Creationists

[UltimateReality]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8&feature=endscreen]David Berlinski - Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

- Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes

How silly.

A better title would bc "another desperate attempt by goofy fundies to discredit science that fails in 5 minutes."

 

[UltimateReality]

- Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes

How silly.

A better title would bc "another desperate attempt by goofy fundies to discredit science that fails in 5 minutes."

Funny how Darwinism doesn't hold up to mathematics. Yet so many still blindly follow. I think it is obvious it is less about science and more about materialism.

 

[Hollie]

- Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes

How silly.

A better title would bc "another desperate attempt by goofy fundies to discredit science that fails in 5 minutes."

Funny how Darwinism doesn't hold up to mathematics. Yet so many still blindly follow. I think it is obvious it is less about science and more about materialism.

What's funny is that you don't know a thing about the science involved and are forced to simply parrot the nonsense promoted at fundie xtian ministries.

What's funny is how religionism is forced to dredge up the most silly and outrageous critics of science in futile attempts to promote the fears and superstitions of Christianity. It’s so often the case that those who argue against evolution don't haveeven a rudimentary understanding of biology and genetics. That’s precisely why the fundies are forced to cut and paste silly youtube videos by philosophers instead of scientists.

The frequent tactic of fundies is to simply collect youtube videos from creationist sites and hurl them at their opponents hoping that something will stick. When their opponents know the actual science and can respond with science as the overwhelming refutation, the fundies simply move on to the next argument. Unfortunately, there is a component of the xtian religion who politicized this issue so many decades ago. They wrote articles and "papers" about evolution that were absolutely dishonest. What people like the "Institute for Creation Research" write is absolute nonsense. And anyone with a reasonably deep background in science can see that.

But unfortunately, this idea that evolution is not well supported by the data is extremely popular among fundie xtians. And it's because of the perceived threat to faith, and social darwinism, and racial politics, and every reason on Earth other than the actual science.

 

[UltimateReality]

How silly.

A better title would bc "another desperate attempt by goofy fundies to discredit science that fails in 5 minutes."

Funny how Darwinism doesn't hold up to mathematics. Yet so many still blindly follow. I think it is obvious it is less about science and more about materialism.

What's funny is that you don't know a thing about the science involved and are forced to simply parrot the nonsense promoted at fundie xtian ministries.

What's funny is how religionism is forced to dredge up the most silly and outrageous critics of science in futile attempts to promote the fears and superstitions of Christianity. It’s so often the case that those who argue against evolution don't haveeven a rudimentary understanding of biology and genetics. That’s precisely why the fundies are forced to cut and paste silly youtube videos by philosophers instead of scientists.

The frequent tactic of fundies is to simply collect youtube videos from creationist sites and hurl them at their opponents hoping that something will stick. When their opponents know the actual science and can respond with science as the overwhelming refutation [UR: Hawly, please give me one, just one, post number where YOU have actually done this], the fundies simply move on to the next argument. Unfortunately, there is a component of the xtian religion who politicized this issue so many decades ago. They wrote articles and "papers" about evolution that were absolutely dishonest. What people like the "Institute for Creation Research" write is absolute nonsense. And anyone with a reasonably deep background in science can see that.

But unfortunately, this idea that evolution is not well supported by the data is extremely popular among fundie xtians. And it's because of the perceived threat to faith, and social darwinism, and racial politics, and every reason on Earth other than the actual science.

Keep believing the dream. No matter how much you force the rhetoric, it won't make it true. I can't find a single thread where you actually respond to the points made. Do you know what an Ad Hominem fallacy is?

Ad Hominem

Your reasoning contains this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself. It is a form of the Genetic Fallacy.

Example:

What she says about Johannes Kepler’s astronomy of the 1600′s must be just so much garbage. Do you realize she’s only fourteen years old?

This attack may undermine the arguer’s credibility as a scientific authority, but it does not undermine her reasoning. That reasoning should stand or fall on the scientific evidence, not on the arguer’s age or anything else about him or her personally.

If the fallacious reasoner points out irrelevant circumstances that the reasoner is in, the fallacy is a circumstantial ad hominem. Tu Quoque and Two Wrongs Make a Right are other types of the ad hominem fallacy.

You repeatedly employ this fallacy on this forum ad nauseum and never really address the points made. Like YWC, I believe this thread has turned into a prejudiced hate bash against Christians. You are here to hate, not maturely exchange ideas. You are impossible to have a real discussion with and repetitive dribble is really frustrating.

Let go of your hate.

 

[Hollie]

Funny how Darwinism doesn't hold up to mathematics. Yet so many still blindly follow. I think it is obvious it is less about science and more about materialism.

What's funny is that you don't know a thing about the science involved and are forced to simply parrot the nonsense promoted at fundie xtian ministries.

What's funny is how religionism is forced to dredge up the most silly and outrageous critics of science in futile attempts to promote the fears and superstitions of Christianity. It’s so often the case that those who argue against evolution don't haveeven a rudimentary understanding of biology and genetics. That’s precisely why the fundies are forced to cut and paste silly youtube videos by philosophers instead of scientists.

The frequent tactic of fundies is to simply collect youtube videos from creationist sites and hurl them at their opponents hoping that something will stick. When their opponents know the actual science and can respond with science as the overwhelming refutation [UR: Hawly, please give me one, just one, post number where YOU have actually done this], the fundies simply move on to the next argument. Unfortunately, there is a component of the xtian religion who politicized this issue so many decades ago. They wrote articles and "papers" about evolution that were absolutely dishonest. What people like the "Institute for Creation Research" write is absolute nonsense. And anyone with a reasonably deep background in science can see that.

But unfortunately, this idea that evolution is not well supported by the data is extremely popular among fundie xtians. And it's because of the perceived threat to faith, and social darwinism, and racial politics, and every reason on Earth other than the actual science.

Keep believing the dream. No matter how much you force the rhetoric, it won't make it true. I can't find a single thread where you actually respond to the points made. Do you know what an Ad Hominem fallacy is?

Ad Hominem

Your reasoning contains this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself. It is a form of the Genetic Fallacy.

Example:

What she says about Johannes Kepler’s astronomy of the 1600′s must be just so much garbage. Do you realize she’s only fourteen years old?

This attack may undermine the arguer’s credibility as a scientific authority, but it does not undermine her reasoning. That reasoning should stand or fall on the scientific evidence, not on the arguer’s age or anything else about him or her personally.

If the fallacious reasoner points out irrelevant circumstances that the reasoner is in, the fallacy is a circumstantial ad hominem. Tu Quoque and Two Wrongs Make a Right are other types of the ad hominem fallacy.

You repeatedly employ this fallacy on this forum ad nauseum and never really address the points made. Like YWC, I believe this thread has turned into a prejudiced hate bash against Christians. You are here to hate, not maturely exchange ideas. You are impossible to have a real discussion with and repetitive dribble is really frustrating.

Let go of your hate.

Do you somehow think that using gargantun fonts will somehow mask your inability to respond to posted comments?

 

[Hollie]

Creationism has once again been given a black eye. David Barton is an evangelical Christian minister American, conservative activist, and hack who was propped up by the Discovery Institute until even they were forced to back-peddle.

It’s just so typical for fundies to lie and attempt to re-write history in their attempts to force their beliefs on others.

Disco Institute Damage Control? Barton Book Dumped

By Dave Thomas on August 15, 2012 1:48 PM| 39 Comments (new)

Disco Institute Damage Control? Barton Book Dumped - The Panda's Thumb

Well, this is interesting! Pseudo-historian David Barton, whom we last heard from here on the Thumb declaring that America’s Founding Fathers had considered evolution, and rejected it for creationism, (Barton: Founding Fathers Opposed Darwin?!? - The Panda's Thumb) has had his newest book examined and rejected by a group of conservative authors headed by the Discovery Institute’s Jay W. Richards.

From the New York Times Artsbeat blog for August 14, 2012:
Hard Truth for Author: Publisher Pulls 'The Jefferson Lies' - NYTimes.com

Last month the History News Network voted David Barton’s book “The Jefferson Lies” the “least credible history book in print.” Now the book’s publisher, Thomas Nelson, has decided to stop publishing and distributing it.

The book, which argues that Thomas Jefferson was an enthusiastic orthodox Christian who saw no need for a wall of separation between church and state, has attracted plenty of criticism since it appeared in April, with an introduction by Glenn Beck. But the death knell came after Jay W. Richards, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and the author, with James Robison, of “Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family and Freedom Before It’s Too Late,” began to have doubts and started an investigation.

 

[Hollie]

Behind the Scenes at the Creation “Museum”

Behind the Scenes at the Creation "Museum" - The Panda's Thumb

One of the Creation “Museum’s” more ridiculous claims is that dinosaurs and other Mesozoic animals survived Noah’s Flood via the Ark and lived until historical times, when they became known as fire-breathing dragons and other mythological creatures. Recently the Creation Museum put up various billboards of dinosaurs around the country and included one of a fire-breathing dragon. The image is now sold on T-shirts in the Creation “Museum’s” bookstore. Additionally, they sell an assortment of dragon and knight figures as toys in the bookstore, which has a dragon theme with a faux medieval look to it. Apparently this fantasy is being passed along to children and their parents by the “museum.” Obviously Answers in Genesis has not thought through the idea of putting fire-breathing animals on a wooden boat. Perhaps they need to tell everyone that Noah owned an asbestos mine.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I am real busy. I won't have the time to continue educating daws and yourself. I will look at the thread from time to time to correct some of your nonsense. Have a good day.

pulling up your skirts and running away!

I'm not Irish, No offense to the Irish.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It certainly was addressed.

It's not surprising that you're unable to confront the fact of evolution and an ancient universe. While both these elements you find revolting as they destroy the credibility of your religious ideology, you need to let go of the fear and superstition that keeps you chained to ignorance.

Hawly, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you are just stupid. How many times do I need to tell you I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion? How many? 25? 50 before it sinks in? It really is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you.

Now, instead of addressing the fact you continually strawman me as a young earth creationist, you will probably just accuse me of acting like a 12-year old. Don't you ever tire of your childish games? Really, let go of the hate. I know part of your mo is to just frustrate the living H out of us until we act unbecomingly. Arguing with you really is akin to this...

the only difference between you and yWC's lies is about 13billion years.

Lies ,how do you know if you can't respond with viable explanations to our questions nor refute our views ?

 

[Hollie]

Hawly, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you are just stupid. How many times do I need to tell you I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion? How many? 25? 50 before it sinks in? It really is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you.

Now, instead of addressing the fact you continually strawman me as a young earth creationist, you will probably just accuse me of acting like a 12-year old. Don't you ever tire of your childish games? Really, let go of the hate. I know part of your mo is to just frustrate the living H out of us until we act unbecomingly. Arguing with you really is akin to this...

the only difference between you and yWC's lies is about 13billion years.

Lies ,how do you know if you can't respond with viable explanations to our questions nor refute our views ?

Aside from your explanations that were nothing more sophisticated “the gods did it”, you offered no explanations for anything.

As to refuting your views, those views were typically cut and paste nonsense from creationist websites. Those views are no more sophisticated than the outrageously stupid young earth / flat eath silliness furthered by Ken Ham from the creation science museum.

 

[Big_D]

Whales once had legs and now they don't. How does this not prove evolution?


Whales Had Legs, Wiggled Hips, Study Says

I don't think that everything in the bible is suppose to be taken literally.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Whales once had legs and now they don't. How does this not prove evolution?


Whales Had Legs, Wiggled Hips, Study Says

I don't think that everything in the bible is suppose to be taken literally.

This is only an unproven opinion. They said the same thing about the Coelacanth,not true according to the ones we see today.

 

[Big_D]

This is only an unproven opinion. They said the same thing about the Coelacanth,not true according to the ones we see today.

The fossils show that they had legs.

The new adult fossil—8 feet (2.6 meters) long—has four legs, with the hind two still connected to the backbone. The fetus has well developed teeth, indicating that it was prepared to fend for itself soon after birth.

Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal

 

[Big_D]

May I ask if you also believe that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark and that the story of the Ark is 100% accurate as it is written?

 

[Hollie]

Whales once had legs and now they don't. How does this not prove evolution?


Whales Had Legs, Wiggled Hips, Study Says

I don't think that everything in the bible is suppose to be taken literally.

Good post, Big D.

I think you will find responses from the creationists to be consistent with that offered by one of the more excitable of the fundies: youwerecreated. They will simply deny the fact and the science of evolution as being a conspiracy to deny christian fundamentalists the opportunity to press their religion in the school system. Their conspiracy theories run deep.

The evidence for useless bones in whales is just one example of evolution that the fundies can’t challenge except to screech “unproven opiniion”. That of course is false because useless bones that serve no purpose in whales are a fact.

Evolution is testable and verifiable because the best prediction of evolution is the existence of the Phylogenetic Tree. This defines that characteristics of species are aligned in nested hierarchies resembling a tree. The basic prediction is that traits that evolved in one species should appear in their descendants and not in the descendants of other species. Feathers evolved in birds so we can predict that they must never be observed in mammals. Consistent with prediction, they are not. Cell walls evolved in plants. So we can predict that they should never be observed in the cells of animals. And they are not.

It only takes one single exception to this rule to challenge the theory of evolution. It only takes one animal to be found that has cells with cell walls and the theory of evolution will come crumbling down. But no such exception has ever been observed.

There is no reason whatsoever as to why a supernatural, supermagical “designer” would have kept such a strict adherence to a Phylogenetic Tree. The fins of whales are a different concept than that of fish. Why is that? Because they are different traits that evolved in a different branch of the Phylogenetic Tree. The wings of bats are a different design than that of birds. Why is that ? Because they are different traits that evolved in a different branch of the Phylogenetic Tree.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is only an unproven opinion. They said the same thing about the Coelacanth,not true according to the ones we see today.

The fossils show that they had legs.

The new adult fossil—8 feet (2.6 meters) long—has four legs, with the hind two still connected to the backbone. The fetus has well developed teeth, indicating that it was prepared to fend for itself soon after birth.

Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal

No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.

Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.

 

[Youwerecreated]

May I ask if you also believe that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark and that the story of the Ark is 100% accurate as it is written?

If they were they would have been juveniles. Which they had to be on the ark because man has accurately carved images of dinosaurs they supposedly never seen. I love the renderings of dinosaurs with zebra stripes. Then we find dinosaurs with fossilized skin that had stripes like a zebra.

They had to be seen by early man. The bible also describes one of these creatures.

 

[Hollie]

This is only an unproven opinion. They said the same thing about the Coelacanth,not true according to the ones we see today.

The fossils show that they had legs.

The new adult fossil—8 feet (2.6 meters) long—has four legs, with the hind two still connected to the backbone. The fetus has well developed teeth, indicating that it was prepared to fend for itself soon after birth.

Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal

No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.

Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.

"No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale."

You forgot to add "because I say so", to the end of your nonsensical claim.

BTW, whales never walked on land.

 

[Hollie]

May I ask if you also believe that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark and that the story of the Ark is 100% accurate as it is written?

If they were they would have been juveniles. Which they had to be on the ark because man has accurately carved images of dinosaurs they supposedly never seen. I love the renderings of dinosaurs with zebra stripes. Then we find dinosaurs with fossilized skin that had stripes like a zebra.

They had to be seen by early man. The bible also describes one of these creatures.

Early man saw dinosaurs?

I think you have been spending too much time worshipping Ken Ham and his silly museum which depicts people in buckscin outfits frolicking with the dinosaurs.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it is appropriate to point and laugh at the goofy fundies.