10 Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher - Answered! Creationists Lose!
Budikka666
http://ncselegacy.org/creationism/analysis/10-answers-to-jonathan-wellss-10-questions
The latest version (which is really no different from the original
version) is answered by PZ Myers at Pharyngula:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/ten_questions_to_ask_your_biol.php
Here's the latest version of the dumbest questions ever asked:
http://tinyurl.com/yar9uq5
Sean McDowell is quite clearly the most unimaginative and pedantically
ignorant person ever. Here are his questions:
1. Design Detection - If nature, or some aspect of it, is
intelligently designed, how could we tell?
The only way to tell design is to have something with which to compare
it. We can tell a Lamborghini Murcielago:
http://tinyurl.com/yfujjdb
is designed by comparing it with a Peel Trident
http://www.autocult.com.au/img/gallery/ChickWheels20.jpg
and see that the two have features in common. If you know the one was
intelligently designed (ahem!) then you can reasonably conclude that
the other was.
So let's look at the creationist claim in this respect. They claim
that the universe was intelligently designed. But with which universe
of *known* design are they comparing it?
Exactly. They have no other universe to compare it with. Their claim
FAILS dismally and instantly.
So what do they do? Well, they LIE! Yes, that's right. They LIE.
Instead of comparing apples with apples, they compare a real apple
with a wax display apple and conclude that the two were both
intelligently designed. But what, exactly, are they comparing?
They're comparing what they *know* was designed by a human ( for
example, a motor) with something which they don't know is designed
(for example, the bacterial flagellum) and conclude that since the two
have similarities they must, like the Murcielago and the trident, both
be designed.
But even if their dumb "logic" were true, which it isn't, what have
they just "proved"? That the bacterial flagellum was designed by
humans! They've said nothing about gods! That's how stupid the
creationists are. They're LYING MORONS.
Besides, every available piece of scientific evidence shows that the
flagellum wasn't designed at all. it evolved:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
It is *not* irreducibly complex as the creationists LIE:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
Next question:
2. Looking for Design in Biology - Should biologists be encouraged to
look for signs of intelligence in biological systems? Why or why not?
No they should be encouraged to follow the evidence wherever it leads,
which is what they've been doing ever since biology could be called
such. The ID people are emphatically *not* doing this. They're doing
the opposite. They're starting at the conclusion and then outright
LYING about the evidence to desperately make it "fit" their
preordained conclusion. This isn't science. It's delusion.
Next question:
3. The Rules of Science - Who determines the rules of science? Are
these rules written in stone? Is it mandatory that scientific
explanations only appeal to matter and energy operating by unbroken
natural laws (a principle known as methodological naturalism)?
The ID morons delight in asking how new information can be added to
the genome (see later) but never can they seem to drum up the courage
to ask "How does religion provide us with any new useful information
at all?" The *fact* is that religion has **NEVER** added to our
knowledge. What has worked and continues to work is dependable,
repeated scientific investigation, which has a proven track record of
revealing nature's secrets and turning that knowledge into benefits
which no amount of prayer, blind belief, worship, church attendance
has ever provided.
Next question:
4. Biology’s Information Problem - How do we account for the complex
information-rich patterns in biological systems? What is the source of
that information?
Since this has been more than adequately explained by the biologists:
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/dawkinschallenge.htm
the ID people clear are setting up a straw man for no other reason
than they get to knock it down. Whilst they're playing their childish
games, real scientists are finding real answers.
Next question:
5. Molecular Machines - Do any structures in the cell resemble
machines designed by humans? How do we account for such structures?
This is a classic example of begging the question. The IDiots use the
term "machine" to imply design and then conclude that it was designed
because it's a "machine". No! In a universe where the same laws of
physics apply all over as far as we can tell, it makes no difference
if evolution is doing the "designing" or humans are building things.
The same rules apply in both instances, therefore both humans and
evolution have to follow those rules if they're to make something
work. It really is that simple.
Next question:
6. Irreducible Complexity - What are irreducibly complex systems? Do
such systems exist in biology? If so, are those systems evidence for
design? If not, why not?
There's no such thing as irreducible complexity - not in a scenario
where evolution applies. This is another creationist straw man. One-
by-one, limp creationist claims of irreducible complexity have been
shot down easily by science:
The Eye:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
The Flagellum:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
The Blood Clotting system:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html
Next question:
7. Similar Structures - Human designers reuse designs that work well.
Life forms also reuse certain structures (the camera eye, for example,
appears in humans and octopuses). How well does this evidence support
Darwinian evolution? Does it support intelligent design more strongly?
Note the IDiot creationist sleight of hand here? The question isn't
why evolution has homologous (similar) structures - organisms evolve
similar structures in process of adapting to similar niches. No
problem there. the question here which creationists are hiding form
is why their god was so inept that he had to kludge together things
which he should - according tot heir blind belief - be able to
"design' de novo.
8. Fine-Tuning - The laws of physics are fine-tuned to allow life to
exist. Since designers are capable of fine-tuning a system, can design
be considered the best explanation for the universe?
If the laws were not so "tuned" there would be no life and we wouldn't
be here to ask such questions. IDiots carefully base their straw man
on the blind assumption that this is the only universe that is, ever
was, or ever will be. Ask then where they got that idea from. it
wasn't from science...!
9. The Privileged Planet - The Earth seems ideally positioned in our
galaxy for complex life to exist and for scientific discovery to
advance. Does this privileged status of Earth indicate intelligent
design? Why or why not?
This is precisely the same question as number 9. You wouldn't be here
to ask your dumb questions if the planet were not just right. Out of
the billions of planets in the universe, is it surprising that one or
two are fit for life as we know it? No!
But turn the question around and ask this of the IDiot creationists:
if this planet was designed for humans, why is it regularly bombarded
with meteors, ultra violet light and deadly cosmic rays?
Next question:
10. The Origin of the Universe
The universe gives every indication of having a beginning. Since
something cannot come from nothing, is it legitimate to conclude that
a designer made the universe? If not, why not?
Clearly the IDiot creationists are behind on their science reading -
which isn't surprising since their scientific endeavors stopped with
the Bible.
They're morons. End of story. Case closed.
Budikka
johnbee
< "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net>
< claims of irreducible complexity have been
shot down easily by science:
The Eye: >
You (and the article you quote) are quite wrong about the eye and
irreducible complexity. I will explain to you how you can show the most
stupid creationist quite conclusively that the eye is not irreducibly
complex (even if there was such a thing) without using any science at all -
except of course real science by which I mean seeing for yourself.
Next time you see a cat, stroke it. It will I hope be friendly. Then hold
up your index finger and move it left and right in front of the cat. You
will immediately notice that cats can not move their eyes. They have to
move their head to change the direction in which they look.
You and creationist can understand that the bit of complexity where eyes
move can be dumped and eyes will still be very serviceable indeed.
Mike Painter
I know a girl who was born with normal vision.
When I met her she could make out large blobs of color and slightly smaller
blobs if they were moving. Over about a 15 year period she went from normal
to nothing.
But telling light from dark was better than nothing. Seing big blobs with
colors was better than telling light from dark.
Eyes have developed so often in so many ways that the idea of irreducible
complexity applying to them is inane and insane.
I suspect that one minor change from nothing to heat sensation is all that
was needed to start the progression.
Budikka666
> < "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net>
It's been a while since I've seen someone who isn't a creationist or a
fundie write so much and make so little sense. Thanks for sharing
your misunderstanding. I hope it gets better soon.
Budikka
MarkA
> Were answered by the NCSE:
> http://ncselegacy.org/creationism/analysis/10-answers-to-jonathan-wellss-10-questions
>
> The latest version (which is really no different from the original
> version) is answered by PZ Myers at Pharyngula:
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/ten_questions_to_ask_your_biol.php
>
> Here's the latest version of the dumbest questions ever asked:
> http://tinyurl.com/yar9uq5
>
> Sean McDowell is quite clearly the most unimaginative and pedantically
> ignorant person ever. Here are his questions:
>
> 1. Design Detection - If nature, or some aspect of it, is intelligently
> designed, how could we tell?
Easy. Talk to the designer. (Prayers to imaginary beings don't count).
No. The explanation "it was intelligently designed by a magical
super-being" is too much like "I don't know, and don't want to do the work
necessary to find out." Science makes progress by people who are not
satisfied with ignorance and are willing to do the work necessary to
dispel it.
>
> No they should be encouraged to follow the evidence wherever it leads,
> which is what they've been doing ever since biology could be called
> such. The ID people are emphatically *not* doing this. They're doing
> the opposite. They're starting at the conclusion and then outright
> LYING about the evidence to desperately make it "fit" their preordained
> conclusion. This isn't science. It's delusion.
>
> Next question:
> 3. The Rules of Science - Who determines the rules of science? Are these
> rules written in stone? Is it mandatory that scientific explanations
> only appeal to matter and energy operating by unbroken natural laws (a
> principle known as methodological naturalism)?
>
Before the invention of the scientific method, there was a system of
inquiry into the workings of the physical universe that DID assume the
participation of a supernatural being. It was called "religion", and gave
us useful notions like "mental illness is caused by demonic possession",
and "unusual weather patterns are caused by witches in the form of young
girls and old women, who must be executed", and "the Earth is the
center of Creation", and "It is not possible that life exists elsewhere in
Creation, and anyone who doubts that must be executed".
The birth of science was the idea of assuming that the natural world is as
it appears to be, and that there is no deity using magic to make things
happen.
> The ID morons delight in asking how new information can be added to the
> genome (see later) but never can they seem to drum up the courage to ask
> "How does religion provide us with any new useful information at all?"
> The *fact* is that religion has **NEVER** added to our knowledge. What
> has worked and continues to work is dependable, repeated scientific
> investigation, which has a proven track record of revealing nature's
> secrets and turning that knowledge into benefits which no amount of
> prayer, blind belief, worship, church attendance has ever provided.
>
> Next question:
> 4. Biologyļæ½s Information Problem - How do we account for the complex
> information-rich patterns in biological systems? What is the source of
> that information?
>
random changes followed by the elimination of changes that weren't
helpful for further propagation. Is that really so hard?
> Since this has been more than adequately explained by the biologists:
> http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/dawkinschallenge.htm the ID people
> clear are setting up a straw man for no other reason than they get to
> knock it down. Whilst they're playing their childish games, real
> scientists are finding real answers.
>
> Next question:
> 5. Molecular Machines - Do any structures in the cell resemble machines
> designed by humans? How do we account for such structures?
>
PZ's answer to this would be hard to improve upon.
> This is a classic example of begging the question. The IDiots use the
> term "machine" to imply design and then conclude that it was designed
> because it's a "machine". No! In a universe where the same laws of
> physics apply all over as far as we can tell, it makes no difference if
> evolution is doing the "designing" or humans are building things. The
> same rules apply in both instances, therefore both humans and evolution
> have to follow those rules if they're to make something work. It really
> is that simple.
>
> Next question:
boring...
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
ilbe...@gmail.com
> Were answered by the NCSE:http://ncselegacy.org/creationism/analysis/10-answers-to-jonathan-wel...
>
> The latest version (which is really no different from the original
>
> Here's the latest version of the dumbest questions ever asked:http://tinyurl.com/yar9uq5
>
> Sean McDowell is quite clearly the most unimaginative and pedantically
> ignorant person ever. Here are his questions:
>
> 1. Design Detection - If nature, or some aspect of it, is
> intelligently designed, how could we tell?
>
> The only way to tell design is to have something with which to compare
> it. We can tell a Lamborghini Murcielago:http://tinyurl.com/yfujjdb
All your premises/retorts are based on misconceptions or
irrationality such as the explanation for fine tuning by saying ' if
we werent here we wouldnt be asking ' . That in no way addresses the
scientific fact that these razor edge precise physics constants DO
exist and are being SUSTAINED all the time ...some so precise that the
critical tolerance is as much as 120 decimal place precision Instead
of skirting around the issue , make a direct comment dealing with the
over 100 life enabling constants which are ALL required for us to be
here and which are all required to work collaboratively with one
another so each can exist. Tell us how 'nat
ilbe...@gmail.com
>
> The latest version (which is really no different from the original
>
> Here's the latest version of the dumbest questions ever asked:http://tinyurl.com/yar9uq5
>
> Sean McDowell is quite clearly the most unimaginative and pedantically
> ignorant person ever. Here are his questions:
>
> 1. Design Detection - If nature, or some aspect of it, is
> intelligently designed, how could we tell?
>
> The only way to tell design is to have something with which to compare
> it. We can tell a Lamborghini Murcielago:http://tinyurl.com/yfujjdb
The rebuttals you make arent very sensible or rational. For the Fine
Tuning issue, you dont directly deal with the Physics Constants
directly, and instead say ' if we werent here we wouldnt be asking
' . Thats running from the scientific fact that there ARE over 100
razor edge precise Physics Constants which some are to the 120th
decimal place critical tolerance. Instead of not wanting a personal
Creator to exist and making excuses , tell us how Natural Causes gave
us these Physics Constants and how Natural causes sustain them in
perfect equilibrium . Atheism could never provide adequate answers
to such well know scientific confirmed facts . I used to follow the
religion of denial (atheism) but had to start being honest with
myself eventually .
haiku jones
wrote:
> ' . Thats running from the scientific fact that there ARE over 100
> razor edge precise Physics Constants
"over 100 razor edge precise Physics Constants", eh?
Well, at least you're down from "250-plus razor edge
precise physics constants".
But you still can't name even ten.
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
And by the way...name me a physical constant that is defined
to 120 decimal places:
Haiku Jones
Tim Miller
> All your premises/retorts are based on misconceptions or
> irrationality
There goes ANOTHER set of perfectly good Irony Meters...
Budikka666
Unmet challenge #1
The challenge I offered you in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/nubnxr
on May 11th 2009, only to see you RUN AWAY.
Unmet challenge #2
Provide *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation. Not Bible
quotes. Not quotes from creationists or atheists or evolutionists.
Not divine revelation. Not juvenile unsupported ignorant assertions.
Not chants of 'no it isn't!'. Not counter challenges when you haven't
even met ours, but *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation.
Unmet challenge #3
Provide evidence that shows how DNA is the work of a creator. Show us
this evidence and explain how it demonstrates a creator.
Unmet challenge #4
Support claims that bacteria have never arisen from anything other
than bacteria/life has never arisen from anything but life.
Unmet challenge #5
Provide evidence in support of the creationist claim that information
cannot be added to a genome.
Unmet challenge #6
Define scientifically what the "genetic boundaries" are: specifically
what the mechanism is which (according to creationist claims) prevents
one species from evolving into another species over time.
Unmet Challenge #7
Provide your scientific evidence (as opposed to your LYING,
unsupported bullshit, which has been refuted repeatedly) to support
your creationist claim that life cannot arise from organic chemistry,
when scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that the truth is quite
to the contrary
Unmet Challenge #8
Prove that there's a god out there waiting to judge me when I die.
Otherwise you and your creationist fundie ilk are nothing but pathetic
LIARS and FRAUDS.
Unmet Challenge #9
Prove that we have a soul. Demonstrate scientifically where it is and
what its purpose is.
Unmet Challenge #10
Prove that this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally
died and that he came back to life and went to Heaven.
Here's a list of the strongest advocates of creation on Usenet WHO
HAVE FLED one or more of these challenges:
Chicken Adman
Chicken Andrew
Chicken Brother Ted
Chicken Codebreaker
Chicken Curtjester1
Chicken Duke
Chicken Gabriel
Chicken I'll Be Bauck
Chicken Pastor Dave
Let's face it, NOT A SINGLE creationist on Usenet has been able to
find the guts to face these challenges. This fictional god of theirs
has deserted every one of these liars and frauds That's what a sad,
pathetic and vacuous bunch of lousy, low-life scum they are.
Case closed. End of story. End of You.
Budikka
Budikka666
Ralph
He did you ignorant moron, when he said if it weren't so we wouldn't be
asking. Damn, you're stupid.
Free Lunch
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Nov 14, 12:13�pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
...
>> Clearly the IDiot creationists are behind on their science reading -
>> which isn't surprising since their scientific endeavors stopped with
>> the Bible.
>>
>> They're morons. �End of story. �Case closed.
>>
>> Budikka
>
>All your premises/retorts are based on misconceptions or
>irrationality such as the explanation for fine tuning by saying ' if
>we werent here we wouldnt be asking ' . That in no way addresses the
>scientific fact that these razor edge precise physics constants DO
>exist and are being SUSTAINED all the time ...some so precise that the
>critical tolerance is as much as 120 decimal place precision Instead
>of skirting around the issue , make a direct comment dealing with the
>over 100 life enabling constants which are ALL required for us to be
>here and which are all required to work collaboratively with one
>another so each can exist. Tell us how 'nat
Show your work. You need to back up your claims about fine tuning.
Ken
> Well, at least you're down from "250-plus razor edge
> precise physics constants".
>
> But you still can't name even ten.
>
> Haiku Jones
Let alone provide any evidence of why any one of them can't be changed
or be different.
One of them is the orbit of Uranus...probably it needs to be there to
intercept any invading Klingon Birds of Prey
johnbee
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:b01c95da-c9c0-4182...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Budikka>>
Do you actually think that showing conclusively that eyes are not
irreducibly complex does not make sense? Oh dear, you might just possibly
be a person who wants things to be much more difficult than they actually
are.
Irreducible complexity is one of the basic tenets of the anti-science lobby;
they want to shake the acceptance of science because they know for certain,
as I do, that science knowledge is a danger to the acceptance of religious
miraculous explanations of nature.
That nonsensical notion 'irreducible complexity' is supposed to mean that
in an organ, any reduction in complexity will render the organ functionless.
The eye is most commonly cited as an example.
People who think they know science bend over backwards to try to 'explain'
by using all sorts of scientific sounding words and possible evolutionary
diversions. It is far better accomplished by demonstrating that a cat's
eyes are very useful to it, though less complex that an animal with eyes
that can move.
To a person to whom that is too difficult to understand, explain that their
eyes would retain much of their functionality even if they lost completely
the complexity of being varied in colour.
I could go on quite a lot on those lines. Trying to give an answer to
irreducible complexity by quoting things learned in a science class
obscures the fact that it is garbage and baloney.