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]

Great Doc here..

[KILLER_CLOWN]

and the sequel

[Brainiac]

Do you really watch all of the 60-minute videos that you've posted in this thread?

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

Do you really watch all of the 60-minute videos that you've posted in this thread?

Yes I have seen both.

[Dave Lane]

[Dave Lane]

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Not at all. Atheists deny the possibility of the existence of a God when there is no proof that one does not exist. Believers have faith in the existence of God when there is no proof that one exists.

Yes, but where does the burden of proof lie? This is always where the argument centers.

does the burden of proof lie on the person making the claim that something does exist, or does not?

Okay, Fairies.

Fairies are invisible, but are very common.

Who do you think the burden of proof lies on... the person claiming fairies are real, or the person claiming they're not?

What about Bigfoot? Is the burden of proof on everyone to prove Bigfoot is NOT real?

It's up to you to decide whether a claim should be considered true until unproven, or if a claim should be considered false until proven. I know where I stand. People can believe what they want, but just keep religion out of science class. It has nothing to do with the scientific method.

[La literatura]

I take issue with saying there's no proof, unless we always mean 'definitive proof' and never 'evidence with value' that God exists. If we mean 'definitive proof,' then believers will never be able to establish their burden. If we mean 'evidence with value,' then believers (strictly using Christians here) can point to (for example), Jesus, miracles, and traditional logical proofs of God's existence (think Thomas Aquinas).

It's nearly impossible, if not impossible, for us temporal beings to live up to a burden of definitive proof to show God's existence. After all, the original burden was on God, and even His efforts haven't had universally lasting effect (arguably not from want of trying, but because of our own damned stubbornness).

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

Yes, but where does the burden of proof lie? This is always where the argument centers.

does the burden of proof lie on the person making the claim that something does exist, or does not?

Okay, Fairies.

Fairies are invisible, but are very common.

Who do you think the burden of proof lies on... the person claiming fairies are real, or the person claiming they're not?

What about Bigfoot? Is the burden of proof on everyone to prove Bigfoot is NOT real?

It's up to you to decide whether a claim should be considered true until unproven, or if a claim should be considered false until proven. I know where I stand. People can believe what they want, but just keep religion out of science class. It has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Agreed, so we need to get Evolution out of public schools. If people want to believe it they can send their kids to private schools.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Agreed, so we need to get Evolution out of public schools. If people want to believe it they can send their kids to private schools.

No, evolution is a well-accepted, scientific, evidence-based understanding and explanation of biology. When it comes to science, that's what public schools should teach.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Literature

No, evolution is a well-accepted, scientific, evidence-based understanding and explanation of biology. When it comes to science, that's what public schools should teach.

I forgot you pope lovers believe everything that fallible human has to say.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

I forgot you pope lovers believe everything that fallible human has to say.

Evolution isn't the pope's idea or his teaching (though it's certainly an acceptable idea/conclusion to Catholics and the Catholic hierarchy). It's the consensus among scientists who study and have expertise in biology.

Your problem is more with species evolving so much that a diversification essentially creates another species correct? You don't deny that species can change to some degree, I take it.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

I forgot you pope lovers believe everything that fallible human has to say.

Pope says:

"'Humani Generis'," he stated, "considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' as a serious hypothesis, worthy of a more deeply studied investigation and reflection on a par with the opposite hypothesis. ... Today, more than a half century after this encyclical, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. ... The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Literature

Evolution isn't the pope's idea or his teaching (though it's certainly an acceptable idea/conclusion to Catholics and the Catholic hierarchy). It's the consensus among scientists who study and have expertise in biology.

Jesus always went with the consensus, he completely agreed with the Pharisees, Sadducees and other hypocrites. /herp dee derps

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Jesus always went with the consensus, he completely agreed with the Pharisees, Sadducees and other hypocrites. /herp dee derps

So, essentially, your argument is: Jesus was in the religious minority in his lifetime; therefore, Jesus would be in every minority opinion, including scientific opinions, in our lifetime.

Now keep that logic in mind. I would appreciate if you could imagine yourself going back in time to 1820. You gather together a group of people that form "the consensus." You tell them about evolution. What is their reaction? They of course will think you're out of your mind. "Of course we didn't evolve from a species resembling the Ape! How dare you!" You respond with the same logic you use today: "Jesus always went with the consensus, he completely agreed with the Pharisees, Sadducees and other hypocrites. /herp dee derps!" In other words, you imply that Jesus, who was in the religious minority in his lifetime, would be in every minority opinion, including scientific opinions, in the present lifetime. Or . . . Jesus would reject the consensus of 1820, and presumably agree with your minority opinion [affirming] evolution.

I hope you can see why that logic is completely unworkable. And I hope you can respond in a manner that doesn't suggest you fear that your faith is too immature to deal with rationality and reasonableness.