Is this it for creationism?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Is this it for creationism?

Post #1

Post by Jose Fly »

For the last few years or so I've noticed a decided decline in the number of people trying to advocate and/or defend creationism online. Not only that, I've also noticed a definite decline in the quality of arguments they put forth, and that many of the ones who are left seem to mostly argue via empty assertions.

I believe both stem from the same overall cause....creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments.

To illustrate the above, consider Talk Origin's "Index to Creationist Claims". Note that it was last updated sixteen years ago (2006) and how it still pretty much covers just about every argument you can expect to see an internet creationist make, even today.

This tells me that creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments, and because of that, online creationists have nothing new to present and therefore are reduced to relying mostly on argument via assertion.

Question for debate: Am I missing some new creationist arguments, or is what we've been seeing from creationists over the last sixteen years all they have?

Subquestion for creationists: Given that the arguments in the TO Index have not had any impact on science, do y'all have any expectations that repeating those arguments will change anything?
Last edited by Jose Fly on Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #101

Post by EarthScienceguy »


User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #102

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #101]
c)
I've tried to decipher the deep meaning of this reply, but can't figure it out. Is the secret in the right parenthesis?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #103

Post by JoeyKnothead »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:44 pm [Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #101]
c)
I've tried to decipher the deep meaning of this reply, but can't figure it out. Is the secret in the right parenthesis?
It's gotta be, that one on the left done throwed its back out.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #104

Post by Jose Fly »

If one were looking for an indication of how this debate truly is dead and done, the following would certainly meet that need.

The blog "The Panda's Thumb" was created specifically to counter creationists' arguments, and over the years has been a very good resource for science advocates like myself. During the heydays of ID creationism the site was very active, but over the last few years or so it's slowed to a virtual crawl. I still check in about twice a month, and today I saw this....

How Jellyfish Prove Intelligent Design (According to ID Advocates)

Basically, an ID creationist blog necromanced one of their own posts from 7 years ago, which prompted the folks at the PT to respond (even though they'd previously responded to the original creationist post 7 years ago). IOW, this "debate" is so dead and over, the people who engage in it are so desperate for something to talk about that they're dredging up and reposting 7 year old material!

It's interesting how on one hand, those of us on the science side should be celebrating our hard-fought victory, but OTOH some of us apparently got so attached to the debates that we just can't let it go. The debate being dead and done is exactly the outcome we hoped for, but now that it's here it seems a bit difficult for some to accept.

And yes, in a way I'm kind of in that category.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #105

Post by EarthScienceguy »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:44 pm [Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #101]
c)
I've tried to decipher the deep meaning of this reply, but can't figure it out. Is the secret in the right parenthesis?
Oh, that is funny.

It was my mistake. I had something written but I was in a hurry because I was heading out of town and I zigged when I should have zagged. Sorry.

Ozzy_O
Student
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 3:34 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #106

Post by Ozzy_O »

No, in fact it is science that has died. What we knew as “science” has died

Scientists can no longer even tell the difference between a male and a female

Scientists say if you believe you are a unicorn, then you are a unicorn

No, I will refrain from “trusting science”, as “science” is way more fantastical than belief in God

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #107

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Ozzy_O wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 6:10 am No, in fact it is science that has died. What we knew as “science” has died
How so?
Scientists can no longer even tell the difference between a male and a female
This does become a problem with hermaphrodites, or folks with what I respectfully call psycho/physical gender disagreement.

Can you propose a system scientists can use to mark clear lines in this regard?
Scientists say if you believe you are a unicorn, then you are a unicorn
Can you offer a link for this, or is it just you carrying on?
No, I will refrain from “trusting science”, as “science” is way more fantastical than belief in God
One must now wonder why you bothered to click the submit button after having written your comments.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #108

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Ozzy_O in post #106]
Scientists can no longer even tell the difference between a male and a female

Scientists say if you believe you are a unicorn, then you are a unicorn
You are again confusing science with what is commonly referred to as "wokeness" in the media. Science can tell the difference between a male and a female very easily if there are no genetic abnormalities. If the 23rd pair of chromosomes (in humans) are XX you have a biological female, if XY you have a biological male. That's all there is to it.

It is "wokeness" (not science) that says a trans male (ie. a biological female) can be considered an actual man in all respects, and (absent surgeries) can get pregnant and give birth because the female reproductive system is still in place (ie. "men" can get pregnant). But science would classifiy this person as someone who is a biological female who has chosen to make an effort to live as a male (via hormone therapy, dress, personal identification, etc.), but remains, biologically, a female. Wokeness and science are not the same thing.

As far as someone identifying as a unicorn, again that is not science ... it is "wokeness" .... science will tell you that unicorns do not exist as real animals until one is actually found.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Ozzy_O
Student
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 3:34 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #109

Post by Ozzy_O »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 9:25 am
Ozzy_O wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 6:10 am No, in fact it is science that has died. What we knew as “science” has died
How so?
Scientists can no longer even tell the difference between a male and a female
This does become a problem with hermaphrodites, or folks with what I respectfully call psycho/physical gender disagreement.

Can you propose a system scientists can use to mark clear lines in this regard?
Scientists say if you believe you are a unicorn, then you are a unicorn
Can you offer a link for this, or is it just you carrying on?
No, I will refrain from “trusting science”, as “science” is way more fantastical than belief in God
One must now wonder why you bothered to click the submit button after having written your comments.

Droll. Very droll…..

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #110

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Ozzy_O wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 12:51 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 9:25 am
Ozzy_O wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 6:10 am No, in fact it is science that has died. What we knew as “science” has died
How so?
Scientists can no longer even tell the difference between a male and a female
This does become a problem with hermaphrodites, or folks with what I respectfully call psycho/physical gender disagreement.

Can you propose a system scientists can use to mark clear lines in this regard?
Scientists say if you believe you are a unicorn, then you are a unicorn
Can you offer a link for this, or is it just you carrying on?
No, I will refrain from “trusting science”, as “science” is way more fantastical than belief in God
One must now wonder why you bothered to click the submit button after having written your comments.

Droll. Very droll…..
You made claims. I seek to determine the veracity of em, and "droll" is the best you can do?

The liar lies and the preacher preaches.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Post Reply