Silly creationism arguements

[dave8888]

This is good for a laugh:

http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13279

Some of the people are really twisting science (as if they understand it in the first place) to "Prove" creationism.

My favorite is the poster who seems to confuse evolution with astronomy and geology.

The wackos seem to be in the majority. I hope the few with intelligence are not beaten down.

Unfortunately I think it is the case that the "wackos" are in the majority. It is for this reason that I am glad that Randi and others are paying attention to the issues of pseudo-science and magical thinking that abound. Unfortunately I feel that this is an uphill struggle. Especially when the media glorifies all kinds of nonsense just to get ratings. Skeptical voices are given little airtime while even channels like the "History" channel and Discovery channel present "documentaries" on ghosts and alien abuductions. When this is mixed in with the sometimes excellent programming they produce, its hard for the general public to sort out whats credible.

What the media seems to be missing, is that the real universe is actually far more interesting than the fake one portayed by the wackos. Just for one example consider a recent book "Strange Matters" by Tom Siegfried, a great book about the frontiers of particle physics. What's in there is quite dramatic and surprising, and its exciting real hardcore science that could be portrayed on TV.

Of course education is a major problem. If people don't even know what evolution is, its easy to give into things like creationism.

Also at fault are many in the scientific community. Many scientists would rather just get on with their lives rather than deal with all the nonsense that proliferates through the culture. But by not facing pseudo-science and superstition head on, they end up winning by default.

As an example, a couple years ago a creationist (with a PhD) was going to go on the radio. I asked some scientists I knew at a local university if one of them would go on to offer a different viewpoint. They said they didn't want to bother with such a circus. So what happened? The creationist guy went on by himself and was able to present his views to the public unchallenged, backed up by his "credentials".

Luckily there are a few scientists speaking out (the Bad Astronomer is one good example), but the magnitude of the problem is so large that much more effort is needed.

The United States seems to be far more religious than most developed countries. I have often wondered how this impacts the general publics beleifs. Do they have the same battles with creationsim in places like say France or Australia?

 

[-=Vagrant=-]

Re: Re: Silly creationism arguements

Do they have the same battles with creationsim in places like say France or Australia?

In Finland, nothing, zip, nada.

 

[pupdog]

I don't know about Finland, but Australia, Turkey, and other places. Also (I forget where I saw this), I think in India, some scientists are a bit miffed because of some Hindu-based creationist efforts.

The silly arguements that show a total misunderstanding of how things work are mostly just comical and of little consequence--what's considerably more troublesome is when educated persons, such as those involved in the "Wedge" strategy, push to convince folks that science is basically flawed and ought to be revolutionized on a theological basis.

 

[ntech]

Oh Brother!

 

[rwald]

Actually, I'm currently having a debate here with hammegk about creationism. As should not surprise those of you who know hammegk, he is opposed to evolution. So, if you want to see some real silly creationist arguments, just hop on over!

 

[Wayne Grabert]

As should not surprise those of you who know hammegk, he is opposed to evolution.

And so far he's succeeded!

 

[Batman]

What about separation between church and state?
quote:
Separation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution. The phrase first appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a Baptist pastor in Dayton, Connecticut. Atheists almost always omit the last part of the letter that shows Jefferson's intent.
Here is the context of that letter: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state." That wall is a one dimensional wall. It keeps government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.
Rwald posted:
I guess he's never heard of a little thing called the "First Amendment," which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Oh well...

Actually, the real problem with that letter is not the first amendment but it's the fact that it's a fabrication. Jefferson's letter to the DANBURY baptists has nothing in it about "That wall is a one dimensional wall. It keeps government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government." You will notice that Jefferson's actual quote is in quotation marks but the added part does not have tham. These types of lies are common with people who want to break down the wall but have no historical principle to stand on. So they must create one. The nice thing about debunking this lie is that it's so easy to do. The letter is on line at loc.gov - the library of congress website.

 

[pupdog]

And one of the silliest Creationist arguments of all, commonly used by politicians, is "Well, let's be fair and teach both alternatives, and let the children decide."

 

[espritch]

A few weeks ago I got one of those “You should read this” type emails. It was purportedly written by some 87 year old former Nun and went on about how America is a Christian nation. I couldn’t help but wonder what she would have thought about the Jack Chick strip showing how Catholicism is a false version of Christianity. Most of the “Christian Nation” types don’t seem to understand that separation of Church and State protects the faithful from religious persecution as much as it protects the non religious.

 

[fishbob]

And one of the silliest Creationist arguments of all, commonly used by politicians, is "Well, let's be fair and teach both alternatives, and let the children decide."

How's about we teach the scientific method and critical thinking in the schools, with discussions of both evolution and creationism?

Evolution has a huge body of supporting evidence. Creationism has a huge body of argle-bargle nonsense for support.

Those who have made up their minds already will not be influenced. Those who want to learn will have a great opportunity.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

And one of the silliest Creationist arguments of all, commonly used by politicians, is "Well, let's be fair and teach both alternatives, and let the children decide."

We should then also include the Hindu version of creation and those from many other cultures. I'm sure those Bible-thumpers will think that's fair. Aren't they known for being fair and open-minded and tolerant of competing ideas? Still, there is the nagging issue of teaching non-science in a science class. Hmmm. Maybe we could make it part of the physical education curriculum.

 

[-=Vagrant=-]

Hmmm. Separation of Church and State? In Finland there is a place for religion in our curriculum: from elementary to junior high. We have a Christian Democratic party in our parliament. We don't have creationists.
Am I missing something here?

 

[ntech]

Hmmm. Separation of Church and State? In Finland there is a place for religion in our curriculum: from elementary to junior high. We have a Christian Democratic party in our parliament. We don't have creationists.
Am I missing something here?

Yes, The diversity of America.

It make things more difficult.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Got a creationist question regarding the age of the earth that I can't find anywhere else. Here goes:

"If the earth is so old, why don't the oceans have higher saline content?"

Have the oceans slowly gained in saline content? or is there some sort of salt reuptake I'm unaware of. Is the accumulation of slat in the ocean slow enough that the worldwide salt content what we would expect? Any help here would be goo, it's the only one I can't answer to, and that can get sticky with creationists (despite their inability to answer my questions).

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Got a creationist question regarding the age of the earth that I can't find anywhere else. Here goes:

"If the earth is so old, why don't the oceans have higher saline content?"

Have the oceans slowly gained in saline content? or is there some sort of salt reuptake I'm unaware of. Is the accumulation of slat in the ocean slow enough that the worldwide salt content what we would expect? Any help here would be goo, it's the only one I can't answer to, and that can get sticky with creationists (despite their inability to answer my questions).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof24

 

[Penrich]

The real problem with Dembinsky’s hypothesis is that irreducible complexity does not require an intelligent designer. Evolution can produce irreducibly complex structures in two ways. First a structure can be evolved for one purpose and then adapted for another. Secondly, evolution can produce an irreducibly complex system by removing props. When you build a building, you might construct a scaffold to aid in the construction process. After the building is complete, the scaffold can be removed. Someone coming along later and observing the structure might well wonder how it was done since part of the evidence of the construction process is no longer there. A similar kind of thing can happen in evolution. One structure gives rise to another which makes the first unnecessary. So long as evolution can produce irreducibly complex structures, there is no reason to posit the existence of a mysterious ‘designer’ to explain them, even if you don’t know the particulars of how a specific irreducible system was formed. And without irreducible complexity, the IDers really have no argument at all.

A page I like for addressing "Irreducible Complexity" and the bacterial flagellum is this one.

Do those car-guys who rail on against scientists not realize that the engineers who developed their carbourettors are also scientists? To me, that discussion was an excellent demosntration of why science, critical thought and evolution need to be taught in schools.

BTW Hi everyone! I've been lurking a while, but decided to join the fray. My first post

 

[arcticpenguin]

Welcome, Penrich.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof24

Ah-ha! I did a search for "ocean salinity" at talkorigins.org, but did not think to look up salt (duh)! Couldn't see where they mentioned the removal mechanism, but what the heck. neutrino_cannon 1, creationism, 0.

Why would anyone think that the complexity of a flagellum is irreducable? Even the most refined of these structures is understandable, and the complexity is obviously not "irreducable" because there is genetic code for it!

Furthermore, very complex sequences can be defined with a very few lines of language, look at the fibinachi sequence. DNA is long, plenty of room for very complex patterns of construction. Give or take a few billion years of evolution (for bacterial flaggelates anyway), and you've got yourself a tail!

 

[Penrich]

Why would anyone think that the complexity of a flagellum is irreducable? Even the most refined of these structures is understandable, and the complexity is obviously not "irreducable" because there is genetic code for it!

Furthermore, very complex sequences can be defined with a very few lines of language, look at the fibinachi sequence. DNA is long, plenty of room for very complex patterns of construction. Give or take a few billion years of evolution (for bacterial flaggelates anyway), and you've got yourself a tail!

But the DNA, according to the ID people (not me) is made by God (or "the Designer"), and changed by that same Designer for whatever purpose he/she/it sees fit. The flagellum (or bacteria's outboard motor) could not be made by natural selection since half an outboard motor is no use to anybody. There is (they claim) not evidence of any scafold or alternate uses for any of the pieces. However, it comes down to an argument of personal incredulity/ignorance. The base of the flagellum appears to have been recruited from the type three secretory system, and hence the complexity has been reduced.

 

[arcticpenguin]

But the DNA, according to the ID people (not me) is made by God (or "the Designer"), and changed by that same Designer for whatever purpose he/she/it sees fit.

The current evidence indicates that DNA was invented by RNA and proteins.