15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[abu afak]

Where have YOU, a 'science poster' been while these Idiots are Blaring THEIR anti-evo OPs?

I let them blare because their ignorance doesn't offend me. I recognize that acting like an asshole won't benefit science. Their ignorance doesn't excuse your childish behavior. If you actually care about science you should stop using it to berate people that don't see things the way you do.

1. You seem completely one-sided in your attacks.
Where are they against Creationist clowns whose OP's Precede mine?
2. I can't debate these people who openly trumpet/Mock evo/evos with their beliefs here.. ON a DEBATE board?
I'M the "asshole" for doing so?
3. If you recognize being an asshole wouldn't help, you wouldn't have been Banned from DebatePolitics, where you were an... asshole/Spamming/OP drone without any personal content/commentary.
+

 

[Moonglow]

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

1. Religion is only a theory..It is not fact or science...

 

[abu afak]

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

Um.. No.
Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC Theory (as opposed to mere conjecture) and a FACT, with Overwhelming EVIDENCE.

Religion/S are "Faith". IOW, Belief with Not only No Proof, but NO Evidence.
ergo, there are thousands of necessarily wrong/contradictory Religions and creation Myths. Even if one stepped in it, Most, if not all, HAVE to be wrong.

Nice try tho at the "everything is just a belief" FALLACY. (kweationist attempt at intellectual equivalence)
+

 

[Moonglow]

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

Um.. No.
Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC Theory (as opposed top mere conjecture) and a FACT. with Overwhelming EVIDENCE.

Religion/S are "Faith". IOW, Belief with Not only No proof, but NO Evidence.

Nice try tho at the "everything is just a belief" FALLACY.
+

Since there is no definite evidence to explain the truth of both religion and evolution,,the jury is still out...

 

[abu afak]

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

Um.. No.
Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC Theory (as opposed top mere conjecture) and a FACT. with Overwhelming EVIDENCE.

Religion/S are "Faith". IOW, Belief with Not only No proof, but NO Evidence.

Nice try tho at the "everything is just a belief" FALLACY.
+

Since there is no definite evidence to explain the truth of both religion and evolution,,the jury is still out...

Yes there is Definite "Evidence" on the Theory and Fact of evolution.
Much posted in this string to which you had no reply... only your 40 IQ empty pronuncements without any counter debate. Just the most Juvenile line in the whole debate, the FALSE/NUMBSKULL/JUVENILE "evolution is only a theory".
There is plenty of evidence in this string Alone, and you have NOT refuted it. Just tried your Elementary School semantic gymnastics.
+

 

[Moonglow]

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

Um.. No.
Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC Theory (as opposed top mere conjecture) and a FACT. with Overwhelming EVIDENCE.

Religion/S are "Faith". IOW, Belief with Not only No proof, but NO Evidence.

Nice try tho at the "everything is just a belief" FALLACY.
+

Since there is no definite evidence to explain the truth of both religion and evolution,,the jury is still out...

Yes there is Definite "Evidence" on the Theory and Fact of evolution.
Much posted in this string to which you had no reply... only your 40 IQ empty pronuncements without any counter debate. Just the most Juvenile line in the whole debate, the FALSE/NUMBSKULL/JUVENILE "evolution is only a theory".
There is plenty of evidence in this string Alone, and you have NOT refuted it. Just tried your Elementary School semantic gymnastics.
+

Well at least I have an IQ of 40..It's like politicians, ignorance is no barrier for advancement..I am not here to refute evidence, I am saying there is not enough, to put all the pieces together..

 

[Indeependent]

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

Even if one stepped in it, Most, if not all, HAVE to be wrong.

So if even ONE facet of the Theory of Evolution is off, it ALL has to be wrong.
I kind of like that illogic.

 

[Confounding]

You seem completely one-sided in your attacks.

I don't engage them because I'm completely uninterested in doing so.

Where are they against Creationist clowns whose OP's Precede mine?

Why would I argue with a clown? Why do you argue with clowns?

I can't debate these people who openly trumpet/Mock evo/evos with their beliefs here.. ON a DEBATE board?
I'M the "asshole" for doing so?

Debating in and of itself does not make you an asshole. The manner in which you debate determines whether or not you're an asshole.

If you recognize being an asshole wouldn't help, you wouldn't have been Banned from DebatePolitics, where you were an... asshole/Spamming/OP drone without any personal content/commentary.

I was wondering how long it would take you to go there. I'd be willing to bet that if you polled the members of DP most of them would say I contributed more to that community in a month than you have during your entire time there. I was banned because I stubbornly stood up to a mod; I regret nothing.

 

[abu afak]

You seem completely one-sided in your attacks.

I don't engage them because I'm completely uninterested.Your ignorance actually bothers me because it's detrimental to science, something I care about a lot.

If you're uninterested, Stay Out of the strings.
This one is Perfectly Legitimate Fare, indeed, Far above the usual level of OP here. How assinine and Biased you are.
Further, you have shown NO "Ignorance" on my part, nor is your bitsy Spamming brain capable of doing so.
With you it's a Link, or one line. You got NO game.
You might want to Start a BLOG tho.
That is Your style, Not debate.

Where are they against Creationist clowns whose OP's Precede mine?

Why would I argue with a clown? Why do you argue with clowns?

Again, I started a perfectly legitimate high quality String, In the Context (Even Pulse) of recent debate here.
As a Link-Dumping Spammer you don't understand this isn't an RSS feed, this IS a debate board Klown.

I can't debate these people who openly trumpet/Mock evo/evos with their beliefs here.. ON a DEBATE board
I'M the "asshole" for doing so?

Debating in and of itself does not make you an asshole. The manner in which you debate determines whether or not you're an asshole.

Au Contrare, you're making yourSelf into a Liar.
You suggested the evo side shouldn't even Kwiticize the Kweationists.

If you recognize being an asshole wouldn't help, you wouldn't have been Banned from DebatePolitics, where you were an... asshole/Spamming/OP drone without any personal content/commentary.

I was wondering how long it would take you to go there. I'd be willing to bet that if you polled the members of DP most of them would say I contributed more to that community in a month than you have during your entire time there. I was banned because I stubbornly stood up to a mod and I accept that.

I've been here for 10 Years. Check. I've seen your ilk many times here and elsewhere: a NON-debate Link-Dumping grandstander.
And you've got 17 Bagel OPs in this section alone. Many

I was wondering Which board You would "show up" on first, as You are an OCD Link Dumping Spammer, who MUST OP somewhere to get your jollies off.
ergo you're easy to spot.
You are a non-participant, just Playing 'Town Crier'/RSS feed, and watching others respond.
You should familiarize yourself with a poster named 'Waltky,' who precedes you in technique/mindlessness by more than a decade. He also thought/Deluded he was performing some great service to mankind/mbs and still can't stop.

And let's be clear who the aggressor/Asshole is. You came into MY string, criticizing Me/this perfectly legitimate quality thread, with NO On Topic content. I did not enter any of yours, nor set up any conflict. You did that.
+

 

[Confounding]

And let's be clear who the aggressor/Asshole is. You came into MY string, criticizing Me/this perfectly legitimate quality thread, with NO On Topic content. I did not enter any of yours, nor set up any conflict. You did that.
+

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings with my criticism.

 

[abu afak]

And let's be clear who the aggressor/Asshole is. You came into MY string, criticizing Me/this perfectly legitimate quality thread, with NO On Topic content. I did not enter any of yours, nor set up any conflict. You did that.
+

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings with my criticism.

Let's be clear again you patronizing ahole.
You didn't "hurt my feelings".
As usual, you got your Ass 100% PORKED, and were unable to reply with anything but your usual one liner, which did Not address my Categorical destruction of your previous post.
Now, go back to spamming.
+

 

[ObligationLaunch]

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.
[......]​

+

This sounds more like rationalisations, don't you think?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I doubt god if there's a god would disagree with humanity doing science. He did give us our brain and knowledge!

I think he'd want us to understand his creation.

 

[Confounding]

Let's be clear again you patronizing ahole.
You didn't "hurt my feelings".

It doesn't seem that way.

As usual, you got your Ass 100% PORKED, and were unable to reply with anything but your usual one liner, which did Not address my Categorical destruction of your previous post.
Now, go back to spamming.
+

When it comes to debating you are a God among mortals; I never had a chance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. What are the odds that 2,000 proteins banged together to form the first coherent cell?

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Q. What are the odds that 2,000 proteins banged together to form the first coherent cell?

You are going to love the replies to this

They will say it is no part of evolution

They do that all the time.

So, there wil come a day when evolution is no longer part of evolution.

They are funny, but harmless, the evolutionst cultists.

 

[abu afak]

2/16/16

Q. What are the odds that 2,000 proteins banged together to form the first coherent cell?

12/14/14

The odds of amino acids, and only left handed ones, randomly forming cells and proteins are beyond astronomical. Astronomical odd are 1-E80, the odds against amino acids, and only left handed ones, forming proteins and a cells are 1-E5,700.
Surely, the indisputable math fails evolution as a theory

MBIG 12/14/14

WHAT?
1. And where did you get those odds? LINK?
Answers-in-GenePiss?
It's Unforgiveable posting tactics to cite numbers like that without link.

1a. and how many chances/combos (molecules/conditions/microclimates) did the simplest life have in the 10 Billion Years before it formed 3.5 Billion Years ago?

1abc. To formulate 'odds' you need TIME, Content, and Condition (IOW Chances). The OTHER side of an equation.
IOW, winning the lottery may be long 'odds' but NOT if you play twice a week for 10 Billion Years buying thousands of tickets each week.
DUH

Detection of a branched alkyl molecule in the interstellar medium iso-propyl cyanide
Journal of Science
26 September 2014
Arnaud Belloche, Robin T. Garrod, Holger S. P. Müller, Karl M. Menten

The largest noncyclic molecules detected in the interstellar medium (ISM) are ORGANIC with a straight-chain carbon backbone. We report an interstellar detection of a branched alkyl molecule, iso-propyl cyanide (i-C3H7CN), with an abundance 0.4 times that of its straight-chain structural isomer. This detection suggests that branched carbon-chain molecules may be generally abundant in the ISM. Our astrochemical model indicates that both isomers are produced within or upon dust grain ice mantles through the addition of molecular radicals, albeit via differing reaction pathways. The production of iso-propyl cyanide appears to require the addition of a functional group to a nonterminal carbon in the chain. Its detection therefore bodes Well for the presence in the ISM of Amino Acids, for which such side-chain structure is a key characteristic.""

What were the 'odds' of that?
Knock off MOST of your Zeros
3. Guess how many chances life has REGARDLESS of whether it's Left handed or Right handed Amino Acid or amino acid at all?

[Billions of] Far-Off Planets Like the Earth Dot the Galaxy
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/sc...ml?src=me&_r=0
By DENNIS OVERBYE
November 4, 2013

The known ODDS of something — or someone — living far, far away from Earth Improved Beyond Astronomers’ Boldest Dreams on Monday.

Astronomers reported that there could be as many as 40 Billion habitable Earth-Size planets in the galaxy, based on a new analysis of data from NASA’s Kepler spacecraft.

One out of every 5 sunlike stars in the galaxy has a planet the Size of Earth circling it in the Goldilocks zone — not too hot, not too cold — where surface temperatures should be compatible with liquid water, according to a herculean three-year calculation based on data from the Kepler spacecraft by Erik Petigura, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley.

Mr. Petigura’s analysis represents a major step toward the main goal of the Kepler mission, which was to measure what fraction of sunlike stars in the galaxy have Earth-size planets. Sometimes called eta-Earth, it is an important factor in the so-called Drake equation used to estimate the number of intelligent civilizations in the universe. Mr. Petigura’s paper, published Monday in the journalProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, puts another smiley face on a cosmos that has gotten increasingly friendly and fecund-looking over the last 20 years.

“It seems that the universe produces Plentiful real estate for life that somehow Resembles life on Earth,” Mr. Petigura said.
[......]

And that's just in Our galaxy.
The numbers get even more dizzying if one Multiplies by the number of galaxies.
[Very roughly] 200 Billion? galaxies x 40 Billion Earth-like Planets = 8 TRILLION earth-like planets.
(not that life necessarily requires an earth-like planet since the elements that makes it up are Pervasive in the Universe.)
+​

 

[ObligationLaunch]

lots of circular reasonign here.

 

[jwoodie]

Only 15 straw man arguments? C'mon, you can do better...

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Most things are theories in that we really don't know what is going on. We have to use our minds to figure that out which causes us to 'theorize' what is going on. The atomic theory gives us an idea of how the atom is constructed but since we really couldn't see what is inside of it we had to guess at what is going on. Those guesses have been pretty accurate. Evolution is the same way because we don't have a time machine that allows us to directly observe the process so we have to guess just like we guess about the structure of what is inside of an atom. I like the idea of a theory since it invites criticism but stating something as a fact makes it impossible to criticize it which makes it impossible to develop better ideas. A theory progresses over time because it was open to constant criticism.