How best to argue against creationists

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm sorry, but the moss that thrives on the ball wouldn't thrive if it was on Mars. If earth is not so special one may expect to have found some sort of life elsewhere. Earth appears to be unique in that so many factors came together not only for life to have begun but even more appears to be necessry for it to thrive.

And how does that make earth any more special than, say, Saturn for having it's rings?

The problem is that you're still making a false assumption. You're assuming that earth is somehow "special" because life is on it, but life took over a billion years to form on it, and during that time life has grown and adapted on it. This planet is no more intended for life than the ball is intended to grow moss. The conditions on earth do not exist for the formation of life, life formed on earth because of it's conditions. Do you understand the difference?

No I do not understand the science I posted.

... Which kind of says it all.

I don't think one has to understand the detail to pick up that scientists disagree amongst themselves.The Case Against A Darwinian Origin Of Protein Folds appears to use the word "against". Seems to me this scientist is refuting something of the status quo, same as the other article. It appears this guy is saying there was not enough time for it all to have happened.

But they're not. Read the article again. It deals with a specific system they discovered and defining whether or not that system is capable of Darwinian evolution - it has nothing to say whatsoever on "the status quo" or anything at all about "it all happening". It is an article about a specific organism/system and the questions arising from the study of it.

What's your point? Are you trying to say there is complete agreement between scientists as to 'how' it all works. If so, despite all your knowlege of genetics, biology etc, perhaps you remain less educated and narrow minded than many. There's lots of info that suggests disagreement between scientists on TOE. Scienctists say we evolved, yet there is much disagreement as to how. Same as there is much debate about where current humans came from. There is much debate about everything apart from scientists agreeing we came from primates because of similar DNA. You'd best get out there and have a look. Do you understand the articles? You have done well to find the full article, read it and posted in the space of a few minutes. Well done!

Where did I say anything like that? That's just a poorly constructed straw-man.

I never said everyone completely agreed, I was just pointing out that you interpretation of these articles you presented were wrong.

I can respect your opinion but don't make out it's all sorted. There are many unanswerd questions and conflicting data. I can't believe evolutionists continue to alledge there is no debate about anything.. ...and that can leave room for doubt. That's my point...

Over 99% of biologists accept the fact of evolution. Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology.

Of course there are debates over the very specifics of speciation, but we've never said that there wouldn't be. There is, however, no scientific debate with regards to the viability of evolution theory.

 

[painted wolf]

Each of these specks of light is another Galaxy... This is just one of dozens of Galaxy clusters.

Why do Creationists insist on limiting God to our single speck of this amazingly vast Universe?

wa:do

 

[The Voice of Reason]

SO you see that arguing with a creationist is fun for a while, but not good for your health.

Certainly not good for one's mental health ...

 

[Autodidact]

Each of these specks of light is another Galaxy... This is just one of dozens of Galaxy clusters.

Why do Creationists insist on limiting God to our single speck of this amazingly vast Universe?

wa:do

And each of these galaxies has billions of stars. Hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars. We have searched for life on a grand total of none of them. But you're ready to conclude it isn't there. See anything wrong with your methodology?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

And each of these galaxies has billions of stars. Hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars. We have searched for life on a grand total of none of them. But you're ready to conclude it isn't there. See anything wrong with your methodology?

Did she wait to long before jumping to a conclusion?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Molecular biologists and researchers at the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB) Department of Genetics and Microbiology, in Spain, have recently called into question the established belief that the earliest life forms on the planet appeared from self-catalytic molecules. They say that these structures are unable of Darwinian evolution, and propose that a new explanation needs to be sought out for shedding light on the origins of the huge diversity for life on our planet, AlphaGalileo reports.

If you read the entire article you will see how the subject in question is the determination of what constitutes pre-biotic life. All the findings fit well within evolutionary boundaries.

AND....
A Review Of The Case Against A Darwinian Origin Of Protein Folds By Douglas Axe, Bio-Complexity, Issue 1, pp. 1-12
Proteins adopt a higher order structure (eg: alpha helices and beta sheets) that define their functional domains. Years ago Michael Denton and Craig Marshall reviewed this higher structural order in proteins and proposed that protein folding patterns could be classified into a finite number of discrete families whose construction might be constrained by a set of underlying natural laws (1). In his latest critique Biologic Institute molecular biologist Douglas Axe has raised the ever-pertinent question of whether Darwinian evolution can adequately explain the origins of protein structure folds given the vast search space of possible protein sequence combinations that exist for moderately large proteins, say 300 amino acids in length. To begin Axe introduces his readers to the sampling problem. That is, given the postulated maximum number of distinct physical events that could have occurred since the universe began (10150) we cannot surmise that evolution has had enough time to find the 10390 possible amino-acid combinations of a 300 amino acid long protein.

1. Douglas Axe is a Chemical Engineer, not a Molecular Biologist. (He received his degree in Chemical Engineering from the California Institute of Technology in 1990) To classify him as a Molecular Biologist is to be dishonest. And for him to present himself as a qualified expert on biological questions such as proteins and amino acids is not only misleading, but discredits the entire Institute.
2. The Biologic Institute was founded by, and is funded by, the Creation Institute. The Biologic Institute has expressed it's purpose is to "contribute substantially to the scientific case for intelligent design".

The Discovery Institute stated in October 2006 that intelligent design research is being conducted by the Biologic Institute in secret to avoid the scrutiny of the scientific community.

 

[Danmac]

That statement alone is a confession of dogma instead of open search for truth.

You are no more open to God than I am to macroevolution. Dogma on both parts.

As you surely will know (and probably follow in any aspect of life except your religion) it doesn't matter how many times something or someone is right for the question if he couldn't still be wrong at another time. So even if the bible had proved to be true (which in my case i would definetly doubt) that wouldn't mean it always has been and will be true.

The Bible is one hundred percent true. How can I doubt it?

 

[Danmac]

And there you have it folks. No matter what scientific facts you present. No matter what empirical evidence you may show. If it is contrary to what certain Creationists believe his/her reveled revelation says, it will be dismissed.
This is intentionally remaining ignorant of reality, or willful ignorance.
Not much you can do about it with some Creationists.
But there is hope. Believe it or not, at one time I used to carry around that little book of misinformation called "The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter". Fortunately for me, I dug deeper. I wanted to be sure I was completely informed about that which I argued against. And I found out the information I was given by those promoting Creationism was wrong. I did not like being lied to "in God's name".
I was honest with myself. I did not want to remain ignorant. And I began to despise those who wanted to keep me in the dark.
The point being, although there are many Creationists, like Danmac, who are perfectly happy to remain ignorant as long as they get to keep their dogma, there are others out there who, when they find out they are being lied to, will strive to learn the reality of the world, no matter how painful that may be.

So since you were ill prepared to defend your beliefs against much better prepared atheists, you cried uncle. I'm sorry for you ill preparedness. I will not go silently in the night.

 

[Danmac]

I appreciate your honesty.

wa:do

What the heck. Telling the truth every once in a while won't hurt much.

 

[McBell]

The Bible is one hundred percent true.

Bold faced lie.

 

[McBell]

So since you were ill prepared to defend your beliefs against much better prepared atheists, you cried uncle. I'm sorry for you ill preparedness. I will not go silently in the night.

I suspect that there is a typo in there...

 

[Danmac]

Fine, I understand. You reject science in favor of your religious creation myth. That's your perfect prerogative, and while I think it's wrong, it's your right to be wrong in that way. What I have a problem with is you bolstering your own comfort by telling lies, such as that ToE is not supported by the evidence, when it is. Does your religion have anything to say about the importance of telling the truth?

It tells me that atheists believe lies so they cannot recognize truth. And when I tell you the truth you believe me not.

So, just to be clear, you believe that an invisible powerful being formed a shape out of dirt and magically brought it to life, and that's how people came to be?

Not quite. I am convinced that some of us came from monkeys.

 

[Danmac]

I suspect that there is a typo in there...

Possably.

 

[Autodidact]

It tells me that atheists believe lies so they cannot recognize truth. And when I tell you the truth you believe me not.

Well, have you ever heard the story of the little boy who cried wolf?

So, now that we've established that you neither know nor care about the evidence, would you please stop going around falsely stating that it doesn't exist? Or do you prefer to keep lying?

Not quite. I am convinced that some of us came from monkeys.

Is this your idea of humor?

 

[McBell]

Possably.

You might want to go fix it.

Unless of course you are claiming to be an atheist....

 

[McBell]

It tells me that atheists believe lies so they cannot recognize truth. And when I tell you the truth you believe me not.

Well, please let us know when you start telling the truth.

i for one am rather bored with your continuous lies.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

You are no more open to God than I am to macroevolution. Dogma on both parts.

You didnt bring forth any evidence that i was not open or that i was dogmatic.
But you admitted that you yourself are dogmatic.

The Bible is one hundred percent true. How can I doubt it?

Well this statement contradicts a former statement that you made. In one of your previous posts you stated:

It has proved to be true too often for me to doubt any of it.

There is a difference between something that IS true and something that has proven itself true "too" often for someone to doubt any of it.

 

[Danmac]

Well, have you ever heard the story of the little boy who cried wolf?

So, now that we've established that you neither know nor care about the evidence, would you please stop going around falsely stating that it doesn't exist? Or do you prefer to keep lying?

I will not be changing my position any time soon.

Is this your idea of humor?

Yes.

 

[Danmac]

You might want to go fix it.

Unless of course you are claiming to be an atheist....

I used to be an unbeliever. Does that count?

 

[Danmac]

Well, please let us know when you start telling the truth.

i for one am rather bored with your continuous lies.

By your posts you appear to be bored.