The Atheist's Nightmare

Cool story, bro.

I was honestly expecting to see the platypus.

AV1611VET said:

Don't give me any more ideas!

Click to expand...

At least... I think. Was it labelled the atheists nightmare by... not Ken Ham, the other dude. The Australian. Or New Zealander. Big 80's style moustache.

AV1611VET said:

Hal Lindsey?

Click to expand...

It's Ray Comfort and it wasn't the platypus, it was the banana!

AV1611VET said:

Oh, okay.

Did you see my video on that one too?

Click to expand...

Not really.

Also, as a note, just posting videos without explaining what their content is is against forum rules.

AV1611VET said:

In view of past conversations on the grammatics of this subject, I submit the following video:

Click to expand...

If atheists were not such a nightmare for creationists we would get along just fine.

Have you been to discovery.org? Nothing new there lately just rehashing all the old stuff.

AV1611VET said:

Post 168

Click to expand...

It wasn't scientists though. It was farmers.

AV1611VET said:

That's why I said this:

In view of past conversations on the grammatics of this subject, I submit the following video:

(And thanks for the warning.)

Click to expand...

Still not a synopsis of the video though.

AV1611VET said:

Synopsis: "Atheistic Evolution" is a working term that needn't be contested.

Click to expand...

So why even make a thread on it?

AV1611VET said:

In view of past conversations on the grammatics of this subject, I submit the following video:

Click to expand...

Thanks for the laughable version of a conversation that lacked significance.

AV1611VET said:

True.Synopsis: "Atheistic Evolution" is a working term that needn't be contested.

Click to expand...

Appears you take the word of a silly creationist over an idiot atheist.

AV1611VET said:

In view of past conversations on the grammatics of this subject, I submit the following video:

Click to expand...

Semantic games... not particularly compelling.

Radically inconsistent standards of fact and evidence. Not to mention I'm dubious that this is an accurate description of the conversation (if there ever really was one).

AV1611VET said:

In view of past conversations on the grammatics of this subject, I submit the following video:

Click to expand...

Full Text


I was speaking in one of the West Coast
0:03
universities and while I was speaking
0:05
there I'd been invited to speak on a
0:07
philosophical theme and I arrived there
0:08
and this fellow who picked me up was
0:10
really quite intimidating and he took me
0:12
to a health food restaurant before I
0:14
began to speak I've got nothing against
0:17
health food restaurants it's just that
0:19
I've never seen too many healthy people
0:20
in health food restaurants you just go
0:23
in there and you wonder what's gonna
0:24
come after the sunflower seeds are over
0:26
maybe more seaweed or something like
0:29
that and it was about 80 82 degrees and
0:32
there was a fella sitting in the
0:33
restaurant with a black cape a black
0:36
woolen cape that started at the top of
0:39
his neck and went down to his knees and
0:41
where the Cape ended his leather boots
0:43
began and I said oh my where have I come
0:47
and I'm cynical enough to look in his
0:50
direction and mutter to myself I wonder
0:52
whether he's a student or a subject you
0:54
know it just looked so strange I don't
0:56
know what kind of a place I'm going into
0:57
till finally the fellow across the table
1:00
looked at me and said I hear mr. Zakaria
1:03
is that you do not believe in evolution
1:05
I said do you mean a theistic evolution
1:08
he said yes I said no I don't believe in
1:10
it he said you don't I said no sir I
1:13
said if you're telling me that matter
1:15
has caused mind I don't believe it he
1:18
said you don't I said no he said I can't
1:21
believe that a professor would find it
1:23
hard to given to such evidence and I
1:26
said do you believe in evolution and he
1:28
said absolutely I said a theistic
1:31
evolution he said yes I said I can't
1:33
believe that an intelligent fellow will
1:35
I said tell me something
1:37
do you believe time plus matter plus
1:39
chance has produced your brain you know
1:42
any force for a moment I said you know
1:44
time long range of time and I said
1:48
matter you know bouncing up and blah
1:50
blah blah over eons of who lots of
1:53
matter bouncing over lots of time and
1:54
chance I said I really don't know what
1:57
chance means to you I said I've read
2:00
books on the philosophy of chance I said
2:02
but frankly I've come to the conclusion
2:04
that chance is just a catch word to
2:06
explain what you don't understand I said
2:09
if I were to ask you to show me chance
2:11
we can't stand
2:12
window together and you say there goes
2:14
chance see chance doesn't have a body
2:16
I said maybe you take a coin to toss it
2:18
into the air nine times in there oh it
2:19
comes down heads the possibility of it
2:21
coming tails the tenth time is 50-50
2:23
I said chance doesn't have a body
2:25
doesn't have power I said frankly I
2:27
believe chances nothing chances no thing
2:31
I said in just in case you don't know
2:33
what nothing means Aristotle defined
2:36
nothing as that which rocks dream about
2:43
it's a pretty good definition of nothing
2:45
unfortunately had to bring rocks into it
2:48
but it's a pretty good definition of
2:50
nothing you can't conceive of it in your
2:52
mind I said but I'll give it to you time
2:54
plus matter plus chance has created your
2:57
brain
2:58
he said the eye I have to say that I
3:01
said if time plus matter plus chance has
3:03
created your brain then truth as an
3:06
absolute category no longer exists
3:08
because truth by nature is absolute time
3:11
is changing matter is changing chance
3:13
whatever it is is changing you never get
3:16
time matter and chance remaining the
3:18
same if time plus matter plus chance has
3:20
created your brain truth as an absolute
3:22
category no longer exists because if it
3:24
is absolutely truthful statement with
3:26
the Givens it's true on Monday - on
3:28
Tuesday - on Wednesday so on and so
3:30
forth but with the fluctuation and flux
3:32
of time plus matter plus chance truth as
3:34
a category no longer exists he said I
3:37
believe that to be correct I said if
3:40
that is correct how do you know it is
3:42
true that time plus matter plus chance
3:44
has created your brain do you know what
3:48
the boy said to me he said let's get up
3:51
and go he says my field is science not
3:54
philosophy
3:56
I said hey wait a minute wait a minute I
3:59
said we I got you now I'm gonna listen
4:01
to you a little longer I said if I
4:03
looked at you and said my field is
4:05
theology not science you reserve the
4:07
right to laugh at me but when you look
4:09
at me and say my field is science not
4:11
philosophy I'm supposed to accept that
4:13
as a very brilliant response
4:14
I said you spent seven years studying
4:16
one insect in a San Francisco stream in
4:20
order to get that high level
4:21
sophisticated education to produced in
4:24
your dissertation
4:25
you've spent seven years studying that
4:27
tiny little object and you're telling me
4:29
you're not a philosopher I said maybe
4:31
you should read Einstein who said the
4:34
problem with us scientists is that we
4:36
are very poor philosophers and somewhere
4:39
in the foundations of science somewhere
4:42
in the foundations of mathematics
4:44
somewhere in the foundations of physics
4:46
and chemistry and geology and theology
4:49
at the foundation of all of these
4:51
systems are some philosophical
4:53
assumptions which you cannot deny to
4:56
deny them is to assert them when you
4:58
assert them you prove them and you
5:00
cannot deny it without asserting it