Penn and Teller on Creationism

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: 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...

Um. Understanding we're talking about the evolution of species and not tadpoles you're standing by this snide-ass statement?

bolding your original statement, how is it any different than you minister/home-schooling parents bullying you into never questioning them? Is your logical framework so fundamentally flawed? I don't understand why the fundamentalists claim that any one who supports evolution, and doesn't immediately deny the piles of evidence that support it, simply closed-minded. How can you absolve yourself from this label, when you have demonstrated so clearly that you haven't even engaged one shread of evidence that supports evolution (based on your clear lack of understanding it)?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: DaShen

If you are going to state whether genetic tests like Southern blot is used and is observable, then you must show that. It is observable and a good use of science, but it is only observable becuase of actual experiments that show speciation and the close tie between it and genetics (i.e. - mustard seed - other types of vegetation). You skipped this and went straight to saying that it is observable just because. That leaves a hole in your argument which any fundie will jump on to.

As for fossil evidence, it is not observable in the sense of experimentation. That is my point. Strata and the relative age of different strata is directly observable because it can be experimented by using half-lives of radiological elements. Fossils and their close ties cannot be directly experimentally to be tied. If I was to use phenotypic relations as a means to show evolution, I could point out the duck and platypus as being directly related (reptilian/avian vs. mammalian). Granted, this is what was used to figure out clades before genetics, but again it could not be directly observed through experiment. That is why "missing link" arguments were so prevalent before genetic testing came into the picture. That is my point. It is not "observable" in the sense of science, but it can be used as evidence when an experiment is done that proves it is directly linked to the experiment. Now it is widely accepted that fossils show a progression because evolution is a scientific theory that is widely accepted. You can use fossils as evidence of evolution, but again "observable" in the sense of scientific experimentation it is not.

Also, Geo minor here, so yes I love fossils and sed rocks. And yes, Geology is a science. Again a semantics thing. You can observe the progression of fossils by strata and come to the conclusion that there is a progression (evolution), but is this "observable" through experimentation by fossils? No. Is the same thing "observable" through life currently right now through experimentation? Yes, yes it is. That is why no real dispute between fossil evidence and linking is made, because observable experiments of actual organisms have been shown.

I think we're simply talking past eachother. What I mean to say is that by observing homologous structures in the fossil evidence, and likewise by observing genetic relationships in the genomes, we are observing the common ancestry of the organisms. It's the same as saying I can observe that two people are the parents of their child by running a DNA test.

I don't understand how you are using "observable" in such a way that does not qualify fossil and genetic evidence as observations of common ancestry.

Likewise, I regard the fossil discovery as experimentation itself, because each discovery is a means by which the hypotheses are tested. That's what experiments are, after all. It seems that you don't, but again I don't understand how you are using "experiment" in such a way that fossil discovery doesn't qualify.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
learn about evolution and biology before typing yet another worthless post.

Explain evolution of the species to me in your own words. We'll see if you even understand it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Well I think it does explain everything perfectly and that's not a bad thing.

It's not just that it explains everything -- it's that it can explain ANYTHING, and by doing so it really explains nothing. Creationism doesn't answer the actual scientific question: HOW?

Think about it. How did God create everything? Is that question even answerable? No. So what is creationism really explaining? Nothing.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Well I think it does explain everything perfectly and that's not a bad thing. The answer to this question, as I said originally, is irrelevent for the study of science.

Note that I said it explains anything. No matter what observation is made, "God did it that way," is the explanation. While it's an answer, it's an intellectual dead end and utterly useless if you wish to learn more about something. It makes no predictions, no result is forbidden.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Well I think it does explain everything perfectly and that's not a bad thing. The answer to this question, as I said originally, is irrelevent for the study of science.

Note that I said it explains anything. No matter what observation is made, "God did it that way," is the explanation. While it's an answer, it's an intellectual dead end and utterly useless if you wish to learn more about something. It makes no predictions, no result is forbidden.

Turn it around. Evolution can explain everything too. Random spontaneous benefitial genetic mutations......sounds an awful lot like a miracle to me.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Well I think it does explain everything perfectly and that's not a bad thing. The answer to this question, as I said originally, is irrelevent for the study of science.

Note that I said it explains anything. No matter what observation is made, "God did it that way," is the explanation. While it's an answer, it's an intellectual dead end and utterly useless if you wish to learn more about something. It makes no predictions, no result is forbidden.

Turn it around. Evolution can explain everything too. Random spontaneous benefitial genetic mutations......sounds an awful lot like a miracle to me.

I even bolded the anything part for you.

Evolution could not explain alleles showing no variation over time or every organism using a different genetic code, or a random distribution of CpG dinucleotides in mammalian genomes.

Creationism could explain anything we could possibly imagine, no matter how ridiculous or fantastic. It's unfalsifiable and that's why it's useless in the realm of science or discovery of the physical world.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: zinfamous
archaeopteryx?

The dino> birds thing is pretty standard overall. The "debate" surrounding the notion of birds evolving from dinosaurs, as presented in Jurassic Park, is pretty much as valid as the "debate" involving evolution

I'm not sure if this is one of the manufactured fakes, however alot of fake creatures have been showing up from China with papers written on them, all of which are later determined to be fakes.

To this day nothing has been dug up showing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds, and as I said in a previous response, science recently dug up a duck fossil in a dinosaur bed, so they had to rewrite history to say that birds now came before dinosaurs.

Of course none of the highly educated evolutionist here know that, despite now repeated claims that it is obvious birds came from dinosaurs. LMAO.

Ummm.. Archaeopteryx is a well established type of dinosaur.

Reptile scales and bird feathers share very, very similar chemical structures.

You are incorrect, sir.

Again, no conclusive evidence supports this.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: zinfamous
archaeopteryx?

The dino> birds thing is pretty standard overall. The "debate" surrounding the notion of birds evolving from dinosaurs, as presented in Jurassic Park, is pretty much as valid as the "debate" involving evolution

I'm not sure if this is one of the manufactured fakes, however alot of fake creatures have been showing up from China with papers written on them, all of which are later determined to be fakes.

To this day nothing has been dug up showing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds, and as I said in a previous response, science recently dug up a duck fossil in a dinosaur bed, so they had to rewrite history to say that birds now came before dinosaurs.

Of course none of the highly educated evolutionist here know that, despite now repeated claims that it is obvious birds came from dinosaurs. LMAO.

Yeah! dirtboy is back! he whose existence is the only observable evidence to date that evolution may not occur

wait, that sucks. provide proof before making such irrational claims. Otherwise, I will simply call you a troll, which you are

Hi troll! :waves;

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Well I think it does explain everything perfectly and that's not a bad thing. The answer to this question, as I said originally, is irrelevent for the study of science.

Note that I said it explains anything. No matter what observation is made, "God did it that way," is the explanation. While it's an answer, it's an intellectual dead end and utterly useless if you wish to learn more about something. It makes no predictions, no result is forbidden.

Turn it around. Evolution can explain everything too.

No, it can't. If there were no genetic similarities between organisms, evolution would be false.

Random spontaneous benefitial genetic mutations......sounds an awful lot like a miracle to me.

Incredulity is not a valid rebuttal.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Well I think it does explain everything perfectly and that's not a bad thing. The answer to this question, as I said originally, is irrelevent for the study of science.

Note that I said it explains anything. No matter what observation is made, "God did it that way," is the explanation. While it's an answer, it's an intellectual dead end and utterly useless if you wish to learn more about something. It makes no predictions, no result is forbidden.

Turn it around. Evolution can explain everything too.

No, it can't. If there were no genetic similarities between organisms, evolution would be false.

I tend to think there would be a perfectly "scientific" explanation if that were the case.

Random spontaneous benefitial genetic mutations......sounds an awful lot like a miracle to me.

Incredulity is not a valid rebuttal.

Where were you when people were calling creationism a fairy tale?

 

[dirtboy]

Dinosaur Extinction Didn't Make Way for Us

I find it interesting people here missed this article that hit the major news channels last month. Seems to contradict the absolute facts many have been claiming here.

What's more interesting, the long standing evolutionary tree is being rewritten, as I now expect many here will rewrite their beliefs.

I hope zim & eflenix enjoy.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Well I think it does explain everything perfectly and that's not a bad thing. The answer to this question, as I said originally, is irrelevent for the study of science.

Note that I said it explains anything. No matter what observation is made, "God did it that way," is the explanation. While it's an answer, it's an intellectual dead end and utterly useless if you wish to learn more about something. It makes no predictions, no result is forbidden.

Turn it around. Evolution can explain everything too. Random spontaneous benefitial genetic mutations......sounds an awful lot like a miracle to me.

You've been spouting nonsense this entire thread. Do yourself a favor and read one book on evolution. Seriously, if you're going to argue about something at least learn the subject matter. Fair enough, no?

 

[Luthien]

Where can I download this video so I can share it on a DVD? Rahter which episode of Penn & Teller "Bullshit" series was it in?

 

[dirtboy]

Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment

Here's a fun one, the holy grail of how life started, as shown by Miller -- by which many know is no longer valid, has been refuted thus again leaving science scrambling to find an answer.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Well I think it does explain everything perfectly and that's not a bad thing. The answer to this question, as I said originally, is irrelevent for the study of science.

Note that I said it explains anything. No matter what observation is made, "God did it that way," is the explanation. While it's an answer, it's an intellectual dead end and utterly useless if you wish to learn more about something. It makes no predictions, no result is forbidden.

Turn it around. Evolution can explain everything too.

No, it can't. If there were no genetic similarities between organisms, evolution would be false.

I tend to think there would be a perfectly "scientific" explanation if that were the case.

So? It wouldn't be evolution. The point is that your claim is nonsense.

Random spontaneous benefitial genetic mutations......sounds an awful lot like a miracle to me.

Incredulity is not a valid rebuttal.

Where were you when people were calling creationism a fairy tale?

You don't do a very good job of engaging my points, but I'm inclined to believe that is because you find them irrefutable.

 

[Luthien]

NVM found it season one episode eight.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Well I think it does explain everything perfectly and that's not a bad thing. The answer to this question, as I said originally, is irrelevent for the study of science.

Note that I said it explains anything. No matter what observation is made, "God did it that way," is the explanation. While it's an answer, it's an intellectual dead end and utterly useless if you wish to learn more about something. It makes no predictions, no result is forbidden.

Turn it around. Evolution can explain everything too.

No, it can't. If there were no genetic similarities between organisms, evolution would be false.

I tend to think there would be a perfectly "scientific" explanation if that were the case.

So? It wouldn't be evolution. The point is that your claim is nonsense.

Random spontaneous benefitial genetic mutations......sounds an awful lot like a miracle to me.

Incredulity is not a valid rebuttal.

Where were you when people were calling creationism a fairy tale?

You don't do a very good job of engaging my points, but I'm inclined to believe that is because you find them irrefutable.

Honestly, I'm not sure wtf your points are as they didn't seem to rebutt mine. I figured we were starting a new tangent or something.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Descartes
You've been spouting nonsense this entire thread. Do yourself a favor and read one book on evolution. Seriously, if you're going to argue about something at least learn the subject matter. Fair enough, no?

Sure, but which of the prevailing theories should I read on because it keeps changing.

Do yourself a favor and ask yourself if you've viewed evolution with a proper degree of skepticism or if you just WANT to believe its true or were afraid to question it's underlying assumptions.

 

[dirtboy]

Oh zimtroll, I got your duck fossil article that you are so desperate for.

Dinosaur-Era Birds Surprisingly Ducklike, Fossils Suggest

Maybe you and your highly intelligent friends can explain to me why you didn't know this, and how it is you claim birds evolved from dinosaurs if there were ducks already there. Whoops...

I love this, "It may have looked like a duck and acted like a duck, but Gansus was no duck."

Sounds like a duck to me.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment

Here's a fun one, the holy grail of how life started, as shown by Miller -- by which many know is no longer valid, has been refuted thus again leaving science scrambling to find an answer.

Did you even read the article? It doesn't agree in any way with what you're saying. I guess Zinfamous is right about you.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Descartes
You've been spouting nonsense this entire thread. Do yourself a favor and read one book on evolution. Seriously, if you're going to argue about something at least learn the subject matter. Fair enough, no?

Sure, but which of the prevailing theories should I read on because it keeps changing.

I implore you to read. That statement alone proves that you haven't even scratched the surface of evolutionary biology.

Do yourself a favor and ask yourself if you've viewed evolution with a proper degree of skepticism or if you just WANT to believe its true or were afraid to question it's underlying assumptions.

Isn't it the other way around? Why would I care whether evolution were true (I hate even saying true; that's not really the point) or not? If it works as a lucid description of what actually does occur, then it's good. The idea of wanting to believe anything isn't science.

You're still not making sense overall. It's pretty clear that you're trying to convince yourself that it isn't true. I find it ironic that you asked me to question the same.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Turn it around. Evolution can explain everything too.

No it can't. There are innumerable ways to disprove evolution while there are no ways to disprove creationism. We could find transitional fossils that show ever minute step of evolution from single-celled creatures to humans and it would still not disprove creationism.

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Random spontaneous benefitial genetic mutations......sounds an awful lot like a miracle to me.

Your ignorance is clear with statements like this. Evolution is far from random.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Descartes
You've been spouting nonsense this entire thread. Do yourself a favor and read one book on evolution. Seriously, if you're going to argue about something at least learn the subject matter. Fair enough, no?

Sure, but which of the prevailing theories should I read on because it keeps changing.

It's only right to start at the beginning

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Descartes
You've been spouting nonsense this entire thread. Do yourself a favor and read one book on evolution. Seriously, if you're going to argue about something at least learn the subject matter. Fair enough, no?

Sure, but which of the prevailing theories should I read on because it keeps changing.

Do you even know how science works?