Debunking creationism

Remove all ads!

I have to say there are a few inconsistancies that I must point out:

That's not correct. The atmosphere contains a very large number of different elements. Argon and other noble gasses may be small in amout, but are essential none the less.

But how did life generate spontaneously? That's the thing. People have hypotheses, not even theories, like electricity, but nobody has proved anything yet.

Nonesense. DNA is vital. RNA does not have anywhere near the stability that DNA does. If DNA had not come along life wouldn't have got very far. If there is a heat change, RNA can unravel.

Tis is simply a matter of efficiency. Ribosomal RNA soes not have the lifespan of DNA. As such it is easier and simpler for the cell to use rRNA istead. This RNA, however does not have any part in the translation of mRNA. It's sole function is structural, wheras tRNA actually is used. Also the tRNA is only there as a middle man so to speak.

Finally you talk about lots of facts about God being debunked. Like what? the garden of eden. If you take the bible litterally, you are going to find lots of inconsistancies. Anybody can. The thing IS pretty old, written in a time before ours. If you look at it like a guide book, however, providing insight and advice on how to face challenges, etc, there is still plenty there for people to find.
Name me one scientific theory you can take litterally. And I mean litterally, not viewpoint adaptations. Survival of the fitest? that's an adaption of Darwin's theory on evolution. An ADAPTION. Darwin had no idea how far his theory would go. Theory of relativity? Einstein has a damned good theory, but even he would have admitted that the theory was not solid. That it is likely to change slightly as time goes on. If you take it litterally it'll bite you on the ass at some point.
I think people should look at the things in a bit more of a broader spectrum, and not based on litteral translations of texts they have little understanding of.

[ April 23, 2004, 01:39: Message edited by: takara ]

 

This is what makes arguing with creationists/anti-evolutionists/republicans/etc so damn annoying and disagreeable! Instead of admitting you were wrong (which I proved you were), you decided to change the subject!

Also, I find it rather hilarious that one second you say:

and then the next post:

So, within 24 hours your entire worldview has changed. Amazing! I don't mean for this to be a personal attack, but I feel an obligation to point out your flip-flopping. Once you admit you were proven wrong by Stanley Miller's 51 year old experiment I think we can continue the discussion.

 

Looks like this thread is stirring up the bad kind of passion.

RuneQuester...I have to take objection to your tone and demeanor that you are using to "debate" this topic. I've found some of your more recent characterizations to be just a bit too far on the insulting side. You have never addressed any of my claims against evolution and atheism, but have used the "Pile it High and Deep" approach while cutting and pasting my coments to use in improper context. I don't think you have an open enough mind and enough freedom from defensiveness to cogently discuss this topic.

Oh, and of course the site you reference is partisan...who do you think the pop-ups support? Try a library instead.


The title of the thread is "Debunking Creationism"

I've always identified a bunk as a sort of bed.

We are therefore, in this thread, trying to get Creationism out of bed.


This is how your logic seems to me, and probably to many others too. It makes grandiose sweeping arcs, all to loop back around to serve it's own proof...and anyone who hasn't bought in to the deception can see that...when you've bought into the deception you are blind to it.

chev's already shown you the error of your logic.

Grey has spoken from a human observation point in the God / evolution thread.

Give it up. You can't win. I can't win. Then again, I don't have to win, whereas you do...because if you acknowledge flaws or holes in your belief system, you might just find yourself having to confront the existence of a higher power than yourself. That possibility scares the HELL out of atheists.

 

Well...of course. Excuse my brevity.

That is bad science...

DNA does not have much of a lifespan either as the cell must constantly repair it. RNA and DNA are virtually identical and as such, they respond to heat in much the same way. If RNA was really so fragile, how is it that viruses travel through the air? Certainly there are large temperature variations between the air and the inside of my cells.

rRNA, tRNA, and mRNA are all...ready?...RNA! Those little letters in front?...They describe function which is a consequence of various sequences of A,C,G and U.

My point is this. RNA has both the capacity for heredity and protein construction. It is also made up of rather small monomers which are not hard to fathom forming spontaneously.

I must concede that I am not billions of years old so I cannot legally vouch for the witnessing of the event. However, my theory certainly sounds plausible.

Creationism cannot be proved for the same reason spontaneous RNA formation cannot be proved. However, one theory is based in logic and the other has no basis what-so-ever. I'll stick with logic.

 

YES!! I have said this ALL ALONG!! My major contention with Hacken' was that he was trying to equate evolution with atheism(and conversely theism with creationism). This thread was about debunking CREATIONISM, NOT GOD! Creationism is simply bad science(when it even dons the lab coat disguise at all!) as well as bad theology! I do not use science to debunk theology (bad or otherwise).

Come on CHev'...I KNOW you are sharper than that!

YOU stated that teh law of energy conservation was stronger evidence for creationism adn you went to some effort to explain why you felt this way.
I read what you wrote, tossed it around in my head adn ultimately found it was not muchy more than "Look! Here is something science cannot explain..."

God of the gaps.

Uh oh. I can smell the uncaused cause/infinite regression roundabout coming!

1)SOMETHING could have existed eternally. Not only is there nothiong prohibiting infinite regress in science but the laws of physics seem to demand such a thing!

2) The universe COULD be a cyclical phenomenom that causes it's own existence during it's own death throws.

3)The universe MAY be the result of an infinite regression of "creators/designers"(though this sounds doubtful).

4)etc.


I am content with "I don't know for sure yet!".

Wrong. Scientifically, if one theory actually qualifies as a theory, is tetsted and subjected to peer review, makes predictions that pan out, is revised adn corrected as new data is presented, has grounds for falsification and yet remains unfalsified etc. then that theory has a lot going for it.
Now if the competing idea is NOT supported by any evidence, has no grounds for falsification, is not subject to peer review, meets NONE of the criteria of science(does not even qualify as a hypothesis!), is contradictory to observation and established scientific knowledge, has no evidentiary support for these contradictory claims(i.e. claims that all radiometric dating methods are false without even demonstrating an understanding of said methods let alone a valid critique or explanation!) etc. then THAT idea can be considered debunked when these errors are exposed.
It is no different than how stage magicians debunk psychics.

If evolution required ANY "faith" then I would be right there with you on this point. However it does not and before your charge can be taken seriously you will have to give us more than a simple bald assertion.

Have you seen ALL the evidence? I would wager bottom dollar you have not even seen a respectable amount of it. I would go so far as to say you are pretty well unaquainted with the theory of evolution if you can say what you just said with a straight face.

So you can deny the facts and perform some bizarre twist of logic to explain how, for example ALL of the different methods of radiometric dating(potassium-argon, uranium lead etc.) give dates for the earth, moon and fossils which agree with one another? Or how the vestigial organs are "not really vestigial"?

Since you are familiar with ALL of the evidence and you think it ALL amounts to "Aw come one...God can't exist!" then why donm't you give us an example right here. SOmething that is considered evidence for evolution which does not meet the criteria for such a designation.

Something tells me I will regret this but define "real facts" for me please.

WHich creationism do you want me to debunk? Hindu creationism? YEC christian creationism? ID creationism?

See my point now oh smug one?

I DID get a chuckle out of the "allow me, the rabid creationist to be the impartial judge of your efforts" bit.

I think next I will ask the Raeliens to comment on the evidence AGAINST the claims of ufology adn alien abductions!

Wrong. My axiom conforms with observation adn experiment. It seems as likely as things get that matter exists and it does so independently of our wishes or perceptions. If I am blindfolded, driven to an unknown location, set free(with blindfold intact) to wander and I run into a tree, this indicates that the tree exists in and of itself(and that is only an off the cuff example).
THings typically taken on "faith" are so believed IN SPITE of or because they do NOT conform to observation or logic. God, magic, spirits etc.

Materialist axioms can be demonstrated under proper controls. Faith axioms cannot.

Wrong again! I "believe" in nothing. I accept what my senses and brain tell me because these are the only instruments I have for discerning truth about my surroundings. If I had a "faith sense" that was giving me reliable information that contradicted what my eyes and ears and rationality told me then that would be one thing...

More groundloess assertions. Not logical and not good form.

Yes, we already agree to that. What I am refering to are EXPLANATIONS(a car fairy) posited for observed events/phenomenae/facts(A car is missing). Some will be "closer to fact".


Clear?

Yes. What is your point?


@ Hackenslash:

Not on the science side .

Consider the feeling mututal then.

That sirt goes beyond simply being an honest misunderstanding...you are flat out LIEING!
ANyone can go back to the God:Man or woman thread and see that I demolished your anti-evolution rant/misconceptions adn I never take ANYONE out of context. you will notice I quote you verbatim and in sequence(unlike SOME*cough*theists*cough here). You seem angry that I have taken the time to analyse and debunk your claims.

Too bad.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle...pot.

You should talk. Have YOU been to a library and researched the subject? If you had then you wouldn't be posting some of this ridiculous stuff that EVEN the CREATIONISTS WARN IS BUNK! I have dozens of books here as reference and I don't even need to crack them to deal with most of your stuff(the comet thing caught me off-guard as it has been awhile since I heard someone drag cosmology into an evolution debate).

Correct. you will notice it is NOT "Debunking God" or "Refuting Christianity" or any such nonsense.

Except I am the one who has been arguing AGAINST such singular definitions all along while OTHERS continue to insist that words have singular meanings which do not shift according to speaker and audience and subject/context.

DO you have a point or refernce here...? Just curious. You are welcome to start a thread called "Groundless assertions about RQ which will not be substantiated" you know.

LOL!! Chev' is no match for me. You WILL Kneel before me son of YAHWEH!!

And spouted even more ridiculous stuff than YOU have about evolution and was SOUNDLY and thoroughly trounced for it I noticed.


And you guys think I am hard on you...?

Yeah I bet they said the same thing to Galileo and Einstein. It all depends on politics unfortunately. If, for whatever reason, get back to supporting public education rather than subverting it, then creationsits will be virtually nonexistent in a matter of a few generations(at least the rabid, young earth whackos) just as flat earthers are now. If not then AMerica will be buying /importing all the latest technology adn medicines from other countries, just as Asimov predicted.

*Yawn*


Yeah I am shaking thinking of what your all powerful God of LOVE will do to me. He cannot be assed to show himself, I doubt he will be too adamant about reigning fire on us heathens or otherwise lording his power over us to "scare us".

Ironically that last statement of your applies much better to the theist(except teh "higher power" part needs to be changed to "Must aknowledge that no higher power is going to make everything alright when they are done screwing up and they mu8st take some responsibility for once adn THAT scares teh HELL out of some theists!")

[ April 23, 2004, 06:33: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

Not much to say in response to you, RuneMolester (that's to smack back for your "Death Rattle" to Death Rabbit, he is after all the mother/father of my child), but you are wrong and ill-informed...particularly in one of your final assertions

That is exactly NOT what is happening in America. Don't really want to say more and over-inform someone whom I must view as an enemy.

I said it all in my prior post, and once again you have chosen to cut and paste, rather than post a lucid arguement for your religion. You should really stop spending so much time time trying to discredit the claims of others, and try to focus on stating what you believe.

I don't really have the time to spend on this anymore...Life is too short to debate with people who shout louder to see how loud they can get.

 

@late night thinker.
I cut short the science because I wasn't sure what level you have studied. I'm not about to go into a blow by blow reason why DNA is much more stable than RNA. Also I can tell you exactly why virus particles can travel in the air. DNA is repaired, but is designed to last years. RNA has a lifespan of weeks-hours. That is a HELL of a difference to me.

 

I must be the worst atheist/agnostic in the world, because I can never decide which one I am. Today, I think I’ll wear my atheist hat.

@ Hacken Slash:

Not really. I have no fear of a higher power, but as I said in another thread, I require something that meets my standard of proof (ie tangible) in order to believe.

@RuneQuester: when you say:

…you are correct, of course (it’s your thread, after all). But the problem is that many people, yourself included, seem to be arguing both. It can be difficult at times to debate one without spilling over into the other.

[ April 23, 2004, 23:25: Message edited by: Splunge ]

 

God threads are always so easy in flames. I think that science and theology are two different disciplines. One does not interfere with the other, i.e. evolution says nothing about god and god says nothing about evolution or creationism. The bible doesn't demand do believe in creationism. Indeed, it's only a fringe groups and some weirdo sects that believe in that. I myself have never met anyone believing that in real life.

Creationism can't be debunked, as it doesn't really exist. It's just a bunch of arguments that change like a chameleon, according to the circumstances. The real question is, what benefit do people hope to get from creationism ? What's in it for them ? What can be gained from an abritrary reading of scripture ? Not to say, that there is anything that ain't aribtrary, but some things are more arbitrary then others.

 

That is exactly what makes arguing with evolutionists/anti-creationists/liberals etc so damn annoying.

BTW, side-note: if arguing is disagreeable, it means that the act of arguing is disagreeable. I'm sure that's not what you mean - after all, no liberal in his sane mind will ever agree that his arguments are disagreeable

Next: you have not proven me, or anyone else, wrong in this thread.

Next: no one is going to take your word on that you have proven him wrong

Next: nice attempt on changing the subject on your part

You miss the difference between "SPONTANEOUSLY" and "IF YOU DABBLE WITH".

Please, don't take this as a personal attack, but I am coerced to point out your bending of logic to suit the wants of your arguments. And between ourselves, those arguments are quite wanting.

We can resume our discussion so soon as you have rethought your strategy.

How is creationism bad theology? Taking Genesis literally might indeed be so, but I don't see how it extends to creationism as a whole.

*chevalier is immune*

In truth do I tell you, I went on the holes in the opposition's argumentation, focusing on the formal side only.

If there are cycles, when did the sequence begin? At some point, there must have been a beginning.

My position is: one eternally existing God Creator who inflicted the beginning of everything at the beginning of time.

Indeed...

In truth do I tell you, lack of peer review is not an error. Neither is lack of evidence. Those have no bearing on the actual truthfulness or lack thereof. Just a formal issue, though.

I am beginning to have a feeling that simple bald assertion is everything that contradicts your claims.

Gambling is going to be the doom of you.

No, why would you? Real facts, as I wrote above, don't require any sort of believing, or taking someone else's word on things, if you prefer.

Speculations of scientists, speculations of priests... Whose speculations are "better"?

The key to your axioms is proper controls. You can prove just about anything you like if given "proper controls". In short, you're asking for a credit of confidence here.

You accept things as granted. You take word on things. That's faith.

Zero or one, I repeat. What you are speaking of is probability.

Explaining the above.

 

@Splunge

That sounds a little more agnostic to me . Glad to discuss the issue in rational tones, though. I didn't mean to paint all atheists/agnostics with a broad brush, so I apologize for my general statement...I mean't to apply the evident fear observation to those who claim to be atheist, yet vehemently attack the tenets of world religions. It's, how do you say, ah yes, "The Smell of Fear".

And yes, Iago, "Creationism" is a tenet of Christianity. Now, to say that a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story is required (and I think that's what you meant), then I would agree with you...most Christian denominations don't teach a literal "6 days of creation", so if that is what you are calling "creationism", then we agree. There is no burden on us to be believers and accept a literal interpretation of an acient Hebrew world-view mythos.

What is required is to accept that, regardless of the mechanisms and order that was used, the world (taken in the broadest sense) was created by a word from God, and everything was good. That's all. That's creationism.

I agree with you that there is danger in not reckoning what type of literature one is reading in the Bible. It is not a science text nor a history book...although it teaches some scientific and historical truth.

 

Chev, now you're just embarrassing yourself.

You said, and I quote:

In other words, you purported as fact that we don't know from what conditions are conducive to the formation of organic molecules from non-organic ones.

Stanley Miller showed that in a closed system, with certain concentrations of elements and compounds and with an electric current organic molecules arise from non organic molecules.

I will try to make this very simple:

The experiments of Stanley Miller and others show...

we have amply experience as to what is conducive to the forming of...

organic molecules from non-organic ones spontaneously.

Let's bring it together:

Human science has shown that certain concentrations of compounds combined with electrical currrent (akin to the postulated conditions on Earth over 4 billion years ago) is conducive to the forming of organic molecules from non-organic ones spontaneously.

And, yes, the organic molecules were created spontaneously within the confines of Miller's experiment. They were self-generated within the parameters of the experiment. He "dabbled" with the parameters of the experimental environment. That does not change the fact that within the confines of the system organic molecules were synthesized spontaneously.

As such, this statement makes no sense:

The take-home is this: we DO know what is conducive the formation of organic molecules (i.e. particular concentrations of compounds and electrical current), CONTRARY to what you stated as fact.

 

@Ankiseth
The results of Miller's experiments in the 50's were greatly overestimated. It's been a while since I've read on them, but most of the modern scientific community no longer regard them as valid work to build upon, other than from the standpoint of "what not to do".

In the 40 some-odd years since that work, we have failed to repeat in any reliable fashion the findings he claimed to have made. I don't remember the specifics off the top of my head, but there was some sort of flaw in his design that allowed the portions of "organic molecules" to form.

There is a reason that the work is quoted from 1951 instead of 2001. There has been some limited success in recent years synthesizing materials that could be organic building blocks, but certainly not to the extent or simplicity that Miller reported.

My point is, Ankiseth, if you are going to square off with chev, you should base yourself on some more solid ground, and not research that is essentially viewed as "legacy" by the scientific community of today.

 

I'd be happy to consider your thoughts. Although you have a terrible habit of not posting sources. Statements like this worry me: "I don't remember the specifics off the top of my head".

 

There is a reason why I am source thin...I'm at work most of the time when I post, and have no choice but to wing it.

As much as I hate to admit it...maybe RuneQuester, Bion or Hermit09 can speak up on Miller's work...they seem to be far more connected to source material than I.

 

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/astrobio/astrobio_detail.cfm?ID=767

I hope the NASA astrobiology institute isn't partisan.

Maybe next week when I'm at school I'll do more research on it with some scholarly journals.

 

Oh well, if my memory is wrong, then I stand corrected, but a red flag goes up to me by the comments following the section you pasted.

Notice also that he was careful to say that it has been repeated and the results verified...carefully sidestepping what indeed those results are or whether they match what Miller claimed them to be.
And it still looks like the guy never answered the question which was

The guy basically just said "you are wrong to question it" instead of pointing out some of the flaws in the experiment and Miller's assumptions, maybe even taking a "devil's advocate" approach.

I would not label this site as "partisan", but judging from the inherrent arrogance of the answer, I wouldn't call it objective or instructive either.

I think that my point has actually been proven, more by what wasn't said than what was said.

 

Ummm. I assume by the context of the passage that verification and matching are equivlent.

This website is clearly designed for the average rube, it's no surprise he doesn't go into more detail.

Yes he did. "None" is an answer. It has been repeated so many times that it is "hopeless" to argue against.

I'm rather perplexed at how you arrived at this conclusion. I'm even more perplexed as to what exactly your point is.

Here is another website that makes the same claim: http://www.biocab.org/Panspermia.html

Anyway, my point has been proven. I wanted to show that "human science" does know what is conducive to the formation or organic molecules from inorganic ones. And I have.

[ April 23, 2004, 21:07: Message edited by: Ankiseth_Vanir ]

 

Look, I don't mean to be rude, brash and arrogant, but hey I am so...

I'm not going to waste time debating the science with the creationists, because those talking are the ones who don't want to try and understand it. I won't mention quantum theory, which shows Chevalier's argument that something either is or isn't to be completely false. We won't mention gravity and it's many proofs, like the finding of Neptune. I won't talk about dark energy.

I won't talk about hypothesis or theory or how the second law of thermodynamics actually works (and if you think you can apply it to increasing complexity in biological lifeforms - let me know what you're on, please).

I won't mention religion, controversy, the Church's fanatical support of a flat world, the clearly incorrect passages in the Bible describing the Universe,or the masturbatory arguments made by so many on both sides of this argument (Hey look God Boy, my science encyclopedia is much bigger than yours).

Anyway, I thought I'd sum things up for you all, you're getting pretty worked up and I realise that, maybe, a little perspective is needed, so let me pur a little cool, long glass of ice water for you.

Drum roll...

The best argument against creationism is the people that believe in it.

Drum Roll...

And the second best is the arguments the creationists make to support their views.

Thank you, you've been great.

[You can be rude, brash and arrogant, but if you wish to continue to post on these boards, you will check that baggage at the door - BTA]

[ April 23, 2004, 22:54: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

Someone else please try to explain to Ankiseth the points I raised against the link he gave to support the Miller experiment!

I'm not trying to be condescending, but please...reread carefully the things I said and think about what they mean...view the answer objectively, not like it has anything to do with anything you care about...break it down grammatically and liguistically and try to see objectively what's being said by what is not being said.

George W. Bush answers questions with far more candor than this astrobiologist, and Bush get's skewered for it...check out the Press Conference thread in this forum.

It's all in what you want to hear when you begin to read and you need to try to raise yourself above the prejudice. Would some "neutral" party please sound off and let me know if I've gone nuts!

[edit]thanks for the highbrow additions to the thread, Goat. Come back when you gather more pertinent data to contribute