NightLine Debate- Does God Exist?

NomineZERO
NomineZERO's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-11-08
User is offlineOffline
NightLine Debate- Does God Exist?

Hi, I just hope I've opened that topic on the right place, and that there isn't already a same topic opened anywhere. But I couldn't find the search button... Maybe you don't have it, maybe I'm just blind... But ok, let's go to what I so long to comment about that video that I saw on youtube.

Well there were actually 2 things that were un-answeared in that debate.

1.- Brian (I hope I've got the name right... If not, please correct me, as I didn't know about yor existence untill just recently) noted there that we all are transitional forms, and the moderator and the 2 dumb (sorry but I had to say that...) oponents didn't understand what of are we transitional forms... Well I think that I got it whyt you meant:

We all are the transitional forms from our parents and our children, and it's just as easy as that, we look pretty much like our parents, and our children look pretty much like us (I personly don't have children yet, but I hope they'll look a bit like I do Sticking out tongue, to be sure they're mine  Laughing out loud... Joke). So we're the transitional forms between those 2 generations...

And I think it was really a stupid question from Kirk to ask you to name some transitional forms, and then as you told a pretty good answear, he dared to ask again: "Transitional forms of what?"

Well If he wants to have all the transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds... Well that's like asking: "Name me all the people in your family tree for the last few millions of years." I mean... it sounded as he wanted you to start naming a velociraptor: Strasky, who had a son named Hutch, and he a daughter named Ritta, and she a son named... etc.... for generations of millions of years.

Ok, maybe I got a bit off the point here... Actually, why didn't Brian just say that we're a transitional form between our parents and our children? Would be a good answear, and if it wouldn't shut them up, the'd proove them selfs idiots anyway...

2.- Ok, that was the worst... In that part Roy or Ray and ALSO THE MODERATOR made idiots of themselfs... An elderly woman asked: If our body is so perfect, if that biological body is so perfect, how does he explain cancer then. The woman reasked him often about CANCER and not other diseases, untill the moderator steped in and said that Ray is trying to answear that question...

But why didn't anybody in the hall note that the woman picked cancer because it's not a bacterial or viral disease or something like that, but because it's actually a MALFUNCTION OF OUR PERFECT BIOLOGICAL MASCHIENE.

Because of that part I think that eweryone in the audience that has at least a bit of brain should have been converted away from creationism, not by Brian and Kelly but by the stupidity of Kirk and Roy or Ray or whatewer...

 

Well I just had to mention those two things as they didn't let me rest Sticking out tongue And I'd also like to ask if anyone else has noticed those two things, and what do you think about it Sticking out tongue

 

WARNING!--------------------------------------WARNING!

Idiocracy is real, it's just disguised as creationism!

WARNING!--------------------------------------WARNING!


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliate
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
HI NomineZero and welcome to

HI NomineZero and welcome to the RRS forums!

Ya, there are several threads for this subject already-

On the left side of your window you should see something like this:

The search function is powered by google so it isn't a "search button" like many other forums.

I suggest you search using that function, you will find many 'nightline debate' threads that you can contribute to. Not to say that you won't have anyone respond to your post here  Smiling

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


NomineZERO
NomineZERO's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-11-08
User is offlineOffline
thnx

Thanks for your fast answear. I'm not used to rapid answears from moderators on any other forums, so I have to say, good work you're doing here.

And for the search, well, you're right it's not as I'm used to, but I'll know it for the next time. I also won't minde if you move this post.

Oh, and thanks for welcoming me also Eye-wink

WARNING!--------------------------------------WARNING!

Idiocracy is real, it's just disguised as creationism!

WARNING!--------------------------------------WARNING!


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 For the cancer question,

 For the cancer question, Ray Comfort was originally arguing that we know there is a creator because our bodies are perfect. Then, of course, the woman asked, "What about cancer?" Comfort then proceeded to respond (eventually) with the fall of man argument.

*facepalm*

Um, Mr. Comfort, if we have disease, genetic mutations, get cavities, and have to wear glasses due to original sin, then how the hell did you conclude that our bodies were perfect in the first place? Oh, let me, the Holy Bible!

edit: I suppose that I will respond to the first segment as well. Brian answered the question on transitional forms with a brilliant one-liner; unfortunately, about half of the people in the room were too uneducated to understand the response. Brian probably should have explained more about how evolution actually works, so that the Creationists in the room could understand why we are all transitional forms. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4246
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:edit: I

butterbattle wrote:

edit: I suppose that I will respond to the first segment as well. Brian answered the question on transitional forms with a brilliant one-liner; unfortunately, about half of the people in the room were too uneducated to understand the response. Brian probably should have explained more about how evolution actually works, so that the Creationists in the room could understand why we are all transitional forms. 

i really felt for sapient trying to argue with dingtard and fuckbat about transitional forms, especially after mike seaver took out his precious laminated photoshop creations.  there are some arguments that are just so "what the fuck!?" that they're almost impossible to argue against without essentially reeducating your opponent from kindergarten up.  i mean, when someone says something like, "yeah, wiseass?  well, if darwin was right, why can't we see a fuckin' frog with horns, huh?  come on, answer me that!", how do you counter that???  where the fuck do you even begin????  one cannot use rational argument against complete, chaotic absurdity, at least not in a timely manner.  i was impressed with how sapient handled it.  my head would have exploded.

and the worst part is, when theists ask these absurd questions that nobody is trying to answer, like "why are there no crocoducks?", and then of course you can't respond without tripping over your words in utter shock, they chalk it up as a victory to their superior logic.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
That's when you get out a

That's when you get out a rubber stamp that says "FUCKTARD" , dip it in ink and apply it to their forehead.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


NomineZERO
NomineZERO's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-11-08
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:butterbattle

iwbiek wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

edit: I suppose that I will respond to the first segment as well. Brian answered the question on transitional forms with a brilliant one-liner; unfortunately, about half of the people in the room were too uneducated to understand the response. Brian probably should have explained more about how evolution actually works, so that the Creationists in the room could understand why we are all transitional forms. 

i really felt for sapient trying to argue with dingtard and fuckbat about transitional forms, especially after mike seaver took out his precious laminated photoshop creations.  there are some arguments that are just so "what the fuck!?" that they're almost impossible to argue against without essentially reeducating your opponent from kindergarten up.  i mean, when someone says something like, "yeah, wiseass?  well, if darwin was right, why can't we see a fuckin' frog with horns, huh?  come on, answer me that!", how do you counter that???  where the fuck do you even begin????  one cannot use rational argument against complete, chaotic absurdity, at least not in a timely manner.  i was impressed with how sapient handled it.  my head would have exploded.

and the worst part is, when theists ask these absurd questions that nobody is trying to answer, like "why are there no crocoducks?", and then of course you can't respond without tripping over your words in utter shock, they chalk it up as a victory to their superior logic.

Well that part with those pictures was the worst... I agree on that for sure. But that part was so stupid I don't even think it's worth mentioning... I hope a first grader can see how stupid Kirk is with his freaking combos...

 

To butterbattle: Well yeah, it was a good one liner but, also as you said it, most of the people were to dumb to understand it. That's why I really avaited him to say what we're transitional forms of... I mean yeah, he most probably meant transitional forms from our ape like ancestors and something that we'll evolve in, but in fact, it would be also good to mention that we're a transitional forms between our parents and our children.

If you're talking to kids you have to tell it so that kids understand it. And if you talk to creationists, you just have to dumb it down for them...

But really, I do hate the part where the moderator shut up the woman with the cancer question. That was such a good question...

WARNING!--------------------------------------WARNING!

Idiocracy is real, it's just disguised as creationism!

WARNING!--------------------------------------WARNING!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15917
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kirk and Ray faild from the

Kirk and Ray faild from the start by saying that they would prove the existance of  God WITHOUT using the bible, but went on to quote the bible.

This debate was NOT a scientific academic debate. It was a tool for Brian to SHOW the ridiculous logic  theists use and the lengths they will go to use buzz terminology to justify myth.

"IF" Kirk wants to argue "transitional forums" watch him run if we take that same terminology and apply it to his god. What emperical transitional forms can he demonstrate that lead to his god? Kirk is still left with "POOF", and has no choice to cop out to his book of myth.

Unlike his god, science has DNA to show the links between humans and transitional species (the correct term would be common ancestors), EVEN IF, we have not found the bones of every single transition.

Kirk is not defending science by using prior science. He is attempting to retrofit science to fit his mythology.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37