Ideas for questions

[Jimmayus]

Some guy is giving a speech about how there is 'sound irrefutable evidence for the possibility of a Creator' i.e., he's a New-Earth Creationist (says his poster).

I know most of the questions to pose at something farcical like this, but anybody have any good ideas for fun questions (that are relevant)?

[Devek]

I got one..

If this creator is so smart.. why are we so stupid?

[khain]

How about we let people believe what they want and stop attacking them unless it does serious harm to you or people around you.

[Jimmayus]

Allowing something like ID to be taught in schools without so much as a logical background to its' 'methodology' and 'science' hurts both my children and anybody exposed to something like it.

[Kiro]

Ask him what he thinks about Scientology. >_>

[khain]

Allowing something like ID to be taught in schools without so much as a logical background to its' 'methodology' and 'science' hurts both my children and anybody exposed to something like it.

home school

[Devek]

But what if "intelligent" design was true?

Ever used a self-extracting zip file?

Maybe single cell organisms that traveled here on asteroids were like that and they are slowly decompressing into their real payload.

[Jimmayus]

nah man, in a lot of high schools right now in the midwest, things like ID are being discussed (insert plethora of information on internet). If it's allowed, then you have a breakdown, since you can't expand or revise the 'God did it' answer (at least, not to the people who matter).

[khain]

where in the midwest do you live? Its not being taught at my school. Maybe people are paranoid and convincing themselves its taught widely across the public school system.

[Talus]

Jimmayus writes:

Some guy is giving a speech about how there is 'sound irrefutable evidence for the possibility of a Creator' i.e., he's a New-Earth Creationist (says his poster).

I know most of the questions to pose at something farcical like this, but anybody have any good ideas for fun questions (that are relevant)?

Ask him what data he has to support his 'sound irrefutable evidence' in his claims. Ask him what this creator is up to now. Did he just set everything in motion and then start up some cosmic nap time out of fatigue, or is he catching up on the last season of the Sopranos?

[divisortheory]

'irrefutable evidence for the possibility

I stopped reading here.

[Charla]

So wait, is he actually promoting some course of action here, or just trying to have a philosophical debate? Some people are still capable of caring about philosophy for its own sake, without trying to shove an agenda down the country's throat. So I hear.

Existance of a Creator != Creationism btw

[Jimmayus]

His poster says NE Creationist, and the subtitle of the lecture is 'Why Creationism deserves to take a place next to Evolution'

[finale23]

Some guy is giving a speech about how there is 'sound irrefutable evidence for the possibility of a Creator' i.e., he's a New-Earth Creationist (says his poster).

I know most of the questions to pose at something farcical like this, but anybody have any good ideas for fun questions (that are relevant)?

there is no irredutable evidence whatsoever, he's setting himself up for some public embarrassment. just bait and destory him with some fine grain linear, inductive logic.

[Roranora]

"Creation Science" is the epitome of oxymorons.

[Tyr]

I have a question, and I don't want to look up wikipedia or anything to get the answer.

What's the irrefutable evidence for evolution, or maybe against "creationism?"

I don't want to get in to the entire debate, and that's not my point in asking the question. I'm just wondering, with the confidence that everyone has (and maybe justifiably so) in refuting creationism or theories similar to it, and consequently asserting the main claims of the evolution theory: what are the "irrefutable" claims either side would have that are "undeniably true?" Mainly, those made by evolution theorists, actually.

[Devek]

I have a question, and I don't want to look up wikipedia or anything to get the answer.

What's the irrefutable evidence for evolution, or maybe against "creationism?"

The science of evolution doesn't go against creationism or even the concept of a God but the religion of evolution does.. there is a difference.

Evolution as a science is real as anything and there is no debate or argument against it. We can and do observe mutations that give organisms new traits.

Natural selection as a science is real to a point as anything and for the most part there is no debate. The idea is that organisms better fit to survive will breed more and pass on their traits to their offspring and we can observe that happening with real science.

Evolution by natural selection starts to become almost religious and is just a theory. Because a single cell organism mutated and was able to breed better we now have humans?

How would you observe that the first organism with a mutation that allowed it to go on land was in better position to breed and carry on its genes? What about when a mutation changed the chromosomes of an animal change so drastically it could no longer mate at all with the rest of its species?

What about humans? In today's world intelligence allows one to survive more than physique yet if you take a 130+ IQ short guy who consumes little food and can harness more resources than a 400 pound fat guy living off the government in the hood.. who is going to breed more? Not the more "evolved" of the species.

Intelligent Design is not science because you simply can't observe a God designing life much less experiment on it. Imagine setting up a control where we make one planet just like Earth where God exists and we setup another planet just like Earth where God doesn't exist? Imagine trying to make predictions on how God is going to design humans in the future?

To make it worse some people turn ID into a religious argument that it happened EXACTLY like the Bible said it did and in 7 days to boot! (Which is kind of retarded because if you read the bible carefully it never says the Earth didn't exist before Genesis 1..)

To make it even worse every argument made by ID proponents while provoking are not logically sound. The arguments all boil down to complexity.

While I might think it odd if I picked up random paints, threw them at the wall, and ended up with an exact replica of the Mona Lisa that doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it was impossible. The possibility is there and trying to argue against the possibility of it happening is a fallacy. As compelling as it may "feel" for them to throw out evidence that life as we know it had a 1 in 10^150 chance of happening through evolution doesn't prove anything.

The real problem as I see is that both camps are kind of religious because they are confusing what actually happened with WHY. I accept evidence that we all evolved from single cell organisms but I think saying it was all random and happened by chance is just as stupid as saying it happened because God said so. When God comes down and tell me how it happened I will believe it and when scientist can create an observable experiment where base elements can form into any form of life at all much less one with a freaking computer program in it (DNA) I will buy the evolution through natural selection also.

Who is to say the DNA in that first life form wasn't programmed to evolve into humans by another group of humans who wanted to spread their genes in another galaxy? The evidence is in our DNA and our children will be the ones who will be able to reverse engineer enough to either answer this question once and for all or raise new questions that make this all irrelevant. Our DNA isn't that much unlike the machine code that allows your browser to function and read this post..

[Sigi]

my favorite question to fundamentalists: Who are we to define what timeframe God operates in? Is it a possibility that he used the mechanics expressed by science to achieve his goals in creation?



The one that gets them pissed is this gem: "If humans are made in God's image, then is God a man, woman, straight, gay, bi, or what?"

[Charla]

What about humans? In today's world intelligence allows one to survive more than physique yet if you take a 130+ IQ short guy who consumes little food and can harness more resources than a 400 pound fat guy living off the government in the hood.. who is going to breed more? Not the more "evolved" of the species.

That's simple: society by nature countermands the precepts of natural selection. Because evolution only works over long periods of time, society changes the equation, allowing inferior genes to survive, which in turn increases genetic diversity and allows us to exhibit traits which may be useful to the society but counterproductive to the individual's own survival and procreation. Of course the fat guy you mentioned isn't really a good example of that...

Our DNA isn't that much unlike the machine code that allows your browser to function and read this post..

In fact, as I'm sure you know, DNA is far more uniform than machine code. The DNA in one cell is mostly the same as the DNA in any other cell anywhere, but the machine code that my AMD processor uses probably has a completely different instruction set from a Pentium processor, and a laptop has a different one, and an old mac has a different one. Aren't analogies fun?

edit: you guys post faster than me

The one that gets them pissed is this gem: "If humans are made in God's image, then is God a man, woman, straight, gay, bi, or what?"

I think of "Him" as being equal parts both genders. And of course sexual preference don't enter into it, He's not physical. (Monty Python reference inc)

[Iono]

'irrefutable evidence for the possibility

I stopped reading here.

I stopped reading after this post. Was exactly what I was thinking.