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."

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

Agnostic is a wienie word in my opinion. I think you either believe in a god or you or you don't have a belief in one. I think all Atheists will admit there is the possibility of some "god" like creature that "may" have had some influence on earth or the solar system at some point.

That's because you're just as inflexible in your beliefs as any religious nut is.

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

Agnostic is a wienie word in my opinion. I think you either believe in a god or you or you don't have a belief in one. I think all Atheists will admit there is the possibility of some "god" like creature that "may" have had some influence on earth or the solar system at some point.

Rejecting the the biblical god(s) is one thing, to say there never was any god or super power being anywhere is hard to deny for any thinking being.

I believe in the possibility of a force or "thing" that humans can't understand or grasp in our current stage of the evolutionary process.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

No, why so?

It's fairly straight-forward. The God of Abraham is neither provable nor disprovable in any way, shape or form. Ardent disbelief of him is really just faith of a different kind.

I don't agree at all.

I believe the Old Testament to be a survival manual for a nomadic, desert-dwelling people. Without it and its rules, punishment, etc., they would have ceased to exist.

That, to me at least, is very different from someone who believes that the god of Abraham or Ra or Zues or whomever does not exist and never existed.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

I believe in the possibility of a force or "thing" that humans can't understand or grasp in our current stage of the evolutionary process.

This, anyone who claims to "know" anything is full of shit. Hitchens said it best:
The most educated person in the world must now admit, I shall not say confess, that he or she knows less and less but at least knows less and less about more and more~

[petegz28]

I think the middle ground is grossly overlooked by some one both ends of the spectrum.

Creationistis on one hand believe we were created as we are by a divine being sitting on a throne in a kingdom called Heaven.

Strict Evolutionists believe we evolved from single-cell organisms and some believe God had nothing to do with it as there is no "God".

I have to contend that there is a perfectly reasonable concept that often gets ignored in all of the rhetoric and that is "the evolution of God".

I think this concept is far more acceptable on the Evoltion side than the Creationist side and the Creationist side tends to ignore sciecne for what it is. Why can science not be the "Mathematics of God"?

That's how I look at it anyway. Science to me is nothing more than decoding God if that is how you want to look at it. But to do that you have to accept certain realities for what they are.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I have to contend that there is a perfectly reasonable concept that often gets ignored in all of the rhetoric and that is "the evolution of God".

I think this concept is far more acceptable on the Evoltion side than the Creationist side and the Creationist side tends to ignore sciecne for what it is. Why can science not be the "Mathematics of God"?

That's how I look at it anyway. Science to me is nothing more than decoding God if that is how you want to look at it. But to do that you have to accept certain realities for what they are.

I tend to believe this is more of an Agnostic view. If there is a Creator, I'm of the opinion that he did not speak to Abraham or Isaac or any of the prophets in the Old Testament, nor did he arrive in human form to save man's soul.

But that said, I say that with respect to those that believe the Old and New Testament. What I believe is irrelevant to what you or anyone else believes.

[Branden Albert's Huge Balls]

You have to be dumb as a rock to believe the earth is 5,000 years old, or whatever the **** it is they believe.

Not to mention that people have this dumb ****ing idea that humans are "wonderfully created." Our bodies are frail, fragile slopped together shit that breaks down is generally awful. If we were created by an intelligent being, he botched the job.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning

Not to mention that people have this dumb ****ing idea that humans are "wonderfully created." Our bodies are frail, fragile slopped together shit that breaks down is generally awful. If we were created by an intelligent being, he botched the job.

Speak for yourself. I'm ****ing sexy.

[Branden Albert's Huge Balls]

You're no different than the rest of us.

The human body is a ****ing mess.

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by Literature

Speak for yourself. I'm ****ing sexy.

Whitlock, you've just been outed.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Now you can argue, as I'm sure you would, that the same argument could be made as to whether insubstantial, invisible SnarkGobblers exist, who require no food nor interact in any way with the physical world known to us except when they, on rare occassion, show their limited powers by sneaking into people's houses and eat one (but never both) of a pair of socks from the clean laundry basket. I get that too.

I know that you are joking around, but Bertrand Russell brought this idea up with his teapot. The problem I have with his teapot concept is that many humans, generally speaking, seem to have a deep psychological need to believe in a Supreme Being.

You can discount this in many ways. You can argue logically, or question the coherency of the belief. You can break this belief down to a faith based system that is irrelevant to Science. You can show a pattern of superstitious behavior dating back countless generations and compare those mythologies to present day religious dogma. On and on and on...

But there remains the fact that a majority of human beings have some sort of religious belief involving a Creator(s) and some sort of spiritual hierarchy. Of course that doesn't prove that the dogma is true any more than any thing else does. But it shows that the topic is worthy of discussion because so many people have a stake in it, and shouldn't be disregarded like Russell's teapot.

[Dave Lane]

[Dave Lane]

This is a really good Ken Hovind one. Pownage.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

I think it's great how widely attacked Hovind is, must be having an effect.

[PornChief]

it's turtles all the way down