So much circular reasoning in this!
Also MASSIVE amounts of inbreeding, which is probably required to buy into this baloney.
Kind of like how Cain and Abel, who are allegedly the first two offspring of a man and a woman, ever, went off to cities and found wives and so on.
The explanation for that I've heard is that Adam and Eve had daughters, but of course its not important to record the names of women.
So it was an Arkansas-style family?
Did they say that the daughters went and built the cities? That'd be a really huge monument to sexual frustration.
Okay, so let's ignore that God said to bring 7 pairs for clean animals and 2 pairs for clean, let's ignore the fact that plants, insects and birds and seawater creatures would die outside the ark (since rain is freshwater), let's use genus rather than family or species just for the hell of it, let's assume a standard size for animals ignoring dinosaurs even though I just put them on screen, let's ignore the actual dietary and space needs they'd have for a year at sea, and then let's assume they evolved like crazy in a few hundred years but hid their fossils to look like slow evolution.
This is way more reasonable than the atheist explanation for music! Because music is mysterious to everyone, while the atheist explanation for biodiversity makes our claims look like delusions a child can see through.
This should be funny, but when you consider how much of the US population and how many of our elected officials believe it you just get angry instead.
It's one of those things where you ask, "If you're going to say that God Magic did something, like make the ENTIRE WORLD flood, then why do you need an Ark that makes sense anyway? Why not just have that run on God Magic, too?"
It really highlights a deep need Christians seem to have for SOME part of their fairy tales to be "real."
|Aubrey McFate |
You shouldn't try to create fast-talking videos if you constantly sound like you're out of breath.
|Jet Bin Fever |
I want to Creation kick this guy right in the Creation balls.
|Sexy Duck Cop |
You know, the strongest argument against Creationism isn't any specific scientific claim, but rather that the Bible was never meant to be taken literally. If you ever meet someone who thinks the Bible is a literal directory of people and places, just ask them why their Messiah spoke in parables. Or ask why there's a book of poetry in the middle of an otherwise literal book. Or ask them if the moral of Adam and Eve is "don't eat apples fed to you by talking snakes." Then, conclude that the fundamental problem isn't Christianity, but a specific interpretation of Christianity, and that stubbornly clinging to an untenable position is symptomatic of PRIDE, you know, like that one guy you hate so much, and that a true Christian would accept that Christ's teachings are far more powerful when you're not trying to count how many goddamned dinosaurs can fit in a rowboat.
I've never had a chance to try this approach at my highfalutin' Left Coast university, but if any of you have, let me know how it works out.
...that Christ's teachings are far more powerful when you're not trying to count how many goddamned dinosaurs can fit in a rowboat."
very nice sir. Very nice indeed.
Indeed 5 stars for you. How many dinosaurs can you fit in a rowboat has become the modern theologian's how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
that worked for some students when I taught the bible as history at my small west coast lib arts college, but some absolutely rejected everything.
If you're dealing with genuine dedicated seekers of truth, that might work. But for a great many religious people, religion is a matter of comfort, upbringing, and tribal loyalty. Asking them to challenge their tribe's dictates is a non-starter, and in fact will make you a trouble-maker in their minds.
Look at the mildly entertained white people in the audience starting at around 5:37 or so:
It's not that they're enjoying the performance, it's that they are Christians and this is Christian and therefore they're obligated to enjoy it. To do otherwise would be an affront to the tribe.
|Sexy Duck Cop |
Also of note: How many times does he cite God giving impossibly vague instructions, then immediately say "These instructions are very clear"?
"Like, just get some flyin shit and some swimmers and I guess those walking things...with the hooves...just sorta base them around what they're like and soforth."
And then Noah's all PENGUINS MOTHERFUCKER and takes a long drag from a cigarette as he arches one eyebrow, retweeting a Sam Harris quote.
Since the people presenting this video seem to love math so much, I got a question for them:
Length: 227 ft.
Width: 51 ft.
Height: 28 ft. (not counting masts)
Required trees needed: 2000 oak trees. Not counting any of the metal, ropes, or large labor force needed to cut down the trees, shape the wood, transport the lumber and assemble the ship.
Length: 450 ft.
Width: 75 ft.
Depth: 45 ft.
Required trees needed: At least 5000, possibly much more if oak was not used. Since the wood used was "gopher" and no one has a definitive answer for what wood that was, we can't be sure. Again, not counting the metal, ropes, or labor force needed.
So... Where can I find this many trees in the Middle East?
So much for a story ripped of from Gilgamesh book. In that one the guy actually gets some gold at the end i think.
So he states that two dogs could create every one of the thousands of types of dog in the world, yet through the fact that he is in fact religious, he can't say they "evolved". So if all modern dogs came from two different dogs, (or, even better, how certain animals without clean families like horses and hippos who are related but not similar in "kind" as stated in the bible) how did this happen without being able to say evolution did it?
The argument I've heard is that while many different 'kinds' of dogs came from those two dogs, they're still just dogs. If they didn't change in kind (and getting a creationist to define 'kind' is nigh impossible) then evolution didn't happen.
Yeah, it still doesn't make sense. They're effectively claiming a super evolution happened, even if they don't use that word.
Most Creationists I know readily acknowledge the existence of animal husbandry - the idea that selective breeding can produce dissimilar variant populations within the same species. It's one of the fundamental principles of agrarian society. Dogs are a perfect example of this: there are many, many "breeds" of dogs, and their emergence is well-verified by historical records. Yet, for all their variety, as Kieran says, dogs are still "just" dogs. Species tend to be defined by sexual compatibility - if you can fuck it and make a baby, chances are, you're the same species. Pitbulls can mate with poodles and produce sexually viable offspring, they're all the same species, regardless of how different they look. Normally, this would be the educated creationist's fallback strategy: acknowledge the ability of animals to breed clusters of offspring with certain uniquely identifiable traits, while denying the ability of sexual selection to produce populations so divergent that they can no longer interbreed with their parent population. Husbandry's not evolution! etc etc etc
What Wretched is proposing here is something completely different. They're proposing that all post-flood animals were created from a genus-level common ancestor; THAT'S EVOLUTION. It's a rather stupid type of evolution - it's a hyper-hyper-saltationist position, which claims that full speciation can occur in a matter of centuries, maybe even years - but it's still evolution. They're obviously trying to score points against Darwinian science, yet what they've actually done here is reject Creationism, and enthusiastically embrace a form of Darwinism so outlandish and patently false that not even the biggest commie-Nazi-atheist Darwin lover would support it.
Anyway, at first I was thinking that maybe these guys are "soft ID" proponents. After all, there are some "Creationists" who believe in evolution, as defined by modern science. They simply graft God onto the end: "Evolution happens, but it's not a blind, directionless scramble based on sexual fitness. It's the mechanism God chooses to use, and it's all planned out ahead of time to ensure the March of Progress".
Yet, exploring the channel further, you find a number of videos in which Wretched strongly condemns the idea of Christians "compromising" Biblical literalism and embracing the ideas of "secular science". These guys aren't liberal apologists, looking for ways to reconcile empirical scientific truths with Biblical stories. So the only explanation I can offer for why they made this argument, is that they didn't bother thinking about what they were saying at all, they just said it.
This is the great divide between "microevolution" and "macroevolution": "microevolution" can be used to explain undeniable or convenient instances of evolution, but "macroevolution" -- by which ducks can turn into crocodiles or whatever -- is a myth.
And they're right, macroevolution is a myth, on at least two levels. Firstly, there is only "evolution" and there aren't fun-sized and family-sized versions; and secondly, evolution doesn't allow for the ridiculous transformations that creationists attribute to "macroevolution".
About 90% of Creationists' problem with evolution is that it says mankind evolved. Really I should say that 90% of the problem that Creationist leaders have is that mankind evolved; the followers will embrace whatever degree of evolution has been approved, which currently stands at the "microevolution" level. If, in 50 years, the leaders start saying that mankind evolved, the followers will come around to that stance in astonishingly quick fashion.
Reputedly, a display at Ken Ham's Creation "Museum" shows the pre-flood fauna as being some kind of generic "kind" e.g. "horse kind" (from which sprung all horses and relatives), etc.
AronRa (among others) made a video that addresses this oversimplification: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r0zpk0lPFU
Christians would have such an easier time making sense of life, if they just regarded the Bible as part of mythology, instead of trying to prove it in reality. I'm sure that someone could prove that a white bull could copulate with a human female, to produce a very strong human male, but if there's no guy running around the clouds and throwing lightning, what's the point in going that far?
| Register or login To Post a Comment|