RE: Chat with a creationist
May 4, 2012 at 6:29 am
(This post was last modified: May 4, 2012 at 6:44 am by NoMoreFaith.)
1. There are at least 2 billion earthlike planets in the milky way alone. At least 125 billion galaxies(conservative estimate). IF life can only exist as we do.. but that's by no means a definite either.
More to the point, if this planet is so perfect for people to inhabit, why is 99.999999(plus a LOT more .9)% of the universe so hostile to our existence. Either God likes waste, or God is incompetent.
Do we assume upon seeing a puddle, that the hole it inhabits was created especially for it? Or is it simply attributing the fact it exists there, in the hole where it couldn't exist anywhere else, unwarranted special significance.
Why does he assume we don't want there to be a God? I want to live for a very long time, maybe even forever if my mind could cope with it, but I don't work on the assumption I will.
2. The earth actually has an eccentric orbit, which is likely to be partly responsible for the ice ages. The fact human history is so microscopic compared to the history of the earth is not evidence it was created for us.
We can exist as the earth is now, but it is a fallacy to say the earth has always been perfect for our existence.
In fact the only explanation for us existing over the hundreds of millions of years, is that we weren't always human, we have merely adapted to our surroundings.
Non-Sequitor on the eye, but its been so thoroughly debunked its a running joke now. But look around the natural world, the evolution of the eye is clearly shown. From simple light detection cells, to lightvsdark differentiation, to vague outlines, its all there. We depend on the sun for life, we require energy to exist, if there is ANY part of the body most likely to exist.. it is a detector for the energy of the sun to varying degrees of complexity and precision.
3. In 3000 years, archeologists may unearth Spider-man comic books. From this they may be able to correlate this to an ancient city known as "New York City". They may even unearth the copy where he fights "Wasp-man" in 1977, and records that New York completely blacked out for 24 hours one week AFTER the comic was released, as a prophecy to the event.
The may even read the comic and say WOW, Barack Obama WAS the president, there he is in the comic!
I don't even need to outline my point here, it should be obvious. Needless to say, spider-man remains .. a work of fiction.
I use spiderman because this is usually called the "Spider-man Fallacy"
New York is a real place,
Spiderman lived in New York
Therefore Spiderman is real
4. Spiderman fallacy as above. Does it lend Spider-man credibility as a depiction of real events?
I'm not going to respond to the evolution remarks, because all you need do is look at any science book which is like kryptonite to these guys since they work on the premise it isn't true and then avoid the actual evidence by looking in places there aren't any to the exclusion of the ACTUAL evidence.
Theory of Gravity is called fact too, learn how science differentiates levels of credibility.
Not completely changed, minor revisions, correcting errors, why is that a bad thing?
Every piece of evidence is historical data, vast fossil records, dna predictions, its all there for him to look at, but what you might want to point out, is why is he referring to his religious sources for a scientific theory, instead of reading the actual scientific texts.
Then why are there so many denominations with a different interpretation?
This is funny. I actually laughed out loud at work! I hope you grind him into the ground with this declaration, and how easy it is to prove it to be a total fabrication.
(Quick clue, Laws allow us to quantify results but tell us nothing about the Why?)
The historicity of Jesus for instance is STILL in dispute, so any claims of definite proof of his existence is a fabrication. I would simply ask him why he feels the need to attribute FACT to something which is FAMOUSLY disputed still today.
Is he a history denier now that facts disagree with him?
Seriously thou, if you don't know the answers off hand, and these are really easy ones, I would recommend thinkorigins etc and research for yourself. Don't just take what our opinions on these points are.. do the research yourself, otherwise you are just regurgitating what someone else tells you.. and does that make you any better than the creationist?
More to the point, if this planet is so perfect for people to inhabit, why is 99.999999(plus a LOT more .9)% of the universe so hostile to our existence. Either God likes waste, or God is incompetent.
Do we assume upon seeing a puddle, that the hole it inhabits was created especially for it? Or is it simply attributing the fact it exists there, in the hole where it couldn't exist anywhere else, unwarranted special significance.
Why does he assume we don't want there to be a God? I want to live for a very long time, maybe even forever if my mind could cope with it, but I don't work on the assumption I will.
2. The earth actually has an eccentric orbit, which is likely to be partly responsible for the ice ages. The fact human history is so microscopic compared to the history of the earth is not evidence it was created for us.
We can exist as the earth is now, but it is a fallacy to say the earth has always been perfect for our existence.
In fact the only explanation for us existing over the hundreds of millions of years, is that we weren't always human, we have merely adapted to our surroundings.
Non-Sequitor on the eye, but its been so thoroughly debunked its a running joke now. But look around the natural world, the evolution of the eye is clearly shown. From simple light detection cells, to lightvsdark differentiation, to vague outlines, its all there. We depend on the sun for life, we require energy to exist, if there is ANY part of the body most likely to exist.. it is a detector for the energy of the sun to varying degrees of complexity and precision.
3. In 3000 years, archeologists may unearth Spider-man comic books. From this they may be able to correlate this to an ancient city known as "New York City". They may even unearth the copy where he fights "Wasp-man" in 1977, and records that New York completely blacked out for 24 hours one week AFTER the comic was released, as a prophecy to the event.
The may even read the comic and say WOW, Barack Obama WAS the president, there he is in the comic!
I don't even need to outline my point here, it should be obvious. Needless to say, spider-man remains .. a work of fiction.
I use spiderman because this is usually called the "Spider-man Fallacy"
New York is a real place,
Spiderman lived in New York
Therefore Spiderman is real
4. Spiderman fallacy as above. Does it lend Spider-man credibility as a depiction of real events?
I'm not going to respond to the evolution remarks, because all you need do is look at any science book which is like kryptonite to these guys since they work on the premise it isn't true and then avoid the actual evidence by looking in places there aren't any to the exclusion of the ACTUAL evidence.
Quote: It is a theory that everyone keeps calling fact.
Theory of Gravity is called fact too, learn how science differentiates levels of credibility.
Quote:You have NO historical data to prove it and it keeps changing constantly.
Not completely changed, minor revisions, correcting errors, why is that a bad thing?
Every piece of evidence is historical data, vast fossil records, dna predictions, its all there for him to look at, but what you might want to point out, is why is he referring to his religious sources for a scientific theory, instead of reading the actual scientific texts.
Quote:Although the Bible has different versions and has been printed in many languages, the basic message has not been changed.
Then why are there so many denominations with a different interpretation?
Quote:5. Gravity is not a theory it is a LAW!! Obviously I am not the clueless one here.
This is funny. I actually laughed out loud at work! I hope you grind him into the ground with this declaration, and how easy it is to prove it to be a total fabrication.
(Quick clue, Laws allow us to quantify results but tell us nothing about the Why?)
The historicity of Jesus for instance is STILL in dispute, so any claims of definite proof of his existence is a fabrication. I would simply ask him why he feels the need to attribute FACT to something which is FAMOUSLY disputed still today.
Is he a history denier now that facts disagree with him?
Seriously thou, if you don't know the answers off hand, and these are really easy ones, I would recommend thinkorigins etc and research for yourself. Don't just take what our opinions on these points are.. do the research yourself, otherwise you are just regurgitating what someone else tells you.. and does that make you any better than the creationist?
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
