The scientist who enjoys debating creationists

[fredtoast]

(08-04-2015, 11:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is "silly" to believe in a Divine Creator (magic). But it is scientific to believe live was created from a rock, the rock turned into a fish that one day grew legs, learned to breathe air, climbed a tree, and evolved into every species on the face of the earth. And the "proof" of this is fossils of extinct beings.

If you really took the time to learn the science then you would understand why it makes so much more sense than believing in magic.  Especially when your book of magic has been proven false by fossils evidence.

So to answer your question, yes it is silly to believe in magic that does not have a single shred of credible evidence over science that at least has some evidence to support it.  

But even worse than being silly is being dangerous.  The human race will suffer if we abandon science in the name of magical religion.

[Beaker]

(08-04-2015, 05:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think you're kinda proving my point here. I will say the machine and the light bulb had to be created. Using your logic you will assert the machine evolved from something far less complex (perhaps a rock) through a series of random actions.

Your proving my point, the machine had to come together over a series of gradual steps. It does not just show up in its current form.

[Beaker]

(08-04-2015, 06:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Thanks for the reminder; I'll make the correction.

You think a rock can become a complex machine through Natural Selection.

Is that better?

Nope, that's worse. Absurd and incorrect analogies never make a discussion better.

[*bfine32*]

(08-04-2015, 11:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you really took the time to learn the science then you would understand why it makes so much more sense than believing in magic.  Especially when your book of magic has been proven false by fossils evidence.

So to answer your question, yes it is silly to believe in magic that does not have a single shred of credible evidence over science that at least has some evidence to support it.  

But even worse than being silly is being dangerous.  The human race will suffer if we abandon science in the name of magical religion.

This "reject science" is just something folks say when others don't believe that life came from a rock and then evolved when a fish learned to breathe and walk because (IDK) Natural Selection.

Do you think Ben Carson rejects science? I do not think the human race has suffered because he believes in a divine creator. But that last line would make a nice bumper sticker for the back of your smart car.

[*bfine32*]

(08-04-2015, 11:36 PM)Beaker Wrote: Your proving my point, the machine had to come together over a series of gradual steps. It does not just show up in its current form.

So what you are saying is that the machine had to be created?

Beaker Wrote:Nope, that's worse. Absurd and incorrect analogies never make a discussion better.

I could not agree more.

[Beaker]

(08-04-2015, 06:35 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Can anyone provide proof of speciation?

No proof exists for any scientific concept...only evidence. Nothing can be conclusively proven, since future discoveries may result in a change in the paradigm. Concepts can only conclusively be disproved. But her is some evidence of speciation occurring over a relatively short time span:

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/anole-lizards-example-speciation

[Beaker]

(08-04-2015, 11:00 PM)RASCAL Wrote: then why do we still have apes? why aren't they developing into humans today??

Because becoming human is not the goal of evolution. The goal of evolution is to best survive within a given set of selection pressures. Apes survive perfectly well, i.e. are best adapted, to the environments in which they live. The are at the tip of their branch of the evolutionary tree, just as we are. The two species are evolving in parallel. That is the mistake those unfamiliar with science often make. They think humans are the ultimate goal.

[Beaker]

(08-04-2015, 11:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But what is the basis for rejecting a Divine Creator? The fact that a man can create a calculator? You are just like the OP. You attempt to dismiss a creator by providing an example of something that was created. Not sure you guys thought it through.

We are not rejecting a supreme being. Only the notion that creationism is the way life proceeds. Big difference.

[*bfine32*]

(08-04-2015, 11:56 PM)Beaker Wrote: We are not rejecting a supreme being. Only the notion that creationism is the way life proceeds. Big difference.

Who is this "we"? Fred flatly rejected the notion of a Supreme (magic) Being. Of course he also said man came from Apes. You guys disagree on that as well.

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2015, 12:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  Of course he also said man came from Apes. You guys disagree on that as well.

To be exact.  Here is what I said.

(08-04-2015, 11:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Apes have evolved just like humans have.  The ancient ancestor of both men and apes was neither a man nor an ape.

[Beaker]

(08-04-2015, 11:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So what you are saying is that the machine had to be created?


I could not agree more.

What I am saying is a machine is built in steps. Youre trying real hard to make that sound like creation, when in fact, creation asserts humans arrived on Earth in their current complex form. Evolution asserts that humans reached this point over a long series of gradual steps. You build a machine in steps, you dont poof it into existence. You were pointing to the complexity of humans as evidence for creation....the end result. My rebuttal was that you can not point to the end result and say that is proof that it got there your way. If you want to continue to unsuccessfully try to twist my example to your way, be my guest. But we both know, and everyone reading this knows what I was getting at.

To prevent what you are trying to do, I should have probably used an example of something complex not built by man. So lets go with a crystal lattice instead. Crystals form complex interwoven latices over time. You cannot point to a crystal lattice and say its complexity is proof of creationism. Those take specific minerals, temperature and humidity conditions, and long amounts of time to form gradually. Would that be a better rebuttal to show the folly of your end result as evidence assertion?

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2015, 12:06 AM)fredtoast Wrote: To be exact.  Here is what I said.

..and to be more exact

fredtoast Wrote:I, like all the people who understand this, believe both.  Life developed in the seas first, so land animals come from the sea.  But millions of years later man developed from apes that stopped living in trees.

You only changed your stance when asked why there are still apes.

[Beaker]

(08-05-2015, 12:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Who is this "we"? Fred flatly rejected the notion of a Supreme (magic) Being. Of course he also said man came from Apes. You guys disagree on that as well.

Nope, both fred and I reject the idea of a supreme creator poofing everthing onto Earth in its current form when all the evidence shows otherwise. I do not reject the possibility that there may be a source (what some call a supreme being) that set the laws of nature in motion. Many scientists also feel this way. Allowing that evolution is the way life has proceeded since its inception does not mean you have to totally reject the possibility of a source.

Thats why my mind is open to other possibilities, and I have asked you for evidence to support your assertion of creation. I would willingly weigh any evidence you have against existing evidence and reach my own conclusion. But as of now, no creationist has been able to put forth any tangible evidence. All they can do is attack evolution and try to say it is wrong. OK, if it is wrong, then show me evidence of how your way is right.

[Beaker]

(08-05-2015, 12:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and to be more exact


You only changed your stance when asked why there are still apes.

To be more correct, fred should have said humans and current apes both descended from a common primate ancestor.

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2015, 12:07 AM)Beaker Wrote: What I am saying is a machine is built in steps. Youre trying real hard to make that sound like creation, when in fact, creation asserts humans arrived on Earth in their current complex form. Evolution asserts that humans reached this point over a long series of gradual steps. You build a machine in steps, you dont poof it into existence. You were pointing to the complexity of humans as evidence for creation....the end result. My rebuttal was that you can not point to the end result and say that is proof that it got there your way. If you want to continue to unsuccessfully try to twist my example to your way, be my guest. But we both know, and everyone reading this knows what I was getting at.

To prevent what you are trying to do, I should have probably used an example of something complex not built by man. So lets go with a crystal lattice instead. Crystals form complex interwoven latices over time. You cannot point to a crystal lattice and say its complexity is proof of creationism. Those take specific minerals, temperature and humidity conditions, and long amounts of time to form gradually. Would that be a better rebuttal to show the folly of your end result as evidence assertion?

Was a light bulb built in steps? You use that as an example too. In your attempt to disprove creation you pointed to things that were created. It was a perfect example of the Watchmaker Analogy. You couldn't have provided more evidence for creation if you have tried.

Yeah, I suppose crystal lattice would be better to show "my folly".

Also are you saying we are done evolving? "Finished product".

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2015, 12:13 AM)Beaker Wrote: I would willingly weigh any evidence you have against existing evidence and reach my own conclusion. But as of now, no creationist has been able to put forth any tangible evidence. All they can do is attack evolution and try to say it is wrong. OK, if it is wrong, then show me evidence of how your way is right.

You didn't see my Jesus fossil earlier?

[Beaker]

(08-05-2015, 12:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Was a light bulb built in steps? You use that as an example too. In your attempt to disprove creation you pointed to things that were created. It was a perfect example of the Watchmaker Analogy. You couldn't have provided more evidence for creation if you have tried.

Yeah, I suppose crystal lattice would be better to show "my folly".

Also are you saying we are done evolving? "Finished product".

Any existing species is only done evolving when it goes extinct. It's changes may slow down if it reaches a point when its body plan serves it well for the current conditions. An example of this would be horseshoe crabs and sharks. Both of those species have existed with very little change for several million years. Have humans reached that point? I don't know. But I do know humans could very well become an extinct species they way we use resources and kill each other via technology.

And yes, a light bulb is built in steps also...they dont poof into existence in their current form.

[GMDino]

Folks you can debate someone who refuses to accept that your facts are facts and that is faith is undeniable and true.

People who willfully ignore science, or those that that don't understand how it works, are just unreachable.

Many, MANY of us believe in a higher power AND evolution. Many of us understand the difference between faith and facts. We even understand what a scientific theory is.

Then there are those who want to argue just to argue or who (sadly) truly believe that because they have "faith" they are right and you can never be right.

Which is why I'd rather post funny pictures about them then try and persuade them.

[GMDino]

(08-05-2015, 12:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You didn't see my Jesus fossil earlier?

http://zeenews.india.com/news/science/researchers-recover-48-mln-yrs-old-jesus-lizard-fossil-in-us_1640566.html

Quote:Researchers recover 48-mln-yrs-old `Jesus lizard` fossil in US

Last Updated: Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 19:21


Washington DC: In a discovery, researchers have recovered a 48-million-year-old fossilwhich may represent the earliest clear member of the Jesus lizard group.


The 48-million-year-old fossil, known as a 'Jesus lizard' for its ability to walk on water, may provide insight into how climate change may affect tropical species.

The fossil was recovered from the Bridger Formation in Wyoming, US. It is the first description of a new species, named Babibasiliscus alxi by the author, and may represent the earliest clear member of the Jesus lizard group, Corytophanidae.

This group, which includes iguanas and chameleons, remains poorly understood, due to the small number of fossils available for study.
According to the author, Babibasilscus alxi was likely active during the day and spent a lot of time in trees. A ridge of bone on the skull gave it an angry look while providing shade for its eyes.

Lead author Jack Conard said this may give them an idea of what to expect from dynamic Earth.

The study is published in the journal PLOS ONE. 

[Beaker]

(08-05-2015, 12:26 AM)GMDino Wrote: Folks you can debate someone who refuses to accept that your facts are facts and that is faith is undeniable and true.

People who willfully ignore science, or those that that don't understand how it works, are just unreachable.

Many, MANY of us believe in a higher power AND evolution.  Many of us understand the difference between faith and facts.  We even understand what a scientific theory is.

Then there are those who want to argue just to argue or who (sadly) truly believe that because they have "faith" they are right and you can never be right.

Which is why I'd rather post funny pictures about them then try and persuade them.  

I have no intentions of changing bfine's mind. I debate with him to show how wrong the creationist arguments are in regard to evolution. They keep bringing up the same points, even though those points are easily shown to be incorrect or false. I refuse to let those points go unanswered. My ultimate goal is that although bfine may not ever accept or be swayed, others reading this who had similar thoughts might read my rebuttals, learn more true facts and see the folly of creation. I take great solace in the fact that I can teach kids the truth, and as they eventually become the next generation, this stupid debate will die off as more and more people realize just how wrong the creation myth really is.