Why people laugh at Creationists

[Dave Lane]

Taking a lead from Killer Clown I thought I'd create a alternative thread to post some videos I like...

[EDIT New video here]

So on with the show:

Here's the Kent Hovind Theory:



"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Yes the entire point is what is true today is false tomorrow and is taught as fact. How about we call it a religion and get it over with?

When scientists say that the earth is "x billion years old," they are not saying, "This is the end of the discussion." They say, "To the best of our present knowledge, using scientific abilities like carbon dating, rock formation, and using the observable world now to deduct other things, we can very accurately estimate that the world is x billion years old. We are currently working on further testing."

That's different than your religious stripe, which says, "The earth is 6000 years old, and there can be no discussion, no questioning, and no doubt about this, otherwise, you are rejecting the Word of God."

Where can a person fit who a) wants to believe in a loving God and Christian doctrines, and b) believes God gave us the ability of deduction, logic, and ability to use tools and reason to more accurately understand our natural world?

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

That doesn't come close.

What put the atoms in place to allow nuclear fusion to happen?

E=mc2

Since you won't care I'll simplify it for you

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

E=mc2

Since you won't care I'll simplify it for you

I don't believe in the 6000 year thing but find the science argument finite in that it can only go so far and doesn't answer my underlying questions.

[Dave Lane]

And by the way if you are going to say where did the energy come from for the big bang, then I will respond where did god come from?

If you can believe energy has always existed on a time scale we can't begin to comprehend then the same has to apply to a god.

Its called logic. Apply it and both issues (god / energy) have to have a starting point by your very definition.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

And by the way if you are going to say where did the energy come from for the big bang, then I will respond where did god come from?

If you can believe energy has always existed on a time scale we can't begin to comprehend then the same has to apply to a god.

Its called logic. Apply it and both issues (god / energy) have to have a starting point by your very definition.

I agree, which is why I don't mock your position even though you don't have a complete answer.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

With GOD all things are possible.

That answer is perfectly acceptable. Much better than trying to refute science in order to give "evidence" for you beliefs.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by stevieray

really, so there is no ice left?

ludicrous would be acknowledging they were once in turkey, which validates the Ark, and then saying the same point of origin/final destination disproves it.

Present ice caps do not equal ice age. Gees. We are talking about the ice age in which ice was half way through the US. You brought up ice age so now you have explain the discrepancies. Answer the question. You now believe the ice age dates are inaccurate and that within the past 6,000 years the northern half of the US was still covered in ice?

So you really think I am acknowledging that Galapagos turtles were once in Turkey?

What I'm saying is that in your situation they were there which is, in fact, ludicrous. Especially your explanation. They were never in Turkey. That is the point which you fail to see. Likely on purpose. Attributing statements and inferences to others which haven't been said is a common practice in order to discredit the opposing side. I don't doubt there was some kind of ark and a small localized flood. But it certainly didn't contain all the animals to repopulate the world in a few thousand years or so and it certainly wasn't a global flood.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

In 1770 some textbooks say the earth is 70,000 years old.
In 1905 textbooks say the earth is 2 billion years old.
In 1969 textbooks say the earth is 3.5 billion years old.
As of 2006 textbooks state the earth is 4.6 billion years old.

The earth is getting older at the rate of 21 million years per year for the last 220 years, which is 40 years per minute.

Good to know we've been teaching our kids these facts... no wonder they're confused.

How could you possibly think that knowledge is regressive? That just makes you look so simple minded it's baffling.

In the 1600s, people thought that maggots spawned directly from meat.
In the 1700s or so, people realized that maggots came from flies.

Perhaps we should start teaching them again that maggots magically spawn from meat, and the world is flat?

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

How could you possibly think that knowledge is regressive? That just makes you look so simple minded it's baffling.

In the 1600s, people thought that maggots spawned directly from meat.
In the 1700s or so, people realized that maggots came from flies.

Perhaps we should start teaching them again that maggots magically spawn from meat, and the world is flat?

stop it! stop it!

logic and reason have no place in this discussion!!!

of course the turtles came from turkey, everybody knows everything came from turkey...

hell, the garden of eden was in turkey, dontcha know?

and that devil guy, he came from turkey too...

in fact, turkey might be heaven for all we know...

seems like a real sin to eat turkey on thanksgiving doesn't it now?

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

How could you possibly think that knowledge is regressive? That just makes you look so simple minded it's baffling.

In the 1600s, people thought that maggots spawned directly from meat.
In the 1700s or so, people realized that maggots came from flies.

Perhaps we should start teaching them again that maggots magically spawn from meat, and the world is flat?

What I'm saying is todays truth is tomorrows lies, and it's been proven scientifically. I don't know how you see that as regressive.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Literature

When scientists say that the earth is "x billion years old," they are not saying, "This is the end of the discussion." They say, "To the best of our present knowledge, using scientific abilities like carbon dating, rock formation, and using the observable world now to deduct other things, we can very accurately estimate that the world is x billion years old. We are currently working on further testing."

That's different than your religious stripe, which says, "The earth is 6000 years old, and there can be no discussion, no questioning, and no doubt about this, otherwise, you are rejecting the Word of God."

Where can a person fit who a) wants to believe in a loving God and Christian doctrines, and b) believes God gave us the ability of deduction, logic, and ability to use tools and reason to more accurately understand our natural world?

The natural man discerns not the things of GOD, you can have your opinion or you can have GOD's immobile position but not both.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

What I'm saying is todays truth is tomorrows lies, and it's been proven scientifically. I don't know how you see that as regressive.

Scientists never ever claim that what they know at the present time is "Truth". That's one of the most important aspects of the scientific method. No matter how much you know about any specific topic, you can never claim you know everything. There's always room for better understanding about everything. Every theory and idea is based on this. We state to the best of our ability what we currently know, and allow for correction or better accuracy when we have better information. Scientists don't claim to know everything about what they know. They acknowledge that this is our level of understanding at the moment, and can be expanded upon later.

You are trying to make knowledge static, like our current knowledge can't be expanded upon and better understood. But that's not the way it is about anything.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

The natural man discerns not the things of GOD, you can have your opinion or you can have GOD's immobile position but not both.

I don't think you know God's immobile position on the age of earth.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

The natural man discerns not the things of GOD, you can have your opinion or you can have GOD's immobile position but not both.

There are over 33,000 variations of Christianity. Lucky you have found the right one. ’Kings are justly called gods for they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth’ – King James I. This is the man that has supplied you with all the answers you need in life. Brilliant conclusion~

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

There are over 33,000 variations of Christianity. Lucky you have found the right one. ’Kings are justly called gods for they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth’ – King James I. This is the man that has supplied you with all the answers you need in life. Brilliant conclusion~

Lucky? I don't expect you to understand, but by all means continue to mock it anyways.