It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This sure does make me laugh

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
So,

I've been looking into the arguments creationists make, and quite frankly, I'm glad I have. I certainly do appreciate a good laugh. Now, I ain't trying to be mean, but seriously, can you look at some of this stuff and not laugh yourself?

A Scientific Analysis of The Bible

Now, you gotta love this guy. He says that science and biblical miracles can go hand in hand. OK...let's see.

1) He says that the burning bush could have simply been a shiny bush. The bush could have had a light shining from it, not burning, because the people back then associated fire with light. Well...

He offers no explanation as to where this light might have come from. I'm sure he would use the god power thing, though.

He assumes that the people were so stupid they could not distinguish "burning" from "shining." Never mind the references to bright lights and burning flames elsewhere in the book. I guess hell may not be a fiery place, but a bright, shining place. Sounds kinda like heaven to me...


2) He says the plagues involving animals is easily explained through biology.

OK, I can give him that, with the insects, at least. But then, he makes a leap and says science can explain water turning to blood or boils erupting on men. I have no idea how H2O instantaneously transforms to blood with its many components, but I guess that's a scientific process I am still unaware of.

3) He says the fire falling from the sky with hail "is unusual," but could have been either real fire or another mislabelled thing. Hmmm...maybe he should have thought about meteors. I have no idea what he has to say about the hail, though...

4) He says the Red Sea event was levitation of mass amounts of water. He adds that we can now levitate small objects, so this is plausible. Does he mean with superconductors? If so, problem is that they work on principles of physics; I'm not sure if we could levitate water with a superconductor. He also attributes walking on water and being lifted on a cloud as levitation.

Are you chuckling yet? Maybe even laughing? This guy says that science can explain biblical miracles, yet he shifts between them and expects you to agree with that. I think the burning bush was the funnier one here...

Now this one is where you might start laughing...

A General Analysis of Evolution

Now, this guy is one of many who naively believe that organisms are closed systems. But, he concludes without a doubt that entropy TOTALLY disproves evolution.

Then, he says that ecology proves evolution wrong. Here is where I definitely was laughing, mostly because I took a course called evolutionary ecology. In fact, he mentions that many ecologists accept evolution, but claims it's because they were told to do so. Wonder if he ever thought that this argument could be used to explain religious people.


He says that evolution will not work because any small change in an ecosystem will completely destroy the entire ecosystem. He appears to be speaking in absolutes here. I wonder if it ever occurred to him that if this were true, life would not still exist on this planet, especially due to human activities. Remember, he didn't say alter, he said DESTROY.

Is Creation Science A Science?

Now this one definitely had me laughing. He sets out to show that creation science is a science, but then starts blowing a lot of hot air about evolution and comes back around to say this shows creation science is a science.



No definition of science, only a brief mention of the scientific method. And he doesn't even show how creationism fits with this.

What Is Science?

Well, he does a better job this time, but it's still funny.

He says that science involves data collection and analysis to form ideas about things. He conveniently leaves out the "pertaining to the natural universe" thing, though.

In short order, he resorts to what he's been doing, trying to discredit evolution to prove creationism. How creationism would be proven even if evolutionary theory was scrapped entirely is beyond me.
He says that scientists supporting evolution admit to others that the evidence itself is not enough to say evolution can or ever does happen.



Guess he missed the experiments, which creationism is so sorely lacking. Then, he says Darwinian evolution has been scrapped for punctuated equilibrium. I was unaware of this.
He says people who support evolution believe in evolution without any evidence for it.



Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. He even goes on to say that the evidence for creation further disproves evolution, but conveniently fails to provide said evidence.



Oh, man, funny stuff. Next time I'll post stuff from the AIG website. They say dinosaurs and people co-existed and Homo sapiens is the only human species that ever lived, among other things.




posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 05:23 AM
link   


1) He says that the burning bush could have simply been a shiny bush. The bush could have had a light shining from it, not burning, because the people back then associated fire with light. Well...

He offers no explanation as to where this light might have come from. I'm sure he would use the god power thing, though.

He assumes that the people were so stupid they could not distinguish "burning" from "shining." Never mind the references to bright lights and burning flames elsewhere in the book. I guess hell may not be a fiery place, but a bright, shining place. Sounds kinda like heaven to me...


Ack! I KNEW people were worshipping the wrong god!
This guy just confirms it




2) He says the plagues involving animals is easily explained through biology.

OK, I can give him that, with the insects, at least. But then, he makes a leap and says science can explain water turning to blood or boils erupting on men. I have no idea how H2O instantaneously transforms to blood with its many components, but I guess that's a scientific process I am still unaware of.


Many stage magicians have done this before, including walking on water. The plague thing ... well, if we never developed medicine we'd be dealing with biblical plauges to this day too. Heck, we'd probably be extinct with all that smiting.




3) He says the fire falling from the sky with hail "is unusual," but could have been either real fire or another mislabelled thing. Hmmm...maybe he should have thought about meteors. I have no idea what he has to say about the hail, though...


Comet?




4) He says the Red Sea event was levitation of mass amounts of water. He adds that we can now levitate small objects, so this is plausible. Does he mean with superconductors? If so, problem is that they work on principles of physics; I'm not sure if we could levitate water with a superconductor. He also attributes walking on water and being lifted on a cloud as levitation.


Like OMG! Those guy's were right! Ancient man WAS technologicly advanced





He says that evolution will not work because any small change in an ecosystem will completely destroy the entire ecosystem. He appears to be speaking in absolutes here. I wonder if it ever occurred to him that if this were true, life would not still exist on this planet, especially due to human activities. Remember, he didn't say alter, he said DESTROY.


Hey ... god works in mysterious ways my man.





In short order, he resorts to what he's been doing, trying to discredit evolution to prove creationism. How creationism would be proven even if evolutionary theory was scrapped entirely is beyond me. He says that


Well look at it this way, if we scrapped evolution like he want's ... there'd be no competition for creationism, thus leaving it as the only explanation. What you don't teach the young one's, they don't know about.





Guess he missed the experiments, which creationism is so sorely lacking. Then, he says Darwinian evolution has been scrapped for punctuated equilibrium. I was unaware of this. He says people who support evolution believe in evolution without any evidence for it.


He's simply crazy. Plain and simple. Not only is there evidence, we've been seeing it happen. I even posted an article on it and had to endure an argument with a creationist because he didn't know what evolution was.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Uh, water into red as blood, not blood, as red as blood...

Red Death! A type of Algae that grows in polluted water. Now say a bunch of animals died, their carcases pollute the water, this red death algae grows, the river runs red as blood.

Also, polluted water not good on the skin, especially if you are an amphibian, like a frog, so they leave the water, plague of frogs.

All these dead animals bring insects, plenty of them, so those plagues covered.

Now all this dead stuff spreads disease, more animals die, and people with poor hygeine to begin with get worse, like lice and boils.

Night for however long? A Eclipse maybe exaggerated?

And heck, Bible Thumpers admit they interpretted the bible wrong, it was the Reed Sea, not Red Sea. So they walked through a swamp, wheres the miracle? The smell didn't make them vomit?



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I personally do not agree with either - or should that be, I agree with both.

ONe thing is for sure - none of us were there, so we don't really know.

Humans think that just because we are the most intelligent life on the planet, that we are smart.

This is an arguement that has been going on for ages and will continue to go on for ages and will never come to a conclusion.

All we can have is our own opinions on this subject and stop trying to persuade others into beliving like you.

With that siad, it is MY opinion that both are true.

I don't think the pictures in the old testament or torah were painted right. I don't think God used magic - like the red sea parting with levetation.

I think we were placed here - possibly 2 or 3 times before our current history.

I think there is a logical explanation for creation. Maybe it was genetic, maybe it was atomic, maybe it was something we don't know yet or something out IQ couldn't understand.

There is evidence for both sides to argue their point and I think both side are wrong and right.

I think 2 things work against this subject:

1) We weren't there.
2) We are not smart.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Teaching that in schools is the only thing that isn't funny about it. It is clearly indoctrination. It goes against accepted scientific belief, and although even this when viewed in relation to history is doomed to be wrong, it has a done alot more for this world than the ungrounded fables of the man-made Bible.

Also, whats the deal with ID... the creationists saw evoloutionary theory come along and thought "can't beat it, join it".

Closed case.



[edit on 1/3/06 by byhiniur]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join