Humanists of Greater Portland Meetup Message Board › Creationist vs. an atheist 6th grader

Creationist vs. an atheist 6th grader

Bernie D.
BernieDehler
Hillsboro, OR
Post #: 1,434
Creationist vs. an atheist 6th grader:
http://youtu.be/HhDPr...­


Gavin
Atheistic-ExJW
Beaverton, OR
Post #: 2,129
Awesome comment by the 6th grader!

Here is a question for Eric Hovind. If we don't know everything how can we determine that a specific person/individual (including someone claiming to be a god) knows everything? Maybe that indidvidul is delusional or a fraud. We can test the individual's claims about knowledge, but theoretically we would have to test every single one in order to prove the individual knows everything. However that is not feasable. But if the individual fails in a test of even one of his/hers/its claims about knowledge, then he/she/it has failed his/her/its claim of knowing everything.

I have discovered that some of the Bible's prophecies (ones in the name of the Bible god Yahweh and ones in the names of Jesus Christ the alledged divine sone of the alledge God the Father) are failed prophecies. Those alledged individuals did not know everything, or some of the things written about them in the Bible are at least false claims about them. If anyone is interested I can provide the evidence of that.

Hey Eric, if a person hears a voice claiming to be Zeus and also claiming it is the one true god and not the biblical god, should the person hearing it believe it, especially if the one claiming to be Zeus says he always tells the truth?
Bernie D.
BernieDehler
Hillsboro, OR
Post #: 1,435
Update...

Last night this video had 300 views, and now it has over 8,000.
"Eric Hovind vs. 6th Grade Atheist"
http://youtu.be/HhDPr...­
A former member
Post #: 3
Belief is belief and facts are facts. I cannot say with perfect certainty that there's no god, but after a long life on earth, I've seen nothing to tell me there is any chance that one exists and don't expect that will change in the future. Given that I haven't seen a scintilla of evidence for a god, why would I want to waste my time pondering the possibility? From what I've learned directly and indirectly about those that believe, there is absolutely, not one thing, that causes me to want to consider it - quite the opposite!
Gavin
Atheistic-ExJW
Beaverton, OR
Post #: 2,131
Update...

Last night this video had 300 views, and now it has over 8,000.
"Eric Hovind vs. 6th Grade Atheist"
http://youtu.be/HhDPr...­

Check out this news footage: "Opinion: Teaching Atheism to Kids". It is about the atheistic message of Richard Dawkins' book called "The Magic of Reality".

The books described at the following two links sound interesting. The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel and Atheism and the Case Against Christ. There is also a book called The Case Against Christ.

Lee Strobel's Case Against Christ: Apologetics Backfiring web page has a discussion about the topic.
Bernie D.
BernieDehler
Hillsboro, OR
Post #: 1,437
RE: "Check out this news footage: "Opinion: Teaching Atheism to Kids". It is about the atheistic message of Richard Dawkins' book called "The Magic of Reality"."

One powerful thing about that book is it illustrates in great detail why it is scientifically wrong to think there were first biological humans. No such things given evolution. Evolution happens over time and in a population. It isn't like the first human popped-out of some other animal.

This knocks out young earth creationism, old earth creationism and even Roman Catholicism; as all three say there was a literal first human couple that are the ancestors of all living humans today. There was no isolated parents (just one couple) for all of humanity. Many people don't realize it, but the Catholic Church still officially teaches (in its Catechism) that there were literal parents (Adam and Eve) of all existing humanity. It is now scientifically disproven.

There still is a group of "evolutionary creationists" that fully accept modern science, and they don't try to claim the Bible knows anything at all about science. To debunk that takes other arguments (such as "the problem of evil," given the acceptance of evolution).
Gavin
Atheistic-ExJW
Beaverton, OR
Post #: 2,132
RE: "Check out this news footage: "Opinion: Teaching Atheism to Kids". It is about the atheistic message of Richard Dawkins' book called "The Magic of Reality"."

One powerful thing about that book is it illustrates in great detail why it is scientifically wrong to think there were first biological humans. No such things given evolution. Evolution happens over time and in a population. It isn't like the first human popped-out of some other animal.

This knocks out young earth creationism, old earth creationism and even Roman Catholicism; as all three say there was a literal first human couple that are the ancestors of all living humans today. There was no isolated parents (just one couple) for all of humanity. Many people don't realize it, but the Catholic Church still officially teaches (in its Catechism) that there were literal parents (Adam and Eve) of all existing humanity. It is now scientifically disproven.

There still is a group of "evolutionary creationists" that fully accept modern science, and they don't try to claim the Bible knows anything at all about science. To debunk that takes other arguments (such as "the problem of evil," given the acceptance of evolution).

While evolution happens over time, there nonetheless was a being born who was the first to have all (not merely 99.999%) of the attribtutes of what we call human. However it is not possible to identify that first individual.
Bernie D.
BernieDehler
Hillsboro, OR
Post #: 1,438
RE: "While evolution happens over time, there nonetheless was a being born who was the first to have all (not merely 99.999%) of the attribtutes of what we call human."

That is incorrect. For one major reason, there is no set definition of what a human is, such that one could say that a non-human animal gave birth to the first human. To say that a non-human animal gave birth to the first human shows a lack of evolutionary understanding. Anyone who thinks that all humans have descended from one pair (male & female) of humans is scientifically proven wrong, and this is what Catholicism (as well as young earth creationism and old earth creationism) still teaches.

Richard Dawkins (in "The magic of Reality" book) goes into great detail with more than one example trying to illustrate the idea that there is no such thing as the first biological human.

Evolutionary creationists understand that the Adam and Eve story is a myth, and there were no "first humans." Evangelical Prof. Denis Lamoureux lays it out here:
http://www.ualberta.c...­
Gavin
Atheistic-ExJW
Beaverton, OR
Post #: 2,135
RE: "While evolution happens over time, there nonetheless was a being born who was the first to have all (not merely 99.999%) of the attribtutes of what we call human."


Bernie said in reply:

That is incorrect. For one major reason, there is no set definition of what a human is, such that one could say that a non-human animal gave birth to the first human. To say that a non-human animal gave birth to the first human shows a lack of evolutionary understanding. Anyone who thinks that all humans have descended from one pair (male & female) of humans is scientifically proven wrong, and this is what Catholicism (as well as young earth creationism and old earth creationism) still teaches.


Bernie you are incorrect in much of what you said above and your remark shows a lack of understanding of what I meant and it possibly also shows a lack of understanding of what the Catholic church meant. For example, even in evolutionist books (and/or science news articles) I have seen statements which said that blue eyed humans inherited their blue eyes from one common blue eyed ancestor. Further I did not use the terminology of "non-human animal" instead I said a being who did not have all of the attributes of what we call human. For example if the being had 99.999% of the attributes (instead of 100.000%) it would meet that category (of "a being who did not have all of the attributes of what we call human") but it also would not be entirely a non-human animal (since it would be 99.999% a human animal and thus 99.999% a human). Further I did not say all humans descended from one pair (male & female) of humans, but rather that all humans descended from one individual human (whether it was male or female or intersexual I do not know). That one 100.000% human then mated with a being which was less than 100.000% human and some of its descendants were 100.000% human. Evolutionist books on population genetics (including what Mendel wrote of the results of his genetic experiments) explain how individuals can inherit two copies of a specific allele even when only one of its grandparents had a copy of the specific allele. [For example one child of the individual could inherit one copy of the allele and another child of the same parent could inherit another copy of the same allele. If those two children then mated and produced a child, then that child could inherit both copies of the same allele.]

Regarding your remark of "... there is no set definition of what a human is ...", I agree with that but just as that does not negate the existence of humans it also does not negate that some individual in the past was the first one to be 100.000% human. It is not possible to go from a population non-humans to a population of humans without someone being the first human (unless more than one human was born at the exact same instant in time) of the population of humans, even though the definition of human is not clearly defined.

I don't agree with all of the statements of Richard Dawkins regarding evolution. Rather than make an appeal to his authority in everything pertaining to evolution, I evaluate his arguments on their own merits (where I am in a position to do so).
Gavin
Atheistic-ExJW
Beaverton, OR
Post #: 2,136
Rob said:

Belief is belief and facts are facts.

Not all beliefs are ones lacking a basis upon evidence and/or sound reasoning, though people often use the word as meaning that the said belief is lacking a basis upon evidence and sound reasoning. The basic definition of belief is "that which one considers to be true". Thus is the definition I use for the word belief. That I speak of believing in evolution (with 96% confindence of it being a fact), in general realitivity, in that no supernatural god exists, that the Earth orbits the sun (and not the other way around), that the Earth is a spheriod, etc. In addition using the above definition of "belief", when someone states something to be a fact they are stating a belief. Not everyone agrees with everyone else as to existence of a particular fact. However if a particular object exists and if a particular event took place, then such are each a fact even if no person believes or knows them to be such.
Powered by mvnForum

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy