Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

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

[Junior]

How did you get that out of this article? The author (not JediGirl) was pointing out the fallacious pseudoscience exhibited by your average Creationist. No one is attempting to dethrone God (as if that were possible) -- and pointing out errors in the opposition's arguments is not an attack on religion, rather it is an attack on ignorance. Methinks you are too thinskinned on this issue to understand the difference.

[Hunble]

Personally, I am a very religious person. When I joined these debates about three years ago, I kept an open mind.

But after three years, the Creationists have done nothing but insult my intelligence and have totally failed to support their arguments.

Just like Liberals, you eventually must question why they must use distortions, selective facts, or out right lies to support their position.

God created the Universe, and science is a quest to understand how it was done. To study science, is to study God, and I never could understand why this seems to be so difficult to comprehend.

[Darth Reagan]

It is amazing that some can think that science is a threat to God. Only those who adobt a literal interpretation of Genesis could believe that. And those people don't have faith in God and his existence. They have faith only in a book.

[ThinkPlease]

placemarker

[kinsman redeemer]

Your sense of the word "wisdom" is not that of the original text. Here is the American Heritage definition:

wisdom (wîz´dem) noun
1. Understanding of what is true, right, or lasting; insight: "One cannot have wisdom without living life" (Dorothy McCall).
2. Common sense; good judgment: "It is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things" (Henry David Thoreau).
3. a. The sum of scholarly learning through the ages; knowledge: "In those homely sayings was couched the collective wisdom of generations" (Maya Angelou). b. Wise teachings of the ancient sages.
4. A wise outlook, plan, or course of action.
5. Wisdom. Bible. Wisdom of Solomon.
.

The Greek word (translated "wisdom") is: sofia:
sofia - wisdom, insight, intelligence
sofo - wise, experienced
In the context of the original quotation, it particularly means the wisdom of the learned and politically dominant classes.

The Greek word translated "understanding" is sunesi.
sunesi - understanding, insight
suneto - intelligent, possessing understanding

The amplified version may help your understanding of the Greek word that is translated "wisdom." The word used in I Cor 1:19 has the more traditional sense of the word, meaning "intelligence" or "cleverness."

For it is written, I will baffle and render useless and destroy the learning of the learned and the philosophy of the philosophers and the cleverness of the clever and the discernment of the discerning; I will frustrate and nullify [them] and bring [them] to nothing.

I sincerely hope this help you to understand what I intended in my earlier post.

Thanks,
Russ

[Hunble]

For it is written, I will baffle and render useless and destroy the learning of the learned and the philosophy of the philosophers and the cleverness of the clever and the discernment of the discerning; I will frustrate and nullify [them] and bring [them] to nothing.

So dear friend, why does the Creationist side of the debate rely upon half-truths, selective facts, or down right lied to support thier side?

[PatrickHenry]

Ping.

[edsheppa]

...that the amino acids created are UNUSABLE to create proteins due to their chirality...

I don't think that's true. What's true is that equal amounts of both left- and right-handed amino acids are produced in these experiments. But presumably one could have either left- or right-handed proteins. Why one predominates in living things isn't yet explained.

[PatrickHenry]

A small sample of the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massive mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.

The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 16].

[kinsman redeemer]

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then?
Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born,
and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.
Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Pilate saith unto him,
What is truth ?

Picture that for a minute.

Pilate asking the Creator of the Universe: "What is truth?"

Maybe Jesus did not answer, maybe He did. It is not recorded. But what are Pilate's next recorded words?

"I find in Him no fault."

I say: God's Word is True.

Amen?

[PatrickHenry]

God created the Universe, and science is a quest to understand how it was done. To study science, is to study God, and I never could understand why this seems to be so difficult to comprehend.

Well put. Here's something on this issue which I posted about a month ago:

If scripture is properly understood -- not an easy task -- it doesn't contradict science at all. The trick is knowing when scripture is to be understood literally, and when it's speaking in metaphor.

No one, not even the most strident fundamentalist, takes the numerous passages about "the four corners of the earth" and the "pillars of the earth" as being literally true. Why? Because we know the shape of the earth. Similarly, since Galileo's unfortunate encounter with the Inquisition over the solar system, probably even the most stubborn fundamentalist will agree with Galileo that the solar system is real, and those passages in scripture which seem to say that the earth is the unmoveable center of the universe are mere poetry. Why? Again, it's because we know enough now to realize that the solar system -- although "only a theory" -- is a very good description of reality.

The point here is that our growing understanding -- through science -- of the true nature of the universe is actually an aid to understanding scripture. The scientist, quite without realizing it, and sometimes in spite of his lack of religious conviction, is providing a kind of "reader's guide" to help us have a better understanding of scripture. Actually, the universe itself is the "reader's guide" but it's the scientist who discovers the nature of the universe. Thus, when understood in the light of science, scripture can be properly read, old misunderstandings can be corrected, and there is no conflict. Without science, we have no way of knowing if our reading of scripture is correct.

[Hunble]

Satan is the great Liar, and is very present in our churches today.

Be very carefull my friend in who you listen to. As Ronald Reagan once said: "Trust but Verify!"

The problem is how to expose a liar in our efforts to seek the truth. Personally, I will drop a rock on my foot to see if the theory of gravity was some scientific lie.

Ouch!

Or do someting like I am doing with my own telescopes. Build a spectrocope and explore the stars on my own. If the text books are wrong, then I will be the first to expose them for being liars.

There is a very real danger in relying upon a single book for your understanding of God. Be very carefull my friend, for Satan is always helping people to interpret that book in ways that will decieve you.

Not that the Bible is wrong, but how people interpret the wisdom expressed can, has, and will be distorted.

Sometimes a simple reality check is helpfull.

[jennyp]

For example, he speaks of amino acids being created in the lab under conditions that supposedly replicate those of primeval earth. There are several problems with the process to begin with, but the biggest problem is that the amino acids created are UNUSABLE to create proteins due to their chirality (the way the 'turn' light). This argument is actually one of the strongest AGAINST evolution!!!!

Well, except for 3 facts:

• In addition to home-grown amino acids, the earth was probably exposed to amino acids that were formed inside nebulae in space, and which tend to be of the correct chirality. (I don't remember the reference.)
• Certain mineral surfaces, which catalyze the growth of amino acids into peptides & proteins, only do so for amino acids of one chirality or the other, while the opposite chiral amino acids are ingored.
• If I read this abstract right, maybe even mineral surfaces aren't always required for homochiral peptides to form!
• Amino acids of the "wrong" chirality are slightly less stable than those of the "right" chirality. (Although this last difference seems to be very weak.)

[VadeRetro]

I'm with the people who say the chirality of the first self-replicator basically formatted the soup as it replicated.

DISCLAIMER: I've lately been assured by the world's foremost authority that I don't know what I'm talking about. (Gee, I hope I'm saying what I think I'm saying here.)

[aardvark1]

The chirality of the amino acids produced are all either left or right. But the amino acids which make up protiens in living systems are a combination of left and right.

[Hunble]

Uh, left handed only in modern biology if I remember correctly.

Nobody is sure why, but it is probably simular to the matter/anti-matter difference.

Both can be created in equal amounts, but for some reason, one is prefered over the other.

[Darth Reagan]

I'll accept that God's Wisdom trumps man's Wisdom. I don't understand the point of the quote about the destruction of man's "wisdom" or the definition of "wisdom" for the purpose of the quote.

Further, I don't know what point you are making with respect to science vs. creationism. Is the quote that "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent" intended to bolster an argument that the research and learning and wisdom of scientists is wrong and that the research and learning and wisdom of theologians is correct? I'm just lost. What is the intent of the quotation?

[Hunble]

Is the quote that "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent"

Actually, the quote, when taken in context, was an attack against the false religious doctrin being taught at the time.

That is why I laughed and was more than happy to reply to that quote.

[Kyrie]

But, just so I can be sure, what's your degree in?

Last I checked, it was in mathematics.

And remember, he knows more than you do.

That's right! Because I've got a Master's degree!

In science!

Instead of sniffing my credentials, why not just respond to the content? Or is it ad hominem hour again? Did I miss the announcement?

[Kyrie]

In addition to home-grown amino acids, the earth was probably exposed to amino acids that were formed inside nebulae in space, and which tend to be of the correct chirality. (I don't remember the reference.)

Remember that if your opponent has no direct knowledge of the science involved, and is merely claiming truth because "I read it somewhere", this constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority. Point this out to him. One should always be able to explain the logic and science behind one's argument rather than simply making vague reference to an anonymous source.