15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense [THE FINAL DEBUNKING]

Scientific American ^ | 17 June 2002 | John Rennie

[ShadowAce]

Alterations in an environment can make traits that previously inhibited survival into essential functions of the organism.

Those same alterations would kill any who did not evolve, then. But we still have fish, and monkeys still live in trees.

[smith288]

"You say they're wrong, they say you're wrong. I'll let you duke it out. But to say you have a lock on the one true literal interpretation -- that's laughable."

Pot, meet the kettle.

[AndrewC]

What about not wearing mixed threads -- is that allegorical or literal?

[Nebullis]

And your "better" cousin [amoeba], with ~200 times more genes than you!

Surely you mean 200 times larger genome. (I wasn't aware they had sequenced the amoeba genome and identified ORFs!)

[yendu bwam]

"Before the Big Bang": geometrically, there is no "before the Big Bang", for the same reason there is no "south of the South Pole".

No, that is just one (entirely unproved) theory (a la Hawking). We don't know if time started with the big bang or it didn't.

[Dimensio]

Those same alterations would kill any who did not evolve, then. But we still have fish, and monkeys still live in trees.

The entire planet is not a single "environment". A change in the environment in one location does not translate to a change in every similar environment on the planet. Those populations in the unchanged environment would continue on as they had done before while populations in the changed environment may shift as the organisms better suited for the new environment continue on their genetic line.

[Phaedrus]

The argument here is firmly based upon authority, the "authority" of Scientific American. But if the argument itself is built upon lies, then the article becomes a testament to the emptiness of that authority and only fools will listen.

[medved]

Are you telling me that to be a conservative, one MUST believe in G_d?

To be a consistent conservative you most likely do. Somebody who believes that "survival of the fittest' is the only moral law in nature might call himself a conservative and behave in a manner consistent with his belief by being a robber baron like Andrew Carnegie, a criminal of some sort or a nazi (or a cannibal like Jeffrey Dahmer), but the word "conservative" igtself connotes some sort of an effort to preserve the values which have guided human society over the last couple of thousand years, and it's hard to picture an atheist making any sort of a serious effort to do that, as opposed to merely looking out for number one.

Newt Gingrich put it rather succinctly in noting that the question of whether a man views his fellow man as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of stochastic events and processes simply has to effect human relations.

[ShadowAce]

A change in the environment in one location does not translate to a change in every similar environment on the planet.

So it would be easier for a fish to walk on land than swim to a different locale?

[yendu bwam]

Quantum Mechanics: it is logically impossible to describe QM in terms of quotidian phenomena like particles and waves, because quantum objects are more fundamental than the quotidian phenomena. Those phenomena are made up of quantum objects. You cannot describe the more fundamental in terms of the less fundamental; this is basic philosophy.

THe point is, wave functions exist in a realm of reality that we cannot touch or directly prove exists. We can only infer that they exist.

[Junior]

There is lots of interesting suff there and it's all true! I especially like the part about the FLOOD. If your interested, that is where all of those fossils, evolutionist keep finding came from.

So why aren't all the fossils jumbled together but are lying in distinct layers instead?

[Dimensio]

So it would be easier for a fish to walk on land than swim to a different locale?

If it could swin to a different locale, it would be easier to swim there. Of course, perhaps those better adapted for movement on the surface later migrated to environments different than those of their ancestors, thus further enhancing the desirability of that particular trait.

[Gumlegs]

If you'd read the article, you would have noticed this:

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.

[ShadowAce]

Of course, perhaps those better adapted for movement on the surface later ...

Why would a fish be adapted for movement on the surface?

[Dimensio]

My question, to which you answered with a complete non-sequiter, was "why should I believe that Revelation 20:12 is an accurate source of information"?

[Dimensio]

Why would a fish be adapted for movement on the surface?

Mutation.

[ShadowAce]

OK. Point out to me a modern, beneficial mutation that is not a normal part of the original. It should probably be a fairly common one as a single individual would not change the direction of its entire species.

Since we are talking about something as major as a fish walking on land, please don't point to feather color.

[PatrickHenry]

Amazing. I start this thread early in the morning, then I come back 4 hours later and the thing has virtually exploded! It's gratifying to see so many folks who are interested in science.