Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Pseudoscience.shtml ^

[JediGirl]

bump

[eclectic]

Bump for rationality

[CatoRenasci]

Bump for intellectual honesty!

[aardvark1]

Rationality!?? This article is so full of irrational and unscientific statements it would take days to mention them all. This author indulges in what he claims creationists do. He's counting on the fact that the general public know so little about the technical aspects of science that you can't and thus, won't question what is said.

For example, he speaks of amino acids being created in the lab under conditions that supposedly replicate those of primeval earth. There are several problems with the process to begin with, but the biggest problem is that the amino acids created are UNUSABLE to create proteins due to their chirality (the way the 'turn' light). This argument is actually one of the strongest AGAINST evolution!!!!

No bumps here except for the several on the author's head.

[kinsman redeemer]

Bump for Man's Wisdom

Bump for God's Wisdom

.

. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

[Darth Reagan]

Great post.

[Darth Reagan]

I always considered Wisdom to be akin to judgment, morality, values. Knowledge of basic observable facts is not Wisdom, simply science.

[Equality 7-2521]

I've been watching Star Trek for years so I know a lot about psuedo-science. The weird thing is that the fictional psuedo-science found in Star Trek probably has more in common with real science than any of these crazy creationist imaginings.

[Equality 7-2521]

BTW, I love the "black box" analogy in the article. As a [sometimes] engineer, I'm faced occasionally with that very choice and I never choose the black box. We want machinery that our maintenance staff can repair so we don't have to buy a new unit every time it breaks down.

[Darth Reagan]

I admit that I have no scientific credentials. You assert that the author is "counting on the fact that the general public know so little about the technical aspects of science that you can't and thus, won't question what is said."

Apparently, you know enough "about the technical aspects of science" to question the points stated herein. Please enlighten us further, and include authority for your statements, or at least your credentials.

Thanks.

[Kyrie]

Remember that if your opponent has no direct knowledge of the science involved, and is merely claiming truth because "I read it somewhere", this constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority. Point this out to him. One should always be able to explain the logic and science behind one's argument rather than simply making vague reference to an anonymous source.

And speaking of "appeal to authority," how many people here can explain the logic behind using an exponential decay function in radiometric dating? Can you derive this yourself? Can you list the assumptions necessary to derive it?

Just wondering...

Of course all of the evolutionists should be able to source this, not just a few of them.

I'd hate to think that some FReepers were...um...hypocrites?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You go girl!

(Use the Force!)

[Darth Reagan]

using an exponential decay function in radiometric dating?

Fancy use of big words. It certainly does sound scientific. You must know what you are talking about. But, just so I can be sure, what's your degree in?

[KeepUSfree]

A "May the Force be with you" bump

[massconservative]

Amen! This author provides no scientific proof of evolution simply because very little, if any, exists. Darwin claimed that the greatest proof of his theory would come from the fossil record which was very incomplete at in 1859. He opined that there would be countless "transitional" species found once the fossil record was more complete. To date, after millions of additional fossil finds, not one record of a "transitional" species. In fact, ALL remains in the fossil record point to periods when new species are introduced intact and remain in statis for periods of up to millions of years (Remember the Coelcanth discovery early last century).

The creation of amino acids from a knockoff of "primeval soup" refers to the Miller-Urey experiments in the 60's. They used an oxygen-reducing atmosphere made up of methane, ammonia and hydrogen to achieve the desired result. It is generally accepted within the scientific community that the Earth's early atmosphere did not have these characteriestics.

Abiogenesis is a greater leap than faith in God. Even the simplest organism capable of sustaining an independent existence is incredibly complex. The simplest known organisms, prokaryote bacteria, are miniturized factories more complex than the Space Shuttle. Add to this the fact that DNA, RNA and proteins are mutually interdependent and it is more difficult to believe in self-organization from inanimate building blocks.

The holes in the theory of evolution are growing larger and more inexplicable coincident with advances in microbiology, chemistry and physics. While evolutionists like to lump all creationists into the "young Earth" camp, the origins of the universe and the origins of life are far more complex and scientific evidence uncovered in recent years is increasingly pointing to intelligent design.

[Hunble]

They used an oxygen-reducing atmosphere made up of methane, ammonia and hydrogen to achieve the desired result. It is generally accepted within the scientific community that the Earth's early atmosphere did not have these characteriestics.

Who are the people in the scientific community that are stating the the early Earth atmosphere was not made up of methane, amonia and hydrogren?

Hydrogen is the most abumdant element in the universe, so derived molecules such as methane and amonia would be expected.

Funny, every astronomy book that I just looked at this morning stated exactly the opposite of your claim.

Is your statement another example of what the today's article was about?

[Darth Reagan]

Your posts are an example of the author's point. Massconservative tell us "[i]t is generally accepted within the scientific community". Hunble tells us he has referred to textbooks. I have to assume that you are both telling the truth (otherwise discussions on FR would be meaningless). Hunble cites sources. If massconservative can site sources other than the ethereal "they", then maybe I'll believe him. Until then, Hunble is more persuasive, and the author's point is bolstered.

[Hunble]

Good comment and I was guilty of invoking a higher authority (text books) as you pointed out.

However, I have been rather busy in getting my two telescopes up to scientific quality lately so that I can study the spectrum of stars.

Spectroscopy is the science of studying light and identifying the elements. Each element, such as hydrogen, radiates at very specific frequencies, and by studying the light that is received from an object, you can calculate the relative quantities of each atom.

That is why I was rather surprized when it was stated that hydrogen, amonia and methane were not considered a major portion in the early Earth atmosphere.

Simply sampling the gases released from a volcano would prove otherwise, since obviously those gases are still trapped inside the rocks of the Earth.

Due to the low gavity of the Earth, light gases such as Hydrogen will eventually excape to space. Even a child knows that a balloon filled with hydrogen or helium will rise in our atmosphere.

For larger planets such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, the combination of a highter gravity and colder temperatures will keep the lighter gases.

This is not something that I must rely upon some text book, but is a subject that I can actually measure with my own telescope.

[texicano]

Jedi-Girl has demonstrated the purile arrogance so very needed by the credulous adherents of the religion of evolution . Real science be damned , logic be damned, evidence be damned ,the God of creation must be dethroned .The scripture is right "the fool in His (or Her) heart says there is no God.