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
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 26
view profile
History
Debunking creationist mythsPage 2 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)
By all means. All children should be compelled to study Quetzalcoatl. Ra is a suitable alternative.

Might as well, since appeals to ignorance and personal incredulity rule the day.
 vichycycl
Joined: 5/5/2007
Msg: 27
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/15/2009 10:53:18 PM
How about the existence of homosexuals:

Creationist: clearly evolution wasn't the creator of homosexuals, since evolution 'dictates' that whatever doesn't reproduce dies, and homosexuals, obviously, don't reproduce.

Proponents of this argument forget that evolution works on many levels of division of life, including genuses, families, classes, orders and phyla. Natural selection means death, but it does not mean death at birth if not everything is viable. Regardless if homosexuality means that an individual will not reproduce, that individual may still be a contributing factor to the success of the family, tribe, or even nation. The gay brother may a) leave an extra woman for his brother to court, and b) guard the camp from lion attack while his brother is making babies. Those babies will share gay brother's genes, ya know.

Another glaring omission in this logic is that alleles are not unique to any individual in a phenotype. In fact it is clear in nature that not putting all one's eggs in one basket has been learned. Animals have several offspring; tribes nurture all their members. Genes are passed on to the next generation via the whole phenotype, not by one individual. Diversity of alleles (keeping as many doors open as possible) makes adaptation to change more likely. Nature doesn't think, so it can't make any judgments on which alleles are better to keep, so those that don't kill are kept (like male nipples).

Lastly, gay people have hetero sex sometimes. Many gay males have had children by having coitus with women. In fact, the religious taboo of homosexuality, I bet, is the cause for some gay men to enter into marriages with women and reproduce. Isn't that ironic!

P.S. Please somebody use the 'evolution violates the 2LOT' argument. I love that one.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 28
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/16/2009 7:44:11 AM
@ vichycycl...


Creationist: clearly evolution wasn't the creator of homosexuals, since evolution 'dictates' that whatever doesn't reproduce dies, and homosexuals, obviously, don't reproduce.


I always get a laugh when a creationist puts that argument forward... because the obvious counter is that he thinks God made them that way - but why would He create something that He Himself is supposed to hate?

Makes God a bit of a schiz, no...?
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 29
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/16/2009 8:55:38 AM
God and science are mutually exclusive of one another. The reason being, they have different burdens of proof. Science requires proof while theology does not. This is what makes them mutually exclusive meaning that science and religion cannot co-exist within the same boundaries of logical thought.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 30
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/16/2009 10:39:24 AM
It's illogical to believe in God and believe in science. Within a persons life, for them to be a rational individual, one must assume the burden of proof with each claim they encounter. There is no evidence for God... at all. Yet, science requires ONLY evidence for any of its claims. How could you require evidence for all of your claims except for this one special claim which appeals to your families tradition? It's simply not rational.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 31
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/16/2009 11:27:49 AM

And how, based on your demand for proof and logic can you say

God and science are mutually exclusive of one another.

when so much outstanding science is done by people who believe in God

Faith and science ARE exclusive. You are confusing the individuals who perform science with the philosophy of science itself.

Faith does not require science, and often eschews it.
To science, faith is irrelevant at best, and anathema at worst.
Both function just fine without the other; whatever the individual chooses to believe or practice, and in fact, involving faith IN science has a strong tendency to lead to pseudoscience. Choosing to adhere to and follow both, logically requires only that the faith one believes does not obviously contradict the science one practices.

A young Earth creationist could probably do just fine as a vulcanologist or a chemist, but might make a pretty poor paleontologist. Note that Dwayne Gish is a geologist/geochemist, but many of his claims involve biology and paleontology, and ultimately the claims made end up contradicting basic principles of the fields in which he is nominately qualified. Those contradictions are ignored or overlooked because they derive from fields he's not qualified in.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 32
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/16/2009 1:10:35 PM
Where or how did matter/energy FIRST come about?

It is better to say "I don't know" than to lie and say that some divine being created everything. Because that then begs the question... where did this being come from? Who created it? If you say that it is eternal, than that defeats the purpose, since if this divine being is eternal, could the universe also be eternal? In order to be rational, you must first follow the most logical conclusion.

There IS however, evidence to support that every galaxy came from a singular point in the universe. The evidence for that is simply cosmic drift.

John - Their theories deal NOTHING with some divine being or wishful thinking. None of their theories are based on conjecture. The belief in God however, is a belief of pure conjecture.

And Frogo understands what I am saying. Thank you Frogo.

Diva - It's not illogical.

It's simply a statement saying that if you demand evidence for EVERY aspect of your job description and you demand evidence, tests, observations for EVERY single theory that is put together in your respective field.. why do you think you can get away with making an exception for God when there is no evidence in the first place? Wishful thinking is illogical.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/16/2009 1:25:08 PM

actually FrogO, I think you are confusing God and faith. Though it may be true that faith and science are exclusive, i don't think God and science need be. If some of the studies that have taken place in the past (google God on the brain), or current ongoing studies are any indication I would say science and God (or the search of) are actively engaged.

You agree with me here "Though it may be true that faith and science are exclusive". I did not mention gods. The confusion is not mine in this instance.

In any case, gods also have no place in science. Supernatural entities lack definition or testability, and thus can play no role in science, which is purely objective.

One can study the beliefs, concepts, and origins thereof, scientifically. That does not equate to the supernatural entities playing any part in science. If the entity cannot be observed, verified, or tested, how can it play any role in a philosophy which depends utterly on observability and testability?

The studies you cite deal with brain activity, not external and objective deities.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/16/2009 1:53:15 PM
Black holes began as a mathematical concept to the best of my knowledge, a concept which was defined and consistent with observations of other phenomena. Not a valid analogy, since gods lack definitions or any means by which they can be observed or tested. They are purely imaginary at this point, and do not serve to explain anything in the known universe.

Science does not "give up". It deals with defined objects and mechanisms. Gods are neither, and being purely subjective, are excluded by definition from science.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 35
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/17/2009 7:53:35 AM
There is the possibility that invisible pink elephants with machine guns are standing behind you ready to fire as well. But the point of the matter is, is that we should not assume the possibility until substantial evidence becomes apparent. Right now, ID/creation is just wishful thinking.
We have to weight the evidence. How much evidence do we have for evolution? 150 years worth. 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 universe.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 36
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/17/2009 8:01:06 AM

Notice, I have no problem saying that in the subject of origin of matter/energy, "I don't know", why is it that the "scientific types" seem to have a hard time with saying that?


Acutally, Paul, "scientific types" as you call 'em actually have no problem saying "I don't know." Indeed, that is at the very basis of the scientific process. The desire to know is the motivation for moving forward.

I notice you, like every other "non-scientific" type, if I can paraphrase, use the word theory as in "only a theory." That is the layman version. There is a theory of gravity, there is atomic theory, there are theories for a number of things we take for granted. "Theory" is not an "idea" or "hypothesis." It's more robust than that.

I've noticed many creationist/IDers have problems understanding (or refuse to understand) the distinction.

Also a problem is the fact that creationists/IDers frequently want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because there are what they perceive as "holes" in a particular theory presupposes that the entire structure is wrong and has to be thrown out to the creationist. Not the case, in fact, far from it. Evolution in a biological sense is the best, most robust way to explain fossils, the way they've developed, how things are developing now, etc. Then there is big bang cosmology. The best model that explains the observations is that everything started with a singular event.

Or, one can just be lazy and say "I don't understand how such-and-such could be so God must have done it."
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 37
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/17/2009 8:40:31 AM


How much evidence do we have for ID/Creation?



the same exact amount of evidence that we have on how the universe came into existence. Can we say it all together now .... none


Um...wrong! The evidence for big bang cosmology is far more compelling and complete than magic sky man.

Let's list:

Cosmic Microwave Background
recessional redshift of galaxies
Clear indication of galactic evolution from more disruptive events several billion years after the big bang and more stable configurations now.
Lessening deuterium budget from early universe to our more contemporaneous universe
A cosmological "dark ages" about 300,000 years after the big bang

Yeah, that's should do.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 38
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/17/2009 8:49:55 AM
Fishmuskie...

How does Creation theory account for the cosmic background radiation? How does it explain the observed motion of galaxies?

It's true that we can't (yet...?) go back in time to watch the events as they happened, so we'll never know FOR SURE how the universe, life, or humanity came to be... but at this point in time - Big Bang cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolutionary theory are the best fits for the observations we have made.

When you come up with a better theory for any of these, that DOES NOT involve magic, then you'll have my attention. (And let's be clear - the idea that God wished everything into existence IS magic.)
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 39
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/17/2009 9:13:15 AM
However, the moment someone says there can be "only one possible conclusion," then that is faith. It's not science. I guess all i can say then is .. welcome to the flock


You did read when I said compelling evidence didn't you? Or were you too immersed in your own sense of intellectual superiority? Besides, who said "only one possible conclusion"...besides you, that is?


so riddle me this batman, what caused the big bang to go bang? why did it go bang at all?


Actually, astronomers and cosmologists don't know. In fact, I strongly suspect most cosmologists are a lot more humble about this conclusion than some of those who propose to argue against big bang that frequently post on these forums.

However, if you're actually interested in hearing from the top minds in the field i.e. Roger Penrose, Neil Turok, etc., here's a link for you:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/Outreach/Public_LecturesView_Past_Public_Lectures/

Or, if you prefer, you can presume to know better than them. Have fun with that.

edit:


let's just say for arguments sake that God, and i honestly think that word alone causes people to think irrationally, so let me start over.


Ah, okay. "Godidit." No need to look into it any further, then?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 40
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/17/2009 10:08:05 AM

please identify where i implied anything of the sort. if i did i was wrong, but i'm pretty certain i did not.


In the previous quotation...which is what you were accusing me of doing.


the funny thing is, i have gone on record many times saying that evidence collected thus far supports the big bang theory. don't let your prejudice blind you sir.


No you yours, such as assuming I am somehow quoting scientific scripture as a member of the science "flock" without having fully considered the implications of what I am stating. Making assumptions about others like this is presumption and prejudice.


why stop looking? the fun would really just be beginning


And just how do you put God into the equation. Is there a mathematical expression? How do you "prove" God?
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 41
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/17/2009 2:11:12 PM
The issue I have with that type of thinking is that, where is the proof of the causal connection between each of the separate occurances, never mind that one of them is just an indication, otherwise they are things that happened...................

You just asked if mutations actually exist. You're being skeptical of mutations now..
Edit: Btw - Cars don't mutate or replicate/have sex and thus, your analogy is faulty.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 42
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/17/2009 2:54:22 PM

That point is just an aside, the point I really want to make is that all of the proofs you list below is akin to taking all of the cars that Saturn makes, lining them up side by side, and saying, "see, theres proof of evolution and the big bang, because the cars obviously evolved from the simpler one to the more complex."
And if you see person A punch person B in the face, and a moment later person B has a broken nose - where is the proof that the punch caused it?

The idea that the punch caused the broken nose is the simplest explanation. Similarly, the ToE is the simplest explanation for what we observe in the world. In fact it explains billions of phenomena elegantly and beautifully. I've yet to see an alternative explanation for the things that evolution explains.

If creationists respected themselves, their belief system, or in the creator they believe in, they would have no problem at all accepting evolution. They might actually be interested in understanding the creation of their creator. They might be interested in spiritual growth, which involves discarding false beliefs in favor of true ones. And they might be interested in being honest with themselves.

That car analogy is idiotic. The cars don't live, die, breed, feed on one another, have mutations, their parts don't interact/attract each other and they aren't affected by natural selection.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 43
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/17/2009 3:32:14 PM
Paul...

You're never going to GET the unequivocal type of 'proof' that you're asking for. All anyone can do is say "Here is an explanation that best fits the facts that we have"...

Returning to the broken-nose analogy. If I come across two people - one with a broken nose and the other with bloody knuckles - I can safely infer that a punch caused the broken nose. I didn't see it happen, but it's the best explanation I have for the evidence available. If you later come along and say that both men were walking toward each other, one of them tripped and flailed his fist into the other persons' face... I would consider that to be another valid explanation - provided you could show me where the person tripped.

The Big Bang Theory might not be the actual explanation for the formation of the Universe... but given the observations we have *at the moment*, it's the one that most closely fits those observations. If you want to propose another explanation - that's cool... just be sure that it provides a better fit of the observations than the theories we currently have. The only restriction is that we have to be able to confirm your theory by means other than merely taking your word for it.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 44
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/17/2009 4:49:50 PM
Paul - What you fail to realize is that evolution is another word for mutations. We have proven without a shadow of a doubt that mutations exist. That means evolution EXISTS. You fail to realize this and you are continuing to reside within ignorance of this fact.
Repeat it with me.
MUTATIONS lead to EVOLUTION
MUTATIONS lead to EVOLUTION
MUTATIONS lead to EVOLUTION

They are ONE and the SAME. By saying that evolution is false because we dont know what started it all is a logical fallacy because they both dont deal with one another. If we find evidence to disprove the big bang, it doesn't automatically disprove evolution because they aren't connected.

You are willfully ignorant of this fact. Stop living in ignorance.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 45
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/17/2009 5:47:31 PM
Paul...

A broken nose and bloody knuckles is called an inference... it's also called circumstantial evidence. And if somebody comes along and says that they saw what happened, I'm going to make sure they're an objective observer - not a friend of the bloody-knuckled guy who is just sticking up for his buddy. The evidence is the broken nose and the bloody knuckles - the theory is the punch to the face. New evidence - such as multiple eyewitnesses or a crack in the pavement - will lead to new theories.

You're right - we're good at making assumptions. The difference comes with whether or not the evidence we have fits the assumptions we make. Fossils of creatures with traits common to multiple species supports common ancestry and evolution - it's not perfect, but it's the best we currently have.

Is it certain...? No, of course not. But it is *SUPPORTED* by everything we've observed over the past two centuries.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/17/2009 5:51:02 PM

Relatively simple.......... in your scenario, I SAW it happen.......... other than the above occurances make a nice line up........... where is the causal connection?
You may have saw the hand hit the face but you didn't see the bone break. Inferring that the punch caused that break is the best explanation for the fracture based on what you saw.

Similarly, evolution explains what we see in nature. Previously you alluded to the increasing complexity in the fossil record. How do you explain that? Did a god create simple cells, then kill them, then create cells that are more complex, then kill them, then create simple multicellular animals, then kill them, etc etc all the way up to present day complex mammals and whatnot? Of course not. The fossil record is an assortment of snapshots in time that show us how life changed over time.

We've seen that mutations cause changes in DNA which can be good or bad (if you disagree with that I'll be happy to provide examples of good mutations) and natural selection is also something we can all agree upon. Therefore, many years of mutations + selection result in organisms that change over time. Considering the enormous amount of time involved, those small changes add up to big ones, resulting in the increasing complexity of the fossil record. This evolutionary mechanism explains what we see in nature.

But what else do we see? We see a lot of features that shouldn't be there like how some species of cave fish and salamanders have useless sightless eyes, we see that whales have legbones and snakes have pelvises, humans have an appendix and a tailbone and get goosebumps when we're cold or nervous, etc etc. What's the creationist explanation for these - perhaps God is incompetent?

But all these things make sense if evolution is true. The useless eyes, leg bones, and pelvises are remnants from their ancestors. The appendix equivalent in other animals allows them to digest cellulose, the tailbone is a remnant of a lost tail, and when my fur-covered ancestors got goosebumps it raised their body hair, making them appear larger to ward off predators or for better insulation against the cold.

So when you say...
I for one don't know, and am happy admitting that.
...we both know that you aren't being humble, its that you do know but lack the tools to admit the truth.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 47
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/17/2009 6:37:46 PM
Definition of Belief
Belief
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

Now pay attention to the part where it says NOT IMMEDIATELY SUSCEPTIBLE TO RIGOROUS PROOF. If I see a guy standing over a corpse and he is holding a bloody knife. I can justify my conclusion in saying that he killed the man.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 48
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/17/2009 7:01:17 PM
mutations leading to evolution, is an opinion, with not a shread of proof.

random mutations, that for the most part are mistakes that slipped by the correcting system in nature? happy dreaming! [in our cells I believe is a correctng system that sometimes slips up]

AND, as far as I can make out, by far, most mutations are bad ones. [wouldn't they have to be if they are random?] [or at least useless]

I think we all agree that we are a pretty precise running piece of work. random things would almost certainly screw it up.

once again, not enough time for it to have worked, unless evolutionist have a guidence system, besides survival of the fittest.

survival of the fittest, or whatever, is happening anyway.
hasn't over 99% of life died out already?

so we must have started out with a he[[ of a lot more life than we have today.
and there is a bit today!
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 49
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/17/2009 7:04:03 PM
That's not necessarily so, Verzen...

While a good first-impression conclusion, it is possible that it will fail in light of other evidence.

Upon further examination, the corpse may not have any puncture wounds that match the knife... while the guy holding the bloody knife has a deep cut on his arm. Thus, it may be that the dead person succumbed to something else, while the man with the knife had wrestled it away from him.

That's why multiple tests are run, before reaching such conclusions. Like you said - rigorous testing must be done first. You may BELIEVE the guy with the knife is a murderer... but until further examinations (by other uninvolved parties) are performed, it's not a justifiable one.

aremeself...

That horse is dead - stop flogging it. :wink:

Most mutations are NEUTRAL - they have no overall effect. Some are beneficial - like the change in human skin colour as we moved from hot savannah to cooler forested areas. Some are detrimental.

And while mutation is random, SELECTION is not. An animal whose colouring makes it stand out against the background is more likely to get eaten before it can pass its genes to the next generation, so the ones who blend in are more likely to breed and be successful. That doesn't take something to guide it... and it only takes a few generations to become apparent. I don't know where this idea that there wasn't enough time for these things to happen came from... particularly when you consider the creationist argument that the species that were on Noahs' Ark have diverged into all the species around today - in a matter of less than four thousand years.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 50
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/17/2009 7:19:27 PM

mutations leading to evolution, is an opinion, with not a shread of proof.

Just like 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5 is an opinion with no shred of proof, am I right?
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths