Wow…I don’t even know where to begin. I’ll start from the beginning, I guess.
Evolution IS observable. Fossil records and mutations are all around us. Therefore, science.
The Teleological Arguement she used has been shot down time and time again. It is non-sequitor logic, stating that just because something is complex means that it had to be designed. No, it doesn’t. And even if it WAS designed, how was God designed and created?
Next she states that language is a representation of intangible things. Agreed, but you cannot apply that to DNA. She states “The genetic code had to exist before the existence of DNA.” Nevermind that DNA IS the genetic code, she’s on a roll! She states that DNA is like a language and the information it holds came from an outside source. What she misses is that DNA is the messenger, telling what amino acids the RNA should create. DNA is given to us from out parents, and the first signs on life on earth were most likely bits of DNA that produced amino acids capable or reproduction.
She states that the chances of the Big Bang happening are 10^10,124:1. She states that because this number is so big, it is an impossibility. Wrong. By giving the odds, that means there is DEFINITELY a possibility of it happening, or we wouldn’t be here right now. I’m not sure if that is right, but let’s just say it is. No problem. Think of how many BILLION years it took for life to happen. Those odds are pretty bad too, but when you have this much time on your hands, anything can happen.
Finally, she asks ‘what evolved first: the heart, the arteries, or the blood?’ without realizing that they all developed parallel to each other.
“If you are a rational being then you have to look at all of this evidence that I have presented and see that the facts have pointed to intelligence than chance.” Good ending, but I think I’ll stick with science. See, it can be proven wrong; it admits it’s mistakes and corrects them; it gives a unbiased look at the world.
She’s actually not a bad speaker.
It’s just a bit annoying how she began (by using a reductio ad absurdum-type argument, which isn’t true, as non-creationist != necessarily believing those things). She’s reducing it to a believe-in-every-scientific-theory-exactly-as-it-is OR godidit. Stupid, obviously. I can’t find the link but there’s a fantastic blog post here from a few years back criticizing that premise, and ending with the conclusion that ‘I don’t fucking know, but God sure isn’t the answer.’ (paraphrasing) If any scientific theories are proven to be wrong then we can keep finding theories . Trying to spread creationism by (wrongly and/or fallaciously) bashing science sure isn’t the answer.
We’ve seen whales’ finger bones. We haven’t seen, for example, anyone named “Jesus of Nazareth.” If she applied her own arguments to religious faith, she’d end up an atheist again. Let’s hope she does!
Feb 01, 2009 @ 14:48:51
There’s nothing convincing in her arguments, and some of it is downright insulting.
Feb 01, 2009 @ 15:13:15
Wow…I don’t even know where to begin. I’ll start from the beginning, I guess.
Evolution IS observable. Fossil records and mutations are all around us. Therefore, science.
The Teleological Arguement she used has been shot down time and time again. It is non-sequitor logic, stating that just because something is complex means that it had to be designed. No, it doesn’t. And even if it WAS designed, how was God designed and created?
Next she states that language is a representation of intangible things. Agreed, but you cannot apply that to DNA. She states “The genetic code had to exist before the existence of DNA.” Nevermind that DNA IS the genetic code, she’s on a roll! She states that DNA is like a language and the information it holds came from an outside source. What she misses is that DNA is the messenger, telling what amino acids the RNA should create. DNA is given to us from out parents, and the first signs on life on earth were most likely bits of DNA that produced amino acids capable or reproduction.
She states that the chances of the Big Bang happening are 10^10,124:1. She states that because this number is so big, it is an impossibility. Wrong. By giving the odds, that means there is DEFINITELY a possibility of it happening, or we wouldn’t be here right now. I’m not sure if that is right, but let’s just say it is. No problem. Think of how many BILLION years it took for life to happen. Those odds are pretty bad too, but when you have this much time on your hands, anything can happen.
Finally, she asks ‘what evolved first: the heart, the arteries, or the blood?’ without realizing that they all developed parallel to each other.
“If you are a rational being then you have to look at all of this evidence that I have presented and see that the facts have pointed to intelligence than chance.” Good ending, but I think I’ll stick with science. See, it can be proven wrong; it admits it’s mistakes and corrects them; it gives a unbiased look at the world.
Feb 05, 2009 @ 10:23:38
She’s actually not a bad speaker.
It’s just a bit annoying how she began (by using a reductio ad absurdum-type argument, which isn’t true, as non-creationist != necessarily believing those things). She’s reducing it to a believe-in-every-scientific-theory-exactly-as-it-is OR godidit. Stupid, obviously. I can’t find the link but there’s a fantastic blog post here from a few years back criticizing that premise, and ending with the conclusion that ‘I don’t fucking know, but God sure isn’t the answer.’ (paraphrasing) If any scientific theories are proven to be wrong then we can keep finding theories . Trying to spread creationism by (wrongly and/or fallaciously) bashing science sure isn’t the answer.
Feb 05, 2009 @ 23:29:23
https://irreligion.org/2007/01/04/guess-what-the-world-is-round/
Here you are. :)
Feb 09, 2009 @ 16:25:28
We’ve seen whales’ finger bones. We haven’t seen, for example, anyone named “Jesus of Nazareth.” If she applied her own arguments to religious faith, she’d end up an atheist again. Let’s hope she does!
Apr 24, 2010 @ 13:25:19
…….i might change my name to SUPER ATHIEST MAN cos of how much crap this christian woman is chatting….
but that doesnt disprove religion….just most christians are retarded…
Apr 24, 2010 @ 21:13:59
Christians are stupid as fuck. Go to your heaven and leave us all alone.