Argument Responses


One of the more irritating things that rational people encounter in the old Theory of Evolutions vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design topic is that the Creationist and ID proponents bring up the same old points which have long ago been refuted and proven to be completely wrong.

Hence the reason for this page, a quick run down of those ignorant arguments and a brief rebuttal to each. Why? Just very useful to copy and paste when you see someone trying to use them. These rebuttals are not meant to be full of scientific terms or what-not, they are designed to be understood by someone with little to no scientific understanding (which, let’s face it, covers creationists and ID Proponents almost universally).

If you wish to suggest an edit to a response, write a rebuttal yourself or have another contribution to make, feel free to leave it in the comments section below and I’ll add it. If you happen to find yourself attempting to use one of the arguments listed below, then it is a strong indicator that you need to do a lot more research.

The Laws of Thermodynamics/Entropy make the Theory of Evolution impossible

Appeal to a misunderstanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics. These laws apply to what is known as closed systems, which organic life certainly is not. A person can refute this argument simply by looking in a mirror; you were once a much simpler form of life and have since changed into a much more complex one. If this argument were true, you would never have become more than a small puddle of liquid and maybe not even that. To state it another way, overall entropy can increase in a closed system (and undoubtedly will) yet there is nothing stopping localised pockets (such as planets, galaxies and so on) becoming more ordered.

For a more detailed explanation see Pharyngula entry titled ‘Entropy and Evolution’.

Which is Easier to believe? A creator being or that your ancestors were monkeys/rodents/jellyfish?

Just because you find something easier to believe, it does not make it true. Primitive man believed such things as the Sun was pushed along the sky by a giant Dung Beetle or that Demons caused mental illness. Why? Simply because it was easier for them and it was what they could comprehend. Likewise, I might believe that my car is run through the power of Leprechauns because I do not have a full understanding of automotive mechanics but that does not make it true.  This entire argument falls under the logical fallacy known as the argument from incredulity and is therefore worthless.

No Transitional Fossils have ever been found.

It could be argued that every fossil ever found is a transitionary fossil, since it belongs to a species that was once one species and is continuing on to be another species. Examples of found transitionary fossils (apart from human remains) include Haasiophis terrasanctus, Pachyrhachis, Mososaurs, Pezosiren portelli, Runcaria and Halkiera just to name a few. The fossil record of whale evolution is also rather complete, including the movement of the blow-hole and the recession of hind legs.

Evolution has never been observed.

Evolution has been observed many times across many different species. Evolution happens with a lot of little changes over almost geological amounts of time. You could never expect, for example, a dog turn into a horse in a laboratory. That being said, new species have been observed and verified. A new species of mosquito evolved from an old one in the London Underground, The apple maggot fly, Faeroe Island House mouse, Goatsbeard Wildflowers and so on. The examples of new species emerging are many indeed.

Evolution is not science as it can not be observed, falsified and/or measured.

Evolution has been observed many times across a wide number of species and forms of life; from bacteria changing to better resist drugs and new environments, insects developing and losing physical attributes, the different breeds of dogs and general genetic change that can be seen all the time. Evolution can falsified very simply; Darwin himself even penned things would destroy his theory if they were ever found. Such finds include such things as irreducible complexity and (as the old saying goes) rabbit fossils in the pre-cambian.

Evolution is only a theory.

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, which is somewhat different to how the term ‘theory’ is often used in wider society. In science, the term refers to ”a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena” to put it rather simply. Scientific theories need to meet certain criteria to be considered as such; being observable, testable and so on. Scientific theories must undergo rigorous testing and verification which is what the Theory of Evolution has passed time and again. There is no ‘heirachy of truth’, a scientific theory is not worth less than a ‘law’.

Evolution does not explain the origin of life or how the Universe began.

No, it does not and it is not intended to. The only thing that the Theory of Evolution explains (and does so quite nicely) is the diversity of life that we find on the planet we happen to call Earth. The scientific theory dealing with the origin of life on Earth is known as the Theory of Abiogenesis. The event which created the Universe as we know it is called The Big Bang.

I believe in Creationism because the Bible says it is so.

The Bible is not an historically accurate record by any measure of the term but that is not even the main reason this point is wrong. Instead this claim is guilty of appealing to nothing but circular logic; Creationism can only be true if the Bible is true. The 100% truth of the Bible only exists if Creationism is true. To extend the logic a little further, God is true because the Bible says he is while the Bible is true because God says it is. It is the same attempt at logic and falls down for exactly the same reasons. It is akin to trying to fly by picking yourself up by your own shoelaces.

Intelligent Design is Science/Evolution is not Science.

Intelligent Design fails to classify as science for several pretty reasons. Some of these include that it is not falsifiable like every other Scientific Theory must be (that means that it can be disproved through evidence or research). It is also not based on evidence or the scientific method; instead being based from the rather odd method where a conclusion is thought up and evidence sought for it which is the opposite of the scientific method (which entails looking at the evidence and forming a testable conclusion from it).

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory as concluded by the incredibly vast majority of the scientific community (and if anyone should know, it is scientists). It is falsifiable through several means as written by Charles Darwin roughly two hundred years ago including finding a case of Irreducible Complexity or, as some have quipped in more modern times, ‘finding rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian’. Needless to say, none of these have ever been found.

I have nothing to lose if I believe in god. If I don’t believe and am wrong then I’ll go to Hell.

This argument is known as Pascal’s Wager and might be an argument of minor worth if there were not hundreds of different religions and thousands of deities throughout human history. For this argument to even approach validity, you would have to be sure that you have selected the right deity; since if you do not choose the right deity (if one even existed at all) out of the various thousands, the result you hope for won’t be happening. After all, for example, there is no more evidence or proof for the Christian god than there is for Zeus, Wotan, Mithras, Xenu or even the fabled Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Atheists have no source of morality

Atheists do not have an external source of morality in the same way that religious people believe they do, that much is correct. Of course, the argument is flawed since it assumes that humans gain their sense of morality from one deity or another. If the argument were true, then all those people who have never heard of or do not follow that particular deity would go around raping, pillaging, stealing and what-have-you. This argument is actually quite telling, from it can be assumed that if there was no threat of divine punishment then the religious followers in question would go and perform the afore mentioned bad deeds.

So where did our sense of morality and such come from? In many ways, morality in evolutionary in nature; we have seen our sense of justice and ethics change in just the past few centuries with the abolition of many acts that were once considered just and right (burning of heretics, slavery, etc). Where did it all start? Most likely with very early social groups; those that co-operated and acted a cohesive society tended to survive much better than those groups that fell to infighting and self destructive behaviour (murder, theft, etc). Altruism has also been seen in various animal species (primates, dolphins, etc. It’s quite common in species thought as possessing some form of higher order thinking) and they certainly do not follow any known deity – they do it simply because it increases the survival rates of the species.

Global Flood

Mention of a ‘global flood’ often comes along, despite the notion of it being rather silly to anyone who understands even the most basic levels of science. Some of the reasons (but far from all) it is silly are;

The listed dimensions of the Ark would have been far too small to house the number of animals necessary for the venture to work. This does not include the room needed to store feed, let the animals move and thus gain exercise, waste disposal, corrals for stopping animals eating each other and so on. The ark would have also been structurally unsound and would have collapsed under its own weight.

The ark is listed as having only the one window which makes survival of crew and cargo highly dubious at best. Look at modern sheep ship which transport live sheep across the globe; their design is based on an open deck philosophy to allow maximum possible ventilation and the cargo is tended to by trained Vets. However, despite this infinitely better ventilation and medical care, quite a number of sheep die on every trip.

The mixture of salt and fresh water would have killed pretty much every form of marine life known to humankind. Marine life tends to be highly specialised in living in certain conditions; change those conditions (such as massively decreasing salinity or PH levels) and you will get instant mass fish death. It is highly dubious that the Ark contained large aquariums which could replicate the multitude of ocean environments.

There has been no model proposed for the origin of the trillions of tons of water which it would take to cover the Earth so that all land masses would be covered. The arrival of such amounts of water so quickly, assuming it magically appeared from somewhere, would have in fact caused the water itself to boil the water away and thus turn the surface of the planet into one giant super heated steam cooker.

A much more localised flood of the Black Sea area is most likely the basis of such a story; it could easily have appeared to such primitive people that their ‘world’ had indeed flooded since their perception of the world would indeed be underwater.

The Exodus from Egypt

The story of Moses leading his people out of Egypt also gets raised now and then and is only marginally less silly than the Global Flood tale. There is one simple way to know that it is false; the number of people who left (as listed) was actually greater than the population of native Egyptians at the time. Such an exodus of a labour force would have left Egypt in complete social and economic ruin; yet such an event is not recorded, even by nations/forces that were hostile to Egypt at the time. Nor did any nations take advantage of this weakness to simply invade and conquer Egypt, which would have been a proverbial walk in the park if the exodus had happened.

The Bible is validated because the New Testament fulfils Old Testament prophecies

The prophecies listed in the Old Testament given are generally extremely vague and wide open to liberal interpretation. They are fulfilled only in the same way that supposed modern day mediums speak with the dead, using open questions and vague statements/questions to gain information from audience members in such a way as to make them believe it is real. It would actually be more remarkable if those old prophecies were not fulfilled since they were bound to happen sooner or later; especially when you consider the hundreds of people who were proclaiming themselves to be the fabled messiah when Jesus was walking about.  Such prophecies, as pointed out, also tend to be self fulfilling; if you wished to present yourself as a messiah figure then you would do your best to follow the predictions laid out previously to improve the chances of people believing in your stance.

What about the Cambrian Explosion?

What about it?  It certainly does nothing to negate or weaken the Theory of Evolution.  The term ‘explosion’ is somewhat misleading since it applies to an ‘event’ that lasted five to ten million years (possibly more). The soft bodied animals that existed previously simply did not fossilise well while the harder bodied ones which evolved did, thus a greater number of fossils for post-Cambrian organisms but it is not indicative of a greater number of overall species.   That being said, there are many scientific explanations on why an increase of complexity of species may have occurred at this time; increase in oxygen levels, the Earth coming out of an ice age for just two reasons.

Have you read Lee Strobel’s work?

Strobel is often cited by creationists as some sort of authority figure, though the reasons for this are sometimes unclear to say the least.  His book The Case for Christ has been reviewed and found to be less than adequate in a lot of areas.  Some examples of the critiques of Strobel’s work can be found at the following URLs:

What about Anthony Flew’s conversion to Deism?

What about it?  Once he was regarded as an intellectual but that reputation is no longer anywhere near as strong as it once may have been.  Flew has admitted that he has not kept up with modern research, findings or arguments in both science and theological.  Flew’s mental faculties have also come under question, with considerable questions being asked about his exact role in writing the works released under his name.  In short,; whether Flew is a Deist, Christian, Atheist or wears tea pots on his head while singing ‘Yellow Submarine’ is of no importance at all.  He is one man who is free to choose his own beliefs; but his arguments and credibility leave much to be desired.

Other sources of ‘Answers to Stupid Arguments’:

Comments
  1. Sirius says:

    Didn’t I already answer most of these in your other post?

    I see you’re still appealing to Higher Powers [TalkOrigins and Dawkins].

    You’re grasping at straws and offering up straw men to buttress your faith, silly atheist.

    –Sirius Knott

  2. naontiotami says:

    This is a great list. Well done on putting it together so smoothly and making it so easy to understand.

    Cheers!

  3. Matt says:

    Sirius: No, you didn’t. You tried but failed completely to actually raise anything of note.

    Naontiotami: I do mean to add more, just been lacking in time for a while.

  4. ericburns says:

    I’m sure you have posted this already somewhere but I have failed to find it. I’m curious as to what proof you have that there is NO God. To spare the usual arguments I will state a few things that you may feel is a waste of time but I shall do so to spare this post 20 comments of back and forth jibber-jabber.

    1. Evolution does not explain the origin of life or how the Universe began.

    As you have stated, it does have nothing to do with it nor do you intend it to. So evolution surely is no proof against God.

    2. As an Atheist the burden, too, falls upon your shoulders to provide proof for your beliefs.

    The problem here of course is that you have taken a side. You don’t admit to not knowing for sure but going as far as to say YOU KNOW ( caps only for stressing the words, I’m not yelling 😉 ) that God does not exist.

    3. Explain your side of the story. Do not attack another.

    I don’t want a pile of links or garbage on how Christianity or Judaism is all hogwash. I want you to take a series of steps to prove this as you would to teach someone your belief. To prove there is no God. Attacking the idea of God is not proof. Logically deducing that there is no God from nature will leave me open for discussion.

    4. Do not lose focus on the discussion.

    This is similar to part 3 :). If you drop a pile of links on me, I will ignore them. If you attack religions and current belief systems to prove there is no God I will ignore you. Give me some real proof. Lay a groundwork for your Atheist religion.

  5. Matt says:

    I’m curious as to what proof you have that there is NO God.

    False application of the Burden of Proof. There simply is no evidence for the existence of any deities, therefore the position must logically be that none exists.

    1. Evolution does not explain the origin of life or how the Universe began. As you have stated, it does have nothing to do with it nor do you intend it to. So evolution surely is no proof against God.

    It is, however, proof against what is known as Young Earth Creationism which often appears as a part of religious doctrine depending on which denomination (and to what degree of fundamentalism is present). It also works to disprove such silliness as global flood myths.

    2. As an Atheist the burden, too, falls upon your shoulders to provide proof for your beliefs.

    I know there is no god just as much as I know there are no dragons, invisible pink unicorns, celestial teapots or fairies at the bottom of my garden. And no, the burden of proof really doesn’t apply to Atheism simply because we simply don’t believe in a claim being made. If someone claims god exists, it is up to them to prove it.

    3. Explain your side of the story. Do not attack another.

    To put it as simply as possible … there is no need for any sort of deity, no need for any such mechanism. There only time there has been has been when humanity has been too ignorant to figure things out scientifically, hence why humanity used to believe that the sun used to be pushed across the sky by a giant dung beetle.
    We’ve gotten considerably better at finding out things since then and our understanding of the Universe has increased exponentially as the centuries have passed. And yet, there is still no need for a deity mechanism to explain anything yet encountered.

  6. ericburns says:

    There simply is no evidence for the existence of any deities, therefore the position must logically be that none exists.

    Logic is not all it takes. G.K. Chesterton in his book Orthodoxy makes a solid point –

    (I summarized this.)
    For example let’s say there is a paranoid man who thinks everyone is conspiring against him. If someone were to ask him his name he may think to himself “This man already knows my name yet tries to play it off as if he doesn’t, surely he is conspiring against me.” Let’s say you try to tell the man “Surely it’s of curiosity, the man was not conspiring against you. I’m sure he’d say so himself!” The paranoid man replies “Of course he would!”

    Now, logically this man is sound. If everyone was indeed conspiring against him he would be correct in assuming that they would not admit to doing so. Yet.. this hardly seems reasonable.

    I feel we need to bring reason into our decision here as well. It may be logical to you that there is no God but I argue that it is not reasonable.

    It is reasonable to believe that the universe was created and it is logical that it was created by a being of higher intelligence and power than that of our own.

    Things come into existence 1 of 2 ways. We can “create” things from which we already have the materials to do so. We can “beget” things from within ourselves. We could then logically infer that the universe was either created or begotten.

    J. Howard Sobel seems to summarize this better than I can and it goes as follows:

    1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
    2. The universe began to exist.
    3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

    It is, however, proof against what is known as Young Earth Creationism which often appears as a part of religious doctrine depending on which denomination (and to what degree of fundamentalism is present). It also works to disprove such silliness as global flood myths.

    off topic

    I know there is no god just as much as I know there are no dragons, invisible pink unicorns, celestial teapots or fairies at the bottom of my garden.

    I agree with you about dragons, invisible pink unicorns, teapots, and no matter how much I’d like to believe for Peter Pan’s sake… that faeries are also not real. However, I feel these are unrelated because they cannot be inferred from nature.

    False application of the Burden of Proof.

    And no, the burden of proof really doesn’t apply to Atheism simply because we simply don’t believe in a claim being made.

    There is no such thing as time. Does it not follow that I would have to prove this CLAIM?

    I think you may be confused on what a claim is. In case there is confusion here is the definition from our friends over at American Heritage

    *To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain*

    Unless, of course, you do not believe what you have said to be true.

    To put it as simply as possible … there is no need for any sort of deity, no need for any such mechanism.

    If this is all it took to prove something didn’t exist we’d be a bunch of really confused people now wouldn’t we?

  7. Matt says:

    Logic is not all it takes. G.K. Chesterton in his book Orthodoxy makes a solid point – (snip)

    First cause argument, which is one I seem to have missed on this page and one rather easily countered.
    a) there is no evidence that the Universe as we know it requires a creator. Stating that there must be is nothing more like a leap of logic which is unsupported. Indeed, science has come a great way in understanding how the Universe came about and those theories are rather heavily supported by evidence.
    b) This is a rather silly attempt at an argument since it does not actually answer anything, only creates more questions. How exactly did a creator being create the universe? Who created a creator and so on. This type of argument has already been soundly refuted by various people in the past. The Watchmaker Argument, of which this is a variant, hasn’t held any real weight for quite some time now.

    I agree with you about dragons, invisible pink unicorns, teapots, and no matter how much I’d like to believe for Peter Pan’s sake… that faeries are also not real. However, I feel these are unrelated because they cannot be inferred from nature.

    Neither can god or any other deity, the concept of such is simply an unneeded mechanism.

    There is no such thing as time. Does it not follow that I would have to prove this CLAIM?

    It’d be a false claim, since there really is no such thing as time as commonly held. Instead there is SpaceTime … time isn’t so much a separate force, instead space and time are almost one and the same. Good ol’ special relativity. In short, while we can have a perception of time, it doesn’t really work the way we perceive it.

    If this is all it took to prove something didn’t exist we’d be a bunch of really confused people now wouldn’t we?

    Not at all. To hold something as truth, you need to have some reason for it to be so. While you can believe in something happening or not happening (be it that the sun won’t explode tomorrow or your friend is telling the truth), you need reason for that belief. Otherwise you fall back on nothing but blind faith and that doesn’t hold any water at all.

    In a way this relates to the ‘god of the gaps’ nonsense, where science finds out more and more about the universe and the need for a deity gets smaller and smaller. Once humanity believed that deities controlled all aspects of the universe from storms to ‘luck’. Now we simply know better and better understand the natural workings of the universe in a more complete manner than ever before. And as of yet there is simply no need for a mechanism that we might call ‘god’.

  8. ericburns says:

    So basically your argument boils down to: (since you reply with the same thing to everything)

    We do not need God.
    Therefore, He does not exist.

    Am I correct?

  9. Matt says:

    You’re oversimplifying grossly. A still horribly overly simplistic but slightly more accurate way of stating it would be:

    a) There is no testable evidence for the existence of a creator being.
    b) There is little to no room for creator being, being that other evidenced mechanisms have been found.

    Therefore the likelihood of a creator being existing is exceedingly small to the point of high improbability. The same improbability as various other concepts/figures such as Zeus, Wotan or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

  10. Matt:
    “a) There is no testable evidence for the existence of a creator being.”
    -It’s impossible to test the evidence of a being who is outside of space and time. Your clinging on science to explain everything. However science constantly changes, all you believe right now could be thrown out the window in 50years.

    “b) There is little to no room for creator being, being that other evidenced mechanisms have been found.”
    Scientists right now as we speak in Europe are trying to create a “universe” with this large machine. If they succeed in doing it, this says that the universe can be created by intelligent beings, using the models we’ve come up with to explain its origin.

    “The same improbability as various other concepts/figures such as Zeus, Wotan or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.”
    The difference between God, and Zeus is that Zeus was constrained here on earth. We did not find him on top of Mt. Olympus and the Spaghetti Monster is something you would not find in nature. However, he could very well exist in some obscure location in the universe ;-).

  11. Matt says:

    a) That’s the great thing about science. It’s prepared to admit when it’s wrong. Religious dogma, however, generally goes in the complete opposite direction. But then, this again relates back to the fact that there simply is no evidence for a creator being of any sort.

    b) You obviously don’t understand the purpose of the Lage Hadron Collider, which is not to create universes. It is to create conditions similar of that to the Big Bang. Now while the Big Bang did create the Universe as we know it, that is not what the LHC will be doing. At most, it’s theorised it will create micro black holes.

    Zeus was not constrained to Earth, it was simply that those who worshipped Zeus really didn’t have much understanding of the greater universe. Odin, certainly, was not constrained to an Earthly realm and the same goes for many other deities of the past. Your point is moot.

  12. Matt:
    Your clinching on science to explain everything. The problem is it cannot. “It’s prepared to admit when it’s wrong.” Not if its something they’ve ramrodded down our throats. Then they tend to cover it up and go silent on the issue(i.e. global warming).

    “this again relates back to the fact that there simply is no evidence for a creator being of any sort.” I’m going to go with what evolutionist say about evolution….Give it more time. Perhaps we have no evidence cause we do not have the technology. After all we’re dealing with a being who would have to be outside the realm of space and time as we know it. (That or you just ignored the signs, like the incredible odds and order the universe exists on).

    “You obviously don’t understand the purpose of the Lage Hadron Collider” I know what the collider is used for. If simple man can create the conditions, man whose only been around for a fraction of the Universes life, man who only lives on average till about 70yrs of age. I see no issues with someone whose eternal all knowing and beyond space and time, to be able to create a universe.

    “Zeus was not constrained to Earth, it was simply that those who worshipped Zeus really didn’t have much understanding of the greater universe.” The gods had human likeness given to them. An eternal God that is all powerful like that of a theist, cannot die. All these mythological gods die, or could die in some way. They also acted very human like. In comparison to the concept of “God.” We don’t even have to deal with the Christian concept of God. Plato’s concept was essentially the same, an all powerful being that created everything, including the Greek gods.

  13. Matt says:

    Your clinching on science to explain everything.

    I think that science can explain the Universe quite nicely, it seems to be making continuous headway.
    If you want to get into other fields, then other studies such as philosophy handle it a lot better.

    Then they tend to cover it up and go silent on the issue(i.e. global warming).

    Hold on. Are you now trying to claim Global Warming is a myth?

    I’m going to go with what evolutionist say about evolution….Give it more time.

    a) No one says that about Evolution at the moment. The basic mechanisms of Evolution have been held pretty solidly to be true by science for two hundred or so years now.
    b) By that exact same logic, people could believe in invisible pink unicorns and say ‘just give us more time to find the evidence!’. Absurd.

    I see no issues with someone whose eternal all knowing and beyond space and time, to be able to create a universe.

    Faulty since it presumes the existence of said all knowing being without any actual evidence. Of course, there is still a great deal of difference between slamming particles together at near the speed of light and (possibly) creating micro blackholes (which probably won’t happen anyhow) and creating a Universe. I can easily create the conditions for a fire, but setting the entire atmosphere ablaze is another matter.

    It seems you’re falling for the standard Creationist/IDiot logical mistake. Coming to a conclusion and then looking for evidence as opposed to the proper method which is looking at the evidence and forming a conclusion from it.

    The gods had human likeness given to them. An eternal God that is all powerful like that of a theist, cannot die.

    Which, again, presumes the existence of said being when there is no evidence of such. And also there have been many deities which were said to have created the universe and didn’t have human like attributes; just look at the Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime legends as just one quick example.

  14. AV says:

    By that exact same logic, people could believe in invisible pink unicorns and say ‘just give us more time to find the evidence!’. Absurd.

    I agree. If you’re claiming the existence of a deity, and you want others to accept that claim, then the onus is on you to provide evidence for the existence of that deity. The burden of proof is not on others to disprove your claim. We are under no obligation to accept unsubstantiated claims. Otherwise, we would have to accept any unsubstantiated claim, whether you’re asserting the existence of Loch Ness Monsters, Invisible Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

  15. parallelsidewalk says:

    I’m not even an atheist and I find people like Brooks tedious beyond belief. Just the sheer amount of dishonesty, double talk, and deliberate obtuseness one must direct towards oneself and others to make those arguments….Not worth it to me.

  16. undergroundnetwork says:

    Hi,

    Is anyone else fascinated by the how many evolution deniers are also global warming deniers? It strikes me as interesting that they choose to dismiss scientific findings as myths, but then cling to an ancient book, that has long since lost all credibility.

    Does this not show that these people really have no concern for scientific evidence whatsoever?

    Paul.

  17. undergroundnetwork says:

    Oh, and great post Matt!

  18. ozatheist says:

    On the “The Bible is validated because the New Testament fulfils Old Testament prophecies” argument.

    Well to some extent it would be, if you were going to make out you were the person prophesied about, wouldn’t you make sure you enacted those “prophecies”?

    An example was in a “documentary” I saw recently in which the narrator said something along the lines that Jesus entered through the east gate (whereas most people used the west gate) just like in the prophecy.

    I though to myself, well Duh, Jesus would likely have known about this “prophecy” so could easily have made sure he used the east gate for his grand entrance.

    This doesn’t make either the prohecy or Jesus real.

  19. Matt I must congratulate you for this excellent summary of some misconceptions people have about science.

    On the Lage Hadron Collider: simple man would be recreating Big Bang conditions with physical laws. If simple man can do this, it is hardly supernatural. It serves more to discredit the idea of an external creator than what it serves to prove it.

    On god not being constrained to earth: neither is Russell’s teapot. If there is a god, and we can not prove he is there, and he does not interact with us, does it matter?

  20. Peter Harris says:

    Say you hear voices and you’re mentally ill, say you hear the voice of [a] God and there’s a ready made-billion strong fan club waiting for you open armed ready to: [denominations not supplied]

    drive nails into babies heads to ‘drive out demons’,
    to rape virgins to ‘cleanse’ their own AIDS,
    to bomb nations, murder men women and children ‘disbelievers’ in the name of their deity,
    to sexually abuse children,
    to teach children science is wrong,
    to punish homosexuality with death,
    to sexually mutilate children,
    to murder daughters for disobeying family,

    Where does one start?

    If there was a God wouldnt we ALL believe? If this is some sort of test of faith (you know, not a single big-man appearance in the history of man) then what’s the dude waiting for? The moment before we push the button? “Ta-NA! It’s me God….”

    If there is a God, where’s the unity? The common vision? The whole planet laughs, eats, smiles etc, so why is one man’s God charitable and loving, but the next man’s, a “kill all who disbelieve”?

    UFO believers, ghost hunters and Loch-Ness monster campaigners have just as much ‘evidence’ of their faithful ‘beliefs’

    If there’s something I’ve missed PLEASE show me!

    If there’s a reason to sign up to something that, can I just say, is a bloody good club to be in, what with the everlasting and the love and stuff, please pull it out the hat, coz dying scares the bejesus [no pun] out of me!

    I’m a brit so we dont really have the understanding of the ‘Bible belt’ maybe other nations have, but how do creationists explain away things like finding fossils and frozen remains of ancient animals? Coz dont those guys believe the earth started a week last tuesday or something?

    P

  21. alfaarooq1 says:

    Wow what long posts and replies you get well my turn and ummm sorry guys but step aside for Islaam the religion in line with science…
    Welcome to the Great Kingdom of Islaam…
    Proof ok so you need proof of the existance of the Almighty anyways here we go:

    http://thetruereligion.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/the-almighty-allah-exists

    If you want to get even deeper down feel free send me a Q and I’ll give you an A…
    I was born in the science field grew up with science as a passion face it there is a higher being.

  22. Matt says:

    I think you’ll need to try a lot harder than that, unless you can demonstrate empirical evidence which conclusively proves the existence of your particular choice in deity (which the link you provided utterly fails to do).

    And in unrelated news, I added a few more entries to this page.

  23. Garrett Oden says:

    Acually, science really points toward the existence of God. It does not to the other religions.

    It depends on how you interperet the evidence you have. Things like the population being totally accurate with a young earth points directly toward Creation.

  24. Matt says:

    Acually, science really points toward the existence of God. It does not to the other religions.

    And you figured this out how? What evidence do you have to support such a silly notion?

    Things like the population being totally accurate with a young earth points directly toward Creation.

    Now I know you’re just making things up. Here’s a very quick example. YECs state the Earth is about 6,000 years old more or less (this, of course, is sheer foolishness since if it was the planet would still be a seething mass of magma and gasses, if even that).
    But just sticking to the idea of human population; DNA analysis of both human subjects and even gut worms (as I’ve blogged on recently) show that immigrations of humans to Australia occurred over 50,000 years ago. Not to mention the dating of Aboriginal art works (paintings on caves, etc) which 100% support such a time frame.

    Guess you’re right out of luck.

  25. Martijn says:

    fascinating conversation. thx for all the fish.

  26. Larry Caligan says:

    The bola spider doesn’t weave a web,but catches insects by making a special spider-silk with a sticky gob on the end[called a bola]. The bola spider then generates the same scent as the female moth in order to attract the male moth. When a male moth comes close to investigate the scent, the resourceful spider casts its silken thread toward the unsuspecting prey and catches it on the sticky gob.One wonders how the bola spider could have evoved the ability to exactly duplicate the female moths scent,if as the New darwinian Theory states and has its mechanism for evolution, mutation and natural selection,and nothing in the Theory that lends itself to direction but is blind to the organisms’ needs.

  27. Garrett Oden says:

    I somehow manages to come across your site today and I instantly recognized your blog. HELLO!! I’m sure you remember me as a dogmatic, arrogant, prideful, and foolish little boy, but hopefully you’ll take delight in hearing that I am not how I used to be at all!

    I’m not saying that I agree with what you believe, but I’ll admit that you were right about my representation of Christianity long ago. My blog (which I deleted in disgust – wish I hadn’t though so I could go back and look at it) absolutely represented a Jesus of hatred, rules, and religion. It took me a while to finally discover how my actions and words weren’t anything close to how God intended Christians to be. Gosh I was a jerk.

    You probably don’t believe me so just briefly check out the blog I created a few months ago: http://highschoolrevival.wordpress.com/

    You should be able to notice something different immediately – no apologetics. Instead of worshiping the god of proof and pride like I once did, I now worship the God who loves and saves. I’ll never turn to apologetics again to carry my faith.

    Long post. Mainly I just want to say that I’m sorry for all the false images of God I forced upon you. I was very dumb and couldn’t see how I was so blind. But you were a key factor in my spiritual maturity and I thank you for that!

    I hope you succeed in all your endeavours! God bless,
    Garrett Oden

  28. Ken Johnson says:

    I came to this site thinking that you had a real argument about the site Godsaidmansaid.com., but found that you are nothing more that an egotistical liberal spewing names and condemnation towards anyone who believes differently than you. Thank you for helping me determine that Godsaidmansaid.com is a valid site.

  29. Richard Cole says:

    Dear Matt,
    We as Christians are commanded to love others just as Christ loves us. We are not to judge anyone, but rather to help others with their spiritual condition as led by the Holy Spirit. God does not expect us to understand how He created life or this planet or the universe. Instead He shows us His handiwork by the things He has created for us to enjoy. Some examples of things to complicated for us to understand or random chance mutations to solve:
    1. All the necessary components in the blood responsible for clotting would have to evolve at the same time or else we would all be hemophiliacs.
    2. Neuroscientists don’t know (and probably will never know) how the brain makes a memory, stores that memory, or recalls a memory.
    4. When I went to Nuclear Power School, we called the unexlpainable force that hold atoms together, “binding energy”. I think they call it the “strong force” today and try to explain the atom with string theory. The bottom line is that Christ holds all things together and that He created all things visible or invisible.
    5. The human eye is so complicated that evolution could never explain it.
    6. No amount of science will ever be able to explain how God can change the heart and life of a true believer but it has occurred in countless millions of people.

    One scripture in the Bible that may put things in perspective is this. “The foolishness of God is wiser than men and the weakness of God is stronger than men. Many atheists have been converted by the love of God, (maybe some smarter than you Matt), but He always keeps the door of salvation open. The problem with unbelievers started way back in the garden when our great grandmother Eve listened to the second voice. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s