|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/19/2010 : 10:47:48
|
For years, we’ve maintained a list of arguments creationists should avoid. There are enough good arguments for biblical accuracy and a young earth that dubious claims can safely be discarded. Now we want to address a similar topic: arguments evolutionists should avoid. These worn-out tropes have not only passed their expiration date, but they never should have been made to begin with.
|
Their list of arguments creationists should avoid was quite good, actually, although many creationists don't follow the guidelines and get burned for it a lot more often than not. But now these Bible-flogging pettifoggers, unable to leave well-enough alone, presume to tell us how to argue. I figure that they hope we'll do it their way and start losing every time – talk about stacking the deck.... Or trying to.
But okee-dokee, lets have it, then.
1 Evolution is a fact
When our core beliefs are attacked, it’s often easy for humans to retreat to statements such as this: “My belief is a fact, and yours is wrong.” That’s exactly why we cannot trust mere human understanding to explain the unobservable past—emotion and pride get in the way. Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many times evolutionists say it is. It’s a framework built on assumptions about the past—assumptions that will never have direct, first-hand, observational proof.
|
What we overlook here is that there is far less supportive evidence for the accuracy of the Bible than for the ToE. Indeed, the difference is overwhelming.
But again we run into the asinine assumption that amounts to: “If human eyes didn't see it and a human hand didn't record it, it didn't happen that way, and God done it is the only explanation.” Creationist ragwigs of all strips have been using that tired, old turkey for as long as I care to remember. It only works with other creationists. Like it or not, evolution is a fact, although science, ever leaving room for new information, calls it a theory.
2 Only the uneducated reject evolution
Besides the arrogance of such statements, this argument has no footing and should be cast off. Mainly, those who make this claim usually define “educated people” as those who accept evolution. Anyone who disagrees fails the test, no matter what their background (e.g., if we follow this ideology, Isaac Newton must have been uneducated). There are many lists of well-educated scholars who look to the Bible for answers (here’s one)—and we could point out Darwin’s own deficit of formal education (he earned a bachelor’s in theology). But the bigger issue is that education—or lack—does not guarantee the validity of a person’s position.
|
I suppose there are some people who use this for an argument, and lets face it, many creationists are bone ignorant and willfully so (Ray Comfort, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind come to mind, among various others), but I don't know of anyone who uses it for a pro-evolution argument. To do so would show that same sort of ignorance, for, of course, it is not an argument at all.
Oh, and Sir Isaac Newton was, among other things, an alchemist.
I piss flaming nitroglycerin upon your Straw Man.
3 Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution
The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species, the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true: the “evidence” supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed (i.e., moving from the Bible, God’s Word, to humanism, man’s word). Creationists continue to see everything in light of God’s Word and all evidence as supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no “neutral” starting point; everyone—whether they acknowledge it or not—interprets the “facts” according to a particular way of thinking (i.e., worldview).
|
Centuries before Darwin, science was a lot different from what we know today. The vast amount of information we have, quite literally at our fingertips, was still waiting to be discovered. And that information was brought forth by, guess who: scientists! The various creationists, even those with Doctorates, have contributed precious little toward the scientific knowledge of our species.
The opening statement is correct – the evidence is there and accurate. As for the closing, it too, is right on. If your world view is skewed, you will never see reality. And todays reality is not to be found in the maundering of ancient, tribal nomads.
4 Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
Why does this argument fail? We’ll show you. Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it to the floor. That’s gravity. Next, make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—turn into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.
|
This one is a truly ludicrous statement. It is used as a Straw Man and/or a Red Herring and can often be found in some of the dumber, creationist's arguments. “From goo to you via the zoo!” as Jonathon Sarfati used to say with a smarmy sneer.
And the blither about historical science being untestable is wishful nonsense. It's tested all the time in labs and in the field all over the world.
5 Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
Ironically, the Bible describes the earth as round and hanging in space—long before this could have been directly observed (Job 26:10; Isaiah 40:22). The appeal of this claim is that it stereotypes creationists as stuck in the past, since the common assumption is that people once universally believed the earth was flat before science “proved” otherwise (which wasn’t the case—only a few bought into the idea that the earth was flat). But even if this were true (it’s not), direct, repeatable observation shows us the earth is round and orbiting the sun. Evolutionary stories about fossils are not direct observations; they’re assumption-based beliefs.
|
Oh bullshit! No one but an idiot would try that one for an argument because it is not one.
The shape of the earth has nothing to do with the ToE and this is just whistling past the graveyard. If you wish to know something about the flat earth and geocentricism, different topics entirely, you should look it up somewhere other than AiG. And besides, it was ancient pagan sailors who knew from the get-go that the earth was round and there never has been much of a doubt about it except in some long-ago, clerical circles.
6 It’s here, so it must have evolved
A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is “four,” we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that’s how it must have happened. This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless. The Bible offers another (and more sound) framework for how those traits and species came to be.
|
Everything evolves, even the very rocks that make up our badly abused planet. This is not a jumped-to conclusion but one reinforced by sound science in a great many fields. Once again, a mere statement does not an argument make.
We've got to do better than this.
7 Natural selection is evolution
This is likely the most abused argument on the list—and most in need of being scrapped. Often evolutionists bait people into showing them a change that is merely natural selection and then switch to say this proves molecules-to-man evolution. However, this is quite misleading. Natural selection, even according to evolutionists, does not have the power to generate anything “new.” The observable process can only act upon existing characteristics so that some members of a species are more likely to survive. In fact, it’s an important component of the biblical worldview.
|
Natural selection is, as stated, merely a part of the evolutionary process. No one with any grasp at all of the ToE says otherwise. You are again making shit up, but I've noticed that the habit fits well in a Biblical world view. For an example, I submit AiG's version of Jurassic Park. 
8 Common design means common ancestry
Historical common descent is not and cannot be confirmed through observation. Rather, certain observations are explained by assumptions about the past. These observations, we might add, have alternative explanations. Common body plans (homology), for example, do not prove common descent—that’s an assumption. A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better.
|
If you go back far enough, it does. Of course, you must go back much farther than a mere 6,000 or so years.
But I'm open to agument; if there is a Designer, then produce the rascal. If you can't, then I must conclude that you are acting on preconceived assumptions. Again.
9 Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
Sedimentary layers show one thing: sedimentary layers. In other words, we can—and should—study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point: such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions. When we start from the Bible and examine the rocks within the framework of a global Flood, the need for long ages vanishes.
|
I knew that sooner or later, this would manifest itself, not unlike like a long, wet, bean-fart from the pulpit.
Ok, you are making the claim, so it is incumbent upon you to back the statement up. The Flood story has been debunked many times, but as long as you insist on sticking to it, the rest of us can have a laugh. The Geologic Column clearly shows that the Flood is just another sea story, albeit a favorite of mine.
10 Mutations drive evolution
Perhaps because of movies and fiction, the popular idea is that mutations make evolution go. Given enough time, shifts in the genetic code will produce all the variety of plants and animals on earth—and beyond. The problem? Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires—not even close. Some may benefit an organism (e.g., beetles on a windy island losing wings), but virtually every time mutations come with a cost.
|
Mutations do indeed drive evolution, but just any ol' mutation won't cut it. For a population to benefit, the mutation must give it some advantage within it's environment. As this happens mostly in pocket populations, those populations might soon be on their way to becoming new species. Or not; conditions are ever changing and sometimes even hedged bets can be losers.
11 The Scopes trial
Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this: Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common—though completely flawed—perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different account.
|
The Scopes Trial was a legal proceeding, nothing more. It has nothing to do with the veracity of the ToE and any evolutionist who tries to use it is an idiot. We already know that. Hey, how 'bout Kitzmiller, eh?
12 Science vs. religion
News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common meme presents science and religion as opposing forces—reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but it’s bunk. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within (and, in fact, requires) a God-created universe. Otherwise, there’d be no reason to do science in the first place.
|
Got news for you, bunky; science doesn't care about religion, not one iota, although some scientists as individuals do. Science is a study of reality; religion is metaphysical and supported by preconceived beliefs which have no shred of empirical evidence. By their very natures, science and religion are not at all compatible.
Of course, in spite of the title, this screed was not intended for us, no. It is merely another preaching to a receptive congregation, i.e. other creationists. How&ever, one might hope that some of them will try to bring this humbug in here.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
Edited by - filthy on 06/19/2010 10:56:25
|
|
|
AnthroGeek
New Member
USA
38 Posts |
 Posted - 06/20/2010 : 01:53:07 [Permalink]
|
filthy I do not know how you can stand sifting through the nonsense over at AiG.
Anyway, my thoughts on their arguments "evolutionists"(seriously, other than old Ernst Mayr writings, I have not seen this term ever used outside creationist circles) should avoid.
#1 Evolution is a fact. It is, the Theory of Evolution - now a modern synthesis involving a multitude of disciplines - that explains the observed fact. Much like gravity is a fact and the theory of gravity attempts to explain it.
#2 It is not that "only the uneducated" reject evolution, but that seemingly educated people are willing to lie for their faith based paradigms to mostly uneducated masses. It is no real stretch to say that most of the people who reject the ToE do so from a religious teaching that was taught to them from a pulpit and not a science classroom.
#3 What utter bullshit. The evidence, the body there of, that is, did change because more evidence has been added over the years. That is how fucking science works! I hate to make such a simplified accounting of the history of science, but for the sake of what the AiG assholes said: Those original "scientists" from a few centuries back started with the presumption that they would find proof for their already existent beliefs in a monotheistic worldview. I think it is safe to say that the early forerunners of modern science were more akin to natural theologians than of today's scientists.
#4 see #1
5&6 covered by filthy
#7 Natural selection is just one part of the ToE. Back to the uneducated part. One can also add: genetic drift, mutation, gene flow and punctuated equilibrium. Darwin himself recognized that NS by itself could not account for the diverse variety of life on earth. The problem is that creationists are still arguing Darwinism and not the ToE.
#8 | A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better |
Yes, if we assume the designer was a spastic fucktard that when deciding to make a high end super-car kept the 8 tack player, frame and various other parts from a 1970's pick up truck.
#9 NO! Various forms of dating show the world to be much older than what creo-tards claim. Even dendrochronology shows the world is much older than what AiG claims. Of course one can look to other fields of science as well when asking not only how old the world is, but the entire fucking universe, just talk to an astrophysicist.
#10 See #7
#11 Strawman
#12 | However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within (and, in fact, requires) a God-created universe. Otherwise, there’d be no reason to do science in the first place. |
What utter horsehit. Science does even have to so much posit a god in order for it to do its job.
But filthy, some fields of science do indeed concern themselves with the religious beliefs of others. We just just don't care about their supposed truth claims and instead focus on the underlying patterns and cultural universals. It is much more of a matter of the "why" - often viewed from either an etic or emic position.
|
A series of fun one-liners about various pseudoscientific claims and, even better, a concise description of the scientific method - Ken Feder on Skeptic Friends Network from "Frauds, Myths and Mysteries" |
 |
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2010 : 02:00:42 [Permalink]
|
Welcome back online Filthy.
I came across this. A list of scientific societies that reject ID. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2010 : 03:34:53 [Permalink]
|
I just had one of 'those' moments - I went to the AIG link you provided, and after poking around a bit came to a page that had their street address on it: 2800 Bullittsburg Church Rd. For some reason, but not too hard to imagine, my mind immediately read it as 'Bullshitburg Church Rd.' 
|
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2010 : 07:40:01 [Permalink]
|
Hey, filthy. Guess what?
You'll love this guy's comments. Just read from that first comment on down.
And yes, I did what you think I did...
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 07/09/2010 07:46:11 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2010 : 11:42:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
Hey, filthy. Guess what?
You'll love this guy's comments. Just read from that first comment on down.
And yes, I did what you think I did...
|
It's gratifyingt to see that so many others have pixked up on this string of bullshit. It is further interesting that no one has presented any sort of a sound argument in it's favor -- could it be that there is none? I rather think not...
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2010 : 12:54:40 [Permalink]
|
Dan is giving a point by point rebuttal of what freddie's dead posted. You may or may not find it amusing.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2010 : 14:29:08 [Permalink]
|
From Argument #4
| Next, make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—turn into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? |
Now that's fucking dishonest. One the most common and biggest strawmen the evil gits have in their arsenal. No sane evolutionist would claim that such a scenario was even remotely likely. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
12 arguments evolutionists should avoid.
