John Mackay - Creationist Talk

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by amazing__lobster, Apr 29, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I just attended this guys talk and thought people might be interested in knowing my opinion of it.

    Firstly, I must say, he has the debating ability of a politician. he is able to spend ten minutes attempting to answer a question, without actually answering it.

    Although, some of his claims were interesting and certainly provided food for thought. For example, according to his sources (respected geologists), it would take 2,500 years for your big toe to become covered in dirt - this is how he is attempting to debunk the validity of fossils.

    But he also argues that we are in a state of devolution, and the evidence for that is that humans are more susceptible to diseases, such as diabetes.

    I actually would have thought that is actually a result of our own, technological evolution (pollution) and partly due to bacteria and diseases evolving.

    All-in-all, his claims were interesting, but after attending his talk I still am no more convinced that creationism is a viable theory.
  2. Totally agree, lobster.

    Creationism is as believeable as the rest of the bible!

  3. 2500 years to cover a big toe ? Bull sh*te. My place is an old farm. Most of the victorian stuff is a foot down. Bottles from the 20s are under 6 inches of earth. Fencing wire dropped last spring is invisible under the rotting remains of last years vegetation.

    Creationism is dangerous hocus-pocus. Full stop.
  4. That was part of his arguement, to why evolutionary theory is flawed. As I was saying to a friend, some of his stuff provokes thought, such as fossiled land animals being found with fish (he argues this supports Nohah).

    He did have a few interesting points, but I was turned off when he started citing from the bible. But, if you also actually see the way this guy lectures, its like listening and watching Crocodile Dundee. I am sure if he was the traditional boring, bookish academic type, he would not be receiving any media attention at all.

    And it was laughable, how he would not directly answer questions, but everytime he mentioned something from the bible, the god squad started to nod and agree.
  5. creatonism is religious dogma based on a old babylonian fairy tale, nothing more.
  6. The problems that this man highlights can be easily solved by sending him to Ayia Napa with a platoon of shovel-weilding RGJs and a mini-moke. I know this is supposed to be the sensible forum, but this man's drivel is utter arrse and deserves to be treated as such.
  7. I'm no creationism expert, but I think that there are very good arguments here, not so much in favour of creationism, but against evolution. Perhaps the real truth lies somewhere in between.

    I was extremely sceptical myself until I read a little "Hovind Theory". (He is a Septic Evangelical Preacher/Creationism Promoter). I'm not saying that I believe the whole bible/Noah's flood mumbo-jumbo, but, as with anything, it pays to not dismiss it out of hand.

    There are a number of flaws in the evolutionary theory. Darwin himself said that he expected fossils in a state of change to start being found. (Half way between skin and feathers etc). These have absolutely failed to materialise.

    I was very sceptical and still am, but there are sound reasonings here, try to see through the God-Botherers to the fact.
  8. There are no sound reasonings from a scientific point of view as far as intelligent design or creationism is concerned. None, zip, nada. If you want to debate the existence of a creator from a philosophical or theological point of view, then fine. But to dress it up in a "scientific theory" in the hope of lending credence to the idea, despite the fact that is no empirical evidence that points to the existence of such a being or deity is disingenuous claptrap. The very fact that creationists feel compelled to do so suggests that, at a tacit level at least, they recognise that scientific method provides a more credible means of theory building than a blind adherence to a book that has itself evolved over the past 3000 years or so to benefit the interests of certain groups.

    It's called FAITH for a reason, ladies and gents:

    1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
    2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
    3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
    often Faith Christianity.
    4. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
    5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

    I'm not about to accept the rambings of a bunch of ill-educated evangelicals (and it is chiefly these groups at the heart of this "debate")who profess to have scientific expertise when their understanding of the world is based upon their half-witted interpretation of The Bible. For many of them, it is quite apparent that even a knowledge of literatary devices is beyond their reach- as witnessed by their complete inability to grasp such concepts as metaphor, allegory and a little something we have now come to know in modern English as the parable.

    "And God Created . . . Australia"

    In the beginning God created Day and Night. He created Day for footy
    matches, going to the beach and barbies. He created Night for going
    prawning, sleeping and barbies. And God saw that it was good. Evening
    came and morning came, and it was the Second Day.

    On the Second Day God created water, for surfing, swimming and barbies
    on the beach. And God saw that it was good. Evening came and morning
    came, and it was the Third Day.

    On the Third Day God created the Earth to bring forth plants - to
    provide tobacco, malt and yeast for beer and wood for barbies. And God
    saw that it was good. Evening came and morning came, and it was the
    Fourth Day.

    On the Fourth Day God created animals and crustaceans for chops,
    sausages, steak and prawns for barbies. And God saw that it was good.
    Evening came and morning came, and it was the Fifth Day.

    On the Fifth Day God created a Bloke - to go to the footies, enjoy the
    beaches, drink the beer and eat the meat and prawns at the barbies. And
    God saw that it was good. Evening came and morning came, and it was the
    Sixth Day.

    On the Sixth Day, God saw that this bloke was lonely and needed someone
    to go to the footies and beaches, surf, eat and stand around the barbie
    with, so God created Mates, and God saw that they were good blokes.
    Evening came and morning came, and it was the Seventh Day.

    On the Seventh Day God saw that the blokes were tired and needed a
    rest. So God created Sheilas - to clean the house, bear children, wash,
    cook and clean the barbie. Evening came, and it was the end of the
    Seventh Day. God sighed, looked around at the twinkling barbie fires,
    heard the hiss of opening beer cans and the raucous laughter of all the
    blokes and sheilas, and smelt the aroma of grilled chops and sizzling
    prawns - and God saw that it was not just good, it was better than that,
    it was bloody brilliant!

    Now that's something I can believe in.
  10. A lot of people believe that evolution is "scientific" and has been "proved" by examining fossil records etc. The scientific mehtod is thus: "I have observed X phenomena, or extrapolate it from Y phenomena and believe it to be caused by Z factors. Therfore I design experiments to prove(or disprove) my theory that Z (and not A and B) causes X.

    Evolutionary scientists use a type of fruit fly called drosophilia to conuct experiments on, as it has a v short life cycle and you can get lots of generations thorugh in a matter of months. For years they have been trying to replicate the theory of Darwininan evolution ie that small, random changes confer a marginal advantage in the competition for mates/food/ability to survive in an organism's environment. They have been bombarding these fly type things with infra red, ultra violet, radiation, farting about with their DNA . Result: fruit flies with no heads or 3 heads, wiht 12 legs with peckers on their heads but they are still friut flies: they have not made them evolve into anything else.

    There is no irrefutable proof in the scientific sense that evolution has produced the enormaous variety of life in all its complexity. NOw, one can believe in evolution and, if you don't believe in God, you haven't much choice unless you believe we were put here by aliens, and it's absolutely fine to believe in evolution but it has not been PROVED. But how can all these intelligent highly educated scientists be wrong? Well it depends on your start point for inquiry. If you believe there is no God, you have to come up with something.
  11. And if there are no scientists then you also have to come up with something which is why you have a book with a hero called God and a story of one of his busiest weeks.
  12. I agree Crazy_F. All examples of a fossil record pertaining to prove evolution have been proved fake. Whatever you believe there is NO fossil record showing evolution of a species. That dosen't disprove the theory of evolution, but it certainly falls far short of proving it.

    It is a theory just like creationism.
  13. Creationism is not a theory. It is a religious dogma derived from a book that was written well over 2000 years ago by persons unknown, and has been through countless translations from the original, many made by people who either didn't appreciate the sublety of the original language or had their own agendas.
    The momnent that somebody came up with "Intelligent Design", it was obvious that they had lost the argument. Either we are the product of random genetic mutation or we were created fully formed by a supernatural being. The minute you start trying to synthesise between the two, you are just admitting the intellectual poverty of your original argument.
  14. Keyword - Theory. Scientists (you know, people who go to university to learn their craft and use rigourous methods to prove their theories) tend to accept the theory as the most appropriate based upon the empirical and other data available at this time still regard it as a theory.

    Whereas, Creationists (you know, people who take their world view from a book written by middle-eastern mystics over a period of several hundred years) are known to skew arguments without offering any realistic and scientifically provable alternatives, present the creationist myth as fact.
  15. ahh, that was also one of Mackey's counter arguements - he showed us a quote from a well known geologist who said he had faith in the evolutionary theory, dispite the lack of evidence. So why if both theories rely on faith, why is one more acceptable than the other? I am not religious, but from a scientific viewpoint - he is right.

    Also, although I'm not sure how relevent it is - nearly all of the theorists attached to evolution theory, came from Edinbourgh Uni. And the guy who darwin looked upto, was actually a lawyer who said he wanted to remove god from science.