Hadn’t heard of Chuck Missler until I came across this video, but apparently he’s a businessman turned preacher who started the Koinonia House ministry in 1973. In the following video clip he argues that if Evolution were true then he should, on occasion, open up a jar of peanut butter and discover new life. Yes, he’s seriously making that argument.
It’s pretty funny until you realize that a lot of nutcases out there are watching this video and nodding in agreement.
Game, set, and match.
By his own admission, Andy can’t even whack balls into the net, because he has yet to figure out where the court is.
Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt, eh.
DOF, based on Andy’s replies so far I’m pretty sure he hasn’t read a book, let alone one of Richard Dawkins’ books.
He should really start with a high school biology book before attempting to tackle something on the level of Dawkins.
Elwed- I give everyone one chance, just so they can’t complain they turn up and get abused. Saying “They should have read the rest of the blog first, when there are over 6,000 entries is a bit of a non-starter, if a google led them to a particular thread, they join the thread on that threads terms.
Maybe Les should set up a ‘hidden’ (ie not in the normal sequence of threads- I’ll put an entry on my Blog if you want Les) one strike page, so when a new arrival turns up, the first responder can link to it. It lays out something along the lines of what I wrote, explaining before making a comment/assertion re ID they should check the net to make sure it hasn’t already been debunked.
We let them read it- no one else weighs in until the newbie makes a second post so we can see if they have taken the points on board. . It may be their first head to head with liberal atheists, and being rude straight out will only confirm what they have been taught- atheists substitue insult for reasoning. If how ever they continue to parrot prepared points that we have heard a thousand times then they are fair game.
Take Andy- his response was “Well it can’t possibly be true, scientists change their mind…”
Ho-hum. I did ask nicely.
“Cry Havoc…”
LH: Except you’ll have to set one of those up for every major topic discussed on SEB (and some minor but popular ones). You up for that?
We’ve got a few pages like that set up in the SEBpedia already. Though admittedly I’ve not been updating it as much as I should.
The fact is that Andy got a fair shake from several of us when he asked for a definition of Evolution, which he promptly ignored in favor of his strawman. It was all downhill from there.
Apologies for not being able to reply either, before I was converted I was a fervent supporter of evolution. I was even part of the whole underground pick-up artist community, who based on many evolutionary concepts and assumptions viewed interactions between man and woman as mating dances. So I read up on evolution and the “evidence” as presented by biased evolutionists along with its accompanying literature to justify my sexual immorality and lust.
I used to own a copy of The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, read part of The Selfish Gene, but was turned off by the improbability of his arguments. I also used to own The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature. Also when I started discovering the holes in the theory of evolution, I set out to compare it with creationism with an open and neutral mind. And I found out pretty much the same bigotry, and conjecture and guess work. I read articles from many of the websites you have given me and their counterpart in creationist pages. And I found a stumbling block and a stranglehold. I concluded that the evidence presented by creationist was as lacking and doubtful as the evidence presented by evolutionist. Simply put, modern man simply does not how exactly it happened, scientifically speaking that is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
The Bible, although it has many verses that allude to scientifical facts is not a science book (a simple google search will confirm this to you). The Bible is a spiritual book. Jesus himself said my words are spirit and life. John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
So until this very day I do not believe in either evolutionist or creationism, defining creationism as the attempt to twist the Bible in other to make a scientifical argument. I set out myself not to find evolution nor creationism, but to found God and He found me. Draw near to God and he will draw near to you.
I do believe that Jehovah God created the heavens and the earth. I do believe that God is responsible for the creation of all life in the world, I believe that He created man. I believe, as it is written, in Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. But this is spiritual talk and not something that can be demonstrated in a science lab. The book of Genesis presents us with Elohim as the Creator and gives us a breakdown of the entire process in time intervals. It is not a step-by-step how to manual. The word “day” in Genesis chapters 1 & 2 is yôm in Hebrew which infers a time interval and not a 24 hour day as we know it.
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
The sun comes up and the sun goes down. That’s what time it is… Time as we know it is a physical property and subject to change. During the first six “time intervals” or “days” in Genesis 1 & 2, we do not know whose clock was running to measure the time. The first day couldn’t been two seconds or 15 billion years.
quote
Life on the road is not what it used to be. But what used to be may not have exited anyway. All of Europe used to be a desert. What they say about shifting sand is not unfounded.
Everything is happening by the clock. Without clocks there wouldn’t be any useful idea of time. My soul is unaware of any time; only my mind. My poor mind which is so bombarded with dates, calendars and numbers has been deceived into believing there is a such a thing as time, woe is me. Hasn’t everybody, at some point in their life, asked, “What time is it?”
The sun comes up and the sun goes down. That’s what time it is…
Reflecting on this, brainwork brings you to the realization that this earth is truly God’s footstool and until the entire world believes and obeys the same God, there can be no truth or justice or peace for anyone.
unquote
Bob Dylan
H3117
יום
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): – age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.
To finish off, I don’t believe ID and creationism are the same. Creationism seeks to support biblical verses through “scientific” explanation. ID seeks to support design and intelligence by looking at nature as we know it via science. Therefore I am a supporter of ID, and find it rather insulting that a government who was founded by Christians values, who “prays” every time the congress opens and who has “In God We Trust” is censoring and persecuting Christians scientists.
I found the claim that it is unconstitutional to question Darwinism simply ridiculous.
Wow. Now you’re using the Bible AND Bob Dylan songs to prove your point. That’s a first for me.
Of course not, and science doesn’t pretend to know EXACTLY how it happened… unlike…. say… religious fundies.
and that clip you showed is old, debunked and wrong. Try answering a question smoothly when you’ve been suckered into an interview where you thought you were going to talk about one thing and the questions were totally different. If you can answer right away without fumbling then you can talk about that interview. In any case, it doesn’t prove anything except that it’s possible to trick smart people sometimes.
You have to do better than that.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove with the rest of your comment, but ID and Creationism ARE the same. The ONLY difference between them is that one claims to be scientific. The problem with that is that they use the same arguments to try to prove the same things. The ID movement was begun by Creationists when their arguments were dismissed. They excluded references to God and the Bible from their materials but left everything else pretty much intact.
Keep it up, Andy. You’re getting better, but you still haven’t completely caught up to the debate.
And telling us you’re not a Creationist but continuing to put Bible verses in your comments isn’t really going to make anyone take you seriously.
While the SEBpedia is a good idea, there’s the issue of ROI. It takes a decent amount of work to create and maintain it, there would be significant duplication of effort (think talk.origins, Freethoughtpedia and Iron Chariots, say), and the intended target audience will not bother to read it or to acknowledge that it’s there when they’re referred to it.
We could use the wiki to store form letters (“Dear Creationist”, “Dear True Believer™”) that point out more exhaustive sites and/or explain the rules of engagement, but that’s no use against trolls, is it?
Tha’s the sort of thing I was thinking of, especially the RoE.
Andy has got me confused. He is not a creationist, but believes in Biblical creation. The ‘days=eons’ is usually used to square a physically old Earth, with a un-evolved biosphere. Andy. What the hell are you trying to argue?
What holes in Evolution do YOU think there is?
Opened the BoobTube link, didn’t even to see the picture to recognise it from the window title. Andy, that was done by editing, in an attempt to smear Dawkins. There is a full version out there somewhere.
So Andy, you thought evolutionary theory was an excuse to treat women as objects of conquest? You’re an idiot AND an obnoxious jerk.
If probability is your problem, read Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins.
Andy has bigger problems than a failure to grasp probability theory.
Hey Andy, since you’re so keen on YouTube for your arguments, give this video a try.
See, bananas were designed!
OH, RAY, I BELIEVE!!!
How’s that, again, “I don’t believe in evolution or creationism.” And then proceed to say, “I believe in creationism.” Perfectly rational to me!
Apologies for the misspellings in the last message. I had to type that down while rushing to get to work. This message is going to be my last one, I have accomplished what I was suppose to accomplish here. There rest is up to you.
There is a different between creation science and creationism. There is a difference between believing in creation and calling creationism a science. There is an obvious difference between ID and creationism.
I have never been fond of any “ism”. It is an ultimate commitment to a man, a man-made belief system or even worse an idol or object.
My ultimate commitment is to The Truth. Jesus Christ is The Truth. Jesus Christ is God.
There is a difference between being a Christian and being in Christ. Be on your guard before anybody who claims to be a Christian. Not everybody who professes to be a Christian is.
Matthews 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
You guys have been too busy on your side of the fence. I recommend you take a peek. I recommend this as somebody who used to be on your side of the fence. It nearly killed me.
“Wow. Now you’re using the Bible AND Bob Dylan songs to prove your point. That’s a first for me.”
That is a simple court of law procedure. By the testimony of two or three the word may be established. Even Jesus Christ used this:
John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
John 5:32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWMrKcFKqzk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkLLOH7qXPg
Andy writes…
If you meant to make a complete ass out of yourself, well, mission accomplished.
Someone give Andy a flight suit.
Well.. I hope no one was surprised. He was trying to convert us to Christianity, not try to “prove” evolution is wrong. I’ve seen this before. He just needed to make a good-faith effort at conversion. It didn’t matter what we said or what tactics he used. He wasn’t expecting to convert anyone or anything…. just make the effort.
In other words, just a huge waste of time.
Or he might have done it for class credits…
In that case, his teacher should fail him.
Elwed’s referring to William Dembski’s course requirements for the classes he teaches at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on Intelligent Design and Christian Apologetics:
He went well beyond the minimum of 10 posts though. But then his idiocy knows no bounds.
If you fail to see the irony in this, May God have Mercy on Your Soul!
Swordsbane, thanks for the YouTube link. That’s one of the best short explanations of what evolution is and is not about that I’ve ever seen.
Andy, if you’re still reading this: no hard feelings. You might also want to watch Swordsbane’s clip about evolution- it would be ten minutes well spent, and might clear up a few misconceptions you have about what evolutionary theory is about.
Evolutionary science is about what is, not about what we decide is good- it cannot “justify” any particular morals or behavior, although it can help explain why we behave as we do. Using science to justify morals or policies is known as the “is-ought” fallacy or the naturalistic fallacy.
The only real difference between ID and creationism is the disingenuous claim of IDers that they are not following a religiously motivated agenda. But this claim is merely an attempt to bypass the separation of Church and State and get Christianity into public-school science classes. The founders of ID were careless enough to leak a statement of their agenda, the Wedge Strategy which clearly lays out their creationist heritage. Please read it and then tell me exactly what the difference is between creationism and ID.
As has already been mentioned, most of us have taken a peek or more than a peek already, and many of us have been on your side of the fence. Based on what you’ve said about evolution, you may have taken a peek, but you didn’t understand what you saw. But you’re in good company.
In any case, cheers from foggy Vienna, zilch
Plagerising Evolutionists (See 09/15/2009 at 04:24 PM).
Flash of brilliance time- I’ve just seen how Andy sees the world. Creationism ISN’T Biblical Creation because it seeks to show the a Science based Creation. BUT Creation is purely the will of God, so does not need a rational explanation.
Andy, the point of creationism as a science is to try and explain those things we know to be true that are in opposition to a literal reading of Genesis. If you say it was all done by God, then we want to know why science shows something different. You will need therefore to provide a third explanation for common phenomenon.
FOSSILS
Evolution- early forms of life that evolved over millions of generations to different forms
Creationism/Science – animals caught by the Great Flood (Does not fit available evidence, no good explanation of why earlier forms always appear lower than later ones except for ‘higher’ creatures made it further up hills)
Your explanation- ?
Carbon 14 dating
Geology- proof of age of Earth by scientific principle.
Creationism – The scientists lie and distort, or misread.
You-?
Distance to stars
Astronomy- Stars further than 6000 LY prove universe is older than 600 years.
Creationism- Light was faster in the past- No evidence of this, or mechanism presented. OR God created light in transit
You- ? Neither of the standard Creationsim answers can be true because it invokes science.
I was goping to recommend “The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins, his latest book which is a layman’s introduction, but I can’t help but think you will merely label anything that contradicts your world view as wrong or a lie.
If a scientific fact contradicts the bible, which one is wrong?
Pasta Sauce- the Creationists nightmare
Nice, LH. Speaking of nightmares: did you know that Ray Comfort has since claimed, after general ridicule, that his famous Banana Video was just a parody?
As if. The fact that he continues to be popular, and makes a very comfortable living peddling his inane bullshit, is rather depressing.
If I hadn’t seen Ray Comfort (on Pat Robertson’s show) seriously deride evolution because it seemed so improbable that both male and female would evolve by coincidence at the same time in the same place, I might believe he was joking about the banana.
Well, he’s right about one thing…. it IS a joke.
He’s also right about this. Wow! Maybe he’s considering evilution? Nah, just dreaming.
I would think that with all the smart guys who have comented here, SOMEONE would challange this guy to a debate…. come on… anyone.
One of you guys give it a go!
Who? Chuck? Ray? Yeah.. THAT’ll happen. The air is kinda thin when your head is rammed up your ass.
I’ll debate anyone on evolution. The problem is that the people on the other side of that issue don’t really debate. They make the claim that evolution is bunk, trot out a few unsubstantiated claims about Creationism, throw a bunch of weird and false claims about what evolution really is and then expect you to “see the light” If you don’t, they call you close minded, part of the scientific cover-up or start preaching from the Bible.
I don’t have time for that kind of stupidity….
Okay that’s not really true.. sometimes it is entertaining. That’s why I keep an eye on this blog entry. Every once in a while someone drops by and says something monumentally stupid.
There’s really nothing to debate. Missler’s argument is so stupid you’d have to be a complete moron to even begin to think it approached anything close to a rational argument.
Come on… Chuck, Ray I am not asking your opinion, I am asking someone who is educated to bone up!
The whole banana thing.. how stupid, but Chuck seems smart, so again I ask those people who are educated, make the challenge.! Please!!!!!
Easy, it’s been done, with frustratingly stupid results. There’s nothing to debate if the other guy insists on misunderstanding evolution.
The problem with evolution theory is that it is a house of cards. The above examples of “evolution” are perfectly consistent with variation within a species. E-coli remain e-coli, canines remain canines etc. What science has failed to show is this transition among species and a reproductive isolation that leads to a new species (whatever that term species means). The theory itself is dependent on a geological time-scale and this is where evoultion gets its impetus. If the geological time-scale were shown to be false and the dating of the geologic record to be interpreted as a very short period of time, then the whole house of cards falls. Evolutionary theory is inevitably linked with a long, semi-uniformitarian time scale. I have studied radiological dating techniques, ice-core sampling, and the fossil record enough to know that there is a lot of shoddy psuedo-science to prop up the billions of years needed to make evolution sound valid. The understanding of nuclear physics required to access the validity of dating techniques is beyond most people (including you arm-chair scientists)and is only verifiable/debatable to a select few in the scientific community. There is still considerable debate as to the veracity of these dating techniques but the scientific community, to the layman, always puts up a “united” front in the media, school systems, and information outlets to conivince the public that everything is consistent. The overarching theme here is “trust us, we know best” where scientists have once again become the “high-priests” and have set a system that makes direct scrutiny unavailable. Before all of you descend on me to give me your “expertise”, please note that I have already spend a lot of time investigating things like r-RNA, Cytocrome C, Transistional forms in the fossil record etc. and have seen that the interpretation of all of these phenoms can be incorporated into a theistic model without too much problem. The shot-gun tactics you use to assault people is really un-fair, pick one topic, stay on it then move on. But really the biggest problem you, as evolutions face, is the fact that modern day humans have failed to even come close to created life from non-life and to make it sophisticated enough to self-replicate. This self-replication is the downfall of your entire theory because you observe it every day, every organism can do this, and yet evolutionary theory has skirted around how organisms can self-replicate and it cannot be reproduced. If this process is so vital to every living thing and evolutionary theory supposedly gives us a naturalistic explaination for the origin of life, then why can it not explain the most basic function of all living things? This is your achilles heel and the heart of the irreducably complex argument. If you choose to respond to this post, this is where I will start. Science predicates itself on reproducability of laboratory experimentation, yet evolutionary “science” always puts itself in a new catagory. This is because the macro-evolution of one species evolving into a new species can never be observed. The constant drumbeat of evolutionists that trot out experiments that show variation and adaptation insult us that are serious about science, and Dawkins is on of the worst. It shows that he doesn’t really understand the ID argument at all. So, in conclusion, create an evironment that is healthy for debate. There are plenty of theists/creationists that have knowledge and training in science yet don’t buy into the interpretation set out by main stream science. Remember, it wasn’t too many years ago that the mainstream scientists were laughing at the guys on the fringe that were trying to convince them that rocks were falling from the sky!!
First let me say two words to you: Enter Key. Learn it. Love it. Use it.
Second, you pretty much make your entire comment irrelevant with the following admission in your third sentence:
The fact that you don’t know what the term “species” means reveals your ignorance of the theory you’re attempting to argue against. Based on that alone we can safely ignore the rest of your jumbled up comment as the parroting of Creationist nonsense you read someplace else without having any kind of an understanding about the subject at hand.
Go off and actually study up on the Theory of Evolution and then come back to us when you have some novel argument to offer rather than the same stupidity we’ve heard several times already.
You tell ‘em Chuck. How, exactly is Chuck’s thesis disproved by any of the various sophomoric comments here? Good gracious we have a lot of really ignorant atheists on this forum. You’re giving atheism a bad rap.
Jeff, you amuse me. I especially like that you’re linking back to your business in your comments so when people do a Google search for it they’ll find the links back to this blog and your amazingly clueless comments. Perhaps it’ll help them decide that you’re not the business they should be consulting with and that makes me very happy indeed.
Seriously, anyone who thinks Chuck Missler’s argument in the above video is anything other than a sad joke probably has a hard time tying his shoes in the morning let alone installing media installations .
Les,
I’m glad I could amuse you. Your preference for personal attacks over any substantive argument sort of gives me a chuckle, so I guess we’re even. If you answer this with more of your petty insults I’ll probably let out a full-blown belly laugh.
While we’re on the subject of shoe tying, perhaps you’re familiar with the baptism of Jesus and will recognize that allusion when I write, you are not worthy to untie Missler’s shoes.
As for your non-answer to Mr. Anderson, you have not demonstrated he is wrong, only asserted it, and resorted to calling his arguments, which you never deal with, “the same stupidity we’ve heard several times already.”
Incidentally, technically you are not “hearing” his arguments, you are reading them. Your reply should therefore read,”the same stupidity we’ve read. . .” Arguments do not have to be new or novel. They just need to be true. A common evolutionists dodge is to assert that an argument they have never successfully defeated is not new enough, or for some other reason not worthy of their attention or consideration. You do not win in open forums, only when surrounded by literary thugs and cronies who agree with your dogma.
Jeff writes…
Now that is funny considering that you were the first to start slinging personal attacks. Not that it matters. Your kind come and go here and I’m sure you’ll move on in your ignorant bliss before too long. At least you can type halfway decently, which is a refreshing change from most of the missives we get from Creationists.
You are incorrect. To label someone as “ignorant,” is not an attack. To say they are stupid, in the other hand, certainly is, that is unless they are also that (stupid) in which case it’s just inconsiderate and mean spirited.
If you were referring to my “Les you ignorant slut” comment on another thread, it may be a cultural reference you aren’t old enough to remember, from SNL in the mid-seventies. It was a good-natured ribbing, not a truthfully intended slam. In any event at least you responded without dealing with any of Mr. Anderson’s issues, which I assume was you intent. Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate any clear cut examples of evolution ever happening that resulted in the creation of new information and transformed one species into another one. Period. End of story. One of the seven reasons it doesn’t qualify as a theory is because it is not repeatable/observable, hence the peanut butter jar illustration is appropo, but a little juvenile.
Thanks for the obscure cultural reference. The next time I hear someone get insulted for being called a slut, I’ll be sure to remind them that SNL made it okay to call someone a slut.
As for your post; more woo woo creationist sophistry.
Macroevolution, contrary to creationist propaganda, has been observed multiple times. Microevolution and macroevolution are the same processes, simply over a different time scales. The attempt to make the latter sound different, theoretical, or unproven is creationist deception. These are false creationist arguments that you probably dug up from some website or half baked book. There is little difference between you and any given UFO conspiracy theorist or Bigfoot hunter; you are a gullible ignorant (since you don’t consider that an insult) pawn of the Christian right cult.
Even when I was a Christian, I never had any difficulty accepting evolution. If your religion requires you to reject obvious facts, then your loyalty to that religion is not a virtue, it is a vice.
I’m not going to sit here and rehash for you the same information you can find for yourself with a simple visit to the Talk.Origins Acrhives. All of the refutation for all of the stupid arguments you seem to convinced by are there. If I took the time to rehash the same arguments with every ignorant Creationist who comes by this site I wouldn’t have time for more entertaining things such as playing World of Warcraft.
It’s clear you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about so there’s no point in engaging you. Go off and read up on what the theory actually says and then come back when you actually have a clue.
Ha ha. It’s you who do not understand the theory. The reason they are not the same processes is that there are boundaries, called “species” which keep animals and plant life reproducing “after their own kind,” as Genesis puts it. All of your posturing and immature name calling does nothing to bolster your illogical, unreasoned and irrational position.
As a side note:
Les,
The reason my “kind” don’t stay for long is that we grow weary of beating our heads against the brick walls of stubborn and obstinate resistance from the likes of you. We come and go because you’re pretty difficult to take in anything but short bursts. We come to share the truth and don’t leave licking any imaginary wounds, but because you are exasperatingly ignorant, not stupid, but certainly not well-informed. From what I’ve read here, you’re sort of like the atheists Kent Hovind, which is not intended as a compliment as he is a smugly ignorant man.
Genesis, or Bereshit as it is more aptly known in Hebrew, is not a source of any kind of legitimate scientific information. You are guilty of a cult mentality.
I will simply have to refer you to my prior comments. Macroevolution has already been demonstrated in labs. It is a matter of time scale; there is no other distinction. You are at odds with nearly every scientist on the globe, armed only with a book that tells us that bats should be categorized with birds and that the sun revolves around the earth.
Tell you what, Jeff, I’m going to blacklist you until you go off and read up on Evolution from a proper source. You’re just wasting our time now.
The reason jeff’s kind don’t stay long is that they’re getting tired of trolling and/or recognize that we’re not buying what they’re selling: a religion that demands the literal interpretation of scripture.
This guy has peanut butter instead of brains… And the lady as well, and the entire crew of this TV show! It only indicates the intellectual level of the average Americans. Very sad…
Actually, it only indicates the EMOTIONAL level of the average American. There is no intellect involved in “God did it!” It is pure emotion, mostly backed by tribal history. Also sad.
Peace.