Evolution-Creationism Debates

Thank you, Best Of, for addressing this. It is an utter falsehood. Dawkins has admitted to being an agnostic atheist. He did state that the burden of proof for evidence of God(s) would be extraordinarily high, but as it is an extraordinary claim, that is only to be expected.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

I think the distinction, which is a fine but important one - is this:

• Dawkins admits that there is the potential for him to change his mind, even if he can't think of a piece of evidence that would be entirely unproblematic in this regard. But he's at least open to the possibility.

• Nothing would change Ken Ham's mind, because the only proof he'll ever need is written right there in the Book of Genesis, which, to him, is unassailable.

Some cool links:

850,000 year old human footprints found in Norfolk, England. They are the oldest ever discovered outside Africa, and apparently come from the extinct human subspecies Homo antecessor.

Ham: Bill Nye is like Satan, tempting Eve. Charmant

22 Answers for creationists from someone who understands evolution. Not, perhaps, as good as I hoped. Dripping with sarcasm, which makes it funnier for me to read but less useful for people who might be convinced by Ham's rubbish.

edited 8th Feb '14 2:43:17 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

I'm impressed at how wrong number 15 on that list of questions is. She starts by calling science a theory (lolwut?) and then proceeds to claim that means it is "not testable, observable, nor repeatable" which is almost the exact opposite of what theory means in this context.

There's not really much you can say to it other than "go home, you're drunk".

More than half the questions on that list make me want to shout "What does this have to do with evolution!?" I mean noetics and thermodynamics...what? Try sticking to biology related questions at the very least.

I do very much like the snarky answer to 13, that was an evolutionary advantage to metamorphosis I'd not considered.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

I can't fathom what noetics is supposed to have to do with it. Creatonists sometimes use the argument that evolution is impossible since the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that in a closed system entropy will always increase (ie, the order required by evolution would be impossible), and they usually say that either Earth or the cell is a closed system. Neither is. The universe is a closed system, which is why it will indeed eventually degenerate into a chaotic mess of photons...in 10^100 years.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

How could you even think the cell is a closed system? Where do they think the food and water we eat goes?

People have no idea what the scientific definition of a closed system is. They see an illustration of a cell with the cell membrane encircling a bunch of stuff and thinks it's a closed system because stuff ain't leaking out.

edited 8th Feb '14 4:26:03 AM by nightwyrm_zero

But it's common sense that stuff enters the cell. How else do pieces of food or viruses get in? This isn't even something you should have to think about. It's something a ten year old would be able to figure out.

I believe most people who uses the 2nd law of thermodynamic argument have no idea that a closed system (if they even knows about closed systems) refers to a system where matter and energy cannot get in or out. They simply don't know the definition and thinks any system with a well-defined boundary is a closed system.

edited 8th Feb '14 4:44:32 AM by nightwyrm_zero

They're still incapable of using logic because it should be obvious stuff gets inside the cell. Even if they don't understand what a closed system is they should realize that the word closed implies nothing gets in.

Actually, "closed system" is pretty much a scientific jargon. We don't think of it as such coz we have a good understanding of its definition. But "closed" can mean "enclosed" or "self-contained" in everyday language and confusion can arise.

edited 8th Feb '14 4:55:51 AM by nightwyrm_zero

Completely closed systems are pretty much a non-entity in reality. There's always some sort of leak somewhere.

The "it's just a theory" argument makes it pretty clear that understanding scientific jargon is not a high priority in creationist circles.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

If I were Bill Nye I would feel complimented by Ken Ham's comparison. Both he and the Serpent urged humanity to think for themselves rather than mindlessly accept the dictates of a self appointed authority firgure. Good for them

Trump delenda est

Ken Ham mentioning land animals on Noah's Ark: what about freshwater fish?

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

Fucked, along with most of the saltwater ones, which would likely end up dashed against rocks by currents and tidal forces or choking to death on silt.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Not to mention the birds that couldn't survive such a massive flood. If they have literally no land on which to ... on which to land (sorry) they'll die of exhaustion, and I'm betting many species would have that before they even had time to starve because they wouldn't have access to food.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Remember, according to Ham, the Flood changed the physical and biological laws of the universe. Presumably freshwater life was repopulated from saltwater species, or it just spontaneously adapted, then reverted once the water receded. Or something. He doesn't have to be logically consistent.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I recall someone 'scientifically' examining the flood and determining that God would have had to perform thousands of miracles every second to make sure everyone didn't die. They concluded that it would have been easier if God just transported Noah and everyone else to an exact replica of Earth and blew the original up. They would then repopulate the entirely new world without him having to waste time with the flood.

Now I came to the part about celestial bodies... God created stars on the fourth day? After land? After plants? And why didn't God say in Genesis, "oh BTW the Sun is a star".

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.

edited 10th Feb '14 1:53:19 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Interestingly, that bit actually fits someone watching but not understanding what's going on, and getting the timescale wrong. The Earth was supposed to have been permanently overcast for a period of time, so the fourth day would have been the equivalent of when the clouds cleared up. If you don't take the days literally, the order of events works surprisingly well, with the overcast skies caveat in there, of course.

edited 10th Feb '14 1:55:40 PM by Zendervai

Not Three Laws compliant.

You'd actually need other stars before the Sun since the Sun is at least a 2nd generation star.

edited 10th Feb '14 1:58:18 PM by nightwyrm_zero

You hear that claim every once in a while (that the story, if taken allegorically and with a specific measure for a "day", works) but the deeper you look into it the less it works. You can sort of pretend that "when they said x they actually meant y, which is similar to z, which was what actually happened." You make adjustments to the story and change your perspective whenever you're stuck, and eventually the story in Genesis will match reality. Now, you could do that with just about any story; but for some reason it's usually just this one story that gets this treatment.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.