Jump to content

Kirk Cameron On O'reilly


Recommended Posts

i was thinking about staying up to watch the "kirk cameron proves god exists" debate on nightline tonight, but after just catching him on the o'reilly factor i won't bother. for some reason i was expecting him to at least be versed in lewis-esque semi-intellectual theological philosophy. instead he's just another creationist clown.o'reilly: what is your proof god exists?cameron: the human eye is more complex than that camera so it had to be designed,plus evolution is false because there are no transitional fossils *holds up pictureof a crocodile head on a duck's body*

Link to post
Share on other sites
So you actually thought that there was going to be proof on the O'Reilly Factor and now you're bummed that God didn't show up via satellite?
no, i'm pointing out that the debate will likely be at such an intellectually low level that it will be a waste of time for anyone here to watch (except maybe lois :club: ).
Link to post
Share on other sites
no, i'm pointing out that the debate will likely be at such an intellectually low level that it will be a waste of time for anyone here to watch (except maybe lois :club: ).
I just watched it. I wanna get one of those CrocoDucks!Cameron sure did show up with the goods!
Link to post
Share on other sites
i was thinking about staying up to watch the "kirk cameron proves god exists" debate on nightline tonight, but after just catching him on the o'reilly factor i won't bother. for some reason i was expecting him to at least be versed in lewis-esque semi-intellectual theological philosophy. instead he's just another creationist clown.o'reilly: what is your proof god exists?cameron: the human eye is more complex than that camera so it had to be designed,plus evolution is false because there are no transitional fossils *holds up pictureof a crocodile head on a duck's body*
So, Obviously you haven't seen this....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Behind:_The_MovieCarmeron's crack pot fundamentalist views caused great strain on Growing pains, and has steer'd him since towards crackpot post-rapture movies, along with crackpot evangelical ministry. I became a little fascinated with the crackpot nature of Kirk's xianity when I saw "Left Behind: the movie" aka the most unintentionally hilarious movie I've ever seen.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The O'Reilly thing was a result of a series on ABC.Here's a youtube link to part 1 of the ABC show, there are six parts, about an hour long in total for all 6 parts. (the other 5 parts are in the related links scroll)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-unh4KXBTo
ABC has the whole debate posted too.http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1
Link to post
Share on other sites
So, Obviously you haven't seen this....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Behind:_The_MovieCarmeron's crack pot fundamentalist views caused great strain on Growing pains, and has steer'd him since towards crackpot post-rapture movies, along with crackpot evangelical ministry. I became a little fascinated with the crackpot nature of Kirk's xianity when I saw "Left Behind: the movie" aka the most unintentionally hilarious movie I've ever seen.
I would rip on you......except I may or may not have seen Left Behind : The Movie on the crazy xtian channel. Oh and I also may or may not have watched LEft Behind 2 because they showed them back to back. they sure put the fun back in fundamentalist. he-yuck.
Link to post
Share on other sites
ABC has the whole debate posted too.http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1
I think there is a part two that's on tonight.In my opinion, both sides did a TERRIBLE job. To judge a winner of this "debate" is simply picking the one who was "less bad".The religion camp immediately failed when they started to dismissively codify things like the existence of hell as being "common sense". Sorry, religious person. The existence of a supernatural plan used to punish sinning souls isn't exactly so well founded in fact that we can just call it "common sense" and move on.The atheist camp went to crap for a few reasons. First, the girl, while hot, was a terrible presenter. Secondly, stupid sophomoric insults like comparing peoples belief in the existence of a god to "the flying Spaghetti monster" might cause a few droolers in the audience to snicker, but it makes you look stupid. There are a number of different kinds of religions people just as there are a number of different kind of atheists. The ugliest kind of religious person is the blind, ignorant one. The ugliest kind of atheist is the one whose atheism isn't rooted in anything particularly compelling, but rather is an apparent extension of their dislike for the concept of "rules". The fact is, religion is right in your face about a concept of right and wrong. There are people out there who are relativists to their bones, thus the structural precepts of religion are so offensive to them that they absolutely foam at the mouth with their hatred for anything religious. They rarely make a compelling case on their own merits, rather, they simply stand as a yin to the religious yang. Their premises are intellectually vapid and borderline obnoxious. No, atheist, they cannot show you the "universe factory" and you aren't "cute" for asking to see it.This whole debate was remarkably stupid.I've met brilliant religious people and I've met brilliant atheists. The people involved in these debates don't even begin to approach this level of discussion. (but that redhead with the big boobies sure was hot)
Link to post
Share on other sites
This whole debate was remarkably stupid.I've met brilliant religious people and I've met brilliant atheists. The people involved in these debates don't even begin to approach this level of discussion.
for the most part the intellectual level of the debate didn't begin to approach the level of discussion we have here in this forum, which is pretty sad. the anti-evolution arguments were retarded, but the atheist dude's attempt to explain transitional fossils in light of the gradual nature of evolution was equally pathetic. seems like the atheists are dawkins/harris groupies without concisely formed ideas of their own. also they were unnecessarily annoyed at times (like they shouldn't know exactly what to expect) and some of their responses were muddled because of it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I would rip on you......except I may or may not have seen Left Behind : The Movie on the crazy xtian channel. Oh and I also may or may not have watched LEft Behind 2 because they showed them back to back. they sure put the fun back in fundamentalist. he-yuck.
Oh man, i'm so jealous! I want to see two SO badly... Word around the campfire is that number three has come out.
Link to post
Share on other sites
kirk.pngcarlin.jpg"RELIGION IS BULLSH!T!!! ANDKIRK CAMERON IS AN ARSEHOLE!!!!"
I like the second frame where he talks about the earth being a sphere. He must not realize the bible mentions that, oddly before anyone knew.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the second frame where he talks about the earth being a sphere. He must not realize the bible mentions that, oddly before anyone knew.
no it doesn't. the verse you refer to says round, not sphere. many humans from early civilizations thought the earth was disc-shaped, so there's no mystery to that. by my count that's the 5th time someone has pointed that out to you in this forum.
Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you watch it?
It's a very biased side of the video, but go to rationalresponders.com . Rational Responders is an atheist group from PA bent on responding to irrational claims by religion.I guess it's an interesting group, but you can, at least, see part of the debate.An overall view of the debate is that RR "won" significantly, but what do you expect when Kirk Cameron is claiming to be able to prove god scientifically?
Link to post
Share on other sites

What struck me was how utterly weak the theists were at debating. The use the fact that a thing won't come to be without a creator all the time but fail to see that those are dead things as opposed to organisms that actually have the ability to evolve AND create themselves. Who created me? Well, my mom and dad, not god...

Link to post
Share on other sites
What struck me was how utterly weak the theists were at debating. The use the fact that a thing won't come to be without a creator all the time but fail to see that those are dead things as opposed to organisms that actually have the ability to evolve AND create themselves. Who created me? Well, my mom and dad, not god...
Who created Mom and Dad? Who created the various systems that make Mom and Dad run? Who created the systems that support Mom and Dad outside of what is Mom and Dad? It is so obvious there is some sort of intellect behind these things I can't even fathom the idea that anybody can be that blind.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Who created Mom and Dad? Who created the various systems that make Mom and Dad run? Who created the systems that support Mom and Dad outside of what is Mom and Dad? It is so obvious there is some sort of intellect behind these things I can't even fathom the idea that anybody can be that blind.
It is not obvious that there is some sort of intellect behind those things and there are plenty of possible reasons presented towards the opposite of what you say.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j0a4Tkjwpshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aiAtnTJxRo...ted&search=It's a long debate, but the atheists, clearly, presented many more plausible possibilities which negate the existence of the need for a creator. This debate also destroys Michael Corey (author of "God Hypothesis") and shows this fanatic's true colors. The man is horrific at making public lies about science and gives no substantive evidence for any of the claims he makes.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...