Feed on Posts or Comments 20 August 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 09 Apr 2012 12:08 am

The insanity of Creationism (aka Intelligent Design) and how to deal with it

A good response:

How to respond to requests to debate creationists

Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.

Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren’t members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.

“Conspiracy” is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke, because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical studies that overturn previously established principles. Creationism doesn’t live up to these standards, so its proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don’t maintain scientific standards.

It is for these reasons that no intelligent person gives Creationism (aka Intelligent Design) any credence.

86 Responses to “The insanity of Creationism (aka Intelligent Design) and how to deal with it”

  1. on 09 Apr 2012 at 2:56 pm 1.BrianE said …

    Hey that’s not fair, they’ve got lots of evidence! Like uh, carbon dating is wrong, and uh, irreducible complexity, and uh, just look around you can see god everywhere! You’re just trying to suppress the TRUTH, and because I put TRUTH in caps it means I’m REALLY right!

  2. on 09 Apr 2012 at 5:00 pm 2.Anonymous said …

    > just look around you can see god everywhere!

    Smallpox!
    Polio!
    Cancer!
    Miscarriages!
    Leprosy!
    Down Syndrome!
    Blindness!
    Muscular Dystrophy!
    Male Pattern Baldness!

  3. on 09 Apr 2012 at 5:50 pm 3.BrianE said …

    Anonymous, all those things are just because of sin, don’t you know? If Adam and Eve weren’t sinners, they’re be no cancer and childbirth would be pain-free!

    /The sarcasm meter is very sensitive around here, so I’m stating it LOUD AND CLEAR

  4. on 09 Apr 2012 at 6:26 pm 4.The Judge said …

    We see right from the start that Gotelli is still pouting and took his ball and went home.

    “Your invitation is quite surprising, given the sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial that you yourself posted on the Discovery Institute’s website:”

    Guys like Gotelli in the college world are use to students hanging on every utterance from their mouth. When challenged, they respond like a child. Seeing how poorly other professors like Lawrence Krauss have faired, he made the right choice.

    Interesting since PZ has been hammered numerous times by those in the ID community in debates.

  5. on 09 Apr 2012 at 7:37 pm 5.BrianE said …

    The Judge,

    Here’s an idea for you – instead of the typical ad hominem attacks that ID proponents typically sink to, why don’t you address the items that Gotelli brought up? What aren’t ID scientists publishing articles in scientific, peer-reviewed journals? Why aren’t ID scientists invited to speak at any major universities?

    And please, go ahead and link to a debate where Myers was beaten by a creationist; I need to see this.

    Even better, please link to one, just one, piece of scientific evidence that supports creationism.

  6. on 09 Apr 2012 at 8:51 pm 6.Boz said …

    “please link to one, just one, piece of scientific evidence that supports creationism.”

    Let me take this one. First you refer to evolution and ID which is apples and oranges. However, we will go with that. Second, you have the inability to distinguish between ID and Creationism.

    Thirdly, science changes and truth does not. Just because a magazines do not recognize ID does not make it less true. So some scientist do not recognize God as science. So what? That is appeal to an authority and is fallacious, and they are not even authorities on a deity.

    As for the evidence, link to anything that supports evolution, and it will support ID. Go ahead, chose one.

  7. on 09 Apr 2012 at 9:10 pm 7.alex said …

    6.Boz said …

    Stop the distractions! Let’s just say evolution is a total lie, OK?

    Your truth is creationism? Care to back it up? Don’t give me all that other crap. Just say I’m a total idiot and I don’t know shit.

    Your god proof?

  8. on 09 Apr 2012 at 9:49 pm 8.Tom said …

    “instead of the typical ad hominem attacks that ID proponents typically sink to”

    Brian so how exactly do you define ad hominem? Maybe we could help you.

    It is quite ironic somebody defending PZ claims ad hominem for the one who is the Prince of such attacks.

  9. on 09 Apr 2012 at 10:24 pm 9.A said …

    I think until atheists can define terms properly, until they realize ID is not in competition with evolution, they should not be debated. There screams of hatred tell all.

    Go to 40YAs blog and see how he repeatedly makes PZ Meyers look foolish.

    Let us remember that all great moves in science had their critics intent on suppressing facts that violated their worldview.

  10. on 09 Apr 2012 at 10:25 pm 10.MrQ said …

    Hey Bozo (#6),

    *News Flash* ID = Creationism = Bullshit. No logical grounds of support whatsoever. Unless you call the bible a logical source (suppresses laughter).

    “science changes and truth does not”
    Science is the search for the truth. Reassuringly, to me at least, it does not claim to know the truth but continues to seek answers and ask questions. So, Bozo, why not jump on the clue train and hitch a ride. The train is at the station but it leaves soon.

    From the Bozo again:
    “link to anything that supports evolution, and it will support ID”

    How about something from one of you and your cohorts favourite sites (Biologos), Bozo: http://biologos.org/questions/biologos-id-creationism

    And from that site we get:
    “We find unconvincing those attempts by ID theorists to scientifically confirm God’s activity in natural history, while ID theorists believe they have sufficiently demonstrated it.”

    Better punch that ticket Bozo, the trains pulling out and you remain clueless.

  11. on 09 Apr 2012 at 10:55 pm 11.Lou (DFW) said …

    9.A said …

    “I think until atheists can define terms properly, until they realize ID is not in competition with evolution, they should not be debated.”

    While you preach about not knowing the difference between ID and creationism, you overlook that you are incorrect that this is an issue for “atheists.” It isn’t. It’s an issue for scientists and science.

    But you are correct about one thing – ID is not in competition with evolution, they should not be debated because such a debate would be as debating astrology against astronomy. But you ID-ists and creationists can have at it. That would be like astrologers debating with palm-readers.

  12. on 09 Apr 2012 at 10:56 pm 12.Lou (DFW) said …

    6.Bozo said …

    “Let me take this one.”

    That puts and end to any reason to read the rest of your idiotic comment.

  13. on 09 Apr 2012 at 11:07 pm 13.Lou (DFW) said …

    4.The Judge said …

    “Interesting since PZ has been hammered numerous times by those in the ID community in debates.”

    Let’s assume that’s true. The only thing it demonstrates is that he is not a good debater, not that ID is true or relevant to the scientific understanding of nature. I’m sure that a very good debater could win a debate against a very poor debater that the earth is not a sphere spinning on it’s axis while traveling through space in an orbit around the sun – and it’s obvious it doesn’t do any of that, correct? Debates don’t matter, evidence does.

    ID, creationism, and god – there’s no evidence for any of them. That’s why all you have to offer is attacks and misrepresentation upon anybody who you think will eliminate your delusional, irrational, illogical beliefs.

  14. on 09 Apr 2012 at 11:09 pm 14.Lou (DFW) said …

    2.Anonymous said …

    > just look around you can see god everywhere!

    “Smallpox!
    Polio!
    Cancer!
    Miscarriages!
    Leprosy!
    Down Syndrome!
    Blindness!
    Muscular Dystrophy!
    Male Pattern Baldness!”

    And people who believe in god(s).

  15. on 10 Apr 2012 at 1:13 am 15.40 year Atheist said …

    Vox Day and PZ Meyer have been going at it for a while on the subject of evolution as science. Vox subscribes to a view that is close to mine, which is that evolution does not get held to the highest standards required of the physical sciences, to wit, experimental replication. And that real biology owes nothing to evolution in its dizzying charge forward. PZ defends evolution with his understanding of scientific methodology and philosophy of science. It’s best to read the discussion in full, but here are some of Vox’s comments which I liked:

    Vox:
    ” When an astrophysicist or an economist gets a prediction based on a hypothesis wrong, his consequent assumption is usually that the hypothesis is incorrect. When an evolutionary biologist gets a prediction based on a hypothesis wrong, his consequent assumption is always that the hypothesis cannot possibly be to blame, there must be some missing factor that has not been properly taken into account. If evolution by natural selection has not taken place, then evolution by some other mechanism must have taken place; the logical conclusion that the core hypothesis is simply incorrect and evolution did not take place is seldom, if ever, considered an option.”
    The deifying of evolution is a result of Philosophical Materialism, which is a rational fallacy. The functional materialism of science does not in any way predict the necessity of total materialism as a philosophy much less a worldview, regardless of the poverty of logical understandings of the Philosophical Materialists (who generally are also scientismists). But evolution cannot be questioned under Philosophical Materialism, and anyone who does is attacked and punished by excruciating peer pressure which is asserted by the likes of PZ who attaches a lot of name calling and other juvenilia. In the world of evolution, there are individual facts, and the connecting “facts” are made up, extrapolated from “mountains of evidence” all of which does not provide any absolute proof of the extrapolation other than circumstantial. The extrapolation is declared True. But there are hitches, such as the inability to justify abiogenesis. Even the concept of “life” itself is frequently denied, because it cannot be justified under materialist rules of reality. So life has no essence, as declares Materialist/Evolutionist Massimo Pigliucci. Materialism requires denying the obvious when the obvious gets in the way of the narrative.

    Again, Vox:
    ” PZ’s answer is completely irrelevant. There is zero evidence that abiogenesis ever took place, robustly imagined mechanisms for it notwithstanding. To claim that because there was no life before, but there is now, ergo abiogenesis occurred, is the very sort of philosophy that science has largely come to supplant. Evolutionists tend to wisely punt on the logically-dictated abiogenetic foundation upon which their materialist assumptions rest, but there is no reason anyone should permit them to do so. It’s rather like economists who attempt to leave debt out of their equations. The numbers may all add up nicely without it, but leaving out the most important element tends to call the entire model into question.”
    That abiogenesis had to have happened is again predicated simply on the Materialist Fallacy: there can be no other answer – By Definition (regardless of how erroneous the definition). And that is as anti-science as one can get, even if one tries to define it as “science” in order to justify one’s erroneous Philosophical Materialism.

  16. on 10 Apr 2012 at 1:21 am 16.alex said …

    creationism, ID, blah! blah! bullshit.

    prove it.

  17. on 10 Apr 2012 at 2:05 am 17.God did it! said …

    Creationism is flat out retarded. There is absolutely nothing intelligent about Intelligent Design. It can not be proved in any fashion or form.
    “That which can be proved with out any evidence can be just as easily dismissed with out any evidence.”

  18. on 10 Apr 2012 at 2:17 am 18.Anonymous said …

    Ah, yes, Stan is a Vox Fan boy no doubt. Now, what was it that Stan’s hero Vox said that let us know his morals?

    “If I am correct that my God is the Creator God, that we are all his creations, then killing every child under two on the planet is no more inherently significant than a programmer unilaterally wiping out his AI-bots in a game universe. He alone has the right to define right and wrong, and as the Biblical example of King Saul and the Amalekites demonstrates, He has occasionally deemed it a moral duty to wipe out a people.”

    There you have it – good old theistic morals. An invisible man in the sky says “kill” and the theists only question is “how many?”. Yet, somehow, Stan squares up on the side that to kill all children on the planet under two is a superior system of morals to the non-theist response of, are you ****ing kidding me?

    By the way, Stan. When are you going to overcome your intellectual cowardice and respond to your posts being torn to shreds on this blog? Yes, it’s tough that you don’t get to moderate out dissent as you do at “home” but that’s the price you pay for leaving the echo-chamber.

  19. on 10 Apr 2012 at 4:06 am 19.41YearAtheist said …

    Hmm…
    So how come Stan and Vox get to pull the rabbit out of the hat and say ID did it with no evidence to support it (having only an non-robust explanatory model provided) while criticizing that there is no hard evidence for biopoeisis? Oh yeah, that idiotic double-standard known as “God did it!”

    So, let’s leave out the “materialist fallacy” that “there can be no other answer than that materials somehow organized themselves to be self-replicating and subject to competitive pressures from the environment, with robust theoretical explanations that might explain it” and “punt” to whatever else might be. Care to give some suggestions for that gap?

    “God did it!” That’s one, I guess, but it leaves open the question of what God is, that he actually did it, or even that there’s any reason to believe any god exists. That’s on severely shaky foundations at is it, so we might require another example, particularly since “robust theoretical explanations” that might provide an explanation around this make it look pretty bad.

    Let’s play a game. I bet that within 20 years, this nut gets cracked and Vox (and Stan) will get to eat their hats. While passing the mustard between them, they’ll lie and say PZ Meyers is eating his.

  20. on 10 Apr 2012 at 4:41 am 20.Severin said …

    #14
    “Again, Vox:
    ” PZ’s answer is completely irrelevant. There is zero evidence that abiogenesis ever took place, …”

    You are right, no direct evidence about it. But simple chemistry shows us that abiogenesis is possible to occur during billions of years. You know the story, it is very simple: 1+1=2, 2+1=3 etc. .
    Maybe it did not occur, but is NOT IMPOSSIBLE!

    Now, your evidences for “goddidit”, please!?
    OR your evidences for “goddidit is possible”!?

  21. on 10 Apr 2012 at 12:54 pm 21.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Severin, it seem the retort “but you can’t expect material evidence for the non-material” or “but my god exists outside of space and time” is a nonsensical license for the theist to make all sorts of bold claims without evidence while simultaneously demanding that everyone else prove their untestable claim wrong.

    Of course, they never can explain how they can know that these non-provable and untestable statements are correct, nor can they produce a consistent explanation for why their statements contradict the stories in their magic books, but it’s really more about insulating their beliefs from critical examination than daring to test if their claims stand up to scrutiny.

    It’s the intellectual equivalent of burying your head in the sand then trying on the false dichotomy of “if you can’t prove that “science” knows all the answers and can explain it in terms accessible to bronze-age goat-herders then the answer has to be godditit”.

  22. on 10 Apr 2012 at 2:03 pm 22.BrianE said …

    “As for the evidence, link to anything that supports evolution, and it will support ID. Go ahead, chose one.”

    And do you honestly wonder why no one takes ID seriously? I list something, you say ‘oh look how complicated that is god did it’, and you think that’s evidence?

    You ID/creationists, as much as you don’t want to think the two are the same, operate in exactly the same retarded way, and thus why you get lopped into the same pile of crap. Until you can pass a 3rd grade level with your science standards, no one will ever take you seriously.

  23. on 10 Apr 2012 at 3:46 pm 23.Anonymous said …

    If you are religious and actually want to understand how science works:

    More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science

  24. on 10 Apr 2012 at 3:59 pm 24.Anonymous said …

    “As for the evidence, link to anything that supports evolution, and it will support ID. Go ahead, chose one.”

    Please explain this:

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/watchmaker.htm

  25. on 10 Apr 2012 at 5:26 pm 25.DPK said …

    From a link on the link 22.A provided:
    http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/12/dowd_qa

    and an interesting quote from an evangelical minister who acknowledges the fact of evolution:

    “Who of us would let a first-century dentist fix our children’s teeth? Yet every day we let first-century theologians fill our children’s brains…”

    Gee, maybe they’re not all quite as stupid as the willfully ignorant individuals here?

  26. on 10 Apr 2012 at 5:39 pm 26.Lou (DFW) said …

    24.DPK said …

    “Gee, maybe they’re not all quite as stupid as the willfully ignorant individuals here?”

    Except that they still believe in an imaginary god.

    Even the pope accepts evolution as fact, but consider all the other crazy things he believes – OR DOES HE? (;>)

    ID is simply another, more modern, creation belief to replace their ancient creation myth belief that even they know is myth. The thing about it is that to the lay person, creationism, ID, or evolutionary science doesn’t actually affect their lives. Yet there are some people who are so delusional, so fanatical in their deep-seated psychological need to believe in something (religion) that they waste their time and lives in a modern-day inquisition over nothing but so much nonsense.

  27. on 10 Apr 2012 at 6:35 pm 27.DPK said …

    It seems that for whatever reason, right or wrong, many faithful seem to have drawn evolution as the “line in the sand” that they feel they cannot let go of. Almost as if, if evolution is true, then there is really no room left for their gods, (and therefore their eternal lives of heavenly reward for being good sheep). I imagine 1000 years ago it was the idea of the earth being the center of the universe around which everything revolved. They fought that tooth and nail too, until it was just silly to continue to do so. Such is the fate of ID. Most intelligent and educated theologians have already ceded the reality, and predictably, have now embraced evolution as the brilliant idea of their god, because who else could think of something so clever? The ID faction will linger a while, like the flat earthers did, until they are marginalized to the fringe of lunacy where they belong. I think it most of the civilized world that has already happened. Only in the backward jungles and of course, the good ‘ole USA, does superstition and ignorance still have a footing.

  28. on 10 Apr 2012 at 6:47 pm 28.DPK said …

    “Even the pope accepts evolution as fact, but consider all the other crazy things he believes – OR DOES HE? (;>)”

    I do believe that no person who actually believed in the judgment of an all knowing god would in fact put up with the practices of the Catholic Church. I’m sure he has his game face, and could probably almost convince himself that he really believes the nonsense he professes… but actions speak louder than words. You can’t protect pedophiles and abuse children and believe god is watching you. You can’t hoard wealth while the world starves, colluded with Nazi’s, hide war spoils, and engage in all the political shenanigans the CC has over the centuries and really buy into the eternal judgement thing… that’s just for the sheep to believe in, not the Sheppard!
    Reading now about the trial of a priest who is accused of protecting a known pedophile priest. A nun found his stash of kiddie porn he used to receive in the mail and reported it to the cardinal… she was fired and transferred, nothing happened to the priest. When the first allegation of rape were made by a man who used to be an alter boy, the churches response was that the alter boy (14) had tried to “seduce” the priest…. Sorry, you can’t do that kind of shit and at the same time actually believe Jesus is watching you.

  29. on 10 Apr 2012 at 8:22 pm 29.Biff said …

    “When an evolutionary biologist gets a prediction based on a hypothesis wrong, his consequent assumption is always that the hypothesis cannot possibly be to blame”

    Of course not 40YA. You kidding me, it is fact and any evidence that does not fit must be forced to fit.

    That is why evolutionist still spend so much time scratching their butt attempting to explain how that first cell formed to start this process of macroevolution that has zero proof. They like to lump it into microvolution which has proof hoping nobody will notice.

  30. on 10 Apr 2012 at 9:16 pm 30.41YA said …

    28.Biff said …

    “Of course not 40YA. You kidding me, it is fact and any evidence that does not fit must be forced to fit.
    That is why evolutionist still spend so much time scratching their butt attempting to explain how that first cell formed to start this process of macroevolution that has zero proof. They like to lump it into microvolution which has proof hoping nobody will notice.”

    You guys don’t ever get tired of the Karl Rove projection game, do you?

    Do you realize that there’s a huge gulf between clinging to a hypothesis and forcing the data upon it (what theists do) and finding data that a theory cannot yet adequately explain and thus having to dig for the proper mechanisms by which it takes place? No, of course you don’t. That’s why you’re making idiotic comments about macro and microevolution all the time.

    I wonder how many generations of greater and greater great danes and more and more toyish chihuahuas (which already functionally can’t mate) we’ll have to breed to finally convince these people that at some point, really, you do end up with different species if you keep the selection pressure up long enough.

  31. on 10 Apr 2012 at 9:28 pm 31.Lou (DFW) said …

    26.DPK said …

    “It seems that for whatever reason, right or wrong, many faithful seem to have drawn evolution as the “line in the sand” that they feel they cannot let go of.”

    Then, like clockwork, 28.Biff said …

    “That is why evolutionist still spend so much time scratching their butt attempting to explain how that first cell formed to start this process of macroevolution that has zero proof.”

    But, like MANY TIMES here, for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that’s true, and we concede that there’s no “proof” for macro-evolution. So what? Will you also concede that there’s “zero proof” for your imaginary god?

    “They like to lump it into microvolution which has proof hoping nobody will notice.”

    How do you know this? Do you believe that micro-evolution is real because you are an evolutionary biologist who has studied both so-called micro and macro evolution; or are you a laymen who simply accepts micro as real and macro as false?

    Your usual lack of reply will automatically infer the latter. That is to say, you never know what you are talking about, and you accept whatever fits your “worldview.”

    As DPK wrote, you will simply fight “tooth and nail too, until it [is] just silly to continue to do so” or “until [you] are marginalized to the fringe of lunacy where [you] belong.” Don’t look now Bif, but that’s where you are. And that’s one major reason that crackpots like you bluster on the inet – it’s a haven for lunacy. That and churches. Science left you with nowhere else to espouse your myth and fantasy.

  32. on 10 Apr 2012 at 10:00 pm 32.41YA said …

    It’s only a matter of time until they realize that while they’re busy waging their silly and pointless war on evolution, science has gone ahead and figured out a good bit about where the universe came from (not God) and that free will is an illusion. They can bluster about the first of those, but the second one is really the last nail in the coffin.

  33. on 10 Apr 2012 at 10:52 pm 33.Biff said …

    “I wonder how many generations of greater and greater great danes and more and more toyish chihuahuas (which already functionally can’t mate) we’ll have to breed to finally convince”

    How about some proof, yep that would do it. How about some proof of how the first cell evolved? That would do it! Dodged that one, eh?

    Just admit you don’t know and you take the word of others. Here is a hint, no proof exists, it is all Rove projection, just like your political enemy! More like Obama false promises like your president.

    More microevolution projected as evidence for macroevolution.

  34. on 10 Apr 2012 at 11:53 pm 34.41YA said …

    Biff (#32), did you hurt yourself screwing that all up? Wow.

  35. on 11 Apr 2012 at 12:07 am 35.Lou (DFW) said …

    32.Biff said …

    “Just admit you don’t know and you take the word of others. Here is a hint, no proof exists, it is all Rove projection, just like your political enemy!”

    Poor Bif, back to the “I know you are but what am I” defense.

    “More like Obama false promises like your president.”

    WTF?

    So being a crackpot about religion isn’t your only forte. It must be your happy hour.

  36. on 11 Apr 2012 at 12:55 am 36.A said …

    41 & Lou,

    Looks like Biff confused you. I’m a simple guy so I will keep it simple.

    Where is your proof for macro-evolution?

  37. on 11 Apr 2012 at 1:06 am 37.The Judge said …

    The Facts:

    “Darwinists believe that all life is genetically related and has descended from a common ancestor. The first birds and the first mammals are believed to have evolved from a reptile; the first reptile is believed to have evolved from an amphibian; the first amphibian is believed to have evolved from a fish; the first fish is believed to have evolved from a lower form of life, and so on, until we go all the way back to the first single-celled organism, which is believed to have evolved from inorganic matter. [The acronym to remember is FARM: Fish to Amphibian to Reptile to Mammal.]

    The very first single-celled organism did not possess all of the genetic information for a human, so in order for humans to have ultimately evolved from a primitive single-celled organism, a lot of genetic information had to be added along the way. Change resulting from the introduction of new genetic information is “macroevolution.”

    The reason why macroevolution is controversial and remains theoretical is that there is no known way for entirely new genetic information to be added to a genome. Darwinists have been hoping that genetic mutation would provide a mechanism, but so far that has not been the case. As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.””

  38. on 11 Apr 2012 at 1:33 am 38.Lou (DFW) said …

    35.A said …

    “Looks like Biff confused you. I’m a simple guy so I will keep it simple.

    Where is your proof for macro-evolution?”

    Actually, it’s YOU who is confused about two things.

    First, I didn’t make any argument for macro-evolution.

    Second, this blog “explores God and religion in our world today.” It’s not here to explore evolution, Big Bang, morals, nor any other number of irrelevant tangents that theists use to divert attention away from the fact that they don’t have any evidence for their imaginary god. So if you want to argue any aspect of evolution, then high-tail it to some forum or blog that exists for that purpose. We can, however, discuss creationism and ID because they are part of the religious delusion about god.

    Now, where is the evidence for you imaginary god? That is required before we can debate whether or not he designed and created the universe, intelligently or through evolution. But why don’t you just save yourself some time and C&P this reply the only way you can without lying about it or going off on some other irrelevant tangent – “I have no such evidence because there isn’t any.”

  39. on 11 Apr 2012 at 1:53 am 39.Anonymous said …

    The reason why macroevolution is controversial and remains theoretical is that there is no known way for entirely new genetic information to be added to a genome. Darwinists have been hoping that genetic mutation would provide a mechanism, but so far that has not been the case. As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.””

    Totally false as proven here

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

    http://scitizen.com/evolution/bacterial-genomes-and-evolution_a-27-1246.html

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/evolution9.htm

    Creationists lie to hide the truth

  40. on 11 Apr 2012 at 2:14 am 40.Mouse-Anony said …

    #39 is completely false. See link for verification.

    http://creationwiki.org/Mutations_don't_add_information_(Talk.Origins)

    http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-5-argument-some-mutations-are-beneficial

  41. on 11 Apr 2012 at 2:57 am 41.alex said …

    none of all this bullshit is relevant.

    where is your god and why are y’all fighting so hard to protect the idiot? why can’t you leave the homos, women, other races, and other people alone? if you would keep your moronic ideas to yourself, we wouldn’t be having this blog would we?

  42. on 11 Apr 2012 at 3:47 am 42.41YA said …

    I second 38.Lou (DFW).

    I can’t let 40.Mouse-Anony said “#39 is completely false. See link for verification” pass, though, given that it links to two creationist websites as opposed to linking to peer-reviewed scientific journals.

    It’s really this simple on the creationism dodge:
    If you have evidence that disproves evolution, write it down, get it peer reviewed, and collect your Nobel Prize.

    There’s a reason that doesn’t happen, and it’s not a conspiracy. Creationism isn’t science. It’s a religious diversion from their lack of evidence about God–an attempt to discredit science that threatens an argument to ignorance, the best that millennia of beliefs in God can produce to support themselves.

  43. on 11 Apr 2012 at 11:02 am 43.A said …

    If you read the short article at this link, you will see #39 is actually making assumptions and dodging the real issue.

    http://creationwiki.org/Mutations_don%27t_add_information

  44. on 11 Apr 2012 at 12:50 pm 44.alex said …

    43.A said …

    link battle, (sigh) here we go….
    can we get something original, maybe even made up?

  45. on 11 Apr 2012 at 1:04 pm 45.Anonymous said …

    43:

    If you read the short article at this link, you will see #39 is actually making assumptions and dodging the real issue.

    http://creationwiki.org/Mutations_don%27t_add_information

    Lying for Jesus

    Scientists document genome growth through process like chromosome duplication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Some guy on web site says “nope never happens”. Who to believe????

  46. on 11 Apr 2012 at 2:21 pm 46.alex said …

    ….Who to believe????

    Truth is only 99.99%. There’s always doubt and uncertainty. Your God, OTH is 100% bogus.

    I repeat, all these other crap is diversionary. Show me something even remotely believable. I’m not even asking for something convincing…

  47. on 11 Apr 2012 at 3:01 pm 47.ZZZZZZZZZZ said …

    FINALLY! THE TRUTH ABOUT CREATIONISM

    http://imgur.com/XsbaH

  48. on 11 Apr 2012 at 6:15 pm 48.Asher said …

    Frame shift mutation does not add onto the existing DNA, it only rearranges existing information.

    I can take a paragraph and rearrange the words, it is still only the existing original letters.

    No to get to the heart of the matter, where did the first human genome come from? Explain how evolution, or any other existing system could develop the first DNA structure?

    Sort leaves mutations out of the equation doesn’t it?

  49. on 11 Apr 2012 at 6:38 pm 49.Lou (DFW) said …

    48.Asher said …

    “No to get to the heart of the matter, where did the first human genome come from? Explain how evolution, or any other existing system could develop the first DNA structure?”

    Yes, let’s get to the heart of the matter. Let’s ignore all of your usual diversions about creation, evolution, and morals.

    Where’s your evidence for your imaginary god?

    Explain how evolution being untrue is in any way whatsoever relevant to the fact that you don’t have any such evidence?

  50. on 11 Apr 2012 at 6:41 pm 50.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Where did your god come from? Where is your evidence for that? What are the attributes for your god. Explain in detail, how your god accomplished all that you claim evolution didn’t and provide proof.

    How do your prove other gods don’t exist, yours does, and you are not simply delusional?

    Those are some of the questions you need to answer to be taken seriously. Or will you continue to play games in order to avoid admitting that you have nothing, nothing as all, other than a desperate need to believe?

  51. on 11 Apr 2012 at 6:57 pm 51.DPK said …

    Forget all that… explain to me exactly, step by step, how I can put my dishes in the dishwasher, push a button, and an hour later have not only clean dishes, but clean and DRY dishes???? Can’t happen Bozo… dishes cannot clean themselves, therefore, that proves my magical dishwasher gnome is real.
    And, he can kick your god’s ass……….!

  52. on 11 Apr 2012 at 7:56 pm 52.Lou said …

    “No to get to the heart of the matter, where did the first human genome come from? Explain how evolution, or any other existing system could develop the first DNA structure?”

    Asher

    You pissed them off. They don’t like it when you ask questions they cannot answer. Maybe they lack belief in origins?

    I enjoy watching lackers frail away hopelessly in their endless confusion.

  53. on 11 Apr 2012 at 8:08 pm 53.Godless Monkey said …

    The best and most truthful answer I ever got from a xtian (my uncle) about why he refuses to believe in evolution, despite the plethora of evidennce, and using my words, not his, to be concise, was that to concede that Adam didn’t exist would by necessity negate the reality for Jesus to exist as Jesus was sent to fix what Adam had f*cked up in the garden. So no Adam? Then no need for Jesus. Ergo evolution is a lie. Simple…to my uncle, at least.

  54. on 11 Apr 2012 at 8:32 pm 54.41YA said …

    52.Lou said …

    “You pissed them off. They don’t like it when you ask questions they cannot answer. Maybe they lack belief in origins?
    I enjoy watching lackers frail away hopelessly in their endless confusion.”

    Reduces to “People on internet forum can’t explain evolution, so it’s false.”

    We call that “argumentum e silencio” (argument from silence) in the case where we’re not able to prove it. It’s a logical fallacy, so thinking it establishes anything for you makes you an idiot.

    Perhaps science hasn’t figured that out fully enough for you yet (or you’re just ignorant of that knowledge, like most people). That reduces to “People can’t explain it, so it’s false.”

    We call that “argumentum ad ignorantiam” (argument from ignorance). It’s also a logical fallacy, so thinking it establishes anything for you makes you an idiot.

  55. on 11 Apr 2012 at 8:41 pm 55.alex said …

    54.41YA said …

    “argumentum bullshitum”, whatever. everything is fucking bullshit, ok. especially your god. care to rebut.

  56. on 11 Apr 2012 at 8:57 pm 56.Lou said …

    41YA

    I’m so pleased you were able to discover some fallacies. Maybe, you and your friends can avoid them in the future. I am very impressed since they are two of the atheists favs.

    Now, if you can only claim they are used at the the proper time, you will be well on your way. My statement,

    “I enjoy watching lackers frail away hopelessly in their endless confusion.”

    is a declaration of what I enjoy.

    The questions posed by Asher is still unanswered, care to take a shot Bush I?

  57. on 11 Apr 2012 at 11:07 pm 57.Lou (DFW) said …

    56.Lou said …

    “The questions posed by Asher is still unanswered, care to take a shot Bush I?”

    His questions about evolution, DNA, etc. are 100% irrelevant to point of this blog, as is your back-slapping of him. You can continue to divert attention from this fact, but it won’t change it – you don’t have any evidence for your imaginary god. That will not change regardless of how evolution works, or even whether or not evolution is true.

    Now, as you said, continue to “frail away hopelessly in… endless confusion” as you continue to evade and divert attention from – where is your evidence for your imaginary god?

    Hint: it isn’t predicated on evolution, it has nothing, nada, zilch to do with evolution.

  58. on 11 Apr 2012 at 11:07 pm 58.DPK said …

    ““No to get to the heart of the matter, where did the first human genome come from? Explain how evolution, or any other existing system could develop the first DNA structure?”

    Ok, I assume from the confrontational nature of this post, that you CAN explain where the first genome came from, and how the first DNA structure developed??

    Ok… let’s hear your explanation.

    D

  59. on 11 Apr 2012 at 11:36 pm 59.41YA said …

    55.alex said …

    “54.41YA said …
    “argumentum bullshitum”, whatever. everything is fucking bullshit, ok. especially your god. care to rebut.”

    I think you got confused, Alex. I don’t believe in any gods. It’s 2012, ffs.

    I was calling out Lou for his logical fallacies that he then went on to misplace (in #56) and then attempt to turn on atheists via one of his favorite tactics: lying. I guess if we want to be really, really technical, he didn’t fully commit the fallacies, he just relied upon them to derive his idiotic enjoyment.

  60. on 12 Apr 2012 at 12:32 am 60.Lou said …

    I want to be sure I understand your position Bush I.

    1. You believe in macro-evolution, but you cannot provide evidence.

    2. You believe in Abiogenesis but you cannot provide evidence?

    3. You don’t believe in God because there is no evidence.

    Now your challenge is to prove the first two while disproving the third.

    I look forward to analytic, scholarly response.

  61. on 12 Apr 2012 at 12:42 am 61.41YA said …

    Am I Bush I all of a sudden?

    I’ll pretend I am and answer your stupid questions.

    1. I do accept evolution, which includes “macro-evolution,” better known as speciation. I can provide evidence for it, even though I’m not an evolutionary biologist, but why don’t you grow up and look it up for yourself, like I had to. I’ll get you started:
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evidence+for+speciation&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=PiSGT_e-IoGc8gSx7eW_CA&ved=0CBgQgQMwAA

    2. I accept that some form of biopoeisis had to occur in order to get from “no life” to “life.” I cannot provide evidence for it, but I do not make the argumentum ad ignorantiam to non sequitur myself straight into stuffing a God in that scientific gap. I expect it will be filled, soon in fact, but for now, I have to look at where the evidence points and accept it as such: we don’t know how it happened, we know it must have happened, and we’ll almost definitely figure it out, probably soon.

    3. I don’t believe in God because there is no evidence, correct. There isn’t even evidence suggesting God. Every hypothesis he’s been inserted into where we’ve been able to figure out the real deal indicates that He’s an unnecessary addition. Thus, seeing no reason and no hints of a reason to believe in one, I don’t believe in any god.

    If you think you’ve caught me, you’re as idiotic as you keep proving yourself to be.

  62. on 12 Apr 2012 at 12:59 am 62.41YA said …

    I’ll add that on biopoesis, we have a necessity argument backing up that it happened:
    There was once no life.

    There is now life.

    There is a necessity for some explanation for abiogenesis to have occurred, probably slowly (over millions or tens of millions of years) on organic molecules. In ever case where there has been a necessity for an explanation where one was eventually found, there has been found (eventually) a scientific explanation conforming entirely to nature–no supernatural required.

    The crux here (ha! like how I did that?) is that God has never been shown to be a necessary addition to any hypothesis, and so there is no reason to believe in it or to expect that an acceptance of such a non-explanation holds any validity.

    This is really very simple. You only make it complicated as a distraction from the fact that you know you believe in horse-puckey.

  63. on 12 Apr 2012 at 1:09 am 63.Lou said …

    No you are incorrect again. Think about why you are Bush I.

    1. If there is direct irrefutable evidence for macro-evolution, provide it. If not, you are working on faith. No, I will not waste my time finding the evidence for you. Could it be true? Maybe, but only if God guided the process. The so-called evidence is all speculation.

    2. You accept some form of biopoeisis on faith. Good, at least you admit to being a man of faith. No evidence.

    3. No evidence for God? Are you sure? Let me get you started, or will you only lean toward what you WANT to believe.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=evidence+for+God&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C34&as_ylo=&as_vis=1

  64. on 12 Apr 2012 at 1:48 am 64.Lou (DFW) said …

    60.Lou said …

    “3. You don’t believe in God because there is no evidence.

    Now your challenge is to prove the first two while disproving the third.”

    And there you have it folks. It never fails. Finally, in their desperation, the theist demands that you disprove his imaginary god. And why is this? Because despite his claim to have it, he has no evidence for his imaginary god.

    Oh, and I wonder, which imaginary god does he want dis-proven?

  65. on 12 Apr 2012 at 3:36 am 65.41YA said …

    63.Lou said …
    “No you are incorrect again. Think about why you are Bush I.”

    No, I’m not, and now that I get why you’re calling me Bush I, I understand why I didn’t get it before. You’re an idiot.

    “1. If there is direct irrefutable evidence for macro-evolution, provide it. If not, you are working on faith. No, I will not waste my time finding the evidence for you. Could it be true? Maybe, but only if God guided the process. The so-called evidence is all speculation.”

    This isn’t a debate on biology. The evidence is there. Did you look at any of those articles? Have you read anything about it? Start with Darwin or Dawkins or Miller or any other evolutionary biologist you want. I have better things to do than to do your homework for you while you lie to and about me.

    “2. You accept some form of biopoeisis on faith. Good, at least you admit to being a man of faith. No evidence.”

    That’s not what I said. There’s no conclusive theory, but there is suggestive evidence, not least the necessity clause that God can’t satisfy.

    Your link to evidence for God goes to a bunch of shit published by apologists and evangelists, whereas my links were to scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Damn, you suck.

  66. on 12 Apr 2012 at 4:12 am 66.Slapnuts McGee said …

    So much to read!

    Hey religious toolsheds, ask yourselves why you don’t believe in Santa Claus. Now ask yourself why you believe in god (allah, yahweh, etc). Think logically, intelligently and honestly.

  67. on 12 Apr 2012 at 4:29 am 67.41YA said …

    Luckily for you lying theists, I ran into this incidentally tonight. You can watch this and not believe a word of it.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkTvj7vpb6s&feature=related

  68. on 12 Apr 2012 at 6:40 am 68.Severin said …

    Gentlemen (?) theists,
    When you need to solve a health problem of your child, you do not address to gods. Science is your first choice. You do not discuss whether or not medicaments or curing methods are good, you do not doubt, you do not question science, you unconditionally put lives of your children to hands of science. You TRUST science!
    When you need safe and fast transportation from p. A to p. B, you, again, do not go to gods. You go to scientists to construct vehicles for you with which you can safely travel from A to B. You trust science, you do NOT question scientists whether or not, and why, an areoplane can fly, You just TAKE IT FOR GRANTED, even if you know nothing about aerodynamics. Again, you TRUST science unconditionally, and give your lives in hands of science.
    When you need to communicate and/or to handle or to store information, you, again, do not address to gods, but to scientists. You, again, do not doubt and do not question their work. You just USE machines and rules they made for you. No criticism on scientist’s achievments, AVERYTHING IS O.K.! No idiotic questions about “what is the probability that thing functions that way”, about complexity, no, you just unconditionally TRUST them!
    When you need more food, you go to science to make it for you, not to your gods.Again, you unconditionally trust science in that matter.
    When you need energy, you don’t have your gods in mind, but science.
    You TRUST science unconditionally in 99.9% of the activities that, in fact, ARE your life.

    Yet, when the very same scientists tell you something about abiogenesis, evolution and big bang, you suddenly quit trusting them!
    You know nothing about medicine, food production, laws of physics that enable you to fly, …, and do NOT oppose scientists in any question of REAL importance for your lives, but when we come to abiogenesis and evolution, you suddenly KNOW IT BETTER!

    Aren’t yo a little bit too hypocritical?
    Or just idiotic!

  69. on 12 Apr 2012 at 11:55 am 69.Lou (DFW) said …

    68.Severin said …

    “Gentlemen (?) theists,

    Aren’t yo a little bit too hypocritical?
    Or just idiotic!”

    Both! And you omitted delusional.

  70. on 12 Apr 2012 at 3:55 pm 70.DPK said …

    Lou, Archer, Mouse, etc……
    Look, you guys can argue that the overwhelming consensus among the real, accredited scientific community is completely wrong and some conspiracy theory, fringe lunatic nut-jobs on the internet know more… fine.
    As has been offered before, for the sake of argument, let’s agree that the idea of evolution… macro, micro, whatever your want… is completely wrong. Current lifeforms did not evolve from common ancestors. So?
    So, some guys on an internet forum cannot explain to you exactly how the first cell formed, or life processes arose from non-living chemistry. So?
    Can you explain it? If your answer is “God did it”, how is this based on anything other than ignorance? “i can’t explain it, so therefore god musta done it” is not an answer. What actual evidence do you have? And remember YOU are the ones here demanding absolute, irrefutable evidence for evolution. Where is your evidence not only that a god actually did it, but that such a god even exists, and further, the god that did it is the biblical god that you worship and who supposedly intercedes in human affairs minute by minute.
    There, for the sake of argument, I’ve agreed to all your crazy looney-bin contentions… now what have you got? Show us how the first life developed. Show us you proof, or even make a compelling argument. You got anything other than “Well I won’t accept what is clearly a better, more supported idea, so it must then be magic.”
    I predict a long period of silence followed by more diversions of a different nature.

  71. on 12 Apr 2012 at 4:23 pm 71.Lou said …

    Still nothing Bush I?

    Yes, Bush I have read Dawkins but it gets to be so tedious. I don’t need some biologist preaching to me about God.

    Bush I as well marvel at your proof for abiogenesis. We are here? Yes, that is deep. Or the more robust we don’t know but science will tell us. Yes, more Scientism from Bush I.

    Getting much harder to deny God.

  72. on 12 Apr 2012 at 4:40 pm 72.DPK said …

    “Yes, Bush I have read Dawkins but it gets to be so tedious. I don’t need some biologist preaching to me about God.”

    And we don’t need an christian apologist preaching to us about biology.

    So Lou, still nothing? Where is your evidence for god, or that “god done it”? So far all we’ve heard is arguments from ignorance and claims of magic…. do you have any actual evidence that this magic actually happens? Tell us how life began… we are all waiting for your explanation and the evidence to back it up.

  73. on 12 Apr 2012 at 4:43 pm 73.Dez said …

    Why do the guys like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens feel this need to be amateur Theologians. Their take is so laughable and uninformed.

  74. on 12 Apr 2012 at 4:46 pm 74.41YA said …

    71.Lou said …

    “Still nothing Bush I?”

    Are you selectively illiterate or just a liar?

  75. on 12 Apr 2012 at 5:18 pm 75.Godless Monkey said …

    Why do guys like, well, I don’t know, just about every christian apologetic, oh, and let us not forget the great creationist biologist Kirk Cameron, feel the need to be amateur scientists? Yeah, I just don’t get it! Dumbfounding! Their take is so laughable and uniformed! It’s almost like they are begging me, stoking me and demanding that I laugh in derision in their faces.

  76. on 12 Apr 2012 at 6:36 pm 76.DPK said …

    I wonder why Lou-II won’t answer?
    I mean, I ceded the point for the argument that evolution is completely untrue. Still waiting for his alternate explanation and the evidence that supports it.
    Oh wait. I just realized why he isn’t providing it… he doesn’t actually have any! To think I’d almost forgotten.

  77. on 12 Apr 2012 at 6:40 pm 77.DPK said …

    Monkey… come on… who are you going to believe, some crazy ass PHD Nobel Laureate, of Kirk Cameron, the darling of 80′s sit-com’s? I mean, have you seen his hair??? No one with hair like that would tell you to believe something that wasn’t true… and how about his buddy… the banana man?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0geHA2yHSZI

  78. on 12 Apr 2012 at 7:00 pm 78.Lou (DFW) said …

    71.Lou said …

    “Getting much harder to deny God.”

    Actually, no, it isn’t. The more we read comments from frauds like you, the easier it is to deny god – not that it was difficult to begin with. We’re not looking for evidence that denies god, we’re looking for evidence that supports god. But the more you comment, the more you provide evidence to deny god.

  79. on 12 Apr 2012 at 7:04 pm 79.Lou (DFW) said …

    73.Dez said …

    “Why do the guys like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens feel this need to be amateur Theologians. Their take is so laughable and uninformed”

    As opposed to a “professional” Theologian? Really? That’s like a “professional” palm-reader, astrologer, UfOlogist, or bigfoot hunter.

    Professional Theologian – Funny stuff!

  80. on 12 Apr 2012 at 7:42 pm 80.Godless Monkey said …

    Yes, yes, yes, DPK…Kirk Cameron! (Swoon)! And as a woman I am “qualified” to state that Kirk Cameron is a hottie, which of course means, in a somewhat twisted logic (that theists love to use) that since Cameron has thus been “qualified” by me to be a hottie, it therefore must flow that all “hotties” are, in fact, experts on evolutionary biology, like Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp and Ashton Kutcher. You get that twisted logic, right??? Well, at least I know theists will ;)

  81. on 29 Apr 2012 at 5:49 am 81.John said …

    So you are saying you want science, but only if it fits your preconceived conclusion. So how are you better than creationists again?

  82. on 29 Apr 2012 at 8:28 am 82.Lou(DFW) said …

    81.John said …

    “So you are saying you want science, but only if it fits your preconceived conclusion.”

    No, you lying moron.

  83. on 29 Apr 2012 at 5:21 pm 83.John said …

    82. Please explain ole wise one.

    Are you saying you would consider the possibility of God with evidence? Of course you wouldn’t.

    Otherwise your answers would exceed that of a two year fighting with its sibling.

  84. on 14 Feb 2013 at 6:22 am 84.Billy Butcher said …

    I’ll be an amature theologan and for the same reason the aforementioned men are qualified over most Christians………………We’ve all read the Bible cover to cover at least once, and have read it peodically a few times a week for decades. You do recall the national religion quiz given nationwide in 4/11 in the US? One guess on who took first place by alot. So we have an idiot designer ( the proper I.D.) whos creations are 99% extinct, and I’m not going into all the other buffoonery The Man In The Sky committed-including that evelution proof human eye. Well, for starters, our eyes are upside down and backwards. It’s takes about 5 times longer to see than a better design would have eliminated. Besides, creationist are law breakers, sneaky, arrogant, imbecillic twits who will still fart out of their facial anus that we’re direct decendents of the great apes (wrong). Darwin has always said we have a common ancestor, but what and when, well….Who knows? After all, it would obviously explain the 98.6 same DNA. They call it a religion of the smart people, LOL!!!, and a belief.” Oh great God of evolution, please devole every pain in the arse who can’t accept the need to at least break from the brainwashing. I mean, doesn’t it seem a bit too coincidental that most people who are delusionl had their religion chosen before they were born. Parents and country. Your beliefs are as sincere as a coin flip. I saw that freak Ron Paul (a doctor no less!!!) interviewed about his thoughts on evolution and he said ,”Well, it is only a theory.” LOL!!! This self-absorbed fruitcake just belied his ignorance of what a scientific theory is. You never hear what’s your thoughts on gravity, and they never reply in that tedious Texas twang, “Well, it is only a theory.” So, my creationist friends, forge ahead in what seems to be a goal of dumming down our students more than we never thought they’d sink. If they turn out as dumb as you, they’ll someday thank you. Or…..Maybe not….

  85. on 14 Feb 2013 at 6:23 am 85.Billy Butcher said …

    Pardon moi. “Devolve.”

  86. on 14 Feb 2013 at 6:27 am 86.Billy Butcher said …

    LOL. #2 pardon moi.. evolution. Sorry…

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply