The banned Mormon cartoon »« The Vatican is Bullshit

Potholer54’s Golden Crocoduck Awards still going strong

Here’s a whole new batch of nominees for Potholer54’s second annual Golden Crocoduck Awards! For those of you who weren’t already aware, the Award is presented to creationists who fundamentally misunderstand evolution and make spurious arguments based on strawmen and fallacious understanding of the scientific concept. Kent Hovind took last year’s award hands down. Our local pet troll would probably be a shoe-in, if he made videos, but sadly he doesn’t, leaving us reasonable folks that much poorer of LOL’s.

Comments

  1. says

    I have already seen this video; however, Strobel is retelling his personal experience which is being honest. The narrator in this video is being deceitful.

    As an example, in your links you recommended that I read, the author said that mutations are no longer considered to be the main cause of evolution. LOL. I had a good time hearing that since they use to sit and preach mutations as though it was rational and reasonable.

    Now, since the evidence is so strong against mutations, they had to come up with something else.

    This type of things goes on constantly in the world of Darwinians who are desperately searching and searching to find something that cannot be refuted….

    The fact is that macro-evolution has to only be a theory because they are not able to demonstrate it or for that matter more basic they are not able to demonstrate that life comes from non-life.

    In the video he states that one building blocks for life was found on meteroids. The problem is that building blocks are not life…. What a closed minded guy he is for certain.

    Keep on trying my friend…you have to keep on changing your theories because evolution is not a fact…it is still a theory.

    I really enjoy watching you try though…

  2. says

    Now, since the evidence is so strong against mutations, they had to come up with something else.

    This type of things goes on constantly in the world of Darwinians who are desperately searching and searching to find something that cannot be refuted…

    I would start this off with “Zdenny, you magnificently ignorant slut…” but it wouldn’t have quite the same effect. (Those of you old enough, or geeky enough, will laugh.)

    ZDENNY, you fucking moron: You still don’t understand, do you? This is how science works! When prevailing ideas about a matter are shown by evidence to be incorrect, those ideas change to reflect the facts shown by the evidence. When new evidence is found, or new methods of analysis are found, which refutes an existing theory, the theory is modified so that it aggrees with the evidence.

    This is in contrast to creationism, intelligent design, creation science, or whatever the hell you idiots intend to call it this week, where any evidence that refutes the theory (God™ did it.) is ignored or wilfully misinterpreted in order to fit the existing theory. This is commonly known as being dogmatic. Of course, I would not expect you to even consider that this might be the case, since you’ve already shown yourself to be completely incapable of comprehending even the basic ideas of science and the scientific method.

    p.s. — Fuck off.

  3. says

    Strobel is retelling his personal experience which is being honest. The narrator in this video is being deceitful.

    Are you saying Lee Strobel has direct experience with the “refutation” of the Miller experiments? Because if you are, then you’ll need to prove it. And you’ll also need to disprove that there were several experiments that came after this original experiment (which by the way was corrected by SCIENCE — not by religion!), all of which were easily accessible to Strobel. Otherwise you’re lying, intentionally or otherwise, and Potholer54 is completely correct.

    Now, since the evidence is so strong against mutations, they had to come up with something else.

    You’re being disingenuous. Darwin thought all life evolved solely through mutations, and that populations as a whole would slowly drive themselves to new forms over time no matter what. He was wrong about that. As Gould says, it takes a sudden environment shift for an entire population to evolve as natural selection gets really extremely brutal. That’s what punctuated equilibrium is.

    I’ll try rephrasing it several times to see if you get it. Mutations alone does not account for natural selection. It also takes selection pressures from the environment. Mutations are the engine in the car, and natural selection is what turns the wheels. They are not the driver. They are the means to get a population from point A to point B. The environmental pressures are what steers.

    In the video he states that one building blocks for life was found on meteroids. The problem is that building blocks are not life…. What a closed minded guy he is for certain.

    We know that amino acids can be formed all by themselves in our primordial environment, as shown in the experiments that have come after Miller, that refined their techniques, and we know that amino acids can, all by themselves, form the precursor to DNA, being RNA, without a guiding hand. We know that RNA self-replicates, and is subject to natural selection. We know that lipid bilayers can be attracted to certain types of RNA. We know that every one of us life forms on Earth, even the bacterial ones, are made up of these building blocks. And we know that billions of years have passed between their first formation and today, due to mountains of archaeological evidence and the entire field of astronomy. So, we have all the pieces of the puzzle, and yet you still insist that the end picture should be a deity that created the universe in six literal days and willed the stars, the Earth, the Sun, the myriad life forms and DNA itself into being, ex nihilo, from nothing. And by insisting that’s what the puzzle must end up looking like, you are ignoring about 99% of the puzzle pieces we have right now. If anyone’s trying to bang them together incorrectly, it’s you.

    Keep on trying my friend…you have to keep on changing your theories because evolution is not a fact…it is still a theory.

    We have to keep changing our theories because our theories only explain the evidence we have up until the point when we form them. When new evidence comes along that doesn’t quite fit, we evolve our theories, improving them to explain more. Newtonian physics including his Theory of Gravity (only a theory!) explained a hell of a lot of physics quite elegantly, but broke down when it came to some cosmological stuff. (The fact that he was a theist comes from him being born in the 1700s when *everyone* was a theist, or else was chased out of the country or executed.) Then Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity (only a theory!) which explained all the things that Newton’s theories explained, but also explained those things where it all broke down. In other words, Newtonian physics was right, but was actually just an abstraction of reality, whereas Relativity is closer. It’s probably still just an abstraction, because Relativity breaks down and doesn’t quite work right when you get into that first split-second after the Big Bang. Everything after that, it’s pretty good. Even in black holes, except that black holes have another problem — the actual “information” about what’s inside the black hole can’t be lost or else it violates the laws of thermodynamics. Hawking figured out that that information could be encoded on the event horizon of the black hole, meaning black holes are technically holographic.

    Elsewhere in the scientific universe, we also figured out that the whole damn universe might also be holographic. Meaning every scrap of matter that’s in it is actually projected into the inside from the edges of it — which would explain a lot about the nature of the expansion of the universe. Imagine a balloon being expanded, and all the stuff inside the balloon is actually cross-referenced somehow on the surface of the balloon but simultaneously “exists” inside it. The more the balloon expands, the further apart everything starts getting inside the balloon even though the same amount of stuff is present.

    This is all fascinating theoretical stuff. These theories are built out of the evidence we have right now. Because they are “just theories”, when new evidence comes along, these theories have to either be tweaked or rewritten from scratch to explain it all. Once a theory is solid, it explains and predicts stuff. Once it explains and predicts stuff, we use it to find other scientific principles. If we can successfully find other such principles, and these ones hold up on their own, they also add to and confirm the original theories.

    Evolutionary theory is practically unassailable at this point. We know life evolves. We even have most of the details behind it, since the Theory of Evolution allowed us to figure out Gene Theory and discover DNA and do all sorts of crazy stuff with DNA since then. The only parts of the evolutionary theory that are left to discover are those few minor details at the edges. And every time we get one of those minor details, we open up whole new areas we can investigate, meaning we push the foundations of human knowledge itself by updating and upgrading our theories whenever we get new evidence.

    In the meantime, what has your really old fiction book predicted that’s ever come to pass? To elaborate, I mean, what has it predicted of a scientific nature that explains the true nature of the universe better than the evidence itself has taught us? Frankly, the Bible is a hell of a lot less predictive or moral or even laudable a book than, say, The Lord of the Rings. And LotR has even predicted the existence of Hobbits, which we happened to find in the fossil record! (Look up Homo floresiensis — one of humans’ distant cousins.) Name one thing the Bible has predicted that’s shown up. No unicorns, no chimera, no people with bird wings, no dragons, no Satyr, no twenty-foot-tall hominids.

  4. says

    I don’t know why I wasted so many electrons on telling Zdenny what he should already know. This does give me another idea for yet another post: ways The Lord of the Rings is better than the Bible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>