Kirk Cameron On O'reilly Tonight

[xrayman7040]

I was riding around town listening Fox News tonight. I was listening to an interview with Kirk Cameron on Bill O'Reilly's program. Bill stated right off the bat that he won his recent short debate with Richard Dawkins (which was of course total bullshit) and he then asked Kirk if he could prove the existince of God. Kirk said, Absolutely Bill." Then he went right into the tired old fucking cliche' of the complexity of the human eye. 'The human eye is so complex, therefore it needs a designer, and therefore God exists." Wow that was just fucking brilliant. I am now convinced. The dude needs to regroup and get some new material.

[Legion]

I wish I had seen that Xray. Too bad there wasn't a qualified biologist there to counter Cameron's "design implies a designer" arguments.

[Dave]

Kirk Cameron and Bill O'Reilly; two nut cases exuding idiocy. I would have expected nothing less from either of them.

[Legion]

Kirk Cameron and Bill O'Reilly; two nut cases exuding idiocy. I would have expected nothing less from either of them.

No doubt!

[Thurisaz]

Too bad there wasn't a qualified biologist there to counter Cameron's "design implies a designer" arguments.

 

Or just someone who ever went to school, for that matter...

[Legion]

Too bad there wasn't a qualified biologist there to counter Cameron's "design implies a designer" arguments.

 

Or just someone who ever went to school, for that matter...

[Vixentrox]

All praise Ra! Or was it Kali...the Great Spirit....Zeus....ummmmmm

[xrayman7040]

Well last night on Nightline Kirk and Ray Comfort debated a couple of atheists and this time they absolutely scientifically proved God's existince. Ray Comfort held up a painting and said we all know this painting had a designer, so therefore everything on this earth must have had a designer, so God exists. Simply amazing analogy and finally real proof of God. Wow I seriously feel real sorry for these guys. I've never seen such a pathetic case. The Rational Response Team didn't have to show up last night to win that debate.

[Robbobrob]

Ok, lets take the painter anaology further. We know from the painting there was a designer, and since we also know that that designer was also designed by a designer, then it follows that that designer should also be designed.

 

God the Creator must have also had a designer. Their anaology says so. PROOF POSITIVE!!

 

 

I had, on another board, given the banana argument to a group of fundies, and they all thought it was the silliest thing (most had never heard of it before). As one mother said, "My daughter thought it was monkey food."

[Japedo]

Ok, lets take the painter anaology further. We know from the painting there was a designer, and since we also know that that designer was also designed by a designer, then it follows that that designer should also be designed.

 

God the Creator must have also had a designer. Their anaology says so. PROOF POSITIVE!!

 

 

Well that's what Sapient (sp?) did ask, to wit.. Comfort has nothing but a look of confusion. It was priceless.

[Ouroboros]

Ok, lets take the painter anaology further. We know from the painting there was a designer, and since we also know that that designer was also designed by a designer, then it follows that that designer should also be designed.

 

God the Creator must have also had a designer. Their anaology says so. PROOF POSITIVE!!

Exactly.

 

And in another view: if the Painter is to be considered analogous with God, and God is not created, then the Painter (human) is not created either.

 

The reason we see the painting as designed is because we recognize it from behavior and experience in the frame work of events in the situation (the world) we live in. We judge the world, based on the world and based on our self. So of course a painting is a design we recognize as designed. But we wouldn't know the first sign of what a supernatural design would be made off or look like, because we don't have supernatural experience of supernatural designs, so if the world is designed and we can see it, that means we must be on the same level as God to recognize God's work... but we aren't!

 

Another problem with the painter analogy is that a Painter is using paint and a canvas. He uses existing material and matter. So if God is using existing matter to create the Universe, who created the matter and energy God had to use to create the Universe? Since we know the Painter is not creating the paint or the canvas or the molecules in either?

[Grandpa Harley]

I seem to remember Wilde saying something about nature being like Constable on an 'off-day'

[Japedo]

I personally believe that Comfort and Cameron knew they would get their ass kicked but they just wanted a publicity stunt to gather alot of people across the USA and world so they could preach....to me that is just alittle disegenuious.

 

 

I dunno BO. Comfort maybe, Cameron on the other hand seems to be completely obtuse to the outside world. He looked visibly shaken in the post debate interview.

[Jun]

The pro-Christian god followers don't seem to realise that all their "proof" could just as easily be "proof" that Krishna, Banaitja, Zeus or Amaterasu also exist.

[Grandpa Harley]

Do you mean to tell me Zeus/Jupiter doesn't exist? Then who's that beardy chap on the roof of the Cistine chapel?

[quicksand]

Another problem with the painter analogy is that a Painter is using paint and a canvas. He uses existing material and matter. So if God is using existing matter to create the Universe, who created the matter and energy God had to use to create the Universe? Since we know the Painter is not creating the paint or the canvas or the molecules in either?

That's a good point. Not only that, what kind of painting?

 

What if this god painted in the style of Trompe L'Oeil?

 

Or what if he painted in the style of late cubism?

 

Or post-modernism...

 

Or kid's art?

 

Or like a gorilla?

 

It's completely arbitray to which type of painting they pick. What are we to assume about the creator based on the type of painting produced? I think the universe looks more like a Pollock who painted in textures and not in hyper-realistic manner of trompe l'oeil. It's the same with Intelligent Design arguments. The human body is a horribly designed thing. But one thing is for certian, a creation argument begs infinite regression of creators and is a completely unsatifactory and incoherent argument for god.

 

But it suckers enough to this day to galvanize the faithful.

[Ouroboros]

Quicksand, you make a good point too. I especially like the idea of comparing to a monkey painting. RRS should have one of those and hold up and say, "this is a painting too. The designer is a 'stupid', 'non spiritual', 'soulless' animal. At least those are the epithets religious people want to put on a monkey. But does this make God the universe designer also a monkey?"

 

If one would look at Mandelbrot's Set, it looks beautiful, but it isn't created or painted or designed... it's a fractal:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set

 

And even more, games today, when they "design" coast lines, trees and mountains etc in the graphics, many times they use fractal geometry also, which is random and yet look "designed". But the key point is that they are automatic. The formulas come out that way. So one could say the formulas where designed in nature, but how do we know for sure the formulas didn't exist for ever? That's the argument many Christians use regarding logic or math, that it is eternal and unchanging, which would make the fractal geometry of space eternal too!

[Jubilant]

If they would watch the PBS eight hour series on evolution, they may see how the eye evolved. The eye used to get me too but the scientist in the show used a basic lens and built upon it...pretty damn cool.

 

I think its just hard for people to wrap their brains around *billions* of years to evolve. Throw in the fact that there are thousands, upon thousands of species on our planet and it really throws people for a loop. Even though based on the facts, evidence for evolution best explains life on earth, there are still parts of it that I can't grasp, but it doesn't matter because it in no way proves that a god exists.

[Ouroboros]

Actually I think there is millions and millions of species and not thousands. I think there is more than a million animal species alone, and not counting plants, fungi, bacteria...

[Jun]

Actually I think there is millions and millions of species and not thousands. I think there is more than a million animal species alone, and not counting plants, fungi, bacteria...

 

There are 800,000 different species of insects alone. 95% of all animal species are insects. I think there are 5000 species of mammals?

[Ouroboros]

There are 800,000 different species of insects alone. 95% of all animal species are insects. I think there are 5000 species of mammals?

Lets take a look at Wikipedia, our favorite source of information.

 

Species

 

As a soft guide, however, the numbers of identified modern species as of 2004 can be broken down as follows: [3]

 

287,655 plants, including:

15,000 mosses,

13,025 ferns,

980 gymnosperms,

199,350 dicotyledons,

59,300 monocotyledons;

74,000-120,000 fungi[2];

10,000 lichens;

1,250,000 animals, including:

1,190,200 invertebrates:

950,000 insects,

70,000 mollusks,

40,000 crustaceans,

130,200 others;

58,808 vertebrates:

29,300 fish,

5,743 amphibians,

8,240 reptiles,

10,234 birds, (9799 extant as of 2006)

5,416 mammals.

However the total number of species for some phyla may be much higher:

 

5-10 million bacteria[3];

1.5 million fungi[2];

My understanding is that what constitutes a species isn't that clear. And today I also heard that not even counting the genes in the human genome is that easy. They have done the whole mapping but depending on what you count as a gene or where you start a sequence, you get different results.

 

And considering that a large amount of animals and species are extinct, the Ark was pretty packed.

[Jun]

There are 800,000 different species of insects alone. 95% of all animal species are insects. I think there are 5000 species of mammals?

Lets take a look at Wikipedia, our favorite source of information.

 

Species

 

As a soft guide, however, the numbers of identified modern species as of 2004 can be broken down as follows: [3]

 

287,655 plants, including:

15,000 mosses,

13,025 ferns,

980 gymnosperms,

199,350 dicotyledons,

59,300 monocotyledons;

74,000-120,000 fungi[2];

10,000 lichens;

1,250,000 animals, including:

1,190,200 invertebrates:

950,000 insects,

70,000 mollusks,

40,000 crustaceans,

130,200 others;

58,808 vertebrates:

29,300 fish,

5,743 amphibians,

8,240 reptiles,

10,234 birds, (9799 extant as of 2006)

5,416 mammals.

However the total number of species for some phyla may be much higher:

 

5-10 million bacteria[3];

1.5 million fungi[2];

My understanding is that what constitutes a species isn't that clear. And today I also heard that not even counting the genes in the human genome is that easy. They have done the whole mapping but depending on what you count as a gene or where you start a sequence, you get different results.

 

And considering that a large amount of animals and species are extinct, the Ark was pretty packed.

 

Well done.

[Ouroboros]

Maybe the ark was nothing but a giant DNA bank?

[Grandpa Harley]

Maybe the ark was nothing but a giant DNA bank?

 

Paging Dr. Daniken!

[Jubilant]

Actually I think there is millions and millions of species and not thousands. I think there is more than a million animal species alone, and not counting plants, fungi, bacteria...

 

You're right but I didn't do my homework so I stuck with the low number. And admittedly, I'm not very well versed in evolution but the evolution series is helping me along. Netflix, oh how I love it! Just received part two in the mail today.