Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Pseudoscience.shtml ^

[gore3000]

You ought to take that one up with the makers of X-Ray machines, telescopes, LI and IR gear, microscopes ...

The machines you mention enhance the view of the eye in certain specific situations, however, they do not have the broad range of the human eye. The best analogy to the human eye is a camera, and those do not approach the eye in range, accuracy, usefullness in varying lights, etc. As I said, when someone can show they can make a better eye than the one we have, let them criticize it. If one does not know how or why something works so well it is totally ridiculous for them to criticize it. Evos used to criticize appendix as useless due to ignorance, they have been proven wrong. Evos used to call the non-genetic parts of the genome "junk DNA" they were proven wrong, that DNA provides lots of capabilities to the organism. Arguments from ignorance are false arguments.

[gore3000]

" I've always heard them called "modern" species, but then again I don't read much creationist literature.

Denying the teachings of your own theory of evolution just to contradict me! Here's a quote from your buddy the demi-god Charles:

for Prof. Huxley, in the opinion of most competent judges, has conclusively shewn that in every visible character man differs less from the higher apes, than these do from the lower members of the same order of Primates.
From: Charles Darwin, "Descent of Man", Introduction.

[Junior]

From Introduction to the Euglenoids

The number of chloroplasts present in photosynthetic euglenoids varies greatly, however lens-shaped chloroplasts are common. The photosynthetic membranes (thylakoids) within the plastids are stacked in groups of three. The grana stacks, typical of higher plant chloroplasts are not present. Euglenoids are believed to have acquired their chloroplasts by the ingestion and subsequent endosymbiosis of a green algal cell. The chloroplast is surrounded by three membranes. The outermost membrane is believed to represent the plasma membrane of the original host cell which engulfed the green alga.

Note that the critters in question are believed to have acquired "their chloroplasts by the ingestion and subsequent endosymbiosis of a green algal cell" and that the "outermost membrane is believed to represent the plasma membrane of the original host cell which engulfed the green alga."  This is a prediction of evolutionary theory and is something that can come in handy later.  According to this part of the theory, some small critters can incorporate parts of other small critters into their systems.  This could lead to doctors incorporating useful parts of certain organisms into other organisms which could then be used to combat disease or cure hereditary disorders.

ID and creationism simply say "God made it this way."  It gives us nothing to hang anything useful upon.  Using ID or creationism one could never deduce that some critters can successfully incorporate parts of other critters and use them.

BTW, this is sort of a hint toward answering VadeRetro's question regarding why paleontologists do not consider dinosaurs to have had mammary glands.  I know you don't really understand evolutionary theory all that well and I figured you might need a little help.

[Junior]

all present mammals have 3 ear-bones therefore all mamammals known and unknown must have 3 ear bones.

You might want to also point out that ONLY MAMMALS HAVE THREE EAR BONES. Ear bones are not present in any other group of critters -- reptiles do not have them, fish do not have them, birds do not have them and amphibians do not have them. As such, three ear bones are a very good indication that the deceased was a mammal and not a bird, reptile, fish or amphibian. Unfortunately, you seem hung up on mammary glands; do you have a boobie fixation?

[Junior]

Yes many people do not realize that if one plays the lottery and the chance of winning is 1 in 50 million, the next lottery they play the chance of winning will still be 1 in 50 million.

But evolution does not start from scratch every time. A closer analogy might be playing the slot machines, but every time BAR comes up, it stays in the window and only the non-BAR drums roll. Eventually, you can be assured of making all BARS.

[Junior]

But none of those rulings forced the teaching of evolution, they simply removed creationism from science class. The two results are not synonymous. You have still not shown a case where a school was forced to teach evolution as you claimed earlier.

[PatrickHenry]

But none of those rulings forced the teaching of evolution, they simply removed creationism from science class. The two results are not synonymous. You have still not shown a case where a school was forced to teach evolution as you claimed earlier.

Junior is entirely correct. Entirely. g3k is wrong again, as always.

[AndrewC]

A closer analogy might be playing the slot machines, but every time BAR comes up, it stays in the window and only the non-BAR drums roll. Eventually, you can be assured of making all BARS.

Better check your analogy Junior, casinos rely on some probabilities to stay in business. When you roll a pair of dice, one of them stops before the other.

[Junior]

That's why I specifically said that BAR stays put rather than rolling again. I was trying to point out that evolution never starts from scratch.

[AndrewC]

This is a prediction of evolutionary theory

Please elaborate.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Here's the short answer: because paleontology is bunk. Let's take one of the things paleontologists believe in classifying fossils: brain size. They keep saying that a larger skull shows a higher order species. This is ridiculous of course, hippos, elephants and whales have much larger skulls than humans yet none of them has built rocket ships or gone to the moon. (BTW they are following the charlatan Darwin in making this unwarranted assumption).

(a)That is totally unresponsive to the point I was making in the post you were replying to, which is that the sequence of reptile-to-mammal fossils shows what creationists say doesn't exist (a long series of small, gradual changes all eventually leading up to the development of an entirely new type of living thing).

(b)I, and, AFAIK, no reputable paleontologist, have never claimed that a larger skull per se shows "a higher order species." In tracing the ancestry of hominids, we do see gradually larger skulls from australopithecus to homo erectus to homo sapiens. No one has ever claimed that hippos are a "higher level species" than humans. And none of this discredits the reptile-to-mammal fossil sequence.

[AndrewC]

I was trying to point out that evolution never starts from scratch.

Okay, but the analogy is still too flawed. A more correct version in my mind would be draw poker, but that requires a mind.

[Lurking Libertarian]

[Me:]"That's like saying that humans, chimps, bonobos and gorillas are "all primates."

[You:] Like all evolutionists, you try to create confusion. Homo is the genus of man hence homo sapiens, homo erectus and homo neanderthalis. These are different species in the same genus. They are called different species because they could not produce progeny with each other. Primates is a higher classification than both species and genus, it is an order. So no, it is not the same thing as the examples given. The examples given were in some cases just sub-species, in other cases species. None were of a different genus. So no, they are not examples of macro-evolution. They are just examples of the garbage that evolutionists try to pass off as proof of their theory.

I'm trying to create confusion? I was responding to post #1014, which claimed that "micro-evolution" might create new species, but "they will still be birds." Birds are an order, not a genus. As I also said in my post (but you didn't quote), a human and a chimp are far closer, genetically and structurally, than an ostrich and a sparrow.

[oldcats]

Let's take one of the things paleontologists believe in classifying fossils: brain size. They keep saying that a larger skull shows a higher order species. If you had done ANY reading on this subject you would know that brain size is used RELETIVE to the entire body size.
Do you honestly believe what you said?
Oldcats

[VadeRetro]

Actually, it might be interesting to show “The Evolution of Education”. You know - with the introduction of Darwin - and the teachers union – and the liberal control.

I get upset at the liberal encroachment everywhere, also. And I resist drawing broad philosophical implications from evolution.

But you have to realize that history does not depend upon your convenience.

[js1138]

brain size is used RELETIVE to the entire body size.

Comparing brain size across differing species is not terribly useful. One could wonder why dolphins need large brains to catch fish, when sharks do quite well with lesser brains.

There are serious folks who believe that large brained mammals were sexually selected -- that is smarter guys got more girls. There is no evidence that large brains are required just for survival.

[Lev]

Lev: I don't know how to a species' fitness function might be calculated

How then can you have any expectation of convincing anyone of the value of the now incalculable result?

This is an interesting question - how useful is a function if we can't calculate its value? First of all, I didn't try to convince anybody that fitness value for parameter 5 is 10. I only tried to show how the shape of such function might affect the species' evolution. Do you think fitness functions do not exist? Or even if they do we can't say anything about their properties since we can't calculate them? Well, we can't calculate how long a person will live either, but we can predict for example that the value will go down as 'food' parameter goes from 'healthy' to 'junk'. Regards.

[VadeRetro]

[responding to a post full of links on the subject of one Jonathan Wells and his professional performance]

You have not yet learned how to copy and paste have you? You seem to think this thread is a private discussion between yourself and whoever you are responding to.

I do not favor cluttering up a thread with a mass of copied/pasted material except when there is no other way of ensuring that people see. You seem to think that no one but you can click a link. OK, sometimes you act as if you can't click a link.

This is silly. You can click a link; anybody can click a link. Making links gives people options about what they want to explore in depth and what they fly over.

[VadeRetro]

You have this mannerism of replying to a post with the points that the post has rebutted. Very annoying.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Let's take one of the things paleontologists believe in classifying fossils: brain size. They keep saying that a larger skull shows a higher order species.

If you had done ANY reading on this subject you would know that brain size is used RELETIVE to the entire body size. Do you honestly believe what you said?

Your reply is misdirected. That was gore3k speaking; I was quoting him to point out that he was wrong.