A video that inspired hundreds of comments from believers: "God And Evolution Are Not Compatible"

[MarkCharles]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1psT_1WyLQ


3 minutes well spent hearing most of the arguments.

[cliffordu]

1. I figure evolution IS god.

Or at least God's way of keeping everything from happening at once.....

[humblebum]

2. The idiot asks and answers his own questions. Definitely the common fanatical, radical,

militant atheist outburst. 3 minutes well worth ignoring.

[cleanhippie]

13. Wait, what? YOU ask and answer your own questions all the time. Does that make you an idiot too?

This is not a personal attack, its a question based on the post you gave just above calling a person an idiot for doing the same thing you do every day.

[rug]

3. I must immediately share this with all the DUers who deny evolution.

[MarkCharles]

4. Predictably, our two most prominent resident anti-atheist posters here are quick to...

misunderstand the content of the video and to engage in name-calling and/or ridicule.

There's something about the beauty and conciseness of logical arguments that really bugs them, for some unknown reason.

[humblebum]

6. That was only a very truncated and self-serving form of logic, only

in the narrowest sense of the word. And being anti-"radical", "militant", or "fanatical" atheist, whatever term used, does necessarily mean one is anti-atheist.

[MarkCharles]

8. Do YOU have a "form of logic" that is..

less "self-serving"?

less "truncated"?

less "narrow"?


Or are you back to fairy tales and myths and intangible, immeasurable, untestable mental phenomena as your preferred form of "logic"?

I would like to hear a believer's logical argument for the existence of a god that doesn't go ultimately to the mythological, the "other ways of knowing", or to the ultimate "no one can prove there isn't one".

If you look at the 3 minute presentation above, there were several logical proofs offered for the non-existence of god theorem.

Challenge other people's opinions with facts and logic, please, not name-calling.

[humblebum]

10. Many attempts have been made to explain that there really is more than a single

narrowly-focused way of knowing. But, that has been absolutely discounted by you and others. If the extent of your supreme logic extends no farther than what can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched, and you discount ontological, teleological, and other methods, and if you define "knowledge" as existing only within your narrow paradigm - then, indeed, your logic is only acceptable to you.

[MarkCharles]

11. In other words, you have no logical arguments.

Just some assortment of fancy words, of which, I have witnessed, you often misunderstand their philosophical and historical meanings.

One argument from "logic", please, for the existence of a god. Too much to ask? And please, no more personal insults, it makes you look a bit desperate to avoid exposure of how your mind fails to work logically.

[humblebum]

17. you ask for one argument from your "logic", which is the most restricted that

exists. Even I use it, but only for those purposes for which it was designed. OK. You asked for one, so here are two. From nothing comes nothing, and something cannot create itself. Straight, simple, right to the point.

[skepticscott]

12. No one has "discounted" anything

That's simply another repetition of the same lie you've used all along. It's YOUR claim and the claim of other religionistas here that these "other ways of knowing" exist, and the burden has been placed on YOU (where it belongs) to provide examples of those "other ways" and of the objective knowledge (as opposed to wholly subjective feelings and impressions) they have provided. To date, neither you nor anyone else has met that burden. All can can do is lie and say "we already gave examples", but strangely, you can never point to where that happened. Until that burden is met, rational people will withhold acceptance of that claim (quite a different thing than "discounting" it, despite your blatant misrepresentation).

[humblebum]

16. No more can be shown than what has already been done. Especially over the past couple

weeks, example after example was displayed and either ignored or dismissed. And, "All can can do is lie" and say "we never gave examples." You and others have been given good examples and references which were totally for naught. You must understand that I am not attempting to meet anyone's demanded burden. I have never claimed objective proof of diety, nor can anyone else, BUT science does not have the capability to prove or disprove diety either.

I have nothing against atheists. You are free to reason and to believe in any way you choose, but when radical atheism's attacks extend to ridiculing the beliefs of others, and making unsubstantiated claims and denials - then they will be challenged in every way possible.

[MarkCharles]

29. "You and others have been given good examples and references"...BUT... unfortunately

Father Humble bum cannot reference, nor quote a single one of them.

What does that sound like to a rational mind? Someone who cannot manage the cut and paste options on all modern computers, or someone who just likes to LIE, and attempt to get away with it, by stating falsehoods, and offering no proof?

Which is it?

Again, as about 100 times before" SHOW US THE LINKS TO EVIDENCE!!!

You, my internet poster friend, are beginning to look a lot like Romney, lots of assertions, a bit of flip-flops, assertions with retractions, in the end, little to nothing, and for all not a bit of proof.

[Sal316]

19. Wow. Responding to name-calling and ridicule with the same...

#irony

Tell me, Mark. How many DU'ers deny evolution?

[MarkCharles]

21. Observation of fact is neither name-calling, nor ridicule.

And I see that you,too, missed the point of the video entirely, as well.

That's my observation, based upon your question.

[Sal316]

23. No, I didn't miss the point.

The guy in the video is a f'ing moron.

His whole initial premise is:

"It doesn't make sense." much like his logic which, last I knew, wasn't a very scientific premise.

Secondly, his claims are based on the foundation that it is belief in God equals Young Earth Creationism, as noted by his "what happened to people for the 100,000 years before your God said anything".

It's easy to sound smart when you're refuting the strawman you created, as the guy in the video does.


The point of the video is for the guy to say "Hey...look how smart I am and how stupid religious people are" when, in fact, it simply makes the guy in the video look like a douche.

[MarkCharles]

24. No, I'm afraid you failed at understanding him and at knowing what

young earth creationism is all about. Young earth creationists talk about a world only 6500 years old.

And at thirty forty seconds into the OP video, he states "This god used a slow process which took millions and millions of years" He's NOT challenging Y E C'ers, he's challenging people who believe in BOTH evolution AND god.

But you state in your post, (obvious you had your fingers in your ears and weren't listening)

"Secondly, his claims are based on the foundation that it is belief in God equals Young Earth Creationism, as noted by his "what happened to people for the 100,000 years before your God said anything"

SO you failed on both fronts, understanding YEC and understanding the context and logic of this video, and and you prove it by your above post.

But that wasn't enough for you, since you had been so offended by the challenge of this young honors university major, you had to join your fellow Christian believer friends in laying on the insults. No, you cannot argue with the logic in the video, only insult the messenger for challenging your beliefs with logic.

Such a predictable behavior I see, a real pattern among believers, insult and run away. It gets a little tiring.

[Sal316]

25. Ok, let's try this again...

....and I'll speak slower.

Here are his "reasons" that belief in God and evolution are incompatible. sidenote: He's obviously ignorant of the Vatican's position, along with multiple mainline denominations' positions, on evolution.

1) "If God was all powerful, why did he choose a painfully slow process to get here and not zap everything into existence. It doesn't make sense."

- Stupid argument #1, nothing scientific about it at all. Shorter version - "I don't understand why, so neither does anyone else."

2) "Evolution is a brutal process."

- Thanks MOTO....so is human existence.

3) "If evolution is true, humans were on the Earth for 100,000 years before your God said anything"

- Belief in God = belief in YEC. This is the gold standard of strawmen. Again, I would refer junior to official church positions on evolution and YEC.

Then his point about 'what happened to everyone that was around longer than 6,000 years ago' reinforces his created strawman.

4) "The holy books don't mention evolution".

- Ummm, why would they when Darwin wasn't printed until 1859. Saying that evolution isn't compatible with theism because it wasn't mentioned until the 19th century is, well, a stupid argument and this kid has no business being in honors college.

It also makes the assumption that to believe in God is to have the same level of understanding of the world we live in as people living up until the 2nd Century and no further. To use this kid's words, that's a bullshit argument.

He then goes with the "how do YOU get do decide what's literal and what's not" canard that most atheists use. Well, the answer to that is biblical scholarship. Secondly, pulling the "oh yeah, who says YOU are right" argument is postmodernistic rationalization at it's best. It's the same vein of logic, albeit less dramatic, that people use to justify waterboarding or anything else that follows in the "it's ok when we do it" vein. It's moral and intellectual cowardice. Third the "either it's all literally true or all false" is a logical fallacy.

What's really getting old is atheists coming in to pick a fight with liberal believers. They'll just have to accept the fact that we don't conform to fundamentalist caricature they think all believers fall in to.

What I'm offended by is anyone trying to pass off this kid's 'arguments' as anything resembling logically valid.

If this kid truly is in honors college, I weep for our future.

Oh, and nice try with the "honors college" bit as if that's supposed to validate his argument. Umm...I believe that's an appeal to authority...you know, the Meyer's shuffle.

Again, I ask you Mark...how many DU'ers deny evolution?

[MarkCharles]

26. Still you fail to understand that belief in evolution and belief in a creator are

incompatible.

Despite your lengthy, seemingless unlimited supply of propositions that make little or no sense, and do NOT follow the context nor the logical flow of his arguments, you just make stuff up or repeat stuff you heard from someone else, someone religious...like THIS GEM of your argument:

"Well, the answer to that is biblical scholarship."

There is no "scholarship" on Alice in Wonderland, but there might be 2000 years from now.

So what?


I see you are so deeply entrenched in the belief in a god that any logical argument fails to pierce your skull. "Well, the answer to that is biblical scholarship." Standard answer of someone who has had a lifelong dedication to the belief in a diety, and is trying desperately to affix that belief next to the concepts of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and a god that simply let human beings emerge by the process of natural selection from amoeba, and then asks us to bow down in praise to him, that "merciful" god.

You clearly don't understand satire and irony, nor the natural history of the planet upon which you were given life. Instead, your attitude of self-assumed superior intellect shines through, and you dismiss any logical argument that threatens your self-assumed superior intellect with the simple yet revealing inadequacy of your vision "Well, the answer to that is biblical scholarship."..........so typical of believers, rely upon others, so many believe, so it MUST be right!

[Sal316]

27. ...and you fail to understand that they're not.

Unless one is a YECer or an atheist who believes he's much smarter than he really is.

I gave you his arguments pretty much word for word, the fact you refuse to see or admit that is, well, sad.

He's built his entire case on straw and fallacy.

Again, for the third f'ing time, how many DU'ers, particularly DU'ers of faith, deny evolution? Does it make you feel better about yourself to belittle those DU'ers of faith?

[MarkCharles]

28. No, he has NOTHING in his arguments that is based upon a NON straw-man thesis, a thesis

that millions of Christians in the USA and elsewhere believe in, he is talking to people who claim that there is a god and claim that evolution over the last 4.5 billion years, (give or take a few hundred million, last estimated at 4.54 billion) is true.

Evolution in the last 4.54 billion years does NOT allow for an intelligible god/creator/engineer figure to allow all that principle of natural selection to demand of you that he worship him. Simple as that.

What part of irony and sarcasm most often goes over your head?

OH wait, you say "Unless one is a YECer or an atheist who believes he's much smarter than he really is"

So you assume non-believers, non-believers, let me say that again: non-believers......"or an atheist who believes he's much smarter than he really is"

You DO try to think logically with the premises presented once in a while? Because I fail to see where you did that here.
(see above).

[Sal316]

30. BWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHH!

So I guess "It doesn't make sense" and "Why didn't God just zap us all into existence" are perfectly logical arguments in your world.

That's f'ing rich.

[MarkCharles]

36. You fail to distinguish rhetorical and questions from logical arguments.

Rhetorical questions are used in debate and argumentation as a means to evoke honest responses.

Some call it arguendum ad absurdum.

Obviously most believers in evolution don't think a "god made man in his image", and instead believe in some some sort of extended evolutionary process.

Astrophysics tells us that all chemical elements were made from three major components, the proton, neutron, and electron, which in essence are where string theory and particle physics meet. In essence every single planet, star and all the elements contained therein came from those three particles.

In order to maintain a belief in the entire science of evolution and the creation of living things would mean the god part only acted to produce those protons, neutrons, and electrons. Everything else after that was on "automatic pilot" and follows the laws of chemistry and physics to arrive at the world we now live in.

Before the existence of those three sub-atomic particles, faithful believers would have to maintain that only their god existed.

Is that your belief, from those "Biblical scholars"? Or put another way, when exactly did your god step in and do his thing?

[Major Nikon]

34. Biblical scholarship is your answer?

You do realize that many biblical scholars are atheists, agnostics, and deists yes? And the job of a biblical scholar is not to tell you which parts of the bible you should take literally and which parts you shouldn't, but rather to research the bible in an academic context rather than from a devotional one. Furthermore biblical scholars will tell you the same thing many atheists will tell you which is the bible is full of unreconciled contradictions and wasn't written by those with whom it's attributed. So the question still remains, how do you look to a book for moral guidance when that same book tells you it's a great idea for your in-laws to stone your daughter to death in your front yard if she's found not to be a virgin? If you're willing to accept the bible isn't a fax from god and is highly prone to error, how do you decide what to believe from it? How do you discount the superstitious, hocus pocus aspect of the bible, yet still give absolute credence to other parts? Biblical scholars aren't going to tell you that.

[Sal316]

35. Yep, it is.

..and yes, I do. Biblical scholarship, done well, isn't reserved just for the faithful. Through scholarship one learns what's poetic literature, what's prophetic literature, societal and cultural context, authorship, and linguistics.

But most of all biblical scholarship, done well, gets one out of the "it's either all true or all false" logical fallacy employed by both fundamentalists and atheists like the dude in the video in the OP.

You see, as one who is a degreed theologian, I understand all that. I understand that scripture reinterprets itself (Chronicles rewrites Kings, etc.). I understand that society has evolved since the ancient near east days and we don't stone our children anymore.

Yet there are those that hold to the belief that if every single word isn't literally true and verifiable then the entire thing is false. This is a position as fallacious as the biblical literalism of fundamentalists.

There are plenty of biblical scholars who can, will, and have explained these things. That's not the problem. The challenge is with those who say "how do YOU get to decide", those who dismiss biblical scholars as an 'appeal to authority' (they Myers shuffle), and biblical literalists who stick their fingers in their ears and go "la, la, la....I can't hear you!"

[Major Nikon]

37. I don't subscribe to the all or nothing approach

I just have a hard time understanding how non-deist believers choose which parts of the bible are relevant. Even if you throw out things like the mythical and legal aspects of the bible, what value does it really provide? If you come to the conclusion that the bible was written by men who really didn't have a direct red phone to the almighty, why give these teachings any more validity than say those of Mao Zedong, David Koresh, or Walt Disney? Why can't I stone my daughter to death if the bible says I should? If ethics can and do evolve, what value is a book that is thousands of years out of date which contains no method for challenging those ethics and morals? The reason why ethics and morality evolve is not because of religion, it's because of philosophy. Religious teachings derived from tomes are considered by believers to be the inspired word of god, so what trumps that? Especially when you consider logic and reason are out the window by default.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Thats my opinion]

7. I took a look.

Here is someone who has a view of the nature of God that suggests an all-powerful manipulator. He takes this rather naive notion and puts questions to it for which the answers are self-evident. Give a a very different notion that God is deeply enmeshed in the processes of life and is not a big super person, you may come out with a different set of questions and a different set of responses. And that is a very complicated matter. As someone has said, "For every complex question there is a simple answer, which is usually wrong."

I admire this young man for at least thinking about a difficult issue. But like any evangelist--religious or non-religious--the answers always depend on how the questions are asked.

[MarkCharles]

9. So YOUR view of a god is that she or he is NOT the Creator?

You think he or she just came along for the ride?

What religious faith does NOT call their one god a creator? I'd like to know

[Thats my opinion]

31. Many of us hold to the theology

that God does not stand apart from the creation, but is the very process by which the creation is and moves from occasion to occasion.
God is not to be identified with the creation--that is "pantheism", but is within the creation as its energy, power and thrust---which is called evolution. This is "panentheism." if you think of a machine, the energy which is within the machine and causes it to function is a fair analogy.
God is the energy of creation and creativity inherent in all that is.

Bergson called it the "élan vial" ---the vital energy within.
It is a concept of God that has been around for centuries in one form or another. It goes beyond God as a person out there who stands apart from creation as either tinkerer of manufacturer. For the best explanation see Teilhard Chardin, a 19th century Jesuit and scientist. Or look up anything by John Cobb and others which is called "Process Theology."

[laconicsax]

32. "God is the energy of creation and creativity inherent in all that is."

What is the nature of that energy and how is it observable?

[skepticscott]

33. "Many of us"?

Who exactly is "us", other than the ivory tower academics and think-tankers that you take all of your input from, but who are completely out of touch with what the vast majority of Christians actually say they believe? I defy you to cite for us any significant Xstian denomination whose primary beliefs hold that their "god" is a "process".

The "theology" that you describe here is (like all theology), nothing but an invention designed to make you feel like your religious faith is sensible and rational. You have no idea whatsoever whether it has any relationship to reality, or how to check whether it does.

[Angry Dragon]

39. So why not just boil it down and say everything in the universe is

connected??

That a god figure does not exist and what we think of as god is just the universe at work......
The gods do not care about sports, does not care if you believe in god, for the universe is just there
and everything in the universe has an effect on all other parts of the universe.

[skepticscott]

14. "I believe in God the Father Almighty

Creator of Heaven and Earth"

"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen."

Sound familiar? Or is it your contention that no one confesses or believes those things?

[MarkCharles]

15. Those words have a certain Christian ring to them, don't they?

Takes me back to hearing them from my Catholic friends when I was about 7. I was kind of astounded that someone made a kid memorize those things so "religiously".

Guess it kind of wears off when adults like that poster there wants to convince us that THEIR god has nothing at all to do with "creation"?

Puzzling, to say the least.

[struggle4progress]

18. An instant classic of cinematography: he raises his voice; he sticks his face right into the lens;

and he teleports from place to place. The only major weakness of this brilliant production is the script, which is not only trite but also somewhat disorganized

[skepticscott]

20. Hey, it could have been worse

He could have reading the results of a Google search.

[struggle4progress]

22. 'Google: The Movie' - now on youtube

Maybe I'll just wait for the Cliffsnotes for 'Google: The Movie'

[lwo]

38. unimpressed

I didn't find the arguments to be very cogent. Many of the arguments offered would also undermine conventional Christianity, e.g., plenty of people throughout history never heard of Jesus and hence must be damned. And there is no shortage of human suffering and death throughout history whether you believe in evolution or not. Finally, the evidence in support of evolution is compelling for any w/ an open mind.