Penn and Teller on Creationism

[JackBurton]

Here's a simple break down for Creationists.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Descartes
You've been spouting nonsense this entire thread. Do yourself a favor and read one book on evolution. Seriously, if you're going to argue about something at least learn the subject matter. Fair enough, no?

Sure, but which of the prevailing theories should I read on because it keeps changing.

Do yourself a favor and ask yourself if you've viewed evolution with a proper degree of skepticism or if you just WANT to believe its true or were afraid to question it's underlying assumptions.

You're not smart. That's all you need to know.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Here's a simple break down for Creationists.

I loved that episode of family guy

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

The odds of a random mutation coming out as something benefitial AND not harmful AND that mutated form not being randomly killed by a predator AND that gene being passed on......it's just ludicrous......

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LawofTrulyLargeNumbers.html

 

[KurskKnyaz]

I love Penn & Teller's Bullshit. Most of the time they are dead on about every topic and they obviosly have a great research team.

...until I saw the episode about addiction. That had to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. They basically tried to show that addiction is not a disease but never once did they mention anything about withdrawal, its physical symptoms, or how addicted mothers can give birth to addicted babies. Maybe their research got lazy, but that episode seriously damaged my regard for the show.

 

[SparkyJJO]

What is it with all the anti-creation threads lately

Evolution is bad science btw. Still no conclusive proof.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Origin theory has nothing to do with a student's grasp of real science

Really? Than how will your kid explain why people of african descent have a high incidents of sickle cell anemia.

its a way for the liberal agenda to force our kids to NOT believe in God as much as creationism is forcing them TO believe in God. I guess you hypocrites can't see that though, huh?

Since is based on DATA not opinion or political affiliation. ...but when some people don't like the data they just call science liberal, just like they dismiss other aspects of reality that don't coincide with thier believe as "liberal". "Liberal" media is an example.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
What is it with all the anti-evolution posts lately

Intelligent Design isn't science btw. There will NEVER be conclusive proof.

You don't say?

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Evolution is bad science btw. Still no conclusive proof.

Define conclusive proof?

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
What is it with all the anti-evolution posts lately

Intelligent Design isn't science btw. There will NEVER be conclusive proof.

You don't say?

I did not write that, stop changing what I said :roll:

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
What is it with all the anti-evolution posts lately

Intelligent Design isn't science btw. There will NEVER be conclusive proof.

You don't say?

I don't need your help to make "Creation Science" look utterly ridiculous. :roll:

Sorry

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
What is it with all the anti-evolution posts lately

Intelligent Design isn't science btw. There will NEVER be conclusive proof.

You don't say?

I don't need your help to make "Creation Science" look utterly ridiculous. :roll:

Sorry

:disgust:
That is the best you guys come up with, change other's words to fit what you want? Pathetic.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
What is it with all the anti-evolution posts lately

Intelligent Design isn't science btw. There will NEVER be conclusive proof.

You don't say?

I don't need your help to make "Creation Science" look utterly ridiculous. :roll:

Sorry

Apology accepted, friend.

 

[SparkyJJO]

There, it is in my sig. Change that!

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
What is it with all the anti-creation threads lately

Evolution is bad science btw. Still no conclusive proof.

Putting evolution in the same category as gravity, molecules, quantum mechanics and relativity. None are "bad science," though.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Honestly, I'm not sure wtf your points are as they didn't seem to rebutt mine. I figured we were starting a new tangent or something.

Are you serious? You said that evolution can explain everything. I gave and example of something that evolution couldn't explain. Your claim is thereby shown to be false. I even said "The point is that your claim is nonsense," and now you're apparently confused about what the point is?

Is reading comprehension really THAT much of a challenge for you? You MUST be a creationist.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Wow, don't think any of my topics made it to 'hot topics' before this one

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Dinosaur Extinction Didn't Make Way for Us

I find it interesting people here missed this article that hit the major news channels last month. Seems to contradict the absolute facts many have been claiming here.

What's more interesting, the long standing evolutionary tree is being rewritten, as I now expect many here will rewrite their beliefs.

I hope zim & eflenix enjoy.

hillarious. how exaclty does this disprove anything we have said? explain how, please.

kudos though, for posting the first link in response to your claims...although it does nothing for you. did you read it, by chance?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: zinfamous
archaeopteryx?

The dino> birds thing is pretty standard overall. The "debate" surrounding the notion of birds evolving from dinosaurs, as presented in Jurassic Park, is pretty much as valid as the "debate" involving evolution

I'm not sure if this is one of the manufactured fakes, however alot of fake creatures have been showing up from China with papers written on them, all of which are later determined to be fakes.

To this day nothing has been dug up showing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds, and as I said in a previous response, science recently dug up a duck fossil in a dinosaur bed, so they had to rewrite history to say that birds now came before dinosaurs.

Of course none of the highly educated evolutionist here know that, despite now repeated claims that it is obvious birds came from dinosaurs. LMAO.

Ummm.. Archaeopteryx is a well established type of dinosaur.

Reptile scales and bird feathers share very, very similar chemical structures.

You are incorrect, sir.

Again, no conclusive evidence supports this.

link? troll status stands until you have plausible data

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment

Here's a fun one, the holy grail of how life started, as shown by Miller -- by which many know is no longer valid, has been refuted thus again leaving science scrambling to find an answer.

Did you even read the article? It doesn't agree in any way with what you're saying. I guess Zinfamous is right about you.

ya...it's pretty funny when you actually read the articles he posts. poor, poor soul.

troll until you post evidence that backs up your claims, dirtboy

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

The odds of a random mutation coming out as something benefitial AND not harmful AND that mutated form not being randomly killed by a predator AND that gene being passed on......it's just ludicrous......

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LawofTrulyLargeNumbers.html

also: that's what 4.5 billion years of Earth's existence are for. sure, Pellinor's numbers don't work in a 5,000 year-old Earth, but what else is new?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Wow, don't think any of my topics made it to 'hot topics' before this one

easy recipe:

suggest science/religion in thread title
add youtube video/ poll from news magazine
hillarity ensues

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Wow, don't think any of my topics made it to 'hot topics' before this one

easy recipe:

suggest science/religion in thread title
add youtube video/ poll from news magazine
hillarity ensues

I noticed

 

[GiLtY]

I love how some of them keep saying that becoming a complex being by coincidence (e.g. human, etc) is impossible. One of the ladies in the clip even said it's probabilistically impossible. But she (and others who believe arguments along this line) neglected that there are TRILLIONS of stars out there, happening by chance here on earth doesn't seem so impossible after all.

-GiLtY

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: GiLtY
I love how some of them keep saying that becoming a complex being by coincidence (e.g. human, etc) is impossible. One of the ladies in the clip even said it's probabilistically impossible. But she (and others who believe arguments along this line) neglected that there are TRILLIONS of stars out there, happening by chance here on earth doesn't seem so impossible after all.

-GiLtY

But those are just holes in the cover between us and heaven, right? Just like the Sun circles around the Earth and the Earth itself is flat!