panelarrow

Why People Laugh at Creationists (Pt. 31)

| 33 Comments

To be fair, I want to give the atheists a chance to strut their stuff. This is a video produced by a man named Thunderf00t, a Richard Dawkins-type for YouTube atheists. He saw my interview with Ray Comfort and posted his own response.

WARNING: It doesn’t make much sense, has a few bad words (remember, he is an atheist), and there is some projectile vomiting. Other than that, it’s pretty entertaining video and reinforces my belief that those who don’t believe in God have little to stand on.

Below, see 17-year-old Peter Johnson school Thunderf00t with his response.

Here are some of the observations that 17-year-old Peter Johnson made of the video:

1. Science is knowledge. Ray has observed facts about the obvious design in the banana and in the universe in general and has come to the conclusion that there must be a God.  Thunderf00t doesn’t know how the universe came into existence and offers no evidence at all except the nebulous idea of “evolution.”

2. “There is no evidence that could be presented to Ray…” Maybe there is none?

3. Thunderf00t says that he would jettison the ideas of Darwin if new observations of fact demanded it. Why has he turned a blind eye to the sophisticated design of the life such as a banana in favor of a theory that cannot explain how exactly the first cell formed. It seems that a theory on the origin of different species could at least explain how exactly the first species originated. “I don’t know but…” is not science. The scientific law of bio genesis: “life only comes from life, life cannot come from non-life,” has been observed time and time again and is therefore science.

4. Thunderf00t’s premise (~3:30): “Ray repeats a script verbatim whereas I try to develop a better understanding of reality. He simply repeats himself and is therefore an ignorant fool who has no argument.” But why would you need to change an argument if it is already true or if it already is congruent to reality. Atheists do use speculative language and until they start saying with absolute certainty, “These are the details that explain exactly how our universe came to exist…” why should their theories on the origin of the universe be accepted with absolute certainty? Which leads me to my fifth observation:

5. Darwin wrote: “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than it does knowledge.” A hearty “Amen” to this logic. It truly is contingent on reality. This perfectly explains why Darwinists are so confident.

“This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19). Thunderf00t, in fact, he is not an atheist as his god is himself. He loves himself so much that there is no room for the God of the Bible: I AM. Neither is there any intellectual room for any observation that dethrones himself. Darwin was Darwin’s god, Huxley was Huxley’s god, Nietzsche was Nietzsche’s god, Dawkins is Dawkins’ god, Hitchens is Hitchens’ god, I was my own god until I understood reality, and Thunderf00t is Thunderf00t’s god. Why does he claim to be an atheist? His deeds, like those of all who rebel against God, are evil in the sight of the God who will judge the living and the dead. Their love of darkness is why Thunderf00t and others laugh at creationists — that and the fact that they enjoy fulfilling the Biblical prophecy about scoffers coming and following their own evil desires (cf. 2 Peter 3:3).

*Now read “You might be an atheist fundamentalist if…” by clicking here!

33 Comments

  1. Here are Weemaryanne’s observations:

    1) “Peter Johnson” needs to get a fake name. Rest of sentence deleted.

    2) “Things Ray Comfort likes to say and things Ray Comfort Fans like to believe” are not equivalent to knowledge.

    3) The rest is expletive deleted

    You’re welcome.

    *************************************************

    (Steve’s note: Oh! that the atheists would turn to God so I wouldn’t have to edit their nasty comments!)

  2. Peter’s points,

    1. “the obvious design in the banana”.

    Ray has been telling us recently that his whole banana thing was a joke….so….what do you make of that?

    Either way, the banana was designed….by people. How is that proof of God?

    2. Nice quote-mine and way to miss the point.

    3. Evolution is not abiogenesis. This is pretty basic stuff.

    4. Pretending that science’s greatest strength is actually a weakness, eh? Lame.

    5. Ad Hom

    Final conclusion is nothing but bare assertion. All-in-all an utterly vapid attempt at a rebuttal.

    D-

    Must Try Harder Next Time.

  3. Notice in Thistlefoot’s video he edits the banana opener tab-coke opener tab part out… maybe that is the part of the design that bothers him most. I know when I saw Ray’s illustration the first time that is part that impressed me most. DNA research has turned even the strongest evolutionist’s and atheists to intelligent design, so these guys are just behind in education.

  4. Val,

    So, you are of the impression that the banana-coke can comparison is a valid and useful argument for detecting design in the natural world (ie. God is the designer)?

    Can you please name me one of the ‘strongest evolutionist’s and atheists’ who have turned to intelligent design? I’m thinking you probably can’t.

    It’s Thunderf00t, not “Thistlefoot”.

    (Matt’s note: Oh! that the Christians would turn away from God so I wouldn’t have to edit their nasty comments!)

  5. Wow so Peter Johnson thinks evolution has something to do with the creation of the universe. Funny how it’s only creationists who think that. Not you know the actual people studying the universe.

    No, Ray has said that he would accept no evidence, this was a couple of weeks ago on his blog.

    Peter now thinks Evolution is Abiogenesis. Again why is that people can’t get the fundamental ideas correct, but they the know the science is wrong!

    The law of biogenesis also has nothing to do with evolution. It’s not part of Abiogenesis research either. It was evidence that maggots/mice etc don’t spontaneously appear from meat or grain. Which perfectly matches in with everything science knows.

    I would bet money that Peter thinks Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics too!

  6. I have to agree with Peter Johnson … Thunderf00t is most definitely his own god. And an arrogant one at that.

  7. I’ll also note that even now when Ray claims that the banana was just a joke, used for laughs, you still have people (creationists) who take it seriously, as you can see above with all of the “the banana is obviously designed!” comments.

    I’ll also repeat what other people have said: evolution is not abiogenesis is not cosmology.

  8. Here is Ray’s blog entry about how you would never get him to accept the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

    http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-would-make-me-believer.html

    Also strictly speaking Peter, Thunderf00t is a PEARList. He covers it in one of his videos.

  9. I also found this comment to be strange:

    “that and the fact that they enjoy fulfilling the Biblical prophecy about scoffers coming and following their own evil desires”

    So… it’s a fact that people like myself enjoy fulfilling a Biblical prophecy regarding followin my own evil desires?

    I *like* that? Really?

    If there’s anything that I actually do enjoy, it’s watching people who don’t know me make claims about what I think and feel, especially when they’re this far off from the mark.

    Well… maybe I don’t enjoy it, but it at least amuses me a little bit.

    (Hint: Peter’s telepathic abilities seem to be broken.)

  10. 1. P.J. open air preaching rocked.
    2. P.J. observations of Thunderf00t observations are easier to understand.
    3. Steve does a great job using humor to edit the unsaved’s colorful language.
    4. Robert freely admits to failing college biology once, retaking it and getting passing and graduating college with a “d-” in biology.
    5 Robert freely admits I rather believe like a little child and just trust my Heavenly daddy made everything and I dont have to be an expert in Evolution/Creation dialog to get into heaven since it is only by repentance and faith in Jesus .

  11. Yes congratulations Robert, you understand that your salvation doesn’t depend on your knowledge about history and science.

    In fact many Christians are at the forefront of scientific endeavours, using what they believe to be their God gifted brains, eyes, hands, etc. To better understand the world around them.

    Who developed The Big Bang Theory? A priest. Was he celebrating his sin or attempting to glorify his creator by using the skills God gave him to better understand the cosmos?

    The Head of the Human Genome Project? An Evangelical Christian using his skills to better understand God’s creation. When he says that DNA is enough to prove evolution without a single fossil is he ‘following his evil desires?’

    It’s the same situation as in Galileo’s Day. He used his Mind (& his telescope) to make discoveries about the world. They used what they believed God had given them better understand their world. However some church members were (and still are) stuck in the mindset that their dogma from their favourite interpretation of their favourite translation of their favourite version of the bible over rides actual observations of the world around them.

  12. Funny How Thunderfoot, Says that we should not read the introduction because reading junk constitutes a waste of time. He must read a bunch of junk..He knows alot about Ray

  13. There’s not a lot of dialogue on this blog, is there?….

  14. 1. As I was reading Peter Johnson’s odious screed, it was incredibly hard to believe that it was not satire. How is it possible, that in today’s age of education for all, can someone say a BANANA is evidence of design from some unknowable, supernatural space daddy? It amazes me beyond belief that someone can look facts in the face (it is absolutely true that the banana has been selectively bred by PEOPLE, not Yahweh) and still deny them because it may affront their childhood fantasies.

    2. Ray does not reject the facts based on any sort of reason or scientific basis. He rejects the facts because they contradict what a book written thousands of years ago in dead languages and then translated by various people with agendas says.

    3. Saying a banana was designed does not negate evolution in any way. It shows your supreme ignorance about the subject. Evolution does not set out to describe the origin or life, it explains the diversity of species as we see them now. Also, the theory of abiogenesis is a fledgling science but shows promise. Experiments have shown that amino acids (the building blocks of all life) can arise from inorganic compounds given the right environment.

    4. “Speculative language” as you like to say is the language of science. Nothing in science is ABSOLUTE. There is always the possibility of ANY theory to be overturned based on new evidence. That is the nature of science, and any scientist worth merit always wants to be proven wrong. Rays argument is anything but congruent to reality.

    5. I guess you can say that all the intellectuals you mentioned (remember they’re called that for a reason) are their own gods (lower case) in the sense that they provide themselves with their own moral guidance. But I think you mean it in a more pejorative sense. What I’m guessing is that you mean they think of themselves as their own God in some sense as them being so arrogant that they ignore a higher power and inflate their own ego. I thought a Christian virtue was to not judge others? “Judge not, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.” (Luke 6:37) See, I can quote the bible as well.

  15. ExPatMatt says: There’s not a lot of dialogue on this blog, is there?….

    Not too much. Remember, this is primarily an evangelism site. Most Christians hate the word evangelism, and certainly the majority of non-Christians. It’s nice to get a few atheist visitors every now and then, but they don’t have much cred, so not much of a discussion is fostered..

  16. Nice little slam there Steve, well done.

  17. Steve,

    Of (I think) 6 questions by atheists in this thread, that was the first one to be answered….and you were needlessly rude in your reply.

    It seems that discussion is not actively encouraged here.

    It’s a shame, but not surprising.

  18. “Thunderf00t, in fact, he is not an atheist as his god is himself. He loves himself so much that there is no room for the God of the Bible: I AM. Neither is there any intellectual room for any observation that dethrones himself. Darwin was Darwin’s god, Huxley was Huxley’s god, Nietzsche was Nietzsche’s god, Dawkins is Dawkins’ god, Hitchens is Hitchens’ god, I was my own god until I understood reality, and Thunderf00t is Thunderf00t’s god. Why does he claim to be an atheist? His deeds, like those of all who rebel against God, are evil in the sight of the God who will judge the living and the dead. Their love of darkness is why Thunderf00t and others laugh at creationists — that and the fact that they enjoy fulfilling the Biblical prophecy about scoffers coming and following their own evil desires”

    Such terrible nasty ad hominems. You named a slew of atheist/agnostic people and said that they all had a God complex. You can’t judge those men, you have probably never even met any of them so how can you sit here and decide what is going on in their psyches?

  19. Actually I can name many noteable atheist that have converted to faith in God because of the DNA discoveries, but I warn you not to dig to deep into them if you want to stay an atheist. I will start with the top dog, who was the “Richy D” of the 50’s

    Anthony Flew

    His name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Anthony Flew always comes up. Author of more than 37 text books on atheistic philosophy, of which his most popular have been studied for decades in colleges all over the world:

    Theology and Falsification (1950)

    God and Philosophy (1966)

    Evolutionary Ethics (1967)

    Body, Mind and Death (1973)

    Philosophy, an Introduction (1979)

    Darwinian Evolution (1984)

    God: A Critical Inquiry (1986)

    Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? The Resurrection Debate (1987)

    Does God Exist?: A Believer and an Atheist Debate (1991)

    Atheistic Humanism (1993)

    Associated Press, “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God”, ABC News, 9 December 2004;

    A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he’s best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people’s lives… “[God] could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.” Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article “Theology and Falsification”… Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew… Yet biologists’ investigation of DNA “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,” Flew says in the new video, “Has Science Discovered God?”… The first hint of Flew’s turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain’s Philosophy Now magazine. “It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,” he wrote… Flew’s “name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up,” [atheistic webpage author Richard] Carrier said [infidels.org]… A Methodist minister’s son, Flew became an atheist at 15.

  20. Dear ExPatMatt,

    Sorry it’s taken me so long to respond. Thank you for your comments.

    1. Every joke is funny because it has a little truth in it. The analogy of the banana and the coke can IS a joke, but that doesn’t mean that the first banana somehow was not designed by God.

    2. Thank you, I’m glad you liked the quote-mine. But still, can any credible evidence be presented, not just to Ray, or but to anyone to support the idea that a Designer does not exist? (Yes I know about the light from stars and I know about the so-called contradictions in the Bible and I know about that the results a fraction of the many different radiometric dating methods can be skewered so as to “prove” that an old earth exists.

    3. The only theory of evolution that does not include abiogenesis somewhere in it is theistic evolution. The other three types of evolution (Darwinian, Neo-darwinian, and punctuated equilibrium) all have the unsubstantiated theory of abiogenesis (living cells come from non-life) included in them. Is there fifth branch of the theory of evolution that I’m not aware of?

    4. Yes, it was another lame attempt at a joke. But Jesus can make the lame walk 😉 jkjk My point was evolutionary beliefs have evolved so much in the past 150 years while the idea of creation has remained the same for… (…lemme see… 4004 + 2009…) um…. for the last 6013 years. Many scientists would say that Darwinian evolution is false and lean more towards neo-Darwinian evolution or punctuated equilibrium or theistic evolution or something else I haven’t heard of. If evolution continues to evolve, how do you know that the theory of evolution won’t have completely changed a 1 billion years from now. What if that which you call fact today is called antiquated foolishness by atheistic scientists of the future?

    5. I can see how my point can be taken as an ad hominem fallacy, that’s fair. But notice how I don’t call it evidence but merely a logical observation and rebuttal. Thunderf00t in his video said that Ray Comfort got served by Darwin by quote. I merely point out that the “ignorant confidence” can go both ways.

    6. Not just a bare assertion, a syllogism.

    Premise 1: A person’s “god” is defined as that which they value the most, and that to which they give the most energy, time, and thought. In other words, a person’s “god” is what a person is willing to live or die for Even Christians, at times, are guilty of atheism when they value something else more than God Almighty and so break the 1st commandment.
    Premise 2: People naturally live for themselves or die for themselves (e.g. suicide). They must be supernaturally changed (called “regeneration” cf. Titus 3:5) to do otherwise.
    Conclusion: Everyone’s god is themselves until their desires are supernaturally changed.

    If premise 1 and premise 2 hold true and the train of thought between premise 1, premise 2, and the conclusion is sound, then the conclusion is a tautology.

    Also, one “strong evolutionist” who has turned to creation? Professor Dean Kenyon who taught evolution at San Francisco State University (I think it was that university). He had more questions than proponents of evolution could answer. He was skeptical of the evolutionary faith and his free-thinking led him to become a Christian. And if you open up your mind, your free-thinking could lead you in same direction.
    I know you don’t believe in God, but it doesn’t matter what your belief is. What matters is truth. The truth is that one day we will all die. 10 out of 10 people die. When you die and “walk” off this planet, what do you think is out there?
    Here’s the truth: all people are appointed once to die and after this to face the judgment. The big question is this: ARE YOU READY? ARE YOU READY to stand before Christ on Judgment Day and give an account of your actions? How will you do on Judgment Day? Here’s a quick test. Ever lied? Stolen? Looked with lust? Misused God’s Name (e.g. Oh My G-d)? Hated anyone? Disobeyed your mother or father? Coveted? You ARE a good person by human standards, but God’s standards are not the same. Because of His infinite holiness, He says “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9). On Judgment Day, the Holy Judge would see you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, covetous, adulterer-at-heart, murderer-at-heart, and as dishonorable toward your parents. The Bible warns that you would be found guilty and end up in Hell. You should be feeling guilty, but if you’re not, it means that you’ve hardened your heart, that you are rebelling against God even though you hear His voice speaking through your conscience, and that you are suppressing the truth by your wickedness. Yet my heart goes out to you because of the fate that awaits you. The Bible says in Revelation 21:8 that “all liars, their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur.” The Scriptures also say that “no thief, no adulterer, no murderer will enter the kingdom of heaven.” Don’t you see that we’ve broken God’s law and that we (myself included) deserve God’s justice. It should scare you that if you were to die as you read this sentence you would get what you deserve. The soul that sins shall die and the wages of sin is death. This is God’s promise to you and He does not lie. Don’t you see the hopeless situation that you’re in. What will you say to God on Judgment Day? Does it bother you that you’re headed toward a lake of burning sulfur where their worm does to die and their fire is not quenched? God’s fierce anger burns against you at this very moment and it is only his patient love that holds Him back. He could strike you down dead for your sins and be perfectly just! Does this concern you? I pray that it does. Your only hope is to turn from sin. Do you love your sin so much that you will indulge in it even if it costs you your soul? What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and yet loses his own soul? If you live a good long life you may get 80 years. But what is 80 years of fleeting sinful pleasure compared to eternity. Your life is a vapor. God’ s fearsome wrath burns against you at this very moment because you have broken His holy law. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Does this concern you? If it does, then there is still hope for you. 2000 years ago, God sent his son Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man to die on a cross. A legal transaction can take place. You broke God’s law. Jesus died on the cross so that your fine for breaking His law could be paid. Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins, yet Jesus shed His blood so that you could be forgiven. Then He was buried for 3 days and resurrected. If you repent, turn your back on sin, and put your trust in Jesus Christ, your Lord who died, was buried and rose again, you can be forgiven of sin, you can be saved, and you will have eternal life with Him. Your case will be dismissed on the day of Judgment on the grounds that Jesus paid your fine. Currently you are hostile towards Him even denying His very existence. Yet if you surrender to Him, you will have peace with God. Stop fighting against Him. One day you will bow the knee to Jesus Christ. Will it be on Judgment Day as he casts you into Hell or will it be now will there is still hope. Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your heart. Today is the day of salvation. Don’t delay. If you procrastinate, you could die before you surrender your life to Christ. That would be tragic! Will you sell your soul for a few more fleeting moments of sinful pleasure? Is sin really worth that much to you? O that you would not harden your heart but turn your gaze away from the sin you so love and look to the grace of God! “Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon” (Isaiah 55:6-7).

  21. BathTub, it appears that you believe that the world was created and that life was created by some Intelligent Being and then evolution took over. This can be called “theistic evolution” or “deism.” However, this is not the same branch of evolutionary belief that Thunderf00t would seem to believe. Normally the theory of evolution deals with the evolution of the universe and the origin of the different species. After all, “On the Origin of Species…” was the title of Darwin’s book.

    Finally, abiogenesis is the idea that life can come from non-life. Living cells never have come from non-life, yet in order for atheistic evolution to hold true, life must have evolved from something other than life at some point. According to atheistic evolution (and Thunderf00t is an atheist), life came from non-life. By definition, this is abiogenesis. You don’t have to know scientist. This is a linguistic argument. The word abiogenesis can be broken into three parts “a” “bio” and “genesis” and it means life (bio) originating (genesis) from non-life (a-bio). This has never been observed and atheistic evolutionists must believe this on blind faith.

  22. Hey Qutaybah Imran,

    It’s late so I only have time to address three of the points:

    2. The theory of evolution has changed since Darwin. It was changed because scientists wanted to make it more congruent with reality. What changed? Reality didn’t change but the scientists description of reality changed. As a sidenote: a fact is something 100% congruent with reality. Why accept as fact an unconfirmed hypothesis which will continue to evolve and never really be even 99%, much less 100%, congruent with reality?

    3. Amino acids are not the same as living cells. Also the experiment in which those amino acids formed was a designed experiment. It an experiment that some scientists intelligently designed and foolishly interpreted.

    4. “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” Luke 6:37-38. So you see, I will be judged by the same standard. Therefore I can’t judge. Yet the Holy and Just Judge, Jesus Christ, shall return one day and both of us shall be judged for our unwillingness to submit to Him (and the other laws we’ve broken, such as lying, stealing, adultery-at-heart (lust), murder-at-heart (anger, hatred, or calling someone a name), coveting, etc.). The difference is that I’ve repented of that wickedness, I’ve put my trust in Jesus Christ, and I’ve been forgiven. When I stand before Christ on Judgment Day, I will be declared not guilty because Christ has paid the fine for my crime on the cross. But what about You? Dear Imran, please repent, because unless you repent, you too will perish (cf. Luke 13:3,5). Those are the words of Jesus, not mine. I can’t judge you; it’s between you and God. And that is scary. O Imran, please repent.

  23. Also, thank you to the rest of you (Robert 😀 ) for the encouragement.

  24. I’m sorry Peter, but you’re just WRONG.

    Absolute knowledge is a ridiculous concept because it doesn’t get you anywhere. I don’t believe in pixies. Am I saying that NOWHERE at NO TIME is even possible for there to have EVER been pixies? No. But for all practical purposes, I’ve never been shown evidence for pixies so I can say within the bounds of reason there are no pixies.

    Gravity is a THEORY. Take that in for a moment. There is a big difference between the colloquial sense of the word theory, and the scientific one. A scientific theory is not a guess! For a hypothesis to become a theory it has to go through rigorous trials and tribulations. Scientists do not take conjectures lightly. A theory is an explanation for facts based on evidence. Let’s examine the scientific theory and your God hypothesis (I say hypothesis because there is no evidence for it,which, correct me if I’m wrong is the definition of faith)

    Fact: Life is diverse

    The scientific theory of evolution – Life has evolved over billions of years from a common ancestor. We infer this based on biological, geological, and molecular evidence.
    Your hypothesis – God did it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

    Please actually study the experiment before you denounce it based on your own personal bias. Amino acids are not definitive “life”, true. But they are absolutely necessary for life to exist because of their integral part in the metabolism of all living things.

    And to address your final diatribe, I can only reply with this; I refuse to bow down before the celestial Kim Jong Il invented by man in his mental infancy. But that is a topic for another discussion. This is about evolution and your fervent denial of reality as WE CAN OBSERVE IT. The reason I concluded that last bit is because people like you say, “Well can you can deny God but that doesn’t change the reality of him.” But just because you are gullible enough to believe in something someone just made up doesn’t make it true.

    Many Christians just as devout as you are have accepted evolution, why can’t you?

  25. I don’t see where you get the idea that Thunderfoot/Dawkins etc. claim to be their own god. Even if these people do love themselves to whatever degree, it doesn’t follow that they must think they’re gods because of it.

  26. Peter you are absolutely 100% Incorrect about Abiogenesis being part of evolution.

    You contradict your own false assertion.

    “However, this is not the same branch of evolutionary belief that Thunderf00t would seem to believe. Normally the theory of evolution deals with the evolution of the universe and the origin of the different species. After all, “On the Origin of Species…” was the title of Darwin’s book.”

    Hello! it’s right there, Darwin’s book was The Origin of Species, it wasn’t The Origin of the Universe. and it wasn’t The Origin of Life. It deals with the the cause of the variety of life on the planet.

    The Theory of Evolution has no requirement for a particular answer to Abiogenesis. God could have done it, Aliens could have done, a Time Traveller could have done it.

    Peter can you name 1 science that doesn’t change?

    The Large Hadron Collider just broke a new world record this week for energy in a proton collision. And the plan is to go much further.

    New Physics!

    No field of Science is ‘complete’.

    Presumably you don’t believe in Newtons Laws of Motion, because Einstein corrected them because he “wanted to make it more congruent with reality.”

    Again as I said to Steven, I guarantee you have no idea what the state of the art is in Abiogenesis research.

    Only recently it was announced that it was discovered that even more amino acids occur naturally in space. To go along with the others that science already knew occurred there.

  27. Val, I had never heard of Anthony Flew until his ‘conversion’. The funny thing is he didn’t convert to Christianity, just Deism.

    He also isn’t a scientist, he’s a philosopher. So Excuse me if I take Francis Collins word on DNA over his.

    He’s just saying “I don’t understand it! It must have been magic!”

  28. Val,

    Thank you for providing me with a strong atheist who has since accepted intelligent design. I stand corrected in general, but will say a couple of things.

    Flew has not accepted Intelligent Design over evolution. He still accepts evolution (as far as I am aware) but one of his reasons for postulating a deistic god was the lack of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

    His is a deistic ‘god of the gaps’ rather than a well-evidenced (through DNA, say) Designer and he has acknowledged that he doesn’t keep up to date with the latest science in this regard anyway (he is 86, after all!)

    In the future, could you make your references clearer when you are copy/pasting from somewhere else? It was quite difficult to parse which bits of your comment were actually written by you. Thanks.

    Lastly, can you name a strong evolutionist who has turned to Intelligent Design in the light of DNA evidence?

    Many Thanks,

  29. Peter,

    1. So it is an analogy and it is a joke and it’s also evidence of design, eh? Couldn’t be more obvious really!

    Ray made the analogy (originally) because he thought that bananas had always been the way we see them today, and so had comparable features with a coke can. THe coke can has designed features and so the equivalent features on the banana must also be design (by God). That was his argument – The Atheist’s Nightmare – and despite its levity, it was a serious attempt at an argument.

    It fails. Hard. This is because we know that the modern banana was selectively cultivated by man to look and taste the way it currently does. Evolutionary forces of reproduction, mutation, variation and selection brought the banana to where it is today.

    Everything that came after that was Ray desperately trying to save face whilst simultaneously milking it for all the publicity it was worth.

    2. You’ve shifted the goalposts. The question wasn’t about providing evidence against a designer, it was providing evidence for evolution. Ray has stated that no evidence could ever convince him that evolution is true so it doesn’t matter that the evidence (that we have in abundance) is credible or not, Ray’s mind is closed to it.

    3. As has been said, you are simply wrong if you think that the theory of evolution encompasses the origin of life.

    4. Again, you seem to think that evolutionary theory changing to accommodate new facts and data is somehow a bad thing. It’s funny; on the one hand Creationists will call evolution a dogmatic religion that science rigidly try to uphold against all the new evidence….. and yet on the other hand the same Creationists will say that evolution changes every minute with the passing breeze! Make up your minds will you! 😉

    Yes, the theory will no doubt be different in ‘a billion years time’ it will be more accurate, for starters.

    5. It was actually the claim that Thunderf00t is Thunderf00t’s god, that I was referring to here.

    I’ll respond to your conclusion in a sec..

  30. Peter,

    “Premise 1: A person’s “god” is defined as that which they value the most, and that to which they give the most energy, time, and thought. In other words, a person’s “god” is what a person is willing to live or die for”.

    I do not accept your definition, for starters. You have made the term ‘god’ redundant – it merely means ‘a very important thing’ now. Nothing ‘godly’ about that.

    I reject Premise #1.

    “Premise 2: People naturally live for themselves or die for themselves (e.g. suicide). They must be supernaturally changed (called “regeneration” cf. Titus 3:5) to do otherwise”.

    Ignoring everyone that has ever dedicated their lives to the protection of the weak and the care of the sick and needy. Also ignoring all the people that have died for their country, or to protect their family.

    I reject Premise #2.

    “Conclusion: Everyone’s god is themselves until their desires are supernaturally changed”.

    Naturally, I reject your conclusion.

    Wasn’t Kenyon the one who ran away from a Creation vs. evolution trial where he was supposed to be a witness? I’m pretty sure he authored ‘Of Pandas and People’, the notorious ‘Intelligent Design’ textbook that was actually just thinly veiled Creationism.

    Still, I guess he counts. He was an evolutionist until he got religion and turned creationist…. and then pretended that Intelligent Design is real science; I’ll give you that one. Anyone else?

    I skipped the rest of your comment. No offense, but for me to take any of that seriously, I’d have to believe the Christian axiom that the Bible is the Word of God. I don’t, so it’s all just pretty language to me.

    Cheers and thanks for responding,

  31. There are so many holes in Peters argument.

    On point 1: Scientists don’t claim to know how the universe was formed definitively, but they observe the universe, interpret their observations based on other consistent observations, test their interpretations, and continually redesign a model of the universe. Theists have an unchanging model of the universe based on one idea that was put forth thousands of years ago and is untestable, neither provable nor disprovable. Therefore, Peter’s first point was only a statement of the obvious, and largely redundant.

    On Point 2: Evidence

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inside_a_wild-type_banana.jpg

    Only one I need, this is a non-domesticated banana, meaning it was not engineered by humans. Look at the large seeds, where’s the perfect shape and pop top? It looks inedible.

    3. Peter makes assumptions about science and when he claims that the theories cannot even detail how the first cell was created. That’s because he again assumes that science is claiming to prove. Since science is constantly redesigning theories based on new observations, the model of the the origin of life changes and is tested. In fact, recent tests have shown that RNA, the precursor to DNA which still serves important functions in cells, can be produced in the lab using conditions theorized to exist on Earth at around the time life is theorized to have began.

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/43723/title/How_RNA_got_started

    4. Again, peter has no understanding of science, science does not claim to be absolutely definitive, which makes it more credible because it is constantly being redefined. Creationists maintain there views about how the universe was created, the history of earth, etc, whether or not new information is found. No matter what proof is presented, the theist’s model of the universe is unchanging. Scientists on the other hand formulate a model and test it to better understand the universe, rather than take a book’s word and for it and use unverifiable untestable anecdotes as evidence.

    5. Peter’s statement is ironic, he is so confident and his observation was that ignorance begets confidence more than knowledge. In fact, I almost laughed when I read that. If he knew what I’ve already said three times, that science does not claim to have a full understanding of the universe, he would know that science is not entirely confident of its model, which is why it can evolve and become more and more accurate, which is why our technology and understanding of the mechanisms of the universe that make the computer and electricity possible exists, it wouldn’t if science didn’t constantly redefine its models.

    6. I and Thunderfoot and athiests are atheists because we believe there is no god, how than are we our own gods? And also Peter makes assumptions about the religions of the historical figures he brings up, it is widely known that Darwin was a theist, and that he believed evolution was the mechanism God used to create the animals, he never he even thought anyone would come to the conclusion that the idea of evolution and God are incompatible with each other; to him it was proof of intelligent design.

    I think before someone makes assumptions about Science and how it provides an understanding of how the universe works one should actually understand what science is and what it seeks to do. Before making claims about some group’s ego one should probably examine their own. You are the one who is so unwaveringly confidant that you are blind to the most obvious. To quote your own holy book, try taking the plank out of your eye before you attempt removing a splinter out of your neighbors.

    The funny thing I’ve always observed is that Christians will ask for evidence, and the more evidence you give them the more they ask for. How many missing links does there have to be? Don’t you understand that every intermediate species that no longer exists, every dinosaur, every fossil is the missing link? Hell, look at dogs and how easily their genetics are manipulated and changed, isn’t that proof enough in evolution? We’ve forced evolution on animals and we’ve been doing it since the beginning of time with selective breeding, its right in front of everyone’s faces. How big does the mountain have to get, oh, that’s right, you don’t even bother looking in the direction of the mountain, there’s no way to enlighten someone who does not even open their eyes to the information they ask for.

    Honestly this 17 year old’s argument could be shredded by anyone with half a decent education. Luckily for Peter I’m not a philosophy major, they could write a book about how flimsy his argument is.

  32. One point about the nature of religion I forgot to make was this, it is opposite to science in that, instead of taking new information and redesigning its model based on observations of the universe as science does, religion takes new information and observations about the universe and redesigns it so it fits the model.

    One example is this, I hear Christians make the point that portions of Revelations could be interpreted as thermonuclear war, but the problem with a book written 2000 years ago is that it can be interpreted in many different ways, proof of point being that there are so many sects and denominations of Christianity because they all interpret the bible differently. In such a case, the theist who makes the observation claims the end is coming close, and nuclear weapons are proof because they are described in revelations.

    No, the sky falling is mentioned in revelations. What the observer erroneously did was retroactively interpret the bible based on new knowledge of new innovations, they twisted new innovations we created to fit the old model to better justify to themselves their model. Unless the bible says “and ye, God came to the Earth, and hurled tomohawk missles to annihilate the sinners in a flash of radiation and energy” you can’t assume the bible is saying anything about nuclear war or anything it does not actually say. They don’t change the old model given new information about the atom, the laws of the universe that make the atom bomb possible.

  33. this blog, 32 comments

    WDPLAC pt 31, 6500 comments.

    and for this you gush thanks for helping ‘spread the gospel’. Yeah sure this is an advert for the bible like the hindenberg is an advert for hydrogen powered zeppelins….. 300 000 of them…..

    However as you seem intent ‘thanking’ me for the publicity, Im only too happy to give you what you lust for. – Everyones a winner! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.