Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

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

[Heartlander]

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.

Hey, that could be fun!

[AndrewC]

The article that these posts are supposed to be based upon even site a probabilities link.

The link works on my browser, but that is not a benefit for the author.

Here is what I mean.

This is taken from his Combined Probability Page

What is wrong with this analysis?

"Wait," some may object, "but that doesn't make any sense. If you play enough hands of poker, you will eventually draw a full house." Right, but the analogy doesn't work (this is the great danger of analogies- they don't always apply). A full house in poker is different from the lottery because no matter how many times you draw a new hand, your objective (a full house) is always the same. But when you play the lottery, the objective changes every week because the winning number is different. Instead of racking up multiple attempts against a fixed target, you're trying to hit a moving target. The odds don't improve with multiple attempts.

[edsheppa]

This [naturalism] is extremely limiting when we look at the big picture.

Superficially plausible, but the evidence is otherwise. This plus a few other foundational methods have enable science to make tremendous strides. I'd say it compares quite favorably with philosophies and techniques of the past.

I do say ID has much to offer science as a whole.

So far it hasn't been so. Philosophically speaking, how does one tell the difference between design and an unknown natural law?

[Heartlander]

Philosophically speaking – with pure naturalism – who can say what Bill Clinton did was wrong. I mean, Monica vs. Hillary? It’s relative.

[Heartlander]

Your odds on the lottery are always the same. This is why I only play when the payout is at least twice the odds.

[AndrewC]

Your odds on the lottery are always the same.

Yep, slim and "none". Just pointing out the analysis for the poker v lottery question is flawed. The reason you expect to eventually draw a full house is that the odds are 3,744/2,598,960 or about 1.4 in 1000 per draw from a virgin random deck. It seems slightly better than the 1 in 14 million odds of his Candadian lottery. Oh and choosing the same lotto numbers for each draw gives the effect of a "non-moving" target and "rolling" the numbered balls.

[AndrewC]

A new country this "Candadian". Finger Fart!

[AndrewC]

This is why I only play when the payout is at least twice the odds.

Yes, wise. You can then justify the expense to the wife as an "investment". High risk but great payoff.

[Heartlander]

It beats anything in Vegas or Reno… Well, Reno is still good for sightseeing.

[gore3000]

Seems to you based on what? Where are the chimeras?

Not chimeras, structures that cannot be explained by common descent as for example the sonar of bats, whales and porpoises, the poison of the platypus and snakes, and electrocution in eels, rays and catfish. However, for something really wild take a look below:

FROM:   Euglena
Note the eye!

One really cool feature of Euglena and other related organisms, is the presence of a pigmented organelle, or eyespot, that allows the organism to orient toward or away from light. This is a sensible adaptation since these organisms carry out photosynthesis. The image to the left show the eyespot . The eyespot itself is not sufficient to help the organism turn toward light since the cell is transparent. So the outside of the eyespot is covered by a black pigmented area. The Euglena determines which way turn turn by turning to the direction in which the eyespot is receiving the least light. In this direction the pigmented eyespot is most directly shaded by the black pigmented area.
FROM:  Euglena's Home Page

This is a small one celled animal, it sees and is both a plant and an animal! Let's see the evolutionists explain the descent!

[gore3000]

You are misrepresenting the Cambrian explosion. Wells did not say there was no life before the Cambrian, nobody says that. What happened in the Cambrian is that before it there were less than a half dozen phyla, in the Cambrian some three dozen new phyla appeared - with no ancestors at all. Now that is way too much for evolution to pass off as "we lost the fossils" or "the fossils will be found". Also let me note that evolutionists have always relied on fossils as proof of evolution. The Cambrian if nothing else shows that evolution cannot be proven from the fossil record.

[gore3000]

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. This is a public discussion and you owe the readers of this thread to do the work yourself of proving what you are trying to prove. It is common courtesy if nothing else.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Response? What resonse? Where are the fulgurites? Was Fulgur a famous preacher?

[Lev]

You are supposing a lot and your explanation is all gobbledygook.

You can't help yourself, can you? If you continue with the 'gobbledygook' crap this will be my last reply.

Use your so called theory if you like, but answer the question: why did the coelacanth stop evolving, stop mutating for 400 million years (note also that it did not de-volve either).

First of all it didn't stop mutating, why would it? Its evolution didn't go far because the mutations didn't result in better fitness. It was adapted to its environment. Environment didn't change much. That's it. What do you want me to do? Go back in time and put more salt in the ocean?

One thing you also need to explain about your fantastic theory is how the parameters for a particular species are measured as well as how the formulas were derived and tested.

I don't know how to a species' fitness function might be calculated - there are a whole lot of parameters (genes) and it's difficult to predict the fitness value of a particular gene combination. But the point is that such function exists. For particular environment any combination of genes results in some fitness value (0 most of the time). I tried to show how this function might look with one parameter. But it doesn't matter how many there are - there will be local maxima high enough for species to get stuck there until environment tweaks the function to make it easier for the species to 'escape'.

[longshadow]

Response? What resonse? Where are the fulgurites?

But, but.... how could this be?

"medved" keeps posting that no one has refuted his arguments, yet he hasn't answered the fulgurite question you posed.....

How very odd......

;-)

[Doctor Stochastic]

I said nothing about "coevolution." Please try to pay attention. Do not try to put words into my mouth. If I had wanted to discuss "coevolution" I would have. I discussed independence. The concept is explained in elementary probability books.

[gore3000]

Of junk science? How do you figure?

Because the thing about the ear bones is circular reasoning. Here's why: all present mammals have 3 ear-bones therefore all mamammals known and unknown must have 3 ear bones. Mammals are defined as having mammary glands and there is absolutely no necessary connection between the ear bones and mammary glands. A more adequate connection might be made between live birth and mammary glands (and before the platypus was found such a connection was made - in fact in an article I posted earlier on this thread such a statement was made) but the platypus erased that from the list of "proofs" of being mammals. Now if you really believe in evolution then you must admit that at one time or another the ear-bones and the mammary glands were not necessarily to be found in each and every species. And that is why I say that paleontology is nonsense.

[longshadow]

This is a public discussion and you owe the readers of this thread to do the work yourself of proving what you are trying to prove. It is common courtesy if nothing else.

Okay; what's good for the goose is good for the gander: you posted that Evo's had gone to court to get Evolution into the classroom. You've been asked to provide a citation or link to a such a court case, but have yet to do so.

So where's your court case citation, hmmmm? "It is common courtesy, if nothing else."

[gore3000]

What is iffy? Has homology been discredited?

Yes it has been. By me. In these threads. In posts made to you regarding your famous ear-bones. I must repeat myself constantly because even after I post something you cannot refute, you continue on as if nothing had been said. See posts# 1210 and 1217 specifically. Let's see your refutation before you make this claim again on this thread.

[Lev]

you must also keep in perspective the liberal academia that this evolution stuff is from.

Math and physics stuff is from conservative academia?