RE: a8972147’s Creationism Arguments (update).

a8972147 (sorry, not mccanarie) commented on my comment on this blog, and I thought my response blog-worthy, as it addresses several common types of creationist rhetoric:

“If you calculate the math at .05 percent growth from six people over 4500 years you get today’s population.”

Creationists who use this argument start with the number they want, then do the calculation to figure out what the population growth would have to be, then just claim that that is what it is.  In reality the current rate is more than double that, and has changed dramatically over time, making your equation meaningless.

“If we have been around for longer than 100,000 years then do tell me where all the rest of the people are?

The population size of any species is limited by the amount of food available and the rate of death from other causes, and the population explosion over the last few centuries is caused by advances in agriculture, food preservation and transportation, as well as modern medicine and a number of other factors, before which a population in the billions was unsustainable.  As kent hovind (who you probably got these arguments from) know very well, as even other creationists criticize him for using arguments such as these which he knows are false, and has had refuted to his face many times.

This isn’t actually a genuine argument, it’s a creationist argument-generating formula.  It goes like this:

1. Take any number or rate of anything currently happening which changes over time.

2. Pretend it has been a constant over vast geological stretches of time.

3. Insist that this would necessitate some impossibility or absurdity.

4. Conclude that you have disproven evolution or the big bang or whatever scientific idea you want, when in reality you haven’t even touched on it.

Eg: Evolutionists say it’s snowed two inches this week.  If that were true then if the earth were only 100,000 years old it would’ve snowed 82 miles by now – where’s all that snow?  Isn’t evolution ridiculous?

Also works with glacier dynamics, the reversal (oh did I say reversal, I mean “decline”) of the earth’s magnetic field, the rate the moon is receding from the earth, desertification and damn near anything else with a number in it.

“As a matte of fact the history of every major culture begins right around the time of the great flood. How do you explain that?”

By pointing out that they don’t.  The flood was about 4400 years ago, that’s 2400 BC.  If the flood had happened there would be no egyptian culture, no native americans, no mesopotamian culture etc.  And even if what you said were true it would disprove the flood story since multiple, well developed and unique cultures could not have possibly instantly sprung out of a handful of people.  The written cultures of many civilizations spanned thousands of years prior to and kept going thousands of years after the supposed flood.  It simply didn’t happen.

“And at the rate technology has progressed over the recorded centuries we shold’ve landed on the moon more than 95,000 years ago if the human race were as old as you claim.”

No, but again this one of those lazy, formulaic “assume the current rate is constant” arguments.  Technology for most of human history languished because there was no good way to pass it on to future generations.  Then oral tradition helped a little, and written language helped tremendously, but was still very limited as it was very hard to copy manuscripts and they couldn’t be mass-distributed.  During this time conquering armies and religious leaders often burned down nations’ libraries, destroying all of their advancements and history.  This is why we discover that ancient egyptians performed eye surgery and had things like chemical batteries thousands of years ago when they were just re-invented a few hundred years ago.  Then the printing press was invented and information could be mass-distributed, making it much easier to educate the masses and organize science and very hard to destroy knowledge, and a few centuries later here we are.

“More technically the claims of evolution directly contradict the second law of entropy.”

No, the second law of thermodynamics.  You can’t even get your silly arguments straight, I have to explain them to you.  And no it doesn’t, I will explain below.

“In nature complex chemicals don’t spontaneously become more complex, they break down.”

Not what the second law of thermodynamics says, it says that in a closed system (which the earth is not) all matter tends to break down rather than being built up.  A closed system is a system without energy flowing into it.  In lay terms all this says is you need energy to build up complexity.  The sun’s energy fuels most life on earth, being converted into chemical energy via photosynthesis and then consumed by herbivores, who are then consumed by carnivores and so on.  “You need to eat to grow and to not die” is the practical effect of this.

“The level of complexity that even a single celled organism has to possess in order to prevent this break down while alive is immense.”

Complexity doesn’t make you exempt from thermodynamics, lol.  In fact the reverse is true, the more complex the organism, the more food it needs to not break down.

“No simpler organism can exist which is why there are none currently.”

Simpler than what?

“Every experiment to date that has “Created” a new life form, has needed to use parts from another life form to use as building blocks. This is FACT!”

Those experiments were to do with experimentally reverse engineering DNA, not abiogenesis.  And I posted a video on abiogenesis which seems to contradict this in the comment you are responding to (though without actually commenting on anything I said and just giving pre-fab copy/pasted creationist arguments that have been debunked thousands of times).

“As for the fossil record… it’s a mess. There is old strata on top of strata. there are organisms classified as Jurassic embedded into the Cretaceous and viceversa.”

You will have to give actual researchable examples.  Creationists often deliberately misinterpret these things and make it up as they go.

“We have species that supposedly lived millions of years ago disappear for a few eras then pop back up.”

Yes the fossil record is incomplete.  This in no possible way disproves, well, anything.

“And we have many many life forms that just hung around while every one else was supposedly evolving.”

There is no species that has ever lived that has ever stopped evolving.  You are confusing you (a non-paleontologist who probably couldn’t tell the differences between a human and neanderthal skeleton) not being able to spot anatomical differences in strange animal fossils, with life not evolving.  Just because an organism that has survived for millions of years has not undergone major changes in morphology does not mean it’s immunology, organ function and countless other things have not evolved.  And even if it did, it wouldn’t wish away the countless examples of clear, gradual evolutionary adaptation we have in the fossil record.

“Like Mac said. You need to go back to school and get an education.”

You need to go to school the first time.  All of this shit is straight off of fundamentalist websites.  Unless you think reading scripture is as good as getting a PhD in genetics, zoology, paleontology and biology you must admit that you have no clue whatsoever wtf you’re talking about when it comes to these subjects.  Because the people whose arguments you parrot sure as hell don’t.

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to RE: a8972147’s Creationism Arguments (update).

  1. Can i just point out that when old strata is found on top of young strata, that it is time to find evidence that the rocks have been folded?  Structural geology 101.  Geez. 

  2. That person sounds like my step-dad, and to some extent, my mom (she isn’t as well educated, though).  No matter how I counter them, they refuse to believe a word I say. They’ve already determined creationism (or at the very least, intelligent design) is true and should be considered by scientists and their peer-reviewed journals as being on the same level as real science.  They flat-out cannot understand why it isn’t.  It’s so frustrating.  To them, science is just “something made up by men”, and therefore isn’t as trustworthy or infallible as the word of god or what they happen to believe…./headdesk

  3. agnophilo says:

    @x_Butterflies_and_Hurricanes_x – Yeah I know.  Creationists often cite things like trees upright over multiple layers proving those layers “appeared suddenly” (ie in the flood), but when you look into it it’s actually layers of volcanic ash, not limestone or shale or something that does take a long time to build up/compress.  Which is why I didn’t even bother getting into it without specific examples.@methodElevated – Actually it’s more that the arguments they’re giving aren’t their actual reasons for believing.  Their real reasons are probably not even something they are aware of.  They might believe that they think these things are true because of x argument and y evidence, but the fact that they are totally un-phased when it is conclusively shown to be untrue is all the proof I need that that isn’t how their brain is actually working.  Well, or they’re just not sane.

  4. Justin_DeBin says:

    LMAO!!! I knew that sending you that link would lead to some of the best reading on Xanga I’ve had in weeks. Seriously pluleeeese don’t ever change. I love you man you’re awsome.

  5. Justin_DeBin says:

    PS: The bit on Ni’s site where you insinuated that I’m a Christian (After previously trying to convince me that I’m an Atheist) was a really nice touch.

  6. agnophilo says:

    @Justin_DeBin – Okay…@Justin_DeBin – I think you are christian.  You claim to be agnostic but act insulted if anyone supposes you don’t believe in god.Well, that and you were just being troll-like.

  7. Justin_DeBin says:

    @agnophilo – LMAO!!! You get better and better with every comment.PS~ When have I claimed to be agnostic? Please show me the quote. (Include time date and link.)PPS~ I am Xanga’s favorite troll.PPPS~ How far can one take these post-scripts, I wonder.

  8. Lol.This sounds like a lot of people I know. No matter what proof there is, they refuse to listen. I’m agnostic, but…some things in the Bible just don’t make sense! Honestly, I’m not completely sure where I stand on creationism, but I definitely believe that evolution happened. I don’t know about the whole monkey to man thing, but obviously animals have changed and diversified.

  9. @agnophilo – An actual flood as big as the Bible postulates would not leave ANY trees standing.

  10. Say what? A creationist unfamiliar with real science? Well I never!

  11. Ad nauseum is the best hope which creationism has. 

  12. asrial86 says:

    I don’t know if this person has actually gone to school beyond sunday school.  Seriously pathetic.

  13. SerenaDante says:

    I think all I can do is lol.

  14. Daithi says:

    The flood myth goes back way to the end of the last ice age when there was a sudden rise in sea levels. It’s been proven there was a ‘flood’ of sorts but way further back than Creationists like to believe.

  15. Clair says:

    All you utter seems proficient this is what I sense st christopher medal | home equity loan | limo service lax

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s