Creationism vs Evolution thread.

[Divair]

Chaz Bono works in mysterious ways.

He is god's father, after all.

He told me you would say this, and told me to tell you it's wrong. Not only is there a four generation gap between Chaz and God, but Chaz Bono dissowned God.

Hmm, I must go eat bacon as I meditate on this subject.

[Condunum]

He told me you would say this, and told me to tell you it's wrong. Not only is there a four generation gap between Chaz and God, but Chaz Bono dissowned God.

Hmm, I must go eat bacon as I meditate on this subject.

Remember to use the butter of repentance.

[Xsyne]

A real trial jury is generally composed of people ignorant of the scientific method.
And scientists continuously question evolution. Most even admit that if evidence were to show up disproving it and that evidence were credible, they would abandon it.

Generally? heck the easiest way to get out of jury duty is to tell the lawyer you are a scientist, they hate having people who are trained to think objectively on juries.

To be fair, scientists are notoriously bad at picking up on when someone's trying to trick them. The physical universe is not known for lying.

[Condunum]

Generally? heck the easiest way to get out of jury duty is to tell the lawyer you are a scientist, they hate having people who are trained to think objectively on juries.

To be fair, scientists are notoriously bad at picking up on when someone's trying to trick them. The physical universe is not known for lying.

Source. That's a pretty big assumption there.

[Ifreann]

Says you.

and everyone else with a quarter of a brain

I bet if we said the same thing about Christians you'd pitch a fit that we were being to intolerant.

---

You can draw them.

Well, it's not like you can't draw God, in Christianity at least.

You can't, actually.

---

They pick them among the community. Since the community is actually educated enough to know that evolution, as a scientific theory, has been repeatedly verified, and the main debate centering around things like natural selection, of course they're going to be in favor of evolution.

Yes, but what community? A community of scientists, which, as you say, are already indoctrinated to believe that evolution needs no further proof, and accept is as axiomatic!

Silly, evolution isn't an axiom.

I wonder why don't our courts pick their jury that way

They should put their theories out before a real trial jury, then we'll see which one gets peer reviewed and which one tossed aside!

Hey look, he's trying to hint us towards those court cases where ID was found to be the same thing as creationism, so he can dismiss them as not proving ID wrong.

That and appealing to popularity.

---

Evolution =/=Abiogenesis. Wrong.
Immense improbabilities? There are 10 SEXTILLION STARS in the observed universe. Those are some immense odds in our favor.
Also, argument from ignorance. Wrong.

That's why I drew a distinction between "evolution as an observation" and Evolutionism, or Abiogenesis.
10 Sextillion? Great. Try holding that against a less than 1 in a googolplex chance - < 1/10^(10^100), the current probability. You're asking for an impossibility, pal.

That's wrong, and you yourself explained why. Any possibility that something could happen, no matter how tiny, proves that such a thing is not impossible. Put whatever big, scary numbers on it you want, you're still just as wrong. Moreover, it doesn't matter how unlikely it would have been for life to emerge on Earth, that does not support your claims that it was put here by your god.

---

You broke the quotes, so I'm not sure what will happen.

Why did you come on a evolution and Creationism thread if you were going to ignore evolution and focus on Abiogenesis?

Where did you get those odds? From your little bible?

It's not a ad hominem, smart one, it's a actual fallacy. You're arguing, that since you think abiogenesis is unlikely, therefore, god. Even if Abiogenesis did not happen, it doesn't prove a god.

I get that number from a lecture by Dr. Rick Oliver, an evolutionary biologist who later became a Creationist when he took a look a look at the numbers. An online dissertation on improbabilities can be found here: http://www.truenews.org/Creation_vs_Evo ... _life.html
Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive. Abiogenesis and Creationism are.
I did not claim that the inconsistency of Abiogenesis proves a God, but it sure as hell demands an explanation. And it seems to me that constantly rejecting God as a hypothesis because you don't like it is dishonest, given how much sense it makes in comparison. In which case, we must look at other sources.

God is rejected as a hypothesis because it is untestable. Just like how alien wizards are rejected as a hypothesis, except people don't get all pissy when scientists don't take alien wizards into account.

---

What creationism gene? Creationism (actually the clinging to outdated, disproven ideas, not the ideas in and of themselves) is merely one of many symptoms of human stupidity, a condition that we are in the process of evolving out of.

Prove it.
Distant correlations via more religious Southern states won't cut it. In fact even a single IQ 100+ or SAT 1600+ creationist will disprove your theory.
Although the average SAT in Alabama is 1650, versus 1461 in New York.

Neither IQ tests nor the SATs test for intelligence or stupidity.

---

NOPE.
"Scientific realm of possibility" varies, but it lies between 1/10^15 to 1/10^200. The probability for atheistic, spontaneous generation of life lies countless orders of magnitude below that.

The probability of a standard deck of cards(excluding jokers) appearing in any particular order is, if I remember my maths properly, 1 in 52!, which Google puts at 8.06581752 × 10⁶⁷. Does this mean that I could take 5 decks and, with those 260 cards, do something scientifically impossible? Wolfram Alpha puts it at 1 in 3.8301958608361692351174979856044918752795567523... × 10^516 that they would be in any particular order.

---

I am arguing against atheism

Wrong thread, boss.

---

Well... Chaz Bono told me otherwise!

How much can you trust a person who would lie about her gender? Might even be a communist. That a liar is contradicting me clearly proves my point.

You're getting worse at this. Poe fatigue?

[Xsyne]

[10 Sextillion? Great. Try holding that against a less than 1 in a googolplex chance - < 1/10^(10^100), the current probability. You're asking for an impossibility, pal.

1 in a googolplex chance? So the odds of abiogenesis are vast orders of magnitude smaller than the entire universe ceasing to exist for no reason?

[Ifreann]

[10 Sextillion? Great. Try holding that against a less than 1 in a googolplex chance - < 1/10^(10^100), the current probability. You're asking for an impossibility, pal.

1 in a googolplex chance? So the odds of abiogenesis are vast orders of magnitude smaller than the entire universe ceasing to exist for no reason?

I'm highly suspicious of anything invoking the number googolplex. It's a cool name for an unremarkable number, so I'd only expect it to come up in contrived circumstances.

[Xsyne]

To be fair, scientists are notoriously bad at picking up on when someone's trying to trick them. The physical universe is not known for lying.

Source. That's a pretty big assumption there.

Here's Randi on it. I'd prefer to give you a better source, but the Internet connection I'm on is pretty terrible. I'll see if I can find a better one when I get home, and can actually look for one.

[Condunum]

Source. That's a pretty big assumption there.

Here's Randi on it. I'd prefer to give you a better source, but the Internet connection I'm on is pretty terrible. I'll see if I can find a better one when I get home, and can actually look for one.

It seems more like a rathe biased rant. If there were some sort of psychological study that would prove your point, I'd accept it. However, landmark studies have show that those with a higher IQ (not necessarily scientists, mind) are not only well adjusted to society, but often are more likely to be successful, and preform better in soctiety than the average person.

[Ifreann]

Here's Randi on it. I'd prefer to give you a better source, but the Internet connection I'm on is pretty terrible. I'll see if I can find a better one when I get home, and can actually look for one.

It seems more like a rathe biased rant. If there were some sort of psychological study that would prove your point, I'd accept it. However, landmark studies have show that those with a higher IQ (not necessarily scientists, mind) are not only well adjusted to society, but often are more likely to be successful, and preform better in soctiety than the average person.

Which has what to do with picking up on deception? Do you propose that one can't be socially well-adjusted and successful without being able to tell when you're being tricked?

[Condunum]

It seems more like a rathe biased rant. If there were some sort of psychological study that would prove your point, I'd accept it. However, landmark studies have show that those with a higher IQ (not necessarily scientists, mind) are not only well adjusted to society, but often are more likely to be successful, and preform better in soctiety than the average person.

Which has what to do with picking up on deception? Do you propose that one can't be socially well-adjusted and successful without being able to tell when you're being tricked?

Well, one could assume that being well-adjusted would include recognizing social norms, like "tell-tale" signs of lying. Assumptions are bad, however. I don't think it's at all impossible, and that wasn't even remotely what I said. What I'm saying is that Intelligent people operate well in society, on average, so unless there is evidence pointing towards it, it's not a good idea to hold the social stigma of sceintists being socially inept.
Edit: By socially inept, I'm refering to ability to tell sincerity. And how did we get on this topic?

[Chinese Regions]

No other known humans except for Lilith but you Christians edited her out ergo inbreeding is the only way Adam and Eve's family could've populated the Earth which would be very disastrous. Not to mention Noah's family which had to inbreed as well.

'Inbreeding' only produces defects as a punishment, because it's a crime against the Scripture. Since Adam and Eve obviously had a license to breed, as did their direct descendants, and Noah's ones, there were none of the problems you can encounter when doing inhumane scientific experiments.

Punishment from god are you serious?
What are these 'inhumane scientific experiments?'

[Ifreann]

Which has what to do with picking up on deception? Do you propose that one can't be socially well-adjusted and successful without being able to tell when you're being tricked?

Well, one could assume that being well-adjusted would include recognizing social norms, like "tell-tale" signs of lying. Assumptions are bad, however. I don't think it's at all impossible, and that wasn't even remotely what I said. What I'm saying is that Intelligent people operate well in society, on average, so unless there is evidence pointing towards it, it's not a good idea to hold the social stigma of sceintists being socially inept.

Not being as familiar with deception as a magician is hardly being socially inept.

[Chinese Regions]

You made the assertion, you have to prove it.

God's messenger told me. Your turn.

That is not proof. Because nobody else has a way of verifying it.

[Condunum]

Well, one could assume that being well-adjusted would include recognizing social norms, like "tell-tale" signs of lying. Assumptions are bad, however. I don't think it's at all impossible, and that wasn't even remotely what I said. What I'm saying is that Intelligent people operate well in society, on average, so unless there is evidence pointing towards it, it's not a good idea to hold the social stigma of sceintists being socially inept.

Not being as familiar with deception as a magician is hardly being socially inept.

We aren't measuring levels of ability. I was asking him to prove that Scientists are typically unable to recognize deception.

[Vault 1]

You can't, actually.

Yes, you can. Been done.

Neither IQ tests nor the SATs test for intelligence or stupidity.

Really? Then what do IQ tests test for?

The probability of a standard deck of cards(excluding jokers) appearing in any particular order is, if I remember my maths properly, 1 in 52!, which Google puts at 8.06581752 × 10⁶⁷. Does this mean that I could take 5 decks and, with those 260 cards, do something scientifically impossible? Wolfram Alpha puts it at 1 in 3.8301958608361692351174979856044918752795567523... × 10^516 that they would be in any particular order.

And this is a very fitting example.

As you can see, the probability of cards being in that particular order by accident is pretty much nil.
But add an intelligent being - you - arranging them in that order, and it all falls into place.

That's how atoms got arranged into living organisms.

[Tlaceceyaya]

You can't, actually.

Yes, you can. Been done.

Neither IQ tests nor the SATs test for intelligence or stupidity.

Really? Then what do IQ tests test for?

The probability of a standard deck of cards(excluding jokers) appearing in any particular order is, if I remember my maths properly, 1 in 52!, which Google puts at 8.06581752 × 10⁶⁷. Does this mean that I could take 5 decks and, with those 260 cards, do something scientifically impossible? Wolfram Alpha puts it at 1 in 3.8301958608361692351174979856044918752795567523... × 10^516 that they would be in any particular order.

And this is a very fitting example.

As you can see, the probability of cards being in that particular order by accident is pretty much nil.
But add an intelligent being - you - arranging them in that order, and it all falls into place.

That's how atoms got arranged into living organisms.

But then how did whatever the intelligent being is composed of get there?

[Chinese Regions]

No, actually I don't.

Then explain your statement above. As you know, two siblings or parent and son can be one creationist, the other evolutionist, pointing the the same genetic makeup. Yet you claim that one evolves the supposedly necessary intelligence to become an evolutionist, and the other doesn't.

This is exactly how it happens in Pokémon!

No

[Xsyne]

Which has what to do with picking up on deception? Do you propose that one can't be socially well-adjusted and successful without being able to tell when you're being tricked?

Well, one could assume that being well-adjusted would include recognizing social norms, like "tell-tale" signs of lying.

Thinking that there are "tell-tale" signs of lying pretty much guarantees that you'll be played like a fiddle.

[Vault 1]

But then how did whatever the intelligent being is composed of get there?

Always been there, will always be there.

Now try asking bib bang theorists about how that mass came to be in the first place... they can't even answer that.

[Tlaceceyaya]

But then how did whatever the intelligent being is composed of get there?

Always been there, will always be there.

Now try asking bib bang theorists about how that mass came to be in the first place... they can't even answer that.

Because they do not yet know.

And if the being had always been there, why could not matter have?

[Vault 1]

(Image)
No

You're not even trying. Could at least utter a "DO NOT WANT". Next!

[Chinese Regions]

But then how did whatever the intelligent being is composed of get there?

Always been there, will always be there.

Now try asking bib bang theorists about how that mass came to be in the first place... they can't even answer that.

Always been there, will always be there.

[Vault 1]

And if the being had always been there, why could not matter have?

Because God is mentioned in the Bible at the beginning of time, matter isn't, he created it.

[Chinese Regions]

And if the being had always been there, why could not matter have?

Because God is mentioned in the Bible at the beginning of time, matter isn't, he created it.

Why is the bible relevant?