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."

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by RNR

The use of the term free thinkers which usually describes secular minded individuals, along with the dismissal of mysticism and magic is a rather open slap at theism IMO~

A free thinker is one who thinks independently of the masses, not necessarily related to religion at all.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

I am sure you will find fault with any logic that doesnt support your theories and views.

http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evo...without-bible/

But make no doubt about it...there will come a time when all will bow and confess before God

Interesting evidence there is a God
http://toptenproofs.com/article_godsexistence.php

The first link is pure bunk. I could go through and thoroughly disprove each of the author's 5 points. But each point is so incredibly wrong that I don't think it would be worth the effort.

As for the second link..... That website is a mess. It sets out to try and prove just about every religious claim. Ones that most Christians fully accept as metaphor without any historical accuracy. For instance, proof of resurrection, creationism, dinosaurs living with biblical humans(), young Earth, etc. Do you really believe all that too? Most of that is easily disproven with a high school level of scientific understanding. I'm really not trying to be mean by saying that, but that's really basic level stuff.

And all of the claims just completely fail. Take for instance, this part of the "Scientific evidence for God"....

Believe it or not, a 5 year old child could be an atheistic scientist's worst nightmare by merely asking him “where did everything come from if God didn't make it?” energy and matter in the closed system of the universe if there is no Creator capable of doing that?”

But if we're to accept that scientifically, then we must equally apply that to both sides of the argument. Meaning that a 5 year old child could also be a theist's worst nightmare, by merely asking "Where did God come from". The author doesn't even attempt to approach that. He makes the assumption that God's existence is just accepted, and needs no explanation. Tragic bias. That's not science, and it's not evidence.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by RNR

The use of the term free thinkers which usually describes secular minded individuals, along with the dismissal of mysticism and magic is a rather open slap at theism IMO~

I think it was more of an attempted open slap. It missed its mark, in other words.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by La literatura

I think it was more of an attempted open slap. It missed its mark, in other words.

A very small point to argue over. We viewed it differently not really surprising~

[RNR]

Pretty funny exchange~

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by RNR

A very small point to argue over. We viewed it differently not really surprising~

My point is that it's completely normal and fine for a religious person to be "curious, inquisitive, seekers of knowledge, just want to know about . . ., rebels, artists, etc."

[Fish]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

I am sure you will find fault with any logic that doesnt support your theories and views.

http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evo...without-bible/

But make no doubt about it...there will come a time when all will bow and confess before God

Interesting evidence there is a God
http://toptenproofs.com/article_godsexistence.php

OK, just one response to address the first link, and I'll show you how wrong the first portion of the author's scientific evidence is...

The author focuses on Trilobites, a Paleozoic era arthropod. He says that these Trilobites disprove evolution, because they have no obvious ancestors and also have complex eye systems. The author questions where these arthropods came from and how they got their complex eyes. And also why there are no transitional fossils available for Trilobites.

But here's the thing...... all of that is wrong.

In a hilarious example of irony, Trilobites are actually a very good example of evolution. Trilobites themselves show a huge amount of evolution in action. And due to the way they shed their exoskeleton, and how it calcified after shedding, we have some great fossils showing the long existence and changes of Trilobites.

Truth be told, there are obvious ancestors of Trilobites. Their ancestors were from 2 groups called Crustaceomorpha and Arachnomorpha. The problem is that these ancestors lacked the calcified exoskeletons that were the reason for Trilobites being preserved so very well. That's the entire reason for their ancestors being so less evident. So their ancestors were there, they simply weren't preserved as well.

Here's a good explanation of that:
http://www.trilobites.info/triloclass.htm#arachnomorpha
http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm

So we have ancestors. Now let's look at the Trilobite group themselves. Trilobites lived for a long long time, in many different conditions, and were found on every continent. Because of that, there was lots and lots of evolution going on. Visibly evident evolution. So much so, that Trilobites have 10 different orders with over 20,000 scientifically recognized species. 20,000 different species of Trilobites. Doesn't that tell you something? They even adapted so that some species of Trilobites became fresh water creatures.

Over that vast time period, Trilobites changed dramatically.

What is remarkable about trilobites is their rapid evolution and growth to adapt to the many environments presented to them in the oceans of the Paleozoic. If you compare two species, one from the early and one from the later parts of the Cambrian, the differences are numerous. Earlier trilobites are far more primitive, lacking the more advanced features such as spines and eyes.

As one moves up the column and time, the earlier, more primitive trilobites are slowly replaced by more sophisticated and diverting species. They shed segments, gained eyes and spikes, all essentially tailored to an environment where the trilobites found they could survive. Richard Fortey, in his book Trilobite: Eyewitness to Evolution, explains "punctuated equilibrium," a term which comes from the study of trilobites in the 1960s. Put simply, the theory holds that some species change very little over long periods of time, and then experience short spurts of intense change where one species branches out into several new ones.

Trilobites follow this pattern. The changes in trilobite species occurred gradually in regions, with no major events. But once a species diverged from another, they would endure. Further studies of trilobites have come up with similar findings, and to the scientific community, these ancient creatures are essentially a study of evolution in action.

Source with lots of references: http://io9.com/5145786/trilobites-th...earths-history

This should give you a good idea of the cool diversity of Trilobites:



That's just a response to the first point the author makes. This is meant to show you how completely inaccurate these sources are. I could present data to disprove the other portions as well, but hopefully this will be enough to give you the idea that your sources are shit.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by RNR

Pretty funny exchange~

"The application of creation science is that when a doctor goes to look for someone's appendix it will be in the same spot."

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

"The application of creation science is that when a doctor goes to look for someone's appendix it will be in the same spot."

The irony of that statement is the appendix is seen as a vestigial structure in evolutionary biology. Didn't watch the vid, though.

[listopencil]

I am an acknowledged expert in the field of salmon too, small world.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by RNR

Pretty funny exchange~

Wow, Hovind is so hopelessly outmatched by anyone who can actually think. I'd feel sorry for him if he wasn't such an arrogant charlatan preying upon the ignorant.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Wow, Hovind is so hopelessly outmatched by anyone who can actually think. I'd feel sorry for him if he wasn't such an arrogant charlatan preying upon the ignorant.

He tried all the typical misdirections but the other guy would just stop him and say I want an answer to my actual question. Of course Hovind continued the misdirections until time ran out. He probably would have had great responses had time not run out.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Wow, Hovind is so hopelessly outmatched by anyone who can actually think. I'd feel sorry for him if he wasn't such an arrogant charlatan preying upon the ignorant.

It simply amazes me people like him don't end up standing on a corner with a cardboard sign selling pencils. It angers me that him and other charlatans swindle people out of money. However to be honest I do hold some contempt his followers also. If someone is credulous enough to follow this worthless asshole they deserve to be parted from their money and mocked accordingly~

[Fish]

[kc hopeful]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02...i_1069211.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=XI8m6o0gXDY


Forget ID for now.......evolution is just not a satisfactory explaination as to how this complexity got here. Sorry I just can't buy it.