Debunking creationism

Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

Sapient sent me a link to a doozy of a creationist site last night and asked me to respond to a specific post dealing with the Big Bang. The problem is, that once I saw this site, I just felt that I couldn't leave things at just that. :twisted:

So in the coming days and weeks, I'm going to try to tackle the entire site.

Look forward to the Rational Response to http://fishdontwalk.com/articles.asp

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

I can't wait.

I've seen quite a few Christians using material from that site to make their claims. I can't wait for your "debunking" :smt067

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

That should be fun indeed...it is amazing to me how they simplify everthing. lol....cant' wait to see the "debunking" :smt021

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

LeftofLarry wrote:
That should be fun indeed...it is amazing to me how they simplify everthing. lol....cant' wait to see the "debunking" :smt021

I think everyone posts just to use the new emoticons...

:smt071

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

:smt102

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

Silly Boys Sticking out tongue :smt084 (Irony Intended)


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

I like the emotocons too :smt023

Here's the first installment, it turned out to be a lot longer than I had planned, but I kind of got on a roll :twisted:

First let me start off by saying that I?m certainly no cosmologist, but I think you?ll find that it certainly doesn?t take a Stephen Hawking to refute the intellectually devoid horror that is fishdontwalk.com.

Let?s dive right in on the creationist?s assault on the Big Bang:

http://fishdontwalk.com/aviewer.asp?i=7

fishdon?twalk wrote:
The Big Bang

The Big Bang! What is the Big Bang?


Apparently it is one of the most misunderstood and straw-manned scientific theories out there, as we shall soon see.

Quote:
The "Big Bang" is the popular secular explanation for the origin of the Universe. It is interesting to note that the term "Big Bang" is not popular with its proponents. The term "Big Bang" was assigned by Sir Fred Hoyle, who gave it mockingly. A few years ago a nationwide contest was held to solicit suggestions for coming up with a better name for the Big Bang (I entered but did not win). Eventually, the powers that be decided they would stick with the Big Bang label.

Right off the bat, things have gone horribly wrong. The Big Bang theory is not a secular explanation at all, it is a scientific one ? and there most assuredly is a difference. The theory itself originated back in 1927 when a Catholic monk named Georges Lema?tre independently derived a set of equations (now known as the Friedmann-Lema?tre-Robertson-Walker equations) from Einstein?s theory of general relativity. These equations coupled with observations of the recession of spiral nebulae led Lema?tre to theorize that the Universe began as a point or ?primevial atom?.

So like it or not, the first to propose such a thing was a theist, a Catholic monk no less. Obviously Lema?tre didn?t think his proposal conflicted with his belief in God, unlike certain fundamentalists who insist upon placing scriptural limits on their God?s creation.

In the end, unless one wants to say that physics, mathematics and telescopes are strictly and solely for the secularists or atheists; one ought to rethink how they couch the theory and science in general.

Shockingly, it is correct that Hoyle coined the phrase ?Big Bang?; what isn?t shocking is that the author of this piece doesn?t seem to understand or even care why proponents of the theory take some issue with the term. The Big Bang, as it is currently uderstood, was not an explosion, but a rapid expansion from an enormously hot and dense point. This expansion agrees with the Friedmann-Lema?tre-Robertson-Walker model of general relativity and our empirical observations, which we?ll get into a bit later.

Quote:
According to the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago (BYA), a clump of mass and energy was floating around and then it suddenly exploded producing very high temperatures. It slowly cooled to produce hydrogen and helium gas. About 10 BYA stars were formed from this cooling gas, and eventually galaxies were formed. When these stars aged, some became supernovae (violent star explosions) which eventually produced new stars! (Our sun is taught to be a 3rd generation star). Fragments from these supernovae are thought to have been the source for the Earth and planets in our solar system (why are these fragments nearly spherical and not disorderly chunks?) Our solar system is typically taught to have originated 4.6 Billion years ago.

Actually, current figures put it closer to 13.7 billion years ago, and we aren?t talking about a ?clump? of mass-energy floating around in space. First, space or more accurately space-time as we understand it and know it today weren?t manifest yet, and this ?clump? contained all of the matter-energy (not matter and energy ? the two are equivalent) in the entire universe. The rest of the author?s description is grossly simplified and generic, but accurate enough.

Oh, and btw, stars and planets are spherical (though not perfect spheres ? they spin and therefore bulge in the center) due to gravity, and anyone with a high school education ought to know this (watch as this fundamental lack of understanding continues to play out in the rest of the author?s arguments). Hell, anyone with common sense ought to know this. Imagine building a skyscraper miles high ? what do you think is going to happen? Eventually the building will be crushed under its own weight and pulled toward the center of mass of the planet ? this is what makes planets and stars spherical on a much larger scale. Smaller objects like boulders, houses and pebbles can be irregularly shaped, because the mechanical strength of the material is sufficient to overcome the force of gravity ? this is not the case for massive objects.

Quote:
Science problems with the Big Bang:

Atheists typically sneer at any suggestion that miracles occurred in the past (a miracle is defined as an event that contradicts natural laws of science). They associate miracles with religious beliefs and arrogantly say that miracles have no place in the discussion of science. I believe proponents of the Big Bang believe in miracles; miracles that require greater faith than believing in a Supernatural God with intelligence and abilities that far exceed our intelligence and abilities.

So finally, we cut to the chase. How sad that the best a theist or creationist can typically do is cry, ?Well, your beliefs are just as much faith based as mine!?, then cross their arms in a huff and think they?ve won some point. When your best argument is that others share faith similar to the faith you are so confident in and proud of, you must know you?re fighting a losing battle.

Suffice it to say though, there is nothing miraculous, faith-based or even convoluted about the Big Bang theory.

And again, I find it ridiculously disingenuous to paint the Big Bang as an atheist theory or something that only atheists believe. The fact of the matter is the entire Catholic Church is officially on board with the theory, as are a multitude of people from other faiths. Only fundamentalists, typically Christians, seem to have a real problem with it in this day and age.

Quote:
Science Problem #1: Where did the original matter and energy that existed before the Big Bang come from?

Here is miracle #1 for the atheist. Atheists believe a miracle occurred 15 billion years ago when matter and energy created itself from nothing. These atheists should be aware of the First Law of Thermodynamics that teaches matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed. Their faith in miracles allows them to skirt around this Law of Science.

Actually, you?ve got things reversed. It is theists who insist upon a creation ex nihlo, from literally nothing. Are you now positing that God didn?t create the universe from nothing, that He didn?t simply say ?Let there be Light? and make it so, or that God Himself must have had a creator? No, I think not. The theist position IS one of creation ex nihlo, an atheist wouldn?t be caught dead believing something that foolish.
What baffles me, is that you?ve actually answered your own question here, and are simply too thick to realize it. You?ve simply projected your own problems onto the atheist, which is sadly typical.

Atheists are very well aware of the first law of thermodynamics, and it is this very concept that makes what theists propose, a creation ex nihlo, ridiculous.

Creation ex nihlo is a classic failure of human perception.

No painting comes to exist without a painter, no building is built without an architect, etc. Seems logical enough, but do these people create from literally nothing or is it more accurate to say they assemble existing materials? For no painter starts with nothing - they start with blank canvass and paint. No builder starts with nothing, they start with brick, mortar and blueprints. Something never comes from literally nothing.

Looking at things from the perspective of a First Cause argument, which theists are quite fond of, for something to exercise influence on the universe this causal agent must have already existed. Something nonexistent can't serve as a causal agent; thus causality must assume existence. Theists arguing for a creation of the universe ex nihlo, however have their logic backward - that existence assumes causation.

What the atheist can offer is a scientific explanation that meshes with conventional logic.

If we take matter-energy to be eternal, uncaused - as our best science seems to suggest (see the first law again), then existence is simply axiomatic. The universe just is, and the Big Bang becomes more or less a transitional event. The universe as we know it began with the Big Bang, but the matter-energy was always there, it must have been - to say otherwise turns all of physics as we understand it on its head.

We know that matter-energy is conserved - always, in every instance we have ever observed or theorized about. It is but a simple and very reasonable extrapolation to then say that matter-energy has always been, and it is empirically evident. There is no need to postulate a creator or a creation ex nihlo.

Not only does science point to existence being axiomatic, but simple logic does as well, because ?nothing? is an incoherent concept. ?Nothing? is not lack, not empty, not the void, not darkness, not the absence of anything, because the absence of anything would still be something. So again, the concept of creation from literally nothing makes no sense, because ?nothing? quite literally cannot exist.

In the end, the theist is reduced to demanding to know why there is something rather than nothing ? but this too begs the question, because it presumes that nothing or non-existence ought to be the natural state of things. This is like presuming the sky is supposed to be green and then citing the fact that it is blue as evidence for a Creator.

A scientist does not ask "why is there something rather than nothing", but rather "why SHOULDN'T there be something rather than nothing". There isn't anything about the universe that suggests it shouldn't be here and be exactly as we observe it be.

All of that aside, current quantum theories may in fact have room for our universe coming from what would be perceptually (not literally) nothing. Such theories included the universe arising from a quantum vacuum fluctuation that propagated itself, proposed by Ed Tyron in the early 1970s and a variation upon this proposed by Alex Vilenkin in the 80s that was dubbed quantum tunneling.

The most lucid theory going at the moment was proposed by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, and is often dubbed the ?no boundary proposal?. Their view provides a description of the universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it ? pretty much what I?ve laid out above. For Hawking, this description is timeless, for as one looks at earlier and earlier times, they find that the universe is not eternal, but has no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of Planck time (10-43 seconds), our classical understanding of space-time is reduced to quantum soup. In Hawking's exact words:

?The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.? - A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.

Whew. We?re just getting warmed up here.

Quote:
Science Problem #2: How did order arise from disorder?

Here comes miracle #2 for the atheist. Their faith in the Big Bang allows them to ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The 2nd Law of Thermo teaches which way a process will go. It teaches that in a closed system like our Universe it will go from order to disorder.

What does the Big Bang preach to its disciples? The Big Bang teaches that the Universe went from disorder to order!

It teaches disorderly helium and hydrogen gas formed orderly solar systems. Someone can believe that if they chose to, but they should never teach it is a scientific position.

This is just plain ridiculous, and again all too familiar.

The Big Bang most certainly does not violate the second law of thermodynamics either, nor does evolution (I never get tired of hearing that one). Theists and creationists would do themselves a gigantic favor to stop pontificating on subjects they clearly have no understanding of.

First of all, entropy is not a measure of order or disorder, per se, nor does it stipulate that ordered systems are not possible, even for a closed system.

Let me assure you that what follows is greatly simplified, but I wanted to take a look at the actual energy states of the universe, pre and post Big Bang.

The total mass-energy of the universe is constant (1st law of thermodynamics). Entropy is a spread in the distribution of energy over quantum states (from a quantum standpoint) or phase space (from a classical standpoint) over time. In more basic terms, entropy is a measure of the "quality" of heat or available energy. It is essentially the thermodynamic principle that gives us equilibrium and states that systems tend to move toward equilibrium - i.e. a hot or cold object tends to reach the temperature of the environment it is in. (Note that while in general systems move toward equilibrium, it is still possible to move away from equilibrium at points within the system where there are energy gradients).

The only cosmological implication I can think of that results directly from the 2nd Law is the theory of the "heat death" of our universe - that once our universe reaches equilibrium it will be cold, dark and desolate (if there is not enough dark matter in the universe to halt its expansion and quantum fluctuations don't become large players, that is).

The theory goes that once the universe reaches maximum entropy that there will be no more free energy to sustain motion or life and the temperature of the universe would be around absolute zero. It is important to realize what "heat death" means here - we are talking about maximum entropy for a given state and temperature. It is very possible and indeed many theorize that before the universe began its current expansion that it was also at "heat death" - albeit at a different, state and temperature. We are not necessarily talking about temperature, but free energy - the amount of work that can be extracted from a system
If the system is at maximum entropy it is at equilibrium for that particular state by definition. Change the state (temperature, pressure, volume, etc) and you move away from equilibrium.

Now for some math and thermodynamics, brace yourselves:
Free energy is the amount of work that a system can do - you can think of it as the amount of useful energy in the system; energy that can cause motion, or heat things up. There are two kinds of free energy - Helmholtz and Gibbs.

Gibbs free energy is defined as:

G = H - TS

where G is the Gibb's energy, H is enthalpy*, T is temperature and S entropy.

Any natural process will occur spontaneously if and only if the associated change in G for the system is negative. This means that, a system reaches equilibrium when the associated change in G for the system is zero (ΔG = zero), and no spontaneous process will occur if the change in G is positive (ΔG > 0).

*-enthalpy is heat content.

Helmholtz free energy is defined as:

A = U-TS

where A is the Helmholtz energy, U is the internal energy of the system, T is the temperature and S is entropy.

The total work performed on a system at constant temperature in a reversible process is equal to the change in Helmholtz free energy.

Now, let's do some math.

(In the below <= and >= will be greater than or equal too and less than or equal to. dX will be the partial derivative of the property X.)

The second law states that in a closed system, equilibrium is reached when entropy is maximized:

dS >= dQ/dT

Now, let's examine "heat death". Let's say for simplicity?s sake that prior to the universe expanding, it was at a constant temperature and volume.

A little algebra allows us to write the 2nd law as:

dQ - TdS = 0

One can combine the 1st and 2nd laws in a well known equation (I'll derive this if you are really interested, but it should be well known to people in engineering and physics fields):

dU = TdS - pdV

substituting in the Helmholtz equation:

dA = dQ - TdS - pdV - SdT

If the universe were at constant temperature and volume (say prior to the big bang) we get:

dA(T,V) = dQ - TdS <= 0

So at constant T and V the Helmholtz free energy will seek a minimum - this means that for a spontaneous process to occur the net change in free energy must be zero (equilibrium) or decrease (not yet at equilibrium). Alternatively, one could expand the system and reduce the temperature - and this is what we think happened and is happening now.

So now we have an expanding, cooling system. Similarly we can substitute the Gibb's equation and get:

dG(T,P) = dQ - TdS <=0

This means that as our universe cools and expands to a constant temperature the Gibbs energy seeks a minimum. For a spontaneous process to occur the change in Gibbs energy must be negative (if not yet at equilibrium) or zero (if at equilibrium).

In the two cases I've described - two states of the universe, there would be no free energy available to do work and the system would be essentially static.

That the universe will reach another state of heat death depends on whether or not there is enough dark matter-energy in the universe to halt its expansion. Why the universe began to expand in the first place is a bit of a mystery, but ample empirical evidence tells us that this expansion did indeed occur.
So no, ?disorderly? helium and hydrogen didn?t form the stars, for these gases certainly aren?t what one could ever call disorderly from an entropic point of view. Helium and hydrogen did condense as the universe began to cool, and were coalesced into stars by gravitational forces between the molecules.

Quote:
Science Problem #3: If that clump of matter did expand, what caused it to expand and how much energy was there to spread this matter at such great distances?

Miracle #3 for the atheist. Simply put, gravity would prevent this matter from expanding. Without explaining what caused the matter to expand and create this Universe, the atheist believes in a miracle that violates the laws of Gravity.

I marvel at how a person who doesn?t even know why planets and stars are spherical can presume to now pontificate on the laws of gravity.

Like I alluded to above, it is a bit of a mystery why the universe began to expand, but that expansion is certainly not a violation of any physical laws, especially gravity. This probably boils down to you erroneously seeing the Big Bang as an actual explosion; you?ve made it clear that you refuse to learn why people who actually understand the theory don?t see it as such in your first paragraph. The energy for this expansion didn?t come from anywhere, it was already there. The singularity the universe we know today originated from contained exactly the same amount of matter-energy it does now.

A simple quantum perturbation could have upset the equilibrium of the proto-universe and set it off on an expansion as I have previously described. We also see what may be an analogous situation and a violation of the ?laws of gravity according to theists? in black holes, which emit Hawking radiation in the form of x-rays and photons ? yes, black holes slowly evaporate, even with all that gravity holding them together.

The point is, even if it is a mystery why the universe began to inflate, it doesn?t change the fact that we have obscene amounts of empirical observations that tell us this is exactly what has happened, and the mere existence of a mystery certainly does not lend any sort of credence to one?s case for a deity. That we don?t know something, means only that we don?t know ? nothing more. Mysteries aren?t a problem for science, rather, science thrives on mysteries. If we already had all the answers, there would be no reason to explore any further.

I can?t believe I?ve rambled on this long without sharing some of the evidence we have for the Big Bang, so allow me to indulge myself:

We have empirical evidence like cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This CMB was predicted as a result of Big Bang theory, it is a remnant of the very young and VERY hot infant universe and was first observed in 1965 by radio-astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who shared the Noble for their discovery.

Then there is the fact that galaxies are moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called Hubble's Law, named after Edwin Hubble who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

Then there?s a little thing called Olber?s Paradox, which is why the night sky isn?t filled totally with starlight and as bright as the sun. The only plausible explanations for this are that distant stars are red-shifted into obscurity because they are traveling away from us at enormous speeds, or that the light from very distant stars hasn?t reached us yet. Both explanations support the inflationary Big Bang model of the universe.

Then there?s the homogeneity and isotropy of the observed universe ? gobs of data showing that our location in the universe is not special or central and that the universe looks the same in all directions ? more support for the Big Bang.

And there?s time dilation in supernovae light curves! This was a direct prediction of the inflationary Big Bang model and has been directly observed several times.

Just read the two links above myself today, at least I learned something from responding to this gibberish.

Quote:
Science Problem #4: The atheist?s 4th miracle....what caused the helium and hydrogen gas to expand then later come together to form stars.....Laws of Physics tell us the gas should keep expanding....not compress upon itself and miraculously form stars planets and galaxies.

We?ve already been over this. What, exactly, is the ?law of physics? that would prevent this, anyway? Planet and star formation is a well documented and well understood concept, and as I?ve already explained, the formation is caused by gravity ? not a miracle.

We can see the formation of stars today in nebulae throughout the universe.

Stars are born in gas clouds like the Eagle Nebula. It is here that dense clouds of gas coalesce and collapse under their own gravity to form a rotating ball. As more and more material is gathered due to the growing gravitational mass of the proto-star, the temperature and pressure and speed of rotation increases. This is very simple high school level physics. Eventually, the central core of this dense cloud of gas and dust will become a star, and the surrounding disk of dust on the central axis may further coalesce into planets.

The star once formed will persist so long as the star maintains its internal pressure against its own gravity, this is done by the nuclear fusion of light elements into heavier ones. When the star runs out of fuel, depending on its solar mass it will either swell into a red giant and then shrink to a white dwarf while ejecting it?s planetary nebula, like for instance the Cat?s Eye nebula, or go supernova, ejecting it?s heavy elements into the universe.

These are well understood concepts, and there is nothing miraculous about them.

As a side note, I?d like to say that I love it when creationists and theists drone on and on about the ?laws of science?, as if they controlled our universe. A physical law or a scientific law is simply a human description of how the universe consistently behaves. Human descriptions based on human observations. Because of this they are open to refinement or outright rebuttal as new observations are made.

IDers and creationist like to ignore this fact, and claim that such laws actually govern or control the universe - for example saying that the laws of chemistry control atomic and molecular interactions, or prevent this or that. Utter bollocks. This is like saying that a reporter covering a political election controls the election's outcome by writing the story. It is ridiculous to think that the laws of science, which are accounts of human observation, control the phenomena and observations they are derived from.

Quote:
Which miracles are you going to believe, miracles from God or miracles from energy and matter. Both positions have faith, both positions believe in miracles, the choice of where you place your faith is the most important choice you will ever make.

Sorry, but science does not require faith. It takes no faith to believe in gravity or in well understood and documented aspects of our universe which are based on sound reasoning and empirical evidence. Oh, and notice again that the best a theist can ever hope to do is denigrate reasonable positions by attempting to bring those positions down to their own faith based position. You aren?t going to win any battles or converts by crying, ?Well, your beliefs are just as ridiculous and as much faith based as mine!? ? especially when that simply isn?t true.

Also, be sure not to miss the thinly veiled threat as to where one puts their so called faith. Classic!

Quote:
There are many more problems but space is limited. I highly recommend Donald deYoung?s book: "Astronomy and the Bible." You can order it from ICR by calling (619) 448-0900.

I highly recommend that you save yourself $15.95, and simply head over to the Rational Response Squad. Reason won?t cost you a cent.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

This is just flipping awesome Mike, good work.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

FABULOUS....

I would like to add as a biologist a simple point about conservation of matter-energy.

DNA is also very conserved. There are genes out there that reoccur through out nature. The simple building blocks of life and amino acids and protens. This is plain evidence of evolution. Even DNA itslef is exactly the same in every living thing..... so are proteins, sugars, etc..all the same..of course a theist could say that this is what god used to make things, however, that would in a sense contradict a "miracle" theory that god created out of nothing.

Bravo, yellow number 5.....

:smt062 it is obvious you're a hell bound secular scientist. lol :smt096

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Christen
Christen's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2006-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

Wow! What an amazing, well formulated response!


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Re: Debunking creationism

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Look forward to the Rational Response to http://fishdontwalk.com/articles.asp

I just got off the phone with the creator of "Fishdontwalk.com." He will be coming on our show to debate these issues. He may even step onto the message boards, we'll see.

BTW: Great job Mike.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

LeftofLarry wrote:
FABULOUS....

I would like to add as a biologist a simple point about conservation of matter-energy.

DNA is also very conserved. There are genes out there that reoccur through out nature. The simple building blocks of life and amino acids and protens. This is plain evidence of evolution. Even DNA itslef is exactly the same in every living thing..... so are proteins, sugars, etc..all the same..of course a theist could say that this is what god used to make things, however, that would in a sense contradict a "miracle" theory that god created out of nothing.

No doubt. The fundamental unitiy of all life on earth is some ot the best evolutionary evidence we have.

I've posted this quite a few times on the IG forums:

The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it.

In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one.

There are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes.

All of this points to a, as in ONE, common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical.

Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides.

Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well.

The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.

Quote:
:smt062 it is obvious you're a hell bound secular scientist. lol :smt096

Well, according to most fundies there isn't any other kind :twisted:

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

BTW, thanks for all the kind responses guys Laughing out loud

I'm looking forward to talking to the fishdontwalk guy. Hopefully I can get a few more response like this one done before then.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
LeftofLarry wrote:
FABULOUS....

I would like to add as a biologist a simple point about conservation of matter-energy.

DNA is also very conserved. There are genes out there that reoccur through out nature. The simple building blocks of life and amino acids and protens. This is plain evidence of evolution. Even DNA itslef is exactly the same in every living thing..... so are proteins, sugars, etc..all the same..of course a theist could say that this is what god used to make things, however, that would in a sense contradict a "miracle" theory that god created out of nothing.

No doubt. The fundamental unitiy of all life on earth is some ot the best evolutionary evidence we have.

I've posted this quite a few times on the IG forums:

The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it.

In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one.

There are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes.

All of this points to a, as in ONE, common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical.

Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides.

Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well.

The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.

Quote:
:smt062 it is obvious you're a hell bound secular scientist. lol :smt096

Well, according to most fundies there isn't any other kind :twisted:

Let's not forget the scientific concept of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" plain as day. Theists will try and try to discredit this, however, it's plain to see...life is inter-related. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Look at how higher vertebrates are set up...most have almost identical systems, cardiovascular, muscular etc... most have eyes, nose teeth..how can one say all animals have not evolved from a common ancestor..just absolutely ludicrous..from biochemistry to plain anatomy...it's all there...tied in with physics as being perhaps the guiding force..without the laws of physics giving rise to laws of chemistry..none of this would be possible....not god..that's for sure.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

Hey guys, wanna win a prize for crushing irrationality?

What I've started here isn't over by a long shot, in fact, if any of you science minded infidels out there would like to give me a hand and take a fishdontwalk article or two under your wing I would really appreciate it. Hopefully, you would even be willing to lay out what you've written and appear on our program! We'll make you famous!

It is standard that simple creationist questions require meticulous and detailed refutation, and this is why many of us fail to put up arguments - it requires a great deal of effort and knowledge. As such it is hard for one man to do it alone, and any help your heathens can offer would be greatly welcomed. Rest assured, I will do it on my own if I have to, but there are subjects on apologetics and non-science things that I would love help on. I'd love help on the science stuff too. Cosmology and and geology are not my forte, and the more expert a refutation, the better.

The RR Squad courtesy of Brian Flemming, or me, Yellow, out of my own pocket personally, will send a copy of the Brian Flemming's "The God Who Wasn't There" to the first of you with a kick ass detailed and complete response to any of the articles on fishdontwalk's board (In other words, you need something similar to what is posted above). I'd prefer it be in an a non-biology/evolution area, as these are ducks on the pond for me, but if that is your area of expertise, feel free to pull the trigger.

Also guys, I understand that this fishdontwalk article is floating around the web. I personally would like to keep my responses on the down-low for the time being until we interview the authors. However, this is posted in a public forum and if must post my response to it, please give credit to me and the RR Squad, also please let us know how it goes over, I'm genuinely curious

In rationality,

Yellow

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


i_laugh_at_your_god
Posts: 2
Joined: 2006-02-16
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

Hey everybody. Thought I'd help out a little and take one of FishDontWalk.com's articles. I'm a little new at this, but here it goes.

Quote:
The moon is the earth?s closest companion?it is a satellite of the earth. It is a dark body (like a planet) and is seen by reflected sunlight. The Bible says, "God created the moon to be "the lesser light that rules the night" (Genesis 1:16). This is one of many essential duties served by the moon. Our planet is the only planet with a moon large enough to light up the evening sky. Our moon is 100 times larger than the average sized moon in our solar system. With an average sized moon, our evenings would be 20 times darker.

Well, most of that is basically correct. As to his opinion of our moon being the only moon to be able to light up an evening sky, that is wrong. The largest moon is found off of Jupiter, called Ganymede, is actually bigger than the planet Mercury. The second largest is found orbiting Saturn, classified as Titan. Our moon is 3,476 km in diameter, which would rank it 5th in the solar system. The moon Charon is only about 1,100 km less in diameter than the planet it orbits (pluto), which would light up that planet's "evening sky" just fine.

Quote:
The Bible in Genesis 1:14 says the moon was also created "for signs and seasons and days and years." Meticulous records demonstrate that the moon has remained in a stable orbit for 3000 years. This stable and predictable orbit has allowed people to accurately predict eclipses many years in advance?what an orderly solar system God has created!

Well, the moon could not have been created alongside Earth, based on the inclination of the orbit. As of today, the 'giant impact hypothesis' is the most viable. This hypothesis states that early-Earth impacted with a planetary object about the size of Mars (referred to as Theia or Orpheus). The impact caused debris to fly outward, getting caught in orbit and eventually formed our moon. Two observations heavily support this hypothesis. 1) The moon's composition resembles the Earth's crust; it doesnt have many heavy elements that would be there if it formed by itself. 2) Through radiometric dating, we've discovered that the moon's crust was formed between 20 and 30 million years after the Earth's crust, even though the moon is smaller and has a larger loss of internal heat.

As to the stability of the orbit, the moon is actually flying away from us at quite a steady pace! Every year, the moon recedes from the earth by about 38mm. Admittedly, this is a very minute distance considering the size of the objects we're looking at, but eventually, this WILL cause problems. Not so orderly now, huh?

Quote:
The moon is nearly a perfect sphere; its diameter differs by no more than 1% in any direction. One reason for this is that the slower an astronomical body spins, the less it becomes bulged at the equator and flattened at the poles. The moon rotates slower than the earth, which attributes to it being more spherical.

Hey! Looks like he finally understands how spheres are formed in space. This article must have come after the one you did, Y_N_5.

Quote:
Tides are essential for life on earth and caused mostly by the moon?s gravity (with some help from the sun?s gravity and centrifugal force). The gravity of the moon directly causes a bulge of ocean water on the side of the earth toward the moon. A bulge of water is a high tide, while the bulge farthest from the coast is where the low tide occurs.

Basic and simplistic, but overall correct.

Then he dives in:

Quote:
Back to Creation vs. Evolution

What is the Best Explanation for the origin of the moon?

a) The moon is a result of chance events that occurred over a long period of time.

b) The moon is a result of a plan by an intelligent designer.

The Public schools teach choice "a." Do not let them off the hook too easily. Insist on a detailed explanation. Success or failure lies in the details. Here are some of the "best explanations" by those who reject the idea of an intelligent designer.

The Capture Theory

This theory proposes that the moon was once a planet travelling around the sun in its own orbit. They propose the earth captured the moon. A good question is how could the earth capture the moon from the sun (the sun has a much stronger gravitational pull). It would require a catastrophe, which has never been observed in this orderly solar system.

The mathematical probability of such an event is extremely low. For the Capture Theory to occur, the moon would have to be dislodged from its original orbit around the sun and them brought near the earth in just the right direction at the right speed ? or else the moon would either crash into the earth or it would drift off to space.

The Fission Theory

For nearly 100 years, people speculated that the moon spun off from the earth. Most of them believe that it was ripped from the Pacific Ocean, based upon its great depth. This theory has many flaws. Beside the miracle of the mass being in a perfect orbit with the earth, the earth would have had to spin at an incredible rate to allow the fission. The theoretical spinning would have generated heat to result in a temperature of 4500 F! There is no geological evidence the earth?s crust ever was subjected to this heat. Also, what caused the earth to slow down? One last problem is the composition of the moon rocks is different enough from the earth to render the Fission Theory as "hopeless."

The Accretion Theory

This popular theory proposes the earth and moon accumulated from the same original cloud of dust and gas.

Problems: 1) Small particles do not bind together to form large particles. There is no known explanation of what caused all this dust to get together and form the earth and moon. 2) The moon is composed of lighter materials than earth?Two bodies formed from the same area of the same cloud should have the same or similar composition.

The Impact Theory

This theory proposes a planet the size of Mars smashed the Earth (near its edge) and parts of the Earth and the mystery planet broke away and these fragments formed the moon.

As with the other theories, it is extremely unlikely fragmented masses formed a single mass and then found a perfect orbit with earth. The broken pieces would have either fallen back to earth or escaped its gravitational field entirely.

To the unbiased, any naturalistic explanation for the moon?s origin is logically unsound. However these theories are still promulgated since many people do not like the ramifications of admitting there is a designer much more powerful and intelligent than us.

As I already said, the makeup of the moon as well as it's irregular orbit pretty much tell us that it was NOT an independantly formed object. I'm not going to regurgitate the same information over and over again. I would just like to say that however "logically unsound" these hypothesis' might be, they're all proven to be able to happen. It doesnt mean that they have happened, but they could have. Still haven't seen any proof that creationism is even ABLE to be an option.

I just want to thank Wikipedia for help with this article, and you guys for having this site and giving me a chance to blast some theists. Now if you'll excuse me, Im gonna go rock out for a while.... :smt035


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

Thanks, I_laugh Laughing out loud

It is especially interesting that he seems to know why the moon is a sphere here and not why stars and planets are in the article I addressed Puzzled

I'm going to recommend that you get a copy of the TGWWT, and if we're out of promo copies, well I'll take care of that myself.

If you PM or email me a shipping address, I'll take care of that ASAP.

Thanks, again, I do apprieciate the help.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Thanks, I_laugh Laughing out loud

I'm going to recommend that you get a copy of the TGWWT, and if we're out of promo copies

You're wish is my command. Mr. Five. Send me the address and I will send a promo copy of The God Who Wasn't There to "I laugh."

For those of you interested, please pick up a copy of the God Who Wasn't There, by visiting: http://www.TheGodMovie.com

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

Sapient wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Thanks, I_laugh Laughing out loud

I'm going to recommend that you get a copy of the TGWWT, and if we're out of promo copies

You're wish is my command. Mr. Five. Send me the address and I will send a promo copy of The God Who Wasn't There to "I laugh."

For those of you interested, please pick up a copy of the God Who Wasn't There, by visiting: http://www.TheGodMovie.com

Thanks, as soon as the lucky winner contacts me I'll give it to you Laughing out loud

I also offered one to BobSpence for a refutation he just PMed me over at IG, but I'll take care of that one out of pocket. Or, since I already have his address, we can send it to him and I'll take care of I_laugh myself. Either way, but keep in mind Bob is an Aussie, so shipping will be a bit more.

I'll also post his reply here shortly.

BTW, guys, I've been quite busy this week, so I don't know if I'll be able to do another installment myself till next week, so please be patient.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

BobSpence wrote another excellent refutation:

BobSpence1 wrote:
One of the first questions in this article:

"How does a very dense gas like R-12 get elevated to 5 miles above the earth?"

Note: Freon 12 is about four times denser than oxygen, and three times denser than carbon dioxide.

First point: atmospherical circulation.
The atmosphere is not static; apart from the horizontal motion we feel as wind, there is vertical circulation driven by temperature differences. Soaring birds and glider pilots use small scale 'thermals' over warmer patches of ground to gain altitude. Larger patterns have air rising above the tropics and descending again near the poles, the motion complicated by the rotation of the Earth.

Even if these air movements were not enough, there is another phenomenon that needs to be considered: diffusion. This is the process which causes a mixture of gases to tend to become evenly mixed over time, due to the random motion of the molecules. The effect of gravity in causing heavier molecules to tend to lower layers and light molecules to drift up is negligible because of the velocities of the molecules - of the order of 1000mph - and the short distances they travel before colliding with other molecules - about 60 trillionths of a meter at sea-level to about one-tenth of a meter at 100km altitude. Also note that the speed is lower for heavier molecules, but as the square-root, ie a molecule 100 times heavier will have an average velocity only one tenth that of a lighter molecule. So Freon 12 will diffuse at about 60% the speed of carbon dioxide, not such a big difference.

If the argument was valid, then our atmosphere would tend to be stratified into layers of different density gases, with all the heavier molecules, like carbon dioxide and most pollutant molecules close to the surface, with water vapour at the top as the lightest common molecule in the atmosphere. This doesn't seem to be what we experience...

Regarding the release of chlorine from swimming pools, etc, I think the problem is the these are highly reactive molecules, unlike CFC's, so they don't persist in the atmosphere long enough to reach the stratosphere, where most of the ozone creation/depletion action is happening.

THe effect of volcanoes is short-lived, again because most of them don't deliver the chlorine high enough to reach the stratosphere directly. The chemistry is complicated, but under some conditions of low background atmospheric chlorine, volcanic eruptions may actually increase ozone concentrations, because some of the nitrogen compounds that are also often released actually disrupt the ozone-destroying reactions. See

http://www.aer.com/scienceResearch/volcano.html

Another question:

"Why is the ozone hole over Antarctica and not over the USA?"

The process is enhanced by the polar stratospheric clouds which can only form under polar conditions and which provide particles on which the various reacting compounds collect and are brought together to greatly enhance the particular reactions. In addition, the atmospheric circulation (the Antarctic Vortex) around the pole tends to limit mixing with the rest of the atmosphere, thus keeping the nitrogen compounds which are generated in mid-latitudes from disrupting the process, which also helps explain why there is no major ozone hole over the USA.

I don't think there is any evidence that volcanic activity in Antarctica is more intense than in many other parts of the world.

The process almost certainly occurs to some extent over the whole globe, but conditions are more favourable over the polar regions and Antarctica in particular. As concentrations rise, the effect will increase. Even if the major action happens over the poles, seasonal changes in atmospheric circulation distribute the ozone depleted air into mid-latitudes, so it will eventually start to affect places like the USA. We in Australia are already at risk because the Southern hole is much more severe.

A good detailed discussion can be found here:

http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/SEES/ozone/oz_class.htm

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

Do you debunkers care to increase your level of torture?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

Sapient wrote:
Do you debunkers care to increase your level of torture?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

Oh, Jebus, one at a time Laughing out loud

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5877
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

I should have got into the habit of reading this topic regularly - I just posted my own response to the Moon article in the Science forum.

Should we be co-ordinating our debunks thru this thread, to avoid too much duplicated effort?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

You can post them wherever you want, Bob. I had intended this to be the main thread, but I don't mind pulling things together and organizing on occasion.

Thanks again for the effort you are putting into this, btw, it really is helpful and appreiciated Smiling

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

Yellow, I mentioned to Bob that we might want him to join us when we talk with fishdontwalkman on the air.

Just keeping everyone informed. Smiling

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5877
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

Just to let you know I posted a new topic about the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5877
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Laws of Thermodynamics

Just a thought - that topic I started on the First Law - could we change the topic title to just the Laws of Thermodynamics, so we can cover the 2nd law there as well? They are obviously closely related.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Re: Laws of Thermodynamics

BobSpence1 wrote:
Just a thought - that topic I started on the First Law - could we change the topic title to just the Laws of Thermodynamics, so we can cover the 2nd law there as well? They are obviously closely related.

Sure, I believe that any topic starter can edit his first post and edit the title. Would you test it to make sure. That is how the board should work.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5877
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Re: Laws of Thermodynamics

Sapient wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
Just a thought - that topic I started on the First Law - could we change the topic title to just the Laws of Thermodynamics, so we can cover the 2nd law there as well? They are obviously closely related.

Sure, I believe that any topic starter can edit his first post and edit the title. Would you test it to make sure. That is how the board should work.

Yep that worked.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5877
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

Just letting you guys know I've posted the first part of a discussion of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in my 'Laws of Thermodynamics' thread.

I concentrate on the strict thermodynamic interpretation in this part, and touch on the broader interpretations of Entropy at the end.

I decided that was enough for one post, as I am still sorting out in my head the more subtle issues of complexity, etc, that the Theists always have in mind when they throw this Law at us.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5877
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

Just did some more reworking of the second law post to clarify it and make a more explicit statement as to why it doesn't prohibit abiogenesis and evolution.

I still intend to go into the complexity implications in more depth in another post, but what I have there should still be useful in attacking the 'violation of the second law of thermodynamics' crap.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


GuentherBacon
Rational VIP!
GuentherBacon's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Re: Laws of Thermodynamics

Sapient wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
Just a thought - that topic I started on the First Law - could we change the topic title to just the Laws of Thermodynamics, so we can cover the 2nd law there as well? They are obviously closely related.

Sure, I believe that any topic starter can edit his first post and edit the title. Would you test it to make sure. That is how the board should work.

I have a great essay that debunks the Creationist claim that evolution breaches the 2nd Law. I'll post it later.

Say unto thine own heart, "I am mine own redeemer."
The Book Of Satan IV:3, The Satanic Bible


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Re: Laws of Thermodynamics

GuentherBacon wrote:

I have a great essay that debunks the Creationist claim that evolution breaches the 2nd Law. I'll post it later.

Please do.

We record a segment with fishdontwalk.com owner this Saturday.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

I still say that teaching ID or creationism in a Biology class is akin to teaching astrology in an astronomy class, alchemy in a chemistry class or "There are gaps in the theory that the Earth is round, and besides it's only a theory. Things are too complex to be explained by a round Earth, so the idea that it's actually flat deserves equal treatment."

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Lucretius
Lucretius's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-04-05
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

Debunking Creationism? A favorite hobby of mine. We all know they like to say that evolution is just a theory (just like gravity), the only problem is that they tend to repeat things after you demonstrate they are wrong.

I am listening to the fishdontwalk.com episode right now (thanks for that youth scholarship!). I love these types of shows the most, because Creationism/Evolution is so fun to discuss.

I think a better way to quickly beat Bill's "car from Seattle" analogy would have been to state that the car's motion involves conscious decision making. Choices that one could not possibly predict, and that no one can rightfully say would involve choosing a straight path, over any other. The expansion of the universe, on the other hand, involves physical laws that do not magically change. Physical laws do not choose to cause space to expand, or contract, based on whim. Laws are laws, and do not change.

Also, I noticed that you were trying to do this throughout: but Bill kept asking about what happened before the Big Bang. I think it would have been most helpful to state that without a Unified Theory of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, one cannot know anything about the era "prior" to Planck Time, so making claims about what happened then is pointless.

I didn't follow Bill's thought on the Thermodynamical laws. I think Bob Spence also did an excellent job of clarifying things, and also in regards to the need for a unified theory.


T-Rex
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

LeftofLarry wrote:

... it's plain to see...life is inter-related. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Look at how higher vertebrates are set up...most have almost identical systems, cardiovascular, muscular etc... most have eyes, nose teeth..how can one say all animals have not evolved from a common ancestor..just absolutely ludicrous..from biochemistry to plain anatomy...it's all there...tied in with physics as being perhaps the guiding force..without the laws of physics giving rise to laws of chemistry..none of this would be possible....not god..that's for sure.

I need some help here. I believe the claim that "higher vertebrates... have almost identical systems, cardiovascular, muscular, etc." is actually very, very detrimental to evolution. While it sounds logical that if all have evolved from a common ancestor there should be similar traits among these beings.

But let's think about this a minute. Look at dinosaurs. For the most part, dinosaurs had reached the "standard" structure of all higher vertebrates. So whether you pick a large plant eater or a small, low to the ground, meat eater, the structure is very similar... two hind legs, two fore legs, one head, two eyes, one mouth, similar skeletal structure (2 bones in lower leg, 1 in upper).

So is it fair to assume the evolutionary process to reach the optimal "standard" structure took place before and/or during the evolution process of the dinosaur and hasn't changed since?

If evolution is a series of random mutations, how has this harmony been preserved in so many species? Birds, bats, mice, elephants, giraffes, frogs, humans, and dinosaurs all exhibit way too many similarities for random mutations to have maintained this structure. The creatures have diverged dramatically in "type", but how do you explain the extreme similarity in "kind"? The type of the animal (mouse and elephant) have diverged very dramatically, but every organ within them has remained consistent. They both eat through a mouth, both breath oxygen, both digest food through similar (if not identical) organs, both reproduce through similar processes. These similarities cannot have been maintained without some variety in kind (changes to organs, structure).

Where are all the random species of 6 lungs, three brains (one in the head, one in each hip), four hearts, no toes half-dog, half alligators? Even a fish maintains the similarities of kind (one head, two eyes, eats, digests, and produces waste in the same fashion).

To think this "standard" structure has been preserved for 300 million years since the early dinosaurs and hasn't varied in kind is hard to swallow.

So I ask you to help me see... "how can one say all animals have not evolved from a common ancestor..just absolutely ludicrous." The problem isn't that they've all evolved from a common ancestor.

LeftofLarry's initial comment "it's plain to see...life is inter-related. There is absolutely no doubt about that." I totally agree. Life is inter-related, from beginning to now. To me, it's clear that the one Creator had a plan, knew what was optimal for His design, and fashioned His creation around that plan.

I am very curious to hear an expert explanation from an evolutionary perspective.

T-Rex


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

T-Rex wrote:
I need some help here. I believe the claim that "higher vertebrates... have almost identical systems, cardiovascular, muscular, etc." is actually very, very detrimental to evolution. While it sounds logical that if all have evolved from a common ancestor there should be similar traits among these beings.

It is logical and proven not only phylogenically and systematically but also genetically. Undisputed. The facts are there.

T-Rex wrote:

But let's think about this a minute. Look at dinosaurs. For the most part, dinosaurs had reached the "standard" structure of all higher vertebrates. So whether you pick a large plant eater or a small, low to the ground, meat eater, the structure is very similar... two hind legs, two fore legs, one head, two eyes, one mouth, similar skeletal structure (2 bones in lower leg, 1 in upper).

How do you prove that dinosaurs have reached the "standard" structure of all higher vertebrates, who ever said dinosaur are "higher" vertebrates, and also, how do you define your standard. Your argument is making many many assumptions here, which if cleared, would probably not need an explanation. Plus, I would like to mention that your arguemtn also fails to recognize other domains, such as the prokaryotic bacteria and even single celled eukaryotes which make up not only the kingdom of plants, fungi and animals, but also the one of single celled organisms called protists. Also, insects, let's not forget a fly's eye, man...have you ever seen it? The traits of evolution and the conservation of genes can be seen throught all domains and kingdoms. The basic structures cells with slight modifications can be seen, but these modifications can also be very different.

T-Rex wrote:

So is it fair to assume the evolutionary process to reach the optimal "standard" structure took place before and/or during the evolution process of the dinosaur and hasn't changed since?

There is no such thing as a standard optimal structure, only what works because of selective pressures whcih are haracterized by environmental stressors. For example, an infectious organism (protist, bacteria, or virus) endemic to an area may through time (hundreds of thousands of years) evolve to bind to certain proteins, say on your blood cells that right there is putting selective pressure on the host to change it's protein structure ever so slightly so that that infectious agent will not recognize that protein and essentially rendering the host immune to that specific pathogen. I can show this to you by the way. This is the same mechanism that causes antibiotic resistan bacteria... selective pressures-------->Natural Selection.

Selective pressures guide evolution. Many species have died because they had evolved to be adapted to certain temperatures, etc...and when the earth changed they died. The conservation of genes is seen as proof that not all species (such as dinosaurs) have died off completely. So it is absolutely wrong to assume that the standard optimal structure was reached during the "dinosaurs" time, whcih by the way were talking about a time period of hundred of millions of years. The world is ever changing and we can see the process of evolution through selective pressures, especially in bacteria and single celled organisms on a much faster level. Because they are simpler (and I use that term loosely).

Another example look at the evolution fo animals in the deep trenches of the ocean. This whole ecosystem has evolved using chemotrophy as opposed to photosynthesis the basis of life everwhere the sun reaches. There is no way life stopped evolving at the "dinosaurs" age. That is an absolutely wrong assumption.

T-Rex wrote:

If evolution is a series of random mutations, how has this harmony been preserved in so many species?

Random mutations that if fit right will be passed on. Because it is a law of evolution that if something works it needs not fixing. Random mutations occur all the time, some are harmful some not, but accumulating random mutations over time, the ones that work will be the ones to survive and be passed on. THe ones that don't work will die out. Random mutations over million of years..and million of years to come.

T-Rex wrote:

Birds, bats, mice, elephants, giraffes, frogs, humans, and dinosaurs all exhibit way too many similarities for random mutations to have maintained this structure.

Wrong, you have to look at the big picture here, you are being shorsighted, these animals have evolved from a common ancestors, however the phylogenetic tree is vast. It is not a simple ladder, it is a tree, and the genes that fit best survive. this process takes millions of years to occur. the genes that have accumulated through time, and have proven to work, are conserved. Animals are the same, yet differnet becasue of the environmental stressors they have evolved and are still evolving in, it is not something that happenes over night, but why do you think there is such biodiversity (fungi, insects, fish invertebrates etc...that all share the same 22 amino acids, yet are so different?) Evolution both shows similariteis and adaptation. Your vision is very shortsighted. Which is not surprising, it is obvious you have very little understanding of biological principles.

T-Rex wrote:

The creatures have diverged dramatically in "type", but how do you explain the extreme similarity in "kind"? The type of the animal (mouse and elephant) have diverged very dramatically, but every organ within them has remained consistent.

Your own question is the answer. Evolution uses the same basic principles and changes them as needed due to selective stressors, this is why you don't see a fish out of water, or a human wiht a long neck.
However you will see a fish with eyes as well as a human, even though the eye are very differently adapted. THis is also why you see a pineal eye on lizards (kind of like a third eye) I won't get in to that one though....I'll go on forever, my other specialty is ecology and herpetology.

T-Rex wrote:

They both eat through a mouth, both breath oxygen, both digest food through similar (if not identical) organs, both reproduce through similar processes. These similarities cannot have been maintained without some variety in kind (changes to organs, structure).

Let me remind you of your own cells in your body (immune cells) that eat through phagocytosis. Or let me remind you of filter feeding invertebrates, or butterflies that eat through a proboscis. Not all animals breath oxygen, and certainly plants do not. And these similarites are varied. Look at the difference between a reptilian 3 chambered heart and a mamallian 4 chambered heart, efficiency has increased evolutionarily. however for the metabolic processes of a reptile a 3 chambered heart is good enough. Again evolution showing both conservation yet modifications. Again, your knowledge of biology is limited.

T-Rex wrote:

Where are all the random species of 6 lungs, three brains (one in the head, one in each hip), four hearts, no toes half-dog, half alligators? Even a fish maintains the similarities of kind (one head, two eyes, eats, digests, and produces waste in the same fashion).

There is no need for 6 lungs, no need for 3 brains or four hearts. no half-dogs because reproduction maintains a constancy and change is slow. You can't mate a dog with an alligator, the sperm would not recognize the egg..it is a very slooooooooow process, that's what you're not understanding. It is littel tiny steps that have occured throughout hundreds of millions of years and will continute through another hundred of millions of years...

T-Rex wrote:

To think this "standard" structure has been preserved for 300 million years since the early dinosaurs and hasn't varied in kind is hard to swallow.

preservation of fundamentals as explained above has been shown to have tiny steps of modifications, slowly changing that preserved state.

T-Rex wrote:

So I ask you to help me see... "how can one say all animals have not evolved from a common ancestor..just absolutely ludicrous." The problem isn't that they've all evolved from a common ancestor.

LeftofLarry's initial comment "it's plain to see...life is inter-related. There is absolutely no doubt about that." I totally agree. Life is inter-related, from beginning to now. To me, it's clear that the one Creator had a plan, knew what was optimal for His design, and fashioned His creation around that plan.

THIS IS THE FALLACY OF YOUR ARGUMENT, THERE IS NO CREATOR BECASUE THE OPTIMAL STANDARD IS NON EXISTENT. Put a human in the middle of the ocean, if he's optimal, he would have no problem surviving more than 48 hours. I would like to see god's work there. If your god is so optimal in design, let me ask you about cancer, oh and autoimmune diseases such as lupus etc.. If your idea of a standard of humans and animals is so optimal, because of your creator, describe to me WHY cancer is so prevalent not only in humans but in animals as well. Also, why do we need to shit or piss? If god created humans would you not think he would create a knee with a much better design, the knee is a horribly "designed" joint...look at how easily it is injured. There is no optimal...my friend..your logic and science are being obstructed by the unabashed desire that you are not a meaningless being. Yet no one ever said humans are not meaningless...we have evolved to be so different and unique and special much like all the other species of plants and animals that have evolved to be unique and special Wake up my friend....get educated...then and only then you will see.

T-Rex wrote:

I am very curious to hear an expert explanation from an evolutionary perspective.

T-Rex

hope this was satisfactory.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Ry
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

well said Laryr.

Don't forget that a long with the physical evolution is the evolution of consiouness as well. Which is in large part an act of serindipity with physical evolution mainly for the memory.

Warning, religiousity increases the risk of religious terrorism.

www.anti-neocons.com or www.Rys2sense.com


ioi8
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

I have an evangical baptist friend, and when i tried telling her about all the various homos from before humans, she had this to retort.

Friend - I believe that god planted these bones to help us test our faith.

Me - But what about the carbon dating and the various other methods to determine how long ago they lived?

Friend - God can make new things seem old.

Now, as you can see she is a new-earth believer. HOW do i show her that these bones are in fact real, and can be tested properly to show that in fact that these are our ancestors?

P.S. recent poll by popular science magazine 55% of americans believe that humans were created in their present form in the past 10,000 years. Sad

Matt

Im a genius surrounded by idiots!


Lucretius
Lucretius's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-04-05
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

With responses like the ones she gave you pretty much can't. I would try to point out that Genesis is flawed, my favorite examples being 1) that Genesis states there are 24 hr days before the sun exists and 2) It says men are made after beasts in one account, and then the next one says before (though some newer versions have noticed this error and have added a word to try and make it make sense.)


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

ioi8 wrote:
I have an evangical baptist friend, and when i tried telling her about all the various homos from before humans, she had this to retort.

Friend - I believe that god planted these bones to help us test our faith.

Me - But what about the carbon dating and the various other methods to determine how long ago they lived?

Friend - God can make new things seem new.

Now, as you can see she is a new-earth believer. HOW do i show her that these bones are in fact real, and can be tested properly to show that in fact that these are our ancestors?

P.S. recent poll by popular science magazine 55% of americans believe that humans were created in their present form in the past 10,000 years. Sad

Matt

People that resort to God put it there to test our faith, are irrational and ignorant. I don't think you can ever change her mind because they refuse to open their minds. This is how powerful religion has become. They are zombies infected with a virus.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Matt-Evolved
Matt-Evolved's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

be it cruel, but I would like to throw a creationist into a nebula


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

Excellent post Yellow.

Whatever cosmological theory one might review, they all hold that the big bang was not a creation account, but a transition. Even Tryon's theory holds that 'something' existed prior to the vacuum fluctutation. In fact, both Brane theory and Tryon's idea rely on vacuum energy.

The great irony here is that every fundamentalist complaint about the big bang is a projection of their own flaws: they are the one who hold to ex nihilo creation (something literally from nothing, as the supernatural has no positive attributes). Every other complaint they lodge is either based on their ignorance of cosmology, or the fact that the confuse inductive uncertainty for a positive reason to doubt something.

The most galling part of the post you reviewed, however, came at the very end, when the fundamentalist suggested another fundamentalist reading material. If the writer had any intellectual honesty at all, he would not have sheparded his readers to yet another fundamentalist source, he would have sent them to the library.

I want to use some of what you wrote for my site if I may....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Klarky
Klarky's picture
Posts: 70
Joined: 2006-04-10
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

ioi8 wrote:
I have an evangical baptist friend, and when i tried telling her about all the various homos from before humans, she had this to retort.

Friend - I believe that god planted these bones to help us test our faith.

Bill Hicks - I believe god put you here to test my faith dude.


shorty
Posts: 120
Joined: 2006-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

how can there be different colored people all over the world if we didnt adapt to our enviormentsit strangley seems to have correlation with the amount of sun.
for example:
europe=less sun=white man
africa=lots of sun=Black people
the list goes on

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


shorty
Posts: 120
Joined: 2006-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

LeftofLarry wrote:
ioi8 wrote:
I have an evangical baptist friend, and when i tried telling her about all the various homos from before humans, she had this to retort.

Friend - I believe that god planted these bones to help us test our faith.

Me - But what about the carbon dating and the various other methods to determine how long ago they lived?

Friend - God can make new things seem new.

Now, as you can see she is a new-earth believer. HOW do i show her that these bones are in fact real, and can be tested properly to show that in fact that these are our ancestors?

P.S. recent poll by popular science magazine 55% of americans believe that humans were created in their present form in the past 10,000 years. Sad

Matt

People that resort to God put it there to test our faith, are irrational and ignorant. I don't think you can ever change her mind because they refuse to open their minds. This is how powerful religion has become. They are zombies infected with a virus.

you cant show her... shes become a zombie and wont listen to rational thought

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


shorty
Posts: 120
Joined: 2006-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

godandscience.com wrote:

The sun orbits the earthAtheists claim that the Bible teaches geocentrism, the idea that earth is the center of the universe and that everything orbits around it. One example given is the long day of Joshua, where the sun stood still to provide more daylight. The Bible says that Joshua prayed to God and God performed a miracle.22 The text makes it clear that Sun "stopped in the middle of the sky".23 We still use phrases like the "Sun rose", "Sun set". There is no English (or Hebrew) phrase indicating that the earth rotates until the horizon covers the Sun.

they attack the weakest argument instead of addressing chronicles 16:30 where it says that the earth is firmly established and cannot be moved

they never address these quotes. instead they cant argue and label them non-existant

like thesePassages that refer to the "Four Corners Of The Earth," can be found in:
Acts 10:11, Revelation 7:1, Revelation 20:8

Passages that refer to the "Ends Of The Earth" can be found in:
Deuteronomy 28:49, Deuteronomy 33:17, 1 Samuel 2:10, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Psalm 2:8, Psalm 22:27, Psalm 46:9, Psalm 48:10, Psalm 59:13, Psalm 61:2, Psalm 65:5, Psalm 67:7, Psalm 72:8, Psalm 98:3, Psalm 135:7, Proverbs 17:24, Proverbs 30:4, Isaiah 5:26, Isaiah 24:16, Isaiah 40:28, Isaiah 41:5, Isaiah 41:9, Isaiah 42:10, Isaiah 43:6, Isaiah 45:22, Isaiah 48:20, Isaiah 49:6, Isaiah 52:10, Isaiah 62:11, Jeremiah 6:22, Jeremiah 10:13, Jeremiah 16:19, Jeremiah 25:31, Jeremiah 25:32, Jeremiah 31:8, Jeremiah 50:41, Jeremiah 51:16, Daniel 4:11, Micah 5:4, Mark 13:27, Luke 11:31, Acts 1:8, Acts 13:47

Passages that refer to the "Ends Of The World" can be found in:
Psalm 19:4, Romans 10:18

Passages that refer to the "Foundations of the Earth" can be found in:
Deuteronomy 32:22, Samuel 2:8, Samuel 22:16, Psalm 18:15, Psalm 82:5, Psalm 102:25, Psalm 104:5, Proverbs 3:19, Proverbs 8:29, Isaiah 24:18, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Isaiah 51:16, Jeremiah 31:37, Amos 9:6, Micah 6:2, Zechariah 12:1, Hebrews 1:10

Passages that refer to the "Earth's pillars" can be found in:
Job 9:6 "He shakes the Earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble."
Psalm 75:3 "When the Earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm."

Passages that refer to the "Face of the Earth," defined as the most prominent surface of an object can be found in:
Genesis 1:29, Genesis 6:7, Genesis 7:4, Genesis 7:23, Genesis 11:4, Genesis 11:9, Exodus 32:12, Exodus 33:16, Numbers 12:3, Deuteronomy 7:6, Deuteronomy 14:2, Samuel 20:15, Samuel 14:7, Kings 13:34, Job 37:12, Psalm 104:30, Isaiah 23:17, Jeremiah 25:26, Jeremiah 28:16, Ezekiel 38:20, Amos 9:8, Zephaniah 1:2, Zephaniah 1:3, Luke 21:35

Other passages that state the Earth is flat include:
Job 11:9 "Their measure is longer than the Earth and wider than the sea."
Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the Earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?"
Job 38:13 "That it might take the Earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?"
Daniel 4:10-11 "I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the center of the Earth. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the Earth."

The Bible also teaches us that our flat Earth is a stationary object that the rest of the universe rotates around. Passages that refer this statement include:
Psalm 93:1 "The world also is established, that it cannot be moved."
Psalm 96:10 "Say among the nations, the lord reigns. The Earth is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."
Psalm 104:5 The Lord "laid the foundations of the Earth, that it should not be removed for ever."
I Chronicles 16:30 "The world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."
Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

it seems like they are afraid to answer these :smt075 bad creationist! BAD

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

ioi8 wrote:
I have an evangical baptist friend, and when i tried telling her about all the various homos from before humans, she had this to retort.

Friend - I believe that god planted these bones to help us test our faith.

Me - But what about the carbon dating and the various other methods to determine how long ago they lived?

Friend - God can make new things seem old.

Now, as you can see she is a new-earth believer. HOW do i show her that these bones are in fact real, and can be tested properly to show that in fact that these are our ancestors?

P.S. recent poll by popular science magazine 55% of americans believe that humans were created in their present form in the past 10,000 years. Sad

Matt

Difficult, I have to admit. I believe it all goes down to how strongly-faithful one is.

I'd avoid what shorty suggested, that is forcing her to defend her faith: it'll be a dialogue of the deaf. I'd use a slightly different approach: failure to explain other man-made things.

For instance, did you know that the Egyptian pyramids have certain canals running through them, that poiint up toweards the stars? It's not difficult to guess what stars they are pointing to, however, there's one minor problem: the configuration needed for the stars to be in that position was... 11000 years ago.

Did you also see that egyptian coffins are built out of one single piece of rock? Well, that's just great, they even have very smooth edges and such... but it's difficult for us to do that today with laser technology, so how did they do that?

What is the Bible talking about when it describes the "Sons of God" coming down to earth to mate with the women?

What is that ooky machine that Ezekiel describes in his book in the bible ?

And so on. It's pointless to show contradictions in the Bible, it's more useful to point out mysteries. Though you will never get on the same wavelength, at least it will make her (possibly) see that there indeed are things today that we cannot answer, and that are best left like that, and not dismissed automatically.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

todangst wrote:

I want to use some of what you wrote for my site if I may....

I don't know how I missed this and I know it is late, but feel free.

You are ALL welcome to use anything I say or write here on your own site or to post in another forum or whatever - that's why I wrote it! I want people to read it!

All I ask is that you give credit where it is due and a shout out to this site.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


OpiateCopulation
OpiateCopulation's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

ioi8 wrote:
I have an evangical baptist friend, and when i tried telling her about all the various homos from before humans, she had this to retort.

Friend - I believe that god planted these bones to help us test our faith.

Me - But what about the carbon dating and the various other methods to determine how long ago they lived?

Friend - God can make new things seem old.

Now, as you can see she is a new-earth believer. HOW do i show her that these bones are in fact real, and can be tested properly to show that in fact that these are our ancestors?

P.S. recent poll by popular science magazine 55% of americans believe that humans were created in their present form in the past 10,000 years. Sad

Matt

That's almost word for word a Bill Hicks routine... which makes it all the sweeter...

'We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.' - Richard Dawkins
MySpace


jester700
Posts: 105
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Debunking creationism

OpiateCopulation wrote:
ioi8 wrote:
I have an evangical baptist friend, and when i tried telling her about all the various homos from before humans, she had this to retort.

Friend - I believe that god planted these bones to help us test our faith.

Me - But what about the carbon dating and the various other methods to determine how long ago they lived?

Friend - God can make new things seem old.

Now, as you can see she is a new-earth believer. HOW do i show her that these bones are in fact real, and can be tested properly to show that in fact that these are our ancestors?

P.S. recent poll by popular science magazine 55% of americans believe that humans were created in their present form in the past 10,000 years. Sad

Matt

That's almost word for word a Bill Hicks routine... which makes it all the sweeter...


And his response is appropriate: "does anyone else have a problem with the idea that god might be fucking with our heads?" If god DID make it to look like the earth is older than it is, then
1) HE IS A LIAR
2) He is deliberately misleading rational people in a way that will directly result in their disbelief of him, and thus eternal torture. Only the irrational would be saved. Maybe they're his "true peeps".

Even if I DID believe in such a critter, if he existed Lucifer was right to leave him. In fact, so many more atrocities are attributed to god than satan in the bible that I don't get why satanis always made out to be the bad guy.