15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[zaangalewa]

Biology isn't science?

I'm not clear that screeching ''the gods did it'' will ever allow us to learn much. You folks spent 800 years during the Dark Ages squashing human discovery and intellect.

Give me the exact date of this 800 years please. It never existed what we call "dark age" in history. "Dark" means in science only "not to know enough" - like for example in the more modern expressions dark matter or dark energy (two totally different things which have nothing to do with each other). This means not this matter is dark or this energy is dark. And the Middle ages were not "dark". We know a lot about this times of history. 1/3rd of a year were for example celebration days. Perhaps they would call us "slaves" - if they could had been able to study us.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Science gives not any allownesses nor forbids science anything.

Jesus
"allow" as in {Oxford Dictionaries}:

2.
give the necessary time or opportunity for.
"he stopped for a moment to allow his eyes to adjust"

, Your Tediousness.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Science gives not any allownesses

Yeah, screw English. Here:

Urban Dictionary: allowness

uses similar to expressions like allow it and allow you

www.urbandictionary.com

Enjoy!

 

[Seymour Flops]

When you see a pot it was made from human beings. What to do with the word "unfalsifiable" in such an easily evident context?

Nothing.

We can see evidence of a designer in the apparent design of the pot. We can see evidence of the designer in the apparent design of life on Earth, which is far more complex and more impossible to come about without intelligent intervention than a pot.

But science requires falsifiability. There's no experiment we can perform whose result might disprove that the pot was designed. Nor that the pot was designed.

Because past events are not subject to experimentation. The same is true for Origin of Species and abiogenesis. We know they happened and we can use our common sense to know that they did not happen randomly. But they happened in the past, so they are no more subject to experimentation than Darwinian evolution is.

The problem with our own creation and the creation of everything what we know - today we could call this in natural science also "the birth of the universe" - is totally different from any other problem which we know.

Let me tell you my biggest problem in this context: It's impossible for me - absolutelly impossible - to think that this universe here makes not any sense at all - although I don't know what the sense of this universe is.
This "sense" - whatever it is - decided - however this is possible - to create time and suddenly - whatever suddenly means now - existed time. But there had been never anything to sense before this had happened. ... And now tell me what to falsify or to verify in which way. Nothing what you and I are able to say about such a situation makes any sense at all.

But means this now I am able to believe that the existence of the universe makes not any sense? Still I am not able to believe this! And even if someone will murder me on a totally senseless reason for to show that nothing makes any sense at all - then I would nevertheless not be able to believe such things happen because this universe (=this plan of god) is senseless.

I understand your desire that the universe makes sense. But your will to believe that they universe has a purpose is no more scientifically valid than Hollie and her desire to believe that there is no designer of the universe or of life on Earth.

 

[Hollie]

Nothing.

We can see evidence of a designer in the apparent design of the pot. We can see evidence of the designer in the apparent design of life on Earth, which is far more complex and more impossible to come about without intelligent intervention than a pot.

But science requires falsifiability. There's no experiment we can perform whose result might disprove that the pot was designed. Nor that the pot was designed.

Because past events are not subject to experimentation. The same is true for Origin of Species and abiogenesis. We know they happened and we can use our common sense to know that they did not happen randomly. But they happened in the past, so they are no more subject to experimentation than Darwinian evolution is.

I understand your desire that the universe makes sense. But your will to believe that they universe has a purpose is no more scientifically valid than Hollie and her desire to believe that there is no designer of the universe or of life on Earth.

I have no desire to believe or disbelieve in any designer gods. The natural world is the only world we have knowledge of. There is nothing unnatural about this realm and every indication that the gods humans have invented were the result of fear and superstition.

''We'' see no evidence of any supernatural designers. Identify a single element in nature that shows supernatural design. You can't, so why make statements that have no expectation of being supported? For all the desperate attempts by creationers to force their designer gods on others, there is always this confounding lack of evidence for any of the thousands of gods invented by humans.

We can, however, make a rational and reasoned case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon without intervention of supernatural agents. The processes of biological evolution follow readily from there.

The evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming and comes from multiple different sources, each of which independently establishes the identical pattern of evolutionary descent. The sources for that evidence come independently from anatomy, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry and the fossil record.

The fossil record of human evolution from apelike ancestors is particularly rich and well documented with multiple intermediate species between modern humans and those ancestors.

There is a reason why the western depiction of the jeebus is of a tall, fair-haired, fair-skinned, blue-eyed man. He is reinvented in the image of his creator: westerners.

 

[Grumblenuts]

But science requires falsifiability.

Baloney.

The legendary philosopher of science Karl Popper argued that good science is falsifiable, in that it makes precise claims which can be tested and then discarded (falsified) if they don’t hold up under testing. For example, if you find a case of COVID-19 without lung damage, then you falsify the hypothesis that it always causes lung damage. According to Popper, science progresses by making conjectures, subjecting them to rigorous tests, and then discarding those that fail.

One can't know starting any scientific endeavor. Falsifiability is philosophical and just one tasty morsel of Scientific Method. It is not required to correctly use the word, nor to perform "science" which just involves studying anything, Flops. Whether past, present, or future. Go fish.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Baloney.

One can't know starting any scientific endeavor. Falsifiability is philosophical and just one tasty morsel of Scientific Method. It is not required to correctly use the word, nor to perform "science" which just involves studying anything, Flops. Whether past, present, or future. Go fish.

That's a weird debate technique - posting a quote that confirms what I said and then saying I'm wrong because "go fish."

I'll use that quote in the future, thanks!

Not that most people don't already know that a theory cannot be scientific if it isn't falsifiable . . .

 

[Seymour Flops]

The fossil record of human evolution from apelike ancestors is particularly rich and well documented with multiple intermediate species between modern humans and those ancestors.

Yet, they feel the need to constantly re-arrange the order of the supposed species of sub-humans.

What is your opinion of Java Man and where it fits in with human evolution?

We can, however, make a rational and reasoned case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon without intervention of supernatural agents. The processes of biological evolution follow readily from there.

Oh, we can?

Please do then. I've never seen that done, so I will be most impressed if you can pull it off.

 

[Hollie]

Yet, they feel the need to constantly re-arrange the order of the supposed species of sub-humans.

What is your opinion of Java Man and where it fits in with human evolution?


Oh, we can?

Please do then. I've never seen that done, so I will be most impressed if you can pull it off.

You float the usual conspiracy theories from any of the creationer ministries claiming "they'' are re-arranging the fossil evidence. Name the conspirators. Identify where your alleged conspiracy is taking place.


Yes. We can make a rational and reasoned case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon without intervention of supernatural agents. Life on the planet is proof of abiogenesis. Rational and reasoned arguments can be made to support the case of life being developed is a completely natural process. All the basic building blocks of life are in abundance in the universe.

So, then. As a counter argument, first make a rational and reasoned argument for your particular gods. You need to make that case first, then you can make a case for your gods pulling a rabbit fully formed humans, a snake and fresh fruit out of their hats.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You float the usual conspiracy theories from any of the creationer ministries claiming "they'' are re-arranging the fossil evidence. Name the conspirators. Identify where your alleged conspiracy is taking place.

Link me the post where I claim any conspiracy, so I know you're not a crazy as you seem.

Yes. We can make a rational and reasoned case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon without intervention of supernatural agents. Life on the planet is proof of abiogenesis. Rational and reasoned arguments can be made to support the case of life being developed is a completely natural process. All the basic building blocks of life are in abundance in the universe.

That's the second time you've claimed you can make a reasoned and rational case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomena. So it is the second time I say go ahead, and do it then.

So, then. As a counter argument, first make a rational and reasoned argument for your particular gods. You need to make that case first, then you can make a case for your gods pulling a rabbit fully formed humans, a snake and fresh fruit out of their hats.

So, again: What is your opinion of Java Man's place in human evolution?

 

[Hollie]

Link me the post where I claim any conspiracy, so I know you're not a crazy as you seem.

That's the second time you've claimed you can make a reasoned and rational case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomena. So it is the second time I say go ahead, and do it then.


So, again: What is your opinion of Java Man's place in human evolution?

Are multiple people posting under your account? That would make sense with multiple threads / multiple threads with the same topic.

You posted: ''Yet, they feel the need to constantly re-arrange the order of the supposed species of sub-humans.''

I responded with: ''you float the usual conspiracy theories from any of the creationer ministries claiming "they'' are re-arranging the fossil evidence. Name the conspirators. Identify where your alleged conspiracy is taking place.''

Who is ''they''? Who are the alleged conspirators doing the re-arranging you believe is being done.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Are multiple people posting under your account? That would make sense with multiple threads / multiple threads with the same topic.

Multiple people posting under the same account? Would that be better or worse than the same person posting under multiple accounts?

You posted: ''Yet, they feel the need to constantly re-arrange the order of the supposed species of sub-humans.''

I responded with: ''you float the usual conspiracy theories from any of the creationer ministries claiming "they'' are re-arranging the fossil evidence. Name the conspirators. Identify where your alleged conspiracy is taking place.''

Who is ''they''? Who are the alleged conspirators doing the re-arranging you believe is being done.

"They" are the people who are desperately searching for evidence that humans descended from non-humans. I don't think it's a conspiracy, I just think they haven't been successful so far. If they ever are, I'll say, "hey, look at that! They finally found what they've been searching for for over a hundred years. Kudos to them!

I have no emotional attachment to one idea over all others about the origin of species on Earth. I just don't want to swallow lies, such as "it's settled," as if they were truth. I don't want to pretend to fall for hoaxes to keep from hurting your feelings.

So . . . feel free to respond to the rest of that post:

That's the second time you've claimed you can make a reasoned and rational case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomena. So it is the second time I say go ahead, and do it then.


So, again: What is your opinion of Java Man's place in human evolution?

I'll wait.

 

[Hollie]

Multiple people posting under the same account? Would that be better or worse than the same person posting under multiple accounts?

"They" are the people who are desperately searching for evidence that humans descended from non-humans. I don't think it's a conspiracy, I just think they haven't been successful so far. If they ever are, I'll say, "hey, look at that! They finally found what they've been searching for for over a hundred years. Kudos to them!

I have no emotional attachment to one idea over all others about the origin of species on Earth. I just don't want to swallow lies, such as "it's settled," as if they were truth. I don't want to pretend to fall for hoaxes to keep from hurting your feelings.

So . . . feel free to respond to the rest of that post:


I'll wait.

So.... your conspiracy theory implicates an un-named cabal of conspirators. You can't identify them but you're certain the cabal exists.

Don't tell anyone else I told you, but, if you go outside and remain hidden, you will see the black helicopters circling overhead.

Remember. You never heard this from me.

 

[Hollie]

Link me the post where I claim any conspiracy, so I know you're not a crazy as you seem.

That's the second time you've claimed you can make a reasoned and rational case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomena. So it is the second time I say go ahead, and do it then.

I just did. The other person using your account didn't read my earlier post.

 

[Seymour Flops]

So.... your conspiracy theory implicates an un-named cabal of conspirators. You can't identify them but you're certain the cabal exists.

Don't tell anyone else I told you, but, if you go outside and remain hidden, you will see the black helicopters circling overhead.

Remember. You never heard this from me.

Non-responsive.

Here are your questions:

That's the second time you've claimed you can make a reasoned and rational case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomena. So it is the second time I say go ahead, and do it then.


So, again: What is your opinion of Java Man's place in human evolution?

Take your time, I guess . . .

 

[Hollie]

Non-responsive.

Here are your questions:

Take your time, I guess . . .

Tell us more about your conspiracy theory involving the cabal of ''they'' (the cabal of ''they' who you can't identify), who are trying to re-arrange something, the ''something'' you can't identify.

Fascinating.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Tell us more about your conspiracy theory involving the cabal of ''they'' (the cabal of ''they' who you can't identify), who are trying to re-arrange something, the ''something'' you can't identify.

Fascinating.

Zzzzzzzzz . . . zzzzzzzzzzz . . . zzzzzzzzzzz . . . *snort* hmph? Oh, I'm sorry.

Your repetitive jabbering had me nodding off.

 

[Grumblenuts]

That's a weird debate technique - posting a quote that confirms what I said and then saying I'm wrong because "go fish."

I'll use that quote in the future, thanks!

Not that most people don't already know that a theory cannot be scientific if it isn't falsifiable . . .

No, no, it's all you, buddy. Your weirdness. I'm really no match. See, one minute you're pretending to be some logic guru, the next you're moving your goalposts around like a crazed ref on crack.. Wow, just look at you go:

But science requires falsifiability.

a theory cannot be scientific if it isn't falsifiable

'Fraid Google has ruled the official term for that "aggravated backpedaling," sonny. Penalty --15 yards off a short pier.. Ooooh, darn.. Smack.. Right on the noggin'.. Not sure he'll be able to just walk that one off, Ed. Ewww, he's not even moving, Carl..

 

[Grumblenuts]

Are multiple people posting under your account? That would make sense with multiple threads / multiple threads with the same topic.

Yep, walks like a duck..

I've been ignoring him. Saw enough. No idea he'd been so busy.

 

[Grumblenuts]

That's a weird debate technique

That's so cute, you thinking we're debating here
You ten yet?