If humanity is descended from god (as in we are all god's children) then why is there still a god?
I see Kent Hovind's application for a retrial has just been denied by the Supreme Court. It looks as though he won't be making any more videos for the next few years.http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/011110zor.pdf
man, i love nonstampcollector's videos. to a tee, they are genius and astute.
buggerggi: I fail to understand your question. Could you explain what you meant?
Yup, those atheists never repeat a single argument... no, not one.And perhaps the author of this video should try reading some professional scientific creationist articles, instead of high school message boards. I haven't heard any professional creationists make any of the arguments in that video, other than there being no transitional fossils, but they maintain that argument AFTER reviewing and explaining every fossil that is brought forward.That said though, I realize that the video was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and that sometimes encounters with creationists can go like that. I actually did find it somewhat humorous. I just wish that atheists could see that many times they sound the same way.
Micah - creationists have for over a century been asking "if humans descended from apes/monkeys why are there apes/monkeys?Yet they claim humans are descended from god and that god still exists.
busterggi: thanks for responding.The creationists persist in peddling that question, though I cannot see any merit to the argument underlying the question.With all due respect, I also do not see why there is any problem with a Christian saying humans are the children of God -and- that God still exists. Even if the creationist's question had merit, even then I don't think there'd be any incompatibility be "Humans are the children of God" and "God exists currently."(I apologize if you intended your comment to be a joke/parody, and you didn't intend it to be taken as an argument.)
@Rachel:"And perhaps the author of this video should try reading some professional scientific creationist articles, instead of high school message boards."- Creationism is universally rejected as utter nonsense by every scientific discipline (keep in mind that the "debate" is not between Evolutionists and Creationists, but instead between Biologists + Chemists + Geologists + Paleontologists + Physicists (esp. Cosmologists) + Linguists and Creationists...). *Nobody* regards creationism as "scientific" besides christian fundamentalists. The Evidence for Evolution has convinced Experts with a christian background, as well as experts with a muslim-,hindu- or shinto-background (or any other worldview for that matter), but creationists never managed to convince a single scientist who does not also believe the Bible to be literally true. Given the facts how can any creationist article be called "scientific" and "professional" ? BTW: I have never seen any Creationist who does *not use* at least one of the arguments (especially the "random chance can´t explain complexity" argument is used by virtually every creationist) that are shown in the Video... Can you name one ?
"Every time a 'scientist' finds a 'missing link', there are now TWO gaps that must be filled with a missing link. So evolution slides ever farther from being proven with each new 'transitional fossil'. Plus, God made the fossils as a 'perfect history' of the earth and plants and animals he created, so the history will be perfect and the transitional fossils are there waiting to found as part of God's perfect history."
Andreas, I know you all think that creationism isn't really "scientific". My point was that reading high-schoolers (and some adults) who sometimes do act like what was portrayed in the video is a far cry from reading articles or books by actual scientists like biologists, paleontologists, etc. who also happen to be creationists (yes, they do exist!). Seems unfair to broadbrush all creationists with the kind of antics that some display.Answers in Genesis has long said that people should avoid the "why are monkeys still around" question since that's not what evolution teaches. They also say to avoid the "evolution is just a theory" comment. And I've never read a single creationist article saying that evolution teaches that the eye just popped into existence out of thin air. The creationist argument has nothing to do with chance being unable to explain mere complexity. The issue is all about something that is complex that requires all its parts to be fully formed and functioning in a certain way, all at the same time.
Things got complex gradually. Simple life forms lead to more complex life forms one change at at time. All along the way, the just a few additions or a whole bunch of them, each organism was functional. Like a car. Look at how simple they were at first and how complex the are now, yet at each point along the way, each model functioned. Complexity does not demand creation. Indeed, it is easier to make a complex thing by incrementally adding things to a simepler thing than it is to design a complex things from scratch.
@Rachel:"My point was that reading high-schoolers (and some adults) who sometimes do act like what was portrayed in the video is a far cry from reading articles or books by actual scientists like biologists, paleontologists, etc. who also happen to be creationists"- Would you say that Ken Ham and his fellows (many of which have University degrees) argue on the same level as high-schoolers ? Just search for the term "random chance" on the domain www.answersingenesis.org/ and the first hit you will find is:http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-creationists-be-real-scientistswhich includes these gems:"Technology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers—not random chance"..."If our brains are the byproducts of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate?"And you will find many more examples. "(yes, they do exist!)."- Of course. Nobody denies that some educated people / scientists believe in Creationism. My point was that these people also believe the Bible to be literally true. I can show you many Scientists who support Evolution and are also Christians / Hindus / Jews / Deists / Atheists etc. Can you show me one Scientist who does not believe in the literal truth of the Bible and supports Creationism ? "Answers in Genesis has long said that people should avoid the "why are monkeys still around" question since that's not what evolution teaches. They also say to avoid the "evolution is just a theory" comment." - Impressive. Still, they are using the "random chance can´t complexity" argument many, many times... So you still have to name just *one* counter example of a creationist who does not use one of the arguments in the video. "And I've never read a single creationist article saying that evolution teaches that the eye just popped into existence out of thin air."- Then you don´t seem to read very much creationist literature because it took me 3 seconds with google to find one example from Answers in Genesis:Apparently, since evolution is true (in his mind) and we now have eyes, it must have happened—and by random chance 40–65 separate times!"The creationist argument has nothing to do with chance being unable to explain mere complexity. The issue is all about something that is complex that requires all its parts to be fully formed and functioning in a certain way, all at the same time."- The "random chance can´t explain complexity" argument comes in many varieties, and "Irreducible Complexity" is one of these varieties. The creationist interpretation of "Irreducible complexity" would be that all parts have to be present for the functionality of the whole System, therefore no intermediates which could be selected for, therefore the whole System has to arise either by Design or random chance. Old wine in new bottles...
Post a Comment