The Worst Creationist Argument I have Ever Seen.
@littlemissmistress (187)
United States
March 26, 2007 4:13pm CST
In another topic (or three, I've lost count) we have been debating Evolution verses Creationism.
One individual, who claimed to be knowledgeable and posted many arguments, was trying to disprove a statement about the fact that some species of whales have unusable hip bones.
He failed desperately, with one of the stupidest things I have ever read.
"There is no evidence that whale evolved from mammals. In fact the evidence shows that it couldn't have happened."
... Do you realize that whales *are* mammals? Where is your evidence that they aren't?
Just another reason people don't like creationism. People say things so absurd and ruin it for the entire religion argument. They claim they have research, when there is no possible evidence against this fact.
What do you think? Is it worth my time to argue with such undeniable facts being posed against me?
8 people like this
14 responses
@jjones474 (123)
• United States
27 Mar 07
Facts are facts. God did not make Eve from Adam, we have an evolutionary timeline that we can show that outlines the evolution of man exactly. The bible is a collection of stories made up by people in a chaotic world to try a create some order. Obviously, it worked. Moses did not part the Red Sea, however, geologic evidence suggests it may have been possible at times to walk where there once was water in time of drought. Creative license, I believe it's called. My personal theory is that Jesus was in fact a master showman and magician. Someone along the lines of those t.v. evangelists and David Copperfield. In those times, if he did if fact have those kind of skills (extremely possible, loads of magicians and evangelists around with talent) if he did have those skills, the people of his day would have been astounded! Enough so that they elevated him to the status he claimed. (son of God) It seemed Jesus was a good person who helped others, I believed he used his "magic" to ease his way. Then again, who knows? Maybe it is all true and I'll rot in Hell. Oh no, wait. If I just repent before I die, Jesus will forgive me and I'll get into Heaven. Kind of lame, why aren't we all stealing, raping, and killing, just to repent before we die and all is well? To many holes in the theory. I say there's ONE GOD FOR ALL! All the different religions are merely players on different teams, like baseball. We all have the same goal, but various and varied was of obtaining it. Judeaism, Islam, and Christianity all have the same beginnings in Abraham. Coincidence? I don't thinks so. The Shi'ites and Sunni muslims warring with each other over big differences, right? Wrong! Only that one reveres the heirs of only a fourth caliph of Mohammed, the other (Sunni) reveres the heir of all 4 caliphs of Mohammed. Other differences concern time of prayers and eating and fasting times. Stuff to kill over, right? IMO, religion sucks. Just enjoy life and treat peole with respect and how you'd like to be treated. There ain't no virgins in heaven that I'd want to look at, and I'm not quite sure I want to spend eternity bickering over the same old b.s. with my family. Now reincarnation, there's an idea.
4 people like this
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
27 Mar 07
Freebc, the day you see a skeptic making such a naive argument as "I can only believe things I can see with my eyes", let me know. I'm yet to see any one of these mythical creatures; so far, it seems to me that they only inhabit the anecdotes of believers who try to paint the wrong image of skepticism.
2 people like this
@dravenwriter (232)
•
28 Mar 07
Freebc, your "argument" regarding "seeing is believing" is laughable and myopic. Voicing your own views is excellent and should be encouraged. You have implied you know the mind of an atheist when you so obviously do not. You appear to say that because I can believe something exists without seeing it, I must believe in a god too.
Morality doesn't enter into it, and for me morality is distinct from religion.
http://dravenwriter.blogspot.com/2007/03/good-without-god-secular-humanism-and.html
To me, all science, religion, and life is theory. There is very little if anything that can be classified as a universal, absolute fact. It is just a matter of using the best theories we have. Your best theory may not be my best theory.
Draven the Respectful Atheist
http://dravenwriter.blogspot.com
2 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
27 Mar 07
"Is it worth my time to argue with such undeniable facts being posed against me?"
Nah, there are people it is a total waste of time to have a discussion with. This may be one of those people.
Some people, mostly for reasons of ego, can never admit they are wrong or objectively consider information that does not fit their preconceptions.
You probably have found such a person.
4 people like this
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
27 Mar 07
I'll focus on your last question: is it worth your time discussing against this kind of "argument"?
Well, it depends on your purpose with these discussions.
If the purpose is to change the mind of a true believer, then it's a waste of time. Most people who go so far as to become creationism apologists will never ever open their minds to any argument in the contrary. I believe it was Michael Shermer who said, and I paraphrase, "It's impossible to use logic to make a person move from a position she did not get to via logical means to begin with".
But if your purpose is to learn, and to spread good information, then it's entirely worth it. You learn, because even though most of the creationist arguments are repeats of those you'd already seen elsewhere, once in a while you come across an argument that is new to you, and in the research in order to answer that argument you end up learning new things yourself.
And you spread good information, because there is a considerable amount of people who read these discussions and aren't completely informed or decided one way or another, and if a creationism apologist is left unchecked to post whatever nonsense he wants without being contested by anyone, there's a good chance these people will end up being deceived by the bogus "theories", since they don't get to see the counter-arguments that do exist.
And as a bonus, there's also the fact that sometimes it's just nice to get a good old laugh at the more absurd comments we come across, like this one about whales. =P
@dravenwriter (232)
•
28 Mar 07
Agreed Fargale. Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.
It is great to get things like the evolution/creationism debate out on the table, if nothing else for the tolerance it can provide to those seeking respectful, thoughtful discussion. I know my tolerance and respect for non-atheists was strong before I joined this site and started posting, and because of respectful and thoughtful creationist supporters like dickkell, that tolerance has been increased in many ways. This is at the same time I strongly disagree.
Pangeacat was absolutely correct; leavert65's views can be respected and tolerated even in disagreement. The attitude can not. I sense much fear and hate in that one.
Draven the Respectful Atheist
http://dravenwriter.blogspot.com
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
29 Mar 07
lol But seriously though, are you guys for real? lol Just our of curiosity . What is my great fear? Do I hate one person, several people, all mankind?
Please feel free to fill in the blanks. lol I'll check back to find out my true feelings later. Be creative now!
@pangeacat (619)
• United States
29 Mar 07
It's what I've been trying to tell you for.... well, forever at this point. Whether or not you mean to sound that way ~ your words, your tone, your attitude, all sound and come off as just generally hateful. Sure, if someone COMPLETELY agree with you, then you show them respect. BUT, even if another Christian disagrees, you become hostile (such as in the thread pertaining to the Jesus tomb finding ~ yes, the OP isn't Christian, but you did become hostile with another Christian in there). You come off as a hateful person. I don't know "why". Only you can answer why you have such an overflow of anger and hatred coursing through your veins.
As for the fear, you sound as though you're afraid that if you accept any argument that doesn't completely adhere to the literal translation of the Bible, this will somehow put a dent in your faith. Why? Why does it have to harm your faith to simply say, "Okay, yeah ~ that's a possibility. I may not agree that it's true, but fine ~ it is possible and it doesn't hurt what I believe"?
3 people like this
@lacurandera (335)
• United States
27 Mar 07
Lol. nope, unless mylot pays you lots for your posts. I think creationism is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard, but even if I did believe in it, I'd be pissed with all these idiots who spout such uninformed nonsense. I just try to not talk about the evolution/creationism issue...because people make me mad. They don't make me mad because they don't believe what I believe-divergent opinions are ok with me. People make me mad because they're ignorant. And then they try to pollute my air with their stupidity. The whale didn't evolve from mammals...I wish he knew how stupid he was.
2 people like this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
27 Mar 07
And who better to talk about ignorance then someone ignorant like yourself. The whale didn't evolve from land mammals which is what I made clear in my original post and the person who started this thread knows. Want to see stupidity in action why don't you try explaining how the whale evolved?
@littlemissmistress (187)
• United States
27 Mar 07
*points to the first post*
He does. :P
4 people like this
@pangeacat (619)
• United States
27 Mar 07
Okay, first of all ~ his argument obviously held no weight. Likely, he realized that he had no argument left, and was grasping at straws.
Secondly, yes ~ whales are mammals, so ... I just don't get his point there.
Thirdly, whatever position you're going to take on the issue, or if you're going to ride the fence - whatever, you have to at least have an intelligent and well thought out argument. In my opinion, you just shouldn't enter into the debate at all if you have nothing concrete or intelligent to add to the discussion.
Last, but not least, the decision whether or not to engage in such arguments is yours alone to make. I enjoy debating, but if it gets far too silly for me ~ I'll gladly walk away. So, in my personal opinion, once the discussion reaches the point of ludacrisy as described in your post, that's the time to move on to a more intelligent conversation.
2 people like this
@quigonjan (29)
• Philippines
27 Mar 07
is it worth time to argue? well if these things will cause people to go against each other, the answer is a NO. if these things will cause people to know each other in good faith, YES. i think both creationism and evolution has biases. we Christians simply could not accept that we were a product of some random events or coming from a simpler form, and thats our bias. sorry if times, we shove our belief on other people, but it is always good to have a dialogue.
3 people like this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
27 Mar 07
Quigonjan, debates as you know often get heated especially one that challenges one's world view. However, I'm glad to see admit to the preconceived ideas on both sides.
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
28 Mar 07
Quigonjan, I notice that you say "we Christians" As a Christian do you would you doubt Jesus if he said that man and woman were created in the beginning?
@pangeacat (619)
• United States
27 Mar 07
Thank you quigonjan. You have earned my respect and admiration. :)
@msqtech (15074)
• United States
1 Apr 07
I think it is entirely possible that evolution may be the way humans see creation. It is possible that creation involved some evolution and that both fit together harmoniously. I think this is a false argument created by humans with less then enough to argue about.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
29 Mar 07
I agree that mammal made a fool of themselves.
Personally, I think both sides of the argument are coming to conclusions with insufficient evidence to support it... the thing is, only one side of the argument claims that sufficient evidence is important. ;~D
@mari610 (360)
• United States
27 Mar 07
Their claims are just that, merely claims.They have nothing to back it up with, because there really isn't anything they can use to do so. And when they try to, it comes out as pure stupidity and lack of any real knowledge.They just need, for whatever reason, to try to discourage others who don't think as they do. As far as ruining the religous argument, they are so far form being able to do this, I wouldn't worry about it at all. They're not capable of ruining anything. Don't waste your time and effort in arguing or replying to these people.it will get you nowhere. Rather, just hold on to what you believe, the majority is with you.
@dravenwriter (232)
•
28 Mar 07
To leavert65's point, I will have to disagree with you slightly mari610. There are many respectful creationists out there who present at least plausible arguments and/or base their belief on strong faith. I have no problem with that and will not dismiss their thoughts or actions as stupid out of hand. Dickkell is an example of one creationist who I've conversed with on this site who approaches the argument with thoughtful respect for others. I disagree with him vehemently of course, but there is mutual respect.
Leavert65, on the other hand, seems to approach the topic from an intolerant, disrespectful, and defensive stance.
Draven the Respectful Atheist
http://dravenwriter.blogspot.com
3 people like this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
27 Mar 07
Mari610,
At first I couldn't tell what side you were arguing for until I came to the word "stupidity" It appears only evolutionists are allowed to make statements like that and have nothing said to them. But you're right evolutionist should just cling tight to their ideology and ignore creationists.
@Zmugzy (773)
•
29 Mar 07
I'm not sure how to answer your final question but the subject is a fascinating one. The fact that Hippos and Whales share the same ancestor is a marvel to behold. As you say, wales are mammals that are descended from land mammals. It is estimated that they returned to the sea some 54 million years ago. Darwinian evolution can be a complex subject though, and it is understandable why many people can not get their head round it. Sometime it is difficult to comprehend or imagine the massive timescales involved.
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
27 Mar 07
For those of you who are literate, this is what I said in my original post regarding the whale:
Whales and Hip Bones:
To make the claim that land-dwelling mammals evolved into sea-dwelling whales is to claim that there had to be simultaneous accidental genetic changes which allowed the tail to grow larger while the tail grew smaller.And this ignores the problems caused as of the ever-shrinking pelvis or hip bone reached the point where they were too small to support the creature's weight on his hind legs, and yet too large to let the animal move its tail up and down with efficiency.
Oh and then there's the problem of replacing the sweat glands with thick layers of blubbery flat, changing its eyes so that the light rays,under sea water are brought to focus on the retina, changing its skin to produce a surface efficiently designed to streamline the flow of water, FINDING A WAY TO GIVE BIRTH TO ITS YOUNG WHICH SUCKLE UNDER WATER WITHOUT DROWNING. (SUCKLE SOMETHING MAMMALS DO!!!!)
SO THIS ENTIRE THREAD HAS BEEN A SHAMEFUL DISPLAY OF DISHONESTY AND UNBRIDLED IGNORANCE!! Even if I left out the word "land" before mammals in my second mentioning, it is clearly indicated in my original post as the above text clearly shows!
Now if you feel this argument doesn't hold water, then show some hint of intelligence and explain a reasonable Darwinian step-by-step approach to how it actually did evolve! Show that you know something more than the fact that the whale is a mammal which we all probably learned in third grade and which nobody has denied!!
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
27 Mar 07
Pangeacat, now there YOU go with your "even then statement" It wasn't enough to just present your position and "walk away", No, you had throw in your insults as to why I just don't swallow your argument and be satisfied. Maybe in part for the same reason you chose not to accept a creationist scientific argument and be done with it. It didn't conform with you biased pre-conceived ideology. Did you bother to look yourself for a creationist scientific rebuttal to the information you provided? I'll answer for you. " No" Why? You were only interested in finding what satisfied what you wanted to believe. So please, don't try and play the role of the objective observer searching for the truth.!!
@littlemissmistress (187)
• United States
27 Mar 07
Quit claiming that you were understood in your first post. I will take a screen shot of that message, or people can go see it themselves.
You clearly said "Whales could not have evolved from mammals. Research says that it isn't possible."
How else was that supposed to be taken?
Again, I thank you for the roaring laugh that followed your post. You will never be forgotten as the 'Whales are not mammals' guy.
3 people like this
@pangeacat (619)
• United States
27 Mar 07
Well, I would firstly like to thank you for peaking my curiousity on this issue. At first, I responded to this discussion in order to essentially say that I was amazed that anyone would say a whale wasn't a (sea) mammal. I also wanted to tell the OP that if they are in a silly argument that's upsetting them, they should probably just walk away. When I saw that you, leavert, were again being disrespectful in a discussion toward someone who disagreed with you, I felt the need to voice my anger on that (this is not the first post where I've seen your disrespect and your lashing out irrationally).
So, because this seems to be such an issue for you ~ I've done a bit of research, just for you. You have sparked my innate thirst for knowledge. It seems, after having done this research, I can officially agree with miss mistress, whales did *probably* evolve from LAND mammals. As my research has shown me, this is something that is still being studied extensively. So, I don't know that anyone can give you a complete step-by-step guide on paper. You would probably have to see the numerous transitional fossils for yourself. Even then, it is likely that you would find something to disagree with, since you obviously have little interest in actually attempting to discover the truth, electing rather to find ways to disprove what your eyes see. Perhaps this is because you are afraid that believing this would interfere with your faith? I don't know, and I don't see why you should be so afraid of that but it does seem to be the case in any event.
In any case, fossils clearly show the presence of "missing link" type creatures that link land mammals with the modern day whale. These transitional fossils conclude that this evolution did infact take place many many moons ago. Following are a few sites that will present the argument to you far better than I can, I'd wager. They are reputable sites (national geographic, PBS, BBC)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3558350.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0919_walkingwhale.html
Let me know if those links work for you. To sum up, the reason scientists believe this, and are consequently attempting to figure out which whale evolved from which animal and so on, is because transitional fossils have proven to the scientific community that this evolution did infact occur, over the span of millions of years (so, little by little).
3 people like this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
27 Mar 07
Hello! (echo!) Hello! (echo!)
Anybody here? (echo!) Anybody here (echo!)
Where's everybody at! Could it be that this thread is whack?
@pangeacat (619)
• United States
27 Mar 07
I normally prefer to keep my debating dignified and intelligent in nature ~ but you've upset me to a degree that I HAVE to say something I might even regret later on!
What is wrong with you? Why do you feel the need to disrespect everyone who doesn't agree with you 100%. Why do you have to be so hateful, ignorant, disrespectful, unintelligible, and judgemental?
It is people like you who make Christianity a hated religious practice among non-believers. It is people like you that drive people away from Christianity, and therefore drive them away from your God. If I were your God, I would be very angry with you. I would hate you for driving away my followers, and for giving people cause to hate me.
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
27 Mar 07
I'm sorry but you are totally ignorant. That's what's wrong with you. Evolutionists can ridicule creationists left and right and you have nothing to say. But soon as a creationist challenges their arrogance here you come with your stupidity! Please, I don't have time for ignoramuses such as yourself!!
@pangeacat (619)
• United States
27 Mar 07
Thank you for proving my point leavert65!
2 people like this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
27 Mar 07
Bobox, There are scientists with Ph.Ds in the field who disagree. Now maybe they aren't as enlightened as you are but I feel they make a valid point.
