|
|
Post by Nutcase on May 2, 2011 18:27:07 GMT -5
I was wondering if some of you science-y types would be able to help me collect the data necessary to refute the rock-bottom ramblings of a creationist named Gregg. What makes this particular creationist especially irritating is his smug arrogance, and the way he fiercely guards his own ignorance against reason. It was easy enough for me to dismantle his blather about cultural evolution, but I'm not sure how to approach his arguments concerning abiogenesis and 'cosmic evolution.' These aren't usually areas of interest for me, and so I don't have enough specialized knowledge to make heads or tails of Gregg's blubbering. His latest article includes such howlers as...
Darwinists claim that according to Cosmic Evolution, the age of the earth is approximately 4.2 to 5.6 billion years.
...and...
The modern understanding of molecular biology allows scientists to calculate the PROBABILITY of dirt and rocks deciding to form a living organism.
At the TalkOrigins archive, I found plenty of information about irreducible complexity, since he throws that in there, too, but I can't even grasp Gregg's argument about how the Earth is simply too young to accommodate the length of time he supposes biological evolution must have taken. His article is here. Refute away - if you dare. |
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on May 2, 2011 18:32:02 GMT -5
Oh I am so on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by happycheeze on May 2, 2011 18:44:21 GMT -5
...and...
The modern understanding of molecular biology allows scientists to calculate the PROBABILITY of dirt and rocks deciding to form a living organism.
Deciding? What the fuck is he smoking? edit: Okay so he lists the old probabilty trick Estimating the probability with a sample size of one is a useless piece of information. Also he uses the word Darwinist  . Darwinism is basically the first 'draft' of evolutionary theory. There were things that Darwin couldn't explain or account for like heredity. Now we do know those mechanisms and the current model is the Synthetic Theory of Evolution. Dawinism/darwinist is an old term. Think back to when the theory was proposed in 1859, there were scientists who supported it and those were the Darwinists. I just wanted to rant on this because it gets a little annoying to hear that. I think Dawkins will say Darwinst and its kinda annoying. But whatev |
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on May 2, 2011 19:38:59 GMT -5
Oh God this is such a long article I'm gonna die what is this I don't even
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on May 2, 2011 19:48:52 GMT -5
Oh God this is such a long article I'm gonna die what is this I don't even Yeah, I know. It took me several hours to deconstruct his stupid article on social evolution. The refutation-to-bullshit ratio must have been 5:1. If you're a masochist, go check out his previous articles. Pretty much all of them are like this. |
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on May 2, 2011 20:10:12 GMT -5
I'm only done with his first section of six, and every sentence is so full of fail that I have already written more than his actual article, and with better grammar and punctuation.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong: when using scientific notation, 10 raised to a negative power multiplied by a number is a fraction, and 10 raised to a positive power multiplied by a number is a number with a lot of zeroes on the end. Is this correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by Miles, The Slightly Off on May 2, 2011 20:14:35 GMT -5
I'm only done with his first section of six, and every sentence is so full of fail that I have already written more than his actual article, and with better grammar and punctuation. Also, correct me if I'm wrong: when using scientific notation, 10 raised to a negative power multiplied by a number is a fraction, and 10 raised to a positive power multiplied by a number is a number with a lot of zeroes on the end. Is this correct? Considering where my math classes are from, I could most definitely be wrong, but that sounds right. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on May 2, 2011 20:51:59 GMT -5
Refuting Gregg takes no math because his basic principle is flawed (read moronic).
The building blocks of life did not spontaneously form. The miller experiment showed us that. This added to the fact that the earliest "life" may not have been alive, but simple self replicating strands of protein. See Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" for more on this.
Also Gregg in naming the simplest organism forgets about those wonderful things like viruses, prions, nanobes and nanobacteria. All are these are simpler and can replicate.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 2, 2011 23:56:03 GMT -5
If there ever is a zombie apocalypse, it will be caused by prions.
*shudder*
|
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on May 3, 2011 0:16:00 GMT -5
Hold on. If you type 'a lot' as one word you get an alot? Priceless!  |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on May 3, 2011 0:19:11 GMT -5
That went into effect over a month ago...
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on May 3, 2011 3:07:34 GMT -5
Yes, try to keep up with our  changes. Edit: lawl, had to edit because I can't even intentionally misspell "grammar". |
|
|
|
Post by Runa on May 3, 2011 3:11:01 GMT -5
Is it sad that I admit I know little more about science than a Creationtard?
Guess that's why I'm in Humanities rather than science...
|
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on May 3, 2011 3:30:15 GMT -5
Oh wow, that's the first time I've seen the grammer edit, but alot is still my favorite.
|
|
Dan
Full Member
Posts: 228
|
Post by Dan on May 3, 2011 14:18:14 GMT -5
Also, correct me if I'm wrong: when using scientific notation, 10 raised to a negative power multiplied by a number is a fraction, and 10 raised to a positive power multiplied by a number is a number with a lot of zeroes on the end. Is this correct? Yup. Think of the power as the number of places the decimal should move to the right. A negative value means the decimal moves left instead. eg: 2.0 * 10^3 means you move the decimal 3 places to the right, to get 2000.0 2.0 * 10^-3 means you move the decimal 3 places to the left, to get 0.002 |
|
