What if you had to defend creationism?

inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
What if you had to defend creationism?

Here begins another episode of the troubled teacher's aide.

It never ceases to amaze me how numerous the creationists are in academia, but thanks to one of them a possible subject of debate will be "creationism vs. evolution" in an introductory science class. Since I might have to advise one of the debate groups on the losing side on how to proceed (they're graded on their argument's soundness, not on persuasiveness), what the hell am I gonna do?

This is one of the science cores everyone has to have to get their degree, and I don't want any more fuck-ups (no offense creationists) wandering around.

My pride in the scientific method is screaming at me, "if your students get it, tell 'em to concede!"

. . .I swear, this is the last time I'm helping out in a namby pamby core course.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
To the professor's credit,

To the professor's credit, she did change the topic from "intelligent design vs. big bang" to "creationism vs. evolution."


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Always going to be at a

Always going to be at a disadvantage in a debate

 

Creationism requires no intelligence or study effort. Despite good popular scientists out there (Prof Dawkins is my favourite) even their books require effort to understand


scole665
Posts: 67
Joined: 2008-06-27
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard

inspectormustard wrote:

they're graded on their argument's soundness, not on persuasiveness

 

I feel for you bud. I'd like to think that I could argue any either side of just about anything. However, at what risk? Creating a fundamentalist christian or muslim would make me ill.  Maybe you can argue it from a non-religious non-biblical/koran account. The risk is lower and the argument would be the same.  Just make up your own Creationism theory, the christians and muslims don't have the market cornered on making up stuff and calling it evidence. Why should you? Eye-wink 

god -- I tried you on for size.... you were a little long in the crotch, loose in the waist, short in the length and you made my butt look extra flat. I had to take you back for an exchange.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard wrote:Here

inspectormustard wrote:

Here begins another episode of the troubled teacher's aide.

It never ceases to amaze me how numerous the creationists are in academia, but thanks to one of them a possible subject of debate will be "creationism vs. evolution" in an introductory science class. Since I might have to advise one of the debate groups on the losing side on how to proceed (they're graded on their argument's soundness, not on persuasiveness), what the hell am I gonna do?

This is one of the science cores everyone has to have to get their degree, and I don't want any more fuck-ups (no offense creationists) wandering around.

My pride in the scientific method is screaming at me, "if your students get it, tell 'em to concede!"

. . .I swear, this is the last time I'm helping out in a namby pamby core course.

There is no sound argument for creationism.  The only sound thing your students could do is to concede.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Concede, as there is nothing

Concede, as there is nothing from a scientific basis to support creationism. Or do the Flying Spaghetti Monster version and hope the Prof has a sense of humor.

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


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to talk with the

I'm going to talk with the professor and ask whether, if a group feels like they have no valid position, they can concede outright. However I don't think she'll go for it. I also don't think the students would go for it either, though I know there are at least two creationists in the class I'm not sure if there are any more. I'm not about to poll the group on their beliefs, since I do have to deal with them when they come to study group.

I was thinking the same thing about making up some creator, but with that you still have the same problems - a shortage of evidence! All the same anti-creationism arguments would still apply as well.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Tell the professor this

Tell the professor this would be like defending Geocentrism against Heliocentrism or "The Stork Theory" against human reproduction. How do you defend an indefensible position - does she expect you to use pseudoscience and lies like the actual ID asshats use?

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


nikimoto
nikimoto's picture
Posts: 235
Joined: 2008-07-21
User is offlineOffline
Seek 'Conscientious

Seek 'Conscientious Objector' status or go AWOL!

 


 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I noticed it's only a

I noticed it's only a "possible" topic. I would rail against it to the prof before it even gets decided, as it is not science at all - it's a debate between science and mythology. Would a history professor allow a debate on whether the Holocaust was real and force people to defend the position it was made up?

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


scole665
Posts: 67
Joined: 2008-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Don't Concede

Concede what? That you don't have a sound argument or that you can't make up some "truth"? Oh come on, show this crazy ass who she's dealing with. Make sure you report back to us, I am on a "want to know" basis right now!  

I once, as a full fledged atheist going to a Jesuit university, had to give a oral book report on "Why bad things happen to good people" by Harold Kushner. It was for a theology class where the priest teaching the class already disliked me because I ate a plate of french fries in his class one afternoon. He didn't ever catch me watching my portable TV though.  Also, on day one I told him I didn't want to hear him preach his faith when he asked about "expectations of the class".  He didn't like me much. On top of it all, I had to do my report AFTER someone else did a report on the same book. This was a fact that I didn't know about PRIOR to me having to do mine, on the same day.  All you needed to do was explain the book and give your opinion, nothing too controversial. However, following another student made it quite difficult to be "Fresh" and "New" so I just focused on the "How I liked it part" and you can imagine how that went, especially if you've read that drivel. You have to do it so that you can document that you at least tried.  He didn't like it, but it was hard to give me a bad grade based on the assignment. He gave me a bad grade at the end of the semester and I filed a complaint against him with the Dean. I never got it changed, but I felt good about what I did and NEVER regretted it.

 

Incidentally, I bumped into Father Lennihan (the priest in question) in an airport several years later and sauntered right up to him, said HI and he turned away from me as if to ignore me. I cherish that moment. Really, I do.  If you're going to get a bad grade one way or another the least you can do it try to have fun with it. 

god -- I tried you on for size.... you were a little long in the crotch, loose in the waist, short in the length and you made my butt look extra flat. I had to take you back for an exchange.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I'd say the students will

I'd say the students will have to choose the least blatant fallacy.  That is to say, some of the arguments are just stupid, and some rely on easily spotted fallacies.  They need to try to find one that has a really subtle fallacy -- like a really good equivocation.  Those are often really hard to spot if they're done well.

Or... and this might just screw up the "spirit" of the debate, but it might be the strongest argument they could make -- change the meaning of creationism!  You could do it with a clever equivocation at the beginning.  Start talking about creationism with the assumption of intelligence behind creation.  Admit the obvious existence of evolution (!) and try to find the kind of creator who would have set such a thing in motion.  The logical conclusion will be deism.  You'll end up with a creator that either set things in motion and left or stayed but doesn't interfere, or that destroyed itself in the process of creation (that might be a really funny conclusion to draw).  If you wanted to get really creative, you could end up with the conclusion that there was a creator, but that it didn't necessarily have to have consciousness or intelligence.

In other words, use equivocation to back door your way into naturalism by rendering the creator impotent.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:In other

Hambydammit wrote:

In other words, use equivocation to back door your way into naturalism by rendering the creator impotent.

Why does this sound like an ad for Holy Viagra?

This is a great suggestion. I like the idea of turning the whole debate on its head; the infidel Darwinists won't know what hit 'em! They think they'll be going up against some Christian-based, ID-inspired namby-pamby bad science, and then, BAM! They get a Spinoza colonoscopy.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:You'll end up with a

 

Quote:
You'll end up with a creator that either set things in motion and left or stayed but doesn't interfere, or that destroyed itself in the process of creation (that might be a really funny conclusion to draw).

 

Yeah, actually, take it even one step further. The creator was the big bang itself thus destroying itself in the creation process, but setting the wheels of everything, including evolution, in motion.

Good luck and keep us up to date on this. Intriguing.


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
 I agree with Hamby. When

 I agree with Hamby. When your attacker plunges head strong into you, the best offense is to blend with the opponent and lead them away into your position with verbal judo.  If the attacker is stationary and not really giving a good argument, a first strike may be in order to get them moving. If the attacker tries to blend with you, you have to bash 'em for it or unblend somehow.

You could always fall back on evolution as the intelligent designer and will probably have to explain how evolution works to the scientists anyway. Fine tuning arguments are ok as long as you can incorporate the prior probability of being finely tuned. Obviously the posterior prob is 1. The DNA-as-information argument seems persuasive too. Again, hard to say what the prior is.  Posterior is 1.

When desperate, you can always expand on how a coke can must have had a designer. And you can get a bunch of scientists in a room to study it and determine it was created. Eventually, the other side will grow tired and be lulled into a false sense of security and then you can take them out with how einstein believed in God.

Remember its not about facts. Its about having people think you've won!

 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
(t Proof of evolution

 

   Maybe I should start a new thread on this topic.  It came up on Wendsday on the podcast.  The PROOF of evolution is at your finger tips;  and her finger tips.   Try to pick the right moment during the debate to point this out.

    Since the first Cro-Magnon's emerged in African  males and females (like it or not feminists) have had a strict division of labor.   Men hunted --- Women  gathered.   Men made tools and used them;  for the first 150,000 years (give or take a few days) they flintknapped, then used only flint heads to skin animals and cut up the meat:   NO handles just the heads;  try it once  just to see the wear and tear on your index finger ---  then extrapulate that over a 200,000 year time span.

    50,000 years ago (give or take a few days) Cro-Magnons discovered the fine art of leverage & fulcrums but it still caused a lot of wear and tear on the index fingers. They still  had to make the handles and levers to go with the flint heads.  Females did not (the lazy b......) females gathered by filtering grain heads & beards through their hands very efficient but no great strain on the fingers,  cooking and holding a baby didn't cause any  stress on the fingers either.

   Sewing might cause stress and wear but that didn't come along untill 25,000 years ago.  Intense -- industrial strength type  sewing  by hand didn't come along  untill the 14th century.  FAR  too late to effect our modern hands.

    The end result of this 250,000 year old evolution of human hands by way of division of labor is............... TA  DAH!!!!!!!!!!

 Go look at your hands.      

     Females:   Index finger and ring finger are equal in length---or damn effing close to it.

     Males:    Index finger is markedly shorter then the ring finger.

     If you do not believe me then do your own research, compare any male/female hand of any age anywhere you can find them.

     I await   to be proven wrong.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


scole665
Posts: 67
Joined: 2008-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Fingers

 Well, this is a tough sell when the person you're going to be arguing with will say that god created fingers differently when he ripped out Adam's rib. Furthermore, this earth is only 6000 years old and any anthropological evidence you might have can be refuted very simply by the statement "god works in mysterious ways".  Crazy, I know, but I'll be it happens that way.

god -- I tried you on for size.... you were a little long in the crotch, loose in the waist, short in the length and you made my butt look extra flat. I had to take you back for an exchange.


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Haha, the self-sacrificing

Haha, the self-sacrificing creator is a good one. What would be even funnier is if the two creationists ended up on the side of evolution, as the professor pointed out to me, and had to defend evolution themselves. 'Course they might just try to opt out on the basis of their religion. That could get ugly.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
scole665

 

  If they want to use  "god works in mysterious ways"  don't  they have to prove it above and beyond  "faith" and wishful  thinking?  Science is based on observation, study and predictable results,  not wishful thinking.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


scole665
Posts: 67
Joined: 2008-06-27
User is offlineOffline
I'm just callin' 'em like I sees 'em

Jeffrick wrote:

 

  If they want to use  "god works in mysterious ways"  don't  they have to prove it above and beyond  "faith" and wishful  thinking?  Science is based on observation, study and predictable results,  not wishful thinking.

No, they don't, since the tenant of religion is not science but, rather, faith. The bible isn't science or logic but it manages to keep a strangle hold on people, some VERY smart people. No, they don't argue science, they argue faith. And, sadly, they are successful an awful lot of times! I'd just need to throw a rock to find a Christian. I'd need a pretty strong arm to throw one to find an atheist.  I don't like it, I just call it as I see it. Someday, perhaps in my lifetime, it'll be different which is the reason to keep trying!

god -- I tried you on for size.... you were a little long in the crotch, loose in the waist, short in the length and you made my butt look extra flat. I had to take you back for an exchange.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Faith = wishful thinking.

Faith = wishful thinking.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
In my humble opinion, the

In my humble opinion, the best thing you can do when called upon to defend religion in a debate is to do so exactly as a theist would, or better if possible. The opposition will rip you apart, yes(or at least, one would hope so). But ask yourself, would you prefer to deliver a message to all observers that your position is unteneble, or would you prefer to score high marks in a single debate?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EGWG
Posts: 5
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Creationism vs. Evolution

I have a question.

 

I am one of those "fuck ups" of which you speak. I AM a creationist and I have to study harder than anyone. Why? Because I have to be willing to stand up to the ridicule, mocking and cussing out from atheists and evolutionists. Atheists always complain about how "unfair and intolerant christians are" yet they use curse words and "funny" insults to get their point across.

 

Creationism DOES take hard work. It is just as scientific as evolution. I challenge anyone who says differently to a debate.

 

My suggestion to you would be for you to actually dig deep into the side of Creationism. It will give you A) a good debating side and B) the ability to say (with complete honesty) that you are 100% SURE evolution is acceptable.

 

I had to do that. I have been a Christian for 10 years but I had to become an almost atheist and ask those REALLY TOUGH questions before I could truly say I believe there is a God.

 

What could it hurt? You might get a win out of it or at least some practice.

 

But, if you look at Creationism as a "fuck up" then you will always be biased. That IS what you tell a Christian when they talk about the Bible right?

 

In the love of Christ,

EGWG


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Creationism isn't the

Creationism isn't the slightest bit scientific. How would it be falsifiable? What predictions does it make? Where is any evidence (criticisms of evolution aren't evidence for creationism and all so far are utter bullshit anyway. ) If you try debating with some of the actual scientists here, for example deludedgod, you will resemble the guest of honor at a bukake party.

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


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
EGWG wrote:Creationism DOES

EGWG wrote:

Creationism DOES take hard work. It is just as scientific as evolution. I challenge anyone who says differently to a debate.

I accept your challenge.

All you need to do to win the debate is name a single verifiable prediction made as a result of a hypothesis posited by creation science. This can either be from pure science or applied science.

Verifiable in this case means that any experiment or observation used to come to a conclusion must be available to everyone. This would include effectively unobtainable equipment such as particle accelerators, even though none of us happen to have something that large and expensive. The bible does not count toward verification any more than Darwin's Origin of Species, and references to both shall hereto forth be considered appeals to authority.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I am one of those

Quote:
I am one of those "fuck ups" of which you speak. I AM a creationist and I have to study harder than anyone. Why? Because I have to be willing to stand up to the ridicule, mocking and cussing out from atheists and evolutionists. Atheists always complain about how "unfair and intolerant christians are" yet they use curse words and "funny" insults to get their point across.

Wait... you have to study to be able to stand up to ridicule?  If creationism can stand up to evolution, why are you just standing there taking it?  Where's your dissertation proving evolution wrong?  I mean... geez... if you've studied that much, surely you can explain a few basic things to me.  I'm not going to mock you or curse at you.  I'm just going to ask you very basic questions about evolution, and ask you to refute them.

1)  Explain in one or two paragraphs the differences between eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaea.  Please describe the primary methods used by evolutionary biologists to determine the approximate date of the eukaryotic revolution.   Explain in several paragraphs the most notable evidence in support of the eukaryotic revolution.  Explain the evolutionary significance of the eukaryotic revolution in terms of accumulated complexity.

Once you have proven that you understand what you're refuting, please provide your documented evidence against it, offering an alternative theory explaining the evidence.

2) Please explain briefly the process by which nucleases catalyze the hydrolysis of phosphodiester bonds.  Explain the significance of restriction endonucleases.

Having explained the significance of these events for evolutionary theory, please offer an alternative explanation for the obvious result of them.

3) Explain briefly why non-homologous recombination frequently leads to chromosomal translocations.  Explain the basics of why this is evolutionarily unstable.

Having explained this, offer an alternative hypothesis for the dominance of homologous recombination.

4) Finally, the most simple one of the bunch.  Please list and explain the [EDIT: Got ahead of myself.  I'm looking for the three principles of natural selection.]  Having explained them, offer an alternative hypothesis that parsimoniously explains the data.

Quote:
Creationism DOES take hard work. It is just as scientific as evolution. I challenge anyone who says differently to a debate.

You're on, bucko.  First, I'll need to know what I'm debating against.  Please give me a complete synopsis of your theory that parsimoniously explains the data accumulated by evolutionary biology in the last fifty years or so.  This will, of course, necessitate that you actually know the data.  I'll be looking for you to first explain evolution in great detail so that I know you know what you're refuting.

Quote:
My suggestion to you would be for you to actually dig deep into the side of Creationism. It will give you A) a good debating side and B) the ability to say (with complete honesty) that you are 100% SURE evolution is acceptable.

Evolution is 100% certain.  Evolution does occur.  We have seen it first hand.  We have seen, firsthand, one species turn into another species.  (I bet you didn't know that.  Here's the article:  http://ecoworldly.com/2008/10/07/scientists-discover-fish-in-act-of-evolution-in-africas-greatest-lake/ )  We have mountains of genetic data from thousands of species that confirm the predictions of the theory of evolution.

Kiddo, I was a Christian and a creationist.  I know all about it.  I could probably argue your side better than you could.  It's just... I read science books and I'm guessing (tell me if I'm wrong) that you don't.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
hambydammit wrote:1) 

hambydammit wrote:

1)  Explain in one or two paragraphs the differences between eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaea.  Please describe the primary methods used by evolutionary biologists to determine the approximate date of the eukaryotic revolution.   Explain in several paragraphs the most notable evidence in support of the eukaryotic revolution.  Explain the evolutionary significance of the eukaryotic revolution in terms of accumulated complexity.

 

Ooh, ooh [ raises hand, flails wildly in chair ]

I KNOW THIS ONE !!! I just learned it last month !

Can I answer, can I answer ??!

[ bites tongue quickly to prevent blurting ]

 

hambydammit wrote:

I'm not going to mock you or curse at you.

Hrmmm... an unused, Think      mocking.

 

EGWG wrote:

 Atheists always complain about how "unfair and intolerant christians are" yet they use curse words and "funny" insults to get their point across.

 

You mean like, funny strange or funny ha-ha. I don't always complain about christians,by the way. And as far as christians being intolerant ?  Well, I say it's their right to be intolerant if they want to be.

 

EGWG wrote:
Creationism DOES take hard work. It is just as scientific as evolution. I challenge anyone who says differently to a debate.

Ahhh, but what about the Creationism BUCKS, huh ?

Or are you gender biased?


That's a little joke deer.

 

EGWG wrote:
My suggestion to you would be for you to actually dig deep into the side of Creationism.

Ewwww, yucky. Are there gonna be bones and guts and stuff inside there ???

 

EGWG wrote:
It will give you A) a good debating side and B) the ability to say (with complete honesty) that you are 100% SURE evolution is acceptable.

 

   

I'm sorry.... I'm ROFL so hard that I don't even know where to begin with this one.

 

EGWG wrote:
I have been a Christian for 10 years but I had to become an almost atheist and ask those REALLY TOUGH questions before I could truly say I believe there is a God.

 

I understand you. Once, when I was but a child of seven, I was an almost teenager but since I still believed in the tooth fairy, santa, jesus, fsm and wonko the magic elf, those pesky adults told me I must stop trying to drive cars and go out on dates.

Of course, then years flew by and I became an almost rationalist...  but thank goodness I studied and examined all the holy books so I can safely say I almost believe in all those great powerful beings. Whew !

Thanks for visiting RRS, and have a great life !

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If you cant tell the

If you cant tell the difference between a real woman and a blow up doll, you will not understand the differnece between the real fact of evolution vs the blow up myth of crapinism.

Creationism is like masterbation, sure it feels good, but it is nothing but filler based on imagination. Creationism is like eating a twinky when your dietition tells you to lay off junk food.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
EGWG wrote:I AM a

EGWG wrote:
I AM a creationist and I have to study harder than anyone.

I'm really puzzled here. What is there to study? Do you have any peer reviewed scientific sources to study?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Creationism

Brian37 wrote:

 

Creationism is like masterbation, sure it feels good, but it is nothing but filler based on imagination. Creationism is like eating a twinky when your dietition tells you to lay off junk food.

I'm confused Confused

Brian, are you saying that the filler inside a twinkie is made from eja....

EWWWW gross!Puke3

 

LOL

 

 

  

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I guess it's kind of cruel

I guess it's kind of cruel to gang up so maliciously, but some people just beg for it.

EGWG wrote:

I am one of those "fuck ups" of which you speak.

How unfortunate. 

EGWG wrote:
 I AM a creationist and I have to study harder than anyone.

Of course you do. You also have to deal with more stress and less resources. It's because you're wrong, and you've been proven wrong. For more than a hundred years. Yet you keep going. If nothing else, I admire your stubborness.

EGWG wrote:
 Why? Because I have to be willing to stand up to the ridicule, mocking and cussing out from atheists and evolutionists.

Not to mention about 80% of your own church.

EGWG wrote:
 Atheists always complain about how "unfair and intolerant christians are" yet they use curse words and "funny" insults to get their point across.

Apparently you haven't spent much time talking to atheists. Or theists for that matter, since that's where the real crudeness erupts.

 

EGWG wrote:

Creationism DOES take hard work.

Far too much to be worth it in my opinion. Seriously, what value do you get from an equivalent to arguing that the sky is red, when everyone and their mother know that it's blue?

EGWG wrote:
 It is just as scientific as evolution.

There is nothing scientific about creationism. By definition, scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. The only part of all of creationism that passes this test is irreducible complexity. Unfortunately for you, however, that hypothesis has been proven wrong a billion times over and counting.

EGWG wrote:
 I challenge anyone who says differently to a debate.

I will gladly make a fool of you. Start the topic.

 

EGWG wrote:

My suggestion to you would be for you to actually dig deep into the side of Creationism.

Oh, I have. I never believed it, but I was arguing against young earth creationists years before I encountered the Rational Responders. I'm equipped better for this argument than I have to be, since I already know everything you're going to say and how to refute it.

EGWG wrote:
It will give you A) a good debating side

I wish.

EGWG wrote:
and B) the ability to say (with complete honesty) that you are 100% SURE evolution is acceptable.

It's fact. Not acceptable. The words have two distinct meanings. I suggest you learn them.

 

EGWG wrote:

I had to do that. I have been a Christian for 10 years but I had to become an almost atheist and ask those REALLY TOUGH questions before I could truly say I believe there is a God.

I've been an atheist for 30 years as of 4 days from now. I've got you beat in experience too.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EGWG
Posts: 5
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
How has Creationism been

How has Creationism been proven wrong?

 

------

 

What group you belong to does not determine how you talk, I know. I was simply saying that a majority of Atheists use insults to intimidate without proving their point. This does not exclude or excuse Christians. To use curse words and insults in a scientific debate is to simply show a lack of mental capability to prove a point. It is a form of intellectual suicide. That is all I was saying.

 

-------

If Creationism has been proven wrong, why do modern scientists still become Christians? Many astute professors are Creationists. Many more say Evolution is a fool's faith. Does this make one right or wrong? No. All that matters is what fits the evidence.

 

Here is an example.

 

Every scientist alive in Copernicus' day said that the Sun rotated around the Earth. And, these were the "christians" of the day. But, despite persecution from the "learned" men of his day, Copernicus pressed forward. He didn't stop just because scientists said his theory was false. He had to see it for himself. The evidence had to sit before him. Thanks to him we have a greater understanding of space and the Sun.

 

Was he wrong because other men said he was? No.

 

Was he right because he said he was? No.

 

What made him right? The truth.

 

If you fly to space in a space shuttle and watch the sun for a year, you will discover that the sun, though in motion, is the center around which all of the other planets spin.

 

The Truth confirms the hypothesis.

 

I want us to examine the truth.

 

------

 

You SAY that the sky is blue, but is it?  LOL.

 

But the point is this, it does not matter what you tell me, or I tell you, what matters is a) what system we are using as a guide and b) what the evidence shows. If I was trying to tell you that the sky was a color called ajuk, would I be wrong? Not if I was from some foreign country. The sky is not BLUE, it is not RED, it is not PURPLE, that is the term we have applied to it. It just depends upon what system we use as a standard.

 

The same applies to this debate.

 

Just because you say Evolution is true, is it? No.

 

I want us to examine the facts. We can throw around theories from both sides all day long. And that is okay. But our focus is looking at the world as it is.

 

----------

 

I was speaking to the topic starter, not you in this case. He was asking about whether he should work at trying to prove Creationism in a debate as an atheist. If he works hard, he will at least have some things that actual Creationists believe. If I was forced to debate for Evolution, I would work hard to prove my side. Why? Because I will a) learn from the research and b) understand the side of Evolution better.

 

--------

 

I meant acceptable as fact. Sorry for that lack of clarification.

 

------

 

"I've been an atheist for 30 years as of 4 days from now. I've got you beat in experience too."

Uh, yeah, okay. I'll let you have that one. LOL.

 

------

 

I feel as if this debate is going to start a ton of new topics across the board. Maybe we should organize a certain location (like a folder) in which we post all of our evidence for, and against, our respective sides.

 

Or, we could come up with a cool series name like "The War of the Worldviews: Part X" or "EvC World War Three: Part X".

 

----------

 

Thanks for replying.

 

With Jesus,

EGWG


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EGWG wrote:How has

EGWG wrote:

How has Creationism been proven wrong?

That's a completely different argument. In fact, creationism does not invalidate evolution or vice versa. If this is the angle you wish to work with, then there's not going to be much of a discussion.

EGWG wrote:

What group you belong to does not determine how you talk, I know. I was simply saying that a majority of Atheists use insults to intimidate without proving their point. This does not exclude or excuse Christians. To use curse words and insults in a scientific debate is to simply show a lack of mental capability to prove a point. It is a form of intellectual suicide. That is all I was saying.

You say a majority of atheists. I suppose you have figures to point this out? I don't have figures to point out the opposite, but it would take me less than an hour to provide you with so many demonstrations of theist ignorance and insults that your head would spin. At the same time, I can also point you to hundreds or thousands of logical and intelligent postings by atheists who don't resort to insults.

EGWG wrote:
If Creationism has been proven wrong, why do modern scientists still become Christians? Many astute professors are Creationists. Many more say Evolution is a fool's faith. Does this make one right or wrong? No. All that matters is what fits the evidence.

Some scientist who specializes in astronomy suggesting they switched to creationism is ridiculous as they weren't in the field in the first place. Get a biologist and maybe you'll have something. Unfortunately for you, the number of biologists who believe in creationism equal less than 1%.  

EGWG wrote:
Here is an example.

 

Every scientist alive in Copernicus' day said that the Sun rotated around the Earth.

Not true. There were cultures who'd figured out the reality of orbits(or at least a comparable reality to say 1970), centuries before Europeans.

EGWG wrote:
 And, these were the "christians" of the day. But, despite persecution from the "learned" men of his day, Copernicus pressed forward. He didn't stop just because scientists said his theory was false. He had to see it for himself. The evidence had to sit before him. Thanks to him we have a greater understanding of space and the Sun.

 

Was he wrong because other men said he was? No.

 

Was he right because he said he was? No.

 

What made him right? The truth.

And yet he was still wrong. The Earth doesn't orbit Sol any more than Sol orbits the Earth. They orbit each other around a barycentre, as with all the elements of our solar system.

 

EGWG wrote:

If you fly to space in a space shuttle and watch the sun for a year, you will discover that the sun, though in motion, is the center around which all of the other planets spin.

As shown above, that is not true.

 

EGWG wrote:

The Truth confirms the hypothesis.

Which proves your hypothesis wrong.

 

EGWG wrote:

You SAY that the sky is blue, but is it?  LOL.

Yep.

EGWG wrote:
 

But the point is this, it does not matter what you tell me, or I tell you, what matters is a) what system we are using as a guide and b) what the evidence shows. If I was trying to tell you that the sky was a color called ajuk, would I be wrong? Not if I was from some foreign country. The sky is not BLUE, it is not RED, it is not PURPLE, that is the term we have applied to it. It just depends upon what system we use as a standard.

Theists ignore standards and make up new definitions in attempts to rescue their failed arguments. That's what I was trying to point out to you.

 

EGWG wrote:

The same applies to this debate.

 

Just because you say Evolution is true, is it? No.

Obviously.

EGWG wrote:
 

I want us to examine the facts. We can throw around theories from both sides all day long. And that is okay. But our focus is looking at the world as it is.

Then maybe you should study evolution. Then you'd know that our entire medical industry depends on it being right. If evolution were wrong, you wouldn't be able to take 90% of the drugs available. All of our genetic studies would be flawed. Yet none of this is the case.

EGWG wrote:

I feel as if this debate is going to start a ton of new topics across the board. Maybe we should organize a certain location (like a folder) in which we post all of our evidence for, and against, our respective sides.

 

Or, we could come up with a cool series name like "The War of the Worldviews: Part X" or "EvC World War Three: Part X".

I hate to disappoint you, but this is probably one of the most frequent posted topics on the board here. We won't be doing anything new.

EGWG wrote:

Thanks for replying.

 

With Jesus,

EGWG

Same to you.

With humanity,

Vastet.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Get a biologist and

Quote:
Get a biologist and maybe you'll have something. Unfortunately for you, the number of biologists who believe in creationism equal less than 1%.

I think maybe this isn't what you meant to say.  The number of biologists who don't believe in evolution is well under 1%.  That's kind of a definition thing, since... um... studying biology is studying evolution.

I haven't seen any numbers suggesting what percentage of biologists believe that the universe or earth were intelligently created.  As you've pointed out, this view isn't incompatible with evolution.  There might be tons of deist biologists.  I dunno.

Then again, maybe you meant that less than 1% of biologists believe in the Genesis story of creation in which the earth is approximately six thousand years old.  I'd guess you're right about that.

Quote:
Not true. There were cultures who'd figured out the reality of orbits(or at least a comparable reality to say 1970), centuries before Europeans.

Shall we play a guessing game?  Let's guess what dominant social force suppressed any and all speculation that the earth wasn't the center of the universe during the entire period known as "The Dark Ages."  Anyone?  Anyone?

By contrast, there's this thing I like to call "The Rest of the World" where people without such stifling religious dogmas noticed all sorts of things about the universe.

World History.  It's not just for High School credit anymore.

Quote:
Then maybe you should study evolution. Then you'd know that our entire medical industry depends on it being right. If evolution were wrong, you wouldn't be able to take 90% of the drugs available. All of our genetic studies would be flawed. Yet none of this is the case.

Your steak wouldn't be as good either.  Sometime when you have a chance, look up some websites for the cattle industry.  When you buy a bull, you are informed of his genetic traits.  The whole cattle industry revolves around how genetics influence the offspring of particular individuals.

Oh.. and chickens, too.

And asparagus, and avocados, and pigs, and goats, and corn, and garlic, and jalapeno peppers.

And... pretty much everything you eat.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Quote:Get

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Get a biologist and maybe you'll have something. Unfortunately for you, the number of biologists who believe in creationism equal less than 1%.

I think maybe this isn't what you meant to say.  The number of biologists who don't believe in evolution is well under 1%.  That's kind of a definition thing, since... um... studying biology is studying evolution.

I haven't seen any numbers suggesting what percentage of biologists believe that the universe or earth were intelligently created.  As you've pointed out, this view isn't incompatible with evolution.  There might be tons of deist biologists.  I dunno.

Then again, maybe you meant that less than 1% of biologists believe in the Genesis story of creation in which the earth is approximately six thousand years old.  I'd guess you're right about that.

 

Meh. I'm sometimes lazy when responding to crazies. So sue me. =D

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Have you considered staging

Have you considered staging a protest? Tell the professor what you think and tell them that ou plan on getting your fellow classmates to walk out on the day of the event. You say that you might have to defend creationism but even if you're on the evolution side protesting might still be a good idea. You should also take up with issue with the dean of sciences.

 

If you don't want to do that (and I can see why you wouldn't) you could just swallow your pride and do what every theist does, copy and paste arguments from different theist websites and hope for the best.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
EGWG wrote:Every

EGWG wrote:
Every scientist alive in Copernicus' day said that the Sun rotated around the Earth. And, these were the "christians" of the day. But, despite persecution from the "learned" men of his day, Copernicus pressed forward. He didn't stop just because scientists said his theory was false. He had to see it for himself. The evidence had to sit before him. Thanks to him we have a greater understanding of space and the Sun.

 

OK, you have earned the bullshit stamp for that one.

 

****

*BS*

****

Perhaps you have a degree from the school of “make shit up” but the rest of us have to labor on what is real. And the fact of the matter is that you are making up a grand story about Copernicus that is just not true. Here is what really happened:

 

Copernicus spent most of his life figuring out what he did but he had the basics down several years before he died. Just the basics though, he spent the rest of his life on the details and he only published shortly ahead of his death.

 

In fact, he only received the first publisher's copies a couple of hours before he died and to his likely dismay, the publisher (knowing that the work would stir up a hornet's nest of trouble) had added a preface stating that while the “truth” was already well established and beyond questioning, this work had a new method for calculating the orbits of the planets that was far easier and produced correct results with less effort.

 

EGWG wrote:
I want us to examine the truth.

 

OK you first. Stop making shit up and provide real evidence that we can examine. Specifically, you need something that does not come from your ancient book of fairy tales.

 

Stosis wrote:
Have you considered staging a protest? Tell the professor what you think and tell them that ou plan on getting your fellow classmates to walk out on the day of the event.

 

Well, that was last semester. So what we really need is an update on what ended up happening.

 

As far as matters go though, I think that in an academic setting, it is fine to make people defend an idea that they do not really side with. Such should help them to hone their debating skills for when they get out in the real world.

 

Even so, I wonder what loopholes may have been present in the original assignment. For example, if one has to defend a creation myth, does the assignment specify which one? I suspect that the same goal could be reached by having each side defend a different creation myth. For example, one side has to defend a central African myth and the other a Meso-American myth.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
EGWG wrote:How has

EGWG wrote:

How has Creationism been proven wrong?

By being scientifically falsified. I can't believe no one else answered this one. Creationist "theory" is mercurial to say the least. Some proponents put Jesus on the back of a dinosaur, and some believe the world was created 6,000 years ago. Some say 12,000 years ago. Either way, discarding several methods of radiometric dating in favour of saying whatever suits your story is exactly the opposite of science.

EGWG wrote:
If Creationism has been proven wrong, why do modern scientists still become Christians?

A scientist can believe whatever they want - that's the beauty of science. In most cases, bias can't interfere with the results.

EGWG wrote:
Many astute professors are Creationists.

I wouldn't go that far. There's a short list of creationists who have PhDs.

EGWG wrote:
All that matters is what fits the evidence.

Evidence in the form of radiometric dating tends to falsify creationism.

EGWG wrote:
Every scientist alive in Copernicus' day said that the Sun rotated around the Earth. And, these were the "christians" of the day. But, despite persecution from the "learned" men of his day, Copernicus pressed forward. He didn't stop just because scientists said his theory was false. He had to see it for himself. The evidence had to sit before him. Thanks to him we have a greater understanding of space and the Sun.

He was right because of math. That's the same wondrous ally we have with radiometric dating.

EGWG wrote:
Just because you say Evolution is true, is it? No.

No, the reason evolution is an observable process is that it's a well observed process. The obviousness is so blatant for those who observe it that they're flabbergasted by people who can't see it.

EGWG wrote:
We can throw around theories from both sides all day long. And that is okay. But our focus is looking at the world as it is.

You mean "hypothesis", surely. So give us a hypothesis, as inspectormustard has suggested. Any hypothesis will do.

EGWG wrote:
I feel as if this debate is going to start a ton of new topics across the board. Maybe we should organize a certain location (like a folder) in which we post all of our evidence for, and against, our respective sides.

I'd love to start with ... you guessed it, radiometric dating.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
I would probably have

I would probably have grabbed up all the shitty defenses for creationism and present them all. My opponent would shoot them all down and I would say "This is why I'm not a creationist." If my opponent didn't kill all of them I'd finish up for him.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
I wonder if inspectormustard

I wonder if inspectormustard is ever going to tell us how this all worked out.


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:I wonder

HisWillness wrote:

I wonder if inspectormustard is ever going to tell us how this all worked out.

I don't think he comes around these parts anymore.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett

spike.barnett wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

I wonder if inspectormustard is ever going to tell us how this all worked out.

I don't think he comes around these parts anymore.

I do, I'm just really busy.

The amount of fuss I made over the topic eventually had the professor move me to the scientific side, and in general things went very well. I wish I could remember the details, as that was last semester or so. I might have mentioned it elsewhere.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If someone put a gun to my

If someone put a gun to my head and forced me to defend Crapinism, I would tell them to pull the trigger.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:If someone put

Brian37 wrote:

If someone put a gun to my head and forced me to defend Crapinism, I would tell them to pull the trigger.

Says he who is currently sans a gun to his head...

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace