Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

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

[VadeRetro]

Cite thou thy sources, lest thee seem like Doris Kearns Goodwin. In this case, The Fossil Record, by Clifford Cuffey.

[VadeRetro]

You need bones in the "arms" in order to have enough wingspan for flight. Archaeopteryx did not have that.

This is wrong. The bones are not fused, as in modern birds. The forelimb is a raptorian foreclaw, with luxurious feathers. Archaeopteryx could almost certainly fly--poorly. The arm bones are not the problem. The problems are elsewhere.

[tallhappy]

Note to self: Getting too longwinded here

You have a modicum of self awareness. That's a postive.

But why do you avoid the issues? You made some ludicrous comments and instead of simply explaining what you meant you try some Yoda stuff.

You ain't Yoad and you ain't a person who understands biology.

I may be rude (not really) but at least I can follow a line of thought and address specific issues.

Reading a bunch of popular science books does not inculcate an understanding of biological concepts and theory.

[gore3000]

"My original answer was just fine for this, but I will explain it better for the slow learners. Brains and eyes, just for an example, coevolve."

Wow! Now that I have proven evolution to be false, we have a new theory! The theory of coevolution! It just comes to show how the requirements of the situation keep creating new and more wonderful and more intricate theories (or should I call it balderdash?).

Back it up Vade, let's see the proof for coevolution! And remember, since evolution (and I guess coevolution too), is supposed to be a science, you need to back it up with facts, details, describe the process, show the observations and the evidence for it. And no, "God did not do it" is proof of nothing.

[gore3000]

So Junior, since you are the self-appointed librarian of evolutionism here, could you kindly post here the strongest proof of macro-evolution there is in that list-o-links you posted? I keep waiting for someone to post the proof of macro-evolution on these threads and it seems to be a big secret. Must have been waiting for over a year for an answer and I keep hoping to finally get an answer! You are not going to make me wait for 150 years are you? So could you kindly put me out of my misery and post it?

[Heartlander]

Your zest for the ‘evolution cause’ is somewhat intriguing. I’m just curious, and don’t take this wrong, but what exactly is your goal? If it is to prove that we all came into being by some natural occurrence… I would think that cosmology is where you should start – then biology – then philosophy.

Man, you got your hands full…
What is your goal here again? More importantly, what do you believe concerning the existence of God?

[gore3000]

Not every environment changes constantly.

Yes but in the 400 million years the coelacanth has been around you expect us to believe that there was no environmental change? You cannot be serious. And what happened to mutations? Certainly these species were not perfect. There could have been numberous improvements to them that would have been helpful - a smarter brain, better fins, changes to make it reproduce more or better. Clearly there are many possible changes which mutations could have achieved (especially in such a long, long time) to make it more fit? Heck, you know, as a matter of fact, that is how punk-eek works, a species improves itself in a secluded habitat and through super-evo transformation takes over the world! Clearly these species had enough time to do so. Or are you perhaps trying to tell us poor fools uninitiated in the church of evolution that the demi-god Darwin told this species "you shall not mutate any more, you are fit enough already and you have not been chosen to be the ones to take over the world"?

[Lev]

There could have been numberous improvements to them that would have been helpful - a smarter brain, better fins, changes to make it reproduce more or better.

Do you know what local maximum on a fitness landscape is?

[gore3000]

Do you know what local maximum on a fitness landscape is?

No, but to paraphrase the Supreme Court on pornography: I know BS when I see it.

[Heartlander]

"Sometimes, the "just so" stories are backed by computer models using random combinations and selection advantages. However, the computer models are always too simplistic compared to biological systems. Also, many of these programs rely on intelligent input that natural selection could not duplicate. These attempts at computer modeling also still don't address an old problem. Many years ago, this problem was noted by a group of mathematicians. They could not derive a probability pattern that would make natural selection a likely means for evolution of complex biological systems. This contention has never been overturned."

[gore3000]

"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.

So what is the proof that Dinosaurs did not have mammary glands? What is the proof they did not have warm blood? What is the proof they did not have intelligence greater than mankind? Where is the proof Vade? Heck, you have been discussing a dinosaur that had feathers. None of your phony evo scientism would have predicted that. None of your phony evo scientism would have predicted that the platypus lay eggs. None of your phony evo scientism would have predicted that a bat would have a better sonar system than the US Navy.

[gore3000]

Anything not "integrated and fully functional" in your mantra tends to be selected out at once.

Wait a minute! You have been telling us through dozens of posts that selection is the deux ex machina of evolution. Now you tell us that these mutations spread before they are functional! How can that be? What happened to selection? I mean how would these mutations know where to go if there is no selection? They would be lost out there in the never, never land of random chance!

You are contradicting yourself Vade. Methinks you have fallen into a rhetorical hole of your own making! (or perhaps it is not your fault, perhaps you are just trying to prove an inconsistent contradictory theory?).

[gore3000]

You know those shells are nice. However, if you are using them to prove evolution you are sorely deluded. You see, shells are made by the organism to protect itself. They are not part of the organism. It is like trying to prove the evolution of beavers by showing their dams!

[gore3000]

btw, are you taking back your claim that I contradicted myself? See 645

Don't see any reason to. You were saying both that evolution happens in secluded isolated spots and in non-secluded spots. You were therefore positing both sides of the coin as proof of evolution. I called this doubletalk and that is what it is. Not that it is unique to you. Evolutionsists talk that way about most things. For example one of their favorites is that if two species of widely divergent lineages have the same trait, they say it is due to covergence. It they are related then they call it descent. Either way they say evolution done it. This is why evolution is total nonsense. It can only support its position by holding mutually contradictory positions. It is not a theory. It is not science. It is an ideology.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Learn something about science dude.

Why don't you tell us something about science, dude? (Do you work for Dell, dude?)

[Doctor Stochastic]

in the 400 million years the coelacanth has been around...

Are you claiming the earth is at least 400,000,000 years old?

[gore3000]

"So you are claiming that rock bridges are not designed, but natural? Formed by natural processes? No designer at all?"

Yup.It's quite simple for the force of water to dig a hole. That is all a natural bridge is. It needs no design. However, since according to atheists natural forces can create complex things. It would be nice if you could show us a cantilever bridge that was not designed by man.

[Doctor Stochastic]

So you still claim the earth is at least 400,000,000 years old?

[gore3000]

You were talking of monkeys and humans, however the link was speaking of guinea pigs and men. It said:

The reason humans and guinea pigs cannot manufacture their own ascorbic acid is that they lack a functional gene encoding the enzyme protein known as L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GLO),

Now since humans and guinea pigs are widely separated species evolutionally speaking, and there are many other species in between which are closer to humans than guinea pigs, it seems to me that this is a proof against evolution. Otherwise all the species in between man and guinea pig would be lacking the gene to make vitamin c.

[Lev]

You were saying both that evolution happens in secluded isolated spots and in non-secluded spots. You were therefore positing both sides of the coin as proof of evolution.

There is only one side. If you actually read what I said you would understand. I'll repeat. Evolution happens in both 'spots'. I never claimed it doesn't. Here's what's important: mutations spread faster in smaller populations. There is nothing special about isolation except that it creates areas with small populations. Which part of this you don't understand or don't agree with?