1 2 3
Shiny, shiny mirror...
7/18/2010 7:17:30 AM
Creationist attacking strawmen. Film at 11.
7/18/2010 7:22:49 AM
Jezebel's Evil Sister
The only one more stupid than the strawman-evolutionist who argues cosmology instead of biology is its inventor, who apparently has a "doctorate" in Dumfuckery from Fundy Fake U.
7/18/2010 7:32:15 AM
Of course, a supernatural cause of star formation could also take millions of years, so no, you're just stupid.
7/18/2010 7:33:21 AM
That's Bill Nye he's quoting uncredited.
7/18/2010 7:43:20 AM
The only assumption needed to show that stars weren't created in a day is the assumption that the speed of light is constant. And since large variations in the speed of light would change the whole structure of the universe, and no large variation in the speed of light has ever been observed, it is the Bible-thumpers who engage in what's called "ad hoc hypothesis" - inventing far-fetched "explanations" on the spot to counter objections.
7/18/2010 7:44:16 AM
We beg you to fuck off.
7/18/2010 8:14:35 AM
Congrats jackass. You just made my irony meter go nuclear. Hope you can afford the repair bill.
You fundies are the damn KINGS of circular logic. Not to mention, that that isn't how most "evolutionists" argue. Quit pulling stuff out of your ass.
7/18/2010 8:18:28 AM
"the critic has taken for granted that they were not supernaturally created"
Just say "god did it" and be done with it. You try to sound intellectual by making an argument, but anyone examining the facts will quickly see that it's a strawman argument. You fail. Go sit in the corner, dummy.
7/18/2010 8:23:27 AM
7/18/2010 8:26:39 AM
"Most of the examples of circular reasoning used by evolutionists are of the fallacious begging-the-question variety—they are arbitrary."
Excuse me? The religious are the experts and champions of circular reasoning. It's almost the only reasoning you folks use.
"Consider the evolutionist who argues:
'The Bible cannot be correct because it says that stars were created in a single day; but we now know that it takes millions of years for stars to form.'
By assuming that stars form over millions of years, the critic has taken for granted that they were not supernaturally created. He has tacitly assumed the Bible is wrong in his attempt to argue that the Bible is wrong; he has begged the question."
Except we do not assume that. We rely upon scientific evidence which SHOWS stars form over millions of years. We do not assume supernatural causes because there is no evidence showing supernatural forces.
7/18/2010 8:28:36 AM
No one is just "assuming" they form over millions of years dickwad. They look at all the avaliable evidence and then decide what explanation is consistent with that evidence.
That conclusion does contradict your explanation (unless one assumes that the stars were created in a form which was also consistent with their forming over millions of years), but your explanation is not based on the avaliable evidence, but rather on a book written at a time when the evidence we now have was unavaliable, and people naturally tended to make up all sorts of shit about things like this that they didn't understand.
Sure, your book could still be right - but all the evidence we have so far says different.
7/18/2010 8:30:31 AM
Gaaaaaaaahh. That's not a mere logical
fallacy absurdity. That's a crime against human intellect.
7/18/2010 8:34:57 AM
For the 9,897,765th time. The Supernatural is outside the domain of science. Science looks at empirical evidence, and from that evidence, draws conclusions.
The conclusion that stars take millions of years to form is based upon the available evidence you dickless wonder.
7/18/2010 8:43:01 AM
What do stars have to do with evolution?
7/18/2010 8:44:40 AM
Most of the examples of circular reasoning used by evolutionists are of the fallacious begging-the-question variety—they are arbitrary. Consider the evolutionist who argues:
“The Bible cannot be correct because it says that stars were created in a single day; but we now know that it takes millions of years for stars to form.”
By assuming that stars form over millions of years
I'm going to ignore the fact that cosmology has nothing to do with ToE. Here's the problem: scientists don't ASSUME that stars take millions of years to form, they KNOW that stars take millions of years to form. We can observe stars in all stages of development. And we know how much time each physical process takes.
the critic has taken for granted that they were not supernaturally created
Do you have evidence that they were supernaturally created? No? Then why should I take you any more seriously than my little cousin who claims that a monster broke my remote? At least he had the decency to eventually admit that he was making it up and that it was a bad excuse showing that he's more intellectually mature than any fundie.
He has tacitly assumed the Bible is wrong in his attempt to argue that the Bible is wrong; he has begged the question.
Wrong! He has looked at what reality says and then matched that against what the Bible says and sided with reality over scripture. There's not a circle to be found in that reasoning.
7/18/2010 8:47:50 AM
That's Bill Nye he's quoting uncredited.
He's lucky Bill Nye didn't hear that one because I remember Bill Nye being being a guest on a radio program and really laying into a creationist for sowing misinformation. I can only imagine how pissed he'd be if he found out a creationist quote-mined him. Bill Nye is a nice guy, but you do NOT want to get him angry.
7/18/2010 8:51:53 AM
No, the critic is citing extensive research by educated scientists as reason why the stars are not supernaturally created.
7/18/2010 9:03:01 AM
Doctor? Of what?
7/18/2010 9:14:22 AM
This made my brain hurt. I am going to sue you for that.
7/18/2010 9:16:02 AM
Evidence != assumption.
7/18/2010 9:27:00 AM
There is no reason in circular reasoning, reason implies logic and awareness. "Godidit" doesn't count as reason. "Gododit" doesn't count, period!
7/18/2010 9:33:50 AM
I read about the afterlife
Dr. Lisle, the world was just now in this VERY INSTANT created. We all have memories and history because a supernatural being put them there. Wait! You say you have some objection due to observable reality? WELL! You are begging the question because you have taken for granted that this happened supernaturally.
You see what you can get away with, using this logic?
7/18/2010 10:03:50 AM
Astronomers do not assume stars form over millions of years, instead they have evidence and observation two things fundies aren't generally known for.
7/18/2010 10:25:15 AM
What evidence would "Doctor" Lisle present to prove that stars were supernaturally created? Your problem is that you started with an erroneous assumption from the beginning, that being "the Bible is literally true".
Because real scientists have observed star nurseries and the formation of stars.
Demonstrate conclusively that the Bible was not written by superstitious primitive men, then we can talk.
7/18/2010 10:35:08 AM
1 2 3