Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

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

[gore3000]

Pitchforks ... torches ... garlic cloves ... CREATIONISM!!!

You seem to be getting the hang of it. f.Christian's posts do require a bit of thought, but if one takes the time (and is on the proper wavelength) they say quite a lot in very few words.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Same with the chimp hemoglobin. All scientists agree that man and monkeys split off somewhere a long time ago so if both man and chimp have it, then the other apes should have it too and this does not seem to be the case from what you say.

Almost. It can also show that the mutation took place after the chimp-human line split from the rest of the anthropoids but before the chimp-human lines split from each other. It's important to note that the chimp-human mutations are in the same place in their genomes whereas the guinea pig mutation is in another place.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The single female and single male ancestors are actually an consequence of probability theory. If you draw a random family tree and allow more or less arbitrary matings and have some prbability of dying before breeding, you will get the single ancestor phenomenon. A similar thing happens with Chinese family names. A branch may die out thus losing its tag (or name). Eventually (with probability one) there will be only one branch left.

As there are two simultaneous branches being looked at (male and female), there will be a single line for each branch. There is no reason that the single ancestor of the male branch is anywhere near in time (or location) to the single ancestor of the female branch. It's not clear that any deep philosophical insight can be drawn from the single ancestor phenomenon.

[gore3000]

Microscopic bone analysis of therapods indicate they were warm blooded and had feathers.

This I have to hear! Please tell us how they found out from bones that dinosaurs were warm blooded!

[gore3000]

First off, you have no parameters upon which to base your calculation of probability.

Yes, we do have the parameters for the calculation of the random chances of producing a specific gene. It is quite simple really. You take the number of Dna codons, raise that number to the 20th power (the number of the amino acids for which DNA codes) and you have your answer. You do not even need to know math, you just need a good calculator.

[gore3000]

of course, it's the same argument he makes over and over and over again, regardless of the evidence).

What can I say, you folk keep asking the same questions and keep refusing to answer my questions. For example, I have been asking for proof of macro-evolution for over a year and have yet to get an answer. All I get is we already gave you the answer, go look it up in the Ultimate Evolution garbage pile, I don't have the time, your are an idiot for asking such a stupid question and similar stuff.

[gore3000]

Nice explanation of your gobledygook, however, I had already refuted your statements in the post you answered. Perhaps you wish to try again:

You have not answered my question as to why these species have not been mutating for 400 million years. There are always improvements possible regardless of how limiting the environment may be. In fact, if punk-eek is to be true for example, the species in the limited environment must overcome the limiting environment in order to spread itself past its boundaries. I also see no particular limitation to the coelacanth's environment. The oceans are huge and there is no reason why the species could not have improved itself. Unless of course the demi-god Darwin ordered them to stop mutating, to stop adapting, to stop evolving.

[Capitalist Eric]

My previous challenge: Put up or shut up. Facts or silence... A lack of facts on your part is a demonstration that you have no facts...

Your reply: What are you babbling about. Please focus and remember coherence is important...

I will take that as an admission that you have no facts at your disposal. After all, if you did, you'd certainly enlighten us, given your desire to "prove" that your position is the correct one.

It was fun while it lasted.

((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))

Another FReeper relegated to the "do not bother responding to this idiot" file...

[gore3000]

I can't remember and am too lazy to check.

The point is Vade, that now you have a definition. You and your fellow evolutionists cannot give the excuse that you do not know what I mean by macro-evolution. You do not have to check what I said, what you have to do is give proof of macro-evolution - something you keep trying to avoid.

[gore3000]

Bad model. I was asking tallhappy earlier why sex is important. It's important because every individual of a sexual species is totally unique. This makes having more than one experiment going on a piece of cake.

It is not a model. Mendellian genetics is science. The fact that Darwin wrote before Mendel changes nothing. He still was wrong and he based his theory on something which has been scientifically proven to be wrong. Genes do not "meld" as they would be required to do according to Darwin. This makes evolution practically impossible.

[gore3000]

You still posting micro-evolution nonsense as proof of evolution. You already read my post on macro-evolution so you are being completely dishonest in trying to pass off that stuff a proof of it. They are still salamanders and warblers. And as a matter of fact I already in my post on what macro-evolution is blew the warbler nonsense out of the water.

[tallhappy]

What would an anti-anticreationist be like?

A rational non-bigotted objective conservative person.

[tallhappy]

My previous challenge: Put up or shut up.

Put up or shut up concerning what?

What facts do you want me to refute or present?

I obviously know infinitely more than you about molecular biology and science in general. What would you like to learn.

[tallhappy]

"The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance... Or change. Once such incantatory phrases as "we see now through a looking glass darkly" and "mysterious are the ways in which He chooses His wonders to perform" are mastered, logic can be happily tossed out the window. Religious mania is one of the few infallible ways of responding to the world's vagaries, because it totally eliminates pure accident. To the true religious fanatic, it's all on purpose."

You see about this quote, the thing is that for most people here on one side of the debate the word religion can be substituted with "science" or evolution" and it is equally true.

Earlier one of the posters even said, "Science has the explanations" or some such.

It is an inverse fanaticism that is just as strange -- but moreso in that it presumes to actually be based on facts and evidence when it is based as much on dogma derived from belief (or anti-belief in this case).

There is biology and the subdiscipline of evolutionary biology, but then there is what I have refferred to as religious evolutionism which does contain the dyanamic described in King's comment -- just using a different perspective and bible, as it were.

The "debate" on these threads is always a religous fight, not a scientific discussion or argument. That goes for the supposed science following evolutionists who use it as a vehicle for their religious beliefs and argument.

Flip side of the same coin.

[Junior]

The bones of warm-blooded animals have more passages for blood vessels than those of cold-blooded critters. Therapod dinosaur bones have lots of passages for blood vessels (like birds or mammals) when compared to turtle or lizard bones, which have fewer passages for blood vessels.

[Junior]

Libel can be defended through fair comment and criticism. If your writings, actions, whatnot, lend themselves to be commented upon or criticized, then you do not have a case for libel. Your rather unorthodox views lend themselves to fair comment and criticism right off the bat; hell, all scientific hypotheses must be open to criticism or the whole process collapses. Your tendency to call the folks who disagree with you "idiots," or in my case "mentally ill," automatically deprive you of using any instance of name calling in your legal case -- this is the "if you can dish it out, you've got to be able to take it" clause of the defense.

Now, you've put your views out for all to see, and that's good. You only started calling me mentally ill after I ran the numbers on moving Earth from its orbit around Saturn in the Asteroid Belt to its current, near-circular orbit around the Sun. You suppposedly have a BA in Mathematics from Old Dominion University (at least that's what your bios say in the several "odd phenomenon" magazines available on the net). I have a high-school physics class, a college-level astronomy class, and whatever I've picked up over the years in my failed career as science-fiction writer and game designer (you don't make money if you don't finish the project, and I'm a procrastinator extraordinaire). Instead of pointing out any errors in my mathematics, you simply started calling me "mentally ill" and publishing a series of out-of-context quotes (which I've already rectified, thank you). Now, I would think that I would have a case for libel against you, but personally, I like to settle my problems myself; I don't go whining to the judge or moderator every time someone takes a potshot at me, which happens quite often.

If you cannot answer my questions about your hypothesis which I raised just before you started calling me "mentally ill" the answer is not to call me names, but to show how your hypothesis can not only work within the parameters of the real world but explain everything far better and more simply than the current theories of planetary development and evolution. Evolutionists are not idiots or voodoo practitioners as you call them in your "God Hates Idiots Too!" spam (more libel, maybe?). They have looked at the available evidence, drawn conclusions, run those conclusions past their peers, who have promptly found or not found fault, revised their hypotheses in the light of new evidence, ad infinitum. The theory of evolution is the result of lots of observation, experimentation and downright hard work. Your hypothesis may also the the result of observation, experimentation and hard work, but that does not mean it is immune to criticism by fiat. If you cannot defend the current state of your hypothesis without resorting to calling critics "idiots" or "mentally ill" then your hypothesis isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

[Junior]

Evolutionists have been trying since Darwin to confuse micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Evolutionists do not use the terms micro- or macro-evolution! It is the same process. As for how structures arise (evidently one definition of "macro" evolution) they are modifications of existing structures. The eye is a modification of light-sensitive skin; the leg is a modification of a fin, which is a modification of muscle and bone tissue already present; bones are a modification of cartilage which is a modification of connective tissues, which are a modification of other tissues.

We have fossils showing the transitions from fish-to-amphibian-reptile-mammal, and from reptile-dinosaur-bird. In these fossils you can see the modifications of pre-existing structures. VadeRetro has posted the series showing the modification of the jaw bones of reptiles to be ear bones of mammals.

No organs or other systems spring full-blown over night. No evolutionist ever says they did. Neither does any evolutionist draw a distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. They are both the same phenomenon, with difference between "kinds" (whatever they are) arising out of the gradual genetic drift of species -- as each species moves farther from any others genetically, it takes on characteristics not shared by any of the others. Over countless generations these characteristics add up, making the critter not resemble some of its predecessors or their offspring.

Now, we've showed you what the fossil record shows. We've backed that up by observation. There are several recorded instances of speciation in our own historical times, as has been posted here time and again. We've run a thread on one observed mechanism for adding information to the genome -- that population of monkeys which has a duplicate gene in their genome that is slowly modifying into some other use. Believe it or not, scientists do not pull these things out of the air. If they did, they'd be laughed at by their more serious colleagues.

[Junior]

Ah, but are you taking into account the affinity of some chemicals for other chemicals, which would up the odds there? Also, are you taking into account the number of reactions taking place at any given time? You see, not all the parameters are understood, so any result must be questionable.

[PatrickHenry]

Lurking ...

[gore3000]

In post#680 you said:

"gore3000 has said that, for all the fossil record shows, dinosaurs might have had mammary glands. Indeed, for all that ID/creationism says, they might have. Evolution, which has real information content, tells us that they did not.

I asked you to back it up several times, you have yet to do so. Give the proof and stop the nonsense. You cannot give proof so you evade and try to make me the issue.