Quick post here on internet creationists and confirmation bias that I frequently run across. Usually I ignore it but this person seemed reasonable until they started trying to prove the flood covers millions of years of prehistoric animals that apparently faced recent extinction. This is only a piece of the conversation but essentially this person is trying to form a conclusion on the stratification layers of sediment and fossils. The discussion is the role of the Flood in the creationist mass death of prehistoric creatures.
"He also mentions birds as coming later, and evolutionist get this from the fossil record, which could have been laid down in the flood. There is ample evidence to this with the events like Mt St Helen going off.
It is strange that the smaller animals in the fossil record are at the bottom, and the bigger animal that would survive longer swimming in a flood are at the top. The birds can only fly above the flood for so long, but they would outlast a lot of the animals he referred to, which would put them higher in the fossil record.
So all this organized mass death in the fossil record isn't from evolution at all; it is just survival of the fittest." ~ Anonymous
Thoughts?
The whole Flood mythology has plagued with numerous problems and honestly, it's hard to believe that anyone older than 10 seriously believes that this is stuff is scientifically accurate.
1) The Sumerians and other cultures are suspiciously unaffected by the end of the world.
2) The logistics of gathering the animals (according to creationists, penguins journeyed to the Middle East and waddled up the ramp to the ark)
3) Caring for the animals
4) The physics of the Flood (there's not enough water, that sort of flood it would flatten the hell out of the Earth's surface, and where the water went)
5) The animals returning to their habitats and diversifying at breakneck speed (creationists argue that evolution can't even happen slowly over millions of years, yet they propose that modern species diverged from a few "kinds" over the course of a few thousand years)
6) An impossibly enormous food web prior to the Flood that apparently recovered just fine after 99.99% of species were wiped out literally overnight.
7) A fossil record that doesn't match flood geology at all.
And that's just from the top of my head.
Quote from: Hydra009 on June 18, 2016, 01:28:23 PM
The whole Flood mythology has plagued with numerous problems and honestly, it's hard to believe that anyone older than 10 seriously believes that this is stuff is scientifically accurate.
...
Yes, at this point in the conversation I was in a state of shock. There's just so much wrong with this I can't even begin. But I mentioned the animal population point twice and was ignored both times. Later someone threw out the whole "Mars flood" = Earth flood argument.
The Catastrophism of Velikovsky ... might be useful to Creationists, but not really. Might as well believe that the gods were Sumerian astronauts ;-)
(https://janathonasaurus.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/dinowater4.jpg)
Ready for the Flood!
Creationists come up with some hilarious explanations for things. This was a new one for me.
The JWs put out a hardback explanation with pictures pointing out how the Earth is placed so perfectly to sustain life, the right distance from the sun, the temperature variations conducive to life, all scientific facts, but they spin it so that all the life requirements could not have been a coincidence. I might even be tempted to agree, if there were only 20 planets in the whole universe. But with billions and trillions of planets, life had to happen somewhere.
But the great Jehovah Witness comeback to the numerical probability is, "Yeah, but WHY is our Earth the one that was perfect?" This would be funny as hell, if it weren't so pitiful.
Quote from: SGOS on June 19, 2016, 09:08:48 AM
Creationists come up with some hilarious explanations for things. This was a new one for me.
The JWs put out a hardback explanation with pictures pointing out how the Earth is placed so perfectly to sustain life, the right distance from the sun, the temperature variations conducive to life, all scientific facts, but they spin it so that all the life requirements could not have been a coincidence. I might even be tempted to agree, if there were only 20 planets in the whole universe. But with billions and trillions of planets, life had to happen somewhere.
But the great Jehovah Witness comeback to the numerical probability is, "Yeah, but WHY is our Earth the one that was perfect?" This would be funny as hell, if it weren't so pitiful.
Earth "perfect"? They've never been to Utah.
Quote from: SGOS on June 19, 2016, 09:08:48 AM
Creationists come up with some hilarious explanations for things. This was a new one for me.
The JWs put out a hardback explanation with pictures pointing out how the Earth is placed so perfectly to sustain life, the right distance from the sun, the temperature variations conducive to life, all scientific facts, but they spin it so that all the life requirements could not have been a coincidence. I might even be tempted to agree, if there were only 20 planets in the whole universe. But with billions and trillions of planets, life had to happen somewhere.
But the great Jehovah Witness comeback to the numerical probability is, "Yeah, but WHY is our Earth the one that was perfect?" This would be funny as hell, if it weren't so pitiful.
I agree with the point about billions of planets leading to life on one (that we know so far). Especially if we all except the notion of Earth over a billion years old. I think it's hard for people to let go of the idea that they could be relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on June 19, 2016, 01:09:29 PM
I agree with the point about billions of planets leading to life on one (that we know so far). Especially if we all except the notion of Earth over a billion years old. I think it's hard for people to let go of the idea that they could be relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
Even life, I doubt is that significant. It's just chemical combinations with some unique properties, just as rocks and minerals have their unique properties. Throw in some carbon, and more unique compounds form, and the basics of life are found in abundance all over the Earth, and apparently, throughout the universe. I think we see life as something super-special, probably because we are life. But life is just the product of natural laws and natural occurring substances; Complex to be sure, but inevitable in the right conditions as chemicals combine in a near infinite number of combinations for no other reason than that's what chemicals made of elements naturally do. Introduce DNA, which is just another natural byproduct of natural processes, and things start to get amazing. Life is amazing, but so is the universe. And life is but one amazing thing that can happen is such a roomy environment like the universe, where all sorts of things, some which we haven't even thought of, are happening all the time.
And then someone has to come along and ask, "Yeah, but why did it happen on the planet we live on? Can that be a coincidence?" You know right there, that you won't get that person to understand when you explain it to them. Well, some will, but some aren't there yet and never will be.
I seem to remember that they always mention Mt Saint Helens for some reason, though I can't for the life of me remember why. I think it might have something to do with carbon dating and usually in the conversation a fossilized foot in a boot tends to come up. I remember these arguments from the '90s.
The thing is, we know how strata are formed in rocks. We know how long it takes. We know you can't create diverse, thick strata in 40 days and 40 nights. And the idea that literally EVERY SINGLE fossil would be in its personalized layer depending on how long it was LIKELY to survive is ludicrous. Even if that did make sense you would still have the occasional fossil out of place. You'd have the rat that found a log to hold onto and ended up starving to death rather than drowning, for instance. This assumes that it is essentially guaranteed that larger animals will, without exception, live longer and that all like species will die virtually simultaneously in inexplicably precise waves. That is just stupid.
And, finally, using evolution as a guide scientists have been able to locate exact unknown species they predicted to be in a certain place. In the case of Tiktaalik scientists predicted that they would find a fossil in a certain place at a certain depth showing a transition from fish to land animal. They went to that place, dug to that depth and, lo and behold, found a new species for which there was no evidence before, a fish with bones in its fins which equate bone-for-bone with modern day wrist bones.
And that's the difference between science and flood nonsense. The flood nonsensers start with a conclusion and then look at the evidence to see how they can force it to fit and they're done. Scientists look at the evidence, THEN draw a conclusion. But at no point to they actually declare themselves to be "done". Instead they keep testing it, over an over, saying, "If this is right then we should find X at point Y. Let's see if we do!"
Quote from: widdershins on June 20, 2016, 12:53:00 PM
I seem to remember that they always mention Mt Saint Helens for some reason, though I can't for the life of me remember why. I think it might have something to do with carbon dating and usually in the conversation a fossilized foot in a boot tends to come up. I remember these arguments from the '90s.
The thing is, we know how strata are formed in rocks. We know how long it takes. We know you can't create diverse, thick strata in 40 days and 40 nights. And the idea that literally EVERY SINGLE fossil would be in its personalized layer depending on how long it was LIKELY to survive is ludicrous. Even if that did make sense you would still have the occasional fossil out of place. You'd have the rat that found a log to hold onto and ended up starving to death rather than drowning, for instance. This assumes that it is essentially guaranteed that larger animals will, without exception, live longer and that all like species will die virtually simultaneously in inexplicably precise waves. That is just stupid.
And, finally, using evolution as a guide scientists have been able to locate exact unknown species they predicted to be in a certain place. In the case of Tiktaalik scientists predicted that they would find a fossil in a certain place at a certain depth showing a transition from fish to land animal. They went to that place, dug to that depth and, lo and behold, found a new species for which there was no evidence before, a fish with bones in its fins which equate bone-for-bone with modern day wrist bones.
And that's the difference between science and flood nonsense. The flood nonsensers start with a conclusion and then look at the evidence to see how they can force it to fit and they're done. Scientists look at the evidence, THEN draw a conclusion. But at no point to they actually declare themselves to be "done". Instead they keep testing it, over an over, saying, "If this is right then we should find X at point Y. Let's see if we do!"
Creationism doesn't do science. It doesn't even do field work. They just sit around and try to shoot holes in science. Big Whoop!
Quote from: SGOS on June 20, 2016, 01:07:02 PM
Creationism doesn't do science. It doesn't even do field work. They just sit around and try to shoot holes in science. Big Whoop!
I call it "Science by Gotcha".
Quote from: SGOS on June 20, 2016, 01:07:02 PM
Creationism doesn't do science. It doesn't even do field work. They just sit around and try to shoot holes in science. Big Whoop!
I'd almost call it philosophy, except that doing so would be an insult to real philosophers who put genuine effort into trying to prove things they know nothing about.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 20, 2016, 02:35:00 PM
I'd almost call it philosophy, except that doing so would be an insult to real philosophers who put genuine effort into trying to prove things they know nothing about.
Creationism isn't Philosophy, really it isn't. Nor, of course, is it any sort of Science. Its Religion, pure and simple, and this applies to
all of the various versions of creationism- from the Young Earth stuff to ID.
Some people come off as really intelligent until they start uttering creationism. I'd first verify that what they are saying is even true. I have my doubts as creationists spew mumbo jumbo a lot. They can sound very knowledgeable to people who don't understand science. The only way to combat these idiots (I mean nice people) is to educate your self in these matters which can be a tall order. I'd do some research if I were you.
Quote from: SGOS on June 20, 2016, 01:07:02 PM
Creationism doesn't do science. It doesn't even do field work. They just sit around and try to shoot holes in science. Big Whoop!
That reminds me of something a drunk friend told me recently about how pissed off he was that real scientists just dismissed outright what he called, "armchair scientists". He didn't want to do any of the work involved, he just wanted to feel smart. To that end he outright rejected the idea that the reason for this was because it is pointless to listen to the rambling thoughts of an uneducated lout discussing complex topics they know nothing about.
Christians kind of have that same attitude. They don't want to learn anything "sciencey". They know it's wrong anyway. But they still want to be able to pretend they're qualified to talk about it.
Quote from: widdershins on June 21, 2016, 09:58:04 AM
That reminds me of something a drunk friend told me recently about how pissed off he was that real scientists just dismissed outright what he called, "armchair scientists". He didn't want to do any of the work involved, he just wanted to feel smart. To that end he outright rejected the idea that the reason for this was because it is pointless to listen to the rambling thoughts of an uneducated lout discussing complex topics they know nothing about.
Christians kind of have that same attitude. They don't want to learn anything "sciencey". They know it's wrong anyway. But they still want to be able to pretend they're qualified to talk about it.
It is funny how they dismiss science 99.9% of the time, but any time they hear about something that supposedly proves them right (which is always fake), they latch onto it. They can't decide. Do they trust science or don't they? They don't, of course. They just plug up their ears when they know they're proven wrong, and crave anything that can validate them.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 21, 2016, 10:11:12 AM
It is funny how they dismiss science 99.9% of the time, but any time they hear about something that supposedly proves them right (which is always fake), they latch onto it. They can't decide. Do they trust science or don't they? They don't, of course. They just plug up their ears when they know they're proven wrong, and crave anything that can validate them.
It's not that they distrust "science" so much as they distrust (and disbelieve) anything which doesn't agree with their belief system. They trust science well enough when they get on a plane, drive their car or buy aspirin. And they trust anything which is called science (real or not) which supports their beliefs.
The funny thing is even the more modern, science excepting religions deny science when it doesn't match with their beliefs. The Catholic Church has been very accepting of science for the most part, except when it comes to condom science. Then they start to make it up so that they can claim condoms don't help prevent the spread of AIDS and such. Of course the MEMBERS of the Catholic church each seem to have their own personal dogmas regardless what the church says. It would be interesting to analyze where that comes from. I've known many Catholics who deny evolution, even though the church has accepted it for years. And Randy happily denied anything and everything the church accepted that didn't match with his personal belief system. Given the infallibility of the pope and the inflexibility of the church ritualistic system I find it fascinating that Catholicism would be the religion of "Well, the church says THIS, but that is definitely not right." Hell, I once heard an argument between 2 Catholics about the continued virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus. One was adamant that she MUST have remained a virgin her entire life, apparently extending the perfections of Jesus to her. The other said it didn't matter after the virgin birth and Jesus could have had actual siblings...on his mother's side, of course. Two Catholics can't even agree on their own dogma.
Marianism is about politics. If you don't know what is at state politically, then you won't get why those two were arguing. So why is Marianism so important to the Catholic church since the early 19th century? The theology is just a cover story.
Quote from: widdershins on June 21, 2016, 01:29:52 PM
It's not that they distrust "science" so much as they distrust (and disbelieve) anything which doesn't agree with their belief system. They trust science well enough when they get on a plane, drive their car or buy aspirin. And they trust anything which is called science (real or not) which supports their beliefs.
The funny thing is even the more modern, science excepting religions deny science when it doesn't match with their beliefs. The Catholic Church has been very accepting of science for the most part, except when it comes to condom science. Then they start to make it up so that they can claim condoms don't help prevent the spread of AIDS and such. Of course the MEMBERS of the Catholic church each seem to have their own personal dogmas regardless what the church says. It would be interesting to analyze where that comes from. I've known many Catholics who deny evolution, even though the church has accepted it for years. And Randy happily denied anything and everything the church accepted that didn't match with his personal belief system. Given the infallibility of the pope and the inflexibility of the church ritualistic system I find it fascinating that Catholicism would be the religion of "Well, the church says THIS, but that is definitely not right." Hell, I once heard an argument between 2 Catholics about the continued virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus. One was adamant that she MUST have remained a virgin her entire life, apparently extending the perfections of Jesus to her. The other said it didn't matter after the virgin birth and Jesus could have had actual siblings...on his mother's side, of course. Two Catholics can't even agree on their own dogma.
How can Catholics even try to claim that Jesus didn't have siblings when the Bible clearly says, in more than one place, that he does? There's even a passage when Mary and her other sons come to collect Jesus when they think he's gone mad (probably due to that eating flesh and drinking blood thing), and Jesus practically disowns them by saying, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother."
Come to think of it, Jesus was kinda being a dick. He could have gone out to assure his family that he was okay.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 21, 2016, 04:05:32 PM
Come to think of it, Jesus was kinda being a dick. He could have gone out to assure his family that he was okay.
The first time I read that as a little kid, I thought Jesus' behavior was so awful that it sickened me.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 21, 2016, 04:05:32 PM
How can Catholics even try to claim that Jesus didn't have siblings when the Bible clearly says, in more than one place, that he does? There's even a passage when Mary and her other sons come to collect Jesus when they think he's gone mad (probably due to that eating flesh and drinking blood thing), and Jesus practically disowns them by saying, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother."
Come to think of it, Jesus was kinda being a dick. He could have gone out to assure his family that he was okay.
The great thing about the Bible needing to be "interpreted" means that it always says exactly what you want to hear, regardless what it actually "says". In this case the word "brother" is explained away by referencing another line, "We are all brothers and sisters in the Lord", not to mention the part you just quoted, "Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother." It's the same reasoning weird churches use when they call each other "Brother Jim" and "Sister Martha".
When will you ever learn? The Bible doesn't say what it says. It says what I WANT it to say!
Quote from: widdershins on June 22, 2016, 11:28:05 AM
The great thing about the Bible needing to be "interpreted" means that it always says exactly what you want to hear, regardless what it actually "says". In this case the word "brother" is explained away by referencing another line, "We are all brothers and sisters in the Lord", not to mention the part you just quoted, "Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother." It's the same reasoning weird churches use when they call each other "Brother Jim" and "Sister Martha".
When will you ever learn? The Bible doesn't say what it says. It says what I WANT it to say!
So Jesus' mother and brothers "in the Lord" came when they thought he'd gone insane, and Jesus said that his mother and brothers "in the Lord" were not his mother and brothers "in the Lord," but the people who follow God's will are his mother and brothers "in the Lord." Got it.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 22, 2016, 11:44:48 AM
So Jesus' mother and brothers "in the Lord" came when they thought he'd gone insane, and Jesus said that his mother and brothers "in the Lord" were not his mother and brothers "in the Lord," but the people who follow God's will are his mother and brothers "in the Lord." Got it.
Essentially you decide what you WANT it to say and then you keep reading until you find something which supports that, being sure to make special note of anything you find which may discredit you and any parts which then discredit
that. It's a process.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 22, 2016, 11:44:48 AM
So Jesus' mother and brothers "in the Lord" came when they thought he'd gone insane, and Jesus said that his mother and brothers "in the Lord" were not his mother and brothers "in the Lord," but the people who follow God's will are his mother and brothers "in the Lord." Got it.
Greatest Jewish mother fail of all time. But the "naches" aka pride, was top shekel.
Quote from: SGOS on June 21, 2016, 05:04:30 PM
The first time I read that as a little kid, I thought Jesus' behavior was so awful that it sickened me.
Meshugunah is the Hebrew word. Last Temptation of Christ is more accurate. Sex starved maniac.