Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 226
view profile
History
Debunking creationist mythsPage 10 of 24    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)

Count Ibli said: Fact: There are hundreds. Maybe thousands. In a sense, all of them are.

In a sense that exemplifies an instance supporting Evolution as true ? That would be the only sense that counts, really , eh ?


after that, then this "What sense do your choice examples exist under , as "transitional" ?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 227
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 1:04:09 PM

What various creationist myths in reference to evolution can you think of that you are able to debunk?
seems clear
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 228
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 1:25:49 PM
RE Msg: 369 by Funcuz:

I quite agree. They don't. But that doesn't mean that science is automatically right, either.
Yes. Why did you excise the part where I made the same statement ?
1. Brevity
2. It made some ambiguous statements, that implied some things that aren't true. But since you seem to prefer I address them, than be short, I will:
It doesn't take a lab coat and a calculator to see that the bible has some glaring inconsistencies.
It doesn't take a lab coat to see that most English translations don't match at all to the text. Why would anyone consider it anything but completely unscientific to rely on ANY translation, especially when most of the English translations of the OT are DEFINITELY wrong? How is it scientific to claim that a Hebrew book is inconsistent, if you're not quoting the text at all?

You're right that science might never be right
Admittedly, the poster you were responding to claimed this as well. However, we cannot say that the laws of the universe cannot be right. If they were wrong, they couldn't be the laws of the universe. We can only say that our society's knowledge of science might never be right.

and that , in the meantime , it gets closer.
That's an assumption. It might happen sometimes. Other times, it might stay the same. Other times, some bits might get closer, and others farther away. Other times, it might get farther away. How can you make the claim that it DOES get closer, without proof?

The only "proof" is the assumption that society "automatically" gets more knowledgeable.

Even the theory of evolution doesn't say that. It says that we as a species will adapt to our environment, or eventually go extinct. If becoming more knowledgeable would make us better adapted, then if we are under pressure to go extinct, and we aren't, then yes, we would have had to become more knowledgeable. But even in high schools, the kids who are the most knowledgeable are often the least adapted and the least successful. That is often true in their working life, and especially in dating. At best, someone would have to first prove that the smart-alecs were always the most successful in all forms of human society, in all of history, before we could even assume there is even a pressure for this to happen.

We might claim that our society is devoted to the improvement of its knowledge, by the way it is set up. But Sun-Tzu wrote hundreds of years ago, that "a protracted war makes for a loss on both sides". His work is considered by military experts to be the most reliable work on war we have. Yet, time and again, our society keeps in protracted wars, without considering this. So we're NOT learning all that much. We're not setting out to improve our knowledge, or we aren't even using the knowledge we already knew a hundred years ago.

To some extent, our knowledge improves, and to others, it gets worse. So we cannot make any assumptions about human knowledge that it is definitely improving.


He's of the opinion that the flood happened, because every culture has a flood-legend, including South American Indians, and the Chinese, both of whom don't hold by the Bible at all.
He would be wrong then.
I am not apt to say that. I usually find that those who are adamant that those who do not agree with them are most definitely wrong, are surrounded by people who tell me that they are wrong about everything, and are just too stubborn to see it. I found that those who have come to a level-headed conclusion, usually tell people their reasons for their beliefs, and just let the truth speak for itself.

There is no 'worldwide consensus' that there was any great flood in prehistory.
He never said that, nor did I. I made it quite clear what I said, that there is a flood-legend in almost every culture, not that they all had the same culture. A worldwide consensus would be when the world agrees to have the same culture, just as the West has a single mainstream culture, without which, there would not be any such consensus in the West.

Even if there was , there's no evidence to suggest it could have been the case.
When I was a kid, scientists said there was no proof at all that eating a lot of red meat was harmful, quite the reverse. Now they say the opposite. I cannot really believe that ANY scientist would tell me to trust in a lack of evidence.

Besides , common sense alone should tell you that it was impossible. For one thing , there isn't enough water on Earth to cover all of it in the first place.
I'd be putting an interpretation of exactly how the flood happened, to say that. My friends aren't so dictatorial. They know that just isn't realistic.

Or , to be more accurate , there isn't enough water to cover it all unless you believe that the Earth was a perfect sphere when such a flood might have taken place.
I don't know that was the ONLY option. Have you logically deduced ALL the possibilities, using a wff?

Of course , if it was a perfect sphere before any such flood , there never could have been any 'before'.
Why not?

That there could have been localized flooding in any place is hardly extraordinary.
Yes. But it's hardly news. If it was, then every single country would say there were over 10 global floods in the last millennium.

It even makes a certain amount of sense that people would begin their 'history' at that point since any large flood probably would have also wiped out whatever they'd had in terms of accumulated knowledge up to that point.
That might be true for the people in your country. But floods are so common, that scholars know they have to account for floods destroying parchments.

On top, much knowledge was orally transmitted, and carefully maintained using techniques of memory, that were commonplace in your father's generation and mine, things that you'd probably say are impossible, such as memorising the entire works of Emerson by heart. That was normal to have many people with that skill, only a few decades ago. All you can argue is that many people your age and my age don't have oral skills. But that's mostly because they rely on calculators and computers. The people who don't, have prodigious memories.

There is another problem with this theory. If knowledge before the flood was lost, then the flood would be consdidered their origins. We would then only have creation stories that involved water, but no stories of floods occuring AFTER creation of the Earth.

However , without any evidence to suggest that any such floods were all-encompassing (or even occurred at the same time) they do not corroborate the story of a worldwide deluge.
When you say evidence, you mean scientific evidence? So you mean scientific evidence before the start of Western civilisation? Or do you mean only that which has been validated by modern Western civilisation? Then it's not evidence. It's evidence that the controlling social forces of the evolution of Western civilisation are willing to accept. At best, we can say that any such story is not well-adapted to the precise environment of the early 21st Century of Western societies, and nothing more than that.

Nor do they agree necessarily on many details.
You'll find many disagreements on the exact details of the American Revolution. Does that mean it was a folklore?

Considering how many unique cultures there are and were around the world , it's hardly surprising that many of them will begin their folk histories with a flood tale.
Are you kidding? We could have fire tales, earth-quake tales, tales of the world eaten by locusts. That's far more believable, because when locusts descend, they really do cover everything as far as the eye can see, and stay for days. But floods come and go all the time. It's very suprising indeed, that we have a global flood anywhere. The fact is, once you've had 3, then you know they just come and go, and the first 1 was probably just like the last 2, and it's pretty common to have 3 in one lifetime. There's been more than that in mine in the UK, and it's one of the most moderate climates you ever saw.

It was bound to happen I suppose.
That's pure supposition on your part, and that's what I don't like about it. It's completely unscientific in every regard. But, it is very well-adapted to the social forces imposed on modern Western civilisation in the early 21st Century.

Now , beyond that we still have another problem which is probably best described as cross-contamination. We already know that much folklore is really just an updated version of earlier folklore from another source.
I don't doubt that. Modern secular culture is chock-full of folklore that came from earlier folklore. But that's only true of societies that don't believe in folklore, or preserving folklore, because they don't realise that some of the stuff they think is true, is handed down as a Chinese Whisper. But in many older societies, such folklore was preserved for precisely that reason, to know the origins of a story, and so to be able to know what was historical fact, and what was just a nice story. Go to Morocco. They preserve such traditions, and they know the difference between Moroccan folklore and historical fact, on many things, because they still preserve the tradition. If Western secular culture has forgotten that, then that's a lessening of knowledge in Western secular culture.

With that said , it's also important to remember that even thousands of years ago , each culture did not exist in any sort of vacuum despite how easy that might be to believe.
Of course not. Where did you get the idea that they did? From the American concept of a society treated like a melting-pot? It's not real. It's a fiction. Different villages in each empire maintained their own traditions, even though they existed as part of a larger whole, and retained the differences, because they were aware of the problems when you start assuming that your society has the "exclusive truth".

Okay...now , please ...PLEASE , limit your responses to something reasonable in length. Thank you in advance.
Sorry, but if you will make a lot of mistaken claims, how can I keep my replies short, without only addressing one? If you want my posts to be short, then make only one claim at a time, and make sure not to mix in multiple claims in a single sentence. Otherwise, you're setting yourself up to expect the impossible.

I know that I'm coming off really condescending. But really, you're making a lot of false assumptions, that are totally untrue the minute you get out of your back-yard and get to know the locals around the world. They're not all primitive savages, no matter what you were told in university.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 229
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 1:38:36 PM

Werzen said How much evidence do we have for ID/Creation? None. Which is the most likely possibility? Evolution, then ID/creation isn't a possibility since we now know that evolution specifically disproves creationisms 6,000 year old univ
snip... conflating ID and Creationism and YEC ?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 230
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 1:47:00 PM

Verzen said : Paul - What you fail to realize is that evolution is another word for mutations.
poppycock. ad hoc rewriting of the dictionary.

They are ONE and the SAME. ...tra la la la la. gibber gibber poot...

You are willfully ignorant of this fact. Stop living in ignorance.
fess up Verzen. they are not the same - except in your imagination.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 231
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 1:57:02 PM

Frogo said:

the nature of bacteria is that they act fast, or we wouldn't live.
they have to change for new, and before unknown jobs


They don't act fast. They reproduce fast.
Showing that they reproduce quickly may actually support the statement that they act fast. It doesn't contradict it in any way that I can see.

Moreover, you have a claim to support, now, Frogo.

Please support your claim that they don't act fast.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 232
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 2:03:55 PM

... They do not adapt based on information they already have.
Evidence ?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 233
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 2:24:00 PM
come on now guys...support your claims.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 234
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 2:35:19 PM
Rug - It's not rocket science.

A species gets split up into group A and group B.

They are each afflicted with different MUTATIONS. After around 3000 mutations, they begin to look different from one another. What do you call this? Evolution. A single mutation is a single mutation. Evolution is a group of mutations with natural selection kicking the bad genes out.

It's not rocket science. It's easy to understand if you have half a brain.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 235
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 3:02:25 PM
RE Msg: 405 by Verzen:
Rug - It's not rocket science.

A species gets split up into group A and group B.

They are each afflicted with different MUTATIONS. After around 3000 mutations, they begin to look different from one another. What do you call this? Evolution. A single mutation is a single mutation. Evolution is a group of mutations with natural selection kicking the bad genes out.

It's not rocket science. It's easy to understand if you have half a brain.
Now that you've given the idiot's version, give the mathematical formula that dictates the probability matrix for the current state of evolution, and the expectation value. To simpler minds, that's the actual results, not what the simpleton's are explained in chimp language.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 236
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 5:19:44 PM
Verzen said : Paul - What you fail to realize is that evolution is another word for mutations.
Verzen. I'll have no mealy mouthings. Is your statement true or false ?
I have seen not one source that validates your claim.

Now admit. You're on the side of science, not untruths, remember.

It's patently false. You've already included Selection is involved in evolution. Since Mutation is not selection, "Mutation" is not another word for "Evolution". Plain and simple. Not.

correct ?
It may be easy to understand with half a brain, but unfortunately I have more than that.

I'm interested because from what I see here and elsewhere, those who say they espouse science rarely can admit error.
so just say you were wrong, won't you ?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 237
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 5:37:40 PM


Now that you've given the idiot's version, give the mathematical formula that dictates the probability matrix for the current state of evolution, and the expectation value. To simpler minds, that's the actual results, not what the simpleton's are explained in chimp language.


Could you rephrase the question so that it makes sense in terms of biology and evolution? What variable are you talking about when you say "current state of evolution"? If you're asking what the probability of life existing as we know it is, then I'd say 100%.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 238
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 5:44:55 PM
RE Msg: 409 by CountIbli:
Could you rephrase the question so that it makes sense in terms of biology and evolution?
Sure. Biology is a subject. The theory of evolution is a theory, just like the theory of gravitation. As with all theories, it has certain forces acting on specific bodies at specific times, in quantitative measures. It is those exact quantities and the exact objects and times when those forces act, that determine the results. Take gravity. We all know that it makes things fall. But it's only the formulas being exact, that verify the theory. If you're not precise with giving the formula, then you end up with an Earth with no air, or one that is so heavy that it would crush you where you stand. We cannot even make any predictions at all without those formulas for the same reason. Slightly off, and they produce totally different results.

The same is true of the theory of evolution. Without a precise formula, we can claim almost anything we want, and it would almost always be true.

There really is no way at all to say that life is even slightly probable, unless we can quantify the theory into a precise formula.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 239
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 5:59:54 PM


In a sense that exemplifies an instance supporting Evolution as true ? That would be the only sense that counts, really , eh ?

after that, then this "What sense do your choice examples exist under , as "transitional" ?


There are thousands of transitional fossils. For a small sampling see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

For example there are fossils that the record the transition from fish fins to amphibian feet. There are fossils that show the transition from fish teeth to amphibian teeth. There are fossils that show the transition for an amphibian backbone to a reptilian backbone. In the whale series (staring from its land dwelling ancestor), the "blowhole" migrates from the front of the face to the top of the skull. Etc.

If you have any kids then you are a transition between your parents and your offspring. If your bones are ever fossilized then they'd also be transitional fossils.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 240
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 6:07:56 PM


Havent the time at the moment love but my argument was that men and woman of above average intelligence can and have defended their position on Creation, after the claim was made that those of even medicore intelligence could debunk it. ~having almost nothing to do with my ability to do so or lack thereof.


None of them have used their intelligence to arrive at Creationism. Instead their faith in Creationism comes from their Christianity. For example, to join the Creation Research Society one must subscribe to a statement of belief:

http://www.creationresearch.org/belief_wndw.htm



All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.


Note that they don't describe it as a statement of scientifically arrived at principles.
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 241
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 6:16:36 PM

After all, no Design is without purpose


true, and if we are designed for no real purpose to god, then what is the point in asking god why... there would be no answer

but I get the feeling most people understand god to have created us to worship him/it/whatever, and that would mean that god is an ego freak that needs some kind of lesser thing to worship him to validate his existence...

of course, being the only things in the universe would be pretty boring and lonely... if I were in that position and could create more I probably would... but thats just a supposition and I doubt that we are a design of anything at all, and to me that would be less of a miracle in my understanding of the word anyway
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 242
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 6:30:02 PM
There is some "middle ground" here. Without, ah, mutation, a concept that I detest, for it is better described as "variation," there can be no "selection" or "retention."
"the statement was that "Mutation" is another word for "Evolution".
Either that is true or false.

then we can discuss your further statements.

If at the end of a discussion, you will claim that there is no right or wrong...I'm not bothering with you AT ALL.
Is the statement true or false ?
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 243
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 6:34:07 PM

There really is no way at all to say that life is even slightly probable, unless we can quantify the theory into a precise formula.

Not everything can be reduced to a precise formula (see: Chaos theory), and even if it were possible, in the case of the molecular genetics of evolution, the number of variables would be so huge as to be impossible to parse. Honestly, your harping on this point is really likely to be a manifestation of your particular pathology. Just saying, is all.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 244
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 6:35:52 PM

There are thousands of transitional fossils. For a small sampling see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
everything is transitional in one way or another. A cake is transitional from a rock, if you want to say so. a car tire is transitional from an honey bee.

Be specific and say how a particular fossil is transitional - as it applies to SHOWING EVOLUTION.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 245
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 6:40:08 PM


It looks considerably smaller, huh? That is out of all the biologists in the world... And I am not even sure those biologists actually believe in creationism or not? Their name might just be used as a way to get more names on the list. Very dishonest tactic.


I randomly chose one, Dr. Esther Fai-Wan Su, and Googled her. Here's what the Creationism Wiki has to say:



To resolve the issue of whether the Bible or evolution was true, Dr Su conducted an intensive study of paleontology. She felt that: "If evolution is true, then there must be all kinds of in-between forms of creatures." She discovered that the fossil record, as well as observations of living things, supports the Creation account.


If she really did conduct an intensive study of paleontology then how could she have possibly missed the thousands of "in-between forms of creatures" that are found in the fossil record?

I suggest that either:

A) She lied about doing such a study, or
B) She explained away all the thousands of transitional fossils with "God did it" or maybe "Satan did it."

I think (A) is most likely given the long history and propensity for Creationists to lie.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/snrfab.html
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 246
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 6:41:22 PM

Be specific and say how a particular fossil is transitional - as it applies to SHOWING EVOLUTION.


You can read, right? Look here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

If you can't puzzle out anything that's said there, go ahead and bring it here, and we'll be glad to help you through it.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 247
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 6:53:01 PM


Be specific and say how a particular fossil is transitional - as it applies to SHOWING EVOLUTION.


I take it you didn't bother to read the reference I provided. I'm not surprised since Creationists never read anything about evolution unless it's written by another Creationist.

I'll quote one particular example for you since you can't be bothered to read the document yourself.

"Hylonomus, Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- These are protorothyrids, very early cotylosaurs (primitive reptiles). They were quite little, lizard-sized animals with amphibian-like skulls (amphibian pineal opening, dermal bone, etc.), shoulder, pelvis, & limbs, and intermediate teeth and vertebrae. Rest of skeleton reptilian, with reptilian jaw muscle, no palatal fangs, and spool-shaped vertebral centra. Probably no eardrum yet. Many of these new "reptilian" features are also seen in little amphibians (which also sometimes have direct-developing eggs laid on land), so perhaps these features just came along with the small body size of the first reptiles."

According to evolution reptiles are descended from amphibians. Here we have a fossil that shares features of amphibians and reptiles.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 248
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 7:02:11 PM


There really is no way at all to say that life is even slightly probable, unless we can quantify the theory into a precise formula.


Since life exists I'd say the probability of life is 100%. Evolution has been observed so the probability of evolution is 100%.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 249
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 7:09:04 PM


Be specific and say how a particular fossil is transitional - as it applies to SHOWING EVOLUTION.




You can read, right? Look here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

If you can't puzzle out anything that's said there, go ahead and bring it here, and we'll be glad to help you through it.
You can read, right? Then read what I wrote.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 250
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 11/28/2009 7:26:56 PM


You can dismiss my comments altogether if that is you wish. "Mutation" as you call it, is "variation" in evolutionary parlance. It is a first step in evolution, with "selection" and "retention" following. It is not the whole process of "evolution." One is not the other, in a sense, but without one, the whole concept of evolution could not follow.
It's "mutation" as Verzen called it. "One is not the other" is CORRECT.
Why try to make a false statement look like it is not false ?
That is what I object to. Calling "false" "kinda true".


My future does not depend on whether or not you follow up on ensuing comments that I made.
Oh, give it a break. Just respond honestly, and don't, at the end, say nothing was shown if it has been.


In scientific investigation, we strive to recognize "middle ground" when we see an element of it. I gather, based on your comment, that you strive for achieving a victory based on minutae, rather than striving toward a greater truth. That's OK by me. No one is better than the other here on POF.
I thought science was about finding answers , using truth and honesty - not admitting incorrect middle grounds in order to support teammates.


My "common ground" solution was to recognize that, sans "variation," the rest of the evolutionary process could not follow.
Why not say that sans the mutation, Selection is Evolution ?
Why not say that Mutation is Selection ?
why not dispense with recognized words and we can all go "mmqmmenwoiujkncxl;kdf, I'm right.". ?



Therefore, in a sense, without mutation (my variation), there can be no evolution.
no kidding. That does not make Verzen's statemetn even half right. It's STILL WRONG. You offer obfuscation and nothing else.


That middle ground does not appeal to you. That's OK. No skin off my teeth. I only offered it as a means to move on. If ya can't, that's fine by me.
do you accept that Young Earth Creationists are half right, and that Evolutionists with Old Earth, are only half right too? bith are right ?

If that's what you're saying, then I accept that you are in the middle.

Otherwise...seems more like untruths offered to help your side out of a diffficulty.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths