Re: Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1)

[Trob92]

If you believe that harvard story, you have the naivety of a 4 year old....That was an obvious lie...Lol..

[StormRaven]

Ravi is a moron. He doesn't understand probability, and his argument about evil is so full of logical fallacies that it isn't even an argument at all.

[tacettinturgay]

This man just thinks that saying something is real will make it real. I doubt he has a clear understanding of probability. How probable is it that a murderer kills an innocent man? Well, you will have to take it back to the time before the universe existed. And clearly, each step in history contributed to that. Really, when you take all those things into consideration, the probability turns out to be almost zero. Does that mean no one is a murderer? So, clearly such arguments belong to idiots.

[leifey]

as matt dillahunty eloquently puts it, you can deal yourself a hand from a deck of 52 cards. the chances of getting all the cards from a single suit is something like 1 in 60 million. however, you have the same probability of getting any hand. just because something is unlikely doesn't mean that it's impossible. care to compute the probability of a god creating the universe?

[cooksonkid]

Ravi is one of my faith heroes. A Christian who is so brilliant, most atheists have not a single clue as to his broad understanding.

[psantoki]

A dictionary from an explosion in a printing press, lol

[AbakiNytrin08]

I agree, my statement was simply a general one.

I stopped respecting creationism the second they came up with "Intelligent Design"

[MavericPhilosopherNZ]

Well then AbakiNytrin08 stop attempting to use science to justify atheism

Both are metaphysical arguments.

[AbakiNytrin08]

"justify" I am not justifying Aethism, simply stating that science, despite many attempts to twist it so, supports the Aethist way of thinking.

[ironcross66106]

AbakiNytrin08

Right, evolution is much better than creationism, because un-like creationism, evolution is a proven theory...wait a second. lol it isn't proven.

So you prefer one idea over another because it fits with your hatred of God, and all who love God correct?

IC

[leifey]

did he say he prefers evolution? the default stance should be disbelief; if creationists cannot provide empirical evidence for creation, there is absolutely no reason to believe it to be true. evolution is not even the antithesis to creation; abiogenesis is. evolution merely explains diversity of species.

and how can he hate god if god doesn't exist? do you hate bigfoot?

[1234yersiman]

@ironcross66106 Nobody chooses evolution because of their "hatred towards god". Firstly, what god? Secondly, evolution is the primary principle in biology today, that serves as the best possible explanation today. If you resort to saying "god did it", then you might as well say "god makes lightning". Creationism serves no purpose to our understanding. Furthermore, creationism is dangerous, since if it gets taught, we would have a smaller medical and research work force in the future.

[ironcross66106]

@1234yersiman

Actually that’s incorrect, most atheists I have ever known has developed a hatred for God, and which God you ask?

The only one that seems to draw the atheist’s ire is the only true God, the God of the Bible.

If atheists would use the brain they claim is so much more developed than that of the Christian, they would CLEAR see evolution is disproven using the scientific method.

The misconception is that Christians dislike science, untrue, we like accurate science, not guesswork

[1234yersiman]

@ironcross66106 It is obvious from here that you are a troll. You ignore that you only observe a fraction of the atheists out there, and your statements on atheists has as much credibility as someone who has never seen a christian say they are all pedophiles for the way the catholic church behaved. Furthermore, you religion is one of hundreds of other religions out there, and your arrogance speaks volumes about you. Use your brain. If I had the power, I would send you to a country with no scienc

[1234yersiman]

@ironcross66106 (cont'd), such as ethopia, where there is a LOT of Christianity there. There, without the fruits of technology, given to you by skeptics (most of whom do not affiliate themselves with your particular definition of a god), and actually WORK and RESEARCH, they do not have the infrastructure we have. They follow Christianity strictly there. Another place is the Phillipens. Furthermore, evolution is the primary part of modern biology, and if it weren;t so successful, explain medicine

[ironcross66106]

@1234yersiman

Nothing you just said makes any sense what so ever.

I reject assumption, guesswork, and imagination disguised as science.

The scientific method does not support evolution.

And what does rejecting the theory of evolution have anything to do with medicine?

[1234yersiman]

@ironcross66106 This will be my last reply to you. Evolution is the primary aspect of modern biology (read a science text-book), and medicine derives itself from modern biology. The most commonly used example to show the connection is with vaccine, where evolution has already demonstrated accurate predictive capabilities when determining how to immunize someone from a disease with vaccines. There are millions of other examples. Read what actually is out there rather than make statements.

[ironcross66106]

@1234yersiman

That does not prove evolution.

Pure and simple.

[JusJuiceIt]

@ironcross66106

nothing proves evolution!

[ironcross66106]

@AbakiNytrin08

Remember in atheism telling lies is common, in Christianity it's not.

However for you, it's easier to believe it's a lie right?

[AbakiNytrin08]

Creationism - epic fail.

Belief in god - Personal opinion.

Stop trying to use science to back up your belief in a cloud-fairy. You fail every time. Every time.

Stop it.

[ironcross66106]

AbakiNytrin08

The things that are of God is foolishness, to those who are perishing.

IC

[Yujifanik]

Well thats a new one!

[paranoidnpanicking]

Another reason to laugh at creationist, thanks.

[ironcross66106]

paranoidnpanicking

Sad that you can laugh at the truth, yet embrace deception.

IC

[videorprologic]

What is your definition of truth? It seems to me that yours is one far less self-critical than mine or those whose livelihood depends upon being empirically correct. This presenter preys on this lazy sense of truth that you have.

[rouey]

Sorry,

I've got nothing against your beliefs, but this is non sequitur all the way, allowed for by a friendly interviewer. Not to mention the blatant ignorance of science and the claims of evolution.

Other than faith there should be nothing to base your beliefs on religion upon, and that's by its own definition. That's what you should be sticking to.

[Hopefl1]

I had a difference with Saint Birgitta on the trinity.

[Hooya2]

The man's argument from 4:30-5:45 made me laugh aloud.

Dude, the question "Why does God allow evil?" assumes God exists in its premise--not on the use of the word 'evil' but on the use of the words "Why does God". He's a politician, he ignoring a tough question and instead diverting the discussion into his talking point.

Slimy little clown.

[Hooya2]

Of course, no one proposes that any enzyme came together by chance; its precursors arose by chance first, and then the ones that were most effective underwent natural selection.

Human intercourse demands a moral reality? Tell that to Hitler, Stalin, slave-owners, people who treated women like cattle throughout history, the Crusaders, the Spanish Inquisition.

No my friend, it's obvious from human history that there is nothing other than our own ideas and emotions involved in morality.

[Hooya2]

Argument one is clearly special pleading; he hasn't answered the question, he just assumes (without any supporting evidence) that his proposed solution is immune to it.

Argument two is a an argument from ignorance; the fact is there are ways in which information can emerge without conscious direction (evolution, crystalline formation, etc.)

The enzyme? Humans use hundreds of enzymes, none of them are building blocks of genes, they are proteins that break down molecules, you ignorant fool.

[Atriviality]

1 to the power of 40,000? So there's still a chance right?

[ironcross66106]

Atriviality

NO, that simply points out the possibility.

We can do that also for us being able to frog jump to the moon.

But we know, that cannot happen.

IC

[Hooya2]

"We can do that also for us being able to frog jump to the moon.

But we know, that cannot happen."

Well, if you want to get into the quantum physics of it, it's technically true that atoms undergo quantum tunneling all the time, and there is always a chance that every single particle in the frog will simultaneously tunnel to the moon.

Still, I'll grant that it's EXTREMELY unlikely--far more likely than the random emergence of a human enzyme.

[videorprologic]

Exaptation, look it up.

[Hooya2]

"Exaptation, look it up."

I'm well aware of what exaption is, thanks. I'm also well aware that all enzymes are basically just variations of a basic template, and that enzymes can (and usually do) serve multiple functions.

[videorprologic]

Upon further reading of your comments, I think I mistook the rhetorical statement you were making.

[ironcross66106]

Hooya2

Agreed.  ; )