What's your favourite creationist logical fantasy?

[Alexlantis]

I get particularly pissed at the bad physics arguments, like when creationists bring up conservation of angular momentum (and demonstrate they have no idea what it means), the second law of thermodynamics (and demonstrate they have no idea what it means), and the argument that evolution can't increase the information (a term they forever refuse to define) in the genome (and demonstrate they have no idea what information means).

Yup, these kind of people embarass me as a Christian. I believe that God helped Evolution along, myself, which seems to confuse both scientific Atheists and wack-job Creationists alike, because neither can argue with it properly.

[Northwest Slobovia]

I get particularly pissed at the bad physics arguments, like when creationists bring up conservation of angular momentum (and demonstrate they have no idea what it means),

Wait... What in Buddha's name does angular momentum have to do with evolution??

the second law of thermodynamics (and demonstrate they have no idea what it means), and the argument that evolution can't increase the information (a term they forever refuse to define) in the genome (and demonstrate they have no idea what information means).

While I wanna smack them for these too, few people outside the sciences have the slightest idea what "thermodynamics", "information", or "genome" mean, except in the vaguest terms.

[Alexlantis]

Hooray. Another thread created with the stated purpose of trying to point out that "all" Christians are morons.

Boring.

Ok, I'll answer ... creationism is a belief based on faith in one thing. Evolution is a belief based on faith in another thing. Which is more correct. Probably Evolution. That, however, does not automatically mean that Christians are somehow drooling idiots.

This is why I really dislike smug self-righteous intolerance, because far too many people on both sides of the issue cannot see past their own bias to admit that because somebody holds a particular viewpoint does not equate to idiocy.

As we all know, there are no Christians that accept evolution, so an attack on creationists is an attack on all Christians, just like an attack on the KKK is an attack on all white people. It makes perfect sense, as long as you ignore that whole "logic" thing, but who takes that seriously, other than everyone that likes making sense?

*ahem* *points to first post on third page*

[JuNii]

Yup, these kind of people embarass me as a Christian. I believe that God helped Evolution along, myself, which seems to confuse both scientific Atheists and wack-job Creationists alike, because neither can argue with it properly.

glad to know I'm not alone here...

[Northwest Slobovia]

Yup, these kind of people embarass me as a Christian. I believe that God helped Evolution along, myself, which seems to confuse both scientific Atheists and wack-job Creationists alike, because neither can argue with it properly.

glad to know I'm not alone here...

Eh, why do y'all think it confuses us? I'm not sure what a "scientific atheist" is, but I'm an agnostic scientist, and that's probably close enuf for NSG purposes...

[Awala]

I swear this isn't trolling!! I love the occasional debate, if you can call it that, with a SERIOUS fundie creationist and I love these arguments because they're so incredibly ridiculous. They always bring a twisted smile to my chops just before I attempt to make the author grow a brain despite the pointlessness! I know there are plenty of others who feel the same way here so I thought I'd give you a chance to pick your favourite.

You lied.

You are a total troll just wanting a 'debate' that you have already set your mind to which side was better.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Wait... What in Buddha's name does angular momentum have to do with evolution??

Alright, I hope you can follow this gauntlet of logical fallacies. First, Hovind says that the big bang theory says that a bunch of asteroids collided and formed into a swirling dot which exploded. (Hint for the slow, this is wrong in an innumerable number of ways.) He then says that, because of the conservation of angular momentum, nothing should be spinning in a different direction than the original swirling dot. (This is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.) He then says that, because some planets are spinning backwards, the big bang theory is wrong. I'm usually in pain by this point.

Notice how he confuses big bang cosmology with evolution. Notice also how he doesn't understand any of the theories or laws with which he works.

[Canaidai]

Granted that creationism is unreasonable and unfounded,but this is a rather self serving thread.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Wait... What in Buddha's name does angular momentum have to do with evolution??

Alright, I hope you can follow this gauntlet of logical fallacies. First, Hovind says that the big bang theory says that a bunch of asteroids collided and formed into a swirling dot which exploded. (Hint for the slow, this is wrong in an innumerable number of ways.) He then says that, because of the conservation of angular momentum, nothing should be spinning in a different direction than the original swirling dot. (This is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.) He then says that, because some planets are spinning backwards, the big bang theory is wrong. I'm usually in pain by this point.

Notice how he confuses big bang cosmology with evolution. Notice also how he doesn't understand any of the theories or laws with which he works.

I'm ... simply in awe. That's amazing, um, thinking. I've been around people while they dropped acid, and I don't think they were that... creative. Wow...

[Tunizcha]

Wait... What in Buddha's name does angular momentum have to do with evolution??

Alright, I hope you can follow this gauntlet of logical fallacies. First, Hovind says that the big bang theory says that a bunch of asteroids collided and formed into a swirling dot which exploded. (Hint for the slow, this is wrong in an innumerable number of ways.) He then says that, because of the conservation of angular momentum, nothing should be spinning in a different direction than the original swirling dot. (This is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.) He then says that, because some planets are spinning backwards, the big bang theory is wrong. I'm usually in pain by this point.

Notice how he confuses big bang cosmology with evolution. Notice also how he doesn't understand any of the theories or laws with which he works.

I'm ... simply in awe. That's amazing, um, thinking. I've been around people while they dropped acid, and I don't think they were that... creative. Wow...

Those are leaps that even Evel Knievel couldn't make.

[Acadzia]

Granted that creationism is unreasonable and unfounded,but this is a rather self serving thread.

Only been here for a few days, but I gather that that's a trend.

[Awala]

Granted that creationism is unreasonable and unfounded,but this is a rather self serving thread.

Only been here for a few days, but I gather that that's a trend.

It's also a trend to be a socialist, Republican Hating, atheist here too. Well, at least on the forums.

[Skeptikosia]

Wait... What in Buddha's name does angular momentum have to do with evolution??

Alright, I hope you can follow this gauntlet of logical fallacies. First, Hovind says that the big bang theory says that a bunch of asteroids collided and formed into a swirling dot which exploded. (Hint for the slow, this is wrong in an innumerable number of ways.) He then says that, because of the conservation of angular momentum, nothing should be spinning in a different direction than the original swirling dot. (This is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.) He then says that, because some planets are spinning backwards, the big bang theory is wrong. I'm usually in pain by this point.

Notice how he confuses big bang cosmology with evolution. Notice also how he doesn't understand any of the theories or laws with which he works.

I'm ... simply in awe. That's amazing, um, thinking. I've been around people while they dropped acid, and I don't think they were that... creative. Wow...

It's a bait and switch. They throw that out there to direct you away from the idea that the big bang has nothing to do with abiogenesis which itself has nothing directly to do with evolution.

And I live just down the road from Hovind's theme park as well as Pensacola Christian College, which is whackadoo central in the panhandle.

[Delator]

I would have voted for all of 'em if the poll had that option.

As it was, I voted for "ad-hominem", since it's the one that strident creationists always fall back on when all their other arguments have been torn to shreds.

[Helgrin]

I can't decide! They are all so accurate as creationist arguments!

[Fissionopolis]

My personal favorite is someone trying to make the argument that evolution says that lightning struck a mud puddle and a Boeing 747 emerged.

Also, evolution is clearly taught to advance a liberal, socialist, anti-American point of view.

[Allbeama]

The Banana example. Ray Comfort works that phallic fruit better than a whore.

[EmeriKa]

I'll have to abstain from voting because I've never had this argument. Not too many people out here believe in Creationism, especially since here even the local major church has taken the stance that it's not to be taken literally.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I swear this isn't trolling!! I love the occasional debate, if you can call it that, with a SERIOUS fundie creationist and I love these arguments because they're so incredibly ridiculous. They always bring a twisted smile to my chops just before I attempt to make the author grow a brain despite the pointlessness! I know there are plenty of others who feel the same way here so I thought I'd give you a chance to pick your favourite.

Saying it isn't trolling doesn't make it true. It's on the edges and when that happens, I usually give the tread some time to establish a direction of conversation. This thread is going in the wrong direction. If it continues to be a bashing of creationism, I'm going to lock it. If I see some actual rational discussion, I'll be merciful. You have.... 2 pages to prove me wrong.

[Risottia]

Appeal to fear. Basically because I get that shit since I was in the first grade, surrounded by little trollish Christians.

Generally, however, the appeal to fear is used many times and not just by creationists, expecially in the "on pain of social exclusion" variant. That is, the threat becomes "you're not one of us if you don't say this, don't believe that, don't do this - and you'll be alone".
Really, I should thank those little trolls I met in first grade. They forced me to grow quickly out of pack mechanics, and became more independent and self-reliant. Also, being a pariah meant that I didn't have to waste time with stupid games or talking to most of my classmates, and could enjoy free time reading or talking to people I really liked.
So, when years later other people (christians, non-christians, communists, fascists, anti-communists, anti-fascists, liberals, liberists, fans of soccer, fans of basket, fans of pop... you name it) tried the appeal to fear cum social exclusion, they failed miserabily with me - and gave me the proof that they were just worthless idiots.

[Callisdrun]

Circular Reasoning.
Creation happened just like the Bible said because the bible is TRUE... it says so in the Bible.

This one.

Creation happened just the way it says it did in the Bible. How do we know it's true? Because the Bible is the word of God. How do we know that's true? Because it says so in the bible, which is the word of god, so it must be true, because it says so in the bible... etc.

[Jordaxia]

Favourite? I don't have a favourite, because whilst mocking the issue is an easy disarming measure and something I absolutely do, I know that the creationist movement is too dangerous to treat with such whimsy when it gets down to actually discussing it. I'd rather the creationists didn't use logical fallacy to back their argument up, because it would show a greater adult participation in the debate, one that might even be interesting on a philosophical level (because ultimately creationism is not science, and this point simply isn't debatable.) which would be better for all humankind.

Ultimately, especially after hearing this lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo from Lawrence Krauss, I do not believe that creationism represents a persuasive philosophical viewpoint on any level anymore, because it seems plain to me that the universe can go right back to the beginning without ever requiring any supernatural intervention, that everything we have is explainable through natural law and time. But it would be really nice to hear a counterargument that didn't fall back on the same old tropes, which is why none of these fallacies are a 'favourite'. All they've done is stimy interesting debate, which has hampered both sides throughout history, without ever coming to a meaningful conclusion.

[Helgrin]

I swear this isn't trolling!! I love the occasional debate, if you can call it that, with a SERIOUS fundie creationist and I love these arguments because they're so incredibly ridiculous. They always bring a twisted smile to my chops just before I attempt to make the author grow a brain despite the pointlessness! I know there are plenty of others who feel the same way here so I thought I'd give you a chance to pick your favourite.

Saying it isn't trolling doesn't make it true. It's on the edges and when that happens, I usually give the thread some time to establish a direction of conversation. This thread is going in the wrong direction. If it continues to be a bashing of creationism, I'm going to lock it. If I see some actual rational discussion, I'll be merciful. You have.... 2 pages to prove me wrong.

OK, two pages to make a rational discussion. We can do it NS! But how?
Hmm...what about we make some contrast? What arguments do Creationists make that are even the tiniest bit convincing, if anyone has come across such arguments?

[Helgrin]

Circular Reasoning.
Creation happened just like the Bible said because the bible is TRUE... it says so in the Bible.

This one.

Creation happened just the way it says it did in the Bible. How do we know it's true? Because the Bible is the word of God. How do we know that's true? Because it says so in the bible, which is the word of god, so it must be true, because it says so in the bible... etc.

I remember a statistic that my frient told me the other day. It was something allong the lines of 80% of the diehard creationist believers haven't even read the bible. I'll see if I can get him to find a source for it.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I swear this isn't trolling!! I love the occasional debate, if you can call it that, with a SERIOUS fundie creationist and I love these arguments because they're so incredibly ridiculous. They always bring a twisted smile to my chops just before I attempt to make the author grow a brain despite the pointlessness! I know there are plenty of others who feel the same way here so I thought I'd give you a chance to pick your favourite.

Saying it isn't trolling doesn't make it true. It's on the edges and when that happens, I usually give the thread some time to establish a direction of conversation. This thread is going in the wrong direction. If it continues to be a bashing of creationism, I'm going to lock it. If I see some actual rational discussion, I'll be merciful. You have.... 2 pages to prove me wrong.

OK, two pages to make a rational discussion. We can do it NS! But how?
Hmm...what about we make some contrast? What arguments do Creationists make that are even the tiniest bit convincing, if anyone has come across such arguments?

Well to be fair, we really don't have a large enough sampling of worlds with life on them to have any idea how common or uncommon it is or whether it requires intelligent guidance or not.

I think of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=25088 Sure it shows that evolution takes place, but it also shows that an intelligent hand(ours) can play a role in it's development.