If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Dallas News)   Jesus will not be riding his dinosaur in Texas   (dallasnews.com) divider line 908
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

26976 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2009 at 9:02 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



908 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-26 10:28:47 PM
stuhayes2010: Shouldn't good teachers cover the strengths and weaknesses of all theories?

If this were really about teaching Texas schoolchildren the strengths and weaknesses of various scientific theories through the practice of the scientific method, I would answer yes. But the "strengths and weaknesses" language is simply an attempt on the part of religious fundamentalists to sneak intelligent design and evangelism into Texas classrooms. If the state can muddy the definition of the scientific method, then fundie teachers can't get in trouble for introducing non-scientific concepts into their classes.
 
2009-03-26 10:29:10 PM
Let's not spend this thread arguing with idiots about the fact of evolution.

Let's spend it mocking them for being stupider than people in Texas.
 
2009-03-26 10:29:10 PM
zeph`: 4. If a god comes to exist at any time he will exist in all times.

This was a great pull out of your ass!

TOTAL FAIL!
 
2009-03-26 10:29:20 PM
zeph`: 1. God directed evolution.

Why is God always directing evolution? Far more reasonable to argue that god created the rule-set in which evolution was possible and merely allowed the algorithmic function to run its course.
 
2009-03-26 10:29:24 PM
I have been out of school for years and don't have any kids in Texas schools so I don't care what they teach.
 
2009-03-26 10:29:29 PM
Pharque-it: Anyone that says he accepts the Theory of Evolution, and also claims he believes in God, is a liar. He does not believe in the God of the Bible who created all things and all life in an instant.

The Religion of Love and Compassion. What BS!!!

Define INSTANT.

Atheist version:
Anyone that says he accepts God, and also claims he believes in the Theory of Evolution, is an OK person. He does not agree with the Bible Theory, that all things and all life were created in an instant.


Instead of responding, simply look at the cartoons he posts at the end of his cut and paste rants.

Then hit yourself in the head for not getting what's going on.
 
2009-03-26 10:29:52 PM
bartink: You have zero evidence that its possible at all.

Zero evidence? More like.. infinite evidence. All of creation's worth of evidence.
 
2009-03-26 10:31:17 PM
Pharque-it: This was a great pull out of your ass!

Defining a god along classical lines, he would presumably have the power to exist at any time or all times. If a god ever comes to exist there is no reason that he wouldn't instantly exist at all points in time.
 
2009-03-26 10:31:27 PM
CDP

Best Troll Evar!! Or....
 
2009-03-26 10:31:45 PM
zeph`: Zero evidence? More like.. infinite evidence. All of creation's worth of evidence.

Circular argument. There is evidence of a something that created this because its here. Its really only evidence of a universe. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
2009-03-26 10:32:16 PM
ninjakirby: CDP: Link (new window)

lol, from that site: "Evolution is a Religion - the Worship of a Make Believe Time-god."


Make believe time god? Like, Grandfather Time or something? Maybe Tiamat from Dungeons and Dragons...


Tiamat's a real goddess, dumbass.

She was the mother of all the gods, and ate most of them because they kept waking her up with their incessant noise.
 
2009-03-26 10:32:46 PM
Pharque-it: CDP: Link

Anyone that says he accepts the Theory of Evolution, and also claims he believes in God, is a liar. He does not believe in the God of the Bible who created all things and all life in an instant.


Last time I read the Bible, it was 6 days, not instantaneously. And that only really account for Earth, or at the most our solar system, It doesn't get into stuff beyond that.

heinekenftw: The idea is that God created the world with scientific principles such as Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution (the Big Three as I like to call them). He caused the initial expansion of the big bang and guided the process until we arrive at today. Genesis on the other hand is metaphorical.

Actually, the Genesis account could in fact be literal... I believe it's fairly accurate from a point of view on Eath. But most people don't read it the same way I do.

Murkanen: Crazy monk did a math experiment, put the earth's age at 6,672 years old and creationists have been angling anything between that and 10k years as the age of the earth.

So... crazy monk is God now? Hard to keep up with the metaphors.
 
2009-03-26 10:33:06 PM
ninjakirby: Far more reasonable to argue

Wait, is that what we're concerned about now?
 
2009-03-26 10:33:07 PM
zeph`: Defining a god along classical lines, he would presumably have the power to exist at any time or all times. If a god ever comes to exist there is no reason that he wouldn't instantly exist at all points in time.

Sure, that's one possibility.
 
2009-03-26 10:33:20 PM
cthellis: SoxSweepAgain: ARE YOU FARKING KIDDING ME???

Yes.

SoxSweepAgain: /You can't be serious.
//he isn't


OK, cool.
 
2009-03-26 10:34:32 PM
Looks like the people who believe in magic are trying to make Genesis = evolution

/AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
//religion's days are numbered

*reads writing on the wall *
 
2009-03-26 10:34:53 PM
CDP = Bevets (abbreviated)

Bevets devolved into CDP.
 
2009-03-26 10:34:57 PM
zeph`: 1. The odds of a god existing are vanishingly small but positive.

Actually, the odds a single "god" are infinitely small. The odds of at least two, a male and female are much larger, and a entire population is even larger. It explains religious pluralism, and is consistent with the fact that no kind of creature ever seen on Earth consists of a single member. In biology if your species has only one member you're pretty much extinct.
 
2009-03-26 10:35:22 PM
zeph`: Pharque-it: This was a great pull out of your ass!

Defining a god along classical lines, he would presumably have the power to exist at any time or all times. If a god ever comes to exist there is no reason that he wouldn't instantly exist at all points in time.


He might also have a large, uncircumcised, blue penis
 
2009-03-26 10:35:26 PM
ninjakirby: HAH YOU DOGMATIC FOOL YOU HAVE FINALLY REVEALED TO US THE RELIGION THAT IS DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. ONLY A PRIEST OF HIGH KNOWLEDGE ARCANA COULD HAVE ASCERTAINED THIS TRUTH SO QUICKLY.

[Satanic D&D Ritual Panel]

Easily my favorite Chick tract!

img.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-26 10:35:57 PM
bartink: Circular argument.

More like scientific evidence - it's based on observation after all.

bartink: Its really only evidence of a universe.

1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. No things are uncaused.
3. There must be a first cause.
4. That first cause is a god.
5. Evidence of existing things are evidence for the first cause, namely god.
 
2009-03-26 10:36:36 PM
eqtworld: Looks like the people who believe in magic are trying to make Genesis = evolution

/AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
//religion's days are numbered

*reads writing on the wall *


Genesis = creation

Evolution = adaptation

Stop me if I'm going to fast here....
 
2009-03-26 10:38:13 PM
Somacandra: The odds of at least two

Conjunction fallacy? (new window)
 
2009-03-26 10:38:39 PM
zeph`: 1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. No things are uncaused.
3. There must be a first cause.
4. That first cause is a god.
5. Evidence of existing things are evidence for the first cause, namely god.


Your supposed "logic" statements continuously fling logic down and dance on it.
 
2009-03-26 10:39:11 PM
Ludovicus: Tiamat's a real goddess, dumbass.

She was the mother of all the gods, and ate most of them because they kept waking her up with their incessant noise.


Yes, Tiamat is a Babylonian goddess. That's why I included "from Dungeons and Dragons". If there were only one, I wouldn't have needed the qualifier.

wippit: Actually, the Genesis account could in fact be literal... I believe it's fairly accurate from a point of view on Eath. But most people don't read it the same way I do.

So having light before you create the sources of light (stars) is 'fairly accurate'? Do you read it backwards or something?

wippit: So... crazy monk is God now? Hard to keep up with the metaphors.

He's referring to James Ussher who 'calculated' the date of Creation as Sunday October 23, 4004 BC.

We've done a bit better since then.
 
2009-03-26 10:39:24 PM
wippit: eqtworld: Looks like the people who believe in magic are trying to make Genesis = evolution

/AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
//religion's days are numbered

*reads writing on the wall *

Genesis = creation

Evolution = adaptation

Stop me if I'm going to fast here....


you lost me

tell me where the omnipotent being starts talking to people, worrying about pork, and f*cking virgins
 
2009-03-26 10:39:34 PM
zeph`: 1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. No things are uncaused.
3. There must be a first cause.
4. That first cause is a god.
5. Evidence of existing things are evidence for the first cause, namely god.


Then what caused God to exist?
 
2009-03-26 10:39:41 PM
Tie vote. Ugh. Way too close for comfort.

Never ceases to amaze me how the god-of-the-gaps argument still holds so much sway - i.e. "I don't understand how something this complex could evolve, therefore god did it."

/Come on, get with the times
//The bigger science gets, the smaller god gets.
 
2009-03-26 10:39:56 PM
So if an intelligent designer made the whole universe, why did he bother making anything other than the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon? Couldn't we do quite nicely without all the rest of that stuff which makes up far and away the vast majority of the observable universe? It's not like we have any real hope of reaching any other inhabitable planets as the distances are just too great. Wouldn't God's chosen beings be better off without comets and asteroids which have the potential to wipe out all life on Earth?
 
2009-03-26 10:40:18 PM
Damn but you're entertaining, CDP.

Just stay out of public office and your local schoolboard, kplsthx.
 
2009-03-26 10:40:25 PM
Yes, let's teach the weaknesses in EVERYTHING scientific!

Every time a high school physics teacher says that the force of gravity is G * m1m2 / d2, he has to explain that that's only a THEORY, and in fact doesn't explain everything because we can't find the dark matter required to balance the books, and therefore what probably happened is that God created all the planets and stuck them to the celestial sphere and that's what makes them orbit.

It's the same thing.

Part 1: Teach current accepted theory at difficulty appropriate for that level of education.
Part 2: Explain a real weakness in the theory that scientists are currently working on explaining, but which is not proven either way.
Part 3: Imply that because there's one mild weakness in the original theory, it's completely false and in fact God did it.

Watch that last step, she's a doozy.
 
2009-03-26 10:40:49 PM
eqtworld: He might also have a large, uncircumcised, blue penis

1. The odds of a god developing a large, uncircumcised, blue penis is vanishingly small but positive.
2. Given infinite time anything with a positive chance of occurring will occur.
3. A god will have a large, uncircumcised, blue penis after a certain period of time.
4. If a god develops a large, uncircumcised, blue penis comes to exist at any time he will have a large, uncircumcised, blue penis in all times.
5. A god with a large, uncircumcised, blue penis exists currently.
 
2009-03-26 10:40:57 PM
wippit: Genesis = creation

img.photobucket.com

I don't see why Genesis is relevant here.
 
2009-03-26 10:40:58 PM
zeph`: 1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. No things are uncaused.


Prove it.
 
2009-03-26 10:40:59 PM
zeph`:
2. No things are uncaused.
3. There must be a first cause.


Oh Tommy Aquinni, you know that 2 and 3 contradict each other. If no things are uncaused then the "first" cause must also have a cause of it! Not to mention the fact that #1 doesn't even make literal sense.
 
2009-03-26 10:41:58 PM
zeph`: 2. No things are uncaused.

Except your god, of course.
Funny how that works.
 
2009-03-26 10:42:42 PM
Ludovicus: Suck it, repugnitards!

Hey. The majority of the members of the board who voted were Republicans! Seven voted for Jesus Dinosaur Science, but the other three Republicans and four Democrats voted for Actual Science.

So we can't make this a party-split thing. Not all Republicans are for Jesus Dinosaur Science. Just... what seems like the most vocal Republicans, unfortunately.

This is not a Democrats vs. Republicans debate, it is a straight-up debate between:
- teaching our knowledge of the world as it was understood in the Bronze Age
- teaching our knowledge of the world now, with the benefit of centuries of accumulated and widely disseminated scientific knowledge (give Gutenberg a hand, everyone!), greater valuation of rational observation and analysis over religious interpretation for unexplained phenomena, and increasingly advanced techniques of observation and experimentation.

So... let's say instead, Suck it, Bronze Age morons!

And demand that they hand in any technological and scientific innovations that have occurred since Genesis was written. Because they are the worst kind of hypocrites if they deny science in the morning and use their cellphones to text-message in their vote for American Idol in the evening, as if the Bronze Age sheep-herders whose opinions they're relying on for science had f*cking electricity or other modern developments - like all of medicine, cars, guns, running water, or computer machines that show porn on demand (studies show the states who support this kind of creationism-in-science-classrooms consume more porn than anyone else.) Biatches please.
 
2009-03-26 10:43:07 PM
Somacandra: It explains religious pluralism, and is consistent with the fact that no kind of creature ever seen on Earth consists of a single member.

There are some species which propagate themselves via cloning, to a degree. (SCIENCE!)
 
2009-03-26 10:43:32 PM
heinekenftw: Then what caused God to exist?

1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.
2. God is not uncaused.
2. A god has the power to bring himself into existence.
3. God caused God to exist.
 
2009-03-26 10:43:35 PM
zeph`: 2. No things are uncaused.

Dammit!
 
2009-03-26 10:43:49 PM
heinekenftw: Then what caused God to exist?

God's God

/I know what you are going to ask next, answer: God's God's God
//in response to your next question: ITS GODS ALL THE WAY DOWN!!!!

zeph`: eqtworld: He might also have a large, uncircumcised, blue penis

1. The odds of a god developing a large, uncircumcised, blue penis is vanishingly small but positive.
2. Given infinite time anything with a positive chance of occurring will occur.
3. A god will have a large, uncircumcised, blue penis after a certain period of time.
4. If a god develops a large, uncircumcised, blue penis comes to exist at any time he will have a large, uncircumcised, blue penis in all times.
5. A god with a large, uncircumcised, blue penis exists currently.


I KNEW IT

It's July 27 1984....
 
2009-03-26 10:44:04 PM
zeph`: Evolution and creationism. YOU LOSE!

Uh, no. If I build a computer and that computer is used to program the next Mars lander, I can't be said to have been the source of the Mars lander programming. Similarly, even if some flavour of deity poofed evolution as the mechanism to further the development of life, that deity can't be claimed to have created anything. All of the creation was the result of evolution without the aid of the deity beyond the "Here, you do this" at the beginning.
 
2009-03-26 10:44:28 PM
ninjakirby: wippit: Actually, the Genesis account could in fact be literal... I believe it's fairly accurate from a point of view on Eath. But most people don't read it the same way I do.

So having light before you create the sources of light (stars) is 'fairly accurate'? Do you read it backwards or something?


Again, the Bible would be written from the point of view of Earth.

Look at it this way... if you're on the surface of Venus, you have light and dark every day... but you don't ever see the lights doing it because of the atmosphere. If the earth had a similar atmosphere when it first coalesced, you'd have the same thing.
 
2009-03-26 10:44:41 PM
Renart: I don't see why Genesis is relevant here.

They totally went downhill after Phil Collins took over. Well, after Abacab, anyway. Duke didn't suck either...
 
2009-03-26 10:44:45 PM
shipofthesun: Your supposed "logic" statements continuously fling logic down and dance on it.

My logic is perfect, your bias causes you to reject my premises. That you do not view my arguments as sound is not my problem.
 
2009-03-26 10:44:46 PM
zeph`: 3. God caused God to exist.

Ok, but what didn't cause God to unexist then?
 
2009-03-26 10:45:01 PM
zeph`: Somacandra: The odds of at least two

Conjunction fallacy? (new window)


No. You and WIki misunderstand the Conjunction Fallacy. You are assuming two of something is more "specific" than one. Circular reasoning on your part.
 
2009-03-26 10:45:40 PM
This whole thing reminds me of the Theist Luddite Ending of BattleStar:God.
 
2009-03-26 10:46:14 PM
Um why does CDP post these long semi nonsensical arguments against evolution and then include a sardonic photoshop at the end of each one?

\that's a lot of effort for trolling
 
2009-03-26 10:46:23 PM
the_cnidarian: Ok, but what didn't cause God to unexist then?

Douglas Adams FTW
 
Displayed 50 of 908 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report