[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 8:00 pm

jon_12091 wrote:
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).

The science should stand for itself. In other words if I didn't know anything about the creator, the science still says life was it was from creation.
The reason I have used what the bible says is because it fits with the science. Creation and science are the same thing. But you have to watch out for interpretations. That goes for me as well. No one should just believe what I am saying. I give my evidence and you accept it or you don't. That is why there are many different religions and scientists on both sides of this.
The bible is both literal and metaphoric.
Which scriptures are wrong?
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

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

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:25 pm

MrDunday wrote:
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?


All of it is wrong. It's argument from incredulity. Idiotic maths as well.

Which of the following lines has more information in it?

The cat sat on the mat.

ACGTACGTACGTACGTACGTACG

"9--><£$&F#@?}]|Q=!up5n

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
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 jon_12091 » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:57 pm

MrDunday wrote:Which scriptures are wrong?

None, assuming we're talking about the Judeo-Christian ones that comprise the Biblical cannon, but then my reading of Scripture is probably at considerable variance to yours when it comes to the literal and the metaphoric. On the other hand I don't claim that Scripture is observable and testable on a scientific level - as say in claiming a global flood 4000-odd years ago or that animals and 2 humans spontaneously came into existence 6000-odd years ago minus a couple of days here or there.

And no you haven't given any evidence apart from an admission you don't know why we're here, on a purely material level, which is just an argument from ignorance. Christians are supposed to supposed to show some judgment in their arguments. John 7:24
'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 a_haworthroberts » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:31 pm

MrDunday wrote:
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?


A Harley in a driveway? BAD analogy.

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 a_haworthroberts » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:44 pm

"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".

I am not a biologist. But there are hypotheses as to how the first cells may have come about by natural means - other than the ex nihilo creation by God hinted at in the book of Genesis (which does not mention cells by the way, even though single celled creatures exist eg yeast - again NOT mentioned in Genesis). I suggest you look at them - there are eg various You Tube videos available online (I watched one 18 months' ago; images and text on screen which are accompanied by no commentary just classical music - but I've forgotten its name).

But your issue is that you are already doctrinally committed to the view that it can't have happened in such a manner. I assume that will remain your view whatever information (I'm calling the hypotheses 'information' because that's what creationist writers do when referring to their pseudo-science) is supplied to you.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:53 pm

"Creation and science are the same". That is your opinion. My opinion is that you are wrong. Science rejects creationism whilst having an open mind on how 'creation' came about and whether any invisible intelligence was involved.

Creationists - especially the young Earth lot - make up pseudo-science and then say (sometimes correctly sometimes not) that their hypotheses are merely literal interpretations of scripture. Thus a strong connection is established for those who listen to them between Christianity (the Bible anyway) and BAD SCIENCE. Some people may become Christians because they are persuaded by the bad science. Some people may become alienated from Christianity because they are not persuaded by the bad science (especially when those pushing it stridently call other Christians who disagree with their pseudo-science 'compromisers' or 'unequally yoked' with enemies of the gospel).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby MrDunday » Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:46 am

Roger wrote:


All of it is wrong. It's argument from incredulity. Idiotic maths as well.

Which of the following lines has more information in it?

The cat sat on the mat.

ACGTACGTACGTACGTACGTACG

"9--><£$&F#@?}]|Q=!up5n

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA[/quote]

What part of what I said is wrong?
I like the one that says a cat sat on the mat.

Please try to answer with the science.
When you said circles, did you mean circular thinking?
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

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

Postby MrDunday » Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:48 am

jon_12091 wrote:
MrDunday wrote:Which scriptures are wrong?

None, assuming we're talking about the Judeo-Christian ones that comprise the Biblical cannon, but then my reading of Scripture is probably at considerable variance to yours when it comes to the literal and the metaphoric. On the other hand I don't claim that Scripture is observable and testable on a scientific level - as say in claiming a global flood 4000-odd years ago or that animals and 2 humans spontaneously came into existence 6000-odd years ago minus a couple of days here or there.

And no you haven't given any evidence apart from an admission you don't know why we're here, on a purely material level, which is just an argument from ignorance. Christians are supposed to supposed to show some judgment in their arguments. John 7:24

I never said any of this, were you talking to someone else?
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

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

Postby MrDunday » Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:49 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:
MrDunday wrote:
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?


A Harley in a driveway? BAD analogy.

Typical creationist.

Why?
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

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

Postby MrDunday » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:22 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:"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".

I am not a biologist. But there are hypotheses as to how the first cells may have come about by natural means - other than the ex nihilo creation by God hinted at in the book of Genesis (which does not mention cells by the way, even though single celled creatures exist eg yeast - again NOT mentioned in Genesis). I suggest you look at them - there are eg various You Tube videos available online (I watched one 18 months' ago; images and text on screen which are accompanied by no commentary just classical music - but I've forgotten its name).

But your issue is that you are already doctrinally committed to the view that it can't have happened in such a manner. I assume that will remain your view whatever information (I'm calling the hypotheses 'information' because that's what creationist writers do when referring to their pseudo-science) is supplied to you.

Yes and that is the point. They have many ideas about this. The reason they don't pick one is that they don't fit.
There are some good animation videos here: Some of theses were done for Harvard University.
http://www.xvivo.net/the-inner-life-of-the-cell/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dsTvBaU ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MfSYnIt ... ure=relmfu
This did not just happen.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

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

Postby MrDunday » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:31 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:
MrDunday wrote:
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?


A Harley in a driveway? BAD analogy.

Typical creationist.

Well that is what I was hoping for. There must be a better chance for a Harley to show up, than life.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:51 am

The bad analogy is saying that because a Harley motorcycle/jumbo jet/computer/watch etc is recognisably designed by humans and did not arise naturally, therefore the universe and life were created and designed by God and could not have 'evolved' naturally.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:53 am

MrDunday wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:"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".

I am not a biologist. But there are hypotheses as to how the first cells may have come about by natural means - other than the ex nihilo creation by God hinted at in the book of Genesis (which does not mention cells by the way, even though single celled creatures exist eg yeast - again NOT mentioned in Genesis). I suggest you look at them - there are eg various You Tube videos available online (I watched one 18 months' ago; images and text on screen which are accompanied by no commentary just classical music - but I've forgotten its name).

But your issue is that you are already doctrinally committed to the view that it can't have happened in such a manner. I assume that will remain your view whatever information (I'm calling the hypotheses 'information' because that's what creationist writers do when referring to their pseudo-science) is supplied to you.

Yes and that is the point. They have many ideas about this. The reason they don't pick one is that they don't fit.
There are some good animation videos here: Some of theses were done for Harvard University.
http://www.xvivo.net/the-inner-life-of-the-cell/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dsTvBaU ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MfSYnIt ... ure=relmfu
This did not just happen.



Were you there?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby cathy » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:27 am

Mr Dunday you are looking at this the wrong way, in a way that does show a lack of understanding of science.

On several ocassions you were asked to define what you meant by life. When you were saying life comes from life and the same question is pertinent now you are talking about the cell.

The reason you were asked to define life is that life has many different features. For example reproduction, excretion some kind of metabolism. Children here learn that very early on in a simplified from using the mneumonic MRS GREN to help them. Obviously learning a more sophisticated version later on should they consider taking biology further.

Now no scientist thinks living cells just appeared. Because that would be highly improbable. What they look at is the many features that make up the simplest living things and look to see which are most likely to have appeared first (current research is most interested in metabolism or SIMPLE replication - not of cells). Some scientists look at that. Now in this search for the first features of early life, there are many interesting hypothesis.

They are not 'designing' life in that research as you've suggested earlier when trying unsuccessfully to defend the religious view that is ID. They are trying instead to repllicate the early conditions of life and the chemicals that would be present. I suggest you read some of that research.

Others scientists look at how a new feature could have arisen once some features are in place or how very simple things could have evolved - adding to the features that would eventually lead to life. Others look at how single cells could become groups of cells or how smaller simpler cells could join together to form more complex eukaryotic cells via something called endosymbiosis. I'm trying to simplify this as much as possible for you cos if you've been on creationist sites your understanding of biology will have been warped and mangled.

Do you understand the point I'm trying to make? For all stages to happen simultaneously to give a cell is unlikely. But each step is far more likely and did happen as we do have life. It is a slow building bit by bit process not a magic wand shove it all together and there you go one. It does not preclude a God, merely makes him clever enough to understand chemistry. Though creationists on the websites you frequent do preclude a God by making him dependent on their simplistic understanding of the world and too stupid to understand chemistry.

And not knowing is not an issue. 200 years ago we didn't know how the blood circulated or what the pancreas did. That wasn't a reason to stop looking and say blood must towed around by magic fairies. We kept looking till we found it. And 300 years ago we didn't even know the cell existed let alone what it did. That doesn't mean it didn't.

Not knowing is what science thrives on. That is science. If creationists had been around 300 years ago they'd have been saying 'cells - impossible and cos you don't know they exist yet thats a real problem for evolution'. That is the argument you are using now. Sounds stupid doesn't it.

Secondly your Harley example is not very good. Firstly cos machines are very different to living things. However leaving that aside, I understand the analogy you are trying to make. But it doesn't work I'm afraid.

For it to work as you want it to ie to support the notion that only a designer can come up with something complex like life, someone at the very start of human innovation, hundreds of thousands of years ago should have designed and built the Harley or something equally technically complex from scratch without calling on prior technologies, science and inventions. That did not happen.

The Harley is the culmination of years of innovation, invention, scientific discovery, earlier models and so on. The Harley in its current form couldn't be built till someone had developed ways of extracting and working metals, refining and improving them. That process has been 'evolving' for thousands of years.

It couldn't be built till someone had understood how to use power to turn wheels and then developed that power from steam to petrol - again over hundreds of years. The steam engine is just someone co opting a kettle to turn wheels rather than make tea after all.

In short the Harley is something that slowly evolved over time from tiny improvements to simpler things like carts and from using simpler pieces of knowledge like steam to petrol that gradually came together stretching back to the wheel. The Harley is just an improvement or change or adaptation (or not) on something, which was in itself an improvement. A little bit like the bacterial flagellum which can be traced back to a simple pore or blood clotting or a myriad other things that desperate IDers lie about.

Now sorry if this has sounded over simplistic and patronising, but spending any time at all on creationist sites (and your arguments are straight from them Mr Dunday - including the Harley one) does rot critical faculties so I've gone back to very, very basic explanations. My only advice is ditch creationism Mr Dunday. There is nothing good about it. It makes religion and God a joke.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

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

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:17 am

MrDunday wrote:Well that is what I was hoping for. There must be a better chance for a Harley to show up, than life.


Well, show us the maths as you are talking about probability.

Or can't you?
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron