Christian Science: Here's your Chance

[The Neo Nerd]

OK so none of the creationists here have the stones to pipe up and present the "science".

So I decided to do a little research myself.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - index.html

I would like to say that i am dumber from the experience as my brain cells have become so depressed at the level of ignorance found on this site that they no longer had the will to live and promptly committed suicide. (I will miss them)

I would like to say that i am not shocked by the sheer willful ignorance displayed on this site. Being a psych student i am taught to expect all manner of behaviour, but the thing is i am shocked. How does an apparently intelligent person not see the fundamental flaws in their reasoning?

I would like to send a big thankyou to all the brain cells that stuck with me through my journey as if i lost too many more i would be a creation scientist. I now make the wholehearted promise that i will NEVER submit them to such rampant stupidity.

-Q

P.S. Was that mean? I don't know, should i be pitying them instead of ridiculing them?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I found this particular gem in the christian directory. (i removed the persons name so as not to offend the OP)

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/christianity-dir/91477-earth-13-000-years-old-christ.html

Niagra Falls has been flowing (eroding the canyon wall) for about 12,500 years, according to geologists.

The Niagara River is a connecting channel between two Great Lakes, Erie and Ontario.

Niagara Falls has moved back 7 miles (in 12,500 years) from the canyon rim where it started eroding

Source

There is NO evidence of ANY body of water on earth eroding for more than 12,500 years.

The earth is ONLY 13,000 years old.

Unfortunately forum rules prohibit me from commenting in that thread so i bought it here for discussion.

Does anyone want to discuss this?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I found this particular gem in the christian directory. (i removed the persons name so as not to offend the OP)



Unfortunately forum rules prohibit me from commenting in that thread so i bought it here for discussion.

Does anyone want to discuss this?

Ignorance of glacial erosion and geography?

 

[outhouse]

I would like to say that i am not shocked by the sheer willful ignorance displayed on this site. Being a psych student i am taught to expect all manner of behaviour, but the thing is i am shocked. How does an apparently intelligent person not see the fundamental flaws in their reasoning?

I can only guess at religious brainwashing

my 4 year old already knows who jesus and god is. Something that starts so early and goes into primal fear is hard to reverse

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Ignorance of glacial erosion and geography?

I don't know how, wikipedia has that information on the page for niagra falls

Niagara Falls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pegg]

Ohhhhh come on people.

I'm actually interested in what creation scientists are putting out. Let's face it unless it's from one of the social sciences i probably wont understand it anyway.

I've promised to be respectful and i'll add the additional promise not be snide, sarcastic or facetious.

I thought this creation scientists argument was well presented.

[youtube]AKzr270FeNA[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKzr270FeNA&NR=1

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I thought this creation scientists argument was well presented.

[youtube]AKzr270FeNA[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKzr270FeNA&NR=1

Thanks for posting Pegg.

Are you willing to discuss this with me?

 

[Pegg]

Thanks for posting Pegg.

Are you willing to discuss this with me?

yes sure

but im not a scientist, so i'd also be interested in what they may think of his reasoning

a few of his points

1. the smallest organism known to exist is a micro plasma - it has 468 genes, some researchers tried to reduce those genes but they could only get to as low as 200 genes. So how could evolution begin with zero genes? (at this point the evolutionist reminded him that evolution is not about 'origin' of life, but i can completely understand why creationists seem to go back to the origin...because you cant have evolution without an origin if you know what im saying)

2. Natural selection cannot occur unless life is present

3. Mutations cannot occur without genes


Yes it seems to go back to origins of life, but lets face it, without an origin there could not have been anything to evolve in the first place... so with all the research pointing to the functioning genetic code requiring a certain number of genes before it can function, it kind of puts a damper on the idea that things evolved from simple celled organisms to more complex organisms.

seems much more reasonable to me that the first organisms were created and the change over time came later.

 

[Oneatatime]

The smallest organism known to exist is a micro plasma - it has 468 genes, some researchers tried to reduce those genes but they could only get to as low as 200 genes. So how could evolution begin with zero genes? (at this point the evolutionist reminded him that evolution is not about 'origin' of life, but i can completely understand why creationists seem to go back to the origin...because you cant have evolution without an origin if you know what im saying)

This is an arguement from ignorance that presumes that because we don't know yet how life arose and evolved to its current form that life just appeared in its current form. Creationism itself doesn't offer a valid alternative because it proposes no mechanism by which life arises and just states that God waved his hand and made it all which is not a particually good or intellectual satisfying answer. An explanation for why independently living organisms can't reduce their genome below a certain size is because there are certain core genes which they have evolved dependence on which they can no longer exist without. This does not mean that life didn't exist before the evolution of these core genes but rather that evoutionary pathways aren't always reversible.

Natural selection cannot occur unless life is present

Natural selection occurs wherever there is variation to act upon and where the object of selection is able to replicate itself in a manner which passes on its characteristics. Research into abiogenesis is partly focused on establishing through experiement how a molecule capable of self-replication, heritability and variation can arise naturally and act as a precursor to life.

Mutations cannot occur without genes

This presumes that genes didn't come later on in the evolution of life. Self-replicating molecules probably didn't have genes but mutations resulting from errors in replication and outside influences could still have occured and influenced their ability to replicate.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Yes i would agree the guys presentation of his viewpoint was excellent. His smugness made me want to get stabby, but i guess atheists are like that sometimes as well.

I guess oneatatime beat me to the punch here, especially with the part about the argument from ignorance bit. Would you like to address his response?

 

[Pegg]

This is an arguement from ignorance that presumes that because we don't know yet how life arose and evolved to its current form that life just appeared in its current form. Creationism itself doesn't offer a valid alternative because it proposes no mechanism by which life arises and just states that God waved his hand and made it all which is not a particually good or intellectual satisfying answer. An explanation for why independently living organisms can't reduce their genome below a certain size is because there are certain core genes which they have evolved dependence on which they can no longer exist without. This does not mean that life didn't exist before the evolution of these core genes but rather that evoutionary pathways aren't always reversible.

you are arguing from assumption. You are making the assumption that genes can exist independently in the first place which has not been shown to even by possible.

So yes, the best explanation is that a creator programed and organized the genes...otherwise we'd have to 'assume' that genes existed before life.

Natural selection occurs wherever there is variation to act upon and where the object of selection is able to replicate itself in a manner which passes on its characteristics. Research into abiogenesis is partly focused on establishing through experiement how a molecule capable of self-replication, heritability and variation can arise naturally and act as a precursor to life.

This presumes that genes didn't come later on in the evolution of life. Self-replicating molecules probably didn't have genes but mutations resulting from errors in replication and outside influences could still have occured and influenced their ability to replicate.

again, its only a presumption. You must first show that its possible for DNA to arise unaided and I dont believe that you can do that.

 

[Pegg]

Yes i would agree the guys presentation of his viewpoint was excellent. His smugness made me want to get stabby, but i guess atheists are like that sometimes as well.

I guess oneatatime beat me to the punch here, especially with the part about the argument from ignorance bit. Would you like to address his response?

the only ignorance is in assuming that a programmed molecule did not need to be programmed.

Its the dna that makes thinking people reason the unlikely hood of such a thing occuring unaided. Can a watch come together on its own? No, yet its such a simple piece of machinery compared to one strand of DNA.

 

[Where Is God]

The moon is at the precise distance from the earth to be able to completely obscure the bright disk of the Sun, allowing the much fainter solar corona to be visible.

Now what are the chances of that?

It must be Gods work

There are billions of galaxies in the universe. There are billions of solar systems in each galaxy. It was bound to happen somewhere. Plus, a total solar eclipse is only visible at a certain point at one time. The moon is not big enough at the distance to totally block the sun.

 

[Pegg]

There are billions of galaxies in the universe. There are billions of solar systems in each galaxy. It was bound to happen somewhere.

that is illogical, faulty 'Dawkins' reasoning. You cannot assume what you have to prove!

What you have to 'prove' rather then assume is that DNA can arise spontaneously. Even if the universe contained a trillion planets like ours, DNA would still have to arise spontaneously...so the number of planets is a moot point.

If the spontaneous generation of DNA is impossible, no number of planets is going to suffice for the impossible to become possible. It simply wouldnt happen.

 

[Where Is God]

that is illogical, faulty 'Dawkins' reasoning. You cannot assume what you have to prove!

What you have to 'prove' rather then assume is that DNA can arise spontaneously. Even if the universe contained a trillion planets like ours, DNA would still have to arise spontaneously...so the number of planets is a moot point.

If the spontaneous generation of DNA is impossible, no number of planets is going to suffice for the impossible to become possible. It simply wouldnt happen.

You're right. DNA didn't spontaneously form alone; but it did. [youtube]_1xJCI9yEgw[/youtube]
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

the only ignorance is in assuming that a programmed molecule did not need to be programmed.

It is not ignorance to say i don't know.

It is ignorance to assume something is programmed so it fits in with your religious beliefs.

Its the dna that makes thinking people reason the unlikely hood of such a thing occuring unaided. Can a watch come together on its own? No, yet its such a simple piece of machinery compared to one strand of DNA.

See above.

 

[Pegg]

It is not ignorance to say i don't know.

It is ignorance to assume something is programmed so it fits in with your religious beliefs.



See above.

but no one assumes it is programmed...scientists know it is

 

[Where Is God]

It is not ignorance to say i don't know.

It is ignorance to assume something is programmed so it fits in with your religious beliefs.




See above.

Where?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Science has no 'proof' of anything beyond the obvious. There are these big assumption that science is so much farther than it really is, or that it can predict more so than not. Atheism requires just as much faith than any theist, honestly.

For example, scientists can preach on about evolution all they want, but the truth is that they are at a complete, utter loss when it comes to how life began in the first place. A single-celled, extremely simple organism cannot be made in even the most sophisticated, controlled laboratory, so how did it happen naturally? The 'lightning in the pond' idea was replaced with nameless inquiry a long time ago, with no other realistic conclusion.

Anyways, because science cannot account realistically for bible phenomena such as the plagues, the Red Sea splitting, etc., the claims of the bible are still highly plausible.

If you want to make a thread that tries to secretly bash theists, make sure it's not so obvious.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

but no one assumes it is programmed...scientists know it is

Awwwww now you're just making stuff up.