The Ultimate Question for a Creationist?

Great Debates
201

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Creationists don’t understand science, maybe they do, just don’t believe in the theories or they just are not intelligent enough to understand, right? I don’t think you can disprove what I said about no one being around to observe evolution, so there is nothing wrong with the statement. As for antibiotics, wasn’t penicillin discovered by accident? Evolution is a theory, but creation did take place, we are here, the universe is here, well try to dispute that.
[/QUOTE]
linky

Let me guess: you think the link is lying. Fine, nothing can be proven to you, ever, about anything. You win. :rolleyes:

Pennicillin was “discovered” by accident - as in, the Staphylococcus mold happened to be growing in the petri dish. The science began occurring when the scientist noticed, got curious about it, devoloped a pure sample, studied its effects… Yes, science occurred. No, the guy didn’t just open his closet and happen to discover a pile of pennicilin bottles lying there. (By the way, what does pennicilin have to do with anyhing, anyway?)

I dispute that the existence of something implies that it was created. So do creationists; they state that God exists and was not created. Ergo, existence does not imply creation. (Disputation successful.)

202

[QUOTE=lekatt]
As for antibiotics, wasn’t penicillin discovered by accident?
[/QUOTE]

Um…this is probably a mistake, but what has this got to do with anything?

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Evolution is a theory
[/QUOTE]

Evolution is both an observable fact and a theory both. Creation is not either of those. This isn’t to say that it is impossible that the Universe was Created by an all powerful being…just that there is no evidence that this is so, and Creationism has no testable metrics that would make it a theory.

-XT

203

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Um…this is probably a mistake, but what has this got to do with anything?

[/QUOTE]

A duck-billed platypus, while having an out of body experience, spoke with a spirit who told him how to make penicillin. After that, the evil, godless scientific establishment attempted to suppress his findings because they hate religion. Also duck-bills.

They then stole his research, killed Jesus, dreamed up a crazy system whereby allelic frequencies shift over time and then they attempted to make people stop believing in God because God scares them. They also inserted mind control serum into penicillin, allowing them to steal the school systems away from the valiant duck-bills who, even now, defend the good name of God and seek to get Him restored to His rightful place as font of all knowledge.

The brave, noble creationist duck-bills fought back, and created Kent Hovind out of transistors and bubblegum.

But we can’t be totally sure of that, because it happened last Thursday after lunch and nobody who posts here was actually there.

… isn’t it obvious?

204

No…I missed all that. :smack:

:wink:

-XT

205

[QUOTE=begbert2]

Pennicillin was “discovered” by accident - as in, the Staphylococcus mold happened to be growing in the petri dish.
[/QUOTE]

Nitpick: the fungus is Penicillium, hence the name. Staphylococcus is a genus of bacteria.

206

[QUOTE=Pazu]
Nitpick: the fungus is Penicillium, hence the name. Staphylococcus is a genus of bacteria.
[/QUOTE]
D’oh! Hastily skimming wikipedia claims another victim.

Hey, can I claim it’s God’s fault? I have no evidence of that, or even any reason to think it, of course, but that sort of thing isn’t necessary when you’re talking about God, right?

207

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Creationists don’t understand science, maybe they do, just don’t believe in the theories or they just are not intelligent enough to understand, right? I don’t think you can disprove what I said about no one being around to observe evolution, so there is nothing wrong with the statement. As for antibiotics, wasn’t penicillin discovered by accident? Evolution is a theory, but creation did take place, we are here, the universe is here, well try to dispute that.
[/QUOTE]

Of course no one was around to see evolution. No one can ‘see’ an electron either. Does that mean we should be skeptics about electrons?

I issued a challenge to you in an earlier post. Evolution is based on mountains of evidence. I asked you to explain just a small portion of this evidence–say, the fact that some whales are born with legs and feet, or the fact that humans share endogenous retroviruses with other species that evolution says are closely related to us–in a creationist way. Are you capable of doing that? If so, then do so. If not, then quit dismissing evolution, because you obviously are not knowledgeable enough to have an informed opinion about it.

Show us the goods, lekatt. Explain those pieces of evidence. Come on; we’re waiting.

208

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I don’t think you can disprove what I said about no one being around to observe evolution, so there is nothing wrong with the statement.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it is either a lie or an example of ignorance. Every time you make this false claim, one or many of us link to examples of evolution being observed, today.

What you might have meant was that no person today stood outside history to see humans evolve. That, while misleading, is true. But, of course, that is never what you say. You make the false claim that no one has observed evolution despite the fact that we have and continue to do so anmddespite the fact that you have been shown the evidence on multiple occasions. (And the fact that you repeat this same nonsense puts you into the same category as the liars Hovind and Gish who have been forced to recant false claims in the face of evidence, only to later repeat the same false claims to different audiences. Why should anyone believe anything you say when you engage in the same silly games everytime you interrupt a thread on evoluton?)

209

[QUOTE=you with the face]
I recently had an encounter with a Creationist who didn’t want to admit that’s what he is, but everything that came out of his mouth was symptomatic of Creationist thought.

Listening to him explain his beliefs, one thing that stood out at me. He kept claiming that we had no reason to believe conclusions drawn by science were true. Why? Because things like radiocarbon dating are unreliable. Okay, I said. Let’s accept that this is the case. What’s the alternative? Does it follow that believing in Biblical parables is the right way to go just because of the limitations of radiocarbon dating? He had no answer to that. I think he wanted me to say that “science is just as valid as religion in answering life’s questions”. I could not.

My conversation with him made it apparent to me that just as long as scientific evidence is anything less than 100% irrefutable and easy enough for a child to see is the truth, Creationists will not budge from their positions. The thing is, many of them see themselves as no being different as religion skeptics. They are simply skeptics of science, you see. In their minds, science is religion.

The anti-Creationists might break some ground by pointing out that Creationists are simply fair-weathered friends of the one thing that they attack: science. They are quick to accept the fruits of science when its easy, convenient, and gives them bright shiny things. But they quickly dismiss science as flawed just as soon as it contradicts beliefs they have a lot of vested interest in and challenges their paradigms.

When one of their loved ones gets sick, do they just pray for their recovery and hope that God will take care of it? Or do they encourage them to see a doctor, take some medicine, and get that gangrenous leg amputated already?

Do they enjoy the use of cars, TV, telephones, or computers? Science led to those inventions, not supernatural processes, and they know this.

Do they accept that the Earth revolves around the sun, even though the Bible says otherwise? Why do they accept that, if not for the fact that science has made it so obvious that it does that you’d have to be an idiot to insist otherwise?

Run down enough examples of the ways that Creationist show themselves to be practioners of science and maybe you can get them to see their own cognitive dissonances.
[/QUOTE]

Bravo!

210

[QUOTE=nd_n8]
Could you go a bit further and say that if there were a question that would stump those who can claim they just believe because of their faith that either their faith or their commitment to their belief must have by reason not been very high on their personal values list to begin with?
[/QUOTE]

The whole “one question” thing seems silly to me for that reason. I think challenging someone’s beliefs are fine especially those who feel compelled to push their beliefs on others, but let’s figure out how to communicate.

I agree. The spiritual journey is very personal and subjective. So why do we keep arguing about the lack of objective evidence. There isn’t any, so what, and let’s move on.

211

[QUOTE=begbert2]
D’oh! Hastily skimming wikipedia claims another victim.

Hey, can I claim it’s God’s fault? I have no evidence of that, or even any reason to think it, of course, but that sort of thing isn’t necessary when you’re talking about God, right?
[/QUOTE]

Oh, now, wouldn’t that be a violation of your Free Will? :smiley:

212

Let’s all remember: you cannot rationally argue out what wasn’t rationally argued in.

Which is why it’s pointless trying to debate with a creationist. Before you can play a game with someone, you have to agree what the rules are, otherwise it’s futile. Two people with a deck of cards… if one believes they areplaying bridge, and the other believes they are playing poker, it won’t be much of a game. Creationists and rational people don’t agree on the basic rules, so debates between them are essentially pointless.

Trying to ‘trip up’ a creationist by asking one question, or even hundreds, won’t get you anywhere. Creationism is a closed system of thought: the concusion is always the same, no matter what precedes it, no matter what evidence may be presented, no matter what point of reasoning you may introduce.

All that having been said, I do have one nice question that I use occassionally, just for fun, if I want to tease an evangelist or a god botherer or a creationist who hasn’t been in the game long enough to have an answer for everything. It doesn’t do any lasting good, but it sometimes stumps them for long enough to be quietly satisfying. Here it is. **“Where did Jesus get his Y chromosome from?” **

It can’t be from Mary. And if they say ‘From God’, well, that’s not a very satisfactory answer from their own point of view, because we know that all DNA is full of imperfections and vast lengths of redundant genetic material that serves literally no purpose and is known as ‘junk’ DNA. So they are saying God created something imperfect and full of redundant junk.

Another reasonably good ‘teasing’ question is: "I have a close, personal relationshiop with God and I hear messages from him very clearly. Last night he told me to ignore you, and that everything you are saying is a lie. Should I believe him, or you?"

213

[QUOTE=ianzin]

Another reasonably good ‘teasing’ question is: “I have a close, personal relationshiop with God and I hear messages from him very clearly. Last night he told me to ignore you, and that everything you are saying is a lie. Should I believe him, or you?”
[/QUOTE]

I like this one best.

In serious discussions I’ve asked. "Since believers can’t seem to agree, when it comes to my fate and my soul, what person should I go to to tell me what the truth is. What person will give me the correct interpretation of the Bible, and tell me God’s will?

214

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Well, it’s rhetoric rather than logic. People are creationists *because * they are religious. If you can rattle them with a Biblical contradiction–show them that maybe there’s something about Christianity that people haven’t been telling them–it might make them question other commitments which derive from their single-minded Christianity.
[/QUOTE]
Often presenting a contradiction just leads to a response that just muddies the water, especially with the more intelligent ones. The less sophisticated ones will generally put out a bit of canned spam or say that they will ask their spiritual leader.

I knew of one Jewish lady who had a subtler way of confronting than pointing to a possible contradiction and then asking for an explanation.

She would engage a missionary-oriented fundamentalist with gentle conversation until they expressed some frequently-occurring point of fundamentalist doctrine. One that went very directly against what Jesus apparently had said according to the Bible.

Then she would simply quote was Jesus allegedly had said. She would then keep responding, “Arguing with Jesus, are we?!” :stuck_out_tongue:

True Blue Jack

215

Sorry, I’ll admit I just skipped half the thread. (It’s getting close to my bed-time. Ogdammit I’m getting old!)

My question(s): If you’re willing to believe that Jesus came down to help an athlete (or team) to win the game / series / tourney, why isn’t God able to work through the physical laws that humans have learned to create the universe as you see it now? In other words, why does God need to knock the last domino down by a miracle, instead of setting up a mind-numbingly huge number of chain events that finally knock over the little piece of plastic, exactly as he planned over 13.7 billion years ago?

(Followed by) Science has nothing whatsoever to say about God not existing. Science does, however, have something to say about how the dominoes fall. Many people (including most Christians in the world) believe that the more they learn about the process, the closer they come to knowing God.

As has been shown again and again, this is not a scientific debate. These Creation / Evolution debates are heavily weighted against science, which is slow, slow, sllooooooowwww. Good scientists learn to remove their emotions from their arguments. Live debates are based on emotional appeal. The best response to one of these debates I have heard of was from Michael Shermer. Say of him what you will, he understands that the purpose of these debates is to change the playing field so that folks like Hovind can throw out massive amounts of questions that require inhuman amount of knowledge to answer. IOW, if you’re debating Hovind, and you’re an expert in paleontology, he will ask you questions about mircobiology, and vice versa. When the scientist (“look at me, I’m all Mr. PhD”) can’t answer a question that is outside his field, Ken looks smarter than him. And Ken is; he got the scientist to agree to a forum he’s ill-prepared to fight in.

Then again, there is a mindset that needs to believe that some power they don’t understand (but they know loves them) is watching over them constantly and will move a mountain for them.

Lastly, kingpengvin, your answer is Ken Miller, who is the (I believe sole) author of the biology textbook at the center of the Dover public school systems evolution / creationism court case. I was lucky enough to go to a seminar given by Miller (who teaches at Brown, got his BSci there and is a practicing Catholic) who spent one hour discussing the science and one hour discussing the debate and how he would routinely get messages (sometimes mail, sometimes phone) from people who would tell him that he is going to Hell for teaching the filth of evolution, that he was certainly no Christian, and that he should be killed.

216

[QUOTE=ianzin]
All that having been said, I do have one nice question that I use occassionally, just for fun, if I want to tease an evangelist or a god botherer or a creationist who hasn’t been in the game long enough to have an answer for everything. It doesn’t do any lasting good, but it sometimes stumps them for long enough to be quietly satisfying. Here it is. **“Where did Jesus get his Y chromosome from?” **

It can’t be from Mary. And if they say ‘From God’, well, that’s not a very satisfactory answer from their own point of view, because we know that all DNA is full of imperfections and vast lengths of redundant genetic material that serves literally no purpose and is known as ‘junk’ DNA. So they are saying God created something imperfect and full of redundant junk.

[/quote]

“The Word of God consented to inhabit a human body, subject to the same frailties as the rest of us. There is no suggestion in the Gospels that Jesus was some strange kind of super-being - he was subject to hunger, fatigue, even fear, just as we are. Why should he have been genetically perfect?”

[QUOTE=ianzin]
Another reasonably good ‘teasing’ question is: “I have a close, personal relationshiop with God and I hear messages from him very clearly. Last night he told me to ignore you, and that everything you are saying is a lie. Should I believe him, or you?”
[/QUOTE]

“You’re playing silly buggers with logical paradoxes. Assuming that you are telling the truth, my answer cannot be meaningful - even my admission that my answer is not meaningful is itself meaningless. However, the possibility that your question has overlooked is that your statement itself is untruthful, so you have presented a false dilemma. And of course, if your statement is indeed untruthful, then there’s no paradox.”

Socrates did it better - he got people to disagree with themselves. Still, the line you’re advocating was a favourite with badchad, I have to admit. The acid test, of course, would have been how well this Jewish lady stood up to a dose of her own medicine. :slight_smile:

217

[QUOTE=KGS]
I’m disappointed that you missed a golden opportunity to trot out the standard Christian retort, which would be: “Wow, if there’s a ‘God Spot’ in the brain, then GOD must have put it there when he created mankind, just so we could be aware of his existence! Glory, hallelujah!!”
[/QUOTE]

That’s OK. Even though I disappointingly gave you no excuse for it, you were still able to trot out that piece of snark. Go on your way rejoicing.

You have to admit that it is at least possible that the God-spot exists for exactly the reason stated. :slight_smile:

218

[QUOTE=ianzin]
Another reasonably good ‘teasing’ question is: “I have a close, personal relationshiop with God and I hear messages from him very clearly. Last night he told me to ignore you, and that everything you are saying is a lie. Should I believe him, or you?”
[/QUOTE]

I was thinking something similar the other day after reading this thread, but instead of saying that I had a dream I’d simply claim to be god myself, for once it’d be nice to see the roles reversed and have the other guy trying to show the irrationality of the claim.

Of course the fun could end up with my crisping up tied to a stake… :smiley:

219

[QUOTE=ianzin]
All that having been said, I do have one nice question that I use occassionally, just for fun, if I want to tease an evangelist or a god botherer or a creationist who hasn’t been in the game long enough to have an answer for everything. It doesn’t do any lasting good, but it sometimes stumps them for long enough to be quietly satisfying. Here it is. **“Where did Jesus get his Y chromosome from?” **

It can’t be from Mary. And if they say ‘From God’, well, that’s not a very satisfactory answer from their own point of view, because we know that all DNA is full of imperfections and vast lengths of redundant genetic material that serves literally no purpose and is known as ‘junk’ DNA. So they are saying God created something imperfect and full of redundant junk.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but this is just silly. If a person believes that God miraculously fertilized a human egg cell, why would it be hard to believe either that he created it with “perfect” DNA, or that he created “normal” DNA with all its imperfections and “redundant junk”? Isn’t that like saying God couldn’t have created the Earth because it isn’t a perfect sphere, or a tree because it isn’t a perfect cylinder?

Again, just silly, since the most obvious (and correct) answer is to dismiss what you’re saying as a lie.

220

I wish I’d said that!