are wrong.

• Quantum Mechanics does not preclude the Big Bang Theory so far as I know.
• "Dark energy" and "dark matter" exist and explain what we see, we just don't know exactly what they are but they do exist.
• Our mathematical theories do not completely model what we see in the universe but they are not wrong any more than Newton was wrong. Einstein just came up with a more complete description of the universe.

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm no physicist but, as I understand the science, you are wrong.

• Quantum Mechanics does not preclude the Big Bang Theory so far as I know.
• "Dark energy" and "dark matter" exist and explain what we see, we just don't know exactly what they are but they do exist.
• Our mathematical theories do not completely model what we see in the universe but they are not wrong any more than Newton was wrong. Einstein just came up with a more complete description of the universe.

You are correct as far as you go ... but my claim was that QM dismisses singularities ... supposedly nothing can be smaller than 1 Planck length ... that's given as 1.616255(18)×10^−35 m ...

The universe isn't smooth at her smallest scales ... like dicing or the Periodic Table ... there's no "in between" values ... can't roll an 8.4 or have Element # 42.751 ...

Just repeating what I hear on the construction site ...