Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Oolon Colluphid · 05-24-2004, 01:49 AM

Hi chaps

I’ve started getting feedback from creationists about my site. Bit like busses, really: nothing for months, then three have come along at once. Here’s one of them: I’ve already chewed it a bit, but feel free to add / correct etc on the logical fallacies stuff (or anything else you fancy!).

Quote:

Mr. colluphid at oolon
you are mistaken
your whatever about Gods mistakes is a mistake
GOD DON"T :MAKE NO MISTAKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!
if he did, you wouldn't be here!

Mr.. Houlagarb
pS nice name

My reply:

Quote:

Mr. colluphid at oolon

Huh? I’ve not been “at�? Oolon, as far as I can tell. Ho hum. Hello to you too, Mr Houlagarb.

Quote:

you are mistaken

Okay, if you say so. Evidence and argument to follow, eh?

Quote:

your whatever about Gods [sic] mistakes is a mistake

So you said. I smell a Bellman’s Fallacy.

Quote:

GOD DON"T [sic] :MAKE NO [sic] MISTAKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!

“What I tell you three times is true.�?

http://ingeb.org/songs/justthep.html

Quote:

if he did, you wouldn't be here!

Let’s see... begging the question, I think that fallacy is called.

www.datanation.com/fallacies/begging.htm

And probably post hoc.

www.datanation.com/fallacies/posthoc.htm

So, like, since we are here, god cannot have made any mistakes. Interesting. So how exactly do you explain those things that do look like design cock-ups? That they’re not? But they clearly are, when viewed in the same light as all the ‘good designs’. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you, to explain why they are not poor designs.

Since I requested that any discussion of this be directed to the Internet Infidels Board, I’ve started a thread on this here: [link to here, now I’ve started this thread!]

Feel free to register and join in!

Quote:

pS nice name

Thank you.

Cheers, Oolon

PS The email was titled 'your wacky ideas'. Pot and kettle, eh?

Jet Black · 05-24-2004, 01:58 AM

I'm not sure which is worse, his (lack of) argument or his punctuation.

you said you got others too? was that the best one?

Oolon Colluphid · 05-24-2004, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jet Black

you said you got others too? was that the best one?

No, the funniest. The others are:

Quote:

how can god make mistakes? that doesn't fit the definition of God, nor can an animal that has lost genetic information and doesnt perform exactly as it did when it contained all its genes be attributed to god making a mistake. Since when is letting something degenerate on purpose "a mistake"?

talk about stupid

Which I've not replied to yet, and

Quote:

>From: [presumably real name]
>To:
>Subject: About the site
>Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 08:23:02 +0100
>
>Just to comment on the site and say:
>
>These are not God's mistakes
>
>In the Bible it says:
>
>God created the world perfect, man rebelled, God cursed the world. What we
>now see is the cursed world, therefore we will see mistakes.

... to which I've replied:

Quote:

Dear [chap's name]

Thanks for your email -- it looks like my suggestion (not to bother!) is working, cos you're the first respondant I've had! Sorry for the tardy reply, I'd given up on checking my inbox regularly!

Feel free to come along to the Internet Infidels' Evolution/Creation Forum if you'd like to discuss this in depth. It's at www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=66

However (and assuming you're a creation-believer), I'm intrigued as to how on earth the world being cursed might cause, say, our tailbone to have a muscle that cannot move it. How does Adam and Eve's sin reroute a nerve, exactly? How did it flip our retinas the wrong way around, and still have them work so well that many creationists deny there's a problem?
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Cheers, Oolon

He's not replied.

Cheers, Oolon

Jet Black · 05-24-2004, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oolon Colluphid

He's not replied.

I agree, the first was the best. Still they often don't reply, or if they do they reply once and then give up when the questions get hard.

Doubting Didymus · 05-24-2004, 02:15 AM

Those look rather a lot like drivebys to me, Oolon my mate.

Oolon Colluphid · 05-24-2004, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doubting Didymus

Those look rather a lot like drivebys to me, Oolon my mate.

I'm sure they are

But as we're a bit short of nice chewy creationists atm, I thought I'd share anyway.

Cheers, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid · 05-24-2004, 05:33 AM

My reply to the other one...

Quote:

Hello [name]. Many thanks for your comments. A few observations:

how can god make mistakes? that doesn't fit the definition of God,

That, m’dear chap, is my point. Therefore, since there are indeed mistakes -- foolish, pointless, overly-convoluted and/or dangerous ‘designs’ -- in living organisms, then whatever else is the explanation of them, ‘goddidit’ isn’t it.

nor can an animal that has lost genetic information

Please could you define ‘genetic information’? Thanks!

and doesnt perform exactly as it did when it contained all its genes

But most critters contain vastly more genetic material than they need to make their bodies. Many of these bits are manifestly turned-off genes. We know this because it’s possible to turn them on again, as with bird teeth (www.devbio.com/article.php?ch=6&id=56), bird complete fibulas and separate tarsals (www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Hampe_experiment.htm), and the fly halteres example.

Yet their bodies work just fine without these genes. I suggest you look up ‘pseudogenes’ in any genetics textbook. They are not lost; they’re still there, but deactivated. And crucially, what they make is things that the organism does not now have, does not need, and, according to creation, never did have.

Please explain how a loss of genetic information might cause a retina to be inverted... and still work so well that most creationists deny there’s even a problem! How might a loss of genetic information put the parts belonging to both sexes into single-sex flowers? (It must be that way round, because the plants are so good at being separate sexes!) How did it remove penguin pouches and cause marsupial infants to be born from the usual orifice? And if our post-auricular muscles and coccyx are information-degenerate features, tell me what sort of creature we used to be!

be attributed to god making a mistake.

That’s right. God doesn’t make mistakes. So these things were not shaped by any gods. ‘God’ is an inappropriate explanation for them.

Since when is letting something degenerate on purpose "a mistake"?

When it ‘degenerates’ yet still works remarkably well... when these degenerations are actually useful (ie look like designs)... when such ‘degeneration’ smacks of an ad hoc argument... then we may doubt that ‘degeneration from perfection’ is what we’re looking at.

Pray tell me what sort of degeneration can re-route a nerve, and still have it work really well? If the closed-off nostrils of the Sulidae are a result of degeneration, how come not having openings at the end of a diving bird’s beak is such an obviously good idea? When degeneration is an improvement, it can hardly be called degeneration... can it?

Sorry old chap, but ‘degeneration’ doesn’t cut it.

talk about stupid

Okay, I will. ‘Stupid’ is attributing to God so much stupidity. If there were such a thing as a hands-on designer-god, he’d not make so many cock-ups. Let go of this medieval nonsense though, as most Christians have, and there is less of a problem.

If you’d like to discuss this further, do come along to the Internet Infidels Evolution / Creation board (as I suggested on my ‘Contact’ page). It is here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=66

TTFN, Oolon

Jet Black · 05-24-2004, 05:49 AM

I like the third reply the best

I was particularly tickled by

Quote:

talk about stupid

Okay, I will.......

DinoStoned · 05-24-2004, 05:51 AM

You seem to be trying to lure the sheep into the lion's den.
Not that I disapprove...

Meatros · 05-24-2004, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oolon Colluphid

Okay, I will. ‘Stupid’ is attributing to God so much stupidity. If there were such a thing as a hands-on designer-god, he’d not make so many cock-ups. Let go of this medieval nonsense though, as most Christians have, and there is less of a problem.

That's got to be a classic!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-24-2004, 01:58 AM	#2
Jet Black Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: (GSV) Lasting Damage Posts: 10,734	I'm not sure which is worse, his (lack of) argument or his punctuation. you said you got others too? was that the best one?

05-24-2004, 02:15 AM	#5
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Those look rather a lot like drivebys to me, Oolon my mate.

05-24-2004, 05:51 AM	#9
DinoStoned Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Malaysia Posts: 599	You seem to be trying to lure the sheep into the lion's den. Not that I disapprove...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.