If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   List of the ten most outrageous Creationists' claims to counter scientific theories. Basically, it all boils down to "Science can't explain 'X' 100%, therefore Jesus riding on a Raptor"   (io9.com) divider line 289
    More: Stupid, logical possibility, raptor, counter scientific theories, second law of thermodynamics, rocky planet, complex systems, biblical literalism, biological systems  
•       •       •

9236 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Dec 2012 at 10:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



289 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-06 07:23:38 PM  

Jsin82: randomjsa: You fail at this i09

How about the craters on the moon being created by the same forces that caused Noah's flood? Yes, you read that right, there is a 'well respected' creationist contributor to conservopedia who explains the craters on the moon... As being caused by the flood.

How you say? The force of the earth splitting open along the ridges under the ocean. There was water under the crust and the pressure was enough that when the earth split open it propelled water with enough force to reach escape velocity, creating chunks of ice, that then hit the moon and caused craters. He's quite certain that if you look around the moon long enough you will even find bits of fossilized sea life.

Oh there's a whole hell of a lot more stupid from that same guy that goes along with that, but I think that's enough.

WTH???? A randomJSA post that's not idiotic? Oh wait.. (checks tab).. I'm in the geek not politics tab, carry on.

/still amazed


I've seen this with some of the other trolls as well.

I suspect that they have more than one account - one for posting trolltastic derp and another for proper posting. Sometimes they forget which one they are logged in as.
 
2012-12-06 07:26:46 PM  

kg2095: Jsin82: randomjsa: You fail at this i09

How about the craters on the moon being created by the same forces that caused Noah's flood? Yes, you read that right, there is a 'well respected' creationist contributor to conservopedia who explains the craters on the moon... As being caused by the flood.

How you say? The force of the earth splitting open along the ridges under the ocean. There was water under the crust and the pressure was enough that when the earth split open it propelled water with enough force to reach escape velocity, creating chunks of ice, that then hit the moon and caused craters. He's quite certain that if you look around the moon long enough you will even find bits of fossilized sea life.

Oh there's a whole hell of a lot more stupid from that same guy that goes along with that, but I think that's enough.

WTH???? A randomJSA post that's not idiotic? Oh wait.. (checks tab).. I'm in the geek not politics tab, carry on.

/still amazed

I've seen this with some of the other trolls as well.

I suspect that they have more than one account - one for posting trolltastic derp and another for proper posting. Sometimes they forget which one they are logged in as.


Then there is BOOZE.

/booze
 
2012-12-06 07:28:21 PM  

RedVentrue: I drunk what: Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, it's IDW, once again jumping into a religion vs science thread to preach about his personal definitions of reality and the supernatural (which change every time he posts), twist everything everyone says so he can mock it and insult people no matter how civil they were being to him, and take five posts to "answer" one question with responses that neither answer the question nor make any sense.

I see Keizer_Ghidorah is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

omeganuepsilon: Heh, there's a reason I can't see his posts.

I see omeganuepsilon is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions: 

i just want everyone to know, that i had IDW on ignore before it was cool, so all you posers need to quick attention whoring

hey guys let's talk about Science!

anyone here wanna talk about science...?

Okay. What do you want to talk about science?


And you're requesting further discussion from him? Ah well, can't say you weren't warned, I've done my duty.
 
2012-12-06 07:32:14 PM  

omeganuepsilon: RedVentrue: I drunk what: Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, it's IDW, once again jumping into a religion vs science thread to preach about his personal definitions of reality and the supernatural (which change every time he posts), twist everything everyone says so he can mock it and insult people no matter how civil they were being to him, and take five posts to "answer" one question with responses that neither answer the question nor make any sense.

I see Keizer_Ghidorah is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

omeganuepsilon: Heh, there's a reason I can't see his posts.

I see omeganuepsilon is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions: 

i just want everyone to know, that i had IDW on ignore before it was cool, so all you posers need to quick attention whoring

hey guys let's talk about Science!

anyone here wanna talk about science...?

Okay. What do you want to talk about science?

And you're requesting further discussion from him? Ah well, can't say you weren't warned, I've done my duty.


Do I enjoy punishment?

Have you noticed he hasn't responded?

Am I the bigger troll, or is he?
 
2012-12-06 07:42:36 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: aerojockey: TFA misstates the "irreducible complexity" argument. It's not that all mutations are bad, it's that certain complex structures are worse than useless if you simplify them in any way, and thus intermediate forms (and therefore full forms) would never evolve. The idea itself isn't ridiculous. The ridiculous thing is that we've never actually observed any such structures, yet creation science nuts keep bringing it up.

Well, the failure of all of the supposed examples of irreducibly complex is certainly part of the problem with the "irreducible complexity" argument, but the argument has bigger conceptual problems: Namely that it does not account for alternate functions of intermediate phenotypes, and that it ignores the possibility of "scaffolding," i.e. that other supporting genes and or structures assisted the evolution of a trait, then disappeared after they were no longer needed. "Irreducible complexity" tends to be the biological analog of claiming that it's impossible, in principle, to construct a block arch.


All true, IMO, but that doesn't make the idea ridiculous. It just makes it an idea that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
 
2012-12-06 07:46:51 PM  

aerojockey: Devil's Advocate:

TFA misstates the "irreducible complexity" argument. It's not that all mutations are bad, it's that certain complex structures are worse than useless if you simplify them in any way, and thus intermediate forms (and therefore full forms) would never evolve. The idea itself isn't ridiculous. The ridiculous thing is that we've never actually observed any such structures, yet creation science nuts keep bringing it up.

For that matter, irreducible complexity theory doesn't necessarily imply a Creator. An irreducibly complex structure could have been bred into an organism millions of years ago by bored aliens on a research mission trolling the sentient beings who would someday evolve.

[NOTE: Experience on Fark has taught me that, even though I am playing Devil's advocate, and even though I called some people Creation nuts: a bunch of atheist types are going to get severe butthurt over this because apparently even conceding small, insignificant points, like saying irreducible complexity is not by itself a ridiculous idea, makes me into an Evangelical Jesus-pusher.]


The irreducible complexity argument is quite easily disproven. Flagella on sperm are "irreducibly complex". Not true, other organisms have flagella with only one central protein filament as well as fewer outer filaments. These "broken" flagella work just fine for the organisms or cells that have them.

Eyes have developed independently multiple times. A simple patch of photosensitive cells on the surface of an organism can be a significant advantage to the organism. It is not a broken eye at all, although it is not an eye as we would think of it in a human or mammal.

I'm sure there are others.
 
2012-12-06 07:58:17 PM  

RedVentrue: Am I the bigger troll, or is he?


You.
 
2012-12-06 08:14:38 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: RedVentrue: Am I the bigger troll, or is he?

You.


Thank you, thank you.

*Applause*
 
2012-12-06 08:17:06 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: RedVentrue: Am I the bigger troll, or is he?

You.


Ya know what's really warped?

I like to troll in the geek tab, but I'm serious in the politics tab.
 
2012-12-06 08:58:10 PM  

RedVentrue: Have you noticed he hasn't responded?


Will, you did ask him to talk about science. In all fairness, he's probably still throwing up.
 
2012-12-06 09:14:12 PM  

thurstonxhowell: MBrady: That's why philosophic scientists come up with theories first, and let them be proved by other scientists.

Fixing the level of confusion that led to this statement would require a college courserepeating high school, at minimum.


FTFY

aerojockey: Devil's Advocate:

TFA misstates the "irreducible complexity" argument. It's not that all mutations are bad, it's that certain complex structures are worse than useless if you simplify them in any way, and thus intermediate forms (and therefore full forms) would never evolve. The idea itself isn't ridiculous. The ridiculous thing is that we've never actually observed any such structures, yet creation science nuts keep bringing it up.

For that matter, irreducible complexity theory doesn't necessarily imply a Creator. An irreducibly complex structure could have been bred into an organism millions of years ago by bored aliens on a research mission trolling the sentient beings who would someday evolve.

[NOTE: Experience on Fark has taught me that, even though I am playing Devil's advocate, and even though I called some people Creation nuts: a bunch of atheist types are going to get severe butthurt over this because apparently even conceding small, insignificant points, like saying irreducible complexity is not by itself a ridiculous idea, makes me into an Evangelical Jesus-pusher.]


That little bit there is why what you brought up is essentially pointless.

And I see that the Selection/Confirmation Bias Troll has made his appearance so here's this:

Originally posted by Ishkur, with modifications by me.

I see IDW is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

IDW is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached) or
3) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which includes one or more of the following: a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this 3 year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the wason selection test with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually concluded that everyone was wrong.

It's part of his technique to constantly assume Authoritarian control. He gets off on giving people challenges and quests with no point other than so he can withhold the non-existent answers from them (like his "True Definition of Nature" theory -- he poses this riddle to everyone but there's no answer. He just enjoys watching people struggle, as evidenced by his refusal to accept or debate the basic dictionary definition of the word). It's the old schoolyard power trip: "I know something you don't and I won't tell you what it is".

That he's been doing this schtick for so long is an indication that he will never stop and there's nothing new to be garnered from him, like he's stuck in a perpetual feedback loop, recycling the same arguments in every thread pertinent to his special brand of Christian theology (he's probably already posted the Wason test that he so infamously failed at solving many years ago. It's his way of dealing with the embarrassment by mocking it).

Despite the fact that he frequently loses these discussions, he'll continue posting them as if they're unsolvable, ignoring repeated and consistent replies defeating them. He has never been the type to swallow his pride and admit when he's wrong so you'll never get anywhere with him (and he'll always mock you if you try). It is very likely that he has NPD and people replying to him on Fark is how he strokes his ego so he can never stop no matter how many humiliating threads send him down in flames.

In short: He is a complete and total waste of your god damn time. Reply at your peril; I suggest ignore.
 
2012-12-06 09:19:12 PM  
Originally posted by Ishkur, with modifications by me.

I see IDW is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

IDW is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached) or
3) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which includes one or more of the following: a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this 3 year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the wason selection test with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually concluded that everyone was wrong.

It's part of his technique to constantly assume Authoritarian control. He gets off on giving people challenges and quests with no point other than so he can withhold the non-existent answers from them (like his "True Definition of Nature" theory -- he poses this riddle to everyone but there's no answer. He just enjoys watching people struggle, as evidenced by his refusal to accept or debate the basic dictionary definition of the word). It's the old schoolyard power trip: "I know something you don't and I won't tell you what it is".

That he's been doing this schtick for so long is an indication that he will never stop and there's nothing new to be garnered from him, like he's stuck in a perpetual feedback loop, recycling the same arguments in every thread pertinent to his special brand of Christian theology (he's probably already posted the Wason test that he so infamously failed at solving many years ago. It's his way of dealing with the embarrassment by mocking it).

Despite the fact that he frequently loses these discussions, he'll continue posting them as if they're unsolvable, ignoring repeated and consistent replies defeating them. He has never been the type to swallow his pride and admit when he's wrong so you'll never get anywhere with him (and he'll always mock you if you try). It is very likely that he has NPD and people replying to him on Fark is how he strokes his ego so he can never stop no matter how many humiliating threads send him down in flames.

In short: He is a complete and total waste of your god damn time. Reply at your peril; I suggest ignore.
 
2012-12-06 09:27:56 PM  
*begins the a slow clap*

Magnificent.

It's what several of us in this thread think of IDW, and yes, reality is not a democracy, but occasionally that many people are correct.
 
2012-12-06 10:34:00 PM  

kg2095: I've seen this with some of the other trolls as well.

I suspect that they have more than one account - one for posting trolltastic derp and another for proper posting. Sometimes they forget which one they are logged in as.


If it helps your fragile little world view to think things like this then go right ahead. I'm completely consistent on this sort of thing.
 
2012-12-06 11:56:13 PM  

jso2897: compulsion to defend whatever superstitions you embra


Now hold up a second buddy... I understand the point you're trying to make, but you're seriously lacking nuance.

His Stalin example wasn't a problem... he could have also mentioned Pol Pot or Mao... plenty of people died because of a certain small red book - which did outline atheism as de jure....

Just hear me out for a minute...

Tamil Tigers rise to power...

Now it's not convenient that they were also Atheists and are often credited with inventing the modern suicide bombing....

You can also look at the Shining Path...

Now there's a lot of communist/atheist Maost rebel type groups out there... atheism is linked up conceptually with Marxist/Leninist teachings on purpose...

For full disclosure I AM a communist, I am a very liberal 4th international communist who has no interest in policing religion - but that makes me a MINORITY amongst communists, not the general rule. I left the communist party of New York, because I'd had enough of their war on religion - such is life.

You can say, arguably, that no one has killed anyone over Atheisms "holy books" if you define holy books in a certain way - but certainly various manifestos and such might qualify. But most of your arguments are, unfortunately, easily countered.

I have to go back to your initial detractor - zealousness gone amok is a problem for ANY philosophy - and atheism is not immune to the sort of criticism you're implying, it just isn't. That doesn't mean that religions haven't done terrible terrible things... they certainly have, but there have also been many wars fought over Pepper, Salt, and Coffee... that doesn't make spices or caffeinated bevrages good or bad...

It does show a proclivity for violence amongst the human condition. But I don't think anyone is arguing that humanity isn't, or hasn't been, wrestling with it's tendency towards war since time immemorial.

Saying .... I don't know, that old chestnut, that Vegetarianism is linked to genocide - viz; Pol Pot and Hitler being genocidal and vegetarian is definitely stupid. But trying to deny atheism in hard line communism is a losing battle, because it's right in there. I have a copy of the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital LITERALLY within arms reach... but the anti-religious sentiment of Marx and later authors is a problem that revolutionary socialism has had, and continues to struggle with. I don't think such things are necessary - I personally believe that state worship isn't better than... any other kind honestly, nor do I think a system of economics should dictate such but Marx and Lenin DID believe that.

The theory has come a long way - people who only talk about those authors, and nothing more modern, usually missing out on some great stuff by Weber and even some contemporary authors on communism are missing out. It's like trying to have an honest opinion about Capitalism - but then prefacing by saying you will not discuss anything more modern than Locke's work... it's silly, but that's usually what's happening.

I realize this is long winded... and I doubt you read the whole thing. But just... change your argument. You have a point, or even half a point, and it can be unpacked. But right now, it's just not nuanced enough to actually be true or defensible.

Just my two cents...

/Really not trying to mess with you, honestly my opinions.
 
2012-12-07 12:25:47 AM  

douchebag/hater: I say this as an ex-believer:

STFU about the 'Jesus on a dinosauer' meme.

It's boring and stupid.'

As for atheists: STFU, also. People believe things, let them believe what they want.
You are not better for your supposed enlightenment in the way you treat and your attitude toward the religious.
You are giving 'tolerance' a bad name.

In fact you are just as bad, if not worse, than most fundamentalists.

And btw: whenTF are you gonna start making 'Mohammed on a dinosaur' comments?
What's wrong? Chickenshiat?


You are a terrible troll.
 
2012-12-07 12:31:06 AM  
Any theory brought forth by individuals that make life and death decisions based on their conversations with invisible people is by default nonsense.
 
2012-12-07 01:10:47 AM  

kregh99: Any theory brought forth by individuals that make life and death decisions based on their conversations with invisible people is by default nonsense.


So I... shouldn't listen to my Oncologist over the phone?
 
2012-12-07 01:32:18 AM  

wildsnowllama: kregh99: Any theory brought forth by individuals that make life and death decisions based on their conversations with invisible people is by default nonsense.

So I... shouldn't listen to my Oncologist over the phone?


I bet you think you're clever.
 
2012-12-07 02:50:27 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I'm not blind to scientific fact and so I believe in what science calls evolution, but still, there is one thing I wonder about. The laws of physics and nature. How did they come to be? Who or what ensures that they stay in force and cannot be broken?

Listen that you might learn.


Thanx for the link, I did listen to the whole thing :-)
 
2012-12-07 08:13:51 AM  

RedVentrue: Have you noticed he hasn't responded?


you know IDW has other things to do than post on Fark

1.bp.blogspot.com

omeganuepsilon: Ah well, can't say you weren't warned, I've done my duty.


that's right, you contributed your rotsky troll to this thread, good job skippy

you get a sticker

quick = quit, for any of you morans (like omega) that can't figure out what people meant to type...

i just want everyone to know that i was correcting farker's typos before it was cool, everyone pay attention to me!!!1!

RedVentrue: Okay. What do you want to talk about science?


in the battle against Religion who is winning?

has any science occurred in this thread or article that merits a discussion? i'm game
 
2012-12-07 08:29:47 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Ah well, can't say you weren't warned, I've done my duty.


starting sentences with interjections and using double negatives is bad grammar

I've done my duty.

/sorry pet peeve
//And you're requesting further discussion from him?

he can't even understand basic logic:

upload.wikimedia.org

omeganuepsilon: But which card would you flip?


can anyone help this idiot out? friday13, Keizer_Ghidorah, Raharu, omeganuepsilon, Ishkur

...anyone? bueller??

friday13:
And I see that the Selection/Confirmation Bias Troll

just to prove to everyone here that you know what these words mean (and that you're using them correctly), present your evidence to support this statement, and feel free to elaborate on how IDW qualifies for such things

go ahead lad, take your time

but don't worry about lying, i haven't seen Dimensio in this thread yet, you're safe for now
 
2012-12-07 08:30:55 AM  
third p0st reserved
 
2012-12-07 08:57:19 AM  
Oh Look its IDW popping in on a day old thread trying to look smart by getting the last word.


Well you can Have it IDW. Good Luck with that.
 
2012-12-07 09:18:42 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Who or what ensures that they stay in force and cannot be broken?


The Architect

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: How did they come to be?


Design - Spoken, by The Word


i.qkme.me
 
2012-12-07 10:29:46 AM  

Raharu: Oh Look its IDW popping in on a day old thread trying to look smart by getting the last word.


Well you can Have it IDW. Good Luck with that.


I REALLY need to watch that movie. It looks very good.
 
2012-12-07 10:42:01 AM  

friday13: Raharu: Oh Look its IDW popping in on a day old thread trying to look smart by getting the last word.


Well you can Have it IDW. Good Luck with that.

I REALLY need to watch that movie. It looks very good.


It was pretty fun to watch... not like the BEST telling of Merlin's story, but like in the top 5 for sure.
 
2012-12-07 11:51:21 AM  

kg2095: Jsin82: randomjsa: You fail at this i09

How about the craters on the moon being created by the same forces that caused Noah's flood? Yes, you read that right, there is a 'well respected' creationist contributor to conservopedia who explains the craters on the moon... As being caused by the flood.

How you say? The force of the earth splitting open along the ridges under the ocean. There was water under the crust and the pressure was enough that when the earth split open it propelled water with enough force to reach escape velocity, creating chunks of ice, that then hit the moon and caused craters. He's quite certain that if you look around the moon long enough you will even find bits of fossilized sea life.

Oh there's a whole hell of a lot more stupid from that same guy that goes along with that, but I think that's enough.

WTH???? A randomJSA post that's not idiotic? Oh wait.. (checks tab).. I'm in the geek not politics tab, carry on.

/still amazed

I've seen this with some of the other trolls as well.

I suspect that they have more than one account - one for posting trolltastic derp and another for proper posting. Sometimes they forget which one they are logged in as.


No, he really is this way. You may not agree with his politics (I know I sure as hell don't) but he is consistent in his support of evolutionary science.
 
2012-12-07 11:55:37 AM  

I drunk what: has any science occurred in this thread or article that merits a discussion? i'm game


Here's my thoughts on 1-10.

1. Rocks move around over time, but leave evidence of being disturbed when they do. Examples in the story sound like hoaxing. Science scores a point here.

2. Biology and stars are not bound to the 2nd. Neither side can claim to know why. No one scores a point.

3. The speed of light has indeed seemed to change over time. Probably relative to whatever the gravity/relativity effects were in proportion to the size of the universe at the time. Creationists can't prove 6kya, neither can Sciencists prove 13.7bya. 0 points.

4. Sciencists have pretty well proven evolution. Point goes to Sciencists.

5. We've seen stars in various stages of formation in nebulas. Point goes to Sciencists.

6. Stars and biology are not bound by the 2nd law, therefore the 2nd is at least partially crap. No proof of God being the reason, though. 0 points.

7. Cart before the horse. Sciencists +1

8. C14 dating is affected by environmental conditions. Creationists get a point.

9. Neither side can prove a damn thing here. Philisophical argument. 0 points.

10. No one witnessed and documented the formation of GC. 0 points.
 
2012-12-07 12:05:17 PM  

RedVentrue: Sciencists


is this what happens when a scientician gets demoted?

/that would certainly explain a lot
 
2012-12-07 12:10:44 PM  

RedVentrue: 3. The speed of light has indeed seemed to change over time. Probably relative to whatever the gravity/relativity effects were in proportion to the size of the universe at the time. Creationists can't prove 6kya, neither can Sciencists prove 13.7bya. 0 points


They have good evidence using more than just the speed of light for it's age being within .11billion years. In other words, ~13.59-13.81 billion years. So yeah, we're pretty damned sure. Point for science.
 
2012-12-07 12:13:57 PM  

RedVentrue: Here's my thoughts on 1-10.


are you using the same items-order from TFA? or from some list made up in the thread (if so please quote it)?
 
2012-12-07 12:26:19 PM  

I drunk what: RedVentrue: Here's my thoughts on 1-10.

are you using the same items-order from TFA? or from some list made up in the thread (if so please quote it)?


Same as TFA.
 
2012-12-07 12:28:40 PM  

friday13: RedVentrue: 3. The speed of light has indeed seemed to change over time. Probably relative to whatever the gravity/relativity effects were in proportion to the size of the universe at the time. Creationists can't prove 6kya, neither can Sciencists prove 13.7bya. 0 points

They have good evidence using more than just the speed of light for it's age being within .11billion years. In other words, ~13.59-13.81 billion years. So yeah, we're pretty damned sure. Point for science.


Assuming we know the rate of expansion over the entire period. That's a big assumption.
 
2012-12-07 12:38:43 PM  
TFA recap:

1. Humans and dinosaurs co-existed

Quite obviously, creationists aren't able to gloss over the fact that dinosaurs existed. They are clearly a part of the fossil record. But in accordance with the the Bible, creationists insist that they lived contemporaneously to humans. And in fact, they say this explains why dragons play a prominent role in our mythological record. Moreover, creationists claim that human footprints have been found alongside dinosaur tracks at Paluxy, that a petrified hammer was found in Cretaceous rocks, and that some sandal footprints have been found alongside trilobites. Other theories suggest that the Great Flood shook up and redeposited the fossil record so that it appears that dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans arrived. Real evidence and proper interpretation of the fossil record, however, supports the idea that humans first emerged about 200,000 years ago - long after the demise of dinosaurs who went extinct 65 million years ago.

2. Biological systems are too complex to have evolved
This is what biochemist Michael Behe refers to as irreducible complexity. He and other creationists complain that a complex biological system, what is comprised of many interacting parts, would cease to function properly in the event of any alteration. Proponents of intelligent design use this argument to claim that anything less than the complete form of a fully functional biological system (or organ) would not work at all - what would be catastrophically detrimental to an organism. In other words, all mutations have to be bad. The only way for an organism to evolve, the ID defenders say, is for God to guide the process every step of the way. This is silly, of course - organisms are not that fragile. And in fact, evolvability is an indelible aspect to life.

3. We can see light from distant galaxies because the speed of light is not constant
Full size
When we look up at the sky at night, we're actually looking back in time. Given the vastness of the universe, it can take upwards of millions and even billions of years for the light from the most distant celestial objects to reach us. Creationists have a rather convenient explanation for this problem: The universal constants, including the speed of light, are not constant at all. It's quite possible, they surmise, that the speed of light was significantly faster in the past, allowing it to reach the Earth in time for Adam to see it. Others speculate that the Big Bang theory is simply wrong, and that a new 'creationist cosmology' is required to reconcile the apparent anomaly in our observations. As the Creation Answers Handbook claims:

The basic biblical framework, because it comes from the Creator, is nonnegotiable, as opposed to the changing views and models of fallible people seeking to understand the data within that framework (evolutionists also often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did).

Failing this, creationists can always default to the most convenient of explanations: God simply created the light 'on it's way,' so that observers on Earth could see the stars immediately without having to wait. Mmmm, handwaving....

4. All hominid fossils are either fully human or fully ape
Full size
Given that Scripture doesn't provision for evolution, the discovery of ancient human relatives like Australopithecines and Neanderthals is deeply problematic. To explain this away, creationists argue that anthropologists are misreading the fossil record and inaccurately conflating Homo sapiens with other ape species. When it comes to Neanderthals, they say there was no such thing - that these are human remains and not some distant relative. And to explain the morphological differences, creationists simply argue that these were disfigured humans, or people suffering from rickets or arthritis.

5. Stars and planets could have never formed from dust
Full size
According to Abraham Loeb, an astrophysicist from Harvard whose work gets cherry picked by creationists, "The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level." Creationists, like Jonathan Sarfat, have used the arguments of Loeb and others to make their case against the 'nebular hypothesis' - the theory that stars and planets formed over the course of billions of years as gravity brought gasses and particles together to create large masses. It's impossible, they say, for stars to form from nebulas. They claim that terrestrial planets could never congeal from "blobs" of gas and dust, as other objects would constantly provide resistance and disruption. Creationists also argue that the temperature of nebulas following the Big Bang would have been far too hot to facilitate contraction, and that the particles would have pushed away from each other. Other inconsistencies include the sun's axial tilt and the presence of inexplicable gas giants. As Sarfat notes, the best explanation comes from the Bible, "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host." In other words, when in doubt, attribute any kind of natural phenomenon to God. Gotcha.

6. The Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution
The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe and all its systems are progressively moving towards disorder, or entropy. Evolution, on the other hand, implies the improvement of a species - what creationists say is a gross violation of the Second Law. This contradiction, say the creationists, implies that 'evolutionists' are fundamentally wrong in their assumptions - that changes to systems should be regressive and not progressive. What they fail to understand, however, is that the 2LT should only be applied to the universe as a whole, or a closed energy system - which the Earth is most certainly not. But moreover, evolution does not always lead to improvement or increased complexity. Organisms are either well adapted or poorly suited to their environments at any given point in time. And in fact, some species evolve towards too much complexity (i.e. over-specialization) and detrimental adaptations that can lead to outright extinction. Evolution is by no means a process of improvement; it's merely an autonomous system that's driven by variation and selection.

7. The Flood caused the ice age
Like the presence of dinosaurs, the ice age is another conundrum that demands a response - a glacial period that occurred during the last years of the Pleistocene, approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago. Actually, this is an easy one, say the creationists. According to Genesis, most of the Flood water came from underground - what resulted in warmer than average oceans and a significant increase in global snowfall. This gave rise to the ice sheets and the pluvial periods. In addition, large amounts of volcanic dust in the atmosphere blocked crucial sunlight, which caused cooler summers. Moreover, the ice age is a geological phenomenon that can also explain why there's no trace of the Great Flood in the sedimentary record. And on a related note, some creationists contend that the sedimentary layers were caused by the tremendous weight of the flood waters above the ground.

8. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work
For years, scientists have used radiocarbon dating to get a sense of how old ancient objects really are. They're able to do this by exploiting the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials. To sweep this inconvenient truth aside, some creationists claim that radioisotope decay rates aren't constant - and that all processes in nature vary according to different factors. Others argue that carbon dating gives inaccurate results, pointing to changing ratios of 14C in the atmosphere and varying amounts of cosmic rays reaching the Earth - what would affect the amount and ratios of 14C produced. Additionally, some claim that the Genesis Flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance; the water, they argue, buried huge amounts of carbon (which became coal, oil, etc.) lowering the total 12C in the biosphere. Read this to see why they're wrong.

9. DNA is God's signature on all living things

Some creationists argue that DNA, by virtue of the fact that it contains stored information that can be read by humans, must be the result of intelligence. The information within DNA - what facilitates the assembling of proteins and enzymes - wouldn't be coherent if someone, namely God, wasn't scripting it. Creationists clearly need to ramp-up on information theory if they ever hope to understand how complex systems actually work - and how the scientific endeavor is largely an effort to translate the mysteries of the universe into a language we can understand.

10. The Grand Canyon was formed by receding flood waters

The Grand Canyon formed about 70 million years ago - at a time when the dinosaurs still ruled the Earth. This geological time scale is obviously a problem for creationists, who simply respond by suggesting that it was created in one fell swoop when the flood waters retreated (it's amazing how many things can be explained by the Great Flood). Not only is there no evidence to support this claim, it is a geologic impossibility. Moreover, it would have likely created a huge, straight, washed out chasm, and not the intricate and winding Grand Canyon we know today. And of course, creationists are loath to explain why there's only one Grand Canyon on Earth.

---

RedVentrue: Here's my thoughts on 1-10.

1. Rocks move around over time, but leave evidence of being disturbed when they do. Examples in the story sound like hoaxing. Science scores a point here.

2. Biology and stars are not bound to the 2nd. Neither side can claim to know why. No one scores a point.

3. The speed of light has indeed seemed to change over time. Probably relative to whatever the gravity/relativity effects were in proportion to the size of the universe at the time. Creationists can't prove 6kya, neither can Sciencists prove 13.7bya. 0 points.

4. Sciencists have pretty well proven evolution. Point goes to Sciencists.

5. We've seen stars in various stages of formation in nebulas. Point goes to Sciencists.

6. Stars and biology are not bound by the 2nd law, therefore the 2nd is at least partially crap. No proof of God being the reason, though. 0 points.

7. Cart before the horse. Sciencists +1

8. C14 dating is affected by environmental conditions. Creationists get a point.

9. Neither side can prove a damn thing here. Philisophical argument. 0 points.

10. No one witnessed and documented the formation of GC. 0 points.


so i don't have to flip back and forth (don't mind this post)
 
2012-12-07 12:51:51 PM  
my thoughts 1-10

1. as a middle earth creationist, i hate to remind everyone that not all creationists are created equal. hoaxy sounding stuff should be able to verified or debunked (i will gladly hear the evidence for both sides). fossil records do not date things they merely indicated in which order things were buried or deposited. positing that a Great Flood played a role in this process creates a new problem it does not solve anything.

2. i am a fan of ID, however i'm not a big fan of its current incarnation, and behe tends to engage in too much wishful thinking (oversimplification), it is also entirely possible that God designed life sufficient to adapt up to and including any claim made by evolutionists thus far. [i recommed you start with "unlocking the mysteries of life" youtube, and go from there]

i'll continue later, and eventually respond with some thoughts about your thoughts, etc..

gotta jet
 
2012-12-07 12:54:41 PM  

I drunk what: RedVentrue: Sciencists

is this what happens when a scientician gets demoted?

/that would certainly explain a lot


Sciencists believe in the religion of science. Scienticians are their priests, and the concensus of the Scientific Community is their God. They have no room for dissenting opinions.
 
2012-12-07 01:06:32 PM  

I drunk what: my thoughts 1-10

1. as a middle earth creationist, i hate to remind everyone that not all creationists are created equal. hoaxy sounding stuff should be able to verified or debunked (i will gladly hear the evidence for both sides). fossil records do not date things they merely indicated in which order things were buried or deposited. positing that a Great Flood played a role in this process creates a new problem it does not solve anything.

2. i am a fan of ID, however i'm not a big fan of its current incarnation, and behe tends to engage in too much wishful thinking (oversimplification), it is also entirely possible that God designed life sufficient to adapt up to and including any claim made by evolutionists thus far. [i recommed you start with "unlocking the mysteries of life" youtube, and go from there]

i'll continue later, and eventually respond with some thoughts about your thoughts, etc..

gotta jet


I don't dismiss ID. I like science, but I don't make a religion of it. :)
 
2012-12-07 01:58:38 PM  
It amuses me that my big psychoanalysis of Citizen IDW has become a meme of sorts.

It should be posted in every thread. Hell, I bet he has even posted it himself because that's his way of mocking things.
 
2012-12-07 02:06:13 PM  

Researcher: But trying to deny atheism in hard line communism is a losing battle, because it's right in there.


The problem with that argument isn't whether Communism is or is not atheist (and hence its atrocities be directly attributed to atheism), the argument is essentially which is the better belief system based on the fewest number of casualties.

That is a losing argument for both sides because the casualties are heavy and catastrophic and go back eons. That's not a knock on either system, that's just human nature. All systems have blood on their hands.
 
2012-12-07 02:10:32 PM  

Ishkur: It amuses me that my big psychoanalysis of Citizen IDW has become a meme of sorts.

It should be posted in every thread. Hell, I bet he has even posted it himself because that's his way of mocking things.


You'd be right.
 
2012-12-07 02:11:08 PM  

RedVentrue: Biology and stars are not bound to the 2nd.


Sure they are. Stars burn out; living things die. The 2nd in action.
 
2012-12-07 02:27:35 PM  

randomjsa: kg2095: I've seen this with some of the other trolls as well.

I suspect that they have more than one account - one for posting trolltastic derp and another for proper posting. Sometimes they forget which one they are logged in as.

If it helps your fragile little world view to think things like this then go right ahead. I'm completely consistent on this sort of thing.


And he actually came back to respond to someone, it's incredible. I guess you only shiat and run in the politics threads.
 
2012-12-07 02:32:41 PM  

RedVentrue: I drunk what: my thoughts 1-10

1. as a middle earth creationist, i hate to remind everyone that not all creationists are created equal. hoaxy sounding stuff should be able to verified or debunked (i will gladly hear the evidence for both sides). fossil records do not date things they merely indicated in which order things were buried or deposited. positing that a Great Flood played a role in this process creates a new problem it does not solve anything.

2. i am a fan of ID, however i'm not a big fan of its current incarnation, and behe tends to engage in too much wishful thinking (oversimplification), it is also entirely possible that God designed life sufficient to adapt up to and including any claim made by evolutionists thus far. [i recommed you start with "unlocking the mysteries of life" youtube, and go from there]

i'll continue later, and eventually respond with some thoughts about your thoughts, etc..

gotta jet

I don't dismiss ID. I like science, but I don't make a religion of it. :)


Seriously, Don't respond to that shaitfark. You've previously been warned about it upthread.
 
2012-12-07 02:56:48 PM  

Ishkur: It amuses me that my big psychoanalysis of Citizen IDW has become a meme of sorts.

It should be posted in every thread. Hell, I bet he has even posted it himself because that's his way of mocking things.


It was the 2nd thing he posted, switching out his name for yours, and then he went on to do the same with other people including myself.

I suspect your NPD guess is spot on. Several times in threads where your wall of text has been posted he's gone on to do the exact things you describe.

He simply can't help himself. I think that is the saddest part too.
 
2012-12-07 03:15:25 PM  

Ishkur: RedVentrue: Biology and stars are not bound to the 2nd.

Sure they are. Stars burn out; living things die. The 2nd in action.


Stars create higher orders of elements that survive them. If not for stars the universe would consist of H and He.

Biology does the same with compounds.
 
2012-12-07 03:20:37 PM  

Ishkur: RedVentrue: Biology and stars are not bound to the 2nd.

Sure they are. Stars burn out; living things die. The 2nd in action.


Individuals die, but populations of life and stars create higher order materials over time and defy the 2nd, or we would consist only of H and He.
 
2012-12-07 03:37:31 PM  

Raharu: Ishkur: It amuses me that my big psychoanalysis of Citizen IDW has become a meme of sorts.

It should be posted in every thread. Hell, I bet he has even posted it himself because that's his way of mocking things.

It was the 2nd thing he posted, switching out his name for yours, and then he went on to do the same with other people including myself.

I suspect your NPD guess is spot on. Several times in threads where your wall of text has been posted he's gone on to do the exact things you describe.

He simply can't help himself. I think that is the saddest part too.


...suddenly I want to start a fund to get him the help he so desperately needs...

...wait...it just passed. He's a dick.

/In all seriousness, though. He NEEDS help. SOMEONE must know him; PLEASE get him to the psychiatrist, preferably BEFORE he hurts someone.
 
2012-12-07 03:45:33 PM  

RedVentrue: Stars create higher orders of elements that survive them. If not for stars the universe would consist of H and He.
Biology does the same with compounds.


That's because you're using a too-small sampleset mixed with confirmation bias (and probably apophenia) and applying an all-inclusive principle improperly. One needs to measure the whole Universe when discussing the properties of the whole Universe.

All elements will eventually be pulled apart and evaporate into nothing. The Universe is flattening out into thermodynamic entropy. Since this will occur in the order of googolplex years from now, anything that occurs on the scale of the age of life, or even the age of the Earth, or even the age of the sun or the Milky Way Galaxy, is so ridiculously insignificant next to Universal entropy that any local energy fluctuations are negligible in disproving the 2nd Law.
 
2012-12-07 03:54:09 PM  

RedVentrue: Individuals die, but populations of life and stars create higher order materials over time and defy the 2nd, or we would consist only of H and He.


Considering at the beginning of the Big Bang every point in the Universe was of infinite energy, of infinite density and infinite temperature, and now there are parts in the Universe where there are not, and in the end every point in the Universe will be at -273.15c and all the heat will be efficiently distributed everywhere equally so that there is no work to be done anywhere, the 2nd Law in progress.
 
Displayed 50 of 289 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report