|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 18, 2021 11:28:03 GMT -5
Why would anyone saying erosion?
That's beside the point. The point is, erosion is an absurd enough answer to automatically induce laughter. And yet, many of the same ones who laugh at this also dismiss intelligent design. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 18, 2021 11:32:44 GMT -5
That's beside the point. The point is, erosion is an absurd enough answer to automatically induce laughter. And yet, many of the same ones who laugh at this also dismiss intelligent design.
But they are not even remotely the same thing. Erosion is something which is a provable fact, even so easy to prove that it's possible to make a quick timelapse video of a beach and visually see it happen. For intelligent design there's no proof whatsoever, and requires the magic word faith once again.
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 18, 2021 11:37:04 GMT -5
Jay: It's amazing what you get. It's not that you're so smart; it's just that most people are really kinda dumb. We can go to the most upscale areas, like Melrose, and ask, "Who was the first president?" The answer we get: "Lincoln." And here's my favorite question: "How was Mount Rushmore formed?" You know what the most common answer is? "Erosion." Oprah: No! www.oprah.com/omagazine/oprah-interviews-jay-leno/all#ixzz6sPEHzGUU |
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 18, 2021 11:39:05 GMT -5
That's beside the point. The point is, erosion is an absurd enough answer to automatically induce laughter. And yet, many of the same ones who laugh at this also dismiss intelligent design.
But they are not even remotely the same thing. Erosion is something which is a provable fact, even so easy to prove that it's possible to make a quick timelapse video of a beach and visually see it happen. For intelligent design there's no proof whatsoever, and requires the magic word faith once again.
 |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 18, 2021 11:39:31 GMT -5
Jay: It's amazing what you get. It's not that you're so smart; it's just that most people are really kinda dumb. We can go to the most upscale areas, like Melrose, and ask, "Who was the first president?" The answer we get: "Lincoln." And here's my favorite question: "How was Mount Rushmore formed?" You know what the most common answer is? "Erosion." Oprah: No! www.oprah.com/omagazine/oprah-interviews-jay-leno/all#ixzz6sPEHzGUU
Even Lommaren could tell funnier jokes.
I knew theists were on thin ice with their claims, but I didn't think it was this bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 18, 2021 12:05:00 GMT -5
Jay: It's amazing what you get. It's not that you're so smart; it's just that most people are really kinda dumb. We can go to the most upscale areas, like Melrose, and ask, "Who was the first president?" The answer we get: "Lincoln." And here's my favorite question: "How was Mount Rushmore formed?" You know what the most common answer is? "Erosion." Oprah: No! www.oprah.com/omagazine/oprah-interviews-jay-leno/all#ixzz6sPEHzGUU
Even Lommaren could tell funnier jokes.
I knew theists were on thin ice with their claims, but I didn't think it was this bad.
Dude, are you really missing my point (even if you disagree) this badly? The point isn't whether there is historical ignorance as to how Mount Rushmore was formed. The point is, the mere notion that Mount Rushmore could have formed by erosion (a uniformitarian process) is so intuitively ridiculous that it generates laughter. Yet, uniformitarian processes are posited as the cause of life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Apr 19, 2021 2:40:24 GMT -5
Even Lommaren could tell funnier jokes.
I knew theists were on thin ice with their claims, but I didn't think it was this bad.
Dude, are you really missing my point (even if you disagree) this badly? The point isn't whether there is historical ignorance as to how Mount Rushmore was formed. The point is, the mere notion that Mount Rushmore could have formed by erosion (a uniformitarian process) is so intuitively ridiculous that it generates laughter. Yet, uniformitarian processes are posited as the cause of life.
Ariete's point is that it's the most stupid joke ever made. Not a single person on the planet would say that mount rushmore is caused by erosion. It makes absolutely no sense that he'd make up that it'd be the most common answer. You can use erosion and mount rushmore a joke if you set it up in a way where you only propose the idea of thinking erosion caused mount rushmore, idk like "haha atheists are so stupid, what's next? thinking mount rushmore is caused by erosion??". It's like saying "Sweden is apparently the most feminist country in the world. If you ask a Swede who painted the Mona Lisa, the most common answer will be 'homophobia'" it makes no sense, and it isn't funny |
|
|
|
Post by Strewthless on Apr 19, 2021 6:38:18 GMT -5
It's like asking, how did Mount Rushmore form? I think this was a joke a long time ago on Jay Leno. What's the most popular answer? Erosion. Now, folks laugh at that, but suggest the same thing in the area of the biological or physical sciences - i.e., uniform and random processes can account for such a tremendous amount of complexity, information, and design. The fact that biological ogranisms are complex is not in itself proof of intelligent design. In fact, just looking at how our bodies are designed highlights a whole host of illogical design choices and mistakes. Mistakes that you wouldn't expect from omnipotent, all-knowing creator. Evolutionary theory can easilly explain why most of these design flaws exist. The alternative is that God makes mistakes. Perhaps he has a drinking problem? |
|
|
|
Post by Beercules on Apr 19, 2021 6:49:14 GMT -5
Ofcourse God has a drinking problem. He created South Australians.
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 19, 2021 11:43:37 GMT -5
It's like asking, how did Mount Rushmore form? I think this was a joke a long time ago on Jay Leno. What's the most popular answer? Erosion. Now, folks laugh at that, but suggest the same thing in the area of the biological or physical sciences - i.e., uniform and random processes can account for such a tremendous amount of complexity, information, and design. The fact that biological ogranisms are complex is not in itself proof of intelligent design. In fact, just looking at how our bodies are designed highlights a whole host of illogical design choices and mistakes. Mistakes that you wouldn't expect from omnipotent, all-knowing creator. Evolutionary theory can easilly explain why most of these design flaws exist. The alternative is that God makes mistakes. Perhaps he has a drinking problem? What mistakes? This is a really dumb argument. At one point, so-called junk DNA was set forth as an argument against design by atheists. But we now know that so called junk DNA has a purpose. How presumptuous of man to call it junk when he doesn’t know what it’s for. Or so-called vestigial organs - like the appendix, which we now know has a function. As for why our bodies atrophy and we die, that’s because this is a sin cursed creation. The forces of the universe are against us. But this present creation is temporary. The new heavens and new earth will be eternal, and there’ll be no curse... for the children of God, that is. All things are mine forever, and I belong to God forever. The creation will no longer be against me, but I will rule over it alongside the Lord. And I’ll have a glorified body, and I’ll no longer inhabit this body of death. So your argument stems from a faulty premise that God intended this creation as a perfect one. No, the new creation will be perfect. This is the second time you’ve brought this argument up, and in the first instance I started drafting a rather lengthy response about how God’s eternal purpose is realized only in the final creation, and that this creation is His means of bringing it about, that we be sown in corruption and raised in incorruption. But I decided against publishing it, as it may be too tangential, and too philosophical and theological for a science thread. But I mention it now so you may know your premise is totally flawed in ways that maybe you didn’t consider. |
|
|
|
Post by Strewthless on Apr 19, 2021 11:55:49 GMT -5
I'm not even going to bother reading a wall of text that begins by calling me dumb.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 19, 2021 14:23:12 GMT -5
So your argument stems from a faulty premise that God intended this creation as a perfect one. No, the new creation will be perfect. This is the second time you’ve brought this argument up, and in the first instance I started drafting a rather lengthy response about how God’s eternal purpose is realized only in the final creation, and that this creation is His means of bringing it about, that we be sown in corruption and raised in incorruption. But I decided against publishing it, as it may be too tangential, and too philosophical and theological for a science thread. But I mention it now so you may know your premise is totally flawed in ways that maybe you didn’t consider.
Why wait? Why create a faulty creation if you can do a perfect one?
And if god made man in his own image, it must either mean that god is 1) imperfect, 2) doesn't really know humans, human emotions, humans acting etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 19, 2021 15:18:59 GMT -5
I'm not even going to bother reading a wall of text that begins by calling me dumb. I called your argument dumb, not you. |
|
