Jump to content


Photo

Question For Creationists


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#1 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 20 January 2010 - 07:32 AM

Hi,

I have a few questions about some of the fallacies that Creationists make and would like to hear some honest feedback. Many Creationists often confuse the various field of sciences which seem to be the bases of many of your straw-man arguments.

When talking about evolution, creationists inevitably like to bring up the Big Bang Theory. I would like to let you guys know that the Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. One theory falls under biology, the other falls under cosmology. They are completely unrelated to each other so I don't understand why Creationists like to talk as if they are the same thing.

Creationists also like to bring up chemical evolution. Hate to break it to you but there's no such thing as chemical evolution; only Chemistry. Lighter elements do not evolve into heavier ones, they fuse. Again this has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Abiogenesis also isn't Evolution but at least we are getting close. Abiogenesis deals with the synthesis of non-living matter to living matter. It actually falls under the category of Chemistry and has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

How do Creationists expect anyone to take you guys seriously if you can't even get your field of sciences correct?

#2 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 20 January 2010 - 07:36 AM

This should probably be very interesting.

#3 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 20 January 2010 - 09:35 AM

Hi,

I have a few questions about some of the fallacies that Creationists make and would like to hear some honest feedback.  Many Creationists often confuse the various field of sciences which seem to be the bases of many of your straw-man arguments.

When talking about evolution, creationists inevitably like to bring up the Big Bang Theory.  I would like to let you guys know that the Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.  One theory falls under biology, the other falls under cosmology.  They are completely unrelated to each other so I don't understand why Creationists like to talk as if they are the same thing.

Creationists also like to bring up chemical evolution.  Hate to break it to you but there's no such thing as chemical evolution; only Chemistry.  Lighter elements do not evolve into heavier ones, they fuse.  Again this has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. 

Abiogenesis also isn't Evolution but at least we are getting close.  Abiogenesis deals with the synthesis of non-living matter to living matter.  It actually falls under the category of Chemistry and has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

How do Creationists expect anyone to take you guys seriously if you can't even get your field of sciences correct?

View Post

Sorry you don't know creationist arguments.

Perhaps we can get through your misunderstandings and move on to a discussion between creation and evolution.

Let's start with this: can evolution happen without mutations? If you saw a turtle on a fencepost would you assume it violated the 2nd law and got up there on its own?

#4 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 20 January 2010 - 09:36 AM

Sorry you don't know creationist arguments.

Perhaps we can get through your misunderstandings and move on to a discussion between creation and evolution.

Let's start with this: can evolution happen without mutations? If you saw a turtle on a fencepost would you assume it violated the 2nd law and got up there on its own?

View Post

Ah Yorzhik, still stuck on the 2nd law.

#5 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 20 January 2010 - 09:43 AM

Sorry you don't know creationist arguments.

Perhaps we can get through your misunderstandings and move on to a discussion between creation and evolution.

Let's start with this: can evolution happen without mutations? If you saw a turtle on a fencepost would you assume it violated the 2nd law and got up there on its own?

View Post


The OP is simply asking what the creation arguments are. Since you declare that the OP does not know creationist arguments could you fill us in on what they are?

To answer your other question I would like more information such as:

1. What kind of turtle?
2. Is this turtle real?
3. How high is the fencepost?
4. Is this fencepost isolated from other near by objects?
5. How big is the turtle?
6. Is this fencepost in an area known for extreme climates?

#6 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 20 January 2010 - 09:47 AM

Sorry you don't know creationist arguments.

Perhaps we can get through your misunderstandings and move on to a discussion between creation and evolution.

Let's start with this: can evolution happen without mutations? If you saw a turtle on a fencepost would you assume it violated the 2nd law and got up there on its own?

View Post


No no no, you completely misunderstood the topic. What I'm asking is why do Creationists like to bring up unrelated fields of sciences when talking about Evolution? You guys do it so often that it's hard to follow you sometimes. One second you'll be talking about Evolution, the next second you'll be talking about the Big Bang Theory and the next second about Nebula Theory. Which theory are you trying to argue against exactly? And why do you mix them all together as if they were part of 1 theory? In fact, I've never seen the Big Bang Theory and Evolution mentioned in the same sentence until I came across Creationists.

All I'm saying is that you should at least get the subject of science correct before you argue against it.

#7 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 January 2010 - 10:45 AM

I have a few questions about some of the fallacies that Creationists make and would like to hear some honest feedback.  Many Creationists often confuse the various field of sciences which seem to be the bases of many of your straw-man arguments.

View Post

Well, I’d be interested in seeing some of these arguments you’re calling “straw-man”, and some of these fields you’re calling evolutionistic science. Because I have no problem with real applied science.

When talking about evolution, creationists inevitably like to bring up the Big Bang Theory.  I would like to let you guys know that the Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.  One theory falls under biology, the other falls under cosmology.  They are completely unrelated to each other so I don't understand why Creationists like to talk as if they are the same thing.

View Post

Actually the Big Bang model has to do with everything (even the pseudo-science of evolution) if it has ANY basis in reality. In order for evolution to be true, it has to evolve from somewhere. To insinuate that the “Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing to do with” the model of Evolution is as much a cop-out (and as fallacious) as the claim that atheists don’t share the burden of proof for their negative assertions.

Creationists also like to bring up chemical evolution.  Hate to break it to you but there's no such thing as chemical evolution; only Chemistry.  Lighter elements do not evolve into heavier ones, they fuse.  Again this has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. 

View Post

On that point I have to agree, because (in reality) there’s no evidence for evolution, therefore no such thing as evolution.

Abiogenesis also isn't Evolution but at least we are getting close.  Abiogenesis deals with the synthesis of non-living matter to living matter.  It actually falls under the category of Chemistry and has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

View Post

Scientifically, “abiogenesis” doesn’t deal with anything, because it cannot be proven within the parameters of the empirical scientific method. Therefore, you are correct, abiogenesis is getting close to evolution… Both are unproven within the parameters of the empirical scientific method.

How do Creationists expect anyone to take you guys seriously if you can't even get your field of sciences correct?

View Post

As a Creationist, I don’t expect anyone who believes in the religion of evolution to take me seriously.

#8 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 January 2010 - 10:46 AM

This should probably be very interesting.

View Post


Interesting indeed!

#9 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 January 2010 - 10:58 AM

Everyone knows that the Big Bang goes along the lines of Cosmological Evolution. It is accepted as such by science. To deny this, is to deny the Big Bang, and it's meaning: How the Universe has expanded/evolved. ( Not meaning that it evolved biologically... which is easy to see).

What you mean to say Flatland, is that the Big Bang is NOT Biological Evolution. It is extremely easy to see the difference in the two.

Plus, I've never heard of chemical evolution? Chemistry to my knowledge doesn't even deal with organic biological evolution. Of course, unless... it's dealing with organic substances.

#10 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 20 January 2010 - 11:03 AM

Well, I’d be interested in seeing some of these arguments you’re calling “straw-man”, and some of these fields you’re calling evolutionistic science. Because I have no problem with real applied science.


You're twisting his words. He never mentioned "evolutionistic science", he mentioned VARIOUS FIELDS of science; your comment seems very disengenous. What do you mean by "real applied science"?

Actually the Big Bang model has to do with everything (even the pseudo-science of evolution) if it has ANY basis in reality. In order for evolution to be true, it has to evolve from somewhere. To insinuate that the “Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing to do with” the model of Evolution is as much a cop-out (and as fallacious) as the claim that atheists don’t share the burden of proof for their negative assertions.


No actually, the big bang model is one of the various models used to show the beginnings of our universe which then leads to the formation of non-living matter. Using basic chemistry, which obey the natural laws of the universe as we know it, non-living matter has been shown to produce various essential elements needed for life; this is abiogenesis and has nothing to do with evolution. It is only after life has formed that evolution begins. Saying that the evolution has everything to with the big bang is like me saying that oxygen has everything to do with me existing, thus making that statement moot.

On that point I have to agree, because (in reality) there’s no evidence for evolution, therefore no such thing as evolution.


Can you show me this non-evidence or papers that discredit the theory of evolution? Saying there's no evidence for it does not make it false.

Scientifically, “abiogenesis” doesn’t deal with anything, because it cannot be proven within the parameters of the empirical scientific method. Therefore, you are correct, abiogenesis is getting close to evolution… Both are unproven within the parameters of the empirical scientific method.


I implore you to read the latest literature on abiogenesis, but I highly doubt that you will as it seems you have came to a conclusion with no evidence otherwise.

As a Creationist, I don’t expect anyone who believes in the religion of evolution to take me seriously.


The theory of evolution is as much a religion as the theory of gravity.

#11 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 20 January 2010 - 11:53 AM

Well, I’d be interested in seeing some of these arguments you’re calling “straw-man”, and some of these fields you’re calling evolutionistic science. Because I have no problem with real applied science.

Actually the Big Bang model has to do with everything (even the pseudo-science of evolution) if it has ANY basis in reality. In order for evolution to be true, it has to evolve from somewhere. To insinuate that the “Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing to do with” the model of Evolution is as much a cop-out (and as fallacious) as the claim that atheists don’t share the burden of proof for their negative assertions.


How is the Big Bang Theory even an issue for Evolutionary Biologists? Evolutionary Biologists did not come up with the Big Bang Theory, the physicists did. And the vast majority of physicists are completely ignorant on the subject of evolution, and probably never even taken a course on Evolution. So your "evil Evolutionists indoctrination" excuse doesn't work here. The Big Bang model wasn't even proposed until the 1930s. Dawin died in 1882. It was impossible for him to have known about the Big Bang Theory. How you fail to realize that is beyond me.

Evolutionary Biologist are in no way obligated to prove the Big Bang Theory. That's like asking an Archaeologist to prove the Theory of Gravity. It is not their field of research so they are in no way obligated to prove anything. If you want proof of the Big Bang Theory why don't you ask a physicist? Why do you insist on asking Biologists? There are plenty of physics forums out there, physicsforums.com is a good place to start. You can ask them all you want about the Big Bang Theory and then show them how stupid they all are. Why don't you go and do that?

On that point I have to agree, because (in reality) there’s no evidence for evolution, therefore no such thing as evolution.
Scientifically, “abiogenesis” doesn’t deal with anything, because it cannot be proven within the parameters of the empirical scientific method. Therefore, you are correct, abiogenesis is getting close to evolution… Both are unproven within the parameters of the empirical scientific method.


Again, nothing to do with Evolution.

As a Creationist, I don’t expect anyone who believes in the religion of evolution to take me seriously.

View Post


No, people don't take you seriously because you think the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution is the same theory.

#12 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 20 January 2010 - 11:59 AM

Everyone knows that the Big Bang goes along the lines of Cosmological Evolution.  It is accepted as such by science.  To deny this, is to deny the Big Bang, and it's meaning:  How the Universe has expanded/evolved.  ( Not meaning that it evolved biologically... which is easy to see).

What you mean to say Flatland, is that the Big Bang is NOT  Biological Evolution.  It is extremely easy to see the difference in the two.

Plus, I've never heard of chemical evolution?  Chemistry to my knowledge doesn't even deal with organic biological evolution.  Of course, unless... it's dealing with organic substances.

View Post

Cosmological Evolution is not evolution. There is no "Theory of Cosmological Evolution"

#13 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 January 2010 - 12:29 PM

Cosmological Evolution is not evolution.  There is no "Theory of Cosmological Evolution"

View Post


If you read my statement, you would have realized that your restating what I said.

Now I demand an apology from you for completely not recognizing what you quoted, and the mere fact that you refuse to acknowledge cold hard facts ( like the existance of Cosmological Evolution) plus the fact that you quote mined my post.

No where did I say that Cosmological Evolution is biological evolution, don't play games. It's common knowledge that the Big Bang, and most universe theories revolve around Cosmological Evolution.

It's just common knowledge. Like the Formation of Stars and Solar Systems. Cosmological Evolution is a theory. ( several theories actually)

It by itself contains many other Ideas, and Concepts. It contains the Big Bang Theory.

#14 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 January 2010 - 12:32 PM

How is the Big Bang Theory even an issue for Evolutionary Biologists?  Evolutionary Biologists did not come up with the Big Bang Theory, the physicists did.  And the vast majority of physicists are completely ignorant on the subject of evolution, and probably never even taken a course on Evolution.  So your "evil Evolutionists indoctrination" excuse doesn't work here.  The Big Bang model wasn't even proposed until the 1930s.  Dawin died in 1882.  It was impossible for him to have known about the Big Bang Theory.  How you fail to realize that is beyond me.

Evolutionary Biologist are in no way obligated to prove the Big Bang Theory.  That's like asking an Archaeologist to prove the Theory of Gravity.  It is not their field of research so they are in no way obligated to prove anything.  If you want proof of the Big Bang Theory why don't you ask a physicist?  Why do you insist on asking Biologists?  There are plenty of physics forums out there, physicsforums.com is a good place to start.  You can ask them all you want about the Big Bang Theory and then show them how stupid they all are.  Why don't you go and do that?
Again, nothing to do with Evolution.
No, people don't take you seriously because you think the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution is the same theory.

View Post


Your extremely confused Hint hint: Cosmological Evolution... NOT Biological Evolution. Their is a huge difference. Creationist acknowledge that fact, as do every other scientist on the planet.

Ron does not believe that the Big Bang Theory and The Theory of Evolution are the same... I expect that he will demand an apology also for your lack of understanding.

#15 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 20 January 2010 - 12:38 PM

If you read my statement, you would have realized that your restating what I said.

Now I demand an apology from you for completely not recognizing what you quoted, and the mere fact that you refuse to acknowledge cold hard facts ( like the existance of Cosmological Evolution) plus the fact that you quote mined my post.

No where did I say that Cosmological Evolution is biological evolution, don't play games.  It's common knowledge that the Big Bang, and most universe theories revolve around Cosmological Evolution.

It's just common knowledge.  Like the Formation of Stars and Solar Systems.  Cosmological Evolution is a theory.  ( several theories actually)

It by itself contains many other Ideas, and Concepts.  It contains the Big Bang Theory.

View Post


Oh I see, creationists get to define what is and isn't a theory.

#16 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 20 January 2010 - 12:46 PM

Your extremely confused Hint hint:  Cosmological Evolution... NOT Biological Evolution.  Their is a huge difference.  Creationist acknowledge that fact, as do every other scientist on the planet.

Ron does not believe that the Big Bang Theory and The Theory of Evolution are the same... I expect that he will demand an apology also for your lack of understanding.

View Post


Well that's all nice and dandy now isn't it? Are you going to answer my original question? Why do creationists like to bring up unrelated field of sciences when talking about the Theory of Evolution as if they were the same thing? Since creationists already have the answer to everything I was hoping you could at least answer that.

#17 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 January 2010 - 03:06 PM

Oh I see, creationists get to define what is and isn't a theory.

View Post


No, it's just common knowledge. Just take a course in it, or google it and you'll see it.

#18 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 January 2010 - 03:13 PM

Well that's all nice and dandy now isn't it?  Are you going to answer my original question?  Why do creationists like to bring up unrelated field of sciences when talking about the Theory of Evolution as if they were the same thing?  Since creationists already have the answer to everything I was hoping you could at least answer that.

View Post


I'm telling you this, because your first question obviously isn't valid in the first place.

That's why it's all nice and dandy. You would've known that your question wasn't valid if you'd ever studied the subject, or even read through creationist arguments in the first place.

Why are the fields of science related??? Why are they even discussed... well that's a really easy answer to a really easy question.

Because both topics discuss the evolution of either A. The Universe, or B. Biological Organisms.

The two fields are only related because they both discuss evolution. Evolution is the connection Whether it be Cosmological or Biological.

You have the intentions of proving that Creationist think that Cosmological and Biological evolution are the same thing... that could be further from the truth. We know the difference already, and you know what... we discuss those differences in this very forum... of course you would've known that if you'd actually read what is said in this forum.

Don't ever say the two are not connected, when you know good and well that both are discussing the evolution of said subject.

#19 Flatland

Flatland

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • NYC

Posted 20 January 2010 - 03:42 PM

I'm telling you this, because your first question obviously isn't valid in the first place.

That's why it's all nice and dandy.  You would've known that your question wasn't valid if you'd ever studied the subject, or even read through creationist arguments in the first place.

Why are the fields of science related???  Why are they even discussed... well that's a really easy answer to a really easy question.

Because both topics discuss the evolution of either A. The Universe, or B.  Biological Organisms.

The two fields are only related because they both discuss evolution.  Evolution is the connection Whether it be Cosmological or Biological.


No they are not both Evolution. "Cosmological Evolution" is not Evolution. I already said this before there is NO such thing as the "Theory of Cosmological Evolution" go ask any physicist.

You have the intentions of proving that Creationist think that Cosmological and Biological evolution are the same thing... that could be further from the truth.  We know the difference already, and you know what... we discuss those differences in this very forum... of course you would've known that if you'd actually read what is said in this forum.

Don't ever say the two are not connected, when you know good and well that both are discussing the evolution of said subject.

View Post


Then why do you people consistently ask Biologists to prove the Big Bang Theory when you know full well that Biologists never proposed the Big Bang Theory? That is just flat out deceit and you know it!

How come creationists never try to debate Physicists, Astronomers, or Cosmologists? Why do you insist only on debating Biologists even when the subject in argument has nothing to do with Biology?

No one considers Cosmological origins to be Evolution except Creationists.

#20 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 January 2010 - 03:58 PM

No they are not both Evolution.  "Cosmological Evolution" is not Evolution. I already said this before there is NO such thing as the "Theory of Cosmological Evolution" go ask any physicist. 
Then why do you people consistently ask Biologists to prove the Big Bang Theory when you know full well that Biologists never proposed the Big Bang Theory? That is just flat out deceit and you know it!

How come creationists never try to debate Physicists, Astronomers, or Cosmologists?  Why do you insist only on debating Biologists even when the subject in argument has nothing to do with Biology? 

No one considers Cosmological origins to be Evolution except Creationists.

View Post


Go ask any Astronomer, and they will tell you Cosmological Evolution goes along the lines of the BIG BANG, because it discusses the evolution of the universe. You know full well what I'm talking about. ( Maybe you don't, then I suggest you go get educated about it.) Cosmological Evolution is a theory, in that it consist of different theories... Like the Big Bang, and Star Birth. It is evolution... IT IS NOT BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION.

Creationist on this very site have debated Astronomers, Physicists, and Cosmologist. You would've known that if you actually read the forum.

Why do creationist ask Biologist about the Big Bang??? Nope, the question is like this, the Biologist is an evolutionist, and also a HINT HINT atheist: Therefore we also discuss about the Big Bang, because it too assumes no creator, and atheistic beginnings.

Do you really think that Biologist only know about Biology, and that they don't ever think about anything else except Biology... I mean by using your logic, Biologist shouldn't even know how to tie their own shoes.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users