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.

(Panda's Thumb)   Recently scientists sequenced the coelacanth genome. Now the creationists have responded in the usual fact-free fashion. Here comes the real science   (pandasthumb.org) divider line 147
    More: Obvious, Discovery Institute, genetic sequence, genomes, Canadian National Exhibition, vertebrates, Answers in Genesis, Darwinian, Earth Science  
•       •       •

6405 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Apr 2013 at 10:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-28 01:55:53 PM

Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.

No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.


That's the funny thing about astronomical odds in an astronomical set of possibilities.  It's actually not all that unlikely that something with a one in a billion chance of happening occurs when you give it hundreds of billions of chances.
 
2013-04-28 01:58:04 PM

Mad Tea Party: Bevets is really gone? Wow, it's the end of an era.


I think he's been gone for a year or two now. He'd been phoning it in for a couple years before that, he'd throw in one or two quotes that had nothing to do with the article and then leave.
 
2013-04-28 02:05:50 PM

The Billdozer: And this is supposed to rock religion how again?


It's not.  People don't do scientific research in order to "rock religion," they do it in order to find out how the world actually works.
If the facts of nature conflict with a person's unsupported beliefs, so much the worse for the beliefs, but that's not why we study those facts.
 
2013-04-28 02:07:42 PM

Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.

No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.



How about, rather than criticizing atheists, you actually tell us what the "real" version of creationism is?  How did "creation" happen?  By what mechanisms did creation occur?
 
2013-04-28 02:12:18 PM

Arumat: Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.

No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.

That's the funny thing about astronomical odds in an astronomical set of possibilities.  It's actually not all that unlikely that something with a one in a billion chance of happening occurs when you give it hundreds of billions of chances.


Either way, that has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, which is a scientific theory regarding the origin of different species. It does not address the origins of life itself, or of the Universe. This is one reason why so many deeply religious people accept it as fact, and only morons don't.
 
2013-04-28 03:26:04 PM

rpm: We have evidence. You have what exactly?


Oh boy, give that boy a cookie! Trot that evidence out then.
Llike the evidence has changed and this is just one example. http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/28/17958218-speed-of-light-ma y-not-be-constant-physicists-say?lite

"How about, rather than criticizing atheists, you actually tell us what the "real" version of creationism is? How did "creation" happen? By what mechanisms did creation occur?"

This thread started out as a creationist bashing thread, then when you get the slightest taste of it back, you want me to answer all your questions for you?
I'm holding a mirror up to your face, not my fault if you don't like the reflection.
Man does not KNOW how the universe was created, at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.
 
2013-04-28 03:33:10 PM

Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.


There's a few, but the debate is now more lively on climatology threads.

hawcian: I think the rumor is that he was politely asked to knock it the fark off because he was click mining


Judging from the link in his profile, and the eviscerated contents of the thread, it looks like he was trying his schtick in a thread at best marginally related, and was politely but firmly discouraged from doing so.
 
2013-04-28 03:38:54 PM

Mad Tea Party: Bevets is really gone? Wow, it's the end of an era.


It's okay, we have Quantum Apostrophe now.

Find him in every space thread.  You'll see.


/plate of 3D-printed shrimp
 
2013-04-28 03:41:23 PM
jso2897:
Either way, that has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, which is a scientific theory regarding the origin of different species. It does not address the origins of life itself, or of the Universe. This is one reason why so many deeply religious people accept it as fact, and only morons don't.

Exactly, and well put.
 
2013-04-28 03:43:04 PM

Kurmudgeon: rpm: We have evidence. You have what exactly?

Oh boy, give that boy a cookie! Trot that evidence out then.
Llike the evidence has changed and this is just one example. http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/28/17958218-speed-of-light-ma y-not-be-constant-physicists-say?lite

"How about, rather than criticizing atheists, you actually tell us what the "real" version of creationism is? How did "creation" happen? By what mechanisms did creation occur?"

This thread started out as a creationist bashing thread, then when you get the slightest taste of it back, you want me to answer all your questions for you?
I'm holding a mirror up to your face, not my fault if you don't like the reflection.
Man does not KNOW how the universe was created, at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.




So, god of the gaps argument? That's the best you can muster? You sir, are no Bevets!
 
2013-04-28 03:43:09 PM
Kurmudgeon:
"How about, rather than criticizing atheists, you actually tell us what the "real" version of creationism is? How did "creation" happen? By what mechanisms did creation occur?"

This thread started out as a creationist bashing thread, then when you get the slightest taste of it back, you want me to answer all your questions for you?
I'm holding a mirror up to your face, not my fault if you don't like the reflection.
Man does not KNOW how the universe was created, at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.



So, you don't like caricatures of creationism, but you refuse to tell us what the real thing is?

Has that strategy proven effective for you in the past?
 
2013-04-28 03:45:57 PM
Mister Peejay:
/plate of 3D-printed shrimp

Repo Man:

Miller was right!
 
2013-04-28 03:46:44 PM

FloydA: Kurmudgeon:
"How about, rather than criticizing atheists, you actually tell us what the "real" version of creationism is? How did "creation" happen? By what mechanisms did creation occur?"

This thread started out as a creationist bashing thread, then when you get the slightest taste of it back, you want me to answer all your questions for you?
I'm holding a mirror up to your face, not my fault if you don't like the reflection.
Man does not KNOW how the universe was created, at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.


So, you don't like caricatures of creationism, but you refuse to tell us what the real thing is?

Has that strategy proven effective for you in the past?




Well, he's not going to defend young Earth creationists, because those people are clearly crazy.
 
2013-04-28 03:55:15 PM

jso2897: Arumat: Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.

No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.

That's the funny thing about astronomical odds in an astronomical set of possibilities.  It's actually not all that unlikely that something with a one in a billion chance of happening occurs when you give it hundreds of billions of chances.

Either way, that has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, which is a scientific theory regarding the origin of different species. It does not address the origins of life itself, or of the Universe. This is one reason why so many deeply religious people accept it as fact, and only morons don't.


I never claimed it was related to Evolution.  He tried to build a straw man and use (his interpretation of) the Bible to bash it.  I turned his point around using science (statistical mathematics in this case) to (hopefully) make him sit down and stfu while adults are talking.  I never claimed that Evolution even attempts to explain the origin of life, and I'm aware it only deals with how that life changed over time after it came into existence.  I'll even help to explain the difference between a scientific theory (a verifiable but not 100% provable explanation for how/why something occurs, supported by evidence gathered from a variety of experimental observations) and a hypothesis (the expected outcome of an experiment defined before that experiment begins, which may or may not be verified by the observations that experiment produces, more akin to the layman's definition of theory as a guess).
 
2013-04-28 03:58:58 PM
RangerTaylor wrote:
"I'm almost considering making myself a Creation shill just for the derptertainment."

If you're going to do that, I've got a well-preserved brain you can have. It's from someone named Abby. Yes, it says "Abby Normal" right here on the label.

/slash
 
2013-04-28 04:00:52 PM

Kurmudgeon: This thread started out as a creationist bashing thread, then when you get the slightest taste of it back, you want me to answer all your questions for you?


The slightly more dignified version of "I TROLL U LOL."
 
rpm
2013-04-28 04:02:08 PM

Kurmudgeon: rpm: We have evidence. You have what exactly?

Oh boy, give that boy a cookie! Trot that evidence out then.


Let's see...
Virtual particles
Sum total of energy of the universe is 0
conservation of dna sequences
prediction and finding of intermediate forms

Evidence changing means hypothesis change. Welcome to science.
Evidence has changed, your book hasn't. Your god is dead.
 
2013-04-28 04:06:41 PM

OneFretAway: The story about the coelacanth genome would have been a lot more interesting and accessible if it hadn't been filtered through some goofy ID perspective.


Here you go: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/science/coelacanth-dna-may-tell-how - fish-learned-to-walk.html?_r=1&
 
2013-04-28 04:06:51 PM

Kurmudgeon: at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.


Just curious, which account of Creation do you have faith in? Genesis 1:1, or Genesis 2:4?
 
2013-04-28 04:07:20 PM

FloydA: Kurmudgeon:
"How about, rather than criticizing atheists, you actually tell us what the "real" version of creationism is? How did "creation" happen? By what mechanisms did creation occur?"

This thread started out as a creationist bashing thread, then when you get the slightest taste of it back, you want me to answer all your questions for you?
I'm holding a mirror up to your face, not my fault if you don't like the reflection.
Man does not KNOW how the universe was created, at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.


So, you don't like caricatures of creationism, but you refuse to tell us what the real thing is?

Has that strategy proven effective for you in the past?


The "real" version of creationism that many creationists believe is that God did it.  We don't know how, we don't know when, and we don't know how long it took.  Why not?  Because we're not God.  As for those who try to "prove" that creation happened or that evolution didn't, they're missing the point, which is that faith requires the belief in something despite the absence of evidence.  If we can prove that God created the universe, we wouldn't need faith anymore.  I used to believe in things like irreducible complexity and whatnot, but I was 15 and didn't know any better.  Science and religion aren't incompatible until you start ignoring science to "prove" religion or you try to use science to disprove the existence of God which, given that He is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent, is pretty much impossible.

I think the United Methodist Church doctrine puts it pretty well:

"We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God's natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world and in determining what is scientific. We preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues and theology from making authoritative claims about scientific issues. We find that science's descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology."
 
2013-04-28 04:12:38 PM
God created plants. A day later he realized that plants need light to live, so he created the sun. Some god he is if he overlooks simple things.

Later he creates males and females of every single species that requires them EXCEPT for humans. Then God wonders who Adam is acting so lonely and forlorn. Adam, God's creation, has to ask God why he didn't make a female human when he made a female for everything else. Only then does God realize "Oh yeah, man needs woman", and creates Lilith from the dust. However, Lilith wanted to be equal and not subservient, so God kicked her out (what, you couldn't do some basic reprogramming?) and knocked out Adam so he could take out a rib (which is weird because we still have an equal number of ribs, unless God put an extra one in Adam for whatever reason) and created Eve from it, and since she was once part of Adam she belonged to him as property.

Then there's that whole "cursing all of creation to punish humanity for eternity because Adam and Eve became intelligent" thing.
 
2013-04-28 04:24:28 PM

rugman11: FloydA: Kurmudgeon:
"How about, rather than criticizing atheists, you actually tell us what the "real" version of creationism is? How did "creation" happen? By what mechanisms did creation occur?"

This thread started out as a creationist bashing thread, then when you get the slightest taste of it back, you want me to answer all your questions for you?
I'm holding a mirror up to your face, not my fault if you don't like the reflection.
Man does not KNOW how the universe was created, at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.


So, you don't like caricatures of creationism, but you refuse to tell us what the real thing is?

Has that strategy proven effective for you in the past?

The "real" version of creationism that many creationists believe is that God did it.  We don't know how, we don't know when, and we don't know how long it took.  Why not?  Because we're not God.  As for those who try to "prove" that creation happened or that evolution didn't, they're missing the point, which is that faith requires the belief in something despite the absence of evidence.  If we can prove that God created the universe, we wouldn't need faith anymore.  I used to believe in things like irreducible complexity and whatnot, but I was 15 and didn't know any better.  Science and religion aren't incompatible until you start ignoring science to "prove" religion or you try to use science to disprove the existence of God which, given that He is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent, is pretty much impossible.

I think the United Methodist Church doctrine puts it pretty well:

"We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God's natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world and in determining what is scientific. We preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues and theology from making authoritative claims about scientific issues. We find that science's descriptions of cosmological, geolog ...



That is very different from what the professional creationist organizations claim, and it's quite a bit different from what the people who want creationism taught in schools say.

It seems to me that what you are advocating is different from what the word "creationism" usually refers to.  You might want to pick a different word, in order to avoid confusion.
 
2013-04-28 04:38:53 PM

FloydA: That is very different from what the professional creationist organizations claim, and it's quite a bit different from what the people who want creationism taught in schools say.

It seems to me that what you are advocating is different from what the word "creationism" usually refers to. You might want to pick a different word, in order to avoid confusion.


It's probably not right to call my version of creationism "real creationism."  But it's not a small group.  Gallup in 2010, found that 40% of Americans believed (essentially) in Young-Earth creationism, 38% believed in evolution but with God having some undefined role in the process, and only 16% believed in evolution without God having any part.  But what happens is that people turn it into a dichotomy, with the 38% who are like me getting lumped in with the 16% as the "evolution side" and the other 40% as the "creation side," despite the fact that there's almost as large a contingent of science-accepting creationists as their is of Young-Earth creationists.
 
2013-04-28 04:43:41 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: God created plants. A day later he realized that plants need light to live, so he created the sun. Some god he is if he overlooks simple things.

Later he creates males and females of every single species that requires them EXCEPT for humans. Then God wonders who Adam is acting so lonely and forlorn. Adam, God's creation, has to ask God why he didn't make a female human when he made a female for everything else. Only then does God realize "Oh yeah, man needs woman", and creates Lilith from the dust. However, Lilith wanted to be equal and not subservient, so God kicked her out (what, you couldn't do some basic reprogramming?) and knocked out Adam so he could take out a rib (which is weird because we still have an equal number of ribs, unless God put an extra one in Adam for whatever reason) and created Eve from it, and since she was once part of Adam she belonged to him as property.

Then there's that whole "cursing all of creation to punish humanity for eternity because Adam and Eve became intelligent" thing.




To be fair, there are creation myths that don't have quite so many glaring logical errors as the orthodox Christian one. What's funny is that Christians in the US (for the most part) have no problem in dismissing the creation myths of other religions/cultures as "Just made up", but their own sacred truth dare not be questioned.
 
2013-04-28 04:57:15 PM

Repo Man: Keizer_Ghidorah: God created plants. A day later he realized that plants need light to live, so he created the sun. Some god he is if he overlooks simple things.

Later he creates males and females of every single species that requires them EXCEPT for humans. Then God wonders who Adam is acting so lonely and forlorn. Adam, God's creation, has to ask God why he didn't make a female human when he made a female for everything else. Only then does God realize "Oh yeah, man needs woman", and creates Lilith from the dust. However, Lilith wanted to be equal and not subservient, so God kicked her out (what, you couldn't do some basic reprogramming?) and knocked out Adam so he could take out a rib (which is weird because we still have an equal number of ribs, unless God put an extra one in Adam for whatever reason) and created Eve from it, and since she was once part of Adam she belonged to him as property.

Then there's that whole "cursing all of creation to punish humanity for eternity because Adam and Eve became intelligent" thing.

To be fair, there are creation myths that don't have quite so many glaring logical errors as the orthodox Christian one. What's funny is that Christians in the US (for the most part) have no problem in dismissing the creation myths of other religions/cultures as "Just made up", but their own sacred truth dare not be questioned.


Every religion and sect of religion thinks they're the only ones who are right and everyone else has been lied to by that religion's resident evil being. It really is amusing and sad that they don't realize their own hypocrisy when they declare that only their brand of omnipotent deity(ies) is/are the only real ones and all others are fake and make-believe.

Hell, look at Christianity. It's got something like 400 different sects that disagree on tiny and inconsequential things, and all of them make themselves as different as possible from each other and claim they're the only real version.
 
2013-04-28 05:04:19 PM

Arumat: I never claimed it was related to Evolution.  He tried to build a straw man and use (his interpretation of) the Bible to bash it.


Right - and by responding to his absurd argument on it's own terms, you partially validated it.
I was suggesting that you might not want to do that. Creationists should not be allowed to deflect their preposterous arguments against evolution into an argument about atheism vs faith, in my opinion.
Of course, it's a free country, and if you disagree, by all means carry on.
 
2013-04-28 05:08:41 PM

pivazena: Hox genes are an example of this. They area vital for body plan formation, and their amino acid sequence hasn't changed in millions of years.

because god made them whole and perfect 6000 years ago.

FTFY.
 
2013-04-28 05:10:02 PM

Repo Man: Keizer_Ghidorah: God created plants. A day later he realized that plants need light to live, so he created the sun. Some god he is if he overlooks simple things.

Later he creates males and females of every single species that requires them EXCEPT for humans. Then God wonders who Adam is acting so lonely and forlorn. Adam, God's creation, has to ask God why he didn't make a female human when he made a female for everything else. Only then does God realize "Oh yeah, man needs woman", and creates Lilith from the dust. However, Lilith wanted to be equal and not subservient, so God kicked her out (what, you couldn't do some basic reprogramming?) and knocked out Adam so he could take out a rib (which is weird because we still have an equal number of ribs, unless God put an extra one in Adam for whatever reason) and created Eve from it, and since she was once part of Adam she belonged to him as property.

Then there's that whole "cursing all of creation to punish humanity for eternity because Adam and Eve became intelligent" thing.

To be fair, there are creation myths that don't have quite so many glaring logical errors as the orthodox Christian one. What's funny is that Christians in the US (for the most part) have no problem in dismissing the creation myths of other religions/cultures as "Just made up", but their own sacred truth dare not be questioned.


It's all sectarian bullshiat anyway, seems to me. I'm not a Christian, but i see nothing in Christ's teachings that require a rejection of evolution or any other scientific concept, and the vast majority of Christians I've known agree with me on that. It's willful ignorance, as far as I can tell.
 
2013-04-28 05:11:45 PM

rugman11: FloydA: That is very different from what the professional creationist organizations claim, and it's quite a bit different from what the people who want creationism taught in schools say.

It seems to me that what you are advocating is different from what the word "creationism" usually refers to. You might want to pick a different word, in order to avoid confusion.

It's probably not right to call my version of creationism "real creationism."  But it's not a small group.  Gallup in 2010, found that 40% of Americans believed (essentially) in Young-Earth creationism, 38% believed in evolution but with God having some undefined role in the process, and only 16% believed in evolution without God having any part.  But what happens is that people turn it into a dichotomy, with the 38% who are like me getting lumped in with the 16% as the "evolution side" and the other 40% as the "creation side," despite the fact that there's almost as large a contingent of science-accepting creationists as their is of Young-Earth creationists.



I think it might be more clear to refer to your group as "science-accepting religious people" or "science-accepting theists" (or replace "theist" with your particular denomination if you want to be specific).  The word "creationist" has come to be associated in the public consciousness with "people who deny the reality of biological evolution."   If you refer to yourself as a "creationist," people are likely to assume that you reject the theory of evolution.

Rightly or wrongly, the word "creationism" itself is extremely heavily loaded with connotations or biblical literalism, young-earth beliefs, "ex novo" fiat creation, and fixity of species.  It seems to me that you'll have a hard time "taking it back."

(I'm aware that people who share your beliefs are a substantial group.  My comments are solely directed at whether it is accurate to use the term "creationism" for those beliefs.)
 
2013-04-28 05:17:51 PM

jso2897: Arumat: I never claimed it was related to Evolution.  He tried to build a straw man and use (his interpretation of) the Bible to bash it.

Right - and by responding to his absurd argument on it's own terms, you partially validated it.
I was suggesting that you might not want to do that. Creationists should not be allowed to deflect their preposterous arguments against evolution into an argument about atheism vs faith, in my opinion.
Of course, it's a free country, and if you disagree, by all means carry on.


I understand where you're coming from, but I do disagree.  To let his argument stand without opposition will also validate it in the eyes of people willing to subscribe to that level/type of stupid.  Plus, every time somebody like him tries to stand up a point only to have its foundation knocked out from under it their credibility is undermined as well.  I wouldn't have a problem with it if people want to refute my points and did some research to come back with citations, since that would be evidence that they're at least trying to learn.
 
2013-04-28 05:20:53 PM

FloydA: rugman11: FloydA: That is very different from what the professional creationist organizations claim, and it's quite a bit different from what the people who want creationism taught in schools say.

It seems to me that what you are advocating is different from what the word "creationism" usually refers to. You might want to pick a different word, in order to avoid confusion.

It's probably not right to call my version of creationism "real creationism."  But it's not a small group.  Gallup in 2010, found that 40% of Americans believed (essentially) in Young-Earth creationism, 38% believed in evolution but with God having some undefined role in the process, and only 16% believed in evolution without God having any part.  But what happens is that people turn it into a dichotomy, with the 38% who are like me getting lumped in with the 16% as the "evolution side" and the other 40% as the "creation side," despite the fact that there's almost as large a contingent of science-accepting creationists as their is of Young-Earth creationists.


I think it might be more clear to refer to your group as "science-accepting religious people" or "science-accepting theists" (or replace "theist" with your particular denomination if you want to be specific).  The word "creationist" has come to be associated in the public consciousness with "people who deny the reality of biological evolution."   If you refer to yourself as a "creationist," people are likely to assume that you reject the theory of evolution.

Rightly or wrongly, the word "creationism" itself is extremely heavily loaded with connotations or biblical literalism, young-earth beliefs, "ex novo" fiat creation, and fixity of species.  It seems to me that you'll have a hard time "taking it back."

(I'm aware that people who share your beliefs are a substantial group.  My comments are solely directed at whether it is accurate to use the term "creationism" for those beliefs.)


This - the mere belief that all Creation is God's work does not contradict any scientific theory, from the Big Bang to ambiogenesis to evolution to string theory and back again. It's not what people mean when they say "creationism".
 
2013-04-28 05:29:28 PM

Arumat: jso2897: Arumat: I never claimed it was related to Evolution.  He tried to build a straw man and use (his interpretation of) the Bible to bash it.

Right - and by responding to his absurd argument on it's own terms, you partially validated it.
I was suggesting that you might not want to do that. Creationists should not be allowed to deflect their preposterous arguments against evolution into an argument about atheism vs faith, in my opinion.
Of course, it's a free country, and if you disagree, by all means carry on.

I understand where you're coming from, but I do disagree.  To let his argument stand without opposition will also validate it in the eyes of people willing to subscribe to that level/type of stupid.  Plus, every time somebody like him tries to stand up a point only to have its foundation knocked out from under it their credibility is undermined as well.  I wouldn't have a problem with it if people want to refute my points and did some research to come back with citations, since that would be evidence that they're at least trying to learn.


Suit yourself - but he was basically trying to derail the discussion, and change the subject - and I would think that bears pointing out. When you participate in a false dichotomy, you are also tacitly lending credence to a lie, are you not? And by buying in to his fallaciously dichotomous argument, you were essentially "standing by without opposition" while he told a deliberate lie.
 
2013-04-28 05:29:31 PM
Were you there?
 
2013-04-28 05:30:39 PM

Archae hippy: Were you there?


Yes. But, unlike you, I didn't take any of the brown acid.
 
2013-04-28 05:32:26 PM

jso2897: ambiogenesis


Minor correction: Abiogenesis (without the m).
 
2013-04-28 05:33:03 PM

Archae hippy: Were you there?


Yes.  Get off my lawn.
 
2013-04-28 05:50:43 PM

FloydA: jso2897: ambiogenesis

Minor correction: Abiogenesis (without the m).


Are you trying to correct my speeling?
 
2013-04-28 05:55:01 PM

jso2897: FloydA: jso2897: ambiogenesis

Minor correction: Abiogenesis (without the m).

Are you trying to correct my speeling?



Not exactly, I'm trying to correct your Latin grammar.

The prefix "a-" means "without," while the prefix "ambi-" means "either" or "both."  "Ambiogenesis" would mean "the origin of life from either of two sources," which in this context, would just make things even more confusing!  :-)
 
2013-04-28 06:03:43 PM

rugman11: Gallup in 2010, found that 40% of Americans believed (essentially) in Young-Earth creationism, 38% believed in evolution but with God having some undefined role in the process, and only 16% believed in evolution without God having any part.


Incidentally, the Gallup form of the question appears to tend to lump OEC in with YEC, and ID in with Theistic Evolution (based on comparison of the more specific 2002 Cleveland Plain Dealer poll in Ohio to contemporary Gallup numbers). The full breakdown appears to look something like:

Young-Earth Creationist: 30%
Old-Earth Creationist: 15%
Intelligent Design: 15%
Theistic Evolution: 25%
Atheist Evolution: 15%

Which doesn't do much to undermine your point, generally. However, the position you're at sounds more in the neighborhood of what's usually termed "Theistic Evolution". (It also sounds like the position is continuing to metamorphose over time.)

jso2897: Are you trying to correct my speeling?


FloydA has other futile hobbies, too, like tilting at windmills.
 
2013-04-28 06:08:26 PM
abb3w:

FloydA has other futile hobbies, too, like tilting at windmills.

To dream ... the impossible dream ...
To fight ... the unbeatable foe ...
To bear ... with unbearable sorrow ...
To run ... where the brave dare not go ...
 
2013-04-28 06:09:43 PM

Spaz-master: Is it too hard for Creationists to simply say "God let nature take its course"?
Seriously, trying to refute science just makes them look lie a Palin child..


What kind of idiot God hand crafts every aspect of the universe, when it is easier just to Big Bang it and come back 15 billion years later. Work smarter not harder.

Creationists obviously believe God is as stupid as they are.
 
2013-04-28 06:12:47 PM

jso2897: Arumat: jso2897: Arumat: I never claimed it was related to Evolution.  He tried to build a straw man and use (his interpretation of) the Bible to bash it.

Right - and by responding to his absurd argument on it's own terms, you partially validated it.
I was suggesting that you might not want to do that. Creationists should not be allowed to deflect their preposterous arguments against evolution into an argument about atheism vs faith, in my opinion.
Of course, it's a free country, and if you disagree, by all means carry on.

I understand where you're coming from, but I do disagree.  To let his argument stand without opposition will also validate it in the eyes of people willing to subscribe to that level/type of stupid.  Plus, every time somebody like him tries to stand up a point only to have its foundation knocked out from under it their credibility is undermined as well.  I wouldn't have a problem with it if people want to refute my points and did some research to come back with citations, since that would be evidence that they're at least trying to learn.

Suit yourself - but he was basically trying to derail the discussion, and change the subject - and I would think that bears pointing out. When you participate in a false dichotomy, you are also tacitly lending credence to a lie, are you not? And by buying in to his fallaciously dichotomous argument, you were essentially "standing by without opposition" while he told a deliberate lie.


I don't see how pointing out how his argument is stupid using a statistical example is buying into it, or how invalidating something is lending it legitimacy, unless you think I'm deliberately feeding a martyr complex or something.
 
2013-04-28 06:24:10 PM

Arumat: Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.

No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.

That's the funny thing about astronomical odds in an astronomical set of possibilities.  It's actually not all that unlikely that something with a one in a billion chance of happening occurs when you give it hundreds of billions of chances.


The other thing is that life evolving and becoming intelligent is pure chance. Evolution automatically perfects traits that have a survival benefit, so once a wing like structure is created by random mutation, natural selection makes that structure more and more aerodynamic over time, so it is not like an entire wing just pops out of the genetic code because of a one and a billion mutation.

Also, you have things like life starting that are HEAVILY favored by physics and chemistry. Fusion reactions in stars create certain elements like carbon and oxygen. Those elements get supernova'd into nebulas that form new stars and planets, so those planetary atmospheres have those elements in high abundance. You run lightning through those elements, you get the building blocks of life. Put those building blocks in water, and things like phospholipid chains tend to create bubbles similar to cell membranes because they are repelled by water and attracted to one another. There's a ton of evidence that the physics and chemistry heavily favors the formation of life in the right circumstances, which seriously UPS the chances of it happening.
 
2013-04-28 06:25:30 PM
Life forming and evolving isn't pure chance, I mean.
 
2013-04-28 07:07:56 PM

Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: I never see anyone defending creationism here.

No point in defending the cartoon definition of creationism that most Fark anti-theists use.
Basic fact is the parts about creation in Genesis are a vague outline, not a build your own universe cookbook.
God created everything, or you can assume it happened all on it's own.
Because everything happens all on it's own, just need enough time, eh?
/and to think athiests believe they have no faith.


Time, energy, and chemicals. Do I need faith to understand how gravity will pull clouds of hydrogen into stars? Do I need faith to understand how stars fuse hydrogen into helium? Or helium into heavier elements? Do I need faith to understand how exploding super-novae fuse elements heavier than iron in their shock waves? DO I need faith to understand how these clouds of heavier elements come together under the influence of gravity to form planets? Do I need faith to understand that, under the right conditions, chemicals can come together to form primitive forms of life? Do i need faith to understand how competition for resources will cause these primitive forms of life to become more complex and better able to survive?

Tell, me, oh great and wise one, where do I need faith?

And what will you say if we find independently formed life on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn? Did your god place them there to be trapped forever in their ice-locked oceans, unable to see the glory of His creation? Or did they "just happen"?
 
2013-04-28 07:12:01 PM

Kurmudgeon: Man does not KNOW how the universe was created, at least creationists admit they are relying on faith.


Funny thing about science. It says that it does not know how the universe started. It has some theories and hypotheses, but it does not claim to know which, if any, are true. That's not faith.
 
2013-04-28 07:12:44 PM

hardinparamedic: It should be a Felony for someone to use the words Creationism and fact in the same sentance.

Seriously. The Grammar Einstazgruppen should be paying them a visit for it.


I agree, then we can also use that precedent to apply that logic to the phrase "my little poney" and "as an adult".
 
2013-04-28 07:16:17 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Hell, look at Christianity. It's got something like 400 different sects that disagree on tiny and inconsequential things, and all of them make themselves as different as possible from each other and claim they're the only real version.


Over 32,000 different sects. That are known about.
 
2013-04-28 07:22:40 PM

The Billdozer: And this is supposed to rock religion how again?


In fairness, ID isn't really "religion", it's a specific subset of Christianity that even most of the people "believing" in it only "believe" by virtue of not really caring and going with whatever their pastor says.  The people that actively defend it are a special breed of idiot even by Christian standards.  A very annoying, destructive breed, but kicking them in the balls will still only bring them down, it won't drop the entirety of Christianity and Islam (which has similar factional issues) or anything.

We're not expecting it to, we're just expecting to convince the rest of the religious people to tell these specific idiots to fark off.  Eventually.
 
2013-04-28 07:43:38 PM

Kurmudgeon: at least creationists admit they are relying on faith


Well THAT'S a big fat "bullshiat".
 
Displayed 50 of 147 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report