Video: Penn & Teller versus … creationism
posted at 8:30 pm on July 26, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
With due thanks and praise to the Lizard King, I give you the ultimate lazy-Saturday flame-war starter. If this thread doesn’t do a thousand comments then the terrorists have already won. Content warning.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Sooooo anyways. Keep religion out of science class. Kthx.
Seixon on July 27, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Sooooo anyways. Keep religion out of science class. Kthx.
Seixon on July 27, 2008 at 6:30 PM
The trick is to define science and religion without resorting to bias, genetic fallacies, mistaking a priori limitations for conclusions etc.
I also wouldn’t consider Penn and Teller reliable considering what I’ve seen of their treatment of the Bible before and the same goes for Richard Dawkins, considering the foolishness of his last book.
aikidoka on July 27, 2008 at 6:36 PM
They can defend natural law from the standpoint of tradition, consensus and reason. It seems less likely to disintegrate into a “says you” argument than resting a law on a supernatural enforcer–sure he’s supreme but “who says you know him?” There are all sorts of laws in Leviticus and Exodus that we don’t pay any attention to. Why would God dictate a book filled with laws some of which are crucial to a functioning society and some not at all essential.
dedalus on July 27, 2008 at 6:49 PM
That was a truly wierd comment.
ronsfi on July 27, 2008 at 7:01 PM
“I am a chance mutation.”
davidk on July 27, 2008 at 7:13 PM
“Burden of proof” falls on the person claiming to make a claim of knowledge.
Atheist–God does not exist. This is a claim of knowledge–the person making it should be ready to prove it.
Theist–God does exist. This is a claim of knowledge–the person making it should be ready to prove it.
Agnostic–We don’t have enough evidence for or against the existence of God. This is not a claim of knowledge. The burden of proof does not attain here.
davidk on July 27, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Nothing cannot exist, or it would not be nothing.
Since nothing cannot exist, then something must exist.
Being cannot not exist, or being would not be being.
Since something must exist and since being cannot not exist, then being must exist.
If being must exist, then being exists necessarily.
If being exist necessarily, then being is not contingent.
If being is not contingent, then being is self-existent.
davidk on July 27, 2008 at 7:26 PM
I am not the cause of my existence–I am contingent.
The earth is not the cause of its existence–it is contingent.
The universe is not the cause of its existence–it is contingent.
All material “stuff” is contingent.
Being is not contingent, therefore, all material stuff is contingent on the being which is not contingent.
davidk on July 27, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Being is the (uncaused) cause. The universe is the effect.
davidk on July 27, 2008 at 7:33 PM
That which is in the effect must have been in the cause.
In the universe we tremendous power.
Being must be all powerful.
In the universe we see information/knowledge.
Being must be omniscient.
In the universe we see personhood.
Being must be personal.
davidk on July 27, 2008 at 7:37 PM
If being is personal, we may expect being to communicate.
If we search the world’s literature, we can find one book that describes such a being.
That book is the Bible.
The Bible is a reliable book that reveals such a being.
davidk on July 27, 2008 at 7:40 PM
When the God of the Bible told Moses to lead the children of Israel, Moses asked, “Who shall I say sent me?”
God said, “I AM.” That is to say, “The Being That Cannot Not Exist, sends you.”
davidk on July 27, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Therefore, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob exists.
davidk on July 27, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Just sayin’.
davidk on July 27, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Seven Percent Solution on July 27, 2008 at 7:46 PM
The Christian explanation for that is Christ’s fulfillment of the law.
You can defend it from reason and tradition but there’s no way you can win the argument. You’re just appealing to your view of tradition, what you value, and rationalization. The other person could cite a contrary tradition, or rationalize another behavior, and you would be at a stalemate. There’s no greater law than thyself, in this case; we all die, so who cares what you think?, and so on.
emailnuevo on July 27, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Christian morals have given you that modern life that you so take for granted. try living in the lands of islam.
yeah thats really worked so well..Stalin, Hitler Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong Il, etc.
Since there is not an ABSOLUTE prohibition on slavery in the bible, there has been debate on this subject for centuries…but where are the islamic, or atheist abolitionists societies?? not around at all are they now??
oh gee a whole 2,000 or so died from the inquisition, whats that compared to the millions from the theories of your hairygod darwin?
and thank God for the CRUSADES!! without them, we’d all be muslim.
right4life on July 27, 2008 at 8:47 PM
Every time you post always gives me a chuckle. Thanks for the lulz.
RoPa4life on July 27, 2008 at 8:51 PM
It’s a question of buy-in, or enfranchisement. If individuals feel they have a stake in the system they’ll abide by the ruling of a recognized leader.
I’m not contending that it is absolute authority but that it’s sufficient and effective. Religious authority is absolute, but the problem is that that authority needs to be expressed by men. When those men speak to believers they have the authority, but when speaking to those with other religious views their authority is nullified.
dedalus on July 27, 2008 at 8:54 PM
That series of posts started on a note of vacuity and ended the same way.
Annar on July 27, 2008 at 8:54 PM
If it start vacuous, then it must end that way.
What is your point?
davidk on July 27, 2008 at 9:01 PM
“Nothing” cannot be predicated. If “nothing” could be predicated, it would not be nothing.
I’m not talking about the idiomatic use of the word “nothing.”
I’m talking about, um, no thing.
To say, “No thing (which can be predicated) cannot exist; therefore, some thing (which can be predicated) exists.”
That would be an equivocation.
I am saying, “”Nothing (which cannot be predicated) cannot exist [because existence requires ontology/attributes]; therefore, something must exist.”
davidk on July 27, 2008 at 9:09 PM
One casnnot just make vacuous staements.
davidk on July 27, 2008 at 9:09 PM
That it was all irrational, ludicrous nonsense. I was just trying to be polite with my initial response.
Annar on July 27, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Unless one is making a witty comment. Then, good one.
davidk on July 27, 2008 at 9:11 PM
How so?
davidk on July 27, 2008 at 9:12 PM
There are three elements to the physical world: Matter, Time and Energy.
In Genesis 1, those are the first three things created by God.
Most scientists believe life began in the oceans. This is also the start of life in Genesis.
There are more examples if you are willing to read.
DavidM on July 27, 2008 at 9:13 PM
davidk on July 27, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Gen. 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth. Those words could (and I think should) be translated “space and matter.”
I think that the consensus is that matter and energy are the same thing in different forms. (?)
My thought on time is that time is a function of the movement of matter through space.
Space is a thing, so it did not exist before creation. Before creation only God. No space, no matter. Therefore, no time.
At least that my understanding.
davidk on July 27, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Well, no, because you’re assuming that the other person has to believe something to be true, for its truth to be valid. Truth is not relative to the beliefs of others; it is objective and relative to reality. So if I’m arguing with a Buddhist, and I appeal to some truth unheard of in their religion, that doesn’t mean my truth is false, or that he has to accept my truth. If that were true, I could solve every math problem with “5.”
emailnuevo on July 27, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Impossible. Religion has always been in science class, whether it’s Sagan’s atheistic materialism or creation science or something in between.
jgapinoy on July 27, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Putting aside Uncertainty Principle type issues for a moment. I agree that truth exists independent of our perception of it.
As you point out you might be arguing with a Buddhist, perhaps he is one of a billion plus Indians or a billion plus Chinese. Neither he nor most of his countrymen are going to be persuaded by your absolute authority. You may ultimately be right but the authority is supernatural. Persuading someone of that authority must be done with natural methods. I don’t know that appealing to that authority is much more efficient than appealing to tradition, reason, mutual self-interest or other non-religious means.
dedalus on July 27, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Science, at least biology, has to be naturalistic or it ceases to be science. Hot Air had a computer glitch that Mark has worked hard to fix. He had to rely on technical explanations for what caused login problems. It is possible that there are divine reasons for the problem but they exist outside the realm of computer science and don’t explain the mechanics of how software works.
dedalus on July 27, 2008 at 10:38 PM
this whole, “Christians must be right because Muslims are so wrong” argument is getting tedious.
RightOFLeft on July 27, 2008 at 11:38 PM
“Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.” — Billy Preston
Christians can be proven right due to prophecy. Not vague quatrains on tangential metaphysics, but specific time and place prophecies. If God can tell us the future then He’s God. If he can’t he’s no better than a poster at HotAir. Christianity, resting on the foundation of Judaism, is the ONLY religion where the prophecies actually come true.
Even lowly I have had two visions in my lifetime. And, yes, they came true too. One helped end my first marriage so it was quite serious in nature. I also pray in tongues. Now how is it I can remotely see events I know nothing about and how is it I can speak a language that I was never taught? Evolution?
Mojave Mark on July 28, 2008 at 1:48 AM
Everclear?
MB4 on July 28, 2008 at 3:21 AM
To dull perceptions.
Mark Twain printed such things, and more, so much more. Hitchens is no Mark Twain.
MB4 on July 28, 2008 at 3:41 AM
Eat your heart out Hitchens. You are no Mark Twain.
If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man’s compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort of man in these regards.
He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these
things. He would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of eternity for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the better sort of man in this regard.
He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man’s heart for a wrong done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness be required or desired or expected of that man.
In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner.
He would not be a jealous God — a trait so small that even men despise it in each other.
He would not boast.
He would keep private His admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise as unbecoming the dignity of his position.
He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not issue from His lips.
There would not be any hell — except the one we live in from the cradle to the grave.
There would not be any heaven — the kind described in the world’s Bibles.
He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy.
– Mark Twain,
MB4 on July 28, 2008 at 3:48 AM
Always remember, blasphemy is a victimless crime.
MB4 on July 28, 2008 at 3:57 AM
O.k… I watched it. Those Penn & Teller guys were incredibly condescending and elitist jerks. Wow. I thought that they said at the end that the scientific method allowed for debate. It’s funny how they say that, but the entire episode was against exactly that.
Theophile on July 28, 2008 at 6:31 AM
Oh, yeah. And where in the world is the separation of Church and State in the constitution? Where does it say that we must keep religion out of the schools in there? Nowhere at all.
Where are all of these “millions and millions” of fossils for evidence that they site? Where are all of these peices of geological evidence?
I love how they kept saying things, but not backing up their statements at all. They would be given an “F” on a term paper for lack of citing or backing up their statements.
Theophile on July 28, 2008 at 6:34 AM
Are you unhappy, MB4?
davidk on July 28, 2008 at 7:07 AM
I’m unhappy I just read that question.
Nonfactor on July 28, 2008 at 7:47 AM
Remember when threads like this got 1000, 2000, or even 3000 comments? Look. A measley 300+ comments. Pathetic.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on July 28, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Stephen Hawkings has stated that Time has a beginning and was “created”! Ok, by whom? I’m truly amazed that one can look at the totality of the Universe and the creation including the intricate nature of it’s design and then throw up your hands and declare that it just happened by chance! That is truly a remarkably moronic statement! I suspect that you haven’t actually studied astronomy or physics to declare such a thing. The wonder of nature demands a creator!
sabbott on July 28, 2008 at 9:32 AM
thats not what I’m arguing. You indicted christianity for slavery, when in reality slavery has always been part of the human condition, and it is only christians that have stood up and tried to stop slavery. atheists have not, nor have muslims, nor any other religion, that I am aware of…ever hear of Wilberforce?
right4life on July 28, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Christianity is not simply about morality…it is about UNION WITH GOD/THEOSIS!
The misconception is that God is not totally loving and that our sin is an infraction against Him…when in Truth, God is ABSOLUTELY LOVING and our sin is not so much an infraction but an INFECTION that seperates us from our union with the Loving God.
Man is CREATED in the LIKENESS and IMAGE of God! And we are His sons!
The early church fathers would say that it is through our LOVE OF GOD through GRACE that we acsend to Him…and it is through our Love of God through Grace that we follow Him.
If you do not even acknowledge that He created us or that He even exists….how can you love Him? And how can you be anything but seperate from Him?
Because God loves us…He gives us free will and RESPECTS your decision.
If you decide to reject Him and remain seperated from Him, He will respect your final decision eternally, but that does not change His loving nature nor make Him cruel.
SaintOlaf on July 28, 2008 at 9:47 AM
The universe is made up of five basic components:
1. Physical Matter
2. Energy
3. Time
4. Intelligence, and
5. Spiritual Matter.
Physical matter and energy are interchangeable and obey the eternal laws and intelligence that govern them. The combined total of physical matter and energy in the universe is a constant and cannot be changed.
Time governs the progression of all actions in the universe. Time can neither be created nor destroyed. The progression of time cannot be stopped or altered. History can be recorded. Future events can be predicted by the application of knowledge and understanding or by spiritual means. But, traveling through time to change past or future events is not possible.
Intelligence is in all living and non-living things throughout the universe and cannot be created or destroyed. Intelligence respects the knowledge and power of higher beings and is obedient to their will.
Spiritual matter is in all living things and can only be created by beings that have achieved a higher level of knowledge in the next stage of human existence. Spiritual matter is created by joining a small amount of physical matter and energy with a portion of the intelligence that exists in the universe. Once it is created, spiritual matter cannot be detected by non-spiritual means and it cannot be destroyed.
Since most modern scientists and atheists do not accept or understand the existence of intelligence and spiritual matter as separate and distinct parts of our universe, they can never understand the true nature of the universe that we live in or why physical matter and energy often interact in ways that defy human understanding. So, having a debate with them on the existence of the higher level laws associated with intelligence and spiritual matter is usually a waste of physical matter, energy, and time.
NuclearPhysicist on July 28, 2008 at 10:08 AM
What are you saying? That time is eternal and has always existed? If so, then there must be some allowance for negative time? How do you allow for this? If you then can allow for negative time, math suddenly doesn’t work because a negative number of years times a negative number of years = oops…
sabbott on July 28, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Huh. I guess these geniuses don’t believe that they have been endowed by their Creator with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Akzed on July 28, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Like eating poison.
Akzed on July 28, 2008 at 10:35 AM
sabbott on July 28, 2008 at 10:29 AM:
There is no negative time. Time is simply a standard used for measuring the progression of actual events. Once it is past, the events associated with the progression of time cannot be changed. The passage of time and events exist in our memories and in the records created by us, but they cannot be influenced by current actions. In other words, time resets itself with each tick of the clock. There is no going back.
NuclearPhysicist on July 28, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Well, I don’t want the terrorist to win so I am making my comment even though I know it is pointless to do so. I also have not read any of the comments so far because I already know what they say without having to read them. Blah blah blah blah blah……
Ars Moriendi on July 28, 2008 at 11:11 AM
American Vision is taking this on all week, Part 1
http://74.255.56.30/blog/?p=139
jp on July 28, 2008 at 11:15 AM
I love this series. They do a fine job of breaking things down to the layman and do so in an entertaining manner.
ronsfi on July 28, 2008 at 11:34 AM
I’ve been scanning the comments from the beginning and this is the best original point I’ve seen. I don’t recall this point being made in previous threads on this topic. But this is so obviously true that I don’t know why it hasn’t come up before.
Clearly, as you say, even if science was able to develop a procedure to make life from non-living matter, its still intelligent design, how very true.
Macro-Evolution simply does not and cannot happen.
This is another great point. I have no problem believing in de-evolution because it agrees with the law of entropy, which is simply, order to disorder. This is a proven LAW of the universe and is not disputed, macro-evolution flies in the face of this law. Macro-evolution simply cannot happen.
Maxx on July 28, 2008 at 11:44 AM
I believe in nothing. You are all merely extensions of my reality.
Dance puppets dance.
beefytee on July 28, 2008 at 11:46 AM
In other words, God can’t exist because I’ve decided through some arbitrary criterion I’ve devised that he’s a jerk.
Twain was an awesome writer and humorist. And that’s about it.
TheUnrepentantGeek on July 28, 2008 at 11:48 AM
I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.
beefytee on July 28, 2008 at 11:51 AM
TheUnrepentantGeek on July 28, 2008 at 11:48 AM
are you Geek Orthodox?….sorry, I’ve actually wanted to ask that one for a long time now.
beefytee on July 28, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Is there a technical barrier? We’ve seen genetic drift cause reproductive isolation of species. Even the Bible allows for the evolution of within “kind” that would require a jump across what we today consider species boundries.
dedalus on July 28, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Big Bang = God snapping his fingers
macummings on July 28, 2008 at 12:11 PM
there seems like there is…its as if genetics says ‘I’ll go so far, and no farther’
do we really know what a species is? most people consider lions and tigers separate species, but then can breed, and produce a liger..
right4life on July 28, 2008 at 12:14 PM
There seems to be some variation in the criteria for species. Perhaps microevolution allows for new species to be created through sexual selection but sees some stopping point further along the classification system that would be considered macroevolutionary–at genus, family, order, etc.
dedalus on July 28, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Hitler was not a Christian. Christians don’t work to destroy the Christian church like Hitler did. See what Hitler did to the Christian church below:
Perhaps Hitler “said” he was a Christian at some point but clearly Hitler was a notorious lier that said anything that was politically expedient. For example, history records Hitler stating emphatically time and time again that he only wanted peace. Did Hitler only want peace? Hitler said whatever served his purpose for the moment and cannot be judged by what he said but only by what he did.
So without regard to what Hitler may have said, his actions proved that he hated Christianity and did everything in his power to destroy it as the excerpt above clearly shows. Many Christians in Germany died trying to stop the Nazis and many Christians gave shelter to the Jews to hide them from the Nazis at the risk of their own lives. And we should not forget that it was a predominately Christian allied force that destroyed the Nazis. Yet there are those who would insist that the Nazis were Christians, this is obviously as ludicrous and ridiculous a statement as anyone can make.
The left hates Christianity, so they constantly try to lay Hitler at the feet of Christianity. But for those who hate Christianity and want to destroy it, they are the ones like Hitler and they are the ones that share that expressed goal with the Nazis.
Maxx on July 28, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Actually there is a great deal of evidence supporting Macro evolution.
Here is a very interesting and in depth treatment of the subject. For those with eyes to see…
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
ronsfi on July 28, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Personally? Not most of the time. How about you? You seem kind of down.
MB4 on July 28, 2008 at 1:32 PM
really? explain the tuatara, which has the fastest rate of DNA evolution ever seen, but is a ‘living dinosaur’
oh I know how you’ll ‘refute’ me…you say ‘it evolved’!!
talk origins…laughable atheist wacko website…all you have are eyes to see nothing else
right4life on July 28, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Show me photos of the progression of one kind into another. No one cares what these story tellers have to say anymore, we are far beyond that.
Maxx on July 28, 2008 at 1:36 PM
oh yeah as far as theobold and his article…link
oh yeah Theobold has ‘eyes to see’
only evolution.
right4life on July 28, 2008 at 1:39 PM
And just think, he did it all without any help from you-know-what. Eat your heart out.
MB4 on July 28, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Here is a comprehensive site dealing with Evolutionary Biology and Macro Evolution.
For those with ears to hear…
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIMacroevolution.shtml
ronsfi on July 28, 2008 at 2:17 PM
If you like it short and sweet. The Cliff Notes version.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html
ronsfi on July 28, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Where I don’t always agree with P&T, I absolutely love them. Penn can be very obnoxious, but he is usually at least a pretty logical thinker. Good Libertarian, and a big supporter of the Constitution.
And they are two damn fine performers.
tickleddragon on July 28, 2008 at 2:22 PM
if you want to read some actual science, as opposed to darwiniac propoganda, and the problem of cumulative, beneficial mutations…
I find it interesting that the interaction of individual benefical mutations has not been studied…
guess the evolutionists are too busy telling stories…
right4life on July 28, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Oh, and na na, Allah. Didn’t take the bait. :)
tickleddragon on July 28, 2008 at 2:23 PM
link for the article..
right4life on July 28, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Complexity is the barrier. Take a nut, bolt and washer and put them into a tumbler. What are the odds that the washer will ever fall onto the bolt and the nut fasten it in place? If the assembly is going to get more complex, by chance, it needs to do it quickly because the threads of the bolt will quickly become damaged so the nut can never thread onto the bolt.
And of course the nut, bolt and washer are already complex in themselves, they’ve got to be the right size and have the same thread pitch. So even when we give “evolution” this “head-start” its still impossible. The various parts will be destroyed long before they come together.
Now think of all the part of an automobile in a tumbler. How many rotations until the parts become damaged and can never fit together? Probably only one or two rotations and the parts can never fit. Remember, we have given evolution or “chance” a head start by pre-manufacturing all the complex parts, all chance has to do is put them together, but its absurd to think it would ever happen. Yet an automobile is far, far less complex than a living cell.
Maxx on July 28, 2008 at 2:42 PM
OK, so no one had the guts to answer the question that must not be asked.
Let’s try another one, for those who “don’t believe in Intelligent Design”.
What, then, produced the golden retriever, Belgian draft horse … ?
corona on July 28, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Probably the same process that produced the Pit Bull and the Horse Fly.
MB4 on July 28, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Maxx on July 28, 2008 at 2:42 PM:
For argument sake, let’s assume that the individual parts and the tumbler are indestructible. Let’s also assume that we have billions of compatible parts that have many billions of identical twins and that the tumbler is large enough and powerful enough to contain and randomly agitate all of the individual parts. Finally, let’s assume that sufficient energy exists to turn the tumbler for the entire 4 billion years. Using these assumptions, the likelihood that a working complex machine (like an automobile) will result after 4 billion years of tumbling is so small that even scientists would have to admit that it is, in fact, impossible. But that doesn’t seem to change the fact that they willingly cling to a theory that is even less probable.
NuclearPhysicist on July 28, 2008 at 3:15 PM
sabbott on July 28, 2008 at 10:29 AM:
There is no negative time. Time is simply a standard used for measuring the progression of actual events. Once it is past, the events associated with the progression of time cannot be changed. The passage of time and events exist in our memories and in the records created by us, but they cannot be influenced by current actions. In other words, time resets itself with each tick of the clock. There is no going back.
NuclearPhysicist on July 28, 2008 at 10:57 AM
So time is not eternal. It must have a beginning. How? What is the causation of this beginning? You can’t explain it outside a creator. If it is eternal than you have the problem that I posed…
sabbott on July 28, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Christians believe that there is indeed a creator. His name is Jesus Christ and the most remarkable part of the story is that the creator of the Universe decided to become man in the form of a helpless infant. This infant would grow to become a man who would allow himself to be killed by one of the most brutal methods ever devised by man to act as a sacrifice for us to atone for our sins once and for all. And the cool part of the story is that we can’t do anything to earn the salvation that he offers through this wonderful gift. He simply asks us to believe in him and gives us the power to believe through his Holy Spirit. How can this message be mocked as anything but glorious?
sabbott on July 28, 2008 at 3:23 PM
sabbott on July 28, 2008 at 3:18 PM:
Time can be eternal and still include no possibility of negative time, if time moves only in a forward/future direction. Eternity is a concept that is largely beyond the finite understanding of mortal men. Perhaps, when and if we meet the creator, he can explain it to us, but it’s not particularly important for us to understand it at this stage in our existence.
NuclearPhysicist on July 28, 2008 at 3:59 PM
But if you had a chronologically distributed record of tumblers in various stages of becoming an automobile, it would be entirely reasonable to draw the conclusion that indeed what you were seeing represented just that, a tumbler becoming an automobile.
ronsfi on July 28, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Sigh…would that we Godless were allowed such a low standard of evidence.
ronsfi on July 28, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Are you a man? If God made man unhappy … ?
I could see how you could be unhappy, knowing that you are just a cosmic accident whose life is no more meaningful than whale poop.
All you have is (not-so) cute one liners and quotes from Twain. You were sarcastic when I said some time ago that i would outline why I believed God existed.
Either refute what I have said, or tell us why there is no God. Shouldn’t be hard for whale poop.
davidk on July 28, 2008 at 6:17 PM
There must be a beginning.
Infinite regress is absurd.
davidk on July 28, 2008 at 6:19 PM
The odds against any one of us being here is cosmic whether you look to evolution or Adam and Eve. Even with a human couple some 6,000 years ago, the odds of all the begats and begats and begats happening “just so” until each of our parents met and during a particular month’s ovulation one particular sperm combined with the egg to created our lives.
A desktop computer couldn’t calculate the odds against each of us being here. Maybe it’s beyond the all the computing power that has ever existed.
dedalus on July 28, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Yeah. Out of 50,000 sperm, I can’t believe I was the fastest.
davidk on July 28, 2008 at 7:04 PM
I was quoting Mark Twain in case you didn’t notice. I do notice though that you are unable to respond to most of what he wrote.
Illogical.
If you don’t want to be made fun of don’t have such silly beliefs.
Getting very frustrated I can see as you have to call others “whale poop”. So sad. You are the one claiming the existence of and knowledge of this made up all powerful but invisible and reclusive creature. There is no God for the same reason there are no green bananas on the moon. Neither exists.
MB4 on July 28, 2008 at 8:41 PM
I would say that you are exaggerating, but I don’t think that you are.
MB4 on July 28, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Would not it be the ultimate irony if the reality is that there really is a God (Believers – “I knew it! I knew it!! I knew it!!!),
but
there is no afterlife (Believers- “Oh no!).
Even if there is a God it is highly unlikely that any measly human being, with just possibility a small handful of exceptions, would ever be resurrected.
MB4 on July 28, 2008 at 8:54 PM
I am waiting for you to prove that God does not exist.
*chirp*
As significant as whale poop.
*chirp*
davidk on July 28, 2008 at 9:11 PM
How ridiculous.
I am waiting for you to prove that 4 legged, 4 armed 10 feet tall green men, and women, made of cheese and peperoni do not live on the moon.
You can chirp all you want. Have you evolved into a birds?
If you exists oh God of davidk, you are one ugly sucker and if you don’t like it strike me dead.
What would you do if you somehow found out that there was no God, go into a deep depression and commit suicide?
MB4 on July 28, 2008 at 10:18 PM
I’m not really sure. One part of the calculation would involve the meiosis process where you’d have a 2^23 possibility for one’s genetic material to make it to the sperm and another 2^23 for it to make it to the egg. Each of those is a one-in-ten-trillion chance.
For starters one would probably need something beyond a standard double float data type just to hold the numbers. Maybe if IBM would lend us their Roadrunner computer a few hours at 1+ pedaflops/second with 128 bit floats that would help.
Though modelling the all of the chance couplings, the impromptu sexual encounters, throughout history that produced ancestors would seem to involve astronomical odds–the extra glass of ale, the way the moonlight shone, that made a couple amorous on a given night a thousand years ago to create another branch on the family tree.
dedalus on July 28, 2008 at 10:40 PM
To the several that declared that there was no proof of macroevolution, please look at this
Rowsdower on July 28, 2008 at 11:14 PM
You all have to watch the whole series to get what Penn and Teller do…..they were just as harsh on the green movement and especially Al Gore. In fact this week they really exposed Al Gore for what he is really all about. So, take the show for what it is worth.
arizonateacher on July 28, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Torquemada called, he said you’re a heretic who needs to repent before being burned at the stake.
Oh, and Voltaire, that godless, heathen, deist called, and said he’ll defend your right to speak your mind, even if it means his own death.
People who claim the “Judeo-Christian” tradition led to the concepts of individual rights and liberties really need to read up on the Renaissance, Humanism, and the Enlightenment.
You should also look up “false dichotomy”: just because living in Islamic lands today is horrible, doesn’t mean living in a Christian nation would be any better (and please don’t start with that “The US is a Christian nation” garbage).
corbettw on July 29, 2008 at 1:02 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »