Debate: Christianity vs Secular Humanism (5 of 14)

[gmn545]

"Mt. Rushmore"? *facepalm* Inductive reasoning isn't trustworthy. Go outside and 'just look' at how the sun doesn't stay in one place all day and notice the ground doesn't move. Does that mean the sun is going around the earth? NO. We watch other people make paintings, buildings, and watches. This is NOT comparable to natural phenomena (e.g. snowflakes don't need a designer), nor the so-called "creation" of the universe, especially in light of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

[gmn545]

Define "kind", Geisler. Such a vague term has no value to this age of modern science, and creationists only use it to shift goalposts. Species is a useful term. Creationists will say a "kind" of animal is a 'dog', a 'cat', a 'bird', et al. and means "able to bring forth", or produce offspring. So why can't parrots and penguins interbreed? They're both birds, right? That's the problem: Is a bird a "kind"? Are parrots a "kind of a kind", then? Are species of parrots "kinds of a kind of a kind?"

[gmn545]

Geisler says it doesn't matter when the flood occured. For the sake of his argument, it DOES matter, since he has associated the extinction of the dinosaurs with 'Noah's flood.' And whether this occured just 4,000-5,000 years ago is significant for two reasons. 1) a handful of animals on a boat producing the millions of modern day species in that span of time is impossible; DNA doesn't change anywhere near that fast. 2) 0 evidence suggests the extinction event was that recent. 

[raywingfield]

ahh, is this for real or a comedy, it is very funny,

[heathsawyer]

Typical Christian, Deny scientific progress.Christians deny science until they need it.

[Joeschmoe4138]

8 people cleaned up all the poop of all animal species on the ark??? LOL That right there should make you think.

[SIMKINETICS]

What bullshit! The water can be at different levels? Sorry Geisler, you're ignoring fundamental hydrodynamics except for the gravitational effects of the sun & moon on tides that only allow a difference of a few feet. The 'great floods' are mythology. There is no way that water ever covered the land because there simply isn't enough of it!

[Nashhinton]

Somebody really needs to shoot this humanist.

[TempleOfSin]

My bullshit meter is spiking off the chart.

The faith-driven ignorance, misinformation and denial in this video make it difficult to watch. And yes I'm talking about the Christian drivel.

[DarthHater100]

The crazy Christians are still using the exact same stupid arguments today as they used in the '70s. I would love to see Matt Dillahunty or Thunder Foot tear these morons to pieces.

[rickgigliotti]

@DarthHater100 Yes, the Christians were right in the 70s and are still right today. The truth is the truth! The questions STILL have NOT been answered. Christianity make the most sense.

[DarthHater100]

@rickgigliotti What questions? Present one of their arguments that you think is right.

[rickgigliotti]

@DarthHater100 There are a lot of good points made within all 14 associated videos. I do not want to waist time just repeating what was already talked about. Is there something specific which needs better explained?

[zirchsoft]

@rickgigliotti

the truth is the truth! I believe in leprechauns and Unicorns!

[gmn545]

@rickgigliotti 1) Christianity and evolutionary theory are not mutually exclusive. The geneticist who led the Human Genome Project is a devout evangelical christian. 2) Geisler's arguments have all been addressed. For example, Gentry's "polonium haloes" has been refuted.

talkorigins. org / faqs / po-halos / gentry. html (remove spaces)

[bzagar1]

Ha, I agree. John Ankerberg, who I like, keeps talking. He's the host. Let the guests debate

[TempleOfSin]

@bzagar1 I know right? It's fucking annoying. >.<

[elijahnora71]

geisler is a serious asshole. he said  the evidence for the "haloes" are irrefutable and then hes quick too ask Kurtz, "can you refute it?" major ass!

[adamhoman1]

I think Geisler clearly wins this arguement alone but Ankerberg is very annoying and needs to know his role and stfu.

[solomania2007]

It's Ankerberg! That's his name!

[solomania2007]

Also, this is not a fair debate because not only is dr. kurtz constantly interrupted when he's making his point, he seems be double teamed by geisler and Ankleman(or whatever his name is). it should only be between kurtz and geisler. the other guy should just SHUT UP!

[TempleOfSin]

@solomania2007 I call him anklebiter...

[solomania2007]

Saying that there is a God by saying that if the heads of the presidents were sculpted on mt. rushmore, then there has to be sculpter is a bad analogy. kirk cameron made a similar analogy about how if there is a painting, there has to be a painter. NO DUH! it's a bad analogy because you're talking about something that is 100% certainly known to be man-made. that alone proves there are humans but not the fact that there is a god. i'm not saying God doesn't exist. i'm saying its bad analogy.

[Astrobrant2]

As much as I respect Kurtz, he is not a scientist. He makes numerous mistakes and is not as well informed on some topics. Geisler isn't a scientist, either. He has picked out quotes which may or may not be relevant. Creationists are famous for this, and for misrepresenting them.

Clearly, the fundie believes whatever the bible says. That is his ONLY source of belief. All his pseudoscience is window dressing to try to legitimize stupid myths.

I can't watch any more of this. It makes me sick.

[MayonR]

@Astrobrant2 I agree that most any Evolutionist would use Kurtz to represent them. But to say that Geisler misquoted someone, is provable if fact. Otherwise you are working on assumption. Of course you would make it quite interesting if you could demonstrate this.

[nickyact1]

Hahaha, this believer has a head that is emptier than a hermits address book!

[bighugejake]

I can't watch this anymore. Christians will never understand why they are wrong unless they actually know how science is done.

[diuryl]

and "skeptics"/naturalists/materia­lists/atheists/humanists will never understand why they are wrong, because they won't free their minds from the box they sealed themselves in.

besides, you make an assumption that somehow science will lead christians to be more knowledgeable thus us realising that we're "wrong". PLEASE!

[bighugejake]

Unless you can demonstrate that anything outside "the box" exists there is no reason to believe it does. You can if you'd like to, I have no problem with that. But anyone professing that a religious belief that involves interference with reality can be reconciled to the way the world is is "wrong."

Supernatural things don't occur in reality; they cannot be demonstrated. You can say they exist outside of reality but that means they can't have any affect on the universe.

[diuryl]

there are reasons inside the box, that suggest that there's something outside the box. no one ever said they can prove what is outside the box because that's impossible. but what's inside gives us a good reason to believe.

why is it wrong? because it's not materialistic/naturalistic/hum­anistic?

like i said, we have reasons in what you call reality, that give us good reason to believe there is something beyond reality.

[bighugejake]

If you think there are "reasons" to believe there is something outside of reality it's fine to think that, but it implies you have non-scientific standards of evidence. I have no problem with you believing there is "something" outside of reality but don't tell me there is any convincing evidence to show this, and especially don't claim that you can see it interfering in reality. cont

[bighugejake]

cont. If by definition it exists out of reality it cannot be fathomed in any way. If there is sufficient reason to believe in this, publish a peer-reviewed journal about it and try to convince the scientific community of it. You won't be able to because your evidence is low to none. So feel free to believe in it, just don't think it will hold up in court, so to speak, and don't try to convince people of something for which you have no evidence.

[diuryl]

i don't think there are reasons, THERE ARE!

apparently what dr.Geisler and i are saying isn't sinking in. there is evidence here in reality, in nature that suggests that there's something beyond nature. it's not what we think, it's not subjective, and YES! it is scientifically backed up.

why shouldn't i tell you there is convincing evidence? because you've already made up your mind that there isn't? this is what we call closed mindedness. the thing your side accuses our side of.....>

[BigDiamondCutter]

@diuryl Open mindedness to the point of your brain falling out. Your leap from evidence to God is purely irrational. Even if science didn't have an answer today to a natural phenomena, how can your mind fill in the "mystery" with "God did it". It's so funny that years later when a proper scientific study is performed and the answer is found and is natural... you all run to the next "mystery" and not acknowledge that you were wrong on the last one. This is the history of science against theism!

[bignastydragon]

we see how humans may shape stone using chisels, and we see how nature interacts with stone, through weathering. we may then conclude that mount rushmoor was likely formed using a man made process.

man may manipulate the genome of a population directly through genetic manipulation, or indirectly through artificial selection. we see a process similar to artificial selection happen in nature (natural selection) and conclude that this natural version is what happens.

cont...

[bignastydragon]

cont...

geisler does not use the analogy correctly.

kurtz is also clearly not an expert in these fields they expect him to defend, and yet he does a fair job so far. they ask him for the positive evidence for secular humanism when they do not provide positive evidence for their position (they being both geisler and the host).

[CutieBabe25]

lolling at the 70's disco music at the end