Kirk Cameron: "Evolution is unscientific", atheism impetus behind school shootings

Status
Not open for further replies.
mckmas8808 said:
Is this a real study or a BS one?
Click to expand...

Barna Research Group is a Christian organization, so it's hardly like they'd be atheist-biased.

The results are hardly surprising. Superstition that God will keep your marriage together isn't likely to work out in the long run, and besides, God forgives anything, so you just ask for forgiveness and start over. :)
 
What does it say about me that I came into this thread, looking for pictures of Kirk Cameron?

The Horde rules.
 
mckmas8808 said:
But that doesn't make any sense. If some deadly bacterial strain can change within our lifetimes, what would they expect from a species in say over a million years?
Click to expand...

you sir are referring to the gradualist theory of evolution which clearly does not exist. Punctuated equilibrium is the word of the lord
 
Explain to me how life began? I mean, by evolutionary standard and scientific standard, how did basic elements become complex enough to become life? The mathematical probability is so small, it's impossible. Without a beginning, I don't see how you can use evolution to disprove God. The same as the idea of and eternal universe. The universe started, we can calculate how long it's been expanding, yet how did it start? HOW did SOMETHING come from NOTHING? That is my question.
 
Fatghost said:
Is there a lot of money to be made in writing spurious Evolution denial books?

Cuz I'll sell out and write one if I can make some decent money on it. :lol
Click to expand...
It's not selling out, homey...it's cashin' in :lol
 
Batmonk said:
Explain to me how life began? I mean, by evolutionary standard and scientific standard, how did basic elements become complex enough to become life? The mathematical probability is so small, it's impossible. Without a beginning, I don't see how you can use evolution to disprove God. The same as the idea of and eternal universe. The universe started, we can calculate how long it's been expanding, yet how did it start? HOW did SOMETHING come from NOTHING? That is my question.
Click to expand...

Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life, nor is it the purpose of evolution to "disprove god."
 
White Man said:
Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life, nor is it the purpose of evolution to "disprove god."
Click to expand...

I've been around and around that merry-go-round with some Christians before until I finally realized - in their specific cases at least - why they utterly refused to admit to the possibility that you could have God and evolution at the same time: because to them, in order for man to have /meaning/ he had to have been directly and magically created by God as he is now, poof. It's not even enough to say "Okay, maybe evolution is merely God's /tool/ for growing life in the universe". Because the tool is still too "base" and tied to "mere animals". Really, the problem for many religious people is that the mere idea of evolution is /distasteful/. They'd prefer to think God has more class than that. Why would he associate his special children with damned dirty apes? It's an insult!

The funny thing about desiring an excuse for having absolute morals is that absolutes work just as easily against you as for you. If you take /any/ idea, principles, or directives as absolute, then you /have/ to follow them even if they don't make a damn lick of sense in the real world and even if they cause bad things to happen. You then convince yourself that the bad things are not /really/ bad, just the "mysterious" wisdom of higher powers man was not meant to understand.
 
Batmonk said:
Explain to me how life began? I mean, by evolutionary standard and scientific standard, how did basic elements become complex enough to become life? The mathematical probability is so small, it's impossible. Without a beginning, I don't see how you can use evolution to disprove God. The same as the idea of and eternal universe. The universe started, we can calculate how long it's been expanding, yet how did it start? HOW did SOMETHING come from NOTHING? That is my question.
Click to expand...
The logical fallacy here is that God is also SOMETHING. If you put forth the notion that the universe is infinite, somehow most religious folk can never accept that, it had to have a beginning. But what of God's beginning, how did he come to be? Did he create himself? Not many religious people would cozy to that. Really the only way he makes sense through their own logic is if he's infinite... but wait, infinity is impossible, everything has to begin somewhere!

It's a recursive loop.
 
Batmonk said:
Explain to me how life began?
Click to expand...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

I mean, by evolutionary standard and scientific standard, how did basic elements become complex enough to become life?
Click to expand...

We already know that amino acids form spontaneously from simple molecules. And evolution doesn't need "life" to begin its process, it only needs imperfectly self-replicating molecules.

The mathematical probability is so small, it's impossible.
Click to expand...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Creationist probability calculations are pure nonsense. But anyway, to paraphrase Richard Dawkins, it doesn't matter if the probability is incredibly tiny, because the origin of life only had to happen once on our planet in order to get evolution started.


The same as the idea of and eternal universe. The universe started, we can calculate how long it's been expanding, yet how did it start? HOW did SOMETHING come from NOTHING? That is my question.
Click to expand...

I doubt that something came from nothing. As you said, we can calculate how long it's been expanding. All we know is that "before" that it wasn't expanding. Of course the word "before" is meaningless, because there was no time before the universe started to expand.
 
PhlegmMaster said:
There is a difference though: We're right, and they're wrong.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up for me..


See, there's this thing called reality. The beliefs about reality that are true will have evidence in their favor. The beliefs about reality that are false will be contradicted by evidence.
Click to expand...

So you're kind of the "widely accepted fact kind of guy" or rather "Truth by majority"

So because condition A has evidence for it... and Condition B doesn't Then that means that Condition B is absolutely false...

Reminds me of the OJ Simpson defense...
 
mckmas8808 said:
So do you believe in the evolution?
Click to expand...

Personally I believe in adaptation as in adapting to an environment like a disease gaining an immunity to medication...

And Technological Evolution where Humans become smarter as their tools become more complex.

Rather then random, spontaneous mutation...
 
methane47 said:
So you're kind of the "widely accepted fact kind of guy" or rather "Truth by majority"
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

So because condition A has evidence for it... and Condition B doesn't Then that means that Condition B is absolutely false...
Click to expand...

Because condition A has a shitload of evidence for it, and condition B has a shitload of evidence against it, that means condition B is false.


methane47 said:
Personally I believe in adaptation as in adapting to an environment like a disease gaining an immunity to medication...
Click to expand...

What, do you think that a "disease" is an entity, or something? A pathogenic bacterium will cause a disease. That bacterium will never "adapt", it will reproduce, imperfectly replicating its RNA code, and some of its descendants will have a mutation that will allow them to resist a certain antibiotic molecule. These descendants will be more likely to survive, and therefore reproduce (and pass on their RNA which will include that mutation) than other descendants. The RNA of that new group of bacteria will therefore be slightly different from the RNA of the original group. Repeat that process enough times that you'll get a group of bacteria with RNA that's really different from the original group of bacteria, and it will qualify as a new species. That's what speciation, or what you creationists call "macro-evolution" is.
 
methane47 said:
Personally I believe in adaptation as in adapting to an environment like a disease gaining an immunity to medication...

And Technological Evolution where Humans become smarter as their tools become more complex.

Rather then random, spontaneous mutation...
Click to expand...

So you do believe in evolution, you're just too brain dead to even figure it out yet.
 
More old people die in the summer than in the winter.
Ice cream sales are highest in the summer.

ICE CREAM IS KILLING OLD PEOPLE!
 
methane47 said:
Rather then random, spontaneous mutation...
Click to expand...
Just to clarify this random and spontaneous crap,

The human DNA polymerase, the little machine that copies our DNA to our children, makes "random" mistakes everytime it copies our genes.

Most of the time these mistakes change nothing, sometimes they do. If these mistakes are advantageous to that person, then, of course, that person more easily passes on those genes. Iterate this out to hundreds of thousands of years and you'll see there is very little random and spontaneous about evolution.
 
happyfunball said:
Just to clarify this random and spontaneous crap,

The human DNA polymerase, the little machine that copies our DNA to our children, makes "random" mistakes everytime it copies our genes.

Most of the time these mistakes change nothing, sometimes they do. If these mistakes are advantageous to that person, then, of course, that person more easily passes on those genes. Iterate this out to hundreds of thousands of years and you'll see there is very little random and spontaneous about evolution.
Click to expand...

So that must mean that Diseases/conditions that are genetic in nature will eventually be non existant due to survival of the fittest theory?

Edit: I'm really asking... not trying to sound like a douche
 
methane47 said:
So that must mean that Diseases/conditions that are genetic in nature will eventually be non existant due to survival of the fittest theory?

Edit: I'm really asking... not trying to sound like a douche
Click to expand...

Well kinda. The Diseases that humans and other creatures become inmune too start to die off. However the diseases also mutate and evolve into slightly different diseases that we aren't inmune too. Hence why the common cold comes back every year.
 
methane47 said:
So that must mean that Diseases/conditions that are genetic in nature will eventually be non existant due to survival of the fittest theory?

Edit: I'm really asking... not trying to sound like a douche
Click to expand...

Only if there is decreased survival before the reproductive age or decreased fertility.
 
methane47 said:
So that must mean that Diseases/conditions that are genetic in nature will eventually be non existant due to survival of the fittest theory?

Edit: I'm really asking... not trying to sound like a douche
Click to expand...

A genetic disease will only stop existing if it make its less likely that an organism that has it will reproduce.

Natural selection is so perfectly obvious. Genes that make it more likely the organism will reproduce are more likely to be replicated. Genes that make it less likely the organism will reproduce are less likely to be replicated. Obviously, dying too soon nullifies your genes' chance of being replicated.
 
Stolen from the last evolution thread:

comic2516in5.png



I wish these people could just see God as the why and science as the how, but no, they have to continue to believe that God created man to look like him, literally. It's always interesting to then ask these people that if God created man in his image, what does God look like? Is he
caucasian with blonde hair, short, tall, fat or thin. Maybe he was a black man? Or perhaps chocolate-vanilla swirl? Why doesn't God look like a woman?
 
I just visited his site. He said he has growing pains in his own family. LOL.

Also, he used to be an atheist himself.
 
I wonder if this guys great scientific poof of God is like his argument from his Wiki, that bannanas proove humans could only be created by a God because Bannanas are just made so perfect for a man to peel open and eat.
 
beermonkey@tehbias said:
The results are hardly surprising. Superstition that God will keep your marriage together isn't likely to work out in the long run, and besides, God forgives anything, so you just ask for forgiveness and start over. :)
Click to expand...

:lol

That sounds to mean.
 
Jonm1010 said:
I wonder if this guys great scientific poof of God is like his argument from his Wiki, that bannanas proove humans could only be created by a God because Bannanas are just made so perfect for a man to peel open and eat.
Click to expand...

If René Descartes couldn't prove god exists, I sincerely doubt the chump from Growing Pains can.
 
mckmas8808 said:
Man that sucks. Why did you have to leave? You sound like a cool guy going against the grain.
Click to expand...

I got fed up really dude. I went to a very famous school for sports and academics in Florida and even in the U.S., best decision of my life! :)
 
White Man said:
If René Descartes couldn't prove god exists, I sincerely doubt the chump from Growing Pains can.
Click to expand...

I think that the problem is not proving God exists, it's if anyone can prove God does not exist. Untill we can or can't people will keep on bickering trying to prove each side incorrect, which is impossiable.
 
Eh, hate to disagree, but IMO Evolution/Selection/Genetic Survival is entirely arbitrary (and has to be in order for the system to perpetuate itself). Lasting evolutionary change comes about due to extreme ecological events that tend to arbitrarily destroy species genetic pools, leaving some genes which were less suitable, more dominant. If Evolution wasn't entirely arbitrary, species wouldn't be able to adapt to an equally arbitrary ecosystem. I feel like dropping meteorites on a city in Sim City now for some reason.

Evolution for Deists is actually sometimes held up as evidence of a creator deity. So ID and evolution aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but religion and evolution almost always are.
 
GeMiNii said:
Eh, hate to disagree, but IMO Evolution/Selection/Genetic Survival is entirely arbitrary (and has to be in order for the system to perpetuate itself). Lasting evolutionary change comes about due to extreme ecological events that tend to arbitrarily destroy species genetic pools, leaving some genes which were less suitable, more dominant. If Evolution wasn't entirely arbitrary, species wouldn't be able to adapt to an equally arbitrary ecosystem. I feel like dropping meteorites on a city in Sim City now for some reason.

Evolution for Deists is actually sometimes held up as evidence of a creator deity. So ID and evolution aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but religion and evolution almost always are.
Click to expand...


Honestly, I don't think a single thing you just wrote makes a lick of sense(scientifically or english language-wise). Please don't explain.
 
Diablos said:
Also, he used to be an atheist himself.
Click to expand...

pfft, bs, Kirk uses that as to exemplify that atheism is impossible and weak, same damn argument I get when I debate fundies and jehovah's witnesses.
 
happyfunball said:
Honestly, I don't think a single thing you just wrote makes a lick of sense(scientifically or english language-wise). Please don't explain.
Click to expand...

Don't particularly need to explain, there's already volumes written on the subject. If you chose to look, I'm sure you could find some pretty common sense geological examples that contradict your non-argument for the master plan of genetic expression.
 
GeMiNii said:
Don't particularly need to explain, there's already volumes written on the subject. If you chose to look, I'm sure you could find some pretty common sense geological examples that contradict your non-argument for the master plan of genetic expression.
Click to expand...

Just stop. Read a basic biology text. Don't try to use scientific sounding words when you don't know how to use them. I mean "plan of genetic expression", that just makes no sense and speaks volumes to me about your lack of basic biology knowledge.
 
theory == fact!

nice one! :)

The theory of evolution is a model for why we have different living things on earth. It'd have to be the most peculiar 'fact' I've ever encountered. It's a bit like saying it's a fact that the ten points below were taken from the x-axis intercepts of a cosine curve.

. . . . . . . . . .

Or maybe it's more like saying the ten points below were ;)


. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
 
PhlegmMaster said:
Creationist probability calculations are pure nonsense. But anyway, to paraphrase Richard Dawkins, it doesn't matter if the probability is incredibly tiny, because the origin of life only had to happen once on our planet in order to get evolution started.
Click to expand...
To make the odds even better, it didn't necessarily even have to happen on our planet.
 
Verano said:
pfft, bs, Kirk uses that as to exemplify that atheism is impossible and weak, same damn argument I get when I debate fundies and jehovah's witnesses.
Click to expand...


HA my girlfriend is a Jehovah witness.
 
Batmonk said:
Explain to me how life began? I mean, by evolutionary standard and scientific standard, how did basic elements become complex enough to become life? The mathematical probability is so small, it's impossible. Without a beginning, I don't see how you can use evolution to disprove God. The same as the idea of and eternal universe. The universe started, we can calculate how long it's been expanding, yet how did it start? HOW did SOMETHING come from NOTHING? That is my question.
Click to expand...

I was asking that question years ago, and that's why I became an agnostic. Still am.

I believe there is very likely something beyond what we can see and experience. The idea that atoms came together to create cells at a whim doesn't make sense to me.

However, neither does a germanic father figure of a god in Christianity. So many things wrong with it, and believers continue to make all sorts of exceptions/rules about what to and what to not believe in the Bible. For instance, the Bible says that you may own a slave and beat it, for it is your property...just don't beat it to death. Shit like that. It's simply inexcusable and lines like that alone discredit the entire Bible. How the Bible treats women as second class citizens. Gays too.

And for the doubters:

"When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property" (Exodus 21:20-21).


However, bottom line is that evolution has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS.
 
Evolution is unscientific. In reality, it is a blind faith
Click to expand...

If Evolution is blind faith, then i'm not sure where that puts religion in the grand scheme of things....
 
teh_pwn said:
And for the doubters:

"When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property" (Exodus 21:20-21).


However, bottom line is that evolution has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS.
Click to expand...

I'm going to ask my Jehovah witness girlfriend (no I'm not a J witness) about that verse and I'm going to see what she is going to say.

I'll be back later to tell you guys her excuse/what it means. :)
 
mckmas8808 said:
I'm going to ask my Jehovah witness girlfriend (no I'm not a J witness) about that verse and I'm going to see what she is going to say.

I'll be back later to tell you guys her excuse/what it means. :)
Click to expand...

Some versions say "servant" but still refer to it as property as well. Any servant that is property is by definition a slave.

Excuses that I've heard so far:
1. The New Testament revised the old.
2. Exodus was about ancient Jewish law, and not a statement from God. This is an example of which books are really, really from God.
3. Paid "servants" that are also property.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

James Cameron thinks Nolan’s Oppenhemier is ‘a bit of a moral copout’
2
93
633
Kenneth Haight replied
  • Locked
Charlie Kirk... WTF?
1
784
AJUMP23 replied
Is music evolution reaching an end?
Opinion  2
67
3K
kevboard replied
New School Music Thread
20
1K
Audiophile replied
Sony introduces the next evolution of noise cancelling, WH-1000XM6 headphones
2
60
2K
Solarstrike replied
Top Bottom