PDA

View Full Version : Religion Kirk Cameron and Bananas


Jilly
11-24-2009, 02:20 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2z-OLG0KyR4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2z-OLG0KyR4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

irishjayhawk
11-24-2009, 03:25 PM
I always get a kick out of that. And then I realize the people actually think that way.

underEJ
11-24-2009, 03:26 PM
Okay, I don't care what you(Kirk Cameron) think of evolution vs. intelligent design, that would be so much better if one of them wore an ape suit!

Donger
11-24-2009, 03:50 PM
I don't get it. He's suggesting that God created the banana for humans?

Jilly
11-24-2009, 03:51 PM
Well.....I'm not sure if this is an intelligent design issue or a homosexual issue....either way, the way that man fondles that banana is truly creepy.

HonestChieffan
11-24-2009, 04:04 PM
Bananas were invented to make banana bread.

Dicky McElephant
11-24-2009, 04:10 PM
So wait.....God thinks that we're idiots....so he made our food easy to get into?

Fish
11-24-2009, 04:25 PM
And the brilliant Intelligent Design expert neglects to point out that every banana you've ever eaten is actually a "clone" of the same genetic strain of banana that has been used for thousands of years. We reproduce them using clippings of existing bananas because of genetic mutations that rendered the common yellow banana sterile thousands of years ago. Yeah... the bananas we eat are all sterile.

Sterile clones due to genetic mutation. Just as god intended right?

Fits right in with the whole ID theory....

HonestChieffan
11-24-2009, 04:27 PM
True of avacados but i was unaware that was the case with bananas. I thought bananas could cross with plantains.

Fish
11-24-2009, 04:28 PM
True of avacados but i was unaware that was the case with bananas. I thought bananas could cross with plantains.

Next time you have a banana, just go ahead and save all the seeds you extract, and see what you can grow.....

HonestChieffan
11-24-2009, 04:30 PM
http://www.inibap.org/

Avacados are a clone and sport big seeds.

I think this thread is meant to seed discontent.

fan4ever
11-24-2009, 04:34 PM
Wow, do I feel exposed. That video revealed everything that I base my faith on.

fan4ever
11-24-2009, 04:43 PM
I always get a kick out of that. And then I realize the people actually think that way.

I wonder why he made coconuts so freakin' hard to get into.

Sully
11-24-2009, 05:07 PM
Why isn't there a pop-top on cows?

stevieray
11-24-2009, 05:17 PM
..apples and ba noo noos

irishjayhawk
11-24-2009, 05:23 PM
And the brilliant Intelligent Design expert neglects to point out that every banana you've ever eaten is actually a "clone" of the same genetic strain of banana that has been used for thousands of years. We reproduce them using clippings of existing bananas because of genetic mutations that rendered the common yellow banana sterile thousands of years ago. Yeah... the bananas we eat are all sterile.

Sterile clones due to genetic mutation. Just as god intended right?

Fits right in with the whole ID theory....

Better refutation: You know what else also fits into hands, perfectly? Yeah, I think you know.

Norman Einstein
11-24-2009, 05:42 PM
I wonder why he made coconuts so freakin' hard to get into.

That's so you don't have to carry a cup for the milk.

Norman Einstein
11-24-2009, 05:44 PM
Better refutation: You know what else also fits into hands, perfectly? Yeah, I think you know.

Well, now we know why you don't answer posts as quickly as most everyone else!

JohnnyV13
11-24-2009, 08:18 PM
Intelligent design is for people who lack intelligence.

SNR
11-24-2009, 10:56 PM
God should forget the bananas and work on making stuff like garlic easier to peel. I love it and would cook way more often with it if only God put as much time into creating garlic as he did bananas. I don't even like bananas that much.

SNR
11-24-2009, 10:57 PM
Well.....I'm not sure if this is an intelligent design issue or a homosexual issue....either way, the way that man fondles that banana is truly creepy.Oh good. I'm glad someone else thinks bananas look like penises. I was afraid people would call me gay.

Norman Einstein
11-24-2009, 11:00 PM
Oh good. I'm glad someone else thinks bananas look like penises. I was afraid people would call me gay.

So you are going to push that off on Jilly?

Pitt Gorilla
11-25-2009, 01:35 AM
I wonder what the watermelon says/"proves" about evolution.

Taco John
11-25-2009, 01:49 AM
I think that cosmic If-Then statements in the DNA code are much better indicators of intelligent design, but I'm not expecting that Mike Seaver is going to know anything about that.

Norman Einstein
11-25-2009, 07:04 AM
I wonder what the watermelon says/"proves" about evolution.

I'm sure that in casual conversation you will say it proves or disproves just about any point you want to bring up.

Nobody here knows why God created in the manner he did, and the best part is that if you are in a position to find out you won't be sharing it with anyone that doesn't already know. If you find your self in a position of not ever being able to prove it, you will most likely be with everyone else that thought evolution was the way the earth came to be with no intelligent design, with no God, with no hope.

InChiefsHell
11-25-2009, 07:10 AM
I'm sure that in casual conversation you will say it proves or disproves just about any point you want to bring up.

Nobody here knows why God created in the manner he did, and the best part is that if you are in a position to find out you won't be sharing it with anyone that doesn't already know. If you find your self in a position of not ever being able to prove it, you will most likely be with everyone else that thought evolution was the way the earth came to be with no intelligent design, with no God, with no hope.

For the most part, I agree with this.

...but Kirk Cameron is rather a douchebag...

Norman Einstein
11-25-2009, 07:57 AM
For the most part, I agree with this.

...but Kirk Cameron is rather a douchebag...

I think he might be stuck in the Left Behind series.

tooge
11-25-2009, 09:12 AM
" a point at the top for easy entry" yeah, into Kirks ass.

Demonpenz
11-25-2009, 10:14 AM
I find this thread apealing

stevieray
11-25-2009, 10:16 AM
I find this thread apealing
I find this post slipping.

Demonpenz
11-25-2009, 10:17 AM
that bananna reminds him of his highschool friend boner stabone

Demonpenz
11-25-2009, 10:18 AM
I find this post slipping.

Ouch you can Dole out some punishment

Jilly
11-25-2009, 10:18 AM
God should forget the bananas and work on making stuff like garlic easier to peel. I love it and would cook way more often with it if only God put as much time into creating garlic as he did bananas. I don't even like bananas that much.

lay the garlic on the cutting board, take a big bladed knife and lay it flat on the garlic and pound, then take each clove and do the same thing, the skin comes right off. Use a grater to chop garlic or mince it, instead of a knife...it's much easier, but watch the knuckles.

L.A. Chieffan
11-25-2009, 10:28 AM
i agree, bananas is one of the best food ever created. altho he peeled it upside down

stevieray
11-25-2009, 10:38 AM
Ouch you can Dole out some punishment

puts chiquita sticker on forehead..

...i'm breadn patna

Demonpenz
11-25-2009, 10:48 AM
puts chiquita sticker on forehead..

...i'm breadn patna

LMAO.

Boiled Chicken
11-25-2009, 11:30 AM
What I can't get my head around in this great debate is the absolutes of both arguments.

If I'm to believe evolutionists, there is no God, it isn't rational. But if I take it to its foundation, the big bang, I'm stuck. Evolutionists, if I'm interpretting several theories correctly, explain that everything began at this point. But, the big bang is...nothingness and then spontaneous somethingness. I know thats an oversimplification, but...how is that rational?

Or maybe it is like Keanu said in Constantine...God is a kid with an ant farm.

InChiefsHell
11-25-2009, 12:13 PM
Ouch you can Dole out some punishment

I think this thread sucks. I'm gonna have to split...

irishjayhawk
11-25-2009, 03:42 PM
What I can't get my head around in this great debate is the absolutes of both arguments.

If I'm to believe evolutionists, there is no God, it isn't rational. But if I take it to its foundation, the big bang, I'm stuck. Evolutionists, if I'm interpretting several theories correctly, explain that everything began at this point. But, the big bang is...nothingness and then spontaneous somethingness. I know thats an oversimplification, but...how is that rational?

Or maybe it is like Keanu said in Constantine...God is a kid with an ant farm.


You make several errors here.

First, not all evolutionists are godless. Or find belief therein irrational.
Second, evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of the universe. Big bang theory ≠ evolutionary theory.
Third, either way, by your very string of logic, you're left with the - currently - unanswerable question: what came first. With the big bang line, you're left with what caused the big bang. Currently, there are only theories. However, science doesn't have arrogance to claim complete knowledge. Conversely, religion does. And with the religious line, you get to "What created god?". If you can answer that question, you can logically answer the same question: "What created the big bang"?

Finally, I'll throw something out. We only know a fraction of the universe. It is entirely possible that some laws of physics could, potentially, be different in the vast reaches of the universe. Perhaps there is a way for something to come from nothing and we just haven't found it.

Jilly
11-25-2009, 04:47 PM
I think this thread sucks. I'm gonna have to split...

what's a matter? You yeller?

HonestChieffan
11-25-2009, 05:03 PM
Chunky Peanut butter, bananas, and mayo on soft white bread.

If you dont like those you are a filthy communist pinko.

InChiefsHell
11-25-2009, 05:36 PM
You make several errors here.

First, not all evolutionists are godless. Or find belief therein irrational.
Second, evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of the universe. Big bang theory ≠ evolutionary theory.
Third, either way, by your very string of logic, you're left with the - currently - unanswerable question: what came first. With the big bang line, you're left with what caused the big bang. Currently, there are only theories. However, science doesn't have arrogance to claim complete knowledge. Conversely, religion does. And with the religious line, you get to "What created god?". If you can answer that question, you can logically answer the same question: "What created the big bang"?

Finally, I'll throw something out. We only know a fraction of the universe. It is entirely possible that some laws of physics could, potentially, be different in the vast reaches of the universe. Perhaps there is a way for something to come from nothing and we just haven't found it.

Closest I've seen as an answer to What Created God is the "First Cause Argument". Basically, everything has to have a cause, and you trace that back to the one thing that does not need a cause. A creator, a First Cause, or God if you will.

This is an interesting website:
http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-argument.html

Has many "proofs" for God, and some refutations as well, I think. I've only just found it today, but I believe I'll be bookmarking it.

InChiefsHell
11-25-2009, 05:37 PM
what's a matter? You yeller?

That's a rather slippery question...

irishjayhawk
11-25-2009, 06:24 PM
Closest I've seen as an answer to What Created God is the "First Cause Argument". Basically, everything has to have a cause, and you trace that back to the one thing that does not need a cause. A creator, a First Cause, or God if you will.

This is an interesting website:
http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-argument.html

Has many "proofs" for God, and some refutations as well, I think. I've only just found it today, but I believe I'll be bookmarking it.

The First Cause argument is exactly what I'm describing. What created God?

If he can just "be", then why can't the universe just "be". You can't jump out of your own logic circle and then declare it not circular.

Norman Einstein
11-25-2009, 09:29 PM
The First Cause argument is exactly what I'm describing. What created God?

If he can just "be", then why can't the universe just "be". You can't jump out of your own logic circle and then declare it not circular.

No concept of the Alpha and Omega?

InChiefsHell
11-26-2009, 10:40 AM
The First Cause argument is exactly what I'm describing. What created God?

If he can just "be", then why can't the universe just "be". You can't jump out of your own logic circle and then declare it not circular.

No. The idea being that there MUST be a first cause, an "un-caused" cause, which set everything in motion. This "cause" designed everything else, it was\is intelligent. It's a logical fallacy that something advances from something less. Intelligence can't come from non-intelligence.

I'm not really explaining this well. And obviously, it's been argued about for centuries. That's why I put the link up. That sight has what most academics believe are the "proofs" for God's existence. It's pretty deep stuff, and I'm just not that deep...but since people have been arguing for and against it for so long, it stands to reason that there must be some validity to the arguments.

You can check out Dr. Peter Kreeft's speeches on the subject. I think they are fascinating, and even though the guy is a pretty deep academic, it's relatively easy to follow the arguments. Here's a link if you are interested:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/08_...ts-for-god.htm

You can just download pieces of the speech, but I recommend the whole thing, it's about an hour or so, with a question and answer section that is pretty interesting as well.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 10:51 AM
No. The idea being that there MUST be a first cause, an "un-caused" cause, which set everything in motion. This "cause" designed everything else, it was\is intelligent. It's a logical fallacy that something advances from something less. Intelligence can't come from non-intelligence.

I'm not really explaining this well. And obviously, it's been argued about for centuries. That's why I put the link up. That sight has what most academics believe are the "proofs" for God's existence. It's pretty deep stuff, and I'm just not that deep...but since people have been arguing for and against it for so long, it stands to reason that there must be some validity to the arguments.

You can check out Dr. Peter Kreeft's speeches on the subject. I think they are fascinating, and even though the guy is a pretty deep academic, it's relatively easy to follow the arguments. Here's a link if you are interested:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/08_...ts-for-god.htm

You can just download pieces of the speech, but I recommend the whole thing, it's about an hour or so, with a question and answer section that is pretty interesting as well.

The bold indicates everything that is wrong with our current media vs science happenstance. The media stands everything to gain to manufacture controversy; to ignite debate even where there isn't any or shouldn't be any. So just because people are arguing about something doesn't mean there is any validity to it.

And I very much get that the First Cause Argument is positing that there must have been a first cause. Yeah, I get that. Something cannot come from nothing. But that doesn't mean anything. You still get to the same circle. What caused the intelligence? Is there an intelligence above the intelligence you're positing created everything? Where does it stop?

That's kind of why the argument defeats itself by being circular. It doesn't just stop with "oh we've found the first cause" because what caused that first cause. You can't just stop it. Again, you're jumping out of your own circle and declaring it linear. And again, I'll propose the same argument in the exact vein of the First Cause Argument.

If God is the first cause, why can't the universe be the first cause?

InChiefsHell
11-26-2009, 11:04 AM
The bold indicates everything that is wrong with our current media vs science happenstance. The media stands everything to gain to manufacture controversy; to ignite debate even where there isn't any or shouldn't be any. So just because people are arguing about something doesn't mean there is any validity to it.

And I very much get that the First Cause Argument is positing that there must have been a first cause. Yeah, I get that. Something cannot come from nothing. But that doesn't mean anything. You still get to the same circle. What caused the intelligence? Is there an intelligence above the intelligence you're positing created everything? Where does it stop?

That's kind of why the argument defeats itself by being circular. It doesn't just stop with "oh we've found the first cause" because what caused that first cause. You can't just stop it. Again, you're jumping out of your own circle and declaring it linear. And again, I'll propose the same argument in the exact vein of the First Cause Argument.

If God is the first cause, why can't the universe be the first cause?

Happy Thanksgiving by the way.

The point is, the Universe behaves in a way that was designed. IF there was a first cause, then this first cause exists outside of our time, our dimensions. This first cause could be called "God". Or the great spaghetti monster in the sky. Whatever it's called, it MUST NOT require a cause.

I urge you to check out the link. Kreeft does a much better job than I.

And now, turkey at Grandmas!

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 11:17 AM
Happy Thanksgiving by the way.

Ditto. :D


The point is, the Universe behaves in a way that was designed.

Small quibble: the universe behaves in a way that was designed because we are perceiving design. In other words, we created design, we know what it looks like, what patterns it uses. Thus, when we see a painting, we know a painter must have painted it. Because we know that's what painters do. Likewise, we see nature doing things and we look for the pattern: and we see design/creation just like we see ourselves design/create things.

That was horribly explained but I'm trying to get my to-read queue whittled down. I hope you got the gist.


IF there was a first cause, then this first cause exists outside of our time, our dimensions. This first cause could be called "God". Or the great spaghetti monster in the sky. Whatever it's called, it MUST NOT require a cause.

And there's the jump. It MUST NOT REQUIRE A CAUSE. The argument is circular but the arguer jumps out before the close and claims its linear. IT doesn't work like that.


I urge you to check out the link. Kreeft does a much better job than I.

And now, turkey at Grandmas!

I'm doubting he does a better job. Philosophy 101 pretty much destroys the argument.

stevieray
11-26-2009, 11:38 AM
Small quibble: the universe behaves in a way that was designed because we are perceiving design. In other words, we created design, we know what it looks like, what patterns it uses. Thus, when we see a painting, we know a painter must have painted it. Because we know that's what painters do. Likewise, we see nature doing things and we look for the pattern: and we see design/creation just like we see ourselves design/create things.





Painters don't know where their talent comes from

Einstein:"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"

Aren't you defeating your own argument? In one post you state that the universe can just be, then state that using that logic is fallable?

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 12:04 PM
Painters don't know where their talent comes from

Einstein:"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"

Aren't you defeating your own argument? In one post you state that the universe can just be, then state that using that logic is fallable?

Actually, I'm using the "universe can just be" as an example of why that whole line of argument is retarded. I'm not actually asserting it. Yet, anyway.

stevieray
11-26-2009, 12:54 PM
Actually, I'm using the "universe can just be" as an example of why that whole line of argument is retarded. I'm not actually asserting it. Yet, anyway.


that's silly.

create and design infer to cause, to plan, to formulate.....intent and purpose.

I imagine that's why you ignored the the first part of my post.

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 02:01 PM
that's silly.

create and design infer to cause, to plan, to formulate.....intent and purpose.

Yes. I agree. That's our perception of it. That's our language used to indicate what we see or experience. Language isn't innate. We derived it.


I imagine that's why you ignored the the first part of my post.

The first part has no substance. The middle was a random quote from Einstein mentioned specifically to make your side sound like it was backed by Einstein, which isn't true either.

Norman Einstein
11-26-2009, 07:58 PM
Actually, I'm using the "universe can just be" as an example of why that whole line of argument is retarded. I'm not actually asserting it. Yet, anyway.No concept of the Alpha and Omega? re deux

irishjayhawk
11-26-2009, 08:16 PM
No concept of the Alpha and Omega? re deux

Not sure what you want here, troll tom.

Norman Einstein
11-26-2009, 09:39 PM
Not sure what you want here, troll tom.

I'm sure you are on drugs. You know not of what you speak.