Creationist arguments are full of logical fallacies

http://www.true-equality.net/archive/2008/05/10/creationist-arguments-are-ful...

The second of my vids on the new camera, slightly better than the first

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qPno5EEbFCo
httpv://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qPno5EEbFCo

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• richard
• dawkins
• kent
• hovind
• analogy
• logical
• fallacy
• fallacies
• intelligent
• design
• creationism
• evolution
• creation
• skeptic

[gregrutz]

@TheRgordon16 That logical fallacy is called ''Moving the goal posts'' You can't prove evolution is wrong so you try to prove Abiogenesis wrong and when you can't you say the big bang is wrong.

''How could inanimate energy and matter create life?'' Easy, read a science book and find out.

[TheRgordon16]

In the mind of a Creationalist the real question is not how did it evolve? Its where did all of the ingredience for life come from to begin with? You cant get to the other side of a river in a boat by starting in the middle. This fool in this video and Richard Dawkins are staring in the middle of the river and are not explaining how it could have all started to begin with. How did the Universe come into being own its own? How could inanimate energy and matter create life? Dawkins is an idiot!

[puncheex]

@raulscoob: You're right about the oldest sample of non-bacterial DNA, but there is bacterial DNA from 419 million years back; in fact, whole bacteria, encapsulated in water sealed within salt crystals. Sure the phylogenetic tree keeps changing; it was only conceived in the 1950s. Give it a couple of hundred years, but it's not guesswork; it is based on precise morphological measurements and math. DNA is not guesswork. I'm not laughing, but I don't believe, either.

[puncheex]

OK, an oops moment. Bacterial DNA possibly as old as 419 million years has been found embedded in salt crystals, and also some forest DNA in Greenland at 80,000 years. The bacterial DNA is probably viable, in fact the whole bacteria is, but the tree DNA is small fragments. So I guess I'll have to change my claim:

At this time, no DNA older than about 60,000 years, other than bacterial DNA, has ever been recovered in sufficient quality to build a genome.

[puncheex]

@ramaraksha01: Ummm, well, Beatified Teresa came pretty close. She encouraged suffering as something that had to be faced in this life, even as she used donations to spread her religious ideas and her own comfort at the expense of curing and/or comforting those in her hospitals.  That seems pretty abusive to me.

[puncheex]

... At this time, no DNA older than about 60,000 years has ever been recovered in sufficient quality to build a genome. That oldest DNA is from Neandertals, and you can read about it in Svante Paabo's paper:

"A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome". Science 328 (5979): 710–722 (dx(.)doi(.)org/10.1126%2Fscie­nce.1188021) 2010.

[puncheex]

@PliestoceneDreams: Sorry for your intuits, but you're wrong (about me and the DNA). The place to find that out is in Dr. Mary Schweitzer's own papers:

"Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present". Proc Biol Sci 274 (1607): 183–97 (rspb(.)royalsocietypublishing­(.)org/content/274/1607/183). 2007

"Biomolecule Preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex". Jnl of Vert Paleo 13: 56A. 1993

Google her name; lots of pop articles with quotes.

[PliestoceneDreams]

@puncheex Sorry, but claiming to be an "evolutionist" doesn't lend any credence to your claims there buddy. Also, I don't know anyone who self-identifies as an "evolutionist", which leads me to believe you're actually a creationist. Do you have any links for your claim? Any?

[Pokarot]

@kissntellen You might want to look up abiogenesis if you're going to argue against it. Amino acids and proteins aren't considered to be the first self-replicating molecules, that title belongs to RNA. RNA is able to store information, catalyze reactions, aid in protein synthesis, form more complex molecules with proteins, and self-replicate.

[winterstellar]

@theageofgrace We evil "believers" in science and reality should really thank you fundie christians and muslims. You help us very much more than you'll obviously ever understand yourselves. : )