Debunk Creationist Arguments

Need help with rebuttals to these articles and arguments

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Debunk Creationist Arguments

#1  Postby ultravegetto » Jan 23, 2019 1:43 pm

1. 11 Major Arguments against Evolution
https://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/12 ... evolution/

2. 22 Falsifications of Evolution!
https://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2015/09 ... evolution/

3. Cell Biologist: Let's Replace Darwin by Studying DNA and Genetics
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2017/oc ... d-genetics

4. Evolutionists Deny Real Science || Why Nesslig & Ration alMind Failed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Gm_JoHZWY

Question: Can you help with rebuttals to these articles and videos?

Thanks in advance.
ultravegetto
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google



Re: Debunk Creationist Arguments

#3  Postby Fenrir » Jan 23, 2019 11:17 pm

Hmm

So I opened the first link.

22 Falsifications of evilution!!1!eleventy!!

There are 9 dot points in the first 3 "falsifications"

Every single one is a lie

What's to debunk?


"In all of these efforts, [to promote creationism in schools] the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must."
--William J. Bennetta, from "Alabama Will Use Schoolbooks to Spread Lies and Foster Creationism"
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3617
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: Debunk Creationist Arguments

#4  Postby Just A Theory » Jan 24, 2019 2:01 am

Briefly:

1. Catastrophism (as creationists use it) is not a useful worldview. It is essentially an appeal to the supernatural whereby literally anything may happen "by the will of god". If that is your worldview then it is useless to ever seek the meaning of anything or explore the mechanism of action of any phenomenon because it can change on the whim of an invisible entity. Such a worldview allows for no scientific progress, prediction of future events or even certainty in the present.

2. Their genetic argument is simply an argument from personal incredulity and can thus be dismissed out of hand. Just because a creationist cannot understand how things can occur does not mean that they did not occur. Furthermore, the assertion that evolution would predict the number of genetic differences between species is particularly absurd. That assertion fails to understand the reality of convergent evolution and that most mutations are neutral.

3. This argument misrepresents Haldane's paper and also fails to consider the effect of neutral mutations. Haldane found that beneficial mutations become fixed only pfix ≈ 2s of the time. A new mutation that improves fitness by s = 0.001 must therefore appear by mutation on average 1/pfix = 500 times in the population before being fixed by natural selection. There are several mechanisms that get around this probability. Firstly, neutral mutations may spread throughout the population and only become beneficial when environmental circumstances change. Secondly, gene duplication allows for essentially unrestricted mutation of the duplicated gene which skews Haldane's results markedly.

4. This is a wild misrepresentation of carbon dating. The carbon doesn't vanish after 10 half lives, it simply becomes indistinguishable from background after that time. The presence of radioactive carbon in the sample is then therefore much more likely to be explained via contamination. Note that the creationist carefully doesn't provide sources for their claims of "millions of years old" samples having C14 - this is a standard rhetorical trick that they use. In all such instances, it was later found that the C14 presence was better explained by experimental error or contamination of the sample.

5. Social Darwinism is not evolution, it is a debunked philosophy that emerged in the late 19th century as people attempted to use Darwin's work as justification for their racist endeavours. However, it's a bit rich when a creationist claims that their religion isn't racist as can be seen clearly in Deuteronomy 7 (amongst others):

When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2 and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles[b] and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession


That'll do to go on with :)
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1403
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Debunk Creationist Arguments

#5  Postby laklak » Jan 24, 2019 3:04 am

They won't listen, so don't waste your breath.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Debunk Creationist Arguments

#6  Postby Hermit » Jan 24, 2019 5:00 am

Once upon a time in a land far away there lived a creationist with a cunning plan. In order to convert atheists he joined a forum where atheists hang out and posted a message with links to sites that debunked evolutionism. By asking them for help rebutting the debunkings, he'd trick them into reading THE TRUTH™ - which is something they had obviously never done before, for had they read THE TRUTH™ already, they would no longer be atheists, would they? Therefore, having read THE TRUTH™ at last, theese forum members will be overwhelmed by its wisdom and become believers in the LORD. Amen!

Trickery is not particularly Christian, except when it is practised for JESUS, so our creationist's conscience was clear.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4385
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: Debunk Creationist Arguments

#7  Postby Alan B » Jan 24, 2019 11:03 am

Yep. If atheists can't debunk the OP's list, therefore God...

Transparent or what?
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9999
Age: 84
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debunk Creationist Arguments

#8  Postby ultravegetto » Jan 24, 2019 11:22 am

Hermit wrote:Once upon a time in a land far away there lived a creationist with a cunning plan. In order to convert atheists he joined a forum where atheists hang out and posted a message with links to sites that debunked evolutionism. By asking them for help rebutting the debunkings, he'd trick them into reading THE TRUTH™ - which is something they had obviously never done before, for had they read THE TRUTH™ already, they would no longer be atheists, would they? Therefore, having read THE TRUTH™ at last, theese forum members will be overwhelmed by its wisdom and become believers in the LORD. Amen!

Trickery is not particularly Christian, except when it is practised for JESUS, so our creationist's conscience was clear.


I'm not trying to trick you, I'm promise. I really do need help trying to debunk those articles because the guy in the youtube video named Standing for Truth, one of members in the comments section posted those links.

To summarize the guy in the youtube (Standing for Truth) uses the origin of language to support creationism. If you see my first post under "Studies Creationist Use:"

Then someone on youtube in the comments section posted this article "22 Falsifications of Evolution!"

So can you guys / girls help or not? Or can I post their arguments and can you help provide articles to disprove their claims?

For example; Creationist like to use Mitochondrial Eve and chromosome y Adam to support their biblical account, but i point out that the articles they posted say Eve was around 200,000 years, but they ignore that the 200,000 years part but only focus on the Eve part.

At the very least can you guys/girls help with the biology department, I can manage with the physics part.
ultravegetto
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Debunk Creationist Arguments

#9  Postby Fenrir » Jan 24, 2019 11:42 am

Sigh

Mitochondrial Eve and y chromosome adam most likely did not live at the same time or at the same place, nor are they in any way,shape or form the first people.

Mitochondrial Eve is not a fixed person. In another generation she will likely be a different person at a different time and likely a different place. Same with y chromosomal Adam.

The creationist thinking goes no deeper than noting that the geneticists who figured it out named them after mythical Adam and Eve...therefore God.

We simply wouldn't have this stupidity if they'd been named Ask and Embla after the first humans in Norse mythology.

The creationists are well aware of all this. Continuing to repeat this crap is simply lying.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3617
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: Debunk Creationist Arguments

#10  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 24, 2019 1:45 pm

ultravegetto wrote:
Hermit wrote:Once upon a time in a land far away there lived a creationist with a cunning plan. In order to convert atheists he joined a forum where atheists hang out and posted a message with links to sites that debunked evolutionism. By asking them for help rebutting the debunkings, he'd trick them into reading THE TRUTH™ - which is something they had obviously never done before, for had they read THE TRUTH™ already, they would no longer be atheists, would they? Therefore, having read THE TRUTH™ at last, theese forum members will be overwhelmed by its wisdom and become believers in the LORD. Amen!

Trickery is not particularly Christian, except when it is practised for JESUS, so our creationist's conscience was clear.


I'm not trying to trick you, I'm promise. I really do need help trying to debunk those articles because the guy in the youtube video named Standing for Truth, one of members in the comments section posted those links.

To summarize the guy in the youtube (Standing for Truth) uses the origin of language to support creationism. If you see my first post under "Studies Creationist Use:"

Then someone on youtube in the comments section posted this article "22 Falsifications of Evolution!"

So can you guys / girls help or not? Or can I post their arguments and can you help provide articles to disprove their claims?

For example; Creationist like to use Mitochondrial Eve and chromosome y Adam to support their biblical account, but i point out that the articles they posted say Eve was around 200,000 years, but they ignore that the 200,000 years part but only focus on the Eve part.

At the very least can you guys/girls help with the biology department, I can manage with the physics part.

The issue is that what the creationists provide is largely if not completely, extracted from their rectum or the rectum of creation sources.
"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: 31087
Age: 31
Male

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

Re: Debunk Creationist Arguments

#11  Postby Alan B » Jan 24, 2019 3:08 pm

All creation arguments rely, in the final analysis, on a supernatural agent 'doing something'.

Without that idée fixe there is no basis (in their minds) for their arguments against, or objections to, evidential knowledge.

Picking holes in scientific evidence will not 'suddenly' reveal this 'God' or its 'actions'. They must start from square one: their belief!

So, what they must do first is to prove (or show evidence of) the existence of an interface between a non-physical supernatural entity and a physical Universe (or even a physical human being will do). They must then describe the precise nature of the interface, how it is implemented, what 'connections' are used and the translation 'mechanism' across the interface. Bearing in mind, of course, that one side of the interface must be entirely non-physical such that no physical measuring device can detect its presence and that the other side must exist solely in the physical Universe.

If they are successful in producing peer reviewed evidence of the existence of a supernatural deity, then the atheists will lose their non-belief and the theists will lose their belief - in both cases to be replaced by evidential knowledge.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9999
Age: 84
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debunk Creationist Arguments

#12  Postby Just A Theory » Jan 28, 2019 9:06 pm

ultravegetto wrote:

So can you guys / girls help or not? Or can I post their arguments and can you help provide articles to disprove their claims?


Did my post above not help? Do you need anything clarified from it?

For example; Creationist like to use Mitochondrial Eve and chromosome y Adam to support their biblical account, but i point out that the articles they posted say Eve was around 200,000 years, but they ignore that the 200,000 years part but only focus on the Eve part.

At the very least can you guys/girls help with the biology department, I can manage with the physics part.


As Fenrir pointed out, Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam almost certainly never met. Furthermore, the identify of both of those individuals changes with each subsequent generation and changes drastically if undiscovered tribes of humans are found or lineages die out. In no way, shape or form is either mt Eve or yc Adam the first human. By definition, they inherited their DNA from someone and that someone is an earlier human. For creationists to claim that mt Eve or yc Adam is the first human, they assume their conclusion that a god exists and created Eve and Adam.
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1403
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Debunk Creationist Arguments

#13  Postby Rumraket » Jan 30, 2019 12:40 pm

Just A Theory wrote:

4. This is a wild misrepresentation of carbon dating. The carbon doesn't vanish after 10 half lives, it simply becomes indistinguishable from background after that time. The presence of radioactive carbon in the sample is then therefore much more likely to be explained via contamination. Note that the creationist carefully doesn't provide sources for their claims of "millions of years old" samples having C14 - this is a standard rhetorical trick that they use. In all such instances, it was later found that the C14 presence was better explained by experimental error or contamination of the sample.

I'd like to point out that this is actaully not true, and in fact it has been shown that even several hundred million year old samples contain non-neglible amounts of intrinsic C14.

That C14, however, turns out to be continously generated by neutron radiation from nearby radioactive elements in the rocklayers between which the carbon of interest(be it coal, diamond, natural gas, tars, crude oil or whatever) s found.

It was something of a mystery for a time why such old carbon sources contained C14 as it was thought (correctly) that the cosmic radiation responsible for generating atmospheric C14 could not penetrate the crust to the depths in which coal and so on is found. However, in calculating the expected C14 contents of ground fossil hydrocarbons, geologists had neglected to consider intrinsic neutron radiation generated by the slow continous decay of radioactive isotopes usually found in the types of rocks where one also find fossil hydrocarbons.

A PhD thesis was written a few years ago in which it is shown that intrinsic C14 production by neutron radiation is unavoidable and in fact does fully account for the observed levels of C14 in fossil hydrocarbons:
C14.png
C14.png (14.94 KiB) Viewed 1725 times


Of course, all of this still goes to ram a freight-train straight through the usual creationist bullshit.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post


Re: Debunk Creationist Arguments

#15  Postby Just A Theory » Jan 31, 2019 5:03 am

Well thanks Rumraket, I've learned something about C14 today :)
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1403
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debunk Creationist Arguments

#16  Postby ultravegetto » Feb 06, 2019 11:13 pm

Thanks everyone for your help.

I also found Tony Reed on YouTube. His videos are excellent and I love the way he lays out his videos.

@Just A Theory

Yes, your post helped a lot, first I was replying to "Hermit" claim that I was trying to trick you people. and second I didn't fully understand how to debunk creationist claims about biology i.e. Mitochondrial Eve and Macro-Evolution and Origin of Language.
ultravegetto
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 4

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Debunk Creationist Arguments

#17  Postby Cito di Pense » Feb 07, 2019 7:52 am

ultravegetto wrote:can you guys/girls help with the biology department, I can manage with the physics part.


Somehow, I doubt that.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Debunk Creationist Arguments

#18  Postby Spearthrower » May 16, 2019 3:29 am

ultravegetto wrote:
I'm not trying to trick you, I'm promise. I really do need help trying to debunk those articles because the guy in the youtube video named Standing for Truth, one of members in the comments section posted those links.



I appreciate this guy/gal isn't here anymore, but I don't get this kind of thinking.

If you're not capable of debunking something due to not possessing the technical knowledge necessary, then don't debunk it. Pretending you can via getting someone else to give you a very shallow overview isn't helping anyone or anything. It's basically what Creationists do.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27932
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Debunk Creationist Arguments

#19  Postby Hermit » May 16, 2019 5:33 am

Spearthrower wrote:
ultravegetto wrote:
I'm not trying to trick you, I'm promise. I really do need help trying to debunk those articles because the guy in the youtube video named Standing for Truth, one of members in the comments section posted those links.

I appreciate this guy/gal isn't here anymore, but I don't get this kind of thinking.

If you're not capable of debunking something due to not possessing the technical knowledge necessary, then don't debunk it. Pretending you can via getting someone else to give you a very shallow overview isn't helping anyone or anything. It's basically what Creationists do.

ultravegetto was not seeking help for debunking creationist arguments. He just linked four creationist links for us to read, using the pretext that he needs help debunking them. It's an old trick. He hoped that we read it and one or more of us will become persuaded by them.

Feel free to check if anyone using the alias of ultravegetto has posted dissenting opinions in the comment sections of the sites he linked to since he thanked us in general and Just A Theory in particular for our valuable help.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4385
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: Debunk Creationist Arguments

#20  Postby Spearthrower » May 16, 2019 5:47 am

That's certainly a possibility, although I wouldn't say it's a certainty. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt until doing so would just be naive.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27932
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Next

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest