Penn and Teller on Creationism

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Origin theory has nothing to do with a student's grasp of real science its a way for the liberal agenda to force our kids to NOT believe in God as much as creationism is forcing them TO believe in God. I guess you hypocrites can't see that though, huh?

Evolution is real science therefore it should be taught. Creationism is random ****** thought up on no scientific principles, so you're right, it shouldn't be taught in schools.

Creationism is a simple minded solution for those who aren't capable of understanding evolution. Not many are, yourself included. Future generations shouldn't be deprived of the opportunity to try and understand it.

Science: "Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

How is it real science? Because your teachers long ago bullied you into never questioning them and they said so? Has evolution ever been observed? Can we experiment with it?

If you look at the forces of change claimed by evolution none of them account for actual "evolution" except mutation and that's where I call BS. The odds of a random mutation coming out as something benefitial AND not harmful AND that mutated form not being randomly killed by a predator AND that gene being passed on......it's just ludicrous......but it's all science has to disprove creationism so they cling to it and get sheep like you to call people who question the logic idiots and fairy tale believers. :thumbsup:

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
The odds of a random mutation coming out as something benefitial AND not harmful AND that mutated form not being randomly killed by a predator AND that gene being passed on......it's just ludicrous......but it's all science has to disprove creationism so they cling to it and get sheep like you to call people who question the logic idiots and fairy tale believers. :thumbsup:

Now I don't know whether you're serious or a troll. It's really difficult to tell a creationist apart from a joker.

Evolution has been observed in countless microorganism and insect species. I don't blame you for not understanding it, it's not the easiest concept to grasp, but calling the whole planet's scientific method ludicrous as a result of your ignorance is ludicrous.

Then again, I don't expect to reason with you because a creationist is not one that responds to reason, otherwise they wouldn't be a creationist. So I'll just stop right here.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Origin theory has nothing to do with a student's grasp of real science its a way for the liberal agenda to force our kids to NOT believe in God as much as creationism is forcing them TO believe in God. I guess you hypocrites can't see that though, huh?

Evolution is real science therefore it should be taught. Creationism is random ****** thought up on no scientific principles, so you're right, it shouldn't be taught in schools.

Creationism is a simple minded solution for those who aren't capable of understanding evolution. Not many are, yourself included. Future generations shouldn't be deprived of the opportunity to try and understand it.

Science: "Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

How is it real science? Because your teachers long ago bullied you into never questioning them and they said so? Has evolution ever been observed? Can we experiment with it?

If you look at the forces of change claimed by evolution none of them account for actual "evolution" except mutation and that's where I call BS. The odds of a random mutation coming out as something benefitial AND not harmful AND that mutated form not being randomly killed by a predator AND that gene being passed on......it's just ludicrous......but it's all science has to disprove creationism so they cling to it and get sheep like you to call people who question the logic idiots and fairy tale believers. :thumbsup:

so, people having darker skin in places that have a much higher incidence of sun and having lighter skin in places with lower incidence of sun is not evidence of evolution?

hey, guess what, we don't directly observe quarks either, i guess that means there is no evidence for them

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
The odds of a random mutation coming out as something benefitial AND not harmful AND that mutated form not being randomly killed by a predator AND that gene being passed on......it's just ludicrous......but it's all science has to disprove creationism so they cling to it and get sheep like you to call people who question the logic idiots and fairy tale believers. :thumbsup:

Now I don't know whether you're serious or a troll. It's really difficult to tell a creationist apart from a joker.

Evolution has been observed in countless microorganism and insect species. I don't blame you for not understanding it, it's not the easiest concept to grasp, but calling the whole planet's scientific method ludicrous as a result of your ignorance is ludicrous.

Then again, I don't expect to reason with you because a creationist is not one that responds to reason, otherwise they wouldn't be a creationist. So I'll just stop right here.

We're talking about macro evolution when we talk about origin theory. I didn't think I had to spell it out but I guess I should have, Mr Wizard.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

We're talking about macro evolution when we talk about origin theory. I didn't think I had to spell it out but I guess I should have, Mr Wizard.

there may not even be such a thing, mr. hero

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
so, people having darker skin in places that have a much higher incidence of sun and having lighter skin in places with lower incidence of sun is not evidence of evolution?

hey, guess what, we don't directly observe quarks either, i guess that means there is no evidence for them

My wife is Latin and I'm White. Our kids came out with light hair and dark eyes. I guess they are EVOLVED too. :roll:

Again, we aren't talking about genetic drift or natural selection which are observable and can be experimented....we talking about the as yet unproven guess that radical benefitial non-cosmetic changes came about by random genetic mutation. That's what I find laughable. And if you don't then you're hardly one to be a skeptic of something like creationism.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
My wife is Latin and I'm White. Our kids came out with light hair and dark eyes. I guess they are EVOLVED too. :roll:

Again, we aren't talking about genetic drift or natural selection which are observable and can be experimented....we talking about the as yet unproven guess that radical benefitial non-cosmetic changes came about by random genetic mutation. That's what I find laughable. And if you don't then you're hardly one to be a skeptic of something like creationism.

so, the fact that darker skin is more resistant to the damaging rays of the sun is merely 'cosmetic'? i guess skin cancer isn't that important

 

[crt1530]

What do you think "genetic drift" and "natural selection" add up to over millions of years? Or do you believe the earth is 6000 years old?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
My wife is Latin and I'm White. Our kids came out with light hair and dark eyes. I guess they are EVOLVED too. :roll:

Again, we aren't talking about genetic drift or natural selection which are observable and can be experimented....we talking about the as yet unproven guess that radical benefitial non-cosmetic changes came about by random genetic mutation. That's what I find laughable. And if you don't then you're hardly one to be a skeptic of something like creationism.

so, the fact that darker skin is more resistant to the damaging rays of the sun is merely 'cosmetic'? i guess skin cancer isn't that important

Re-read my post and go look up the terms you don't understand and then reply again.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: ElFenix
so, people having darker skin in places that have a much higher incidence of sun and having lighter skin in places with lower incidence of sun is not evidence of evolution?

hey, guess what, we don't directly observe quarks either, i guess that means there is no evidence for them

My wife is Latin and I'm White. Our kids came out with light hair and dark eyes. I guess they are EVOLVED too. :roll:

Again, we aren't talking about genetic drift or natural selection which are observable and can be experimented....we talking about the as yet unproven guess that radical benefitial non-cosmetic changes came about by random genetic mutation. That's what I find laughable. And if you don't then you're hardly one to be a skeptic of something like creationism.

Individuals don't evolve, populations do. Can you not picture isolated communities of a given species diverging to become two separate ones? It wasn't hard for Charles Darwin to understand in the 1800s, yet it somehow is confuses modern people who have the benefit of a century of knowledge.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
How is it real science? Because your teachers long ago bullied you into never questioning them and they said so? Has evolution ever been observed? Can we experiment with it?

Oh jebus, i dont know why im doing this.

1) Evolution is real science, but your question is just silly. Its clear that you dont even know what science is.
2) No.
3) Yes, all the time.
4) Yes, everyday.

You really are a pathetic person if so dearly argue against something that you dont even fundamentally understand. I dont understand quantum chemistry, but there is no way in hell im going to go spouting off that everything they know is wrong. You know why? Because i dont like looking like an idiot. Hint...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Science: "Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

How is it real science?

It is science because it precisely fulfills the definition just given.

Because your teachers long ago bullied you into never questioning them and they said so?

No.

Has evolution ever been observed? Can we experiment with it?

Yes and Yes.

If you look at the forces of change claimed by evolution none of them account for actual "evolution" except mutation and that's where I call BS. The odds of a random mutation coming out as something benefitial AND not harmful AND that mutated form not being randomly killed by a predator AND that gene being passed on......it's just ludicrous......but it's all science has to disprove creationism so they cling to it and get sheep like you to call people who question the logic idiots and fairy tale believers. :thumbsup:

Don't argue probabilities against evolution. It will only make you continue to appear foolish like it has already.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: crt1530
What do you think "genetic drift" and "natural selection" add up to over millions of years?

I could only wager a guess as could you as since have no scientific evidence of what it really amounts to. I wouldn't have the astounding audacity to proclaim that I know definitively and then proceed to teach it to others as if it were fact.

But my guess is that it doesn't lead to us sprouting gills some day. It's more like water colors get all smeared together and then cleaned off again....mostly cosmetic certainly nothing changing one species into another.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
I could only wager a guess as could you as since have no scientific evidence of what it really amounts to. I wouldn't have the astounding audacity to proclaim that I know definitively and then proceed to teach it to others as if it were fact.

But my guess is that it doesn't lead to us sprouting gills some day. It's more like water colors get all smeared together and then cleaned off again....mostly cosmetic certainly nothing changing one species into another.

you had gills in the womb.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: crt1530
What do you think "genetic drift" and "natural selection" add up to over millions of years?

I could only wager a guess as could you as since have no scientific evidence of what it really amounts to. I wouldn't have the astounding audacity to proclaim that I know definitively and then proceed to teach it to others as if it were fact.

But we do know it as certainly as we know that the earth orbits the sun. There's this little thing called "genetics" that you seem to know nothing about.

But my guess is that it doesn't lead to us sprouting gills some day. It's more like water colors get all smeared together and then cleaned off again....mostly cosmetic certainly nothing changing one species into another.

So these never happened?

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: ElFenix
so, people having darker skin in places that have a much higher incidence of sun and having lighter skin in places with lower incidence of sun is not evidence of evolution?

hey, guess what, we don't directly observe quarks either, i guess that means there is no evidence for them

My wife is Latin and I'm White. Our kids came out with light hair and dark eyes. I guess they are EVOLVED too. :roll:

Again, we aren't talking about genetic drift or natural selection which are observable and can be experimented....we talking about the as yet unproven guess that radical benefitial non-cosmetic changes came about by random genetic mutation. That's what I find laughable. And if you don't then you're hardly one to be a skeptic of something like creationism.

Individuals don't evolve, populations do. Can you not picture isolated communities of a given species diverging to become two separate ones? It wasn't hard for Charles Darwin to understand in the 1800s, yet it somehow is confuses modern people who have the benefit of a century of knowledge.

Bingo, evolution happens through procreation. In sexual through sex, in asexual through mutation after replication.

Artificial selection is just like natural selection except that it is controlled by an outside source. It uses the process of selecting for certain traits and creating offspring to make something that you wanted. Did you know that many vegetables that we eat all come from the mustard seed plant? Broccoli, Cauliflower, lettuce, and many other vegetables were systematically artifically selected by humans for their traits from a mustard seed plant. If you tried to cross pollinate them now, many times they will not because they are too genetically variant now (new species). If you observe this truth, than you can see that this is possible through naturally occurring incidence as well. Of course if you are a man of faith, which I can probably estimate you are, you can believe that "natural" selection is really controlled by G-d in the end, and is really "supernatural" selection. Who knows. It all boils down to faith with any belief, but as for science (evolution is science, creationism is not).

 

[Phokus]

After reading heroofpelinor's posts, i think i'm going to start praying to God every day thanking him that i wasn't home schooled by religious nuts.

 

[DefDC]

Lizard + time = bird (observable)
fish + time = mudskipper (observable)
Genetic goulash = Duck-billed Platypus (observable) Actually, that might be one source of evidence for creationism, and that God loves the chronic.

radical changes.... All fairly observable.

Hell, as long as your mind can be as open to draw evidence from fossils, you can trace man to the apes...
If you can't believe in fossils, go to your nearest riverbank, where you think that athiest scientists might never have been, find a rock and crack it open... Wow! How'd those scientists actually find THAT rock and put fake fossils inside?

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: DefDC
Lizard + time = bird (observable)
fish + time = mudskipper (observable)
Genetic goulash = Duck-billed Platypus (observable) Actually, that might be one source of evidence for creationism, and that God loves the chronic.

Wrong... wrong... and wrong

And I actually believe evolution is valid.

Sure, fossil record is a good start, but do you know what observable means? You need to look into this more. If by observable, you mean there is someone or something that has recorded the actual change from a lizard to a bird, or a fish to a mudskipper, then please show me, otherwise, that is a foolish statement.

Duck-billed Platypus developed similar traits on its own through similar environmental changes (not through cross breeeding).

Now, that being said, there are many cases of actual observable speciation in plants and animals today, but don't point out archeological evidence as "observable" evidence because "fundies" will jump on the chance to say that is wrong and that it invalidates all other arguments.

 

[glutenberg]

Marked for later

 

[DefDC]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: DefDC
Lizard + time = bird (observable)
fish + time = mudskipper (observable)
Genetic goulash = Duck-billed Platypus (observable) Actually, that might be one source of evidence for creationism, and that God loves the chronic.

Wrong... wrong... and wrong

And I actually believe evolution is valid.

Sure, fossil record is a good start, but do you know what observable means? You need to look into this more. If by observable, you mean there is someone or something that has recorded the actual change from a lizard to a bird, or a fish to a mudskipper, then please show me, otherwise, that is a foolish statement.

Duck-billed Platypus developed similar traits on its own through similar environmental changes (not through cross breeeding).

Now, that being said, there are many cases of actual observable speciation in plants and animals today, but don't point out archeological evidence as "observable" evidence because "fundies" will jump on the chance to say that is wrong and that it invalidates all other arguments.

Sorry.. This was actually a failed attempt at being snarky. I do need to watch my words, because you ARE correct, fundies love to find an insignificant point to beat to death.

Like "Al Gore uses a lot of energy!"

Yeah?
So?
And?

My previous point stands, tho... If you don't believe in fossils as evidence....

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
"I'm betting there won't be stickers saying: intelligent design isn't validated by any science or anything. We just made it up!"

they also have a good quote on the back of Richard Dawkins book, The GOD Delusion.
"The God Delusion is smart, compassionate, and true like ice, like fire. If this book doesn't change the world, we're all screwed."
- Penn and Teller

Awesome, adding a P&T quote to Dawkins' book does wonders for his credibility (of which he was on a thin thread anyway). Not to knock Penn & Teller (as I do like some of their stuff), it jsut doesn't seem like the apropriate resource from which you hope to gain acknowledgement....

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: DefDC

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: DefDC
Lizard + time = bird (observable)
fish + time = mudskipper (observable)
Genetic goulash = Duck-billed Platypus (observable) Actually, that might be one source of evidence for creationism, and that God loves the chronic.

Wrong... wrong... and wrong

And I actually believe evolution is valid.

Sure, fossil record is a good start, but do you know what observable means? You need to look into this more. If by observable, you mean there is someone or something that has recorded the actual change from a lizard to a bird, or a fish to a mudskipper, then please show me, otherwise, that is a foolish statement.

Duck-billed Platypus developed similar traits on its own through similar environmental changes (not through cross breeeding).

Now, that being said, there are many cases of actual observable speciation in plants and animals today, but don't point out archeological evidence as "observable" evidence because "fundies" will jump on the chance to say that is wrong and that it invalidates all other arguments.

Sorry.. This was actually a failed attempt at being snarky. I do need to watch my words, because you ARE correct, fundies love to find an insignificant point to beat to death.

Like "Al Gore uses a lot of energy!"

Yeah?
So?
And?

My previous point stands, tho... If you don't believe in fossils as evidence....

I totally agree that fossil evidence laid the groundwork for more conclusive proof for the theory of evolution, but you cannot say that it is observable evidence.

I mean, you talk about this, and Creationists/Fundies will beat the dead horse and talk about "missing link". :roll:

Observable evidence is something you can do as an experiment that can be recorded and observed over time. We cannot do that with fossils. We have done that with plants, fungi, bacteria, and viruses alot. And it has been observed. For asexual (fungi, bacteria, and viruses <although virsuses aren't really alive or organisms persay> ), you can't say speciation because it is asexual and congugation occurs in all kinds of forms. But in plants and some animals, speciation has been observed and recorded, and fundies will say that this is microevolution not macro, that species is only a term used to prove evolution (that is their thinking on it). But again, they miss the point that changes in biology of a species can drastically change over time through changes in environment and that this has been directly observed in experimentation (i.e. science). Until some other theory proves to debunk evolution and show how these observable effects relate to their theory, evolution is the most valid scientific theory out there. But "intelligent design" and "evolution" are not at odds. Fundies, Atheists, and Creationist only make it that way (the extreme).

 

[mercanucaribe]

Fossil evidence is observable. So are the physical features of birds that prove that they are descended from dinosaurs.

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: crt1530
What do you think "genetic drift" and "natural selection" add up to over millions of years?

I could only wager a guess as could you as since have no scientific evidence of what it really amounts to. I wouldn't have the astounding audacity to proclaim that I know definitively and then proceed to teach it to others as if it were fact.

But my guess is that it doesn't lead to us sprouting gills some day. It's more like water colors get all smeared together and then cleaned off again....mostly cosmetic certainly nothing changing one species into another.

If you think this is fun, get them started on the origins of the universe. It always amazes me to see what people will come up with to deny the existence of God.

A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away .... there was nothing except for this thing that was infinitely small and infinitely dense and it was just there hanging out, maybe watching some TV. The all of a sudden, it blew up and formed the entire universe.

I'd rather just say that God can do some pretty cool things that science will never explain because science is limited to human understanding and the physical world. That works for me.