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
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 1
Debunking creationist mythsPage 1 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)
What various creationist myths in reference to evolution can you think of that you are able to debunk?

Claim:mutations NEVER add NEW information and mutations only take AWAY information

Refutation: However similar to binary code, the genetic code is more complex. AGCT works similar to binary code's 0/1. They are correct that no new LETTERS *information* is added to the genetic "binary" code.. But what they don't realize is that if AAGCTTGACA was a section of genetic code and one of the A's turned into a different letter, then the code itself would be read differently by the organism and the organism will ultimately behave differently. Wings are even possible do to a transcription error.

Anyway, what other creationist myths can we debunk?
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 2
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/13/2009 8:08:44 AM
Down Syndrome isn't because it's technically detrimental. However autism I could see being the next genetic link.. particularly aspergers.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/13/2009 10:01:36 AM
I think all creationist myths can be debunked by anybody with a mediocre intelligence and an open mind.

Incidentally, down syndrome is not the addition of merely a gene, its the addition of some or all of an entire chromosome.

Claim:mutations NEVER add NEW information and mutations only take AWAY information
Religious fundies rarely, if ever, define "new genetic information" because when they do they are quickly refuted. And since they won't say what they're talking about their claim is meaningless.

We can observe new genes, new genotypes, new phenotypes, new traits, additional genetic variety, and additional genetic material being formed so however you wish to define it, 'new information' definitely occurs.

The rungs of the DNA 'ladder' are made of only 4 different bases - these are often abbreviated as the letters A,C,G, and T. The arrangement of these 4 letters determines our genes. Changes (mutations) are often made in this sequence and these changes in sequence changes our genes. So while creationists would have you believe that 'new information' requires the magical appearance of new structures or materials, the reality is it merely requires a change in sequence - and this happens all the time. We are born with 100+ mutations and acquire more over our lifetime. Therefore, "new information" is produced all the time.

Lets pretend for a moment that creationist stupidity is true and that mutations result only in a loss of information. Even creationists admit that mutations occur and that the fossil record increases in complexity, therefore, the earliest life must have been extremely abundant in information and has been steadily losing information with every mutation since that time. Now when we look at the fossil record, we see that the earliest life were prokaryotic cells (very simple cells) and after these 'lost' information they resulted in eukaryotic cells (more complex cells) and as more and more information was lost, this paved the way for simple multicellular animals, followed by shell-bearing animals, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals. According to creationists, as more information is lost, the more complex life becomes.
Why would life become more and more intricate and complex as more and more 'information' is lost?
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 4
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/14/2009 5:43:48 AM
After watching some youtube videos and comments. I recently came into a conflict with a guy known as angryoldfatman.
His comment:

Verzen - "I'm growing tired"
Angryoldfatman's post
No you're not. You need to convert the heretic.

The concept of gradual change via accumulation of beneficial´╗┐ mutation is refuted by paleontological evidence from 'Gould' and population evidence from Haldane, Fisher, Lewontin, et al.

Now after looking up Gould, this is what he says...


Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

So... more evidence that creationists lie to try to get their point.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/14/2009 10:55:52 AM
"Intelligent Design" is a product of religious beliefs. Does it make sense to debate it? The non-ID crowd will resort to science which should be about open minded discovery although it appears that some are not so open minded. The ID crowd does not require proof as their beliefs are what they are and any "debate" is simple rationalization of an already accepted belief. The two sides, or at least some of the two sides, are not playing by the same rules. If one wishes to debate ID, one must go after the foundation of their arguments, not the rationalizations. IMHO that would be the religious text basis.

I'll take the challenge and debate it:
Man created the text and man proclaims the text was inspired by God. God created the evidence read by the scientists and observable by anyone. Which one makes errors, God or Man? Is it a draw now? What would be God's motive for deception? Perhpas testing our beliefs? If God is "testing" man with such deceptions by creating false evidence and man is intended to be in God's image, would that mean God is telling us by his example to be liars with such deceptions? Personally, I would trust the mind God gave me to interpret his creations as truth and not trust religious texts written by scientifically primitive man then translated, edited, and compiled by empires. That same mind has learned that it is man that is capable of both errors and lying. I would like to believe God is not a liar.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 6
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/14/2009 11:31:52 AM
Myth: There are no transitional fossils.

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


Myth: Evolution is false because dogs don't give birth to cats.

Fact: While it's true that dogs don't give birth to cats, evolution doesn't claim that they do. In fact, if this was ever observed then evolution would be falsified.


Myth: No one has ever seen one "kind" turn into a different "kind."

Fact: Creationists don't tell us what a "kind" is. So the claim is ultimately meaningless. When backed into a corner sometimes Creationists will say that a "kind" is the same thing as a species (though sometimes they different answers). In that case the myth is debunked because speciation has been observed numerous times. Speciation in as little as one generation has been observed.


Myth: Ages of fossils can't be trusted because radiocarbon dating isn't accurate enough.

Fact: Radiocarbon dating is accurate to about 50,000 years (sometimes better with the right technology). It is not used to date fossils.
 thetalkingstove
Joined: 4/13/2009
Msg: 7
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/14/2009 3:50:05 PM
One of the most annoying creationist arguments is "Evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics!" er...yeah, if there was no sun pouring energy onto the planet you might have a point!
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 8
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/14/2009 4:22:58 PM
Cutiebird...


Bible prophecy has come true each time.


Can you point to one event that the Bible predicted before it happened...? Every time I see one of those 'prophecy' items, it tends to be so vague that it can be applied in hindsight to just about ANYthing.

Provide a prophecy that, in clear and unambiguous terms, predicts a specific event on a specific date, and *then* it will gain a small amount of credibility.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/14/2009 4:27:47 PM
OK, redshift can be caused by gravitation, the more space light has to travel the more accumulative gravitation and therefore more redshifted.

Gravitational influences in all directions, and photons measured arriving from all directions. Net influences would be highly variable. Doppler shifting is consistent in magnitudes and directional effects. Thus, the latter is the only explanation which accords with evidence.


Remember that the big bang and the expanding universe is a creational theory as per the bible.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Not your first example either.


If you read the original hebrew bible (old testement) Genesis it says
Bereshit bara Elohim Alev tov et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.
Which means

Your translational points are spot-on. The Biblical cites are, however, irrelevant in this discussion except in the context of someone making Biblical claims. You would seem to be addressing claims no-one, other than perhaps yourself, has made.


may or may not be down to the dopler effect it could just as likely be caused by gravitational effects or something we have yet to discover.

False, as already pointed out. Parsimony suggests that the most likely cause is the one most consistent with the evidence. A Doppler shift is consistent. A gravitational shift is not. "Something we have yet to discover" is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. The appeal to probability ["just as likely"] is also a fallacy popular with...um...creationists.


yes or know...or are you a sheep?

Asking whether you are a cosmologist is a valid question regarding your knowledge and qualifications on the topic matter. The question above is an ad hominem fallacy, again popular in creationist arguments.

I prefer to go with the latter as it disproves the bible

Oh, the irony and hypocrisy. This statement is the essence of creationism. "I choose to pick my conclusions and force the evidence to fit, rather than base my conclusions on the evidence." You have a foregone conclusion and nothing is satisfactory unless it supports that conclusion! The Bible is irrelevant to science, and your statement is anti-scientific.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 10
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/14/2009 5:20:43 PM

And really there was no fault in him was there?

It's easy to find no fault in one for whom 2000 years of editing have been provided to ensure no fault is seen, and for whom there is no direct evidence he existed, but plenty of evidence of previous myths to borrow from.
 BlankScreenForNow
Joined: 7/20/2009
Msg: 11
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/15/2009 9:44:21 AM
Muskie, have you ever seen Ken Miller's awesome speech on Irreducible Complexity in the Bacterial Flagellum? One of the coolest things I've ever seen. It literally inspired me to go to university.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 12
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/15/2009 12:30:40 PM

... certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or 'less complete' predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations.


Gee, if you accept this statement , then I guess you wouuld also accept that it also means that the creator/god is too complex a being to have evolved from simpler, or 'less complete' predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations....

Now who do you suppose created the creator

 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 13
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/15/2009 2:17:23 PM
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.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 14
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: 15
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: 16
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: 17
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: 18
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: 19
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: 20
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: 21
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.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 22
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.)
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 23
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: 24
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: 25
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.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths