Debunking creationism

Remove all ads!

Oort cloud & Kuiper belt Arguments-


The Talkorgins site does a near-prefect job of refuting this bit of nonsense so I will simply post the response from that site:

"polystrate" tree fossils -


Again, teh answers can be found with a quick trip to the Talkorgins site:

Here is a link to the FAQ/ Article on this creationist chestnut:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html


The kicker is that the term "Polystrate" is not even a geological term! It was made up by creationists!


I was about to write a lenghty piece debunking a ton of common creationist arguments(not using the talkorgins site for the rest of it. I have been reading up on the subject more than usual in the last 24 hours) but I have the sinking feeling it would be ignored anyway. SO rather than do that, we can let this thread be the thread for posting challenges to evolution(or creationism but that is so easy it is beneath me right now).

Fire away!

[ April 23, 2004, 01:56: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

I once asked a friend of mine, who believes in Creationism, how there could be ancient fossils if the world was made in 4004 BCE. For his response, he looked at me as if I was mad, and said, "Have you never heard of tests of faith?"

The point of the above is to show that your arguments are nothing to a Creationist. A similar response would be given. The response will always be along the lines of "God did it."

The true weakness of Creationism is that the theories are formed using ad hoc arguments, and modify the argument so that it arrives at the conclusion they desire. When an argument appears that would pose a problem to their theory, it is incorporated as a work of God, or dismissed as a temptation by Satan.

Also, they often give God credit for unexplained events. This is referred to as "God of the Gaps," and overall weakens the Creationist viewpoint, especially when later such events can be explained.

Thus, it is the method with which Creationists defend their ideas that weakens them, not so much the content itself. Creationism is not a view shared by all Christians. I myself am Christian, and I still think Creationism is wrong.

 

Don't usually respond to AoDA threads that have a such a self serving title...as if belief in the existence of God is "bunked".

If you take the time to read what I have said in numerous other threads...I am not a Scientific Creationist...never have been...never will be. I believe in the existence of God...I acknowledge the presence of "evolutionary forces" in our world, and recognize them as a tool in the hand of the Creator. In fact, my biggest beef with Evolutionists is that they purport a "theory" as a "fact"...and that's a lie...a great big one. Further, I have said on numerous occaisions that Atheism is as much a system of faiths and beliefs as Hinduism, Shamanism or Catholicism...and no atheist can ever prove otherwise.

It does little good to post responses from a partisan site to support your partisan stance, although it's what you'll do. Evolutionary theory as the genesis behind the existence of life and it's diversity can not be proven, nor will it ever be...and it is stupid to try to meet you point for point, or link for link, because everything that you can put up that says I'm wrong can be countered by something by me.

I have an incredibly open view toward science and religion, and a respect for whatever belief system a person "uses" to accomodate their life...probably too much so to engage in this debate.

chev...you can have em' now

 

@ Hacken Slash

You view the term "theory" in totally the wrong light. It seems like your definition of "theory" is "something that may or may not be true". Actually, most theories are as close to fact as one could possibly get.

For a few examples:

The Theory of Gravity
The Theory of Conservation of Mass (aka that in a reaction, matter cannot be either created nor destroyed)
Molecular Theory
Chromosomal Theory
Theory of Relativity

The Theory of Evolution is in this same group. No, they don't have the "fact" lable slapped on them (not that any such term exists in science - such things are referred to as Laws), but there isn't much doubt in their truth.

You seem to use "theory" in the way most scientists would use the term "hypothesis", and trust me the two are very, very different things.

 

Unrepentant heretics, er... I mean, beloved brothers, please allow me to show you the error of your ways:

1. The age of comets and the existence of some fossil have no bearing on the question of whether the spark of life comes from God or not. In short, there's no contradiction between that and the claim of universe being created by God and life being given from God.

2. The Theory of Gravity, The Theory of Conservation of Mass (aka that in a reaction, matter cannot be either created nor destroyed), Molecular Theory, Chromosomal Theory, Theory of Relativity and many others bear no such contradiction, either.

In fact, I would say that the Theory of Conservation of Mass is more of proof to creationism than otherwise. How? Look:

Matter cannot be created or destroyed in a reaction => matter that exists does not originate from a reaction. Must have been some other way, mustn't it? You'd better start praying for your poor soul! It's not too late yet!

Debunking? Better than you have attempted and failed. I find it quite amusing that you aren't even able assemble a more or less coherent counterargument and yet you speak about debunking

Theory is well substantiated explanation of a certain aspect of physical world. A special stress is on explanation. It basically means that a theory is an attempt at explaining why certain things happen in a certain way. That those things happen is true, but that's no news. You get a ready conclusion and start seeking premises that would match it, which is potentially fallible inductional inference. Therefore, there's no warranty that such an explanation is true.

There's no such thing as "close to fact". It only shows how strongly you believe in something, but come on, that's hardly scientific! A fact is something true. Boolean 1 as opposed to 0, false. There's nothing in between. You can calculate probability, but your probability of 0.9 becomes 0 if it doesn't happen, and your probability of 0.1 becomes 1 once it has happened. In short: no fact here.

 

I tend to view such debates as dubious. Both sides have strong views and tend not to like the other's. Evolution cannot explain where life came from. Just how it got from A to B. The closest science has got is in creating a protein, by zapping all of the components with large amounts of electricity. However, religeon has numerous inconsitancies that don't fit for me.
Whilst I'm an unreformed athiest, I would dearly like to discover that rock that says: "made by God". We have devloped a unique characteristic that allows us to recognise our "self". Still, on topic, I don't think science can ever disprove religeon until it actually creates life out of nothing. On the flipside, I don't believe religeon can say we are here because of some supreme force, and show some book somebody came up with as proof of it.
In conclusion: If you want to debunk religeon come up with life. Plain and simple. But you religeon people are going to have to offer more than faith to ultimately win over a waning viewpoint.

 

@ chev

Well put, friend. You, ah, have forgiven me for putting you in the thong, haven't you? I only did it because I knew you could take it.

@Aldeth

I understand your point also...perhaps I have played fast and loose with the definition and use of the word theory...in fact when evolution is compared to the theories of gravity and conservation of mass, it slips down to hypothesis . When it is compared to the second Law of thermodynamics, it falls all the way to bad hypothesis , which is all that I've asserted from the begining.

[edit] @ takara

Is that all you need? Easy...just look at any US currency!

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[ April 22, 2004, 00:08: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

 

The atmosphere of the early Earth was actually very conducive to large organic molecules forming spontaneously. The early atmosphere only had trace quantities of oxygen while volcanic vapors were much more present. This caused the atmosphere to act as a reducing agent rather than the oxidizing atmosphere we have today. What this means is that the atmosphere would donate electrons to molecules rather than take them away. This allowed large molecules to form spontaneously.

Also, RNA is used both to store genetic information as well as to create the proteins with which the RNA encodes. Even more intriguing, RNA may self-replicate as well as cleave itself. This makes the formation of RNA as probably the first chemical development of life as we would recognize.

Edit...Matter can certainly be destroyed in a reaction. Your life depends on this Chev.

 

Evolutionary and geological processes just seem to make more sense to me than pure Creationist ones. But I freely admit that I don't have much more evidence for either, personally. So I agree that my 'beliefs' require a considerable amount of 'faith'.

 

Human science has no experience as to what is conducive to the forming of organic molecules from non-organic ones spontaneously.

Still, it's no less a medium of genetic information, tightly tied to life forms. In a way, no life forms means no RNA.

?

 

Actually, late-night thinker is correct. There have been experiments that show elemental matter blasted with UV light (which would be in excess in an atmosphere-less Earth) can become amino acids (the building blocks of proteins). I'll try to track down a ref.

Edit:

In 1953 Stanley Miller did a pioneering experiment on the matter.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

Chev, 'Human Science' has only known for over half a century.

[ April 22, 2004, 04:10: Message edited by: Ankiseth_Vanir ]

 

I admit to being a little confused. What exactly is creationism? If creationism is that God created everything in six days and watched football on the seventh, then I do not believe in that for I feel the scientific evidence shows otherwise. If creationism is that God put all of the ingredients into the mixer and started it up, that I do believe in. But then again, I may not have religion, but I have faith.

 

@HackenSlash:

What does belief in God have to do with whether creationism is bunk or evolution is true? The thread was not titled "Debunking God".

There is no such animal. Creationism meets NONE of the criteria of science. Calling it a hypothesis would be too generous...let alone a theory.

Then you are an evolutionist and welcome! Msot people who do not deny the process of evolution ARE theists(Christians in THIS country)! Evolution is no more atheistic than gravitation!

This has been corrected by both Aldeth AND Chev' so I won't spend much time on it. So long as you realize that theories are NOT rungs on a ladder of increasing certainty. They are explanations of observed phenomenae/facts/laws.

This is so full of fallacies I don't know where to begin...


1)Atheism is NOT evolution.

2)Atheism is NOT a religion, a worldview, a collection of beliefs or positions etc. It is a simple response to a particular question/statement about the existence of gods.

Can THEISM be "a religion". Caqn you compare THEISM to hinudism, buddhism etc.? Of course not. it would make no sense to do so(like comparing "mechanical engineering to "A buick" and saying "A buick can never design a better robot!")

How does the talkorgins site qualify as a "partisan site"? Simply because they present scientific information which refutes the garbage YOU have been told? How can they ever be seen as a "non-partisan" information site besides throwing the proverbial hadns up and saying "FIne! Creationsim is the scientific truth!"(even if it is not)? You must substantiate such charges friend. You must show us how exactly, the Talkorgins site is wrong factaually/scientifically as well as evidence of how and why they made such errors or deliberate attempts at obfuscation/deception.

Wrong again. Evolution is not the "genensis" of anything! You are stuck on this idea of evolution as some competing God whom scientists are claiming created the universe in teh ansence of your God doing so.

This is nosense. Evolution ONLY pertains to speciation/biodiversity AFTER the building blocks are already in place.

That is a pretty gnostic statemetn there! To claim that the truth of something is not and CAN NEVER BE KNOWN?! How would you know unless you are omniscient yourself?


Must be a "faith thing" eh? IF "faith" is so great then WHY are you guys always accusing US(atheists/skeptics/scientists etc.) of relying on faith as if it were the equivalent of getting information from the Weekly World News or believing urban legends.

Seems you guys don't even think very highly of "faith".

Try me. I have refuted YOUR nonsense left and right adn you have spent time and effort throwing words back at me but you refuse(or are unable) to refute a single thing I have said or linked to. As usual we get excuses from creationists for why they cannot do something but that is about it.

Fine! Let's make a deal then; you don't post anti-science nonsense and I won't debunk your religious beliefs masquerading as science!

Remember I did not create this thread in a vacuum buddy.

Oh I'm getting to him shortly...


@Hackenslash:

See this is exactly the type of nonsense I am talking about. Are you familiar with Answers in Genesis or the ICR? They are probably the two most prominent creationist/anti-evolutionist organisations out there and THEY THEMSELVES advise christians NOT to bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument because it is purely bunk and easily refuted!

I will not bother doing so here because it is not clear WHICH creationist angle you are comingt from when you say that evolution violates the 2nd LoT. Some creationists argue that there is no room for increasing order so evolution violates the 2nd LoT there(easily refuted by pointing up at the sun or freezing, thawing and refreezing ice cubes), others have outright bizarre misunderstansings of the laws of thermodynamics(some mix up the 2nd and 1st LoT's for example).

Evolution is a THEORY, not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is NOT supported by the necessary experiment, testing that a theory must undergo. Evolutionary theory makes predictions(all of which has panned out so far!), is tested regularly, is revised often enough adn is one of the absolute best supported theroeis in science! More evidence for evolution than there is for GRAVITY!!

But they don't teach you that on TBN...I ownder why?


@Chev':

Exactly! Please make sure Brother Hackenslash gets the memo!

Even if this WERE true(the part about matter not being created or destroyed in a reaction) what you are offering here is a "God of the gaps" argument. "We don't know how *This* is done so God must have done it!" .

Not true. Creationism has been debunked time and again to the same extent that ANYTHING has been "debunked". Creationists denying this are no more than modern equivalents to the flat-earthers and geocentrists of a few hundred years ago.

Because I have to be presented with an ARGUMENT first Chev'. As I stated in the op of this thread, my initial thought was to offer a lenghty "counterarguemtn" to arguments whihc no one had yet presented(having already refuted a ton of stuff by Hacken' and others) but that seemed wrong and presumptuous.

Yes...we ALL must proceed from certain axioms. Every single one of us. For some, everything is an illusion and nothing can be known. For others, ideas are the primary stuff of the universe and matter is a by-product of ideas.

Science proceeds from a MATERIALIST axiom for the same reason that there are no "touchdowns" in baseball. SO far this is proving to be a smart and productive position. We are able to make discoveries, which lead to even greater discoveries, ad infinitum.
In the "anything is possible" universe(of solopsists and, to an extent idealists), nothing can be known or consistent or lead to anything else.

I do not count axioms as "presuppositions". "Presuppositions" occur AFTER axioms have been chosen/decided upon and are often contrary to those very axioms! Someone who believes the material world is pretty much as we observed it to be(matter would exist regardless of whether or how I was able to percieve it) will commit presuppostional errors in thinking when they assert that a "soul" exists(or other dimensions for that matter if not following rules of inference).

Sure there is. If my car disappears while I am in a coffee shop in Seattle, one of the follwoing will likely be "closer to fact" than the other(S):

1) A magical fairy turned my car into a parking meter.

2)Someone stole my car.

3) My car was towed.


None of the above could be "disproven" but one or more will be more likely true and conform to reality as we observe it. One or more of the above will be "closer to fact".

No, no, no...true that a "fact" will be a fact regardless of whether we know it or not(or what we may believe) but explanations offereed in lieu of knowing will be "close" or "not so close" to fact.

[ April 22, 2004, 22:03: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

Gee, a guy is away for a little while, and watch a thread blow up.

First to respond to Chev. Yes, he is correct. Something is either true or it isn't. There's no in between gray area here. What I'm saying is that most theories cannot be tested under every theoretical condition. However, all of these "theories" have been supported by every test they've been put through. My "as close as you can get" comment simply meant that they have strong backing and have never been disproven (else they wouldn't be theories) and so all evidence we have points to them as being fact. So I should say is they are as close to being proven as we can realistically ever hope to get. They are NOT close to being a fact however, as "almost a fact" is a nonsensical term.

Now to Hacken Slash. First, evolution isn't a hypothesis. Secondly, just as "almost a fact" is nonsensical, so is "bad hypothesis". A hypothesis is an attempted explanation for something. If it is supported time and time again, it gets promoted to theory. If in a single case you find evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, it doesn't become a bad hypothesis. It becomes wrong, and thus ceases to be a hypothesis.

Finally, I mis-spoke in my first thread. I should have said Conservation of Mass - and that does happen, even in the sun.

 

I see someone's really asking for bloodshed. May it be.

1.

It is sort of natural that if you dabble with carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, you get all sorts of carbohydrates, aldehydes, alcoholes, amino acids and so on. Now show me how that's life. It's no news that human body is made of atoms just like everything else - heck, it has to be!

2.

I don't understand. I claim that all of so called scientific evidence you and your supporters provide is no evidence at all since basically none of that contradicts the possibility of there being God and you agree with me?

3.

I was not making any statements, claims or conclusions of my own. I merely concentrated on the logic used in an argument supplied by the opposition.

If matter cannot be destroyed or originated in a reaction, then whatever matter exists does not originate from a reaction. Therefore, it was not made from something. Therefore, it was made from nothing. Therefore, it was created. Tadaaa... Note that it's not my own idea, it's directly inferred from a genuine anti-creationist argument raised in this discussion.

4.

That's one nice piece of propaganda, but it's nothing scientific. None of your supposed evidence is able to contradict creationism and prove itself true at one time. It must both prove itself true and contradict creationism in order to disprove creationism.

In short: faith is not enough I'm not going to exchange one faith for another. All so called evidence ultimately amounts to "oh come on, God can't exist!". I'm not going to exhange one belief for another. Give me facts. I mean, real facts. Not relying for major part on my good will to accept them, but real facts.

5.

Allow me please to show you the error of your ways:

You don't have to be presented with any arguments. If you claim you can debunk creationism - mind you, not even disprove it, but totally make the very idea look ridiculous - it's your job to prove your claim. And I shall be the judge of your efforts

6.

This basically means that each of us has his own faith. You believe in something, I believe in something. Technically, your belief is no more rational than mine and vice versa. You believe in theories for which you have poor proof and I believe in revelations for which I have poor proof. Welcome to the world of faith.

7.

Shhh... Not so fast. Something is either fact or non-fact. One or zero. I won't repeat myself over and over again, but probability is one and actual state of reality is another. Something that is not fact, is either untrue or a subjective impression, opinion or any other kind of evaluation. If your cat has got towed, it looks like this:

My car has been towed. 1
My car has been stolen. 0
My car has been abducted and impregnated by a giant space hamster fairy. 0

The first one is true and the other two are false. That simply has not happened.

0 = 0, roger.

 

Very good point Chev, but you are not taking the next logical step. The atmosphere is entirely made of the four elements you mentioned. Nature dabbles creating the larger molecules you mentioned by the chemistry of oxidation/reduction. Now here is the thing. Within a few hundred million years of the Earth cooling, life had formed. Geologically that sounds quick, but it is still hundreds of millions of years! That is a long time to "dabble" and clearly nature was capable of spontaneously creating life because it happened as you or I can attest.

Also, you do not understand the significance of RNA. DNA is transcribed into RNA before becoming the template for large proteins. DNA and RNA are virtually identical except for the addition of an extra oxygen in the sugar portion of RNA and the switching out of two nitrogenous bases...from thymine in DNA to uracil in RNA. DNA's purpose is somewhat redundant as RNA could and does handle the responsibility of passing on genetic information. It does this in transit from DNA to the ribosomes (which create proteins) and as an aside, a large number of viruses do not contain DNA, but rely entirely on RNA as the medium of inheritence.

It is also significant that the ribosomes which produce protein are themselves made almost entirely out of RNA! DNA may be the organic molecule which garners fame, but it is RNA which is actually the true face of Earth's life. If RNA formed spontaneously, which is possible in a reducing atmosphere, it was certainly surrounded by other large organic molecules. In that situation, life could spontaneously form, or at least the chemical precursors of cells, which is the most difficult part anyway.

You are not talking about the creation of life, but the creation of the universe. My own understanding of a Creator God will only allow me to accept creationism up to this point, as all else in the universe is logical. A universe created from nothing? That does indeed sound like the work of something which no one could understand. However, it should be pointed out that all other beliefs Man had about the work of God have been debunked one after another. This may be the last to go or the last frontier of faith based logic. Either way, I imagine the time of understanding is a long way off.

 

Hmm, just a little fuel to some of ya'lls fire:

If there really is a god, who or what created him? Where did he come from? Why isn't there just nothing, ever?

And for anyone who would use the previous statements to argue chevalier:

Where did this matter, that created everything come from? And if you say the elements, where did the elements come from? Once again, why isn't there just nothing?

 

No, I cannot attest that. I can only state for sure that life exists. That it originated spontaneously from some sequence of chemical reactions is something yet to prove.

Also, what is nature? Getting metaphysical, aren't we?

Also, I don't really see how oxidation excludes the possibility of existence of God creator.

I understand more than you think. Just please quit coming up with scraps of basic genetics and explain how RNA contradicts the possibility of existence of God creator.

Your efforts are in vain, but I won't give out spoilers any soon. Let's see you guys sweat and then tell you why

Logically, there are two possibilities here and there's no third one. Either something was created from nothing in the beginning or something (someone) exists without a beginning.