Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

I kinda want to die

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#21  Postby pelfdaddy » Aug 26, 2017 2:54 pm

True. I should know. I've often been a bystander.
pelfdaddy
 
Posts: 1022
Age: 54
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#22  Postby mingthething » Nov 24, 2017 6:14 am

"A massive assumption is that organisms that share similar DNA are more closely related than those that have different DNA. Makes sense when you have a pre-existing theory to “ram” things into. Where are the links between?"..... I suppose you should have asked him whether he believed in the validity of paternity testing and DNA genealogic trees. :clap: :clap: :clap:
User avatar
mingthething
 
Name: Lee
Posts: 185

Country: Singapore
Malaysia (my)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#23  Postby Rumraket » Nov 24, 2017 6:25 am

mingthething wrote:"A massive assumption is that organisms that share similar DNA are more closely related than those that have different DNA. Makes sense when you have a pre-existing theory to “ram” things into. Where are the links between?"..... I suppose you should have asked him whether he believed in the validity of paternity testing and DNA genealogic trees. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Why does this person look more like his biological parents, than he looks like his neighbor? Why does his biological parents look more like their biological parents?

Suppose you copy a string of DNA, then introduce a single mutation. Then you copy those two copies again, introduce a mutation more in each. Then do it again.

Isn't it rather obvious that, the more generations of copying and mutation that pass, the more different they become? Isn't it rather obvious that those copies with fewer changes separating them, have usually also had fewer generations separating them?

Why can creationists not reason out simple things like these?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#24  Postby felltoearth » Nov 24, 2017 1:13 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Why does this person look more like his biological parents, than he looks like his neighbor?

Maybe he looks more like his mom and neighbour than his "dad" and neighbour. It can be confusing. :shifty:
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 13928
Age: 53

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#25  Postby Calilasseia » Nov 24, 2017 2:56 pm

Given how many creationists are the products of recursive genealogy, it's no wonder some of them are puzzled by inheritance ...
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22075
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#26  Postby Rumraket » Nov 24, 2017 7:00 pm

Recursive genealogy... :rofl:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#27  Postby Agrippina » Nov 25, 2017 9:31 am

I have family members who are deeply religious on Facebook, and others who are rabid atheists. I avoid religious discussions outside of groups because it's not a place for serious discussion. To me it's just a place to keep extended family up to date with our latest doings, and to drop hints to the ones who might tell me they're praying for me that their whisperings will fall on deaf ears. So I post "sciencey" links, but also pictures of puppies, and links to vegan sites, so they're completely clear about what will set me off on a lecture.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#28  Postby mingthething » Nov 28, 2017 9:21 am

Calilasseia wrote:Given how many creationists are the products of recursive genealogy, it's no wonder some of them are puzzled by inheritance ...


No proof of that. Not enough transitional fossils. ( I can't take credit for this .... someone else posted it in another forum)
User avatar
mingthething
 
Name: Lee
Posts: 185

Country: Singapore
Malaysia (my)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#29  Postby zulumoose » Nov 28, 2017 9:30 am

Not enough transitional fossils


Here is an appropriate transitional fossil

Image
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 3624

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#30  Postby Agrippina » Nov 28, 2017 9:52 am

:rofl:
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#31  Postby Wortfish » Dec 16, 2017 7:09 pm

It might be worthwhile debating creationists about arguments for "bad design" considering that Creation magazine and journal have devoted a lot of attention to refuting the dysteleological argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49wA6lDj6Cg
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#32  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 16, 2017 7:24 pm

Wortfish wrote:It might be worthwhile debating creationists about arguments for "bad design" considering that Creation magazine and journal have devoted a lot of attention to refuting the dysteleological argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49wA6lDj6Cg

Have spend a lot of time demonstrating profound ignorance, incredulity and a dearth of evidence, you mean?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31073
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#33  Postby Calilasseia » Dec 17, 2017 3:49 pm

Just because a set of processes produce an entity with a function, doesn't mean for one moment that those processes began with the intent to hit that target. Even more so if the processes in question are manifestly bereft of sentience.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22075
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#34  Postby Wortfish » Dec 19, 2017 2:16 am

Calilasseia wrote:Just because a set of processes produce an entity with a function, doesn't mean for one moment that those processes began with the intent to hit that target. Even more so if the processes in question are manifestly bereft of sentience.


That begs the question as to how you can determine the absence of intetionality and sentience. I have eyes, I can see, who's to say someone wanted me to see with them?
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#35  Postby Sendraks » Dec 20, 2017 11:19 am

Wortfish wrote:
That begs the question as to how you can determine the absence of intetionality and sentience.


It is called evidence. Specifically the lack thereof to support the notion that intentionality and sentience were in any way present.

Wortfish wrote: I have eyes, I can see, who's to say someone wanted me to see with them?

In the absence of evidence, you can entertain whatever fanciful notions you like but, there's no reason for anyone to give them the time of day.

That which is supplied without evidence can be disregarded without evidence.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#36  Postby Calilasseia » Dec 20, 2017 3:28 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Just because a set of processes produce an entity with a function, doesn't mean for one moment that those processes began with the intent to hit that target. Even more so if the processes in question are manifestly bereft of sentience.


That begs the question as to how you can determine the absence of intetionality and sentience.


It also begs the question as to how you can determine the presence of intentionality and sentience. Which, as relevant researchers have established, is a hard question to answer. It's why Dumbski failed.

Wortfish wrote:I have eyes, I can see, who's to say someone wanted me to see with them?


Is there any reason that an entity of the requisite sort should exist? "I'm here, therefore someone must have wanted me to be here", is classic Douglas Adams' Puddle pseudo-thinking. At least, with respect to entities other than your parents.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22075
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#37  Postby Wortfish » Dec 26, 2017 12:34 am

Calilasseia wrote:
It also begs the question as to how you can determine the presence of intentionality and sentience. Which, as relevant researchers have established, is a hard question to answer. It's why Dumbski failed.

Well, radio astronomers have developed ways of looking for both in radio waves from outer space.

Is there any reason that an entity of the requisite sort should exist? "I'm here, therefore someone must have wanted me to be here", is classic Douglas Adams' Puddle pseudo-thinking. At least, with respect to entities other than your parents.

The purpose of eyes may be for seeing, not just surviving.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#38  Postby LucidFlight » Dec 26, 2017 2:09 am

Indeed, the design of the eye may be based on an intention to enjoy the perception of photons, not just for the purpose of finding food and avoiding danger, but also for an organism to truly enjoy a very narrow band of electromagnetic radiation.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10801
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#39  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 26, 2017 2:21 am

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
It also begs the question as to how you can determine the presence of intentionality and sentience. Which, as relevant researchers have established, is a hard question to answer. It's why Dumbski failed.

Well, radio astronomers have developed ways of looking for both in radio waves from outer space.

Is there any reason that an entity of the requisite sort should exist? "I'm here, therefore someone must have wanted me to be here", is classic Douglas Adams' Puddle pseudo-thinking. At least, with respect to entities other than your parents.

The purpose of eyes may be for seeing, not just surviving.

Two assertion bombs in two sentences!

Listen, man. I admit I enjoy watching creationist tripe casually demolished as much as the next man. But, I take it you never studied Sun Tzu?


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21025
Age: 57
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Debating Creationist Friends on Facebook

#40  Postby pelfdaddy » Dec 27, 2017 5:09 am

Whichever prick-ass Magical Entity it was who designed my wife's eyes clearly had in mind the intent that she would go blind at age 40. Not to be inflammatory or anything, but since we're talking teleology, I mean, you know...I'm just saying.

Of course, owing to modern surgical techniques, which don't waste time wondering which prick-ass magical entities are playing these cruel games, it is a matter of routine to restore the health and function of her eyes to actually better-than-new. MUCH better-than-new.

For any Christians who may be reading this; I'll call it a Praise Report.
pelfdaddy
 
Posts: 1022
Age: 54
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest