15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense [THE FINAL DEBUNKING]

Scientific American ^ | 17 June 2002 | John Rennie

[That Subliminal Kid]

Yes. Obviously anyone who suspects that non-living matter may not be able to self-assemble and simultaneously acquire the ability to convert raw energy into a usable form, subsequently increasing in informational complexity to the point that it becomes self aware, hasn't been "thinking". For clearly anyone who really "thinks" will agree with you, because you are genuine, and other people who don't think like you can't be! It's obvious! Right? LOL!

[CyberCowboy777]

I suggest you re-read the rebuttal. I have not come against Microevolution. Macroevolution does not meet the scientific method. That is a Fact. They can use whatever testing method they want, it still has yet to meet the Scientific method.

It is a theory, an ever changing quagmire of a theory.

Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as incipient species. Richard B. Goldschmidt

[That Subliminal Kid]

I don't. Science should presuppose those things.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Do you really think for a minute that science would suddenly jettison evolution if genetic experiments didn't line up?

Of course. That's one of the reasons for doing the experiments. Your question seems to indicate that you believe that the experiments are consistent with evolutionary theory; you are entitled to experiment and publish contrary results if you get them.

[That Subliminal Kid]

As I pointed out earlier, a theory of evolution will always exist. It is axiomatic as per science itself. I have no problem with this, I only find it a bit odd that people point out that scientific evidence leads one to conclude that living things evolved. Of course it does! That's the essence of science. Assume that everything is natural and events take place over time. Evolution is the only possible conclusion. I don't fault science or scientists for this. I just wish more people recognized the inherant limitations to this way of thinking, especially when some use it as the foundation for their entire life's philosophy.

[PatrickHenry]

I'll readily admit that I can't prove God scientifically, but then again, I can't scientifically prove that I love my dog.

Maybe not, but at least you could present evidence (which clearly distinguishes your example from that guy's "5th dimension spiritual world of God"). You exist, and your dog exists, and one could observe the two of you long enough to accept your claim. That's not proof as in geometry, but it's sufficient verifiable evidence to accept your claim -- at least provisionally. You could be faking it, and maybe you'll kill your dog because you don't love it at all, but that too will be observable and verifiable, and it will contradict your earlier claim that you love the dog. Observation. Verifiable facts. The basis of all science. That guy's that guy's "5th dimension spiritual world of God" is utterly beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, yet he claims: "And please pardon some of us if we can "see" that HIS "proof" of 'Intelligent Design' is clearly and overwhelmingly evident..." Why do we have to beat this thing to death? His post was pure mumbo-jumbo, and I'm confident that you understand this.

[mhking]

I believe in God, and don't see evolution as incompatible with that belief.

I've been in that boat for many years now. I am a Christian, and I do not see any incompatibility either.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Well, I think you're wrong :) I think that science as it is defined will *always* conclude that life evolved. It cannot make any other conclusion. Please go back and read some of my earlier posts so I don't have to explain this very obvious fact again.

[Junior]

Most Evolution scientist do not even use sedimentary evidence or fossil evidence, it has be [sic] proven unreliable.

You keep making these statements ex cathedra.  Show us what you mean.  Post something, anything, to back up this statement.

Cretigo:  J

[That Subliminal Kid]

I don't think it was mumbo-jumbo, although he should have qualified his remarks as I have done for him. Science is great, you're great, I'm great, everyone is great. I don't see what the big fuss is about. I'm a theist and have no problem with much of what evolutionary biology says.

[general_re]

Aren't flowereing plants a phylum?

Why, yes - yes they are. The phylum of angiosperms (two classes of flowering plants - monocots and dicots) are thought to have evolved during the Cretaceous, which would certainly put them much closer than 580 million years ago.

[Junior]

You obviously haven't really understood Punctuated Equilibrium. Also, most biologists, paleontologists, et al (evolutionists) figure a combination of Punctuated Equilibrium and Gradualism account for the plethora of life around us. There is no "brouhaha" over this.

[VadeRetro]

To f.Christian: I have to say that I am embarrased and ashamed to have someone like you speaking on the side of those who find problems with current Darwinian theory. Please stop posting on these threads.

This does not jive with the gleeful prankster personna you just tried to adopt on another thread. Who do you think you are, Roscoe? Kevin Curry?

[mhking]

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Wrong! This passage is part of the Levitical laws, which were written by man, not by God.

Leviticus also promulgates and promotes slavery, wife-beating, and other things that would be considered not only politically incorrect and against the law, but against the teachings of most churches today. Does that mean that we have to take each of those laws literally as well?

The laws and rules set down in Leviticus are literally the laws of the land of Israel set down on paper at that time.

[PatrickHenry]

Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as incipient species.

This is addressed in the rebuttal to point 11 of the lead article. I invite your attention to that rebuttal.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

[That Subliminal Kid]

You obviously haven't really understood Punctuated Equilibrium

Not another pathetic attempt to undermine my credibility. Punctuated Equilibrum says essentially that during periods of rapid geological/environmental change, species could evolve, disperse, adapt more rapidly to survive, and this effect is how Gould intended to account for the observations found in the Cambrian Explosion. Please, don't insult me. I haven't insulted you.

[mhking]

That was the Law given to the nation of Israel and yes GOD said it. The new covenant that JESUS spoke of does away with the Law.

God did not say it, he inspired it. But yes, Christ did away with the law as set down in Leviticus.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Remember, The Titans were literate.

[That Subliminal Kid]

I'll assume you are aware then of what Richard Dawkins has to say about Punctuated Equilibrum as a theory, right? It's not flattering.