Real Science Friday- Caterpillar Kills Atheism

Status
Not open for further replies.

nicholsmom

New member
I don't consider tax dodgers who get their degrees from diploma mills or other mediocrities with degrees from a silo college to be qualified scientists. Hardly the best brains on campus, as it were. Creationists are hardly qualified to practice phrenology, let alone offer "insight" on paleontology, archeology, physics, or anthropology.

I don't know about YE creationists, but here's a Creationist who you may be able to respect - unless you thing MIT is a "diploma mill" or a "mediocrity" or a "silo college."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder
Here's an article by him that might make you spit: http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Evolution_Rationality_vs._Randomness.asp

Or it might make you change your mind about generalizing all creationists as under-educated hicks.

BTW, I have no particular affinity for either a young earth or an old one. I honestly don't think it makes a scintilla's bit of difference.
 
Last edited:

Frank Ernest

New member
Hall of Fame
Go for it. Show, rather than assert.


"Give a rough description of how evolution could possibly explain (it cannot) a caterpillar liquefying itself and re-creating itself into a butterfly."

(Hint: Merely throwing out evolutionist buzzwords like "random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection" does not suffice as even a rough description.)
"Random mutation" would suggest that not all catepillars become butterflies. Some would become horses or carnivorous wombats, by small incremental changes, of course.

(It also occurs to me that "random mutations" and "natural selection" are clashing concepts.)
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Clete, do you know what th word "roughly" means? It means approximately, or generally. The question has been answered.
You're both a liar and a hypocrite. If a creationist pulled this you'd be all over it. The question has not even been addressed, much less answered and you know it.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and I don't think you do either.
Did you read the opening post? :duh:

It would be an easy matter to falsify evolution if only it were false. I think that is what is giving you and your pre-scientific brethren so many problems.
Saying it doesn't make it so.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

DoogieTalons

BANNED
Banned
How would this "test" you speak of progress? How shall we test the "theory" (of course I'd just call this sort of thing "guessing" or "pulling out of thin air") - you know, scientifically?
God did it ?
What? No fossil record of an intermediate stage?
No why bother looking God did it !!
This would be lovely except for the fact that the nymph stage or caterpillar stage is the most vulnerable one. How could adding a more vulnerable stage be useful - er, evolutionarily? The butterfly can fly from danger, can reproduce more widely (thanks to those lovely wings), can find new food sources. The caterpillar is stuck where it hatched, cannot reproduce at all, and is pretty much a sitting duck for any predator; they even get gobbled up by herbivores who share their food "choice."
Ok God did it.

Ah, more blue air, whole cloth, fantasy, flights - not of butterflies, but of imagination. Totally untestable; without foundation; and without a single supportive bit of evidence. Is that what you call "science?"
That is a vast & purposefully deceptive oversimplification of creation science.
God did it
I wouldn't hold my breath.
I wouldn't, either God did it.

Wow no I really do sound like an unintelligent moron, how nice it would be to have on answer to every question. It'd be like I don't even have to think at all.

What do you prefer ? answers or questions ?

When you only have one answer the questions are pointless, isn't it great that most of the world don't think that way ? You'd still be pointing at the moon ad believeing it to be a "light".

I think creationists are stupid on purpose.
 

Jukia

New member
That is a vast & purposefully deceptive oversimplification of creation science.

What is creation science? It seems to be, as set forth on TOL, that God created all the "kinds" of plants and animals we see (and all those that have become extinct) in a week about 6000 years ago. How much more complicated is it?

There is NO evidence for such a happening.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
"Random mutation" would suggest that not all catepillars become butterflies. Some would become horses or carnivorous wombats, by small incremental changes, of course.

(It also occurs to me that "random mutations" and "natural selection" are clashing concepts.)
"Random mutation" does not suggest this, Frank!

All it suggests is that there is no pattern to the mutations, that they are not being intelligently controlled or caused, that the mutations are accidental.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Please please please tell me that you posted this in jest.

Please, please, please tell me that you don't consider this comment as a refutation of the information contained on that web page.
 

Frank Ernest

New member
Hall of Fame
"Random mutation" does not suggest this, Frank!

All it suggests is that there is no pattern to the mutations, that they are not being intelligently controlled or caused, that the mutations are accidental.

Resting in Him,
Clete
If there is no pattern to the mutations, then why not? It seems that caterpillars become butterflies rather consistently which suggests a pattern to me. If the results from scientific observation are supposed to be predictable, where does anything random come in?
 

Evoken

New member
God did it ?
No why bother looking God did it !!
Ok God did it.

God did it
I wouldn't, either God did it.

Wow no I really do sound like an unintelligent moron, how nice it would be to have on answer to every question. It'd be like I don't even have to think at all.

You actually came across as desperate. Why the need for such mischaracterizations? Whether he is right or wrong, nicholsmom has been making so fairly good posts in this thread and is encouraging reasonable discussion. Why don't you try some for a change?


Evo
 

nicholsmom

New member
God did it ?
No why bother looking God did it !!
Ok God did it.


God did it
I wouldn't, either God did it.

Wow no I really do sound like an unintelligent moron, how nice it would be to have on answer to every question. It'd be like I don't even have to think at all.

What do you prefer ? answers or questions ?

When you only have one answer the questions are pointless, isn't it great that most of the world don't think that way ? You'd still be pointing at the moon ad believeing it to be a "light".

I think creationists are stupid on purpose.

No. I really want those answers please. Do you have any? Point me in the direction of someone who does, or show your brilliance or :shut:
 

nicholsmom

New member
What is creation science? It seems to be, as set forth on TOL, that God created all the "kinds" of plants and animals we see (and all those that have become extinct) in a week about 6000 years ago. How much more complicated is it?

There is NO evidence for such a happening.

If TOL is your only source for understanding creation science, I'd say you haven't bothered to do your homework. That's okay if you are really just not interested, but you ought not to cast stones unless you can really see your target, kwim?
 

DoogieTalons

BANNED
Banned
I've posted some quite long and valid posts on this thread, as per usual they are skimmed over with a few glib statements, hence my retort. You seem to demand far more than you are prepared to provide.

The case for a young earth is non existant outside religion, you're just wrong. It's not even funny.

Young earth is as wrong as it get's it has no supported evidence at all. The scientists that support it have degrees and doctorates in totally different fields than they comment upon.

Here's the facts that the vast majority of the freethinking world of science agrees on.

The world is very old, if you think otherwise you are wrong. Educate yourself.

If you told me 2+2 was five because God said it was you would be equally wrong.

I mean seriously ANY who thinks the world is 10,000 years old or less is simply wrong and needs to learn more about the natural world.

I would be totally embarrased to present myself before any God, given the evidence and understanding we have and say.. hey some dude said you did it in six days and I faithfully believed it despite common sense and overwhelming mountains of evidence.

God will stick you back in grade school and give you a dunce cap.

Perhaps that's what the 1000 year reign will be it'll be where you're all schooled properly, yeah you have faith but boy were you dumb.
 

nicholsmom

New member
You may have missed this one:
BTW, I have no particular affinity for either a young earth or an old one. I honestly don't think it makes a scintilla's bit of difference.

I've posted some quite long and valid posts on this thread, as per usual they are skimmed over with a few glib statements, hence my retort. You seem to demand far more than you are prepared to provide.
Do you mean me specifically? My "glib statements" seem to be asking for more information, if you provided adequate information, I haven't seen it. I will look back through the thread.
The case for a young earth is non existant outside religion, you're just wrong. It's not even funny.
See my above statement. I am not tied to either theory, but if I chose young earth, I agree that it would be based solely on my religious beliefs.
Young earth is as wrong as it get's it has no supported evidence at all. The scientists that support it have degrees and doctorates in totally different fields than they comment upon.
That is an opinion based on your POV. The evidence for any form of genesis is questionable at best, and certainly may be interpreted by anyone's guess. The evolutionists make their guesses (yes, guesses - and they vary widely) about what they think these things mean, and the creationists make their guesses which also vary pretty widely. To say that no evidence exists is absurd because we all use the same evidence.

Oh look, you give us your interpretation of the evidence at hand:
Here's the facts that the vast majority of the freethinking world of science agrees on.
The world is very old, if you think otherwise you are wrong. Educate yourself.

If you told me 2+2 was five because God said it was you would be equally wrong.
Well, of course. You really should set aside this notion that just because someone disagrees with you that that person is not capable of sensible thought.

More of your interpretations (notice how subjective they are):
I mean seriously ANY who thinks the world is 10,000 years old or less is simply wrong and needs to learn more about the natural world.

I would be totally embarrased to present myself before any God, given the evidence and understanding we have and say.. hey some dude said you did it in six days and I faithfully believed it despite common sense and overwhelming mountains of evidence.

God will stick you back in grade school and give you a dunce cap.
Yes, indeed, we are all inestimably stupid in comparison to God. I'm pretty sure He doesn't hold it against us.
 
Last edited:

Jukia

New member
Please, please, please tell me that you don't consider this comment as a refutation of the information contained on that web page.

Ah no, sorry. I meant to say that anyone who believes that web page is incredibly gullible and misinformed.
That better?
 

DoogieTalons

BANNED
Banned
Oh look, you give us your interpretation of the evidence at hand: Well, of course. You really should set aside this notion that just because someone disagrees with you that that person is not capable of sensible thought.
No it's not just my interpretation of the evidence its the facts, it's dicovered researched and held as fact.

The earth is over 10,000 years old by any forms of measuring the earths age.

YECers can't even call the age of the earth and they supposedly have a book that tells them.

It's long been held that religous beliefs should be respected ect ect but no! not when you step out of your metaphysical realm of make believe and guy in the sky hocus pocus bronze age myth nonsense formed by people who thought the earth was flat and try to push an interpretation of your religions genesis as fact, they deserve no respect and should be given no quarter, and spanked liked naughty children.

It's not even worth arguing with young earth creationists, it's like trying to explain advanced physic to a 9 month old child it's just pointless.

Anyone teaching a child that the earth is under 10,000 years old spreading this religious nonsense as science should be publicaly mocked and banned from teaching, put in the stock and have eggs thrown at. Why? because it's stupid. I'm not asserting that the earth is old! because the earth is old by any standards I'm asserting my opinion that anyone who thinks it's young should at worst keep thier dumb ideas to themselves and at best relearn with an open mind and try catching up with the rest of the world.

Christians are long saying that they should be allowed not to "Tollerate" gays, so what's wrong with the free thinking world being allowed not to "Tollerate" this idiocy that's still trying to creep into our schools.

Anyone who argues for a young earth is a Fool. So say I.

ANY Yecers want to tell me exactly how old thier infalible bible tells us the earth is ?
 

SUTG

New member
You are entirely mistaken to think that I am ignorant of science.

I never meant to say that you were ignorant of all science, just Biology, as shown in post #9 of this thread.

I am not a biologist, nor are you or you would make biological arguments,

You can save the keystorkes, as we've all figured out that you are not a Biologist. You are attacking a scientific theory while at the same time having absolutely no idea of what the theory even says. You're not only wrong on a few minor details, you're completely in the dark. Again, see post #9. So, your position is that you're not quite sure what the theory says, but you know it is wrong.

Why stop there? Why not branch out into other sciences, or mathematics? Start posting in mathematics forums about the inherent weaknesses in the Church/Tarski theorem. Don't bother with learning the math, just start posting!
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
If there is no pattern to the mutations, then why not? It seems that caterpillars become butterflies rather consistently which suggests a pattern to me. If the results from scientific observation are supposed to be predictable, where does anything random come in?

Are you intentionally being obtuse or what?

The function of the DNA is not random, the mutations of it are.
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
Ah, yet more "irrefutable" proof that evolution is wrong that has already been refuted again and again. Isn't it marvelous what the indomitable ability of the human mind to simply not pay attention to the facts can do?
Anyone who has any genuine curiosity about evolutionay theory already has the answers at their beck and call. Talk.origins has a pretty spectacular collection of evidence for evolution and a list of common creationist claims arguments and their answers. Of course, since YEC'ers have about as much interest in "real science" (no matter day of the week it is) as a fish does in a bicycle and only bring up questions in the hopes that no one CAN answer them it's probably a moot point.
But seriously, caterpillars and bombadier beatles- at least try to get something fresh.
 

Toast

New member
But seriously, caterpillars and bombadier beatles- at least try to get something fresh.

You also. It is because you can give no clear evidence of evolution actually happening in the world, that we find it unrealistic and unscientific.. Its never been observed in the history books of mankind.. Deal with it, your way of life is empty.. Repent and be saved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top