Facebook Lady presented me with this link: 


and said that if I am intellectually honest with myself I would have to admit God exists.  I had to stop watching it the first time when he said DNA went back through the generations to Adam and Eve,   

I watched as much of it as I could stomach, which wasn't the whole thing.  This guy is smooth yet unconvincing to me.  If any of you can watch it, what do you think?  

What was interesting was the bit about how evolutionists/atheists and creationists/theists have the same evidence and the difference is in how that evidence is interpreted through the corresponding worldview.  I completely agree with that part.  In this manner, while using the Bible as the standard through which to interpret the evidence, he is attempting to use the Bible to prove that the evidence of deep geological time and evolution proves their worldview, which is that the Bible is correct, is correct!

That sends my frontal lobes into spasms.  Any other thoughts?

Views: 1244

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You really don't see much Brillcream anymore, do you - now it's all hair jell and mousse --

Egads.  We're dating ourselves.

WE?!! -- I'm clearly a fossil, I've never made any bones about that --

Well I am old enough to remember Brillcream.  I am older than I look in that pic, I think.

Well he is not very humble!

the video is private cannot see it 

It is the one I posted in the comments.  Same one.

Ok...enough already and another here for fun with the fundies

I would pay to see Lisle debate Tyson --

I couldn't help noticing that Lisle quoted a Dr. Werner Gitt as saying that no new information can come about as a result of a mutation, implying of course that the original DNA information came from god, and mutations can't add anything to it. But I read an article recently (wish I'd saved the reference info, but I read so many articles and can't save them all) that blue eyes originated about 10 thousand years ago - I suspect in response to glare from snow during the last Ice Age (brown absorbs more light than blue) - clearly that is new DNA information that had never previously been present in the Human genome.

In the Sept. 2012 issue of the “Awake!” magazine from the Jehovah Witness Watchtower publications there is an article about “Fish Schooling”. They ask the reader to decide if it was “designed” or not. It goes something like this:

Road deaths due to cars colliding into each other account for more than one million deaths each year. There is no reference given for this figure. Anyway millions of fish can apparently swim together in the sea and yet they never seem to collide no matter how big their school happens to be.

We know the car was made by man and that man is forever striving to improve his design because it was not good enough the first time. Yet fish can happily swim in the oceans without crashing into each other.

So the article asks “What do you think? Did fish schooling come about as the result of a mindless process? Or was it designed?

Of course when I read this I just think WTF!! To be honest though at first glance while I knew it was wrong, I had to actually think where the fault was. However to a confirmed theist this might seem to make the case very clearly for Design as opposed to Evolution. Just like the audience in the video the speaker is already preaching to the converted.

If he tried the same speech in an accredited college with a bunch of science students he would not have so wide a grin. He bombards his captive audience with different topics – half-life isotopes or cosmology without given them time to question him. It is just a dose of confirmation bias. Most of the audience probably have little or no understanding of the Science. He proves nothing but thinks that a “knowing” smirk every so often is enough to infer the truth. Maybe it is enough for those that do not think. That is how these guys work. The trouble is not that they are charlatans but that they probably fully believe this nonsense themselves.

By taking snippets of truths from various sources and weaving them all together it would appear at first glance that many of these types of arguments have some merit. It confuses rather that educates. Nobody will want to stand up and question him as it does sound like it is a reasonable argument.  One needs to have a good working knowledge of various fields of Science to debunk them completely. It take time to find the “obvious glaring errors” (my words) in them. The JW’s are masters at it. As a (my) rule of thumb, if the person has a link to Answers in Genesis then it is bad science.

Of course even if he did make a good scientific case for his argument, it still does not explain how the god that he believes did the design just happens to be the god he believes in.

To ruin an old quote (or coin a new one) – man needs religion like a fish needs a car.

What it actually demonstrates - correctly, I might add - is that most fish are smarter than some people!


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service