I like how Matt answered the question about his belief in the big bang theory with essentially "all the evidence we have points towards the big bang being the most viable hypothesis about the beginning of the universe, but I don't lend complete credence to it; in fact, it's almost certainly at least partially wrong" and eric has the fucking audacity to claim that Matt treats the big bang the same way eric does god

"Can you name a natural law that can give rise to the kind of complexity we see in living cells?" Sure. Electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and gravity. You don't need some secret fifth thing for things that exist to exist.

"Can you name a natural law that allows for shells to be arranged perfectly so that they read 'I love you, Matt?'" Again with the "natural law" nonsense. Yeah, there are natural _processes_ that can arrange shells in that orientation. The vast majority of the time, when we see human-readable English text, it was written by a human. Sometimes we see it randomly occur though. Given enough time and space, there have surely been countless short english phrases written in the sand with seashells that were placed there through purely natural ocean currents and wind. It's not impossible. It's simply far more likely for an English written phrase to be written by an English speaker, in a time and a place where there are likely to be people who speak English nearby. Contrast that with seeing a very clear image of a face on another planet. Given a lack of intelligent people nearby to construct it, it becomes far more likely to be a result of natural land formations, and as it turns out, further investigation revealed that to be the case with the face on Mars. As far as we can tell, there wasn't any intelligent creator a few billion years ago putting As and Ts and Cs and Gs together. Give a lack of evidence for there being any intelligent beings at the time, it becomes far more likely to be the result of random chance. A random chance which becomes far more likely to happen _at some point_ given the vast amount of water, nutrients, and energy input available at the time.

I have heard respected Christian scholars say the same thing as a possible answer. It's insane how dishonest you have to be to pretend there aren't natural answers to these supernatural claims!

Tell me you can't refute Matt's arguments without saying it

He's definitely up there bc of the smug arrogance. Matt Slick is way high up on that totem as well. You can tell Matt Slick fancies himself as very well versed in philosophy; meanwhile he stumbles into fallacies frequently with no ability to recognize it

Because it was his radio show at the time. Sponsors were necessary to operate. He just didn’t bother to edit out before reposting.

Yeah same guy

Yip, I had to do the same. I listened to Eric's opening and that was all I could handle of his arrogance and condescension. He seems like a total asshole and I feel sorry for anyone that has to interact with him on a daily basis. Yikes.

Yeah I started skipping through when he started talking. Not worth my time to hear that many fallacies 😂

They think science works like a courtroom and are too ignorant to realize this. All the rightwing wackos like Ben Shapiro et. al, do the same thing.