My theory is that Creationists are actually just cyborgs, programmed by their creators (Kent Hovind and his "creation scientist" cronies) to repeat the exact same things over and over, and to promote AiG.com and other Creationist websites by endlessly proliferating hyperlinks to said sites.
edit~ Yeah, sure, let's read Signature in the Cell! Oh wait, before we do that, let's see what real scientists have to say about it!
"Jeffrey Shallit, a Computer Scientist and Mathematican, reviewed the Meyer's "significant misunderstandings of information theory." His review concluded: "Meyer's claims about information are incoherent in places and wildly wrong in others. The people who have endorsed this book, from Thomas Nagel to Philip Skell to J. Scott Turner, uncritically accepting Meyer's claims about information and not even hinting that he might be wrong, should be ashamed." "
And Darrel Falk, co-president of the BioLogos Foundation and a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University, has this to say:
"If the object of the book is to show that the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement, it has not succeeded. In fact, what it has succeeded in showing is that it is a popular movement grounded primarily in the hopes and dreams of those in philosophy, in religion, and especially those in the general public."
Oh, well then, maybe we shouldn't read this. It sounds like something you should throw in the garbage, shortly before lighting the garbage can on fire and dropping it into a canyon.
edit2
"Science could never explain the complexity of our universe. this is God's handiwork. Don't use the Bible? K, then you may not use science. How you like them apples?"
Well now, this is a fine example of stunning brilliance in the Y!A community, isn't it?
1. She wasn't asking you to explain the percieved complexity of the Universe. Learn the difference between the Universe and evolution.
2. This is a shameless God of the Gaps argument.
3. This user, by comparing her Bible to our science, demonstrates that she is unable to present a reputable argument when her crutch (scripture) is taken away, proving that she relies on the Bible for everything she believes about our origins.
edit3
Here's a fun challenge! Let's see if we can spot either a logical fallacy or scientific falsity in each of Mainworry's paragraphs!
Paragraph 1
- Logical fallacies > appeal to complexity, oversimplification, argument by uninformed opinion, argument ad nauseum.
- Just, just, just! This 'just' happened, that 'just' happened! I like that word! "Just". It can make big complex things that I'm afraid to learn about seem so easy!
For example: That wave function *just* collapsed. Or: That psilocybin fungus *just* made me trip out. The real process is way to complicated, so I'll *just* settle for just.
Paragraph 2
This just makes no sense.
"Evolution (nonsense), Abiogenesis (theory)"
So you're willing to admit that abiogenesis is atleast a theory, but when it comes to evolution *shudder* run and hide...
Paragraph 3
Logical fallacies - Ad hominem attacks, hasty generalization, red herring, argument by uninformed opinion, argument by fast talking.
- First of all, "atheism" is not a proper noun, so you don't capitalize the "a".
There's no real argument in here. It's just a rant about how much the user hates atheism. "Anti-logic". "Anti-reason". He holds such contempt towards atheism, he is actually willing to invent new words to express his distaste.
Now that takes commitment.
"Atheism hates something they claim is a fairy tale."
Whatever you say, Prof. Logic.
Paragraph 4
Logical fallacies- Bifurcation, argument by emotive language.
I disagree. Nuf' said.
Paragraph 5
No logical fallacies here, only scientific fallacies.
"Man starts from nothing."
No, but this argument does.
"He begins in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience."
Helplessness? Only when compared to us. Ignorance? Only when compared to us. Inexperience? Only when compared to us.
I find it amusing how your describing primitive Man as a toddler.
In fact, our ancestors thrived in their environment.
"This principle is only seen in human affairs [goes on to describe products of human ingenuity, for some reason]"
We have witnessed evolution in motion in microorganisms, as well as in the fossil record.
"There is growth and development within man, but no passing, change, or evolution out from one into another."
So called macro-evolution takes place over tens of thousands of years. try again later.
Paragraph 6
Every single living organism you see around you is at its particular "stage" in evolution.
"For this theory or fallacy of evolution to be true there would be no God."
Bifurcation again. And terrible bifurcation at that. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.
"And that’s exactly what evolutionists believe and are trying to prove."
1. "Evolutionist" is not a real word.
2. The burden of proof is still on your back.
3. Not all "evolutionists" are atheists.
"The evolutionist bases his or her conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of on the documentary evidence of the manuscripts."
The Bible is not documentary evidence... that's circular logic, you schmuck.
Paragraph 7
Here we see bifurcation rear its ugly head yet AGAIN.
And notice this user doesn't actually state anything worthy of reading. He's essentially just letting us know that he is afraid of evolution, and will do whatever he can to avoid it.
To prove my point...
"Evolution's only mechanism mutation-natural selection, is totally, utterly, pathetically inadequate. Evolutionists’ dream of a natural process bringing things together into organized complexity. This takes great faith and imagination."
Paragraph 8
" The fossil record shows mostly stasis in a species for many millions of years; there is no evidence there for gradual change."
No sh*t, eh? Not every single thing that dies ends up fossilized. In fact, hardly anything does.
"Birds prove Natural Selection is naturally wrong."
... Ha ha?
"Species without a link proves Evolution is wrong."
Maybe that link isn't there because it evolved, sh*thead.
"Single cell complexity proves Evolution is wrong."
And how complex is your god, again?
"Human egg and sperm proves Evolution is wrong."
Wat
"DNA error checking proves Evolution is wrong."
Chromosome mapping proves evolution is right, dumb*ss.
"Origin of matter and stars proves Evolution is wrong."
Matter and stars have nothing to do with evolution...
"The theory of evolution is rubbish and to perpetuate it is fraud. Most Evolutionists’ reject God or fear connecting God with science. This is truly sad."
The only thing here that is truly sad, is you.
Please, refrain from having children.
edit4
Kdanley didn't give any evidence. He just used the layers of the Earth as proof for a flood, even though this argument has been refuted a million times already.
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH550.html
edit5
Kibber is using arguments that we've seen a million times already.
"So seeing as how you can never be exactly created again, why would you believe in a Theory that is based only on guess."
Even if the theory of evolution were only a guess, this comment would still make absolutely no sense, and proves that Kibber doesn't understand the basic concepts of evolution.
Then he goes on to use the appeal to complexity fallacy and Pascal's Wager.
edit 6
john is using an argument from incredulity in his first paragraph. Others might be able to find a natural explanation; in many cases, they already have. Nobody knows everything, so it is unreasonable to conclude that something is impossible just because you do not know it.
His second argument is falacious as well. He assumes that the population growth rate was always constant, which is a false assumption. Wars and plagues would have caused populations to drop from time to time. In particular, population sizes before agriculture would have been severely limited and would have had an average population growth of zero for any number of years
For john's last argument, I visited talkorigins and found his claim.
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621.html
1.The "mitochondrial Eve," to which this claim refers, is the most recent common female ancestor, not the original female ancestor. There would have been other humans living earlier and at the same time. The mtDNA lineages of other women contemporary with her eventually died out. Mitochondrial Eve was merely the youngest common ancestor of all today's mtDNA. She may not even have been human.
2.The same principles find that the most recent human male common ancestor ("Y-chromosome Adam") lived an estimated 84,000 years after the "mitochondrial Eve" and also came from Africa (Hawkes 2000; Underhill et al. 2000; Yuehai et al. 2001).
3.The results assume negligible paternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA, but that assumption has been called into question. Male mtDNA resides in the tail of the sperm; the tail usually does not enter the egg that the sperm fertilizes, but rarely a little bit does. It is also possible that there is some recombination of mtDNA between lineages, which would also affect the results (Awadalla et al. 1999; Eyre-Walker et al. 1999). But these challenges have themselves been questioned (Kivisild