[Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

This forum is for the discussion of the evidence for evolution. Anyone is welcome to post, however, scripture is not allowed. As the title says, Science Only please!

Moderator: Moderators

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby MrDunday » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:48 am

sorry this was a repeated post.
Last edited by MrDunday on Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby MrDunday » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:49 am

Dr_GS_Hurd wrote:
MrDunday wrote:So how did that cell work in the way which will make it survive and how to pass on it'self? The very first time? And more than once?
Scientists have assumed that it just happens. Even in a 'simple' cell, this idea of copying itself has to happen perfectly or you get nothing. This is not just splitting itself in half by chance.That would be half the parts in one cell and half the parts in another. That is not what happens, because that would be the end of it.
Why didn't the first cell just be alive and then die? That in itself would be astounding. Where did it get the info on how to survive and make more of itself?


I looked briefly at your website. It is clear that nobody can try to use a scientific argument with you, because you cannot understand them. You seem proud of being ignorant. So, let me try something else. The first "cell" that could not replicate was not the cell we are the descendants from since it never had any. And, if a cell was a "perfect" replicator, it too would have died, and all of its replicated copies would have died a very great long while ago. The first example would have died by simple accident. The other because it could never adapt by evolution to live under the radically shifting conditions we know the Earth has experienced over the last 4.5 billion years, or just the 3.8 billion we can safely conclude life has existed. Life demands an imperfect replicator to survive. The utterly stupid creationist insistence that a few poorly translated words in Genesis "very good" foolishly interpreted as "utterly perfect, and immutable" would literally spell the death of all life on Earth. All dead, very long ago.

Hi DR Hurd
I hope you don't mind but there was a couple of things I saw in what you wrote.

The first thing is that you have assume is that a cell just happened. I think this is impossible and the science supports that. I also think that when the scientists actually can build a cell in lab they will know that also. I understand a team has built synthetic life, that is kept 'alive' by computers and the scientists. They also had to design and build it. Even self replicating RNA only happens in a lab with the support of the scientists.So that is creation.Perfection is better than imperfection. I would rather have a computer that always works without crashes, than one that some times works and always crashes.
Perfection only means , for what it was designed for. It maybe good for one condition but not others.
Now in a human if you were perfect you would never die or get sick. And have perfect offspring. But today we see imperfect humans. We all die, and get sick. Give me the perfect cells. So for humans, what we really should be striving for is not to change into something else, but getting perfection. That is the real answer. That is also why we do not have any almost humans or any ex-humans we don't change into anything else we are just human . That is what the science supports.

Do you see where the scientists have twisted this around?
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby Dr_GS_Hurd » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:58 am

What I see, MrDunday, is that you are incapable of rational thought.

When I was a professor of psychiatry, I had to give up the idea that all people could be helped. Too bad for them, but my life is much better now.
User avatar
Dr_GS_Hurd
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:45 pm
Location: Dana Point, California

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:55 am

MrDunday wrote:
Natman wrote:
2? There's a few hypothesis about how the first cell got started, we're not sure which it was. However, this doesn't make god the alternative.

The point is why do you need 2 hypothesis on the start to life, it is because you don know which one to choose, which really means they don't know. Neither could be correct. The other very import bit of evidence is that the reason they can't answer this is that a cell has to be put together, 'built.'
So this is not about God filling what the scientists do not know , it about why they do not know.
The scientists have to ask these questions.
How did the cell know it had to survive?
How did it know how to? This had to have happened the first time and many times or all you have is one cell. How did the DNA get the code for making all of this happen? There would not be any heredity in the first cell.
How did this chance of life, know to make food ( plants) for animals? And for correcting the atmosphere and make soil?
What did the first life 'evolve' into?

The scientists can only assume that this could happen at all, because we don't see it today. And because they believe in 'evolution' that means they have no choice but say life started from non life. But that is circular thinking and not scientific.
Also the only evidence we actually have is,
1- life comes from life
So strictly by the evidence we have, this is true. But the scientists base their ideas on assumptions.



So Wayne's garbled argument is basically that if we don't currently know how certain events happened in the past, they can't have happened at all. Typical creationist.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby MrDunday » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:14 am

Dr_GS_Hurd wrote:What I see, MrDunday, is that you are incapable of rational thought.

When I was a professor of psychiatry, I had to give up the idea that all people could be helped. Too bad for them, but my life is much better now.


Well lets look at rationality.
Is it rational for you to expect a Harley to just show up in your driveway? No one has built it, it just happened.
Or is it rational to think that there is ID and building experience, to made that happen. I know that isn't life, but the same rationality goes for that.
Actually a cell has much more ID than a Harley. But not only that but this cell, can make copies of itself. It can feed itself, and can even join with other cells and make body parts. And then whole animals and plants.
What is more rational, it just happens all by itself, or someone used ID and built it?
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby jon_12091 » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:56 am

MrDunday wrote:Well lets look at rationality.
Is it rational for you to expect a Harley to just show up in your driveway? No one has built it, it just happened.
Or is it rational to think that there is ID and building experience, to made that happen. I know that isn't life, but the same rationality goes for that.
Actually a cell has much more ID than a Harley. But not only that but this cell, can make copies of itself. It can feed itself, and can even join with other cells and make body parts. And then whole animals and plants.
What is more rational, it just happens all by itself, or someone used ID and built it?

It happened all by itself - because. there. is. no. evidence. for. your. assertion (whoops used a two syllable word there). Your Harley assertion is a fallacy that us is to say wrong. You could of course present some evidence that is information or fact that support your claims not just things you happen to say. Believing something does not make it true that's know as relativism. I doubt you accept relativism in social and moral spheres so please don't try to apply it to science as that then is hypocrisy. Also it doesn't apply to science whatever Fuller might think!
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby Dagsannr » Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:16 am

I'm giving up.

It's clear that MrDunday has no desire to debate this, but merely trot out his stock of pre-loaded answers without actually addressing anything put against him. He's been asked, time and time again, to define what he considers life and so far hasn't. He clearly doesn't understand the concept of abiogenesis, evolutionary methods or even the basic science behind biology. It's clear he's read a bunch of stuff on creationist websites, formulated his own brand of creationist nonsense and seems to think that lends him credibility.

It's a shame, I had hopes of a true discussion about this, but he's just as bad as every other creationist online - unwilling to read anything outside their own beliefs, dodging the issues when hard evidence is raised against them and using PRATT arguments even when told they've been discounted.

Have fun y'all. I'l keep reading this thread (and the other in scripture) but unless MrDunday actually progresses beyond "Bwah, god is science, life from life" I'll keep out of it.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:23 am

MrDunday wrote:Well lets look at rationality.
Is it rational for you to expect a Harley to just show up in your driveway? No one has built it, it just happened.
Or is it rational to think that there is ID and building experience, to made that happen. I know that isn't life, but the same rationality goes for that.
Actually a cell has much more ID than a Harley. But not only that but this cell, can make copies of itself. It can feed itself, and can even join with other cells and make body parts. And then whole animals and plants.
What is more rational, it just happens all by itself, or someone used ID and built it?


There is nothing rational about your argument at all. It's called argument from incredulity, non sequitur reasoning also known in some circles as the divine fallacy.

We've seen the same tired bullshit from creationists gadzillions of times and it has been ripped to shreds time and time again because it isn't even remotely "clever".

Yawn.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:34 am

Natman wrote:I'm giving up.

It's clear that MrDunday has no desire to debate this, but merely trot out his stock of pre-loaded answers without actually addressing anything put against him.


Indeed. His approach is bog standard, lifted straight off of creationist web sites. He isn't bright enough to put forward a coherent argument or "debate" and is incapable of recognising so.

His position basically boils down to scientists are stupid and he isn't.

BTW, just about every bit of garbage he spews out can be ripped to shreds in a sentence or so, so it's not so much a matter of "debating" with him as "blood sport".
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby Dagsannr » Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:00 am

Roger Stanyard wrote: it's not so much a matter of "debating" with him as "blood sport".


Well, only if you consider a blood sport as fighting a regenerating zombie who can't feel pain.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby cathy » Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:01 am

When I was a professor of psychiatry, I had to give up the idea that all people could be helped. Too bad for them, but my life is much better now.
Unfortunately I did a PGCE where the idea that all people could be helped was drummed in - you just had to look for simpler ways to explain things. Which is why I've wasted so much time trying to engage with mr Dunday. But you are right. You can't engage with someone who just keeps repeating the same things with no evidence at all of understanding

So I've revised my opinion as well- all people except those subjected to creationist brainwashing can be helped. With that firmly in mind, Mr Dunday and Marc are very good reasons for keeping creationists away from children at all costs!!!
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:56 pm

Natman wrote:
Roger Stanyard wrote: it's not so much a matter of "debating" with him as "blood sport".


Well, only if you consider a blood sport as fighting a regenerating zombie who can't feel pain.


An evil thought that couldn't possibly have entered my tiny little mind is a treat him as a vampire rather than a zombie. Throw a bit of sunshine on his activities and see him run for cover of darkness.

Um, did I mention anything about a stake......
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby MrDunday » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:51 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:
MrDunday wrote:
Natman wrote:
2? There's a few hypothesis about how the first cell got started, we're not sure which it was. However, this doesn't make god the alternative.

The point is why do you need 2 hypothesis on the start to life, it is because you don know which one to choose, which really means they don't know. Neither could be correct. The other very import bit of evidence is that the reason they can't answer this is that a cell has to be put together, 'built.'
So this is not about God filling what the scientists do not know , it about why they do not know.
The scientists have to ask these questions.
How did the cell know it had to survive?
How did it know how to? This had to have happened the first time and many times or all you have is one cell. How did the DNA get the code for making all of this happen? There would not be any heredity in the first cell.
How did this chance of life, know to make food ( plants) for animals? And for correcting the atmosphere and make soil?
What did the first life 'evolve' into?

The scientists can only assume that this could happen at all, because we don't see it today. And because they believe in 'evolution' that means they have no choice but say life started from non life. But that is circular thinking and not scientific.
Also the only evidence we actually have is,
1- life comes from life
So strictly by the evidence we have, this is true. But the scientists base their ideas on assumptions.



So Wayne's garbled argument is basically that if we don't currently know how certain events happened in the past, they can't have happened at all. Typical creationist.

l could also say typical scientists ideas. But I don't . But this is how creation scientists are treated by the main stream scientists.
I am offering for you to tell me how a cell could start? With no 'evolution'.
Please use the science to do it.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby MrDunday » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:54 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
MrDunday wrote:Well lets look at rationality.
Is it rational for you to expect a Harley to just show up in your driveway? No one has built it, it just happened.
Or is it rational to think that there is ID and building experience, to made that happen. I know that isn't life, but the same rationality goes for that.
Actually a cell has much more ID than a Harley. But not only that but this cell, can make copies of itself. It can feed itself, and can even join with other cells and make body parts. And then whole animals and plants.
What is more rational, it just happens all by itself, or someone used ID and built it?


There is nothing rational about your argument at all. It's called argument from incredulity, non sequitur reasoning also known in some circles as the divine fallacy.

We've seen the same tired bullshit from creationists gadzillions of times and it has been ripped to shreds time and time again because it isn't even remotely "clever".

Yawn.

Why do you think, what I said is not correct?
Or is it that you just don't like it?
Do you have a better answer?
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: [Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

Postby jon_12091 » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:49 pm

MrDunday wrote:Why do you think, what I said is not correct?
Or is it that you just don't like it?
Do you have a better answer?

Theory of evolution and pretty much the sum total of geological knowledge (which don't preclude God, as opposed to creationism/ID, which can end up precluding God, due to the link creationists insist on putting between the literal veracity of Scripture and their 'science', when its always found to be wrong).
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron