Creationists

[Hollie]

I thought the science link would send the Christian fundies scrambling.

As it turns out, their only option is to link to another Christian fundie. From the fundie link:

"I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God."

Well sure, "the gawds did it"


Anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp has penned a critique of these "29 Evidences of Macroevolution," which can be found posted at TrueOrigin. Camp's critique is well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article). Although I intend to address Camp's concerns in totality, currently I can only devote a limited amount of time to this effort. In the meantime, this partial response will suffice. I would like to thank Camp for his congenial criticism. It has given me the impetus to rework and expand the "29 Evidences," and the result is a more comprehensive, clearer, and stronger article.

My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there. In the following response, Camp's words are indented in grey boxes, set apart from mine. Material that Camp has quoted in his criticism is also in the grey boxes, surrounded by quotes, and followed by the pertinent external reference.

Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:

1. Straw man arguments 2. Red herrings 3. Self-contradictions 4. Equivocation 5. Two wrongs make a right 6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident 7. Ignoratio elenchi 8. Naive theological assumptions 9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics 10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method 11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses" 12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 13. Misleading mis-quotes 14. Fallacies of accent 15. Distortion of scientific controversies 16. Arguments from authority 17. False analogies

The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.

Note: Since the time I wrote this reply, Mr. Camp has responded to this in a shorter article entitled "Camp answers Theobald." The elements which I felt deserve some mention are included here enclosed in green boxes.

The most hilarious part of your response is that you believe your link showed REAL science. Your brain is so dumb down from the pseudoscience thinking of evolution it is obvious you can no longer tell the difference.

you just keep believing that detective douche bag.....
your denial of fact is no proof.

It seems that for Christian cultists, the only science that matters is the "real" science that is barfed out by Christian creationist ministries:

"I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically,I believethefounding membersof these groups were created miraculously and separately by God."

Boilerplate, Christian YEC babbling. The fundies mouth the bait and the charlatans at the ICR and Harun Yahya reel them in.

 

[daws101]

Your hatred for Christians a person would think you would have understood the sacrifice of Christ.

Except that there's no actual proof that Jesus even existed.

You would like to think so.

more denial! ywc, define actual evidence please.
hearsay ,belife and faith are not actual evidence....

 

[daws101]

One can only marvel at the Simpleton Syndrome that afflicts evolutionists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define “Darwin did it” arguments. Fundies insist they know that randomness designed and created our universe. They don't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because evolution can't be wrong and therefore, because evolution is true, everything else has to fit.

The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the evolutionist because there are none. When darwinism is self-refuting and self-contradictory, it’s because natural selection intended it. When darwinism is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, that never stops them from declaring it is scientifically proven. When darwinism fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, darwinists protest that origins isn't part of evolution.

We see with regularity how evolutionists will invert their positions, and thus their “reasoning” to account for their confused, befuddled theories, but in the worldview where matter is the only reality, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the evolutionists’ arguments are pre-configured to prove materialism, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details.

It would certainly be more honest of evolutionists to simply say "I Believe, therefore reason and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any empirical evidence. But evolutionists are darwin-smacked with hate for the Creator, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards. And why would they, since their materialistic worldview lacks any basis for ethics, lying is no more wrong than abortion. If honesty is a detriment to "fitness", it must be thrown out along with anything that does not support the party line.

WHAT no gay innuendo?
that's "evidences" or "the evidence is"
if you insist on plagiarizing, use the correct grammar.

 

[daws101]

Dear Hollie is so rattled she is attacking NP

I interpreted this as Hollie attacking UR for his post, not for mine. Fyi.

Sarcasm Alert

that should read failed attempt at sarcasm alert...

 

[daws101]

I can't change your mind no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.

Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.

Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.

You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?

Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot? Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.

You have yet to offer evidence to back your claims for the questions that was asked of you. Did you think we forgot ?

who the fuck is "we" btw it's "we'd"

 

[UltimateReality]

Ok, whatcha got?

I can't change your mind no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.

Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.

Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.

You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?

Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot? Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.

Stupid post. After all your nonsense, the last thing I would do is depend upon your opinion of what is rational.

 

[UltimateReality]

Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.

You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?

Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot? Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.

You have yet to offer evidence to back your claims for the questions that was asked of you. Did you think we forgot ?

Sidestepping and obfuscation on your part reinforces the hopelessness and confusion that defines blind faith in ancient superstitions.

Hawly want a cracker?

 

[UltimateReality]

ha!! Now this is funny!! Ima mistakenly thought your new buddy was a creationist. Since he isn't, you quickly came to his defense.

No, you're not bias!!!!

how about, i just found it rude, and thought i would mention it, because i was having a nice discussion with this person, learning about some real shit. Again, you use your faulty intuition to fill your own head with what you want to believe. You might as well be a solipsist. You'd be a good one!

ur is a solipsist! How could he be any thing else?:d

Daws is a solopissed. He likes to be angry by himself.

 

[UltimateReality]

another false assuption. i can see why you never made detective... it's either extreme paranoia as exhibited in the prior post or sucking cock in the locker room.
there is no other logical reason why Ur would be so knowledgeable about mouth sores or so perversely interested in homosexuality.
9

there is no other logical reason why Daws would be so knowledgeable about sucking cock in the locker room or so perverse to even come up with something so disgusting unless it was based on his personal experience. Apparently he does secretly wish Hawly was a man and really did have man hands so she could touch him so Ruggedly.

And by the way, I was a detective Douche bag so there goes that theory.

another not even original failed attempt at character assassination.
BTW it was you, who inferred cock sucking by using the mouth sore reference and your never ending gay innuendo,the only way to gain that much knowledge is by the "hands on" method.
my "theory" stands.
if there were a perversion scale you'd pin the needle.
Definition of PERVERSION
"an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual"
the sheer number of your posts with slurs and innuendo proves my "theory" correct.
Thanks for giving me your new name fron now on I'll call you: detective Douche bag!

Daws, this is really sad and screams out of your deviant man desires. How did you infer my comment about mouth sores was from performing the sex act you reference? Talk about your own sick, twisted perversions and bias skewing your interpretations!!! By the way, the Herpes virus that causes mouth sores is transferred by kissing and is not the same as the Herpes virus that causes genital lesions, so YOU are the sick, twisted pervert.

 

[UltimateReality]

there is no proof that human babies are any more or less sentient then other mammals .

Dr James Kirkwood, chief executive and scientific director of the Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare (Ufaw), gives qualified approval to CIWF's approach.

He told BBC News Online: "Animal sentience has been a matter of debate down the centuries.

"We can't prove absolutely even that another human being is sentient, though it would obviously be unreasonable to assume they are not.

"But the weight of scientific opinion is that it's certainly right to give the benefit of the doubt to all vertebrates."

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animals 'are moral beings'

tosspot

Apparently, Daws has a little reading comprehension problem. But thanks for the irrelevant post arguing against a point I wasn't making.

as always detective douche bag intentionally misinterprets.. being human is not a rational reason why.

It is if you follow God's law, the law of nature. God's law is written on the hearts of men but sin tends to drown it out. God's law is the bell that goes off right before a pregnant woman contemplates using a coat hanger to end her pregnancy and says in her heart, "This is wrong. I shouldn't do this."

Think I am being flippant? Just ask the women that have had abortions about the years of guilt, shame and suffering they endure for their dead baby. It is only through God's forgiveness that they can heal.

 

[UltimateReality]

To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim.

Science has not determined the precise biological mechanism that blossomed the first enzyme. Your default position is that one or more of your designer gawds did so, without providing a shred of evidence.

Your refusal to provide evidence of your claimed designer gawds is predictable. It has been the history of your posting: claims absent any evidence.

How did they happen to have beneficial functions hollie ?

by products-
here's an anology that is also a fact (let's see how fast you deny it!)

Three billion years ago single-celled underwater bacteria used sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into tiny oxygen bubbles. Soon plants were turning an atmosphere full of volcanic carbon dioxide into oxygen. As we learn in this video segment from Interactive NOVA: "Earth," photosynthesis created a good home for animals and humans, though not for some primitive organisms. They had to retreat to where oxygen couldn't reach them. Join researchers as they search for these organisms, now considered tiny time capsules from a time before there was oxygen on Earth.
Teachers' Domain: Life Before Oxygen
no super natural help needed.

Nice "just so" story, but do you have some real, testable evidence for your fairy tale above? How about some causes presently in operation that would support your story?

 

[UltimateReality]

poor np, there's those darn "fractions" again. We are back to the probability arguments again and once again, you lose! For some of the values below, there are an infinite number of other possibilities that wouldn't have even resulted in a universe with stars and planets, much less life. So what is the fraction 1/infinity?

[reasons to believe : Fine-tuning for life in the universe

wall of text .......invalid source..........false premise.....

You are going to have to do better than that Loki.

 

[UltimateReality]

Except that there's no actual proof that Jesus even existed.

You would like to think so.

more denial! ywc, define actual evidence please.
hearsay ,belife and faith are not actual evidence....

That's the evidence you just gave for your rebuttal to my fine tuning post POT.

 

[UltimateReality]

One can only marvel at the Simpleton Syndrome that afflicts evolutionists. They never learn from their mistakes, logical fallacies and bad analogies that define “Darwin did it” arguments. Fundies insist they know that randomness designed and created our universe. They don't deduce it, assume it, or conclude it in any way. They just know it to be true because evolution can't be wrong and therefore, because evolution is true, everything else has to fit.

The convenient element about this kind of simpleton, mind-numbing argument is, it explains everything perfectly. One cannot confront a blatant contradiction in the world of the evolutionist because there are none. When darwinism is self-refuting and self-contradictory, it’s because natural selection intended it. When darwinism is dimension-less toward actually explaining anything, that never stops them from declaring it is scientifically proven. When darwinism fails at every opportunity to offer rational explanation for existence, darwinists protest that origins isn't part of evolution.

We see with regularity how evolutionists will invert their positions, and thus their “reasoning” to account for their confused, befuddled theories, but in the worldview where matter is the only reality, this hardly matters because the conclusion is foregone. When all of the evolutionists’ arguments are pre-configured to prove materialism, there's no particular reason or need to be fussy about their details.

It would certainly be more honest of evolutionists to simply say "I Believe, therefore reason and evidence are meaningless," rather than keep trying to pretend their belief is based on any empirical evidence. But evolutionists are darwin-smacked with hate for the Creator, and you cannot hope to hold them to honest or consistent standards. And why would they, since their materialistic worldview lacks any basis for ethics, lying is no more wrong than abortion. If honesty is a detriment to "fitness", it must be thrown out along with anything that does not support the party line.

WHAT no gay innuendo?
that's "evidences" or "the evidence is"
if you insist on plagiarizing, use the correct grammar.

Just copied Hawly's incorrect grammar, so quit putting your internet friend down like that.

 

[newpolitics]

Guess NP and Hawly slithered away.

I have destroyed your ID arguments over and over, on every single point, so, I kind of feel like I am done here. You can't bring up anything new, and your position doesn't stand on its own. Without faith informing a presupposition that an intelligence already exists, the ID hypothesis is simply not tenable as a scientific idea, which I have pointed out, again and again, and so is completely unconvincing. Unless you have anything new, I'm not sure what the point is in hanging around. I enjoyed the debate, but the more I learn about ID, the weaker I realize it is, and the more I realize it is completely dependent on faith in god. As proven during the dover trial, it is creationism in a lab coat. The ID movement just wants to get it into textbooks so they can vindicate their pre-existing faith in an intelligent creator, using our public school system and our children to achieve this. Thank goodness the Dover trial ended the way it did.

 

[newpolitics]

Wait, how is ID falsifiable?

Dude, you are sloooooowwwww. I have explained this to you at least 10 times.

Actually, what you have done is side-step any accounting of how anyone could falsify any one of the various supernatural entities called "gods".

Thank you, Hollie. UR, you have not shown how anything to do with ID is falsifiable, from irreducible complexity (which has been debunked umpteen times) to the conclusion itself. I remember that you claimed that you did, and obviously tried, but it was not a valid example, or I would have remembered. Mind re-iterating briefly?

 

[Hollie]

You have yet to offer evidence to back your claims for the questions that was asked of you. Did you think we forgot ?

Sidestepping and obfuscation on your part reinforces the hopelessness and confusion that defines blind faith in ancient superstitions.

Hawly want a cracker?

Juvenile and pointless truly typifies the Christian creationist attempts at defending their gawds.

 

[Hollie]

I can't change your mind no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.

Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.

Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.

You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?

Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot? Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.

Stupid post. After all your nonsense, the last thing I would do is depend upon your opinion of what is rational.

You're just uncomfortable that Christian creationism has only achieved the cult status of Bigfoot groupies.

 

[Hollie]

Apparently, Daws has a little reading comprehension problem. But thanks for the irrelevant post arguing against a point I wasn't making.

as always detective douche bag intentionally misinterprets.. being human is not a rational reason why.

It is if you follow God's law, the law of nature. God's law is written on the hearts of men but sin tends to drown it out. God's law is the bell that goes off right before a pregnant woman contemplates using a coat hanger to end her pregnancy and says in her heart, "This is wrong. I shouldn't do this."

Think I am being flippant? Just ask the women that have had abortions about the years of guilt, shame and suffering they endure for their dead baby. It is only through God's forgiveness that they can heal.

The Jimmy Swaggert wannabe is again bible thumping.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Guess NP and Hawly slithered away.

I have destroyed your ID arguments over and over, on every single point, so, I kind of feel like I am done here. You can't bring up anything new, and your position doesn't stand on its own. Without faith informing a presupposition that an intelligence already exists, the ID hypothesis is simply not tenable as a scientific idea, which I have pointed out, again and again, and so is completely unconvincing. Unless you have anything new, I'm not sure what the point is in hanging around. I enjoyed the debate, but the more I learn about ID, the weaker I realize it is, and the more I realize it is completely dependent on faith in god. As proven during the dover trial, it is creationism in a lab coat. The ID movement just wants to get it into textbooks so they can vindicate their pre-existing faith in an intelligent creator, using our public school system and our children to achieve this. Thank goodness the Dover trial ended the way it did.

No you have not and we do not have to provide proof for the source to prove design. You have yet to provide evidence that the design evidence that has been presented evolved naturally. You're living in a dream world.