The Creationist's Nightmare

[benjaburns]

So, since Ray Comfort thinks the banana is the atheist's nightmare, what do you guys think the creationist's nightmare is? Ignoring the fact that creationists easily deny or ignore any evidence presented to them, I think the creationist nightmare is fossils, especially those that represent major transitions (e.g. Tiktaalik) or that show evidence for a hypothesis that previously had little or no evidence, thus backing up evolution as a whole (e.g. feathered dinosaurs discovered in the 90's).

[Guest JP]

Fossils were put there by Satan to trick humans into believing in evil-ution! Duh!

[scitsofreaky]

I don't think that there is a creationists worst nightmare simply because they will simply dismiss anything that they don't agree with. Through ignorance, all things are possible.

[freeday]

So, since Ray Comfort thinks the banana is the atheist's nightmare, what do you guys think the creationist's nightmare is? Ignoring the fact that creationists easily deny or ignore any evidence presented to them, I think the creationist nightmare is fossils, especially those that represent major transitions (e.g. Tiktaalik) or that show evidence for a hypothesis that previously had little or no evidence, thus backing up evolution as a whole (e.g. feathered dinosaurs discovered in the 90's).

 

 

i don't think the fossils present much of a threat to the creationist veiw point. it just proves the earth is older than 10,000 years.

 

and satan is a creationist worst nightmare, he is the one fooling people inito believing naturalist evil lunchoen.

[benjaburns]

Well, it doesn't matter if Creationists ignore evidence, I'm asking for what evidence you guys think is most damaging to a creationist world view for those people who actually do listen to evidence. Hence, fossils!

[pseudovillain]

The Bible itself.

 

It's their source of truth, where they get the idea that God had to create the earth in 6 days, but there are so many flaws in it that anyone who actually reads it (and isn't so brainwashed as to dismiss something conflicting/retarded as something that we simply don't understand) would realize it's not a good source for truth about everything.

 

 

 

On a note of people dismissing something conflicting in the Bible, I was discussing the Unpardonable Sin with a Christian, and he found a Bible verse suggesting that all sins can be forgiven. I said that it just further proved my point about the Bible being screwed up, and he said, "We're either missing something in this verse or missing something in the other." When I told him a third possibility was that the Bible was wrong, he got offended and told me that I jumped to that conclusion awfully fast.

[Vigile]

The creationist's nightmare is the fact that they have no argument to make in the first place. They spend all their time trying to chip away at evolution, but offer no hypothesis of their own other than goddidit.

 

There nightmare then occurs when those debating them demand evidence for their own position. They have nada. zip. niente.

[freeday]

The creationist's nightmare is the fact that they have no argument to make in the first place. They spend all their time trying to chip away at evolution, but offer no hypothesis of their own other than goddidit.

 

There nightmare then occurs when those debating them demand evidence for their own position. They have nada. zip. niente.

 

we do have evidence, its in the bible. God did it.

[Vigile]

The creationist's nightmare is the fact that they have no argument to make in the first place. They spend all their time trying to chip away at evolution, but offer no hypothesis of their own other than goddidit.

 

There nightmare then occurs when those debating them demand evidence for their own position. They have nada. zip. niente.

 

we do have evidence, its in the bible. God did it.

 

Sorry, that's a claim, not evidence. There is a huge difference.

[Thurisaz]

So, since Ray Comfort thinks the banana is the atheist's nightmare, what do you guys think the creationist's nightmare is?

 

Reality.

 

Well, it doesn't matter if Creationists ignore evidence, I'm asking for what evidence you guys think is most damaging to a creationist world view for those people who actually do listen to evidence. Hence, fossils!

 

Is there any valid scientific evidence that isn't damaging to cretinism?

[Ouroboros]

I don't think that there is a creationists worst nightmare simply because they will simply dismiss anything that they don't agree with. Through ignorance, all things are possible.

Agree. There's never enough for a Creationist.

 

i don't think the fossils present much of a threat to the creationist veiw point. it just proves the earth is older than 10,000 years.

There's plenty of better evidence for the age of the Earth and the Universe.

 

and satan is a creationist worst nightmare, he is the one fooling people inito believing naturalist evil lunchoen.

Yes, we're all the Spawn of Satan.

 

Isn't it amazing that rational thinking, logic and reason is the Devil's tools, while God's tools are faith, superstition and mystery?

 

--edit--

 

The creationists big nightmare is that Kent "Hoodwinked" broke the law by lying and not giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and is persecuted by the evil liberals that takes him to court.

[Minstrel]

For the Creationist, there is no nightmare...except they be jostled from their sleep.

Sadly, though, I don't believe the theory of the Evolution of Man fairs much better. For, if we apply the same rules of logic to it, that we have to Christianity...we find it replete with requests...for leaps of blind faith.

Scientists are nothing more than men and women, as you and I...

Men and women who view themselves in idealistic fashion...but who would rather win than suffer humiliation for backing the wrong horse. To have amassed the mountains of evidence as have been unearthed and accumulated over the past two centuries (or less)...detailing untold stages of human evolution...but...without one link...? Seems to me, the theory is off somewhere.

Michael Behe has presented a compelling argument for ID (though, no identity ascribed to the designer), referred as "irreducible complexity"...

I have read a number of "rebuttals" from other scientists, and found them on par with the rebuttals we see from Christians. Name-calling; attempts to divert the spotlight off-topic and onto something else ("He's Catholic!"); but not once have I even been entertained...thinking "Hey...there's actually going to be a contest, here"...

To my view; I have no reason to want to destroy anyone's belief in Creationism...if I have no alternative to demonstrate. And, to my thinking, we're way overdue for a better explanation.

[Vigile]

 

 

Methinks you have bought into the creationist's strawman version of ToE.

[Variable]

Evolutionist nightmare? Bannanas? What?

[Ouroboros]

Evolutionist nightmare? Bannanas? What?

A "famous" preacher (Kirk Cameron, The way of the master) is using the Bananas as evidence that God created the fruit for the humans, because it's so "smart" and "intelligent" packaged, and so easy to bring and open and blah blah...

 

What Cameron doesn't know is that the banana we have in the store today isn't the original banana, but is cultivated by ... Humans!

 

Some facts from Wikipedia:

While the original bananas contained rather large seeds, triploid (and thus seedless) cultivars have been selected for human consumption. These are propagated asexually from offshoots of the plant

 

I heard from someone that used to live in Latin America, that the wild bananas have to be peeled like a potato and cooked, before eaten. Yeah right, designed by God,

[Rachelness]

The fact that they're wrong?

[Ouroboros]

The topic is about what kind of fact is the creationists nightmare. Cameron thinks the banana is the "Evolutionists" nightmare (which it isn't, he's just quite deluded). But the topic is what scares the shit out of creationists.

 

I think there are plenty of evidence and facts that contradicts creationism, but the issue with delusional people is that they can't see the arguments for what they are, but find ridiculous explanations to wipe it away. Nothing scares the creationist. It's like a person doing something dangerous and you wonder if they're extremely brave or extremely stupid. And it's the latter with them.

[Minstrel]

Methinks you have bought into the creationist's strawman version of ToE.

Fortunately, I don't think I have all the answers.

If you'd care to share the logic that negates or refutes Behe's argument on the "irreducible complexity" of DNA (for starters)...I'm too soon out of Christianity to want to hold on to errors of belief.

[Ouroboros]

There are, so far, no tests, experiments, falsifications or any other ways of verifying something to be irreducible complex, and hence it isn't science or even a theory until such a time comes when someone can find a way of testing it, and prove it.

 

Irreducible Complex is just to say, "gosh, this thing looks so darn complicated, and I'm not smart enough to figure out how it came to be through natural events, so goddidit."

 

Behe have used different examples, which have been dismissed by the scientific community. Also realize that Behe and friends don't have support or acceptance from 99.9% of the scientific community.

 

And of course, someone will bring up the some odd hundred "scientists" that are against evolution, but forgets that the Project Steve have more names listed to support Evolution.

 

The ecosystem in nature was irreducible complex for the human mind, until science started to break down the chain of events. It's all smoke and mirrors, my friend.

 

And, correct, we don't have all the answers, that's why we shouldn't jump to conclusions before we do have the answer, or we might never look for it.

[Minstrel]

There are, so far, no tests, experiments, falsifications or any other ways of verifying something to be irreducible complex, and hence it isn't science or even a theory until such a time comes when someone can find a way of testing it, and prove it.

 

Irreducible Complex is just to say, "gosh, this thing looks so darn complicated, and I'm not smart enough to figure out how it came to be through natural events, so goddidit."

 

Behe have used different examples, which have been dismissed by the scientific community. Also realize that Behe and friends don't have support or acceptance from 99.9% of the scientific community.

 

And of course, someone will bring up the some odd hundred "scientists" that are against evolution, but forgets that the Project Steve have more names listed to support Evolution.

 

The ecosystem in nature was irreducible complex for the human mind, until science started to break down the chain of events. It's all smoke and mirrors, my friend.

 

And, correct, we don't have all the answers, that's why we shouldn't jump to conclusions before we do have the answer, or we might never look for it.

Wouldn't an intelligent mind wonder why...after a century and a half (or so) of scientific endeavors toward the justification and proofs of Darwin's proposition...as much effort hasn't gone into determining a system or method of measuring/qualifying/quantifying this - the admitted blind-spot?

 

I already stated that I've read numerous "rebuttals" to Behe's proposal/s. And inerrantly, they fall into the categories of what you've stated - "Nobody believes him. He's a quack. It's just the clock-maker argument revisited." And just as we find in discussion with Christians about...well, about anything...they avoid every point and question...then say "We Won".

 

If we're honest...I'm being told to take it on faith... Take it on the word of these scientists. As if the title - Scientist - makes them more qualified to think than I. Just like - Theologian - is a title that should awe me into accepting their rendition of the origin of the Man.

Sorry, I've done that before...in the face of major questions and flaws. I will not suppress these questions, and accept what 'the majority' reports.

 

While I agree that scientific progress may eventuate a rebuttal and/or absolute denial of Behe's proposal...I, likewise, see a tremendous lack of integrity on the part of the scientific community, in exploring the Theory of Evolution.

In part, I can see why so much effort has gone into "confirmation"...with the holes apparent in the Biblical account (etc)...but the acceptance has been so grand-scaled that many other scientific discoveries are quashed outright, on account of poking holes in the Evolved Theory of Evolution.

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my questions.

[Ouroboros]

Minstrel, you should (if you can) listen to Dr Zach's podcast Evolution 101, because he talks about the Irreducible Complexity in one of them.

 

Here's the transcript: http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/05/...complexity.html

 

And what I mean that he doesn't have the support, you have to look at other ideas out there that don't get approval either. There will always be dissidents and opponents to theories. Einstein was against quantum physics, but later realized that he was wrong. But for quite while he resisted it. Things are sometimes counter intuitive, but when experiments and tests show one direction, a scientist have to follow.

 

The IDist have so far not been able to come up with a way of proving or testing IC. And by scientific standards, a hypothesis is nothing more than such, until you can come up with falsifiable tests to confirm your hypothesis. There is none today for IC. If the IDists can come up with some, and they do show IC to have some validity, then it would have effect on the scientific community. But so far all the IDists do is speculate on philosophical grounds. And as long as they do that, they can't get scientific recognition. Behe has done some mathematical "proofs" but in one of the few publications they also had a long refutation showing all the mathematical errors in Behe's calculations, he made false assumptions.

[Minstrel]

Thanks for the link.

On first and second readings I thought it was a weak stab that bypassed the heart of the issue. But, I'll give it time to settle, and see if my views are the same tomorrow.

[Minstrel]

...But so far all the IDists do is speculate on philosophical grounds. And as long as they do that, they can't get scientific recognition. Behe has done some mathematical "proofs" but in one of the few publications they also had a long refutation showing all the mathematical errors in Behe's calculations, he made false assumptions.

Could be...

If your major was Mathematics, then perhaps you are qualified to quantify the refutations and "false assumptions". It could, likewise, be semantical.

As long as the philosophical gesticulating is focused on Genesis 1, the best I can hope for is... 1) Someone finds Link...or 2) The aliens show us what really happened.

Nonetheless, as stated...let me digest this and see what the pillow says.

Sincere Regards

[Ouroboros]

Could be...

If your major was Mathematics, then perhaps you are qualified to quantify the refutations and "false assumptions". It could, likewise, be semantical.

Very true. But the one doing the refutation is also a matematician like Behe. And unfortunately I don't subscribe to Protein Science to really see Michael Lynch response.

 

As long as the philosophical gesticulating is focused on Genesis 1, the best I can hope for is... 1) Someone finds Link...or 2) The aliens show us what really happened.

How can we find a link to Genesis? You do realize that there are contradictions in the Genesis story that don't add up, unless one decided to invent more excuses. Say for instance, how can there be a "night" and "day" before the sun, or how can it be on a globe that have night, day, morning and evenings all the time. Besides there are some things pointing to that the Eden story came from Sumerian religions.

 

Anyway, Behe and other IDists don't dismiss evolution, and they claim to not be creationists. A true "scientific" Intelligent Design can only, by the Irreducible Complexity argument, say that there was a higher force or power or intelligence driving evolution to make the different species. Behe does not deny 99.99% of what evolution says. Just an FYI. And he's the only one that have brought forth any kind of reasonable, philosophical argument so far. Most creationists want to dismiss all Evolution theories, and that can't be done.

 

Nonetheless, as stated...let me digest this and see what the pillow says.

Sincere Regards

Sweet dreams.

 

Oh, here's another link to another podcast with Dr Zachs: http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/ (search for Behe)

[Minstrel]

How can we find a link to Genesis? You do realize that there are contradictions in the Genesis story that don't add up, unless one decided to invent more excuses. Say for instance, how can there be a "night" and "day" before the sun, or how can it be on a globe that have night, day, morning and evenings all the time. Besides there are some things pointing to that the Eden story came from Sumerian religions.

Anyway, Behe and other IDists don't dismiss evolution, and they claim to not be creationists. A true "scientific" Intelligent Design can only, by the Irreducible Complexity argument, say that there was a higher force or power or intelligence driving evolution to make the different species. Behe does not deny 99.99% of what evolution says. Just an FYI. And he's the only one that have brought forth any kind of reasonable, philosophical argument so far. Most creationists want to dismiss all Evolution theories, and that can't be done.

Sweet dreams.

I certainly realize the contradictions in the Genesis 1 story.

The "Link" I was referring to...is a "linking-stage" between the proposed progressive stages of mankind's development.

The fact that Behe et al are not proponents of the Genesis' Creation epic, is a bonus, in my mind. Though, I would hope not to disregard any legitimate find, on account of a bias against their philosophical bent.

Couldn't sleep... Maybe this will help.