Creation Vs. Evolution - Item 19 - The Best Creationist Arguments
Budikka666
talk.origins.org has a whole glossary of them:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
The best way to deal with creationists is to hit them with evidence
and hit them repeatedly. You see, they have absolutely none. The
Theory of Evolution has 150 years' worth, much of which has been
provided by people who share the same religion as the creationists do!
If you hit them with the evidence and they have absolutely no choice
whatsoever but to clam-up, run away, or change the topic. They've
done all three in this series.
But the fact remains that NOT ONE SINGLE CREATIONIST ON USENET has
been able to post even the first item of scientific evidence for their
side. And what do we have in this series alone?
Item 1: http://tinyurl.com/mnkb94
Item 2: http://tinyurl.com/n9dcfh
Item 3: http://tinyurl.com/kt2exk
Item 4: http://tinyurl.com/mfztxy
Item 5: http://tinyurl.com/n596r7
Item 6: http://tinyurl.com/ncree3
Item 7: http://tinyurl.com/nqufcj
Item 8: http://tinyurl.com/p7vu8u
Item 9: http://tinyurl.com/lxjw29
Item 10: http://tinyurl.com/muapjy
Item 11: http://tinyurl.com/nvdqsz
Item 12: http://tinyurl.com/ovpe85
Item 13: http://tinyurl.com/ltk5fy
Item 14: http://tinyurl.com/loykqv
Item 15: http://tinyurl.com/koarf7
Item 16: http://tinyurl.com/lq5jwg
Item 17: http://tinyurl.com/oyjkpu
Item 18: http://tinyurl.com/qha55o
This isn't my work but the hard work of scientists from all over the
world, all ethnicities, all nationalities, all colors, all religious
persuasions and no religious persuasion.
This proves that creationists LIE when they claim evolution is an
"atheist religion".
Now the creationists have a "movie' coming out which apparently
presents their best arguments. Since we can't find a single
creationist on Usenet to step up to the plate, let's use these
arguments as a proxy, shall we?
Item 19: The evidence for creation
So what does this have to do with the evidence for creation? Well, as
Brian Switek touches on here:
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/09/what_is_your_favorite_transiti.php
He has decided rather than address the limply idiotic creationist
arguments he's going to invite everyone to provide their favorite
transitional form, which is a great response. But I want to go after
the claims of the creationists reported here in the Telegraph
newspaper:
http://tinyurl.com/l388lq
(www.telegraph.co.uk)
Their first argument is that there's no evidence for evolution!
Well 19 items in this series would prove that wrong. But in addition
to this there's 150 years of evidence for evolution - solid scientific
evidence which grows every month, and which has had absolutely no
response from the creationists in terms of counter-evidence. None at
all.
Here's the limp claim they make: "There is no evidence that evolution
has occurred because no transitional forms exist in fossils i.e.
scientists cannot prove with fossils that fish evolved into amphibians
or that amphibians evolved into reptiles, or that reptiles evolved
into birds and mammals. Perhaps becuase [sic] of this a surprising
number of contemporary scientists support the Creation theory."
Surprising number of scientists? This is an outright lie to begin
with. There is a number of scientists, but it isn't surprising. The
only surprising thing is that, given the massive prevalence of
religion throughout the world, why aren't there more scientists
supporting creation/ID if it truly has something to offer? The answer
is that intelligent design has nothing to offer for intelligent
people.
And it makes no difference how many scientists support a given
position; if they cannot offer a shred of evidence for that position,
what difference does it make if it's a relative handful (as it is) or
if it were ten million? The number of believers is irrelevant.
What's relevant is whether those believers can support their belief
with science, and year after year, creationists and ID advocates prove
consistently that they cannot.
Their second argument is a non-starter: "History is too short". This
is based on the lie that Earth isn't ancient enough for evolution to
have occurred. Since they clearly don't have a clue what evolution is
or how it works, one is forced to ponder how they could even make a
claim like this and pretend it's intelligent, but setting that side,
where is their evidence that earth is young? They have no science
showing this, and they've published no scientific papers which show
this!
All the science which has been done - every single shred of it - shows
that Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion
years old. Here's a Christian supporting this in showing how
radiometry works, contrary to the lies of the creationists:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html
The third claim is a show case of 4 bad creationist arguments:
Creationists argue that if the world is as old as evolution claims it
is there would be
1. billions more stone age skeletons than have been found
They offer no explanation as to why. They seem to think that every
single thing which dies leaves a skeleton preserved for us to find
today. They offer no reason why there should be. They love to offer
odds against evolution occurring, but have they ever considered the
odds against something being fossilized and discovered?
It has to be a bony organism or one which has other hard parts, such
as a shell. Invertebrates which have no shell do not preserve well at
all, but even having said that, there are exceptions, as the White
Cliffs of Dover prove:
http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080428101357AAZSa2B
Even if it's an organism which has preservable parts, it still has to
die in a place where fossilization can occur, and be left
undisturbed. Given the predators and scavengers all over the planet,
this itself is unlikely. There are many places which seem to be
antithetical to the preservation of body parts. Consider how many
forest and jungle species we have versus how many aquatic species we
have.
Even if it is preserved, it still has to be discovered.
In short, it's not surprising how few fossils we have found, but how
many we have found, and given that the creationists themselves claim
that there are 800 billion fossils in the Karoo formation:
http://www.rae.org/800Billion.htm
it's quite clear that not only do they not read anything scientific,
the creationists don't even read what other creationists write!
2. many more historical records like cave paintings than have been
found
Again, why? This claim carries the multiple unsupported assumptions
that cave-dwellers did nothing all day but paint, that they used
materials to paint with which were inorganic and preserved well, and
that they painted in areas which were likely to preserve the
pictures. They cannot support any of these assumptions. And this has
nothing to do with evolution or with how old Earth is!
3. a lot more sodium chloride in the sea
Why? This is a truly juvenile assumption for which they offer not a
sliver of scientific support - as usual. here's a refutation of this
claim by Glenn Morton, a creationist who took an honest look at the
evidence and became an evolutionist:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html
4. a lot more sea-floor sediment
Since the oldest seafloor is only 170 million years old, this argument
is worthless, as are all creationist arguments ultimately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle
The creationist claim that things such as the compound eye refute
evolution because there is no way for the accumulation of mutations to
produce something like this, but this unsupported claim was refuted
years ago. In fact, Darwin himself refuted it!
The creationists, of course, outright lie about it: "The eye that
enables some organisms to see in the dark is so complex that no proven
theories for its evolutionary development have yet been put forth. As
the CreationWiki puts it, the Compound Eye “has all of the hallmarks
of intelligent design and defies attempts to explain it through
natural mechanisms”.
Creationwiki, is, of course, a creationist lie mill.
Here's the science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUOpaFVgKPw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb2fjftZrkE
http://darwiniana.org/eyes.htm
Here's the creationist's next claim:
"The Bible uses allegory to explain the creation of the earth. It is a
story, so employs figures of speech and other literary devices to tell
the story of how God created man e.g. Genesis “days” could also be
read as “ages”."
Which would refute their claims made above that Earth is young! LoL!
So the idiot creationists contradict themselves in their own
'arguments"!
But the Bible itself refutes this claim. The Genesis creations tory
uses the word for day (24 hours) and reinforces this claim in many
ways (including the "evening and morning" chant. a period of time
other than a day, no matter how long or short it is, has no evening or
morning). A standard Judaic day starts at sundown and ends at sundown
24 hours later, so yes, the Bible creation days were 24 hours. No,
they were not 'ages".
If you actually read the Bible literally you must accept that Earth is
only some 6,000 years old, since this is what the chronology in
Genesis combined with the chronology in Luke shows.
Unfortunately for creationists, science has utterly refuted any such
claim.
They last "argument' isn't even an argument. Here it is: "* Why? For
what purpose is all of this? Evolutionists have never offered a
satisfactory explanation."
There is no purpose, and this is one of the most bitter charges that
creationists make against the Theory of Evolution, yet here they are
stupidly asking evolutionists to explain why, when they've never made
any such claim! It's the creationists who insist that there's a
purpose - a claim they hypocritically cannot support.
So once again, when the creationists put their best(?!) "arguments" up
for consideration, they only thing they prove is how stupid, ignorant
and clueless they truly are.
Budikka
ed wolf
with a cool mind and a hot heart, as always.
I admire your patience with the willfully dumb.
Thanks
ed
ilbe...@gmail.com
>
> The creationist claim that things such as the compound eye refute
> evolution because there is no way for the accumulation of mutations to
> produce something like this, but this unsupported claim was refuted
> years ago. In fact, Darwin himself refuted it!
>
> The creationists, of course, outright lie about it: "The eye that
> enables some organisms to see in the dark is so complex that no proven
> theories for its evolutionary development have yet been put forth. As
> the CreationWiki puts it, the Compound Eye “has all of the hallmarks
> of intelligent design and defies attempts to explain it through
> natural mechanisms”.
>
> Creationwiki, is, of course, a creationist lie mill.
>
>
> read more »
Still need to know by what natural source or process the 250 physics
constants discovered of our Cosmos appeared all together, and operate
collaboratively so they can exist and so earth can exist so we can
exist ? Still need to know how macro evolution accounts for the 4th
generation (only) Monarch Butterfly leaving on the exact day of the
fall equinox from canada to mexico, then leaving mexico on the exact
day of the spring equinox to make its trip to canada ? Have you
found any atheist websites that address these two things specifically ?
ken
ignored the entire list of questions, but them, as usual posted this
creatiopNUT BULLCRAP
> Still need to know by what natural source or process the 250 physics
> constants discovered of our Cosmos appeared all together, and operate
> collaboratively so they can exist and so earth can exist so we can
> exist ? Still need to know how macro evolution accounts for the 4th
> generation (only) Monarch Butterfly leaving on the exact day of the
> fall equinox from canada to mexico, then leaving mexico on the exact
> day of the spring equinox to make its trip to canada ? Have you
> found any atheist websites that address these two things specifically ?
Why don't you take a college level Physics or a Biology class?
Or maybe just Google it, ya fundy ASSHOLE
Quote the Raven1: "Seriously, I've been on Usenet for 13 years, and
you have to be the
dumbest, most ignorant person I've run across in that time"
Dan Listermann
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a2dcea2-2730-4247...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Still need to know by what natural source or process the 250 physics
constants discovered of our Cosmos appeared all together, and operate
collaboratively so they can exist and so earth can exist so we can
exist ?
These must be secret because you haven't ever been able to enumerate a
single one to us.
Christopher A. Lee
They can't. They pluck these bogus numbers out of their arses.
But in any case his bullshit presumes the universe, laws of physics,
chemistry etc are all there for our benefit. It's a variant on the
anthropic silliness.
Dan Listermann
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:il1ta5h7hm3ps2khg...@4ax.com...
Not to mention a bit of geocentricism as well.
Devils Advocaat
>
> > Here's the creationist's next claim:
> > "The Bible uses allegory to explain the creation of the earth. It is a
> > story, so employs figures of speech and other literary devices to tell
> > the story of how God created man e.g. Genesis “days” could also be
> > read as “ages”."
>
> > Which would refute their claims made above that Earth is young! LoL!
> > So the idiot creationists contradict themselves in their own
> > 'arguments"!
>
> > But the Bible itself refutes this claim. The Genesis creations tory
> > uses the word for day (24 hours) and reinforces this claim in many
> > ways (including the "evening and morning" chant. a period of time
> > other than a day, no matter how long or short it is, has no evening or
> > morning). A standard Judaic day starts at sundown and ends at sundown
> > 24 hours later, so yes, the Bible creation days were 24 hours. No,
> > they were not 'ages".
>
> > If you actually read the Bible literally you must accept that Earth is
> > only some 6,000 years old, since this is what the chronology in
> > Genesis combined with the chronology in Luke shows.
>
> > Unfortunately for creationists, science has utterly refuted any such
> > claim.
>
> > They last "argument' isn't even an
>
>
> read more »
When are you going to list these 250+ constants you keep on about?
Oh ... wait ... you cannot list them.
Because there are only 26 dimensionless fundamental physical
constants, although Martin Rees suggests in his book that there are
just six dimensionless constants.
John Brockbank
< "IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a2dcea2-2730-4247...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Still need to know how macro evolution accounts for the 4th
generation (only) Monarch Butterfly leaving on the exact day of the
fall equinox from canada to mexico, then leaving mexico on the exact
day of the spring equinox to make its trip to canada ? >
You have posted this nonsense several times so I thought someone had better
say something about it. Monarch butterflies do not all leave on an exact
day. They are indeed remarkable animals but their migration patterns have
nothing at all to do with 'macro' evolution. Very large numbers of species
migrate. The evolutionary reason this developed is quite obviously because
if they do not travel about to climes and temperatures suitable for their
food and reproduction, they die. The reason for the 'fourth generation'
point, for some of the butterflies, is that adult species only have in some
climates a life span of two months.
It is true that Monarch butterflies are fascinating and like many other
species are studied with great interest. You appear to have come across
them by watching some TV show film not made by a lepidopterist or even a
naturalist of any kind. Pretending to people of limited education that
this is some kind of magic which is inexplicable is doing a great disservice
to the people who might believe the untrue nonsense.
Stick to God, where you are on firm ground, and keep off nature because your
stated opinions are incompatible with nature.
ed wolf
> On Sep 13, 7:44 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> Still need to know by what natural source or process the 250 physics
> constants discovered of our Cosmos appeared all together, and operate
> collaboratively so they can exist and so earth can exist so we can
> exist ?
if you look at the world cross eyed, don t blame it for being
out of focus. There may be some 250 constants or not,
some discovered, some invented, some assumed.
The physical makeup of the universe lead to
your existence. Only if you consider yourself the final
destination of all there is, than your beloved 250 constants
had to "operate collaboratively" to produce "IlBeBauck"
and all the rest. But postulating a "constant operating" is
typical for what you do instead of thinking.
All that was a really hot topic 250 years ago. Do some
reading, than be back.
Still need to know how macro evolution accounts for the 4th
> generation (only) Monarch Butterfly leaving on the exact day of the
> fall equinox from canada to mexico, then leaving mexico on the exact
> day of the spring equinox to make its trip to canada ? Have you
> found any atheist websites that address these two things specifically ?
try some genetics and biology sites, for starters. God did not make
the
butter fly, nor the bumblebees.
Neither did atheists. Why should they know?
Always cross eyed, looking in two wrong directions.
I do like the science bits you keep posting, its just your
ridiculous conclusions that make me shudder.
ed
ken
> On 14 Sep., 17:29, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote: another load of BS
>
> if you look at the world cross eyed, don t blame it for being
> out of focus. There may be some 250 constants or not,
> some discovered, some invented, some assumed.
> The physical makeup of the universe lead to
> your existence. Only if you consider yourself the final
> destination of all there is, than your beloved 250 constants
> had to "operate collaboratively" to produce "IlBeBauck"
> and all the rest. But postulating a "constant operating" is
> typical for what you do instead of thinking.
> All that was a really hot topic 250 years ago. Do some
> reading, than be back
> try some genetics and biology sites, for starters. God did not make
> the
> butter fly, nor the bumblebees.
> Neither did atheists. Why should they know?
> Always cross eyed, looking in two wrong directions.
> I do like the science bits you keep posting, its just your
> ridiculous conclusions that make me shudder.
> ed
Dave keeps on a-provin' to everyone that he's one of the dumbest
mofo's alive today
Tim Miller
> Still need to know by what natural source or process the 250 physics
> constants
Still need to know just WHAT "250 physics constants" you're
talking about...
LOL!!
Rusty Sites
> On 14 Sep., 17:29, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 13, 7:44 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
> snip for brevity
>> Still need to know by what natural source or process the 250 physics
>> constants discovered of our Cosmos appeared all together, and operate
>> collaboratively so they can exist and so earth can exist so we can
>> exist ?
>
> if you look at the world cross eyed, don t blame it for being
> out of focus. There may be some 250 constants or not,
> some discovered, some invented, some assumed.
> The physical makeup of the universe lead to
> your existence. Only if you consider yourself the final
> destination of all there is, than your beloved 250 constants
> had to "operate collaboratively" to produce "IlBeBauck"
> and all the rest.
But it is really as simple as post hoc ergo propter hoc. The logic is
there for all to see.
Devils Advocaat
> ed wolf wrote:
> > On 14 Sep., 17:29, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 13, 7:44 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > snip for brevity
> >> Still need to know by what natural source or process the 250 physics
> >> constants discovered of our Cosmos appeared all together, and operate
> >> collaboratively so they can exist and so earth can exist so we can
> >> exist ?
>
> > if you look at the world cross eyed, don t blame it for being
> > out of focus. There may be some 250 constants or not,
> > some discovered, some invented, some assumed.
> > The physical makeup of the universe lead to
> > your existence. Only if you consider yourself the final
> > destination of all there is, than your beloved 250 constants
> > had to "operate collaboratively" to produce "IlBeBauck"
> > and all the rest.
>
> But it is really as simple as post hoc ergo propter hoc. The logic is
> there for all to see.
>
Budikka
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.
Budikka