The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[Perfection]

Well saying the sun is stationary doesn't work in certain contexts as well.

Stationary doesn't realy exist. We just use it for certain applications to make things easier.

 

[Ali Zaybak]

You know, I would complain that we no longer talk about Creationism in "The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!" but the creationists seem to have all evaporated.
If we assume that
1. They know the thread is here, and
2. The stated objectives of the thread are a direct challenge to Creationism, and furthermore that
3. Their silence on the matter indicates their assent, or their inability to produce further arguments, then we must come to the conclusion that Creationism has been KO'ed.
So, congratulations to Perfection and all the others members of Darwin's Army. Unable to adapt, the creationists have been outcompeted in the struggle for survival on this Tangled Bank, and, naturally selected against, their extinction is imminent. Long live the Red Queen, and huzzah for science !

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Ah, the Red Queen - or in other words, we have sex to avoid parasites.

 

[ironduck]

I think it's more a matter of guerilla warfare - also known as drive-by posting

 

[brennan]

Hmm, some bugger will come by in a minute and post, 'We kNo goD CreatED the wORLd cos iTT sES sssO in BIBl'

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Please try using actual quotes instead of parodying your opponents. It's more intellectually honest. For example,

"Ok, I'll be sympathetic to your tortured logic and explain how mankind knows that the bible is the word of god.
1. the bible is infallible."

Besides, I know that God created the world because it says so in the Bible. But I don't think he intervened repeatedly during this process, created a stupidly small universe, planted false evidence to 'test' our faith, or anything of the sort.

 

[brennan]

Is that aimed at me? How can I 'quote' a prediction? (And since when has parody been 100% accurate?)

 

[The Last Conformist]

One of the things you learn on Usenet is that it's basically meaningless to try and parody creationist claims - every silly exaggeration thereof will, with a likelihood approaching certainty, be seriously advanced by some bozo.

But we're getting off-topic again ...

 

[brennan]

In fact I notice that, despite the three preceding threads, and a couple of pages of this one, much of it containing arguments about what is wrong with the statement 'I know that God created the world because it says so in the Bible', Erik has said almost exactly what I predicted, without any additional argument to back up his statement. Thus proving my point.

Thanks Erik.

 

[Smidlee]

So, congratulations to Perfection and all the others members of Darwin's Army. Unable to adapt, the creationists have been outcompeted in the struggle for survival on this Tangled Bank, and, naturally selected against, their extinction is imminent. Long live the Red Queen, and huzzah for science !

Yeah with evidence like this makes it hard not to believe in Darwinism. It's True, evolution can perform miracles.

 

[Perfection]

Yeah with evidence like this makes it hard not to believe in Darwinism.

Then do you concede my to my two points?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Yeah with evidence like this makes it hard not to believe in Darwinism. It's True, evolution can perform miracles.

In words of one syllable, five letters or less:

This is a joke.

A revision of Mt Rushmore to add Charles Darwin.

Professor Richard Knuther responds to accusations his dinosaur fossil discovery in Chengdu was constructed by Knuther out of Chicken bones. Knuther's department Chair discloses discovery of incriminating book, photos, and receipts from Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Either you're distressingly shortsighted and unrecognizing of parody, or you're a Loki.

In fact I notice that, despite the three preceding threads, and a couple of pages of this one, much of it containing arguments about what is wrong with the statement 'I know that God created the world because it says so in the Bible', Erik has said almost exactly what I predicted, without any additional argument to back up his statement. Thus proving my point.

Thanks Erik.

The quote I posted originally appeard on the FSM mail list. It's not mine. Since I agree with Perf's initial statements

1. Evolution is a valid scientific claim
2. Creationism is not a valid scientific claim

and this isn't the thread for debating the validity of the Bible, we can all get back to explaining to Smidlee why the site he posted has little argumentative value, much like this one, or this ramble.

 

[Smidlee]

In words of one syllable, five letters or less:

This is a joke.

.

Duh? you think. I thought I add a little humor.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Duh? you think. I thought I['d] add a little humor.

If you had scrolled two posts up:

One of the things you learn on Usenet is that it's basically meaningless to try and parody creationist claims - every silly exaggeration thereof will, with a likelihood approaching certainty, be seriously advanced by some bozo.

Some time spent here and here will show why your attempt at humor is effectively impossible to tell from actual claims, which are virtually indistinguishable from parody claims.

 

[Smidlee]

You do realize probably a lot on "fundies say the darndest thing" quotes comes from people who play the devil advocate right? I know a few of my friends who admitted of doing this a few time on forums, playing either side. Thus you can't take forums too serious.

 

[Perfection]

You do realize probably a lot on "fundies say the darndest thing" quotes comes from people who play the devil advocate right? I know a few of my friends who admitted of doing this a few time on forums, playing either side. Thus you can't take forums too serious.

Can't we just agree that we're all idiots and move on?

 

[Markus6]

From what you said about the universe being interesting to study because god made it, it sounded like it was only things that god had made that were interesting to study. Or are you just saying that god would never make something that's not interesting for us to study?

I'm saying the God would not make something that's not interesting for us to study. I'm also saying that if you'd made the universe it wouldn't be interesting to study. Not that you can't make interesting things, just the universe is out of your range, I don't think Dali could do it either.

None of this is intended to be a proof of God. It's just because I am a theist I think God is behind science.

Are you saying that people felt the ether back when it was considered a plausible theory?

Well no, because the Earth was stationary in the ether.

I guess TLC missed this one, so I will chime in. Special Relativity (or even Galiliean Relativity) makes no such claim. In fact it makes a rather opposite claim. It says that that observer is completely unimportant and that all physics must be observer independent and hence all physics equations must be written in such a form that changing the observer does not change the form of the equation.

Although physics equations should be observer independant Special Relativity says that physics experiments are never observer independant because in measuring something the observer is affecting it.

Albert Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" introduced the special theory of relativity. Special relativity considers that observers in inertial reference frames, which are in uniform motion relative to one another, cannot perform any experiment to determine which one of them is "stationary".

i.e we can never prove the earth is not stationary. VICTORY!

 

[ironduck]

I'm saying the God would not make something that's not interesting for us to study.

Why not? He only makes stuff that he knows would be interesting for us to study? Is it so inconceivable that he would make stuff we wouldn't have a clue about and therefore wouldn't find interesting or even realize existed?

Well no, because the Earth was stationary in the ether.

What you said earlier was:

If we still believed in the ether maybe we would feel it.

Can't you just explain what you mean? You think that if we believe in something we will feel it? If we believe that ether exists and is moving right now we'll feel it?

 

[Markus6]

Can't you just explain what you mean? You think that if we believe in something we will feel it? If we believe that ether exists and is moving right now we'll feel it?

I'm kidding. If the ether did exist and we were hurtling through space at 30km/s then I'm sure we would feel the effects. However, the Earth is obviously stationary so even if it did exist we wouldn't notice.

Why not? He only makes stuff that he knows would be interesting for us to study? Is it so inconceivable that he would make stuff we wouldn't have a clue about and therefore wouldn't find interesting or even realize existed?

Of course it's not inconceivable. I'm just saying I believe God made nature and made it interesting to study for our benefit.

 

[warpus]

I'm just saying I believe God made nature and made it interesting to study for our benefit.

Don't you think it's a bit arrogant to assume that the creator would do anything for our benefit, if he exists?