I find it very funny that you failed to make an intelligent rebuttal, Kirby, and instead fell back on Pascal's Wager by trying to scare us with the uncertainty of death.  That's the tactic that creationists run to when they're out of arguments.

You're on the ropes, Kirb.

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

And, if we're right, the Believers will be even more surprised when they realize all their effort in trying to go to their imaginary magical kingdom of God was for naught...

---

"Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo"
I will f*** you in the ass and mouth
Catullus, XVI

Things do sound more profound in Latin...

It's okay. I know what I believe is right. All your rationalizations can't take that away. All your goofy attempts to vitrify and shatter my belief and negate what I say don't really matter. God exists whether you believe in him or not. And I wasn't trying to scare anyone with the "some of us will be surprised" thing. It's true, we can't both be right. Until the day comes when the truth is revealed, I will continue to believe what I do, no matter what.

Oh, you know, eh?  What do you know?  You know, it's funny you should say that, because the bulk of your bullschtick creationist argument a few pages back was largely argued from ignorance; the lack of knowledge.  The fallacy of "I don't know, so God did it."  How do you conduct a test that determines that God performed a miracle or started life?  Since when are you allowed to assert an absolute conclusion from a lack of knowledge?

When you said, "don't try to prove me wrong with facts about evolution", were you admitting that you could be proven wrong with facts about evolution?  Just wondering.

Look, Kirby.  If you know so much, how about a rebuttal to some of my points?  How can we see objects that are billions of lightyears away in a universe that's only 6000 years old?  If the sun and moon are the great lights in the sky, how come there are stars bigger than our sun?  How could God have missed the point, when "inspiring" the Bible, that the moon isn't actually a light?  Why does God not bother mentioning that he apparently made eight other planets in the solar system?  For that matter, why is there no planetary system even mentioned in the Bible?  Why is it so geocentric?

What do you know about radiometric dating, and why do you suppose that the dates given with it are so consistantly accurate?  (i.e., T-Rex will always be 65 to 70 million years old and Stegasaurus will always date up around 200 million years ago)  How could these "inaccurate" dating methods always be so on-the-mark when dating specific animals from specific eras?  And why are fossils in rock strata so specific?  You think they got that way by chance?  Why did you assume that geologists use carbon 14 dating?  Do you know anything about geology?

What is a spirit?  What is "supernatural"?  Are there coherent answers to these questions?  Why do God's attributes contradict?  How can he have free will and know the future at the same time?

I'll await your rebuttal, Kirby.

...unless yer yellah!

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

*is vastly enjoying this*

*points out another "wrong man's last stand" from Kirby*

He didn't want to be proven wrong, so he just said, "Fine, I know I'm right." In other words, "I can't keep up! I can't argue this! You win, you win!"

---

Come, see Neko Girl Jessica's Place, a haven for RPers everywhere!

When arguing whether or not creationism should be mentioned in science classes in schools, both sides of the debate admit that the existance of god absolutley cannot be prove OR disproven. Being based mainly on faith and morality, and existing of some other realm of thought that human beings can't totally grab, religious beliefs are not something to be proven or disproven anyway. They are called religious BELIEFS for a reason.

That is a weak argument.  That assertion is a tragic flaw of intellect that, unfortunately, even a lot of atheists cave into.  If you assert the existence a being whose attributes contradict, then that being cannot exist.  All arguments of God are contradictive.  All-knowing/all-powerful; you can't have it.  All-just/all-merciful... That contradicts.
In fact, the very foundation of creationism/intelligent design is based on a contradictive assertion that complexity can only be specified and therefore a complex, unseen being must have created it.  That's a contradiction!  Complexity requires complexity to create it?  Where does that paradox end?

The only grounds under which it is impossible to prove a negative is if nothing contradicts.  For example, if I told you I was in Idaho even though I was standing in front of you, that's a contradiction, and you could prove a negative.  If I told you something that was unknowable in all respects, you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong.
To make a non-disprovable argument for a God, you'd have to make more of a Deist argument and assert a being that is non-descript and vague in being and origin.  That's the kind of negative that you can't prove.

You know, I've come to the realization that religious tollerence only goes so far.  Religion should not get in the way of the free exchange of information provided by scientific research, the way Christianity has tried to do with evolution.  If they're going to do that, if they really want to be on "equal grounds", then they're open to the same level of scrutiny.  If they want to battle science, then they're going under the microscope, too.

I'm willing to help tear down the theological bias in this country in the name of knowledge, because that seems to be the only thing stopping it, and that's pretty damn sad.

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

*applauds Mr. Neil*

Sir, you are my hero.

I mean that. I love to debate subjects like religion, and I'm usually the leader in the debate. But you have managed to take charge and have provided arguments even I couldn't think up.

---

Come, see Neko Girl Jessica's Place, a haven for RPers everywhere!

I listen to Doug Krueger.

It is not intellectually tenable to continue to believe things that have been shown to be false by every field of scientific study in existence.  It is not intellectually honest to argue from a stance of ignorance.  Creationists and fundamentalist Christians do both.

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

"What do you know?  How do you conduct a test that determines that God performed a miracle or started life?  Since when are you allowed to assert an absolute conclusion from a lack of knowledge? How can we see objects that are billions of lightyears away in a universe that's only 6000 years old?  If the sun and moon are the great lights in the sky, how come there are stars bigger than our sun?  How could God have missed the point, when "inspiring" the Bible, that the moon isn't actually a light?  Why does God not bother mentioning that he apparently made eight other planets in the solar system? For that matter, why is there no planetary system even mentioned in the Bible?  Why is it so geocentric? What do you know about radiometric dating, and why do you suppose that the dates given with it are so consistantly accurate?  How could these "inaccurate" dating methods always be so on-the-mark when dating specific animals from specific eras?  And why are fossils in rock strata so specific?  You think they got that way by chance?  Why did you assume that geologists use carbon 14 dating?  Do you know anything about geology? What is a spirit?  What is "supernatural"?  Are there coherent answers to these questions?  Why do God's attributes contradict?  How can he have free will and know the future at the same time? What is your favorite color? What is the cosine of .01378? Why can't the male pancake bird remember the future? Who is buried in Grant's tomb? What is the meaning of life? What is the purpose of meaning? What is the meaning of meaning? Who is your favorite band? Is the Bill of Rights really giving US citizens rights? Why don't you know all the answers? Huh, why? If a train leaves Boston at 8:45 going south at 65 mph and a train leaves Ney York going North at 75 mph, where will they collide?"

Whoa...calm down. Mr. Niel, please, I'm only human. Now, about what I know. Well, it's hard to describe, and even harder to expect you to understand, but I will try. I don't have blind faith. I have a relationship with God that I have felt and lived. It is something I have experienced. It's something you can't understand unless you have a fellowship with God. That being said, I really find it silly that web comic geeks from around the US think that by speculating with other web comic geeks that they will be able to solve the eternal questions of life. Let's not be ignorant here. It's fun to have an intelectual fist fight, but to expect anything out of it would be just plain stupid.

"Whoa...calm down. Mr. Niel, please, I'm only human."

I am calm.  I'm enjoying this debate.  You came in here flapping your gums.  Show us what you know.  Answer some of my questions.

"Now, about what I know. Well, it's hard to describe, and even harder to expect you to understand, but I will try. I don't have blind faith. I have a relationship with God that I have felt and lived. It is something I have experienced. It's something you can't understand unless you have a fellowship with God."

When you say "relationship", what do you mean?  Do you know him personally?  Does he talk to you?  Does he speak English?  Do you know what the power of suggestion is?  How do you know that you're not deceiving yourself.
The human race is a pattern-seeking species.  We search for meanings and connections.  We look for patterns.  We see two things that seem like they're connected and we rush all too quickly to assume what we want to believe.  People pray for miracles, and if anything good happens that day, they attribute it to God.  It's absurd!
That's not evidence.  That's your mind assigning a false cause to something that you wanted to believe was incredible.

"That being said, I really find it silly that web comic geeks from around the US think that by speculating with other web comic geeks that they will be able to solve the eternal questions of life."

Are you going to debate the people debating the argument are going to debate the argument?  Does anyone else smell a red herring?
I'm still wondering what it is that you think you know, because I've laid down just a taste my knowledge of geology and sciences, and I have references and have studied these things for years, and you don't even know what the theory of evolution is or how geologists even date rocks.  You specifically said carbon dating.  If you knew anything about geology, you would have known that they don't use that.  Yet, you think you can open your big mouth and debate these things like you're some kind of expert.

"Let's not be ignorant here. It's fun to have an intelectual fist fight, but to expect anything out of it would be just plain stupid. I'll be taking your soul now!"

It sounds like you're backing out of this discussion, because you have nothing.  You were the one who marched into this topic and started spouting your creationist psychobabble, and when I called you on it and exposed your ignorance, you failed to provide an intelligent rebuttal.  This is the third time you've responded with nothing to say for yourself except vague nonsense.

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

Okay, okay, okay, I'll come up with some food for thought.

World renouned Molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton concluded: "Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced [twentieth century technology appears] clumsy. . . . It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate."

About the age of the earth. There is much evidence that points to a very old earth. I do not deny this. There is everything from the thickness of coral reefs to findings using the Isochron method. However, there is also evidence that points to a young earth. The thickness of the earth's ocean floors is too thin. In addition to this, the decay rate of the earth's magnetic field is too fast. The total energy stored in the Earth's magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years. According to this data, collected by London geologists, the paleomagnetic properties the earth is showing now would make it about 10,000 years old. From all the research I've done, I can find reliable data pointing to both old and new, but will naturally lean to the new side, duh.

About light ect. How can we see light from stars bizzilions (scientific term) of miles away if the earth is young? Well, it is a commonly accepted fact that the universe is expanding. The light emmited when it was young and small would exist today. Therefore, even as the stars speed away, they are leaving a "trail" of light that is moving towards us. If they started doing this at the beginning, and continued constantly then we could see light today from stars ligh years away. Right?

Where is this going? I'm shifting strategies. Basically I'm trying to prove that there is evidence in the world that is identical to what can be found in the Bible. That's just a little bit right now. I'll have more later. Talk to you later Mr. Niel.

"World renouned Molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton..."

Because you said so, right?

"...concluded: "Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced [twentieth century technology appears] clumsy. . . . It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate."

So basically, he's using the arbitrary "too much complexity" argument, which is... again... a paradox of reason, thus making it illogical.  That is his subjective analysis which he provides no mechanical testability for.
It's a shame that you chose to quote from Michael Denton, because in Michael's book, "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", he misquotes Darwin.  A lot.  He also seems to think that Darwin thought up natural selection while he was on the Galapagos.  Darwin didn't even begin to grasp the concept of natural selection until well after he got back to England.
He basically falls back on all of the typical creationist holes of logic, such as the complexity of the human eye, which is a boring creationist argument that has been refuted so many times.  He argues that the human eye could not have evolved, because of the old "half an eye is no good" line.  He blatantly ignores that there are transitional forms of eyes in nature that range from light sensative cells to eyes developed well beyond the complexity of our own eyes.  Science and nature can and do have answered this question, and idiots like Michael Denton go on spouting long-disproven garbage.
Read some pro-evolution books for a change.

"The thickness of the earth's ocean floors is too thin."

That makes no sense, unless you're referring to that old "sedament" argument that's been dubunked for about ten years...
Plate tectonics.  The sedement is consistent with the age of the ocean floor in relation to plates moving.  For example, at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, where new sedament is forming, the thickness of sedement is ZERO.
It is well known that the ocean floor is not as old as the Earth itself, but so what?  Does that prove that the Earth itself must be younger?  The layer of sedament at continental margins are up around 150 million years worth of sedament.  Scientists have used radiometric dating to test the predicted estamates of the age of the sea floor, and all measurements are consistent with each other.
Real scientists have done their homework.  What have creationists done with this information to show that their hypothesis works?  Hmm?!

"In addition to this, the decay rate of the earth's magnetic field is too fast. The total energy stored in the Earth's magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years. According to this data, collected by London geologists, the paleomagnetic properties the earth is showing now would make it about 10,000 years old."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!  Doesn't creationism have some sort of system of checks and balances to throw out old, stupid arguments that have been long disproven?  Oh wait!  That's right!  Creationism doesn't have peer review!
The Earth's magnetic field has been known to fluctuate in intensity and reverse in polarity throughout Earth's history.  This assertion also relies upon an obsolete model of the Earth's interior, which models it as a spherical conductor rather than a dynamo.

"From all the research I've done, I can find reliable data pointing to both old and new, but will naturally lean to the new side, duh."

If you think people like Michael Denton are reliable, then I have serious doubts about your sources.

"About light ect. How can we see light from stars bizzilions (scientific term) of miles away if the earth is young? Well, it is a commonly accepted fact that the universe is expanding. The light emmited when it was young and small would exist today. Therefore, even as the stars speed away, they are leaving a "trail" of light that is moving towards us. If they started doing this at the beginning, and continued constantly then we could see light today from stars ligh years away. Right?"

No.  That made no sense at all.  Here's how lightspeed works.  We're seeing Andromeda right now as a star system that is 2.2 million lightyears away.  That means that when it made the light that we're seeing right now, it was already 2.2 million lightyears away, because it took 2.2 million lightyears to even get here.  What you're proposing is that the andromeda system started much closer, such as 10,000 lightyears away, if we are to believe that the universe is 10,000 years old.
That doesn't make sense, because THEN we'd be seeing it as a star system that is 10,000 light years away.  By contrast, our own Milky Way galaxy is 90,000 lightyears across.  If the light from Andromeda was 10,000 lightyears away, it wouldn't be a spec in the sky.  It would HOG the sky.  It would be right on top of us, because even if the system itself was really 2.2 million lightyears away now, if it was 10,000 lightyears away 10,000 years ago, we'd be seeing it as if it was 10,000 lightyears away.

"Where is this going? I'm shifting strategies."

I'm trying to make you think.

"Basically I'm trying to prove that there is evidence in the world that is identical to what can be found in the Bible."

Then you've already lost.  There is no evidence of a global flood.  In fact, there's much evidence to the contrary.  The stratification of rock layers and the precision of fossils layed in these layers and the dating of these layers are all consistent with each other and with ancient earth theories.  You can't have a young universe if things are millions of lightyears away and we can see them.
You can't break the laws of physics just to have it your way.  You are wrong, and you will continue to be wrong.  You know why?  Because you're not basing your argument on knowledge.  You're basing it on the desire to prove that the Bible must be right.  A priori.

"That's just a little bit right now. I'll have more later."

I hope that when you bring more, you don't bring any literature by Behe, Gish, or Hovind, unless you're a masochist and enjoy watching me tear apart creationist lies, rhetoric, and quote-mining.

---

Comic · Community · DeviantArt

Every old religion has references to a Great Flood that either did sweep through the land or would sweep through it. Now, this may seem like evidence towards the Flood, but it's actually the contrary. These are religions from back when the greatest farmland was a valley. The writers of these stories needed the greatest travesty that they could think of, and at that time, it was a flood, because the peoples of that time had no defenses against a flood.

---

Come, see Neko Girl Jessica's Place, a haven for RPers everywhere!

Let's not fall into speculation.