Is this what they use against Marine Force Recon recruits to test their mental boundaries lol (jk)? I mean, its not like I'm "forced" to listen to it, and it's also not like I have to sit through these boring-ass Zoom meetings, in fact I'm POMO since many years now, but goddamn, it's still annoying as fuck. The current topic is intelligent design, my Kryptonite, and my mom is listening to it through her phone. The other weak it was about how "loving" [the burnt flesh-loving evil war demiurge] Jehova [a.k.a. the creator of Satan and allower of every conceivable form of suffering, speaking of the head of the whole crime gang] is, and how he's gonna fucking "DESTROY all of his enemies" (literally said by some PIMI) during Judgement Day (wow didn't know JWs were so eager to see bloodshed and explosions. Fucking hypocrites).

Knowing that so many people reject science and replace it with voodoo superstition (even the VERY people who have sworn to seek out the truth via the scientific method. How many scientists and engineers these days believe in fucking gods and whatnot) drives me absolutely fucking nuts. This is one of the main reasons I'm a misanthrope and don't want to reproduce our flawed idiotic selfish sociopath-genes onto this world, and funnily enough, it's always the greatest religious fucktards who reproduce the most.

And NO, creationists, the human eye was NOT intelligently design, and nor was anything else on this horrible world. Creationists always cherrypick the "magical" components of what they deem as an "intelligently designed" world, but easily forgot how fucked up all of creation is. For example, sentient life forms, such as humans, are full of pain receptors. Why the fuck did a "loving" GOD even CREATE the ability to experience tremendous pain?!? You can't trace that shit back to Original Sin!!! Did Adam and Eve have NO pain receptors and nerves whatsoever before they "disobeyed" God's arbitrary game rule? So you want to fucking tell me that they popped into existence once their teeth met the fruits surface or what? Damn dawg, that shit's a millionfold more unreasonable than your misconceived notions about evolution. But "gAwD dId iT i gUeSS". Yep. No fucking reason to use that motherfucking super-computer that is your brain, you blasphemer. Bc unlike a thinking atheist, you are on fucking autopilot, 24/7, and you will dissolve into oblivion in your deathbed, hoping to reopen your eyes in paradise. I bet you never even questioned why the f

Many creationists, in this sub, come here to debate a theory about which they know very little.* This is clear when they attack abiogenesis, claim a cat would never give birth to a dragon, refer to "evolutionists" as though it were a religion or philosophy, rail against materialism, or otherwise make it clear they have no idea what they are talking about.

That's OK. I'm ignorant of most things. (Of course, I'm not arrogant enough to deny things I'm ignorant about.) At least I'm open to learning. But when I offer to explain evolution to our creationist friends..crickets. They prefer to remain ignorant. And in my view, that is very much not OK.

Creationists: I hereby publicly offer to explain the Theory of Evolution (ToE) to you in simple, easy to understand terms. The advantage to you is that you can then dispute the actual ToE. The drawback is that like most people who understand it, you are likely to accept it. If you believe that your eternal salvation depends on continuing to reject it, you may prefer to remain ignorant--that's your choice. But if you come in here to debate from that position of ignorance, well frankly you just make a fool of yourself.

*It appears the only things they knew they learned from other creationists.

Let's hope all goes well with the WST on its long journey to the La Grange point beyond the orbit of the moon, because it will provide evidence that will confirm the age of the universe and should be the final nail in the coffin for young earth creationism.

So I've been watching a lot of videos about Kent Hovind (an American young earth creationist) recently. One trend I've noticed is the fact that he thinks atheists and evolutionists "believe" in evolution like it's a religion. This astounds me, since they're the one following a religion, not us. Religion is blindly following the 'will' of a trandescent being in order to ensure that the world doesn't end in chaos.

We accept the theory of evolutionism because it's the result of years upon years of scientific research and testing. Creationists cling onto their theory because 'some book says a thing' (to quote Professor Dave Explains). I think if they realised that we don't blindly follow these scientific papers, they would view evolutionism very differently.

My father is a "young biosphere creationist," which means that he believes that the earth and the universe are old, but that life is only 6,000 years old. He is a renowned physicist and the dean of the physics department at a prestigious university. I know, it's strange and absurd.

Anyway, he has pretty sophisticated reasons for not agreeing with radiometric dating. Here are two articles that he cited in support of his position:

More Bad News for Radiometric Dating (unc.edu)

The Radiometric Dating Game (tasc-creationscience.org)

He believes that there are too many unjustified assumptions in the whole process of dating igneous rocks and that they are ultimately unreliable. He says that the data has been cooked to suit the requirements of evolutionists. He believes in a global flood. He does not agree that rocks have been found in a sequential order in the geological record, nor does he agree that fossils are found in a particular record. He says that they're found in a random order, but that evolutionists only highlight places where the record suits their agenda.

Would be really grateful if you guys could evaluate these claims and/or provide me with sources that could help debunk his claims (if he is wrong).

So I'm requesting two things:

1. Counter-arguments against the two articles attacking the method of radiometric dating
2. Evidence that igneous rocks' ages found in each strata are the same age, and that there is a sequence in the age indicated here when you look at the sequence of the strata. This is to show that the sequence is not random and could not have been created by a flood.

The false equivocation of evolution and religion is an old one, of course, but this was a new one. It was a video from PBS Eons talking about the paraceratherium. A commenter said they were no longer a "devout evolutionist".

A lot of you know this already, but for those of you who don't: the term "evolutionist" is very likely a creationist trying to sew some sort of discord. Or, it is potentially a person who subscribes to evolution but grew up hearing that term and thinks it has validity. Nobody is an evolutionist. You have biologists. Neurologists. Chemists. Etc.

That was very amusing to me and very much in line with those people who claim they used to be a pagan or satanist or whatever.

What are some terms you've heard which give away that someone you're talking to is very likely a creationist trying to convert you or whatever?

Jehovah's Witnesses claim in their FAQ, that they're not creationists, despite belief in a God that created everything. What they're actually answering is whither they are YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS.

They answer no on two points: that YEC believe that the earth and the living things on it were created in six 24 hour days. JWs claim that the bible doesn't say that the earth itself was created during the six creative days and the earth is billions of years old. They also claim that the creative days were of "a considerable length of time". Funny how they don't give some sort of number to that.

They "believe that true science and the Bible are compatible." Though they agree with science that the earth is billions of years old, how old do JWs believe life on earth is? Do they agree with science that life is millions to billions of years old?

Watchtower February 15, 1972 - Creation from God’s Viewpoint

"Thus we find the seventh “day” of the creative week to be seven thousand years long. On the basis of the length of the seventh “day” it is therefore reasonable to conclude that each of the other six “days” also was a period of 7,000 years."

Awake February 8, 1992 - Happened to the Dinosaurs?

"While the radioactive dating method is innovative, it is still based on speculation and assumption... [The Bible] allows for... many millenniums [thousands of years] in six creative eras, or “days,” to prepare the earth for human habitation."

Awake January 2014 - The Bible's Viewpoint: Creation

In fact, the Bible uses the word “day” to refer to various lengths of time. For example, it calls the entire period of creation “the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” (Genesis 2:4) Evidently, these “days” of creation lasted many thousands of years.

Bible Questions Answered [~2021] - What Does the Bible Say About Dinosaurs?

"In the Bible, the word “day” can refer to periods of time that last thousands of years.​"

So even though JWs teach that the earth is billions of years old, JWs also believe that life on earth is between 7000 to over 49, 000 years old. Far from what science reports. It can be safe to say that JWs are a form of young earth creationists.

Edit: A correction that JWs are old earth creationists. But are closer to what has been coined Day-age creationism. A type of old Earth creationism, i that is a metaphorical interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordi

Three steps Creationists take to convert atheists 1 try and prove that God exists as a factual being

2 try and prove that God is beneficial to humanity

3 mock and belittle

Apparently they just skip the first 2 on here

I guarantee that I'll get some on this post, LOVE YOU GUYS!!! KEEP BEING KOOKY 🤪🤣🥰

This is my first post here so I’m sorry if it’s dumb and stupid and rambly.

I spent my whole life utterly despising myself. I was constantly told I was an evil sinner who was unworthy of love and that only through god’s infinite mercy could there be any hope for my life. I was also living with undiagnosed autism.

I didn’t get diagnosed until I was 21 years old with literally no support from my parents. I had been living on my own for only a year before I started to realize, “hey, I’m pretty fucking weird, maybe this whole severe social anxiety thing has a cause and I’m not just broken.” How can someone spend 20 years raising a child and not realize there’s something different about him, that he needs special accommodations and can’t be disciplined into being neurotypical? It’s an easy answer: they can’t. They just have to ignore it like they do everything else that doesn’t fit into their criminally narrow worldview.

Like when your 10 year old comes home from school all excited talking about how the state you live in was flattened by massive glaciers tens of thousands of years ago, and you tell them “no, that’s wrong. God made everything the way it is 6,000 years ago.”

I was made fun of by my own mother and father constantly for my special interests, well into my teenage years. Video games, superheroes, military history. I was made to feel like a child simply for finding joy in places they didn’t expect. I still have a hard time talking to people about things I like. My wife is constantly helping me to open up more and not feel like a total loser for showing someone something I think is cool.

I remember telling them several times about how I wished to be made unalive and they would just tell me I needed to get a job or just be thankful for what I have. I haven’t talked with them in six months. I don’t miss them. I feel so much better about myself. I no longer wish to die. I surround myself with people who actually care about me. But I still feel like a massive piece of shit for not seeing them on Christmas.

I feel guilty for not talking to them. Like I’m an ungrateful reprobate deserving of nothing but shame for having abandoned my family. I’m constantly apologizing to my wife for talking about the Witcher or historical firearms or just not being good enough. Idk man. Shit sucks. All I know is I’m never having kids

Edit: thanks for the award and all the encouraging comments. It’s hard for me to go and respond to them all because I’m so weird bu

Almost two decades ago an article was published on NCSE: Evolution is a Winner -- for Breakthroughs and Prizes

It's written by a former CEO of a biotech firm and discusses, at high level, the contribution evolutionary biology has in the biotech industry:

>Applied techniques based on evolution play central roles in the biotechnology industry, and in recent advances in genomics and drug discovery. Bioinformatics, the application of computers to biology and one of the hottest career opportunities in science, is full of evolution-based computer code. Tens of thousands of researchers in the multibillion-dollar field of biomedical research and development use evolution-based discoveries and concepts as a routine part of their important work.

Unlike academia, it's more challenging to directly find out what happens behind the doors of industry firms. But one way the application of evolutionary biology and other sciences can be deduced is by way of patent filings by companies.

Searching through patent archives via Google Patents finding patents based on evolutionary biology is quite trivial. There are thousands based on directed evolution, phylogenetics, comparative genomics, etc. These patents often reference evolutionary biology and/or the academic literature thereof.

In contrast, I find no patents filed by any creationist or intelligent design organizations. In fact, searching the database I found one single reference to intelligent design, a reference to Darwin's Black Box (Behe). And even that reference was merely in relation to the term irreducible complexity in a question posed by the patent authors. IOW, there doesn't seem to be anyone trying to use anything from the creationist or intelligent design world to do, well, anything. This is further reinforced by examining financial statements of creationist and ID organizations which generate revenues primarily from donations, publishing/seminars, and tourism.

In my decades in the C/E debate, I've found very little engagement when raising the issue of patents to creationist or intelligent design proponents. Usually it's either ignored, dismissed or on occasion said proponents try to take credit for it. I don't think I've seen a general acknowledgement from creationists that evolutionary biology and other sciences opposed by creationists have practical value in real-world industry.

I'm curious if anyone has seen the subject of patents come

As a followup to yesterday's Traps and Flaws in Creationism, /u/azusfan has posted one of his recommended argument, Entropy.

Of course, as is tradition, the creationist immediately steps in his own shit, by immediately defining entropy using the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which he recommended they avoid yesterday:

>Entropy is a major creationist rebuttal for all the claims of atheistic naturalism. This usage of entropy is,

>"Everything tends toward randomness and chaos, constantly. "

...which is a layman's definition for the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

But he also said:

>2nd Law of Thermodynamics. ..Is NOT a creationist argument.

Yet... entropy is the major creationist rebuttal for all claims? Interesting.

Of course, the issue is that not everything trends to disorder constantly; this is true of the totality of a closed-system, but individual components can rise against entropy, as long as obtain that energy from elsewhere. As such, his definition is already completely unsupported by any scientific principles; in fact, it's directly contradicted.

Let us amuse ourselves by watching him attempt to defeat "atheistic naturalism" with a concept he not only recommended they avoid, but has created an entirely new definition that doesn't reflect reality.

>Big bang - entropy would prevent ANY 'self organizing' of all the matter in the universe.

Except, dissipative systems are known to exist, and won someone the Nobel for their description. Large scale systems, when they have excess energy to bleed, can take on higher structures, which are thermodynamically describable. Entropy is not violated in this 'self-organization'.

>Abiogenesis - entropy, the tendency of everything toward randomness and chaos, would not have allowed life to begin naturally, if that was even possible.

Once again: you only need a source of energy, from which you can steal to rise against entropy. Such an example on Earth would be our molten, radioactive core, which provides us with geothermal energy; or the sun, which provides plant life with the energy to for sugars that are consumed by other high life forms.

All of this respects entropy, as eventually it will al

I was at Carter caves in Kentucky a few years ago and was doing a tour of the saltpeter cave, and I asked the tour guide how old the caves where and under what conditions did they form. He immediately responded with "Well, I'm a Christian, so I can tell you the truth of the matter is the caves where formed from the great flood 4000 years ago". I was absolutely shocked that in a state resort park they would allow their staff to shove their pseudoscience and religion down my family's throat. I was wondering if anyone else hase any similar stories.

TL/DR: The claim that a designed organism's genome must be mostly or entirely functional doesn't seem to have any basis other than being a contrarian argument with respect to standard biology and evolution.

A common creationist or intelligent design claim is the notion that under an intelligent design model, one would expect that an organism's genome should be mostly or entirely functional. That, for whatever reason, a designer wouldn't otherwise include non-functional genomic elements. For example: http://www.ideacenter.org/content1156.html

I've never understood this particular line of reasoning. I'll use an example of human design to illustrate why this reasoning doesn't make sense.

This example involves computer programming. When writing a piece of software, there are various elements that a programmer can include in the source code. This can include functional code designed to be read by an interpreter or compiler in the creation of the functional software. They can also include non-functional* elements such as line feeds, whitespace, comments, etc.

(* Note that non-functional elements may be language dependent.)

As a specific example, the code for the Command & Conquer video games was released by Electronic Arts awhile back. Looking at some of the code for C&C: Red Alert (https://github.com/electronicarts/CnC_Remastered_Collection/tree/master/REDALERT), I was struck by how many comments were included. For example, this is a snippet from one of the source files (HOUSE.CPP):

/***********************************************************************************************
 * HouseClass::One_Time -- Handles one time initialization of the house array.                 *
 *                                                                                             *
 *    This basically calls the constructor for each of the houses in the game. All other       *
 *    data specific to the house is initialized when the scenario is loaded.                   *
 *                                                                                             *
 * INPUT:   none                                                                               *
 *                                                                                             *
 * OUTPUT:  none               

Considering that Young Earth Creationists (YECs) reject most of modern Biology[1] and Geology,[2] it is about time they developed their own field of observational science. Taxonomic divisions have traditionally been based on physical characteristics, however the new frontier of genome sequencing has shaken that status quo. While geneticists are hard at work with biological data to divide living things by evolutionary similarity, YECs are hard at work on their own new set of divisions.

The intent is to solve a problem; there are too many animals. The fewer creatures that YECs have to fit onto Noah’s ark, the more reasonable their position is; feeding, watering, cleaning, and de-manuring 50,000[3] terrified animals in the world’s biggest floating zoo is a daunting task, and it’s not one that the Ark Encounter amusement park would like to pedal. Secondarily, genetic similarity between animals and observed speciation and mutation cannot be adequately explained by YEC microevolution. To address these issues, YECs have developed the pseudoscientific field of Baraminology. All species are confined into bubbles that hover around the taxon of family. Some examples[4] set forth by creationists are Bear Kind, (equivalent to family Ursidae and all its genus and species) Great Ape Kind, (family Pongidae) and Camel Kind (family Camelidae). Genuses and species within kinds can evolve as much as they want inside their bubble, but cannot break out of it either in the past or in the future. Theoretically, pairs of ancestors for each kind on the ark are responsible for the vast diversity today.

I call it pseudoscientific because while Bariminology was not developed to study or classify any actual scientific data (as you will see in a moment), it still insists on using scientific terminology and being written about in technical publications. For the purposes of this article I will be referring to a series of papers researched by Dr. Jean Lightner and published by Answers Research Journal. The papers were originally intended to provide guidelines for the exhibits at the Ark Encounter amusement park. Dr. Lightner outlines the method that she and her team used to define kinds in their report. I am going to present it as they do and let their process speak for itself.

First, the Answers researchers looked for hybridization - reproductive compatibility. If two animals can produce offspring, the researchers consider them, and by extension their respective taxological f

Edit: it is bewildering to me how many people tried to prove my point about the flood wrong without even reading the source. Read Genesis 6-9 before you comment and be like "BuT ThE FloOD aCtuAlLy haPpEnED" I wasn't talking about the glaciers melting either🤦

Edit 2: You people are so persistent 🤦🤦🤦

I also don't trust the Christian god's judgment or for that matter any god's judgment, but that is neither here nor there.

Also the boat is even more preposterous. Also also it's made out of fictional wood, that never again appears in the bible, for no reason.

Honestly I never read the Bible as a Christian, but now as a full-blown atheist I kind of want to read it, but also no.

Happens all the time.

"Genetic Entropy": Too many mutations, too much genetic diversity.

Not "Genetic Entropy": Too little genetic diversity.

See if you can spot the problem here.

Shot.

Chaser.

It's one thing to make a case for GE, which involves crimes against population genetics. It's another to try to argue for GE while citing evidence of the exact opposite thing. At the very least, creationists, could you stop doing the latter?

I've been reading up on genetic entropy lately and trying to understand exactly what a genetic entropy extinction event is supposed to look like. The only purported example I have been able to find is the 2012 paper by Sanford and Carter, A new look at an old virus: patterns of mutation accumulation in the human H1N1 influenza virus since 1918. This is discussed in this CMI article, More evidence for the reality of genetic entropy by Carter.

Regarding the claim that the human lineage of H1N1 went extinct in 2009, is there any validity to this claim? On the CDC web site, they indicate that H1N1 pdm09 virus is still circulating and causing seasonal flu. This is similarly documented in various papers on this virus since 2009. There are also various documented outbreaks of H1N1 since 2009. So I'm not entirely sure where the claim that it's gone extinct is coming from.

Following up to that, there is segment in this CMI video with Carter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yZ-lh37My4&t=720s) where he talks about what genetic entropy applies to. The question is why don't we see bacteria and viral populations going extinct if genetic entropy is real?

He starts by claiming that bacterial organisms might be the one type of organism that could escape the effects of genetic entropy. His claim is a vague reference to large population sizes and natural selection, and the relative "complexity" of the organisms.

He immediately follows this by referencing the aforementioned 2012 paper on H1N1 and how the claim they had witnessed genetic entropy in action with a virus. This seems an odd contradiction. Why would a virus with relative "simplicity", rapid reproduction, large population sizes, and selection pressures be subject to genetic entropy if bacteria wouldn't? After all viruses are estimated to have similar orders of magnitude population sizes globally as bacteria (something on the order of 10^30ish). Carter even points out that viruses are subject to selection.

Is it just me or is Carter blatantly contradicting himself in the span of 3 minutes?

Getting back to my original question, what would a genetic entropy extinction event actually look like? Would a population simply be moving along generally fine until suddenly reaching a point where viable reproduction is no longer possible, and they die

Something tells me that some of 'em are just in for the money... perhaps even... the "loyal-and-discreet-slave-who-is-not-so-loyal-and-discreet-nor-even-a-slave"?

So Paul Nelson is a young earth creationist. Recently, he partnered up with his fellow creationist Subboor Ahmad to make a four-part video series to "test" universal common descent. His mode of publication was Subboor Ahmad's apologetics channel rather than a scientific journal. Nelson is a member of the Discovery Institute, and so a believer in intelligent design. On a personal level, Nelson's work is to refute common descent and so convince himself that his creationism is reasonable. For this reason, it's fair grounds for refutation here.

The four-part video series is really new, and filled with sooo many fallacies, misrepresentations of common descent, and occasional pseudoscience. I plan on refuting all four of these videos, but each one of them is an hour long. So I'll go one at a time. This post will be devoted to part 1 of this series.

Testing Universal Common Descent Part 1

The video begins by laying out definitions for a fair amount of time, but I'll skip to the actual arguments. Nelson argues that universal common descent is untestable because it posits only one origins of life. Because it posits that there is only one origins of life, we can't compare it with any other origins event and therefore it is untestable. That's wrong lol. The only reason why universal common descent is posited to begin with is because all our falsifying tests for universal common ancestry, i.e. that there exist lifeforms which are so fundamentally different from each other that must have had different origins, don't work. If some life was not cellular but based on an entirely different unit, that would falsify universal common ancestry. If there was life which used something entirely different than DNA and RNA and proteins, that would falsify universal common descent. But we don't observe anything of the sort. Literally all life is so similar in its fundamentals (i.e. it is cellular, uses the exact same and very specific chemical structures of DNA and RNA, the same basic twenty amino acids to synthesize proteins with very specific molecular complexes like ribosomes, along with sharing dozens if not hundreds of gene families) that all our tests for detecting multiple origins fail. So we're left with universal common ancestry.

But it gets worse for Nelson: there IS something we can DIRECTLY compare abiogenesis to. Namely, the origins of viruses! I'm surprised Nelson didn't think of that. In the last few years, vi

10 reason evolution is wrong \s

1. Life is complex

I mean this point alone should be enough to convice you. All you scientists who've spend your whole lives studying evolution should just pack it up right now.

I mean how has no evolutionist ever realised life is complex?

2. The 2nd law of thermodynamics

I don't really care what the 1st and 3rd laws or thermodynamics are. But evolution violates the 2nd one. I mean order from chaos?

3. The chances of Evolution happening are low

The chances of the Earth being the way it is very low. I mean the Earth is the perfect size and distance from the sun and it's got water. The chances of the Earth being the way it is, is like 1/1,000,000,000. Sure the universe is potentially infanitly large and when you have a sample size of infinity looking at the chances for something seems silly. But evolution is like a tornado ripping thourgh a barn and producing a boeing 747. I know this because that's how my echo chamber says evolution works.

4. No one was there.

I mean come on guys. The past dosen't effect the present, leaving behind clues as to what really happened. My holy book has an eye-wittness account of what really happened. And we all know how reliable eye-wittness accounts are. And no, only my specific holy book is right because it's the one I grew up with.

5. Carbon dating is inaccurate

I can't believe scientist are unaware of the limitations of carbon-14 dating and have never come up with another way of telling how old something is. It was a scientist that told me about the these limitation btw.

6. The is no proof of macro-evolution

Sure there's proof of mirco-evolution. But did you know the mechanisms involved in taking a single step are different from the mechanisms involved in walking across a room.

7. Evolution is just a matter of belief

As we all know science is just a matter of belief. The only reason you can't fly is because you believe in gravity. I mean both evolution and gravity are just theories anyway.

8. If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

As soon as I was born, all my cousins became me. Why can't apes do the same?

9. We have never found any transional fossils

Yes of couse I know what a trasitional fossil is. It's a fossil that's half-fish half-t-rex.

10. Is all part of the atheist agenda

I mean why else do secularist try to oppress and scilence creationists and advocates for intelligent design? It couldn't be because a being t

Supposedly in the garden, they would be unnecessary, with no sickness or death. I suppose it is possible that God, in his omniscience, foresaw that death would enter the world and decided to imbue man with an immune system. But then, why not just make viruses and such to be far weaker than they are? Wouldn't that have been a far simpler solution?