Continuing Challenge to Creationists

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: TheLamb
2000 years and nothing to refute it yet. Come on evolution. Prove me wrong. No? 4-0 down. It ain't going well, is it?

That's not how it works, nobody has to prove you wrong until you can demonstrate why your claim would be true....

Is this also how you're keeping score?

Which is why I stepped up for the debate.

a reply to: TheLamb

So are you going to demonstrate why the figure you posted is accurate?

Or was is just something you made up/created?

Which is why I stepped up for the debate.

Sweet! PM me the link!

I do understand the devils advocate going one here and Astyanax has some good points, but remember Edwards v. Aguillard way back 1987? "creation science" was exposed in the courts as a deception, so creationists changed their strategy by replacing "creation science" with "intelligent design". Then after the shift to the game of "Hide the Creationism", they changed all references to creation and creationism to "intelligent design" and creator to "intelligent agency", and "creationists" to "design proponents". The smoking gun for what they were doing was one of "creationists" that wasn't changed cleanly, creating the word "cdesign proponentsists".
This is the reason why creationists don't just present their "creation model" and their evidence for it. Because they don't have any evidence and actually presenting their "creation model" would reveal the deception they're practicing.

And this is why you will never get an honest debate from "cdesign proponentsists." for the most part creationists use the Two Model Approach to "prove" their creation model, solely by attacking "their" evolution model. Chapter One is "Evolution" and Chapter Two is "Everything That's Wrong with Chapter One." Otherwise known as a false dichotomy (AKA false dilemma), which is a logical fallacy and a common means of deception and of demagoguery.
Creationist "need" to prove that there is a conflict between believe in Divine Creation and evolution, because the "creation/evolution controversy" that they have created is just as contrived and false as their implementation of that false dichotomy, their "Two Model Approach" upon which their entire case depends.

The Two Model Approach is a double edged sword that cuts both ways! The creationist intend to prove creation by disproving evolution. What would happen if you were to prove evolution to be true? By the Two Model Approach, (AKA false dilemma), that would disprove creation and, by extension through fundamentalist logic, it would disprove God!

So.. you have to appreciate the sheer deliciousness of the creationist irony. In their attempts to prove God, they end up disproving God conclusively. These drooling theists have succeeded where the most rabidly anti-God atheists have always and would always fail.
All you have to do is to accept their premises.. "If evolution is true, then God does not exist" or "If the earth is older than 10,000 years, then God does not exist."
Seeing how evolution is true and since the earth is indeed older than 10,000 years, once you have accepted those creationist premises then the only possible conclusion is that God does not exist. Amen!

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: TheLamb
2000 years and nothing to refute it yet. Come on evolution. Prove me wrong. No? 4-0 down. It ain't going well, is it?

That's not how it works, nobody has to prove you wrong until you can demonstrate why your claim would be true....

Is this also how you're keeping score?

Which is why I stepped up for the debate.

Have you picked a topic for debate?

a reply to: flyingfish

I believe it may be more faithful (heh) to the initial premise to say "if evolution is true, then those who deny its veracity are in error". But that still doesn't cover all of pseudo science.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Really
Type in, lies that evolution scientists taught, into your search engine

My dear Raggedyman, I've been at this for years. Yes, there have been a few scientific hoaxes, mostly put forward in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century. They were exposed by scientists, not by born-again Christian pastors. They form no part of the modern theory of evolution.

One's opinions about Creationism are a matter of personal taste, but I'm afraid the theory of evolution has been established beyond reasonable doubt. We may cast doubts on the philosophy and methodology of science, we may call inductive logic into questioning, we may, in debate, make a strong case against the possibility that anything we know is actually true. None of this alters the real-life fact that evolution by natural selection does occur and that species change into other species as a result of this process.

Debates are one thing. Real life is another. Science is a reliable method of getting at the truth. Science, applied to biology, makes those who understand it properly quite certain that the theory of evolution in the modern synthesis is correct. Even creationists acknowledge this, which is why sophisticated ones are now reduced to putting forward 'objections' — epigenetics and so forth — that merely reinforce the theory as a whole.

Of course, the great clueless mass out there is still bleating about 'macro vs. micro' and 'life can only come from life' and asking where the missing link is and how crocodiles don't turn into ducks. Such fools and their pratings are beneath serious notice.

If you think evolution is a lie, it's time to smarten up.

a reply to: TheLamb

Homosexuality is a human condition

That has also been observed in well over a hundred animal species.

that requires defining.

It is extremely well defined both medically and legally. What can evolutionary biology add?

Ah yes, an account of its origins, that is to say, an account of its evolutionary utility. I trust you understand that biological evolution occurs for the benefit of genes, not the organisms that carry them.

Evolution should have the answers, no?

Indeed. They are, however, very difficult to ascertain. I'm not sure if someone who sees proof of God's existence in idle play with numbers can really appreciate this, but doing science is hard. Scientists don't have the option of looking up the answers in a three-thousand-year-old crib.

These things take time. The world wasn't made in a week, you know.

a reply to: TheLamb

Are you saying those spared the Tribulations of the Last Days are going to be all gay?

a reply to: Astyanax
It's a biased statement, but I don't disagree with it in general. I would say though, that scientists and supporters of science are not free from being willfully ignorant or deceitful either.

I also agree with a lot of what you've been saying in the latter part of this rather fruitless "debate."

However, this post:

originally posted by: Astyanax

I trust you understand that biological evolution occurs for the benefit of genes, not the organisms that carry them.

assumes the gene centered view of evolution espoused and promoted by the likes of Dawkins and proponents of his Selfish Gene theory. I know you're a big fan of his so this comes as no surprise.

Unfortunately, this idea that evolution happens for the benefit of the gene gives a false impression of biological evolution (as a whole). Especially so, because it is taught, rather dogmatically at times, that evolution does not occur for the benefit of anything. One should think this would include genes as well then, right?

What's more, we've already acquired a deeper realization that phenotypes (the actual unit of selection) do not always result from changes to the underlying genetic sequence (mutation). Nor is genetic information always passed from parent to offspring. Organisms interact with the environment, not genes. Organisms adapt, not genes. If 98% of the human genome is considered to be non-coding, how do we account for our evolution using Dawkin's theory?

There are more issues, but these are best saved for a thread where we can actually discuss and debate evolution, without this other nonsense getting in the way.

Either way, my point after all this is, if we're going to reprimand folks for their bad ideas, and then try to teach them, we should do so using good ideas.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

A fairly starworthy post. Evolution only properly makes sense, though, if it's seen as the differential survival and propagation of alleles. It eliminates any possibility of it being viewed as a telic process, and it disposes of the idea that evolution is necessarily violent competition. But as you say, this is better discussed in a dedicated thread.

I'd start one, but I don't think it would prosper. The arguments are a bit sophisticated for ATS.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Evolution only properly makes sense, though, if it's seen as the differential survival and propagation of alleles.

When looking at it through the genetic lens, yes I can see how this may be the case. However genes (or their variants, alleles) don't differentially survive, organisms do. And genes (alleles) don't propagate, it's the organism that does. Genes don't do anything actually. They are purely passive molecules that require a cell to read the information. I know you know this already. And you know me with my semantic issues, but I harp on this because people are getting the wrong idea about the role of the gene, and thus, evolution in general.

I'd start one, but I don't think it would prosper.

Well that's a shame. We need a break from these creationist arguments

a reply to: PhotonEffect

However genes (or their variants, alleles) don't differentially survive, organisms do. And genes (alleles) don't propagate, it's the organism that does. Genes don't do anything actually. They are purely passive molecules that require a cell to read the information. I know you know this already.

No, I don't. I don't recognize any of the above statements as true.

You could always start the thread yourself.

originally posted by: TheLamb
Er, hang on. There is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is genetic and therefore falls under the umbrella of evolution.

That same thing can be said for any type of person in the history of the planet. Every living thing evolves. Your question could apply to literally anything, which is why it is faulty. That's like saying everything falls under the umbrella of the big bang, so if we talk about gun control or civil unrest, it has to do with the big bang. That isn't how it works.

Creationist 'science''? The Creation came long before science.

Sigh.

Read the OP again. Creationist "science" is what pundits like Kent Hovind and Ken Hamm propose to be real science in an attempt to justify their young earth model, which has no bearing on reality... unless you can actually defend it logically. THAT is what the thread is about. You pick a topic related to that. How hard can it be?

Evolution should have the answers, no? Religion does. Therefore religion has the high ground. Evolution fails. Point to God.

Terrible argument. So because religion takes a guess and denounces something, it has the high ground automatically? Your points have nothing to do with evolution or science. You are guessing based on your religious views. That's not how debates work. Your point doesn't stand until proven wrong. You must back up and substantiate your points, so they may be argued for logically. Right now you are forgetting the logic part.

2000 years and nothing to refute it yet. Come on evolution. Prove me wrong.

You are quoting the bible as truth with no way to prove it correct. The bible also says that man used to live 900 years, something that is easily refuted by science.

You're 3-0 down. Keep going.

You haven't even made a valid point yet, but yes, please keep giving yourself arbitrary debating points because you say so.

Re-read the thread. This isn't about evolution vs god or religion. It's about defending what creationists call science. If you aren't trying to do that you are in the wrong place.

a reply to: Astyanax

I'm not aware that genes by themselves can do anything on their own. It's just information. Something has to read that information and transcribe it. Clearly Dawkin's has gotten into your head.

Does he go into this in his book?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

As I said, start the thread.

a reply to: Astyanax

I would like to. But I'm not sure I'd have the time to maintain it properly. If you or someone else did, I'd be happy to participate. But honestly, the few folks capable of discussing evolution here seem more interested in debating with creationists rather than having a robust discussion about evolutionary theory.

Plus, what forum would one start a thread about evolution that would be free from creationist banter? Certainly not this one...

a reply to: PhotonEffect

what forum would one start a thread about evolution that would be free from creationist banter?

Science & Technollogy.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

You will always find naysayers in every evolution thread. Hell, there are naysayers in every field. It just comes with the territory. On the upside, target practice is free on these forums.