Some of what I dislike about creationists stems from their basic epistemological premises. For instance the idea that belief in an idea ipso facto makes it correct. The harder you believe in something, the more correct you are. Of course this idea is just one of the pathologically shitty ideas creationists come up with; it gets worse.
Because in their epistemology if you believe something, and their magic book of choice happens to mention it in passing, well then Goddidit and no further explanation is needed. It must nice to be dishonest and lazy when it comes to backing up and relating your ideas to the world. Dear reader, I hear you saying, “But Arbourist, this is a rational humanist blog where is your evidence?” Praise the Four-Cheezes patience, gentle reader the mighty wordpress has come to the rescue.
There is a handy feature in wordpress where you can search tags people make for the content of their posts. The posts I tag with “creationism” are much different much much that appears in that category. Take for instance, this noxious little gem of stupidity which we are going to examine with some detail.
What can we prove?
The truth is that no one can prove evolution or creation. We have the same evidence, but no one alive today was an eye witness to the origins of man, and neither of the claims of the creationist and the evolutionist can be observed today. We can only study the result.
*splat* That was my cerebral cortex recoiling in horror at the level of stupid in this one small quotation (there is more friends, but my little cortex is weeping and is begging for the inanity to stop). The fastest way to make arguing easy for yourself is to dishonestly represent your opponent. This one little paragraph is dishonest and shows an astonishingly brain-dead-shambling-zombie-like grasp of argumentation and rhetoric.
“The truth is that no one can prove evolution or creation.” – Bullshit – About 3,630,000 results say you are being a dishonest fuck-wit.
“We have the same evidence,” – Bullshit – Your “evidence” is based on the mystical ramblings of barely sapient bronze age goat-herds. Some 3.6 million papers that mostly conform to the scientific method, are peer reviewed and falsifiable say your version of the facts are the equivalent of the chunder my dog threw up yesterday.
“but no one alive today was an eye witness to the origins of man, and neither of the claims of the creationist and the evolutionist can be observed today.” – What the frack does being an eyewitness have to to with anything? I cannot see the moon orbit around the earth, should we infer that it floats into the sky on unicorn farts and then sinks every night once they dissipate? Usually you cannot see electricity, only its effects – are we to believe it doesn’t exist either or is its more fucking fantastical farting unicorns?
“We can only study the result.” – The only thing being studied by creationists is the depths of their rectal cavities because it is where they get all their fecal-dominated facts from when not busily bloviating about how godidit.
There is no controversy, only the religiously deluded making shit up and trying to pass it off as reasonable. Their arguments are piss-poor and they offer little to no evidence of a theory with more explicative power. Their arguments can sound good, but like polishing a turd for centuries,(the bible being one of the biggest floaters in the bowl), once the varnish is gone, all you are left with is shit.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
6 comments
August 9, 2012 at 7:56 am
gotbygrace
Hmm not much of a debate here. As the dishonest fw you quoted, I would be interested to hear if you have any rational or imperical facts to support your argument. It is strange how the supposedly intellectually superior so often default to name calling when someone challenges their worldview.
The problem with quoting the number of Google hits is, it says there are a lot of opinions and your post was one of them. I got 314,000,000 results for ‘proof creation is true’ , but it doesn’t tell us anything.
The difference between our arguments is our presuppositions. You believe that in the beginning nothing exploded, I believe in the beginning God. We can only offer arguments, not definitive evidence.
I think the biggest challenge facing materialism has to be, where did everything come from? When Hubble discovered that the universe had a beginning he threw Cosmology on its head and opened up a quesiton that to this day only theists can answer.
Go well.
P.S:
1. When commenting please take the time to consider what the person is saying.
2. Be charitable when engaging a person in debate.
3. Try and stick to debating the position a person takes, as opposed to the person.
4. Be aware that the gratuitous use of invective is not useful in strengthening your arguments.
.
LikeLike
August 9, 2012 at 9:45 am
The Arbourist
Well that is probably the most accurate statement you’ve made so far, outside the massive equivocations that permeate your original post.
Would you? Would you really? I have a sneaking suspicion that even if presented with evidence that contradicts you and your magic book it would fall on deaf ears as, of course, you already know the truth. But hey, benefit of the doubt and all, two videos from Lawrence Krauss, a short flashy summary and then an actual lecture.
Evidence – 1,2,3
This is kind of a tell because the answer to questions such as these are fairly easy to find.
Which question in particular can only Theists answer and a) is it a useful question and b) given the evidence already cited has it not already been answered?
LikeLike
August 9, 2012 at 10:05 am
gotbygrace
Thanks for answering my comment.
One thing though, you seem offended by the thought that I think I know the truth. Should I be offended because you think you know the truth?
To quote Krauss “Nothing isn’t nothing, it is full of energy”. He has deflected the quesiton without answering where the energy came from. If nothing isn’t nothing then it is something, If the laws of quantum mechanics are in play then those laws are working on something.
I agree with Krauss, nothing isn’t nothing.
Go well
LikeLike
August 9, 2012 at 10:25 am
The Arbourist
@ gotbygrace
Not offended, just scared. Certainty in any “truth” can lead to a host of negative consequences.
I do not claim to have the truth persay, but the weight of what we know supports the position I hold. If the evidence changed, so would my position.
The energy is an intrinsic property, it would seem, of empty space.
Now it has not been an hour since I posted the video’s so I know you haven’t watched the actual lecture, but have decided to comment on Krauss’s cosmology grasping at the bits that will allow your point of view to continue to be coherent and make sense for you. This is not how science works or how to properly approach questions.
This is exactly is what is wrong with your approach to science and the reality it describes. There is no set idea when exploring the physical world, no idealized picture of what things “should” be, just the evidence and the conclusions that can be logically based upon it. If the evidence pointed to the universe being run on magical unicorn farts (A Grand Unicorn Fartarien?) then I would support that theory until it had been falsified and discarded in light of a new theory that more accurately describes the universe we live in.
The same applies to the current cosmological theory, if shown to be erroneous then it will be replaced by a more accurate version of how the universe actually works.
You have every right to have an opinion about how things work in reality, but you don’t get to make up facts about reality and recklessly (in my opinion) equivocate between science and religion. Not many things are further apart than these two topics.
LikeLike
August 9, 2012 at 10:33 am
gotbygrace
Ha ha, you got me there – I haven’t watched the whole video, I am supposed to be working. I am certainly not as clever as Krauss but I am familiar with at least some of what he teaches.
The thing is, and it goes back to my original post – I can accuse you of the same things you throw at me. There are plenty of strong arguments against radio metric dating, dark matter being unproven but used as constant in so many propostions, the development of the genetic code etc. However for enegy to exist in any form, quantum or otherwise, it had to some from somewhere.
I will leave you with this a s a parting gift as I have to get on, but you might like it:
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, …the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. … Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.
Maybe we are not so far apart.
Go well.
LikeLike
August 9, 2012 at 11:52 am
Mystro
gotbygrace – “The difference between our arguments is our presuppositions.”
No. The difference is theism are starts with a conclusion and looks for things to support it, whereas science looks at what actually exists and sees what can be concluded from that.
This results in science coming up with ideas that have predictive, testable properties so we can check how well they match up with reality (theism has no such built in self test structure). This is how we get progress. We have gotten better and better at understanding the universe. For example, you’re using a computer hooked up to the internet to read this. That’s all thanks to scientific enquiry. God did not say ‘let there be microchips’ and magically there was google.
gbg- “I think the biggest challenge facing materialism has to be, where did everything come from?”
There is tons we don’t know. That doesn’t, however, discredit our methods or what we’ve figured out so far. This challenge also faces theists, by the way. Saying ‘god done it’ doesn’t really explain anything. I deal with all this in detail in a previous post.
But for starters consider, if god is a part of everything, theism does not answer where everything comes from as they don’t posit an origin for their deity. Theism just says god exists and stops.
Even if we’re only talking about how the material universe came to be, saying ‘god done it’ merely tells us ‘who/what’. The ‘how’, which is what the question is actually getting at, is still unanswered.
“I can accuse you of the same things you throw at me.”
No, you can’t accuse science of not positing testable ideas, because that’s what science is based on. Same for non-falsifiable claims – theism is based on them, science tosses them out as the useless ideas that they are.
“Maybe we are not so far apart.”
Your quote, like so much theistic nonsense, is merely a bunch of ludicrous claims thrown about with no basis. Pointing to someone else who is making the same mistakes you are doesn’t strengthen your position.
LikeLike