Dragon's Dogma

im just a dumb hillbilly my internet iq lingo aint so great ill remember that....
---
"questions are a burden to others and a danger to you"- cleveland brown

There are two sides to every argument.

Fallacy, even if certain branches of science were disproved, it wouldn't prove the creationist stance. Assuming two opposite sides is misleading. Also related to the Golden Mean Fallacy.

You seem to think that your "science" is the most valid explanation for the origins of life, the world etc. However, you are ridiculing creation scientists by making the claim that they don't know anything about the basics of science. Such is not the case, we just see things differently than you do. Creation is indeed a scientifically valid belief. A young earth is a scientifically valid belief.

"Creation Science" generally refers to someone taking a literal reading of Genesis and the Flood. That person considers the Bible absolutely literally true there and any science that disagrees with such to be automatically and forever wrong. The rest is coming up with something scientific sounding enough to sound 'scientific' only as an appeal to authority.

Creation is a biblical based belief, not a scientific one. It should be noted that most religions have relegated their creation myths to the myth section and go with science instead. The only two major groups that stick to creation in this manner are Protestant Christians and some Orthodox Jews.

A young Earth is hilarious. There are living trees and cultures with accurate written histories that go back more than 5,000 years. Speaking of which, which Flood mechanic do you subscribe to?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood

I'm going to pick just two more for space reasons:

The lack of any legitimate missing links is evidence against evolution.

Using whatever logic you apply to the above, prove to me that humans grow up. Baby > child > teenager > young adult > mature adult > elder. No 'missing links' plz. Also I'd like a photo of a baby 'growing up' into a teenager.

The fact that there is no place on earth where you can dig down and find the geological column is evidence against evolution.

What? What sort of misunderstanding of the geologic column lead to this one? Name one place on Earth where I can't dig down and find the geologic column. (Molten lava, glaciers and buildings don't count. Any ocean spots will default to the sea floor.)
---
~ PSN ID: ValorPhoenix ~ Raven [ / . \ ] Hubris ~ Bone Ravens
"There are more defective users than defective systems."

From: ---Cipher--- | #063
Can we stop referencing Wikipedia or other wiki sites to back up our arguments? I get your trying to prove a point, and I agree with you on most things, but every time I see a link with "wiki" in it I remember how "mysteriously" my high school's wiki page mentioned how many millions of people were killed to honor the great flying spaghetti monster each and every day... Was a tragic highschool I went to...
Here's why
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqw527ivrQE

Falling back on "wiki isn't reliable" automatically makes you a huge loser in everything, forever. Just thought I should mention that.
---
Where's my "Accept This Moderation with Extreme Reluctance and Resentful Glares" button?
When reading and responding to my posts, try to take it easy.

A wiki is as good as its sources and editors make it, although public editable wikis are vulnerable to vandalism.

Here are the same subjects on a science forum website.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

The same website has articles for the age of the Earth and Universe, but they're fairly science oriented, so the rationalwiki page is actually a better intro to the subject.

I linked to Rational Wiki because I happened to still be there from linking to Poe's Law earlier. Currently reading the Top 100 Fundies Say the Darndest Things link, although that one is turning out kinda scary/creepy bad.

Oh yeah, to expand on the 'two sides' fallacy, it is actually a collection of fallacies when used a certain way.

- Argument from Authority, to imply that 'both sides' have near equal standing.
- Either/Or Fallacy, presenting only A and B as options, then trying to disprove A to prove B. B should prove itself, and options like C and D should be considered.
- Golden Mean Fallacy, people tend to choose the middle ground in arguments they don't care about or don't know enough about to make a decision. This is why when one high school kid beats another, both will get punished even if the victim did little more than head-guarding/curl into a ball.
---
~ PSN ID: ValorPhoenix ~ Raven [ / . \ ] Hubris ~ Bone Ravens
"There are more defective users than defective systems."

Valor_Phoenix posted...
Fallacy, even if certain branches of science were disproved, it wouldn't prove the creationist stance. Assuming two opposite sides is misleading. Also related to the Golden Mean Fallacy.

That's not what I meant. What I was saying is that in science, there are often multiple different theories trying to explain the same thing.

Science cannot prove anything to be true, it can only give us an understanding of what we are trying to figure out. As such, no one theory is absolute truth, many ideas that have been thought to be scientific laws have been thrown out because they were shown to be false (for instance, people used to think that maggots spontaneously generated from moldy bread. They used science to "prove" it. If they left bread out, it would get moldy and maggots would appear. Obviously, we now know this to be wrong)

"Creation Science" generally refers to someone taking a literal reading of Genesis and the Flood. That person considers the Bible absolutely literally true there and any science that disagrees with such to be automatically and forever wrong. The rest is coming up with something scientific sounding enough to sound 'scientific' only as an appeal to authority.

Creation is a biblical based belief, not a scientific one. It should be noted that most religions have relegated their creation myths to the myth section and go with science instead. The only two major groups that stick to creation in this manner are Protestant Christians and some Orthodox Jews.

The account of Creation itself is Biblically based, yes. However, there is plenty of scientific evidence that shows that living beings were designed and created. For instance, similar bone and organ structures can be found in all different kinds of organisms (structural homology). These structures have a completely different molecular build from one another, which shows that they are not related by any evolutionary link.

A young Earth is hilarious. There are living trees and cultures with accurate written histories that go back more than 5,000 years. Speaking of which, which Flood mechanic do you subscribe to?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood

Yes, living trees go back 5000 years. Isn't it interesting that the oldest trees would have started growing right after when the flood is supposed to have taken place?

I'm going to pick just two more for space reasons:

The lack of any legitimate missing links is evidence against evolution.

Darwin stated in "The Origin of Species" that if his hypothesis were correct, than the earth should be littered with all kinds links in the evolutionary scale. Not one fossil or any kind of remains can be conclusively called a link. Thus, according to Darwin, there is a big flaw in evolution.

Using whatever logic you apply to the above, prove to me that humans grow up. Baby > child > teenager > young adult > mature adult > elder. No 'missing links' plz. Also I'd like a photo of a baby 'growing up' into a teenager.

Speaking of logic, what the heck is this supposed to be?

What? What sort of misunderstanding of the geologic column lead to this one? Name one place on Earth where I can't dig down and find the geologic column. (Molten lava, glaciers and buildings don't count. Any ocean spots will default to the sea floor.)

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, maybe I got my terminology wrong. What I meant was that there is no place where you can dig down and find the fossils of creatures as they are supposed to be found according to the evolutionary scale (for instance, the deeper you go the simpler the life forms will be).

Oh yeah, Crimson Fatalis, for the points I skipped, give me some specific examples or links to pages explaining those assertions. I'd like to practice debunking them, and if I did a google search for them I'd probably find a debunking page for the topic and that would spoil all the fun. Dealing with those sorts of things is good practice, as I'll give an example below.

---

Since Religion has come up a lot, I thought I'd share something fun, the manga 'Saint Young Men' which is about Jesus and Buddha being best friends and taking a one year vacation from heaven by renting an apartment in Japan. That's about as 'blasphemous' as the manga gets as most of the light hearted comedy is due to them either trying not to be too virtuous(otherwise they glow and/or miracles start occuring) and various amounts of culture shock. To quote TvTropes: "How do you throw a surprise birthday party for Jesus on Christmas? Buddha doesn't know either. Hilarity ensues."

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Manga/SaintYoungMen?from=Main.SaintYoungMen

The Author has said it isn't getting brought over because she's afraid of being sued by Christian fundamentalists, so feel free to read a scanslation online. (Google: Saint Young Men)

---

Now as an example of why I like these teachable moments of debunking creationism, here's one for every else. Feel free to point out everything wrong with it and win internet cookies!

Gravity is a theory, not a proven fact.

The effects of gravity can be explained by other theories. An example would be the acceleration theory which asserts the earth is actually moving 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the same effect as "gravity".

See there are different theories for the same phenomena - and none are facts, they are just theories.

Hint, there are at least two major things to correct.

(Edit): Crimson's above post went up while I was typing this one, I'll respond to it in another one as this one is already a bit long.

---
~ PSN ID: ValorPhoenix ~ Raven [ / . \ ] Hubris ~ Bone Ravens
"There are more defective users than defective systems."

I don't know what point you're trying to get across with that post.

...For instance, similar bone and organ structures can be found in all different kinds of organisms (structural homology). These structures have a completely different molecular build from one another, which shows that they are not related by any evolutionary link.

Specific example please. I know if I go look up 'creationist structural homology' I'll not only end up with the example, but also the 'debunking' and that would be no fun for me.

Yes, living trees go back 5000 years. Isn't it interesting that the oldest trees would have started growing right after when the flood is supposed to have taken place?

Actually Prometheus, the oldest known tree (cut down in 1964) germinated at least 4,862 years ago, which would be at least 2,898 BCE. Ussher's Chronology places Creation at 4,004 BC and the Flood at 2,349 to 2,348 BC. In short, it would have been 550 years old during the flood. Methuselah the oldest still living tree is only 50 years younger. I'm only using living trees dated with Dendrochronology because tree ring counting is generally simple enough that Creationists don't argue against it, unlike radiometric dating.

Dendrochronology can count back over 11,000 years easily, the current international standard can date things back to 26,000 BCE to the year with confidence. Dendrochronology is a popular method because it's the only one accurate to the year, others have a degree of error bigger than a year, just in case anyone was curious why tree ring counting is such serious business.

Darwin stated in...

What 'missing links'? This might be news to you, but paleontologists have found fossils since Darwin. Here's a decent summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil (second paragraph especially)

Speaking of logic, what the heck is this supposed to be?

'Prove children grow up into adults' is an illustrative example of how creationists commonly misunderstand evolution. Simply put, evolution is a continuous and gradual process that happens over many generations. Human development is similar...(cut for space)

Creationist ideas of how evolution works or 'missing links' tend to be profoundly stupid. Like the crocoduck or saying something like "If I'm descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?".

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, maybe I got my terminology wrong. What I meant was that there is no place where you can dig down and find the fossils of creatures as they are supposed to be found according to the evolutionary scale (for instance, the deeper you go the simpler the life forms will be).

Evolution doesn't increase the 'complexity' of life. If you make a reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics in regards to evolution BTW, I will perform a logic fatality on you, so fair-warning, don't do it.

That said, fossils do match the geologic layers they show up in. Go visit the Grand Canyon, no digging required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_column

Again, the wikipedia article for this is a good basic intro. Heck, I have a stone walkway I can date just by the fossils embedded in the stone.(the stones, not the walkway)
---
~ PSN ID: ValorPhoenix ~ Raven [ / . \ ] Hubris ~ Bone Ravens
"There are more defective users than defective systems."

1. What is dendrochronology and how does it work?

2. Explain to me, in your own words, the process of evolution.

3. Of course we've found fossils, I didn't say that we haven't found any. I said that according to Darwin there should be a lot of fossils that are intermediate links between species. While we have found a lot of fossils, none of them are conclusively intermediate links.