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."

[Dave Lane]

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by hometeam

Wow.. i just searched science looking for the science is cool thread, and found this. IS THIS WHAT DC IS LIKE?

Also, LOL at this thread. PHEWWW

Sadly this is probably the sanest and most rational thread in DC. It gets REALLY REALLY bad in the rest of the threads and why I normally stay out of them.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by ChiefRocka

A question for you: If a car sat in your driveway and I told you that this automobile had no designer nor manufacturer, that it simply came by itself...what would you say?

Are you seriously comparing the universe to a car?

[ChiefRocka]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

Are you seriously comparing the universe to a car?

shitty shitty big bang.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

Are you seriously comparing the universe to a car?

I guess he thought throwing out a version of Paley's watch analogy was clever. I can hardly wait to get a version of Pascal's wager from him~

[Brock]

Originally Posted by ChiefRocka

Let's clear the air, to begin I'm not very religious and rarely go to church but I have my own moral beliefs and enjoy the discussion. That being said, do you first agree that there was in fact a man name Jesus of Nazareth that lived a long long time ago?? Because many uneducated(or unwilling) refuse to even recognize this historical fact.

Respectfully, my personal belief is that there is no right or wrong answer when it comes to religion.

There were probably lots of them.

[La literatura]

His name would have been a Hebrew version of "Joshua." Yeshua. His childhood friends would have called him (in translation), "Josh."

[kc hopeful]

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intel...acroevolution/

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by kc hopeful

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intel...acroevolution/

Here are two quotes from that world famous chemist, from the article you just linked:


"I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you."


"Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this."

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by kc hopeful

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intel...acroevolution/

More quotes from Dr. James Tour:

Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.

I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion.

http://matthew2262.wordpress.com/201...dr-james-tour/

So in other words, we have a guy who admits he knows nothing about evolution saying he doesn't understand it. He also says he is sympathetic to the arguments for creationism, but he admits the scientific proof is not there for it. He's been saying the same thing for at least 10 years.

So is this supposed to be meaningful somehow? It seems pretty meaningless to me, although I suppose it makes the creationists feel good to say that a "scientist" doesn't understand "macro" evolution.

[ChiefRocka]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

More quotes from Dr. James Tour:



http://matthew2262.wordpress.com/201...dr-james-tour/

So in other words, we have a guy who admits he knows nothing about evolution saying he doesn't understand it. He also says he is sympathetic to the arguments for creationism, but he admits the scientific proof is not there for it. He's been saying the same thing for at least 10 years.

So is this supposed to be meaningful somehow? It seems pretty meaningless to me, although I suppose it makes the creationists feel good to say that a "scientist" doesn't understand "macro" evolution.

Funny how people can read the same thing and translate it differently. What I gathered from it was even "he" one of the smartest scientists in his field has nothing to say on the topic, cannot prove anything on the topic, is ignorant on the topic because nothing exists to prove macro evolution.

[Dave Lane]

Understand micro evolution but don't understand macro evolution?

Try this very quick read from my friend Mr. Listopencil.

Originally Posted by listopencil

We all can agree (save for the severely color blind) that this text is red.

We can also similarly agree that this text is blue.

If we have red text and decide to change it by just a small amount, the change might be barely noticeable, but still a very small change. This, we will call our micro-evolution. Every word up to now can be considered red, with very minute changes in the hue. If I keep typing long enough, would anyone be able to tell me, just by looking, at which word or letter is this post no longer red, but actually purple or blue? All this micro-evolution keeps occurring in the text, with it's tiny changes in hue, but ultimately, I end up with a completely different color. It's actually the difference between what one would consider red and what one would consider purple (or a whole new species, in this analogy) which is macro-evolution. See, the common misunderstanding is, that macro-evolution means a dog being a direct offspring of some other different canine-like species, or even more stupidly, a cat coming from a dog. Well, that's not what macro-evolution is. There is really only one distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and it's the same distinction between their prefixes: micro and macro. Just like if something is microscopic or if something is macroscopic. Microscopic usually requires a microscope to see it because it's so small, but the macroscopic are things large enough to be seen by the common human eye. However, things of both size are completely visible and plainly exist, and there are many things in this universe between both general sizes. So as you read this, can you tell me the first word here that is blue, and not purple? After all, every change in color since the first word in this paragraph has only micro-evolved from the color next to it, but we've managed to macro-evolve through 2 colors. This, hopefully, will illustrate how it's illogical to believe that macro-evolution doesn't happen, even given time for enough micro-evolution to occur.

So tell me -- what was the first purple word in the block of text above? What's the first blue word? Remember, if macro-evolution simply can not happen then you're saying the words you are reading now are still red.

Macro evolution is micro evolution + Time.

[Fish]

Spoiler!

[ChiefRocka]

We'll get a big thumbs up once we go intergalactic.

[Dave Lane]

Another good one on christian morals / morality :