jason says:

I would like to remind people that Christianity is but one of thousands of religions, furthermore it is a minority religion coming in at number three if I remember my stats correctly. And the fastest growing sect of Christianity (Mormons) are generaly seen as cooks by all the remaining Christians. I for one respect the right of anyone to belive any damn thing they choose. But to belive the creation story of any faith is the same as saying “Most of the world and all of it’s history was wrong, but I am write…..cuz I’m chosen.” Find me one religion that disagrees with that statement.

Thomas says:

> Creationist scientists (there’s a phrase secular scientists
> fear more than anything) say we can understand how
> everything came and describe how everything we see happens,

You mean “phear” right? Seriously, a person is either a scientist or not and that determination is wholly based on whether they are properly using the scientific method to find truth. When a religious person uses the scientific method to find truth, they are scientists. When they stop using the scientific method and instead resort to “god of the gaps” explanations they are not.

> Secular scientists say, only I understand how everything
> works. You should listen and trust me because it is too
> complicated for you to understand. The proof is proof
> because we say it is proof. Since you don’t understand what
> we understand, don’t even try to contradict our proof. If
> you do, you are ignorant and a simpleton (by the way, I did
> not use the word simpleton in #3, I wanted to say the
> website is easy to understand for non-scientists as well as
> scientists).

No sir. Your view shows a seriously perverse understanding of science and its goals. Real scientists simply state that they can predict the behavior of and/or have a useful model for describing specific phenomena to some degree of accuracy and that there is a fundamental limit to what man can know. The narcissism that you are ascribing to science is falsely placed. For something to qualify as real science, it has to be independently verifiable. That means by definition something is proof if and only if anyone can verify that it is valid.

> You do not want debate, you want to call all creationist
> believers in fairy tales and say how poor our reasoning
> ability is.

Why don’t we debate the existence of Santa Claus or a hypothesis that leprechauns created man? Why do we not debate whether there is a man on Olympus that throws lightning bolts or whether there is a Norseman guarding the Bifost bridge to Asgard? Before we can have a reasoned debate, we have to be using the techniques of reasoned people; namely logic.

Creationists traditionally try to “prove evolution is wrong” and do not understand that this would make no difference in proving creationism. For example, suppose we each try to guess how many beans are contained in a jar. Proving that the jar does not have ten million beans in no way proves that it has ten. However, if you were to prove that it had ten beans, that would disprove that it has ten million. Thus, disproving the theories of evolution gets you no where.

Our school science classes should teach the latest science known. Creationism does not nor has ever qualified as science. Only the theories of evolution qualify as science and are supported by scientists. To claim that the Bible in any way can provide scientific explanations to explain the observable fact of evolution is the height of ignorance about how science works, what it has accomplished and the fundamentals of the scientific method.

A_B says:

Graham is like the 5 year old claiming that the noises in the closet are from the bogey man. And one’s refusal to debate with him that there is, in fact, a bogey man in the closet shows a weakness in the argument that there isn’t one.

But Graham isn’t a 5 year old (I assume). He’s an adult (I assume). And if he wants to live in a fantasy world of bogey men and men in clouds creating the world a few thousand years ago, then he is one or more of the following: “intellectually dishonest, stupid, ignorant, easily confused.”

It’s grow up time Graham. You’re an adult. And if you’re going to act like a baby in a fantasy world, adults shouldn’t have to pussy foot around that fact that you’re deluded and ignorant.

And we are also not required to drag you kicking and screaming out of your ignorance. It would be a waste of time anyway. You’re clearly impervious to anything that would enlighten you.

As a little background, I’ve been debating creationists, online, for years. And the one thing I learned is, that they’re idiots. I spent a lot of time marshaling arguments. Leading them by the nose to information. Deconstructing their delusions. But, you can’t teach them a single f-ing thing. They don’t hear you, and they go on and on about how oppressed they are, “boo hoo. Why want any of you mean old secularists debate me? Why are you ignoring [debunked talking point #20832]? Boo hoo. I thought you guys were open to debate!”

People try to patiently lead them out of the dark, through logic and FACTS. But every time, they pull out another, “if we descended from monkeys, then why are they still around???” and other idiotic responses. It’s repeated ad nauseum online.

All the information they need to get an informed opinion is available online. But they ignore it. Their claims of wanting “debate” are lies. They don’t want a debate. They’re just yapping to proselytize. If they can spread the “word” against the evil “secularists”, they can go tell their other creationist buddies on Sunday what troopers they are and the battles they waged online. “Hey! Go check out Dvorak.org where I really stuck it to those secularists! They didn’t want to debate me!”

We, the not-ignorant masses, don’t have to put up with you anymore. Go hang out with the flat-earthers. We’re done with entertaining the idiots.

For example:
“Secular scientists say, only I understand how everything works. You should listen and trust me because it is too complicated for you to understand. The proof is proof because we say it is proof. Since you don’t understand what we understand, don’t even try to contradict our proof.”

You don’t have a clue. At all. Another drone creationist that doesn’t know anything about anything. You’re beyond help. Just go away. Nobody needs to hear from another silly creationist that doesn’t have a clue and doesn’t have any interest in getting one.

Peter Jakobs says:

#8:

#4, did you read the one about photosynthesis on genesis.org? A knee slapper!.

it’s not 100% clear from your post if you mean a “knee slapper” because it’s so scientifically uninformed or if you are so scientifically uninformed that you actually undercut the articles level and find it conclusive.

Try some statistics, using the mutation speed of procariots, the number of procariotic cells and the time available and then you wonder why only three different photosynthetic systems have come up. After all, there’s at least seven different evolutionary independent roots for eyes.

But then again, the answers in genesis website readily gives it’s approach: argue the facts based on a ready-made answer (they call it presupposition). They say that scientists have the same way of arguing but don’t know it (they say we were arguing based on the “presupposition” that there was no god and everything had to be explained without a god).
In fact, the early scientists in modern times clearly were based in christian belief systems, so their presupposition would have been such things as “the sun revolves around the earth” and “the earth is a disc” and “god created the world”. They have found, however, evidence for a different, more mechanistic world view. For many scientists, it was a long way towards loosing their religion. The have gone that way because the evidence was clear to them that a god was not needed and many of the facts in the religious teachings could not be supported with the evidence they have found.
Since then, it’s good scientific practice to start with your facts and try to work out a theory that is compatible with the facts, look at the predictions that this theory would make about other facts and see if you can support it that way. If a theory cannot be supported, throw it overboard. That’s what we’ve been doing with creationism for centuries now. It seems to have considerable sentimental value for many people, though.

pj

ECA says:

39
WOW
someone likes one of my sites..
still need a good comics channel

Dan McDermott says:

If evolution is not true all current species were alive at the time of Noah. So how big would the ark have to have been? Keep in mind that you would have to separate a lot of these critters to keep them from eating each other. And the following does not include dinosaurs, do do birds, and other extinct species. You would also have to allow space on the arc for food for the 40 days and nights. Can you imagine the smell?

How many people were on board to feed and care for the creatures? Not one died out during the float?

Additionally, were viruses and diseases kept in little containers or just contained in the animals themselves? If the former were true, how did they do it in that time period when they didn’t know how? And if the latter were true, all life-forms must have been separated or all diseases would have spread throughout.

From Wikipedia:

As a soft guide, however, the numbers of identified modern species as of 2004 can be broken down as follows: [3]

* 287,655 plants, including:
o 15,000 mosses,
o 13,025 ferns,
o 980 gymnosperms,
o 199,350 dicotyledons,
o 59,300 monocotyledons;
* 74,000-120,000 fungi[2];
* 10,000 lichens;
* 1,250,000 animals, including:
o 1,190,200 invertebrates:
+ 950,000 insects,
+ 70,000 mollusks,
+ 40,000 crustaceans,
+ 130,200 others;
o 58,808 vertebrates:
+ 29,300 fish,
+ 5,743 amphibians,
+ 8,240 reptiles,
+ 10,234 birds, (9799 extant as of 2006)
+ 5,416 mammals.

However the total number of species for some phyla may be much higher:

* 5-10 million bacteria[3];
* 1.5 million fungi[2];

Lauren the Ghoti says:

#33 – Graham

“However, I have learned about the theory of evolution, which is more than I can say for you and the theory of creation.”

Yoo-hoo! Graham! There is no “theory of creation.” Saying that some childish fairytale is “the word of God” is not a theory.

You have more than enough free time to come here, read the threads and compose and post responses, but for some strange reason, were “unable to read them all due to time restraints.”

(Incidentally, the word is ‘constraints’, not ‘restraints’.
Lack of logical skill and inability to make subtle distinctions invariably leads to semantic blunders like that. And yes, it does matter, because it also ultimately leads to believing in illogical things.)

This is one of the standard excuses your sort makes when pointed to clear, concise, slam-dunk refutations of your boilerplate misconceptions. When the old standby “I don’t have time” – which actually means “I don’t have 15 minutes to spare reading about what’s wrong with the points I spent many hours posting defenses of,” – is trotted out, it’s a sure sign that (a) the jig is up – and you know it, and (b) you’re, as we say in Texas, fixin’ to leave the building.

It took you longer to compose and type your most recent comment there than it would have taken to read and absorb the last link I cited, to Jason R’s, “What is Science.” And if you had, you wouldn’t make absurd statements about science like “The proof is proof because we say it is proof.”

No, old son, if you had simply read “What is Science”, you would then understand why what constitutes scientific proof is something determined by the scientific method, not by the uninformed misconceptions of nonscientists. The scientific standard of proof is used because it works – it always works; everything you see around you, from your wristwatch to the Space Shuttle – it all exists solely because of the fact that the scientific method works, and works correctly.

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

So, Graham, since we won’t be seeing you in this thread again, your bluff having been called, I would like to thank you for proving me correct: you can’t handle the truth.

ji hua says:

Yeah, I want to know, too

Graham says:

Sorry for the semantic errors (did I say that correctly, or am I again a blithering illogical idiot?)

I love your reasoning: make a grammatical error and you believe illogical things. Lauren, you are an idiot.

Peter Jakobs says:

well, #49, isn’t that the tactics that creationists use?
I was pointed to the answersingenesis website by this threat and wow did I see picking at words there… like in the one article where some half-witted person argued that even the scientists use the terms “developed” and “invented” to describe that procariots came up with photosynthesis molecules… as if that would prove any point.
One thing is clear: if you don’t have your language right, you’re not very likely to get your reasoning right.
We, as scientific people, have gotten very used to using wordings that do not require an acting subject when arguing with the creationist lot, as they’re the first to pick at those minor issues, in lieu of any real evidence.

pj

Rob says:

The thing that’s shocking about all this is that 2 or 3 Republican candidates for President agree with Graham. As “W” as shown beyond any doubt, to be completely certain and utterly confused is not a terrific combination.

Jägermeister says:

#36 – A_B

One of the best posts I’ve ever read.

BubbaRay says:

#57, Hop, Unfortunately the fanatical creationists require that everyone believe what they believe and go to great extremes to achieve that.

Thus we end up with a ‘museum’ and have now come full circle.

Peter says:

#53

Sorry, my bad. I guess I was reading too much (and too fast) into the statement that both creationists and scientists can [equally] be wrong. I don’t want anybody getting the idea that scientists and creationists should just call a truce since neither side has more reason to be right than the other. Scientists are backed by real evidence. Creationists are backed by whatever they say is true. It’s hard to say those are equally trustworthy.

Mr. Fusion says:

Let me also say #36 was an excellent post. There have been many well written arguments, but by far this is the most commendable.