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.

(WorldNetDaily)   Science proves Noah's flood was real, so this time science is ok   (wnd.com) divider line 567
    More: Fail, sciences, plate tectonics, Lake Pontchartrain, science books, millennia, Darwinism, Watergate, granite  
•       •       •

8026 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Jun 2012 at 2:11 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



567 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-02 11:11:10 PM
No, we just don't want science being used as propaganda. That's the point WorldNetDaily is trying to make.
 
2012-06-02 11:13:47 PM
But what if the evidence doesn't support that?

But what if my aunt was Ron Jeremy?
 
2012-06-02 11:15:38 PM
<click>

...Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix.

<click>
 
2012-06-02 11:17:00 PM
Brown presents his hydroplate theory, which unfolds scientific evidence that the earth's present geologic features and fossils were formed around 5,000 years ago - not untold millions or billions of years ago. He asserts that the global flood recorded in Genesis 7 is the mechanism that created the geologic, astronomical and biological phenomena witnesseed today.

Sounds like a true scientist.
 
2012-06-02 11:17:08 PM
Again? shiat, didn't Leonard Nimoy cover this on "In Search of..." back in the 70s?
 
2012-06-02 11:22:56 PM
Their source is Walt Brown, director of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix.

He holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, is a West Point graduate and a National Science Foundation fellow, served as a tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy and was chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College.

You might notice, that his degree doesn't appear to be in paleontology, geology, or astrophysics. His degree is in mechanical engineering.

Or, to put it in the words of the nice fella who STARTED Intelligent Design...

lh5.googleusercontent.com

Brown is a Young Earth Creationist. He simply wants to ignore anything that doesn't jibe with his beliefs. Which is fine in the short term, but it's not science. It's hopeful thinking, and when you begin the process by knowing your results, and then cherry pick your "evidence" it doesn't lead to science, it just leads to cheerleading.

lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-06-02 11:28:43 PM
Brown argues that the evolutionists' account of a comet, asteroid or volcanic activity triggering the extinction of the dinosaurs is flawed. He contends that only a global flood could have generated a mass rapid burial and fossilization of animals, as all remains would have rotted away if they had died without being submerged in water to preserve them. Brown also explains that fossils' similar density and mass discovered on the same levels of the geologic column prove that dinosaur remains were sorted and buried just thousands of years ago in a flood, not merely interred hundreds of millions of years ago in a series of mass extinctions.

Another chink in evolutionists' armor, says Brown, is that the in soft bone tissue and DNA found in dinosaur remains could not exist for more than thousands of years. On top of this, he points out that intentionally inflated and incorrect readings of fossils and rocks measured using various dating techniques further put evolutionists' millions- and billions-of-years-old origins account into disrepute...

As a former evolutionist and atheist, Brown is quite familiar with all the arguments from the other side. But does his flood account hold water to competing theories?

For decades, evolutionists and creationists alike have refused to debate Brown's scientific findings. He has a few stipulations - that the debate is published in a major scientific journal, that his opponent supporting evolution hold a doctorate and that religion is not discussed in the debate, only scientific data.


Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.
 
2012-06-02 11:29:23 PM
If we could only find fossil evidence of Jesus riding dinosaurs. I could really believe in science
 
2012-06-02 11:30:45 PM
Well, that was as predictable as the tides
 
2012-06-02 11:31:06 PM
Bevets: You never have commented, I've noticed, on Phillip Johnson's commentary on the foundation of his Intelligent Design movement. Do you think that his own words somewhat detract from the basis of the "research" that they do?
 
2012-06-02 11:36:02 PM
Also Bevets what do Buddhists use? Since Gautama Buddha's birth predated Jesus' own by about 500 years. Is it somehow a conspiracy to keep God out of our heads, or is it just the Devil fooling billions of people before Christ had a chance to come onto the stage? Be interested in hearing your thoughts on the issue.
 
2012-06-02 11:37:27 PM

Bevets: Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.


I do love it when trolls bring out the old favorites. This is a classic!
 
2012-06-02 11:46:27 PM

Mike_LowELL: No, we just don't want science being used as propaganda. That's the point WorldNetDaily is trying to make.


You can do better than that.
 
2012-06-02 11:47:08 PM
Once again, I am enjoying the crap out of WND's comments section.
 
2012-06-02 11:47:40 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Bevets: Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

I do love it when trolls bring out the old favorites. This is a classic!


Now that he has greatest hits, I wonder if he'll ever do a double album or even better yet, a live album...
 
2012-06-02 11:49:05 PM
I have long believed that Bevets is a creation of Drew, and he brings him out when he wants to fark with us.

I love Classic Bevets.
 
2012-06-02 11:53:07 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: I have long believed that Bevets is a creation of Drew, and he brings him out when he wants to fark with us.

I love Classic Bevets.


Lord, so do I.

i1214.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-02 11:54:47 PM

Bevets: Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.


Classic FARK derp.

Bevets was derp before the term "derp" was coined.
 
2012-06-02 11:56:18 PM
Walt Brown, director of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix

One tag to derp them all and in their darkness blind them.

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-02 11:56:24 PM
no, it didn't.
 
2012-06-03 12:09:23 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Bevets: Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

Classic FARK derp.

Bevets was derp before the term "derp" was coined.


It's like he's the common ancestor from which all future derp evolved.
 
2012-06-03 12:15:51 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Bevets: Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

Classic FARK derp.

Bevets was derp before the term "derp" was coined intelligently designed.


Also, does anyone else suspect this was submitted (and greened) solely as a platform for the Bevets-bot?
 
2012-06-03 12:24:59 AM
^ I've posted my thought in my profile so I'm not getting too involved in this.
1Many historical events cannot be observed, measured, or repeated; ergo, they are incompatible with analysis with the scientific method. (An example: orogeneses)
2 Events such as these therefore must be compared with present processes.
3 There is no evidence nor any means of procuring evidence that present processes occurred at the same rate throughout all of history. Furthermore, such unique geological entities as fossil beds and geologic shields imply cataclysmic occurrence(s) apropos great masses of water and lava, and have no present parallel.
4 Inasmuch, scientists of any or no religion studying historical geology will, at some point, delve into theory that cannot be scientifically verified, or philosophy.
5 At current, the data concludes: either a cataclysm- or ELE- overwhelmed the geology of the earth and caused such amazing violence as folded strata layers and plate tectonics or billions of years of present processes resolved this.
6. It's 11:00 where I'm at, so here's the book I'm reading right now: The Genesis Flood, by doctors John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris. These are two men of credential, and they approach the topic with a logical perspective.
7. I don't give a damn about science or history or evidence or any of it. The inexplicable and fulfilled prophecy of the Bible is why I'm a Christian, the omnipotence of God is why I believe the Biblical flood account, and the evidence of geology services to strengthen my beliefs.

/There is no present nor past processes known that could have been responsible for great shields, like the Canadian Shield.

//A deluge of such incredible pressure and tonnage would have applied pressure to fault lines and triggered massive volcanic reactions.
 
2012-06-03 12:29:14 AM

A Non Amos: ^ I got nuthin'...

 
2012-06-03 12:30:43 AM

A Non Amos: Many historical events cannot be observed, measured, or repeated; ergo, they are incompatible with analysis with the scientific


Failure apparently is an option with you.
 
2012-06-03 12:34:27 AM

Bevets: Brown argues that the evolutionists' account of a comet, asteroid or volcanic activity triggering the extinction of the dinosaurs is flawed. He contends that only a global flood could have generated a mass rapid burial and fossilization of animals, as all remains would have rotted away if they had died without being submerged in water to preserve them. Brown also explains that fossils' similar density and mass discovered on the same levels of the geologic column prove that dinosaur remains were sorted and buried just thousands of years ago in a flood, not merely interred hundreds of millions of years ago in a series of mass extinctions.

Another chink in evolutionists' armor, says Brown, is that the in soft bone tissue and DNA found in dinosaur remains could not exist for more than thousands of years. On top of this, he points out that intentionally inflated and incorrect readings of fossils and rocks measured using various dating techniques further put evolutionists' millions- and billions-of-years-old origins account into disrepute...

As a former evolutionist and atheist, Brown is quite familiar with all the arguments from the other side. But does his flood account hold water to competing theories?

For decades, evolutionists and creationists alike have refused to debate Brown's scientific findings. He has a few stipulations - that the debate is published in a major scientific journal, that his opponent supporting evolution hold a doctorate and that religion is not discussed in the debate, only scientific data.

Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.


Bevets, you have been trolling this site for almost a decade. Do you get any sort of brownie points at your church? Fark owes you a T-shirt.
 
2012-06-03 12:35:47 AM

A Non Amos: 7. I don't give a damn about science or history or evidence or any of it.


That's cool...I don't give a damn about inconsistent and contradictory bronze-age superstition
 
2012-06-03 12:44:46 AM

A Non Amos: I don't give a damn about science or history or evidence or any of it.


And I don't give a damn about your imaginary friend - even if he is the biggest, baddest, bestest imaginary friend out there. I have far better role models than the misogynist, miscegenist, self-absorbed mythos of a bunch of bronze-age goatherds.
 
2012-06-03 12:45:31 AM
Oh, dammit - I really should read ALL the way to the end before adding...
 
2012-06-03 01:08:21 AM

A Non Amos: Many historical events cannot be observed, measured, or repeated; ergo, they are incompatible with analysis with the scientific method.


This is one of my favorite forms of creationist derp because it's so obviously stone-cold dumb. A gunshot wound, for example, provides evidence of the existence of a bullet whether you observed the shooting or not. The wobble of a distant star provides evidence of planets in orbit around it whether you observe them directly or not. Past physical events easily leave evidence behind that allows their nature to be deduced whether they are observed directly or not. Any idiot watching CSI should already know this.
 
2012-06-03 01:21:08 AM
The thing I've never understood about 'theories' like this, is if you believe in an all powerful god that created the earth in 7 days, why bother with an in depth scientific explanation for the flood, continents, etc?

Seems strange to say god created the earth in a week at will, but I need some rational explanation, such as trapped subterranean water, to explain how he flooded the place....
 
2012-06-03 01:26:44 AM

Type_Hard: The thing I've never understood about 'theories' like this, is if you believe in an all powerful god that created the earth in 7 days, why bother with an in depth scientific explanation for the flood, continents, etc?

Seems strange to say god created the earth in a week at will, but I need some rational explanation, such as trapped subterranean water, to explain how he flooded the place....


I've always wondered that one too, especially since the whole point of religious belief is faith. Having to anchor your faith to scientific evidence (or what passes as such for creationists) seems like you must have pretty weak faith in the first place.
 
2012-06-03 01:26:51 AM

A Non Amos: ^ I've posted my thought in my profile so I'm not getting too involved in this.
1Many historical events cannot be observed, measured, or repeated; ergo, they are incompatible with analysis with the scientific method. (An example: orogeneses)
2 Events such as these therefore must be compared with present processes.
3 There is no evidence nor any means of procuring evidence that present processes occurred at the same rate throughout all of history. Furthermore, such unique geological entities as fossil beds and geologic shields imply cataclysmic occurrence(s) apropos great masses of water and lava, and have no present parallel.
4 Inasmuch, scientists of any or no religion studying historical geology will, at some point, delve into theory that cannot be scientifically verified, or philosophy.
5 At current, the data concludes: either a cataclysm- or ELE- overwhelmed the geology of the earth and caused such amazing violence as folded strata layers and plate tectonics or billions of years of present processes resolved this.
6. It's 11:00 where I'm at, so here's the book I'm reading right now: The Genesis Flood, by doctors John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris. These are two men of credential, and they approach the topic with a logical perspective.
7. I don't give a damn about science or history or evidence or any of it. The inexplicable and fulfilled prophecy of the Bible is why I'm a Christian, the omnipotence of God is why I believe the Biblical flood account, and the evidence of geology services to strengthen my beliefs.

/There is no present nor past processes known that could have been responsible for great shields, like the Canadian Shield.

//A deluge of such incredible pressure and tonnage would have applied pressure to fault lines and triggered massive volcanic reactions.


That's a really verbose way of explaining terribly flawed logic.
 
2012-06-03 01:44:10 AM

ambercricket: A Non Amos: Many historical events cannot be observed, measured, or repeated; ergo, they are incompatible with analysis with the scientific method.

This is one of my favorite forms of creationist derp because it's so obviously stone-cold dumb. A gunshot wound, for example, provides evidence of the existence of a bullet whether you observed the shooting or not. The wobble of a distant star provides evidence of planets in orbit around it whether you observe them directly or not. Past physical events easily leave evidence behind that allows their nature to be deduced whether they are observed directly or not. Any idiot watching CSI should already know this.


This, I notice, is a logical refutation. As such: whereas the present entity can be measured and utilized to hypothesize deductions about past occurrences and entities, the past entity itself cannot be observed, measured, nor repeated in nature or a lab. For example: while a gunshot wound provides evidence of a bullet, and can be used to deduce characteristics of the bullet, unless one actually possesses the bullet in question, the exact nature of the object cannot be known infallibly, nor by science by the very definition of the word, insofar as the bullet itself was not observed, but merely resolved from the observation of its effect.
This is amplified for such phenomena such as orogeneses and fossil beds, in example, as cannot be studied by present processes and thus cannot be studied by the scientific method.
Now I anticipate an emotional avoidance of the previous logical postulate; however, the above is moot apropos the original point: that 'deducing' an entity (such as a bullet from a gunshot wound) is not true science, insofar as it requires a secondary conclusion. As long as any given historical occurrence, such as the origin of life and the chemical elements, remains unobservable and unmeasurable, scientific inquiries are philosophies; ergo, the very notion of uniformitarinism being a science is illogical. While the philosophy may well have merit, it cannot be utterly proven scientifically. Furthermore, and distressingly, since it is a philosophy presented to ignorant schoolchildren as a science, it can be manipulated to suit the evidence that counters any presuppositions, such as misplaced strata and anachronistic fossils. Philosophies may be manipulated at will; now, however, do children grow to believe that science follows suit when science has, in the past, been utilized to explore and reach conclusions of the present physical evidence before us.
 
2012-06-03 02:13:25 AM
No. I promised myself I would never be lured into this BS again, and I'll stand by that.

Matthew Chapter 27 verse 46 and Mark 15 verse 34 Jesus is nailed to a cross, and he cries, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").
This just so happens to be the title of Psalms 22. Of course, one would be right in saying that it might not really say, 'they pierced my hands and my feet. The Hebrew glyph is a square with a line through it. Without the line, it means, 'like a lion at my hands and feet'. But what would a lion be doing to one's hand and feet? Licking them? WTF, I should think not. Furthermore, dating methods for historical documents as used by science is precisely how biblical documents are dated..
Ergo, I am a Christian. Now I continue to say: The law of thermodynamics postulates a certain amount of energy within the known universe that would, eventually, dissipate, even within an oscillating universe, because the law regards total energy, not that acquainted with a specific universe-evolution timeframe. If this is too Dr. Who-y and complicated, leave off. Now, the Big Bang Theory requires the existence of an entity (perhaps generated in a vacuum field by quantum shifts) which is a singularity, compressed to infinitesimal smallness, which is believed to have exploded and generated not only matter, but physics, by the violence of said explosion. For both to have occurred the entity must not have had properties of either- if the Big Bang had physical properties and created physics, it would be a logical paradox. Furthermore, natural, inanimate objects do not control themselves, physics does; as such this singularity could not have set itself off unless A) it is a deity or B) it was set off by a deity. Also, it hasn't the force required to generate all known elements (And not all known elements are generated by stellar explosions). See, even the concept of nothingness would be nothing without nothing. Something greater than physics, matter, time, and 'nothingness' had to generate these properties- some 'force' greater than the cause of the universe. I call this force Jehovah, but God or Lord does just fine. /Since He is greater than all, it stands to reason He can do whatever the Fark He wants. Like create stuff. Or cause floods. Or experience humanity and suffer one of the worst deaths known to Hell.
 
2012-06-03 02:20:19 AM
(whatthefarkamireading.jpg)
 
2012-06-03 02:26:00 AM
Who let A Non Amos out of his cage?
 
2012-06-03 02:34:23 AM
Seems legit. I mean, the guy IS a mechanical engineer after all...
 
2012-06-03 02:37:35 AM
I couldn't read the whole article. It was just too ridiculous. Can I get a recap.

Then let's get back to fighting like biatches.
 
2012-06-03 02:38:09 AM
I was told there would be science.

/leaving disappointed.
 
2012-06-03 02:41:38 AM

A Non Amos: No. I promised myself I would never be lured into this BS again, and I'll stand by that.

*proceeds to spout paragraphs of nonsense*


Bravo, weak troll.

Tell me this: if there was enough water on Earth to cover the top of Mount Everest, where the hell did it all go? It didn't evaporate, because the atmosphere isn't a soggy Venus-like soup. It didn't drain down into the planet, because that much water is enough to make another Earth made of water. Where's the planet-wide layer of mud, debris, and bones of dinosaurs, whales, humans, and dragons all jumbled together? Where's the remains of the Rhode Island-sized Ark?
 
2012-06-03 02:45:17 AM
I read posts by A Non Amos and I reminded of this Onion article

Farker a passionate hater of what he imagines science to be

A Non Amos: I don't give a damn about science or history or evidence or any of it.


And that's all you needed to say. "Blah, blah, blah, science can't provide 100% metaphysical certainty therefore it's worthless." If that's what you honestly think then you need to immediately turn off your internet connection, destroy your computer, stop taking any and all your prescribed medications, sell your car, phone, microwave and fridge and go off and live in the woods somewhere.
 
2012-06-03 02:55:25 AM

A Non Amos: No. I promised myself I would never be lured into this BS again, and I'll stand by that.

Matthew Chapter 27 verse 46 and Mark 15 verse 34 Jesus is nailed to a cross, and he cries, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").
This just so happens to be the title of Psalms 22. Of course, one would be right in saying that it might not really say, 'they pierced my hands and my feet. The Hebrew glyph is a square with a line through it. Without the line, it means, 'like a lion at my hands and feet'. But what would a lion be doing to one's hand and feet? Licking them? WTF, I should think not. Furthermore, dating methods for historical documents as used by science is precisely how biblical documents are dated..
Ergo, I am a Christian. Now I continue to say: The law of thermodynamics postulates a certain amount of energy within the known universe that would, eventually, dissipate, even within an oscillating universe, because the law regards total energy, not that acquainted with a specific universe-evolution timeframe. If this is too Dr. Who-y and complicated, leave off. Now, the Big Bang Theory requires the existence of an entity (perhaps generated in a vacuum field by quantum shifts) which is a singularity, compressed to infinitesimal smallness, which is believed to have exploded and generated not only matter, but physics, by the violence of said explosion. For both to have occurred the entity must not have had properties of either- if the Big Bang had physical properties and created physics, it would be a logical paradox. Furthermore, natural, inanimate objects do not control themselves, physics does; as such this singularity could not have set itself off unless A) it is a deity or B) it was set off by a deity. Also, it hasn't the force required to generate all known elements (And not all known elements are generated by stellar explosions). See, even the concept of nothingness would be nothing without nothing. Something greater ...


Hi. Here's a baloney sandwich. Nothing about this makes any sense. You claim to use logic, but require an extra-terrestrial anomaly that cannot be accounted for by any measure or instrument that relies on logic.
 
2012-06-03 02:57:21 AM

Hand Banana: I was told there would be science.

/leaving disappointed.


Breaking science news from 1995 .
`
On Friday, March 24, 1995, creationist Walter Brown,
Director of the Center for Scientific Creation in
Phoenix, Arizona, spoke at a local Vancouver church
to share his "hydroplate theory" with the audience.
 
2012-06-03 02:57:44 AM

Hand Banana: I was told there would be science.

/leaving disappointed.


Well... it's science-ish.
 
2012-06-03 03:03:41 AM

Relatively Obscure: But what if the evidence doesn't support that?

But what if my aunt was Ron Jeremy?


That is the position of Walt Brown, director of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix.
 
2012-06-03 03:05:07 AM

hubiestubert: Or, to put it in the words of the nice fella who STARTED Intelligent Design...


PEJ was alive in 1802?
 
2012-06-03 03:05:10 AM

Baryogenesis: I read posts by A Non Amos and I reminded of this Onion article

Farker a passionate hater of what he imagines science to be

A Non Amos: I don't give a damn about science or history or evidence or any of it.

And that's all you needed to say. "Blah, blah, blah, science can't provide 100% metaphysical certainty therefore it's worthless." If that's what you honestly think then you need to immediately turn off your internet connection, destroy your computer, stop taking any and all your prescribed medications, sell your car, phone, microwave and fridge and go off and live in the woods somewhere.


When I was a kid, I would sometimes stay the night with a friend of mine, who was Pentecostal. I'd go to church with him.

I remember one time, the preacher kept going on and on about how science couldn't prove anything 100%, so it was worthless compared to the Bible, would was 100% true and infalliable.

These people then got in their cars designed by scientists to drive to their houses on engineered roads where they used electricity to do untold number of wondrous things. Somehow all this science was just fine, but when "science" contradicted what they knew, well then, science was worthless.

I'll note that when my friend got sick, they took him to a doctor and not a church.

If you're willing to accept facts, evidence, research, and scientific education when it benefits you, and unwilling to accept it when it contradicts what you think, you may need to sit down and think about just how strong your faith is.

(The opposite is true about religion, too. My mother in law is Catholic. She's divorced, takes communion with unconfessed sins, misses holy days of obligation, blasphemes on a regular basis, and used birth control. She believes that the Roman Catholic Church is 100% correct, except about all that stuff, in which case they were wrong. If you only believe your church is right about the things you already agree with, then that's not your religion, it's your hobby.)
 
2012-06-03 03:08:49 AM

Lord Dimwit: Baryogenesis: I read posts by A Non Amos and I reminded of this Onion article

Farker a passionate hater of what he imagines science to be

A Non Amos: I don't give a damn about science or history or evidence or any of it.

And that's all you needed to say. "Blah, blah, blah, science can't provide 100% metaphysical certainty therefore it's worthless." If that's what you honestly think then you need to immediately turn off your internet connection, destroy your computer, stop taking any and all your prescribed medications, sell your car, phone, microwave and fridge and go off and live in the woods somewhere.

When I was a kid, I would sometimes stay the night with a friend of mine, who was Pentecostal. I'd go to church with him.

I remember one time, the preacher kept going on and on about how science couldn't prove anything 100%, so it was worthless compared to the Bible, would was 100% true and infalliable.

These people then got in their cars designed by scientists to drive to their houses on engineered roads where they used electricity to do untold number of wondrous things. Somehow all this science was just fine, but when "science" contradicted what they knew, well then, science was worthless.

I'll note that when my friend got sick, they took him to a doctor and not a church.

If you're willing to accept facts, evidence, research, and scientific education when it benefits you, and unwilling to accept it when it contradicts what you think, you may need to sit down and think about just how strong your faith is.

(The opposite is true about religion, too. My mother in law is Catholic. She's divorced, takes communion with unconfessed sins, misses holy days of obligation, blasphemes on a regular basis, and used birth control. She believes that the Roman Catholic Church is 100% correct, except about all that stuff, in which case they were wrong. If you only believe your church is right about the things you already agree with, then that's not your religion, it's you ...


That's the wonderful thing about religion, it's so flexible that you can mold it to fit your personal view. Science doesn't have that flexibility, which makes these people grumpy.
 
2012-06-03 03:12:06 AM

ambercricket: Type_Hard: The thing I've never understood about 'theories' like this, is if you believe in an all powerful god that created the earth in 7 days, why bother with an in depth scientific explanation for the flood, continents, etc?

Seems strange to say god created the earth in a week at will, but I need some rational explanation, such as trapped subterranean water, to explain how he flooded the place....

I've always wondered that one too, especially since the whole point of religious belief is faith. Having to anchor your faith to scientific evidence (or what passes as such for creationists) seems like you must have pretty weak faith in the first place.


Faith matters to them, but only half of the time. When they think they have some evidence, they're all about science, and always have been. When the inevitable happens and their evidence is shot full of holes science is all of a sudden a damnable blasphemy, always has been, and don't you know that this stuff has to be believed on faith?

/Cowards and charlatans to a man
 
Displayed 50 of 567 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report