countzander #fundie

countzander #fundie boards.gamefaqs.com

there's no proof of a big bang and that's my proof there was no a big bang

57 comments

old comment by Amos

Since I have some time to kill and some of this post hit the fundy quote topic...

You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.

Of course, complexity has nothing to do with it. We know that these stocking stuffers etc. were designed because we already know that the companies on the label have employees to design these things. It isn't a deduction made from analysis of the design. Further, the life around us is not "obviously not designed." Much of it really does seem designed in a way. But we can actually see the record of its creation! And in the entire record, there appears to be no input from any intelligence. Currently, the only model available that completely matches the record of life's origins and works in the lab is mechanistic and unthinking evolution. I'm sorry, but when the shoe fits...

You claim that evolution and the big bang are two entirely separate theories that explain different aspects of the universe, yet, in what school of learning can you find any real separation or distinction between the two?

Well, all of them. Every single one. Textbooks, websites, and video series' too.

As a member of the Skeptic's Society you pride yourself on being skeptical of extraordinary claims. You also pride yourself on silencing everyone who is skeptical of the extraordinary claims of evolution.

I am a skeptic, but you don't appear to be. Skepticism isn't just doubting--it's also believing. You start with doubts, demand evidence, and follow it where it leads. You then believe what you are justified in believing. If you leave out those last few steps, you aren't a skeptic. At best, you'd be a contrarian. At worst, dishonest. Further, you won't find anyone here or at any skeptic society I know trying to silence anyone. We explain, we teach, we argue... and when you ignore every point and just repeat refuted claims, we finally ignore you.

Isaac Newton does not count as an example of a great scientist who believed in the Bible since he died before the Origin of Species was published.

With qualifications (not believing in the trinity, etc.), he does. But he is rarely used for that purpose. Rather, he is almost universally used as an example of a great physicist who believed in divine creation rather than evolution. (In fact, you yourself placed Isaac Newton under "Origins" on your list!) It certainly is relevant that he had never been exposed to the theory. I for one don't want to get bogged down in "What if" scenarios. If the argument from design is the thing that made him a Christian, he might not have been one if he had been exposed to evolution. On the other hand, surveys of atheists show that evolution has almost nothing to do with their non-belief. Darwin himself became an agnostic because of the problem of evil (made personal by the death of his daughter), not evolution.

When you watch a punt returner run a 93 yard touchdown, you marvel at what evolution has done for the human race. But when someone gets cancer, you blame God for it.

Actually, no. It is pointed out to Christians who use flowers, blue skies, and love as evidence for God that they are ignoring the other half of the world. There are also storms, diseases, unnecessary cruelty (not limited to man), and hatred. The point being that when the bad is not excluded from the evidence one is looking at, nature doesn't so easily point to a loving creator. In fact, the universe (and any creator) instead appear to be ambivalent to man and not preferring good nor evil. And the human body is a remarkable thing for evolution to make. It just has nothing to do with your contrast.

When you're discussing the origin of the world, the phrase "uncaused cause(God)" is a stupid, meaningless thing to say. You will, however, settle for "uncaused effect(the world without God)".

Actually, "uncaused cause" is an unnecessary and superfluous thing to say and a Non sequitur when used as a conclusion for certain theological arguments. Many Christians say that everything needs a cause... so they propose a cause for everything that itself has no cause. If that doesn't make your head spin, nothing will! Origins are a real puzzle (and I certainly don't have it all figured out), but this "uncaused cause" attachment doesn't solve anything--it only extends the problem. I have to be content in the time being, before we have all the answers, to settle with "I don't know." None of us know.

You descended from apes. (Think about it, but not too hard.)

Yes, I did. You did too. And I've had a lot of time to let all the ramifications sink it. Frankly, I don't see anything there to be concerned or upset about.

countzander #fundie boards.gamefaqs.com

57 comments

Confused?