Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Cannabis Seeds Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore Injection Grain Bag, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Where Creationists fail hard * 1
    #20069871 -

The tactic they use is a very common fallacy. Of course, no matter how many times it is pointed out to them, they merely plug their ears and continue on.

Here is the flaw: deconstructing another's theory/hypothesis does absolutely nothing to support yours. Yet this is basically all Creationists do is try to deconstruct evolutionary theory. I have no problem with that. Of course, they only present their work to a captive and ignorant audience and not to reputable journals. This is not science, it is preaching.

Back to the main point: If a Creationist was able to totally destroy evolutionary theory, that would not be evidence for Divine Creation in the slightest.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: OrgoneConclusion] * 1
    #20069983 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
The tactic they use is a very common fallacy. Of course, no matter how many times it is pointed out to them, they merely plug their ears and continue on.

Here is the flaw: deconstructing another's theory/hypothesis does absolutely nothing to support yours. Yet this is basically all Creationists do is try to deconstruct evolutionary theory. I have no problem with that. Of course, they only present their work to a captive and ignorant audience and not to reputable journals. This is not science, it is preaching.

Back to the main point: If a Creationist was able to totally destroy evolutionary theory, that would not be evidence for Divine Creation in the slightest.


Likewise, debunking creationism does absolutely nothing to support the myth of evolutionary theory.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: LunarEclipse] * 1
    #20070053 -

Quote:
Likewise, debunking creationism does absolutely nothing to support the myth of evolutionary theory.


I thought I made that clear.



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #20070056 -

LunarEclipse said:
OrgoneConclusion said:
The tactic they use is a very common fallacy. Of course, no matter how many times it is pointed out to them, they merely plug their ears and continue on.

Here is the flaw: deconstructing another's theory/hypothesis does absolutely nothing to support yours. Yet this is basically all Creationists do is try to deconstruct evolutionary theory. I have no problem with that. Of course, they only present their work to a captive and ignorant audience and not to reputable journals. This is not science, it is preaching.

Back to the main point: If a Creationist was able to totally destroy evolutionary theory, that would not be evidence for Divine Creation in the slightest.


Likewise, debunking creationism does absolutely nothing to support the myth of evolutionary theory.


Non-sequitur.  Evolutionary theory is quite well defended by a long history of science.

Beyond that, pointing out the ludicrous fallacies in an assertion of a ludicrous  position - which creationism is, is simply that and not an attempt to prove anything else.

Edited by Rool Kat (06/01/14 04:19 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: OrgoneConclusion] * 1
    #20070107 -

Yes, it's political trickery to get creationism into schools and to get creationism considered on equal footing with evolution.  ...and it has worked in the U.S. :frown:

It's a cunning use of psychological bias to fool the daft... By creating a group, "all theories without substantiated evidence to support them", then lumping evolution and creationism into that group. Creationism, like a parasite, just by the association of sharing the same group with evolution is able to acquire the same type of esteem and credibility of evolution without working for it. So even though logically this tact doesn't strengthen their own argument, emotionally it does. And seeing as most people don't think logically...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: Rool Kat]
    #20070115 -

One basic counter-argument I have used usually flies right over Creationist's heads.


Creationist Premises:

1. A designed object requires a Designer. (Doh! This tautology says nothing. Variation: A created object requires a Creator.)

2. God designed all objects.

3. God designed a specific object (such as the human eye).


As premise 2. already covers premise 3. then any and every object should bear the stamp of the Creator and Creationists would not need pick a specific object to attempt to make their case. Do they present a grain of sand to make their case? No. Somehow they got enamored with the bacterial flagellum :whip: to showcase the wonder of God.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: Mufungo]
    #20070252 -

Mufungo said:
Yes, it's political trickery to get creationism into schools and to get creationism considered on equal footing with evolution.  ...and it has worked in the U.S. :


At the risk of starting on the wrong foot, it was never my moral duty to educate your kids, on pain of losing my shelter, which is how property taxes work.

The forefront of the progressive movement is now recognizing every story in the Bible, but uses conventional explanations, without giving God the credit.

On the cosmological scale, the scope of your theory deals with incomprehensible absolutes, and with all the force of religious conviction.

Maybe, we're not all that different, afterall.


--------------------
WEF defector.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/shit-burgers-meat-made-from-human-feces-just-another-natela
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upload_(TV_series)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: Rool Kat] * 1
    #20070260 -

Rool Kat said:
LunarEclipse said:
OrgoneConclusion said:
The tactic they use is a very common fallacy. Of course, no matter how many times it is pointed out to them, they merely plug their ears and continue on.

Here is the flaw: deconstructing another's theory/hypothesis does absolutely nothing to support yours. Yet this is basically all Creationists do is try to deconstruct evolutionary theory. I have no problem with that. Of course, they only present their work to a captive and ignorant audience and not to reputable journals. This is not science, it is preaching.

Back to the main point: If a Creationist was able to totally destroy evolutionary theory, that would not be evidence for Divine Creation in the slightest.


Likewise, debunking creationism does absolutely nothing to support the myth of evolutionary theory.


Non-sequitur.  Evolutionary theory is quite well defended by a long history of science.

Beyond that, pointing out the ludicrous fallacies in an assertion of a ludicrous  position - which creationism is, is simply that and not an attempt to prove anything else.


Evolutionary theory is just that.  A theory.  "Quite well defended by a long history of science"  This sounds like the same kind of religious fervor that creationists have for their theory.  Exactly the same.  There is no absolute proof of either theory.  That's why they are called theories.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #20070284 -

Do Creationists make no claims, which stand on their own, without regard to Evolutionism?


--------------------
WEF defector.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/shit-burgers-meat-made-from-human-feces-just-another-natela
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upload_(TV_series)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #20070288 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
Likewise, debunking creationism does absolutely nothing to support the myth of evolutionary theory.


I thought I made that clear.




The difference, is that you believe in evolutionary theory as truth.  I think their whole premise is largely horseshit.  Survival of the fittest.  What the hell does that mean, you work out the most, you live the longest?

It makes no sense.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #20070302 -

What about genetics being a complex order of information?

(This doesn't rely on debunking evolutionary frauds, in which entire civilizations are extrapolated from the tooth of a pig or the skull of a donkey.)


--------------------
WEF defector.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/shit-burgers-meat-made-from-human-feces-just-another-natela
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upload_(TV_series)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: durian_2008]
    #20070324 -

Also, how is your movement able to re-purpose Bible stories, attribute them to unknown causes, and call Christians ridiculous for crediting a nameable, intelligence.


--------------------
WEF defector.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/shit-burgers-meat-made-from-human-feces-just-another-natela
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upload_(TV_series)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: durian_2008]
    #20070403 -

durian_2008 said:
What about genetics being a complex order of information?

(This doesn't rely on debunking evolutionary frauds, in which entire civilizations are extrapolated from the tooth of a pig or the skull of a donkey.)


What about the mything link?  Zero explanation for that leap.  Oh we came from apes.  Uh huh.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #20070417 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
The tactic they use is a very common fallacy. Of course, no matter how many times it is pointed out to them, they merely plug their ears and continue on.

Here is the flaw: deconstructing another's theory/hypothesis does absolutely nothing to support yours. Yet this is basically all Creationists do is try to deconstruct evolutionary theory. I have no problem with that. Of course, they only present their work to a captive and ignorant audience and not to reputable journals. This is not science, it is preaching.

Back to the main point: If a Creationist was able to totally destroy evolutionary theory, that would not be evidence for Divine Creation in the slightest.



divine creationism isn't best proved by arguing it over evolution.  there are much better ways to do this

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: LunarEclipse] * 1
    #20070443 -

Non-sequitur.  Evolutionary theory is quite well defended by a long history of science.

Beyond that, pointing out the ludicrous fallacies in an assertion of a ludicrous  position - which creationism is, is simply that and not an attempt to prove anything else.


Evolutionary theory is just that.  A theory.  "Quite well defended by a long history of science"  This sounds like the same kind of religious fervor that creationists have for their theory.  Exactly the same.  There is no absolute proof of either theory.  That's why they are called theories.


Wrong.  You are trying to create a false equivalency.  Evolutionary theory is indeed a theory.  A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested over a wide range of conditions and found to be consistent.  No matter what you read, science does not try to 'prove' things, it tests things and reports the results.

Unlike Creationism.  Note the word ending, '-ism.'  That is, it is an unsupported assertion and the evidence knocking it into a cocked hat is overwhelmingly negative and unsupportive.  As such, it is not a 'theory' and does not get accepted as anything more than wishful thinking by folks who would like to make reality conform to a religious narrative.

Fail.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: Rool Kat]
    #20070459 -

Rool Kat said:
Non-sequitur.  Evolutionary theory is quite well defended by a long history of science.

Beyond that, pointing out the ludicrous fallacies in an assertion of a ludicrous  position - which creationism is, is simply that and not an attempt to prove anything else.


Evolutionary theory is just that.  A theory.  "Quite well defended by a long history of science"  This sounds like the same kind of religious fervor that creationists have for their theory.  Exactly the same.  There is no absolute proof of either theory.  That's why they are called theories.


Wrong.  You are trying to create a false equivalency.  Evolutionary theory is indeed a theory.  A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested over a wide range of conditions and found to be consistent.  No matter what you read, science does not try to 'prove' things, it tests things and reports the results.

Unlike Creationism.  Note the word ending, '-ism.'  That is, it is an unsupported assertion and the evidence knocking it into a cocked hat is overwhelmingly negative and unsupportive.  As such, it is not a 'theory' and does not get accepted as anything more than wishful thinking by folks who would like to make reality conform to a religious narrative.

Fail.


Yes fail.  Evolution CLAIMS to be equivalent to some proven theory.  It is not.  The yet unexplained giant leap in technology, the pyramids, the lines of Nascar, the easter island stuff, what does evolution have to say about that?  Nothing.  Of course, because it doesn't know.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: OrgoneConclusion] * 1
    #20070604 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
One basic counter-argument I have used usually flies right over Creationist's heads.


Creationist Premises:

1. A designed object requires a Designer. (Doh! This tautology says nothing. Variation: A created object requires a Creator.)

2. God designed all objects.

3. God designed a specific object (such as the human eye).


As premise 2. already covers premise 3. then any and every object should bear the stamp of the Creator and Creationists would not need pick a specific object to attempt to make their case. Do they present a grain of sand to make their case? No. Somehow they got enamored with the bacterial flagellum :whip: to showcase the wonder of God.


God designed evolution, problem solved.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: Sun King]
    #20070971 -

cartoonists can solve all of this


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: redgreenvines] * 1
    #20071009 -

I never knew you believed in Cartoonism.



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Where Creationists fail hard [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #20071126 -

Creationists also fail at attacking evolution even, because they don't have a correct perception on what evolution is and don't understand the theory at all or how it works.

Example: "There is no true scientific (and by true they mean observable) evidence for evolution."

However, this is not true. Numerous studies have been conducted to study evolution among animals, often most common in fruit flies because they have such a short life cycle.

Creationists will often counter this by claiming that this is evidence for "micro" evolution and not "macro" evolution, but in truth, there is no such difference between the two. "Micro" evolution is simply a whole lot of "macro" evolution put together. If you can acknowledge that "micro" evolution could exist, then by default macro-evolution would have to exist too. There's no imaginary binder separating the two.

The other thing they often talk about is "the missing link." But the thing is, there IS NO missing link. See diagram below:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore Injection Grain Bag, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Reasons why Jesus fails to heal Christian Diabetics
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 OrgoneConclusion 10,358 109 06/24/08 01:28 PM
by blewmeanie
* Creationist Propaganda
( 1 2 all )		 Viveka 1,835 22 04/21/04 04:31 PM
by Viveka
* Evolutionary changes
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 niteowl 11,729 133 12/28/10 03:53 PM
by falcon
* Why people believe in evolution despite the fact it is a failed theory with no scientific basis?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 fivepointer 16,324 135 03/30/07 06:13 AM
by aryah
* . AnonymousRabbit 1,577 13 10/04/08 12:22 PM
by ExplosiveMango
* Challenge for Evolutionists
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 3,918 32 12/01/02 12:27 AM
by johnnyfive
* The Gaia Hypothesis, evolutionary morality and the next step
( 1 2 3 all )		 Moonshoe 7,691 50 10/22/06 04:21 AM
by slaphappy
* Creationist museum. LeftyBurnz 1,681 19 02/26/09 12:48 PM
by LeftyBurnz

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,548 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 18 queries.