Some people are probably familiar with this site, but I figured I’d post it anyway. It’s basically a catalogue of responses you can use against the absurd arguments of Creationists. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Great site. It helped me with a scrap with my creationist friend.
Some people are probably familiar with this site, but I figured I’d post it anyway. It’s basically a catalogue of responses you can use against the absurd arguments of Creationists. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
This is a good resource site, especially the quote mining project. 
Philosophical though, it is a nightmare. That is, whoever is doing the article also promotes their philosophical view so you endup with a mish mash of subjectivism and determinism usually.
As for Creationism or intelligent design died almost 150 years ago and as far as I am concern it can remain dead.
Lastly, I do know of a very funny creationist website called Answers in Genesis. I thought it was a parody until I saw that these guys were not joking. Image doing a Creationism exam? It would be so easy.
Q1: Where did all the variety of horses come from? The biblical god Yahweh did it. [Correct]
Q2: How did the solar system develop? The biblical god Yahweh did it. [Correct]
Q3: Where did life come from? God did it [incorrect] The biblical god Yahweh did it. :lol:
Creationism is so lacking intelligence that a five year old child could do their ‘science’ since they have nothing except ‘God did it’. Oh! Sorry ‘The biblical god Yahweh did it’ :lol:
Ash :lol:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH711.html
haha, please tell me noone has ever argued that in a serious manner.
http://www.creationists.org/dinosaurs.html
I would have to say that Answers in Genesis is probably the worst of the creationist organisations in the world. The reason being is that, not only do they promote bad ‘science’ - even if you could it that - but also their calling for a Reformation within Christianity. Anyone who knows there history of the reformations knows that it not only affects those who are within the Christianity but also those outside the Christianity, and most of the time in ends in bloodshed . Creationism is an evil that mankind can do without, and when Intelligent design is ruled by the supreme court to be un-constitutional hopefully that will be an end of movement [in so far as trying to get their ‘science’ into the public school class rooms]
Ash B)
Honestly, I have no idea why someone would even bother arguing with a creationist let alone finding resources. I have had many a conversation with them, and it always comes down to this -
All scientists are scular humanists, Darwin lied, Hubble lied, Paluxy tracks, NASA verified the lost day. Etc, Etc.
What have been the experiances for yourselves?
Letters
“Intelligent” Design versus Evolution
Donald Kennedy’s Editorial (“Twilight for the enlightement?”, 8 Apr., p. 165) highlights how ineffective the scientific community has been in the battle for the minds of the American public. Arguing details of scientific facts before this audience has been largely unproductive. Perhaps it is time to take a lesson from recent political campaigns: Instead of defending your position, attack a weakness of the opposition and repeat (again and again), with a modicum of humor. The following script has been effective in dealing verbally with creationists/intelligent design adherents.
“You have a philosophic choice between evolution or belief in ID, so called intelligent design. But even a first-year engineering student would be embarrassed to have designed your lower back with the extreme bend that allows you to stand erect even though your pelvis slants forward for knuckle-dragging like all our near relatives. You probably have had braces or wisdom teeth extracted because there are too many teeth for the size of your mouth. Then there are your sinuses, with a flawed drainage system that would provoke laughter from a plumber. Yet evolution provides a ready and rational explanation for all these design failures: by progressive changes into an erect posture, by shortening of a mammalian muzzle into a face, and by expansion of our large brains to crowd the facial bones. So take your choice: Do you prefer evolution or an ID whose letters may as well stand for Incompetent Design?”
After a bit of flustering, the ID adherent usually mumbles something about our inability to know the mind of God. The reply: “Indeed, ID is not science but religion and should be taught as such.”
These simple facts need little explanation, bring evolution to a personal level, and leave the ID adherent on the defensive, all with a bit of humor. Others may wish to try it.
Donald U. Wise
Department of Geosciences
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003, USA.
You know, it’s funny. not 3 weeks ago, my Biology Professor disspelled the myth of Intelligent design, saying “If we were designed by God, he didn’t do a very good job.” Especially when you consider the myriad genetic faults and bodily imperfections that are biologically inherint.
From a biologically physical standpoint, humans are quite fragile. Just about the only thing we have going for us is our massive brain, which houses a mind capable of reason.
If it were to turn out that God had designed us and everything… I would ask why he made us so we can go and stuff up his plans so much?
Sure, apparently he wanted to give us free will, but this is clearly a bogus theory. How much free will does the Bible demand? It would seem that free will is exactly what God would NOT want man to have. And that if he was so great and wise, he would have figured this out…
If it were to turn out that God had designed us and everything… I would ask why he made us so we can go and stuff up his plans so much?
Sure, apparently he wanted to give us free will, but this is clearly a bogus theory. How much free will does the Bible demand? It would seem that free will is exactly what God would NOT want man to have. And that if he was so great and wise, he would have figured this out…
Hee hee hee.
Can god make a mountain that is so heavy that he cannot lift it?
Just one of the many condradictions in the notion of an “all powerful god”.
Hee hee hee.
Can god make a mountain that is so heavy that he cannot lift it?
Just one of the many condradictions in the notion of an “all powerful god”.
Indeed… if someone started a thread about such contradictions, it could go on for a very long, long, long time. I wonder if I should start a thread on it?
You know, it’s funny. not 3 weeks ago, my Biology Professor disspelled the myth of Intelligent design, saying “If we were designed by God, he didn’t do a very good job.” Especially when you consider the myriad genetic faults and bodily imperfections that are biologically inherint.
From a biologically physical standpoint, humans are quite fragile. Just about the only thing we have going for us is our massive brain, which houses a mind capable of reason.
Ask your biology professor, if all species evolved from a common amoeba, why is there only one species able to adapt the environment to himself. All other species adapt to the environment.
Statistically, there should be several or many species that evolved to a higher level of intelligence. Think about this for a moment with an open mind.
Hmmm?
Hee hee hee.
Can god make a mountain that is so heavy that he cannot lift it?
Just one of the many condradictions in the notion of an “all powerful god”.
Hee hee hee, that is a theological question, which can not be proven either way. As this is a biosciences forum, allow me to pose a bioscience related question.
When a scientific law and a scientific theory conflict, which should we disregard?
The second law of thermodynamics, a well proven law of science, demonstrates that all things in nature tend to deteriorate and decay, whereas the evolutionary theory would have us believe that all living things evolve in an unbroken upward progression of complexity.
Every theoretical evolutionary step from amoeba to man would violate the physical laws of science. Intelligent Design embraces science, while evolution mocks it.
I breathlessly await your response.
As this is a biosciences forum, allow me to pose a bioscience related question.
When a scientific law and a scientific theory conflict, which should we disregard?
The second law of thermodynamics, a well proven law of science, demonstrates that all things in nature tend to deteriorate and decay, whereas the evolutionary theory would have us believe that all living things evolve in an unbroken upward progression of complexity.
Every theoretical evolutionary step from amoeba to man would violate the physical laws of science. Intelligent Design embraces science, while evolution mocks it.
I breathlessly await your response.
The second law of thermodynamics and the theory of evolution are not in conflict at all. Evolutionary theory does not hold that living things evolve “upward” or “toward complexity” or toward “higher intelligence” or any such thing. Take a look at an evolutionary tree of all living organisms which includes genetic distance. You will see that fungi are more evolved than plants, and are the closest relatives to the animals. Plants can make their own food, whereas animals and fungi cannot. Which seems like a more derived condition? Yet fungi and animals are both more derived on the evolutionary tree of life than are plants. Heterotrophy is only one character state to be analyzed, as is intelligence or whatnot, whatever you choose.
The only hard and fast rule in evolutionary theory is that organisms evolve toward greater fitness in a reproductive sense. If that means that one simple protein, rather than two complex ones, provides greater fitness to an organism, then it will be selected for - more copies of the DNA for that protein rather than copies of the other two will be passed down to the next generation. Whatever traits provide organisms with greater fitness will have a greater selection coefficient, regardless of whether they are simple or complex. Indeed, the second law of thermodynamics itself (in the form of mutations) provides the variation in the traits. Usually mutations are bad. But once in awhile, they’re great. Simple as that.
I’m glad religion is making this issue important to them, because the facts are so clearly contrary to intellegent design. This is religions last pathetic stand.
I for one would not care if they succeed in having intellegent design “taught” along side evolution, because the innocent children will make the correct choice. And they will leave school with a much better appreciation for science and disdain for religion.
(And it also might have the added benfit of making people question the value of state run education – a favorite liberal cause.
Let us see how eagerly the liberals encourage public education when a republican run government gets to inject “intellegent design” into their beloved public schools)
Sir ID is not a religious view but one that can be embraced by all but atheists. It is a view that screams for acceptance on the grounds that it makes sense of all the things that evolution cannot! You would have me belive that Shakespeares plays were written by rioting monkeys in a print shop given enough time!
Sir ID is not a religious view but one that can be embraced by all but atheists. It is a view that screams for acceptance on the grounds that it makes sense of all the things that evolution cannot! You would have me belive that Shakespeares plays were written by rioting monkeys in a print shop given enough time!
If ID is true, who is the intellegent designer?
If ID is true, who is the intellegent designer?
It can’t be me, as I have consistently failed to spell Intelligent properly. Oh well. 