Comments for Creationists Believe the Darndest Things at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 198 out of 20 comments http://www.randi.org/site Sat, 25 May 2013 10:25:32 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-10177 Please refrain from personal attacks. They don't add anything to the discussion no matter how satisfying the release of frustration may feel. I just wonder sometimes. Where was God standing when he made the world, and what was he wearing? - John Doe Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:07:34 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9995 The interesting thing about the "in the image of god" is that there are a few problems even with this idea. If we take this notion at face value, it intimates that 'god' has the same form, same functions, same biology, same anatomy, and so on. This in itself begs the question as to why such an extra-universal being would be constructed in a form as menial as that of us in this universe and be capable of possessing such powers. Is this being just in another universe with technology that can cross universal boundaries? It gets a bit too science fiction for believability. If we take it as metaphorical, then we are made of the same spiritual stuff. This is an old idea of humans having a 'soul' or each individual having a small part of a divine spark embedded within them. This notion is unevidenced though and just cries "woo-woo" a lot. I'll go with sentient hominids and be done with the fantastical meanderings. - Kuroyume Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:27:28 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9987 truth6413: Answer me this. If you contracted a life-threatening staph. aureus infection (say, MRSA), would you be happy to accept a course of Penicillin to treat it? If not then why not? If evolution doesn't exist then Penicillin should be fine for MRSA. - Crundy Mon, 24 Aug 2009 03:49:32 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9951 Thank you, it is important to point out and remind people: Gravity is a theory. Quantum Mechanics is a theory. e = mc^2 is a theory. You rarely hear people proposing that the reason people do not fall off the earth is because the Flying Spaghetti Monster is holding people down with his noodly appendages .... Evolution is one (though not the only one) of the most problematic theories for religionists because it demonstrates that a divinity may not be necessary, and, far more importantly, that humans are not "special," not in "the image and likeness of god" (Genesis/b'reishit), that we are "merely" sentient hominids and not incarnate souls whom the deities love. That can be a wrenching discovery for a theist ....... - StarTrekLivz Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:21:08 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9909 i have previously stated on here that evolution is a fact. Others have come back and said that isn't fair it is only theory. LETS MAKE THIS PERFECTLY CLEAR: You can state that evolution is a fact or a theory. You can also state that gravity is a fact or a theory. Its the same thing. There is a theory of gravity. No one has a definitive idea of how it works ... but to suggest that their is no gravity is ignorance. There is a theory of evolution. But just as gravity is a "fact" evolution is a "fact". The "mechanisms" of how evolution works are still being debated. But you get some ignorant TROLL f*ckwit like tRUTH on here suggesting that evolution isn't science but belongs up their with the loch ness monster and gOD is just plain ignorant and stupid. Or do I need to explain my postion a fraction more clearly. - Bill Henry Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:36:09 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9902 To qualify my last post and clarify what science is versus what it is not: In the end, scientific theories are just human-made explanations using analogies (explanatory models) and mathematics (rigorous models) in order to understand how something observed works in reality to some approximation. We can all argue about the validity of scientific theories since they are vulnerable to human errancy ("to err is human..."). But the things upon which scientific theories are constructed, the evidence, the observations, the carefully designed and independently verified experiments, are not as arguable. That biological evolution ocurred on Earth is not in dispute by anybody with sentient faculties. At first, it was based on some localized observations. But as time has gone by, it has become glaringly apparent that such a process has been indisputably working on biological organisms on this planet. After the localized observations, it was the fossil and geological records. To this day, these continue to dump truck-loads of evidence into the bin that supports this process. Then there is genetics, genetic lineage, population distributions, and ecosystems. And microorganism mutations and evolution which further support this. The FACT is that if biological evolution weren't a fact, the entire premise on which we do many things (biology, biochemistry, medicine, immunology, anatomy, genetics, geology, paleontology, archaeology, and many, many subsciences) would collapse. Last time that I peeked out the window, science in general was fairing rather superbly. Science isn't about making up stuff and then trying to fit reality into the paradigm (though some try). It is about observing, hypothesizing on those observations, and then performing experiments to find the best hypothesis to explain the observations. Noone is trying to fit fossils, DNA, and the myriads of other evidence into some preconceived notion so as to make Evolutionary Theory look good. Evolutionary Theory is continually stratified by new information which supports and expands it. That's the thing. The basic premise of the theory has held true for over 150 years. The devil (pardon the expression) is in the details. And we are fleshing out those details continuously so as to have a more accurate theory. That is how science works. Not in a vacuum or in a dogma but in a dynamic evolution of its own. Even the concept of 'evolution' has changed our perspective. We not only look at the evolution of biological life but the planet (plate techtonics and so on), the solar system, galaxies, yay, even the universe. It shows how powerful a concept it is - and how overbearing in the natural processes of the universe. No wonder Creationists/IDers rail against it! It competes in scope against their fantastical deities because it is a concept that applies to so many things. Maybe this is why they feel particularly threatened. - Kuroyume Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:07:52 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9896 [quote]What if some sort of god or supreme being is the cause of evolution, rather than the antithesis?[/quote] Doesn't matter. In the eyes of the scientific method, it is the process not a hypothetical (more on that shortly) cause which is the most important aspect. Worse, implying supernatural causes for anything in science is beyond its purview. It is only interested in natural causes and processes. [quote]On a slightly separate topic: I was reading through the first half or so of the posts, and saw a reoccuring theme of "evolution isn't up for debate." Now I believe whole-heartedly in evolution myself, but this attitude defeats the entire purpose of science. If we didn't constantly challenge ideas that were still theories until we could prove them beyond a reasonable doubt, we'd be worshipping the sun and dancing for rain. I'm not saying that there aren't facts supporting it; I'm saying that we shouldn't look down our noses at those that don't believe it. It is still a theory, after all.[/quote] 1. A scientific theory is the best tentative explanation for observed facts. A theory can always be supplanted by a better explanation but usually is only superceded while remaining a theory itself (see Newton's Theory of Gravity vs. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity). But it sets itself apart from hypotheses by having been evidenced through experimentation. Evolutionary "Theory" is not a hypothesis. It is a scientific theory. That means that it is the best explanation for the supporting evidence and has arrived there by validating experiments. 2. That evolution ocurred on the planet we call Earth, starting about 4 billion years ago, is a fact. The problem is that Evolutionary Theory isn't a single statement (that Charles Darwin made back in the mid 1800's like most Cretonists would like it to be). Natural Selection was the foundation. Since then it has been expanded and refined many thousands of times - the Theory of Evolution has evolved (amazing). Currently, it is about 99.99999% the best explanation with mountains and mountains of backing evidence making it one of the strongest scientific theories there is! Not even our theories of Gravity are as strong (since there are still many unknowns such as a gravity particle - graviton). Yeah, it's only a 'theory'. - Kuroyume Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:01:57 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9895 [quote]What if some sort of god or supreme being is the cause of evolution, rather than the antithesis? [/quote] You still have the problem of zero evidence for this supreme being. And what cause IT to come into existence, and where has it been all this time? - Steel Rat Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:01:16 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9892 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution it took less than 15 seconds to find this ... the article references articles and links for a more thorough examination. - StarTrekLivz Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:54:09 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9891 Now, I myself am an athiest, but allow me to throw another argument into the arena? What if some sort of god or supreme being is the [u]cause[/u] of evolution, rather than the antithesis? I understand that most creationists say that evolution is false. It's usually their religions that pound that into their heads while they're still soft. There are some people out there, however, that don't believe in evolution but aren't religious either. I have a friend that falls into the latter category (and is one of the most down-to-earth people I know), and this is what he vehemently believes. On a slightly separate topic: I was reading through the first half or so of the posts, and saw a reoccuring theme of "evolution isn't up for debate." Now I believe whole-heartedly in evolution myself, but this attitude defeats the entire purpose of science. If we didn't constantly challenge ideas that were still theories until we could prove them beyond a reasonable doubt, we'd be worshipping the sun and dancing for rain. I'm not saying that there aren't facts supporting it; I'm saying that we shouldn't look down our noses at those that don't believe it. It is still a theory, after all. To wrap this up, I have a small request: Do any of you know the case of the moths that lived in a predominantly white-bark forest, but when a factory was build nearby and the trees became spotted with pollution, they began to be born with black spots? That's always been one of my favorite bits of evidence. - Papercut Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:50:02 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9890 Ah, @truth, what a sad, sad person you are. >:( You accuse me of hypocracy for singing in the choir of an Episcopal church with my family. You also completely missed my reference to studying the weekly Torah portion so when I drive my mother to Temple I can keep her on the right page of the Siddur. Yes, I drive my mother to a Reform Temple on Saturday mornings (some of my cousins are Conservative) and hold the prayerbook for her, and eat bagels with soft cream cheese & lox with her afterwards. I sing in the choir in Church because I enjoy the music (our repertoire includes Brahms, Bach, Mozart, Vivaldi, Tallis, Byrd, Praetorius, Rutter, Stainer, Sullivan, Langlais) and for the camaraderie. It also makes the Christian members of my family happy. Do you not understand that I love my family, and am quite happy to make this small sacrifice of time and attention for them? That I do get genuine pleasure from the music and the fellowship (the new cantor at Mom's Temple is REALLY good)? Have you never done something for a loved one, attend a concert, a show, a sports events, a movie, a craft show, that you would rather not, but because it is important to the loved one, and the relationship is important to you, you do it any way? If not, how very sad. Besides, I am amazed that you would criticize me for religious attendance -- if there were something to it, don't you think this would provide God with abundant opportunities to "get through" to me? Convince me I am wrong and that S/He exists? You should encourage me to go to MORE services! - StarTrekLivz Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:30:49 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9882 My wife received no attention on this site at all except yours sonny. Being a teacher herself for 30 years she doubts you are a teacher, and says she has known a lot of Christians like you. Smug, condescending and wrong. You should not be a science teacher without at least understanding scienctific process. To make remarks like you do certainly confirms you as a troll and a tiresome prick. - Bill Henry Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:55:31 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9881 Again, the questions aren't answered (big surprise). And no mention of how I was rude. Here are the questions again, in case you've forgotten: 1) What about your theory (Creationism) is testable and falsifiable? 2)If you believe evolution is falsified as a theory, what are the falsifications? (FYI, because you think something or system is too complex to have evolved doesn't mean it didn't. Your example isn't a falsification) Remember, this is about what Creationists believe... - Steel Rat Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:47:30 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9879 Ben- it is refreshiing to have a cool-headed exchange for once. I appreciate your well worded and informative, non-adversarial responses. As for the "odds" subject, I have heard the snowflake, rainbow examples before as evidence that order can arise from chaos. But the system we have discussed, not to mention the myriad others (digestive,reproductive,nervous)are ones I have a difficult time accepting as results from natural selection. This is not so much an endorsement for creationism as it is a comment about evolution. Again, I appreciate your demeanor. Perhaps the steel rats, startreklivz's, and the Mr and Mrs Henry's on this site can take some notes from you. And not to stir up another hornet's nest, but Mrs. Henry- you are receiving a much more favorable reception on this site only because of your disagreement with me. Trust me, introducing yourself as a Christian to these folks requires a thick skin under normal circumstances. Several of these posters even doubt that Jesus lived from an HISTORICAL perspective. And another is a confirmed atheist who sings in a WORSHIP choir just to appease his family. And these are the ones who dare accuse others of hypocrisy. Truly astounding. - truth6413@yahoo.com Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:43:03 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9874 Truth???? A teacher? If you are then God help our children. A Christian? Then God help my faith. A troll? Truth prevails. Get a life!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Moose Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:35:23 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9873 Gone for a couple of days and I missed all the fireworks! So much I could have pointed out to truth-less... I read the KJV Wholly Babble cover to cover while in college, gave up religion for Lent and never looked back (30 years ago now). Many have pointed out the contradictions I would nave mentioned regarding creation and how it doesn't even come close to the evidence discovered in many areas of science. Thanks for taking the airhead to task as I would have. One thing that I still find surprising is that many skeptics still regard Jeezy Creezy as a real person who must have had a following. Nothing could be further from the truth. JC, like the Babble, is purely fiction and virtually identical to pagan myths before Christ-insanity grew roots. In the time period of the peak of Rome there was a raging battle going on over who was the real son of gawd - Mithra or JC. You know who won, and now also know why any other god is dismissed as a 'myth'. Enjoyed the pummeling you all gave to fly brain. Good work everyone. - Kajabla61 Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:21:51 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9870 Everytime someone mentions that the Bible is the 'direct word of God' or inerrant, the 'Copy of a copy' song plays in my head. May be sort of 'lalalala' but then I too have been there and did that. Despite what 'truth' may think, I was once a devout Christian nearly entering Seminary and read the tome from cover to cover (KJV). And since then I've done a bit of biblical study to discover what reality lies below the surface. The history and blindly accepted facts are even more tantalizing and interesting than the book itself. The Quelle document, for instance, makes for an intriguing hypothesis. Less pleasure and more hope that even a modicum of the information or resources provided will seep into his brain and erode the implacable wall that separates him from most of humanity (?). I do agree that there isn't must to work with. - Kuroyume Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:04:51 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9869 Thank you! My bachelors degree is liberal arts (from a liberal arts college affiliated with a Christian denomination, I might add); masters is business specific from a Michigan public university (CMU). Like you, I do read science though not at your level, also history & theology. Because of my family's background, I do a LOT in religion, including study of Bible and theology, sometimes in original languages (Hebrew, Greek, Latin, though my family regards Luther's "Heilige Schrift" as authoritative rather than King James English -- it's one of the reasons why I know an inerrantist interpretation of the Bible cannot be true because what we read is translation, and translation depends on the agenda/bias/knowledge of the translator of what we read). On the one hand, I have to admit I get some pleasure from "debating" him though I certainly do not regard him as an intellectual equal (rather contempuous of me, I admit.) But he does have an interesting ability to hijack the discussions on the jref.org web page. I think we do jref.org a disservice by debating him as an equal: his world-view is so foreign to ours, while I would like to bring him into the Real World, he is so immured in phantasy I could be just wasting my time and effort. And I've got other things to do, and limited time to do them. :) - StarTrekLivz Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:26:04 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9867 Good research. Excellent reasoning. I think the same. How could a teacher, especially a science teacher, be so woefully shortcoming in all of the minimally required facilities to teach science? I'm twenty times more qualified and my degree is an Associates in Electro-Mechanical Design and Drafting. Of course, while I didn't take many science courses in high school (besides the required Chemistry and Biology), I've since read hundreds of books on Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry, Evolutionary Theory, required maths, etc., including textbooks and doing the work. While I might not comprehend the Tensor maths and Reimannian spaces involved in the rigorous Special and General Theories of Relativity, I do indeed understand the theories well enough to agree with their validity. - Kuroyume Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:04:27 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/678-creationists-believe-the-darndest-things.html#comment-9866 I did a search for truthnnn@yahoo, and found someone in Tupelo, MS. I cannot verify that this is the same person as the troll on this web page. I suspect @truth is NOT teaching in a public school. Given his inabilities to sustain an argument, his ignorance of science and bible, I have postulated that he is actually an 8th grade student, not, as he claims, a science teacher. His vocabulary, knowledge of science, etc. are about that level -- and I live in Detroit, a school system NOT noted for scholastic excellence. If he's really teaching science in a public school, but has not mastered what the Detroit Public School system requires of 8th graders, it is an indication of the sad state of education in the USA. Should he be the science teacher he claims to be, I am reasonably certain he got his "degree" from some non-accredited Bible college and is currently teaching at a "Christian" academy where they are more particular about religous orthodoxy than academic achievement. I could be wrong, of course. Even the very religious members of my family would be interested in this guy, and rooting him out of a public school system -- they would NOT want their kids exposed to his idea of "religion" -- they take their kids to services and religious education on their own, and do not want public schools or teachers to dish it out. - StarTrekLivz Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:47:57 +0100