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]

Originally Posted by Literature

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.

His argument isn't a hypothesis, it isn't a theory, it isn't really even a cogent thought.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Yes I have seen both.

By the way I did watch these both. So is their hypothesis that the universe is made of electricity and hence connected?

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Literature

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.

Hahaha, mankind is totally fallible see history for reference. In 100 years evolution will be laughed at.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

By the way I did watch these both. So is their hypothesis that the universe is made of electricity and hence connected?

Yes.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Hahaha, mankind is totally fallible see history for reference. In 100 years evolution will be laughed at.

It's true that mankind is fallible. For example, for thousands of years, educated people would never have dreamed up that humans evolved from a common ancestor as apes. But it turns out, after thorough investigation of the evidence, we can safely say that humans did.

Evolution might be laughed at 100 years from now, but hopefully only because our scientific understanding of biology has only become more precise and deeper, and not because the science classroom has been hijacked by religious fundamentalists who refuse to allow actual science to shape the curriculum.

If mankind is "totally fallible," in your ideal world, would there be any schools? Or would there just be Christian* religious schools in our society?



* Presumably, only your brand of Christianity.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Literature

It's true that mankind is fallible. For example, for thousands of years, educated people would never have dreamed up that humans evolved from a common ancestor as apes. But it turns out, after thorough investigation of the evidence, we can safely say that humans did.

Evolution might be laughed at 100 years from now, but hopefully only because our scientific understanding of biology has only become more precise and understanding, and not because the science classroom has been hijacked by religious fundamentalists who refuse to allow actual science to shape the curriculum.

If mankind is "totally fallible," in your ideal world, would there be any schools? Or would there just be Christian* religious schools in our society?



* Presumably, only your brand of Christianity.

This is an excellent post~

[ReynardMuldrake]

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.

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.

KC doesn't believe new species can be created at all. By his definition, even new populations that no longer have the ability to reproduce are still considered the same species.

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

In 100 years evolution will be laughed at.

I certainly hope you're wrong about that, because it would mean that the creationists have succeeded in bringing about the new Dark Ages.

[Brainiac]

I don't remember if this video has already been posted in this thread, but if it has, it deserves repeating.

The Islamic countries abruptly stopped being the world's scientific leaders because of a change in their way of thinking about the natural world: Revelation replaced investigation.

[Brainiac]

Oh wait, I forgot, this is different, because Christianity is the RIGHT religion and the other religions are the WRONG religions.

[Chief Faithful]

Originally Posted by Literature

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.

As a educated Christian my issue is with creation of new species. There are a number of on-going experiments that show built into DNA is the ability to evolve to the environment.

The one I find most interesting is an experiment on-going in Russia with foxes to evolve a breed of domestic dogs. Results are showing that the ability to evolve is actually part of our DNA. Within just 3 generations they are seeing foxes actually change nature and appearance. For example, wild foxes of a single breed creating tame dogs with new physical characteristics such as spots, short tails, flopping ears, longer and shorter leggs. It is easy to see this kind of evolution is taking place in nature all the time and it happens relatively fast. From results of these experiments I see no conflict between scientific results and creationist beliefs.

[Dave Lane]

Killer clown in the witness seat, CP cross examining.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by ReynardMuldrake

KC doesn't believe new species can be created at all. By his definition, even new populations that no longer have the ability to reproduce are still considered the same species.

Define species? or are you just trying to twist my words?

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

Oh wait, I forgot, this is different, because Christianity is the RIGHT religion and the other religions are the WRONG religions.

It is my Belief, just as yours is Evolution and neither should be taught in public schools.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

I certainly hope you're wrong about that, because it would mean that the creationists have succeeded in bringing about the new Dark Ages.

Or that a new fad will indeed be upon us, which by judging our history is about 99.999999% sure to happen.