15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[SuperDemocrat]

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.

Yes because you saying the entire theory explains everthing so if it doesn't explain one thing then the entire thing is wrong even though it explains other things. Now if you say it explains these things but not those things then it would still be true.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

How do you not believe the universe was created? How do you explain the first event that happened? It is really hard to fathom it can come into existence on its own since it had no preceding event before it that caused it. It could be possible that we live in someone's test tube universe that was made by them for whatever reason. Then how do you explain where they came from? There has to be a first in any sequence of events.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Why even care what other people happen to think? They don't stop you from believing what you want to believe. It is not a big deal what some people think because you still have the freedom to think what you want to think just like everyone else in the world has the freedom to think whatever they want to think. It could be right or wrong. It doesn't matter because it doesn't stop you from thinking what you want to think.

 

[james bond]

Evolutionists, can you answer which came first the chicken or the egg?

For creation scientists, it's easy the chicken. God created the chicken and rooster and the chicken laid an egg (chick).

So evo scientists out there, tell me how a single-cell or cells (married cells?) produced an egg?

 

[abu afak]

Yes because you saying the entire theory explains everthing so if it doesn't explain one thing then the entire thing is wrong even though it explains other things. Now if you say it explains these things but not those things then it would still be true.

Wrong Twit!
Evolution only explains life's progression from one cell forward.
It does dabble in Abiogenesis (first spark), though that is Not part of the ToE.
It does NOT even venture into what Created the Universe, or other sciences.

Evolution is 150 Years old and is more solid than ever.
ALL New sciences that have emerged in that period (Isotopic dating, DNA, etc) either are consistent with it, or outright help confirm Evo.
+

 

[james bond]

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.

Thank god I'm not the only athiest who thinks this way. I guess it is to be expected. Atheism as a movement is relatively young, unorganized and by its nature without an orthodoxy. It doesn't yet have a defined positive cause, and very well may never - but it has defined itself so far in what it's against. That might just be all it can be...

Atheism is relatively young? "Atheist" was coined in the 16th Century, but the concept of "there are no gods" goes farther back in time. No one knows how far back, but there are records of atheist-like sentiment dating back to the Vedic Period in India, which was roughly from 1500BC to 500BC. Before that was a pygmy tribe in Africa that held no beliefs.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That 'creationism' is nonsense is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute – nothing more than subjective religion, devoid of fact or merit.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Evolution is 150 Years old and is more solid than ever.

+

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

solid then ever???????????????????????????????????????????????

ha ha ha ha ha ha


it is crumbling from every site.

 

[Mad Scientist]

"My grandpa came from a rock!"
-Evolutionist

 

[ChrisL]

Those that use science to bully religious people are just as bad as the religious zealots they so loathe.

Lol. Telling the truth is not bullying.

 

[ChrisL]

 

[Coloradomtnman]

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.

Thank god I'm not the only athiest who thinks this way. I guess it is to be expected. Atheism as a movement is relatively young, unorganized and by its nature without an orthodoxy. It doesn't yet have a defined positive cause, and very well may never - but it has defined itself so far in what it's against. That might just be all it can be...

Atheism is relatively young? "Atheist" was coined in the 16th Century, but the concept of "there are no gods" goes farther back in time. No one knows how far back, but there are records of atheist-like sentiment dating back to the Vedic Period in India, which was roughly from 1500BC to 500BC. Before that was a pygmy tribe in Africa that held no beliefs.

Right. But like I wrote: atheism as a movement is relatively young.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

duh???

 

[ChrisL]

duh???

That's sarcasm. Duh.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

duh???

That's sarcasm. Duh.

oh ok

 

[abu afak]

If you are stating evolution is a fact, you're no longer practicing Science. Just like with "God Did It" ...science can't do anything with a conclusion. It has no explanatory power.

Bump! in answer to "Boss". who Whiffed on it a few months ago.
Evolution is a Fact and theory, like Gravity.

[QUOTE="abu afak, ...
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.
[......] QUOTE]​

 

[PredFan]

You can't really argue with people who have faith. No matter how successful you are you eventually end up where the Creationist simply believes it because their faith tells them so.

That's fine, religion and faith are good and important to many. The only problem comes when they try to force others to abide by their faith. Creationism isn't science and should not be taught as if it was. Other than that, believe what you want to.

 

[abu afak]

You can't really argue with people who have faith. No matter how successful you are you eventually end up where the Creationist simply believes it because their faith tells them so.

That's fine, religion and faith are good and important to many. The only problem comes when they try to force others to abide by their faith. Creationism isn't science and should not be taught as if it was. Other than that, believe what you want to.

You'll note that ALL Bosses BS is answered in the OP, but he can't touch it.
Everything he ever foisted is gutted.
`

 

[there4eyeM]

Even 'creationists' limit their 'god', so they obviously don't understand the concept.

 

[abu afak]

Even 'creationists' limit their 'god', so they obviously don't understand the concept.

They're all unbelievably stupid on this board.
Lutroo may be a new low.
`