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.

(io9)   List of the ten most outrageous Creationists' claims to counter scientific theories. Basically, it all boils down to "Science can't explain 'X' 100%, therefore Jesus riding on a Raptor"   (io9.com) divider line 294
    More: Stupid, logical possibility, raptor, counter scientific theories, second law of thermodynamics, rocky planet, complex systems, biblical literalism, biological systems  
•       •       •

9236 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Dec 2012 at 10:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-06 06:29:20 AM  
I would also really like to know why Young Earth Creationists (and a lot of other groups) ignore or rationalize away even the best of evidence that says they're wrong, cite evidence that says they're right that is at best easily debunked at worst a lie and then insist they haven't chosen to believe what they say is true?
 
2012-12-06 06:40:58 AM  

Serious Black:

I'm curious. What's their position on birth control?


They were big on abstinence only, but by the time that became a factor for me, I was a teenager who actually had paid attention in sex-ed, so luckily there weren't any negative effects there.
 
2012-12-06 06:47:05 AM  

Absurdity: Serious Black:

I'm curious. What's their position on birth control?

They were big on abstinence only, but by the time that became a factor for me, I was a teenager who actually had paid attention in sex-ed, so luckily there weren't any negative effects there.


Are you sure?
 
2012-12-06 06:52:07 AM  

Anenu: I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that things in nature are to complicated to come around naturally and therefore must have had a creator. If a watch can only exist because a man made it and man can only exist because God made it then doesn't this mean that God can only exist because super God mad it? After all a less complex thing could not create a more complex thing so by their own logic God is irrelevant on a cosmic scale merely having been created by a greater super being that was in turn created by an even greater being continued into infinity.


How is God "less complex?" Since God is all powerful, why would he make anything just as all powerful as He is?

You must have much faith to be an athiest, eh?
 
2012-12-06 07:08:43 AM  

Absurdity: Serious Black:

I'm curious. What's their position on birth control?

They were big on abstinence only, but by the time that became a factor for me, I was a teenager who actually had paid attention in sex-ed, so luckily there weren't any negative effects there.


Goddamn. Just once, I would like to see somebody who says they are 100% against abortion say they are also 100% for birth control since it farking reduces abortions.
 
2012-12-06 07:10:03 AM  

Gordon Bennett: douchebag/hater: As for atheists: STFU, also. People believe things, let them believe what they want.You are not better for your supposed enlightenment in the way you treat and your attitude toward the religious.You are giving 'tolerance' a bad name.

People are free to believe whatever they want. That's fine.

The problem is that some of them are using political pressure to force schools to teach non-science in science class. I am not sure exactly why, it may have to do with their beliefs being threatened by scientific theory, or perhaps it is an attempt to hijack the reputation that science has earned over the past 500 years or so in order to lend credibility to their religious beliefs. Either way it doesn't matter. Creationism, intelligent design, or whatever you may want to call it this week isn't quantifiable, it isn't science, and it doesn't belong in science class any more than a discussion on quadratic equations belongs in a class on medieval English literature.

if those ideas are to be taught then they need to go on topic, as part of a comprehensive course on philosophy and critical analysis.

Which is, incidentally, where it was covered in my school, more or less. In philosophy class. It wasn't about the development of life specifically, but the exact same statement about intelligence needed to explain the complexity of the universe was mentioned as one of several arguments from the Scholastics in the Middle Ages and Renaissance to prove the existence of God using logic and reason. Which, IMO, was perfectly acceptable as it wasn't represented as absolute fact or as science, but in its proper place as a part of the history of Western philosophy and as a basis to critically discuss the reasoning behind the various arguments. 



So it's "500 years of scientific theory" right? Theory - not fact. As in, the data is absolute, but the interpretation of that data is the theory, right? An interpretation of the data is the philosophy of the person interpreting the data, right?

So, what if we teach both "versions" of creationism and let the students decide for themselves? And I do not mean - "the earth is 6000 years old." That is a literally extreme version of the events of the Bible. The first verse of the Bible - God created the heavens and the earth, and subsequent verses, may not necessarily mean that everything was created it six days. How do we know how long a day was? In fact, scientists even say that the early earth had shorter days than we do now. So if the length of a day has been different thoughout the life of the earth, how do we know long long a day actually was? Or even, what the definition of a day was? To us, a day is defined as "24 hours."

Science has been wrong just as much as it has been right. That's why philosophic scientists come up with theories first, and let them be proved by other scientists.
 
2012-12-06 07:17:31 AM  

MBrady: How is God "less complex?" Since God is all powerful, why would he make anything just as all powerful as He is?


So she can have her creations murder her as a him on cross. Duh.
 
2012-12-06 07:19:58 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: If there is a God or Creator, he did an extremely bad job of creating.

I, a lowly human being, can think of major improvements for living things, such as

-instantaneous adaptation for any situation, such as growing wings to escape a landbound predator, developing gills in case of water landing or flash flood, body systems that can be actually controlled, shut down, and regulated consciously by the creature

So why hasn't evolution created such a creature? If evolution can create you from a paramecium, why can't you get wings and/or gills?

-remodel the male reproductive system so that you don't pee and spooge from the same opening


-being able to consciously decide whether or not to hold onto excess nutrition as fat, as well as metabolize fat before demanding actual food

Typical. You want it easy. You want everything in life handed to you so you don't have to do any work.

-fix all of the genetic malfunctions that cause cancer, sickle-cell anemia, baldness, etc

Isn't science doing that?

And boom, a lot of problems solved.

/of course, in the beginning everything was perfect, until God threw a hissy fit so big he cursed all of creation to be farked up Adam and Eve disobeyed the ONE rule that God told them to follow, because he put something he didn't want Adam and Eve touching right in the middle of the garden with no fence or anything, and he sucked at keeping an eye out for his only nemesis, Lucifer
//sounds like this God fellow really isn't all-seeing, all-knowing, or all-loving

.

So what woud you have Him do? Not create the universe at all? Create the universe with robots and no humans? Create the universe with humans with no free will so that every human will bow before God at all times? Or create the universe we have now?

What would you want?
 
2012-12-06 07:22:35 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: MBrady: How is God "less complex?" Since God is all powerful, why would he make anything just as all powerful as He is?

So she can have her creations murder her as a him on cross. Duh.


God was not on the cross. It was Jesus in human form. Duh.
 
2012-12-06 07:24:40 AM  

MBrady: StoPPeRmobile: MBrady: How is God "less complex?" Since God is all powerful, why would he make anything just as all powerful as He is?

So she can have her creations murder her as a him on cross. Duh.

God was not on the cross. It was Jesus in human form. Duh.


Why not teach both versions and let the children decide?
 
2012-12-06 07:25:04 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Absurdity: Serious Black:

I'm curious. What's their position on birth control?

They were big on abstinence only, but by the time that became a factor for me, I was a teenager who actually had paid attention in sex-ed, so luckily there weren't any negative effects there.

Are you sure?


Well, I didn't end up with any STDs or kids, so, yeah I'm pretty sure it turned out ok. By the time sex was an issue, I was already pulling away from their religious views.

I still love my parents, and I have a good relationship with them. We just don't talk about religion around each other.
 
2012-12-06 07:32:22 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: MBrady: StoPPeRmobile: MBrady: How is God "less complex?" Since God is all powerful, why would he make anything just as all powerful as He is?

So she can have her creations murder her as a him on cross. Duh.

God was not on the cross. It was Jesus in human form. Duh.

Why not teach both versions and let the children decide?


Both?

You understate the sheer number of versions of the crucifixion.
 
2012-12-06 07:33:08 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: MBrady: StoPPeRmobile: MBrady: How is God "less complex?" Since God is all powerful, why would he make anything just as all powerful as He is?

So she can have her creations murder her as a him on cross. Duh.

God was not on the cross. It was Jesus in human form. Duh.

Why not teach both versions and let the children decide?


Agreed. See my eariler post. And I don't mean the extreme Creationist stuff that the earth is only 6000 years old. I'm talking a reasonable explanation. As someone else posted, both sides have their extremists.
 
2012-12-06 07:33:53 AM  

wippit: You understate the sheer number of versions of the crucifixion.


Hardly.

/lifelong student of history
//its quite addictive
 
2012-12-06 07:36:36 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: wippit: You understate the sheer number of versions of the crucifixion.

Hardly.

/lifelong student of history
//its quite addictive


I could probably come up with hald a dozen without looking anything up....

Jesus was 'God on Earth' and died on the cross
Jesus was 'Archangel Michael' in human form
It wasn't a cross, it was a 'torture stake"
Jeses wasn't the son of God, just a prophet, but a man
It wasn't Jesus on the cross, it was whatshisname who helped him carry it
There was no Jesus, there was only Zuul.
 
2012-12-06 07:41:25 AM  

MBrady:
So it's "500 years of scientific theory" right? Theory - not fact. As in, the data is absolute, but the interpretation of that data is the theory, right?

Hey guys! Another person that doesn't understand what scientific theory means! Point at him! Point at him and LAUGH!!!

 
2012-12-06 07:42:22 AM  

Summoner101: MBrady:
So it's "500 years of scientific theory" right? Theory - not fact. As in, the data is absolute, but the interpretation of that data is the theory, right?

Hey guys! Another person that doesn't understand what scientific theory means! Point at him! Point at him and LAUGH!!!

And point and laugh at me for failing HTML tags!
 
2012-12-06 07:46:11 AM  

Summoner101: Summoner101: MBrady:
So it's "500 years of scientific theory" right? Theory - not fact. As in, the data is absolute, but the interpretation of that data is the theory, right?

Hey guys! Another person that doesn't understand what scientific theory means! Point at him! Point at him and LAUGH!!!

And point and laugh at me for failing HTML tags!


As you wish.

indiegamerchick.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-06 08:01:44 AM  

wippit: Summoner101: Summoner101: MBrady:
So it's "500 years of scientific theory" right? Theory - not fact. As in, the data is absolute, but the interpretation of that data is the theory, right?

Hey guys! Another person that doesn't understand what scientific theory means! Point at him! Point at him and LAUGH!!!

And point and laugh at me for failing HTML tags!

As you wish.

[indiegamerchick.files.wordpress.com image 400x373]


Thank you, I deserved it.

/My point about MBrady's misunderstanding of scientific theory still stands!
 
2012-12-06 08:45:25 AM  

MBrady: StoPPeRmobile: MBrady: How is God "less complex?" Since God is all powerful, why would he make anything just as all powerful as He is?

So she can have her creations murder her as a him on cross. Duh.

God was not on the cross. It was Jesus in human form. Duh.


Heretic. Jesus is God is the Holy Spirit. Settled theology for a while now. I guess you weren't paying attention in Sunday school.
 
2012-12-06 08:49:32 AM  
The specialization arguement was always the big proof for me against the existence of a designer. Why would a designer evolve creatures along a path the leaves them vunerable to major changes on a planet that is in a constant state of change. Unless we have a creator that gets bored with the creatures it creates every few dozen to few hundred million years, and purposedly creates a system thats makes them vunerable to extinction.

Fundie nonsense is what drove me from Christianity to Buddhism.
 
2012-12-06 08:50:59 AM  
Most of these people just don't want to accept that they're really just monkey men.

I mean, that's what THEY think -- that having descended from ape-like creates = "WE'RE MONKEY MEN!!!"

Keep in mind that you're dealing with very primitive thinkers here. They can't understand evolution, and easily accept the idea of a sky wizard.
 
2012-12-06 09:00:59 AM  
Re: creationists are loath to explain why there's only one Grand Canyon on Earth.

great artticle but need to correct the above. It is a minor error but Creationist always expect science and its defends to be inerrant. Even while claiming that only their god and bible are inerrant.

Copper Canyon (Spanish: Barranca del Cobre) in the Sierra Madre in the southwestern part of the state of Chihuahua in Mexico. The overall canyon system is larger and portions are deeper than the Grand Canyon in neighboring Arizona
 
Xai
2012-12-06 09:12:17 AM  

lecgbe: Re: creationists are loath to explain why there's only one Grand Canyon on Earth.

great artticle but need to correct the above. It is a minor error but Creationist always expect science and its defends to be inerrant. Even while claiming that only their god and bible are inerrant.

Copper Canyon (Spanish: Barranca del Cobre) in the Sierra Madre in the southwestern part of the state of Chihuahua in Mexico. The overall canyon system is larger and portions are deeper than the Grand Canyon in neighboring Arizona


Why would a flood create a canyon anyway?
 
2012-12-06 09:24:35 AM  

MBrady: That's why philosophic scientists come up with theories first, and let them be proved by other scientists.


Fixing the level of confusion that led to this statement would require a college course.
 
2012-12-06 09:24:57 AM  

Copperbelly watersnake: The specialization arguement was always the big proof for me against the existence of a designer. Why would a designer evolve creatures along a path the leaves them vunerable to major changes on a planet that is in a constant state of change. Unless we have a creator that gets bored with the creatures it creates every few dozen to few hundred million years, and purposedly creates a system thats makes them vunerable to extinction.


God is playing a big game of Sim Earth?
 
2012-12-06 09:25:21 AM  

Flappyhead: Ah yes irreducable complexity, a claim so genuine they wouldn't even defend it under oath during Kitzmiller v Dover


Actually, Behe tried. And got swarmed under with books explicitly outlining the very evolution that he stated on the stand could not have occurred. He said those books were not good enough, even though he also admitted to not having read any of them. How he got off the stand without a perjury charge, I'll never know.
 
2012-12-06 09:29:42 AM  

dmars: douchebag/hater: And btw: whenTF are you gonna start making 'Mohammed on a dinosaur' comments?
What's wrong? Chickenshiat?

If we made fun of Mohammed then christians would end up agreeing with us. Where is the fun in that.

In all seriousness, if you weren't mentally challenged you would realize that the majority of religious people that post on fark are christian and not Muslim. It is the same reason you find more viruses for windows and not macs. More people use windows. Going for the larger audience here.


Also Jesus is also one of the most important prophets in Islam, so Jesus with Raptor works as a twofer.
 
2012-12-06 09:34:56 AM  

maxheck: But really, if you're going to go with "The God of the Gaps," why not ask why "If life on Earth was so complicated that it could not have sprung up without a greater being creating it, then what created God, whom I assume is a bit more complex? Follow through with it.


They'll just spout out the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as argued by William Lane Craig, in that God didn't need to begin to exist in order to exist...but everything else did.

/If so, why not just cut out the middleman?
 
2012-12-06 09:36:19 AM  

MBrady: Gordon Bennett: douchebag/hater: As for atheists: STFU, also. People believe things, let them believe what they want.You are not better for your supposed enlightenment in the way you treat and your attitude toward the religious.You are giving 'tolerance' a bad name.

People are free to believe whatever they want. That's fine.

The problem is that some of them are using political pressure to force schools to teach non-science in science class. I am not sure exactly why, it may have to do with their beliefs being threatened by scientific theory, or perhaps it is an attempt to hijack the reputation that science has earned over the past 500 years or so in order to lend credibility to their religious beliefs. Either way it doesn't matter. Creationism, intelligent design, or whatever you may want to call it this week isn't quantifiable, it isn't science, and it doesn't belong in science class any more than a discussion on quadratic equations belongs in a class on medieval English literature.

if those ideas are to be taught then they need to go on topic, as part of a comprehensive course on philosophy and critical analysis.

Which is, incidentally, where it was covered in my school, more or less. In philosophy class. It wasn't about the development of life specifically, but the exact same statement about intelligence needed to explain the complexity of the universe was mentioned as one of several arguments from the Scholastics in the Middle Ages and Renaissance to prove the existence of God using logic and reason. Which, IMO, was perfectly acceptable as it wasn't represented as absolute fact or as science, but in its proper place as a part of the history of Western philosophy and as a basis to critically discuss the reasoning behind the various arguments. 



So it's "500 years of scientific theory" right? Theory - not fact. As in, the data is absolute, but the interpretation of that data is the theory, right? An interpretation of the data is the philosophy of the per ...


Summoner told me to laugh at you, but honestly, I would have done that without his suggestion. HAHA, you don't know what theory means! Or to put it another way, if I were talking about Christianity and I said something like, "Jesus himself brought us the 12 commandments and the first commandment tells us Honor Monday and Keep it Holy" you'd rightly dismiss me as someone who knew nothing about Christianity. Yeah, it's like that.

Oh and I really do enjoy the folks who loudly proclaim how often science has been wrong while they browse the farking internet. Clearly we should scrap this whole science thing. It's not perfect so we might as well just go with what ever answer makes us feel good.
 
2012-12-06 09:38:43 AM  

HeartBurnKid: - Our taste buds are kind of wired to lead us to foods that aren't very good for us.


We're not getting fat because of our taste buds. We're getting fat because we don't have to hunt and/or gather the food ourselves anymore, so the amount of food we absolutely have to eat is far less than our primate cousins who hunt and gather.
 
2012-12-06 09:39:30 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I would also really like to know why Young Earth Creationists (and a lot of other groups) ignore or rationalize away even the best of evidence that says they're wrong, cite evidence that says they're right that is at best easily debunked at worst a lie and then insist they haven't chosen to believe what they say is true?


You're not dealing with rational people.
 
2012-12-06 09:52:39 AM  

wippit: Copperbelly watersnake: The specialization arguement was always the big proof for me against the existence of a designer. Why would a designer evolve creatures along a path the leaves them vunerable to major changes on a planet that is in a constant state of change. Unless we have a creator that gets bored with the creatures it creates every few dozen to few hundred million years, and purposedly creates a system thats makes them vunerable to extinction.

God is playing a big game of Sim Earth?


That is the exact image that comes to my mind.

I'm bored with dinosaurs. Let's see. Split the continents to cause a shift in climate. No, that didn't do it. Increased volcanic activity? Jeez, these thing are harder to kill than those farking trilobites! Fine, meteor! Didn't survive that did ya biatches?
 
2012-12-06 09:54:38 AM  

Kittypie070: Oh gods why am I in here?


Because you touch yourself at night.
 
2012-12-06 10:06:37 AM  

IlGreven: HeartBurnKid: - Our taste buds are kind of wired to lead us to foods that aren't very good for us.

We're not getting fat because of our taste buds. We're getting fat because we don't have to hunt and/or gather the food ourselves anymore, so the amount of food we absolutely have to eat is far less than our primate cousins who hunt and gather.


Most people will eat what is in front of them. I would wager it isn't because we don't hunt and gather, it is the over abundance of food we have access to that makes us fat. If the hunter gatherers where able to kill mastodon every night for dinner and had huge bursting fields in the wild to gather then they would be fat too.

[citation needed]
 
2012-12-06 10:16:55 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I'm not blind to scientific fact and so I believe in what science calls evolution, but still, there is one thing I wonder about. The laws of physics and nature. How did they come to be? Who or what ensures that they stay in force and cannot be broken?


"Laws of physics and nature" aren't rules things have to follow, like every particle in existence looks it up in the big book of physics. What we see in the universe is the emergent result of properties that emerged from the big bang -- this is the universe we get if whatever constant is some X and whatever other constant is some Y and so on.

I have to bring up the anthropic principle, or at least my really short version: if things were different, they wouldn't be the same. It's conceivable that there could be a universe where all the physical constants fluctuate, but I can't imagine that anyone would be around in that universe to ask why.
 
2012-12-06 10:24:29 AM  

HeartBurnKid: Keizer_Ghidorah: If there is a God or Creator, he did an extremely bad job of creating.

I, a lowly human being, can think of major improvements for living things, such as

-instantaneous adaptation for any situation, such as growing wings to escape a landbound predator, developing gills in case of water landing or flash flood, body systems that can be actually controlled, shut down, and regulated consciously by the creature
-remodel the male reproductive system so that you don't pee and spooge from the same opening
-being able to consciously decide whether or not to hold onto excess nutrition as fat, as well as metabolize fat before demanding actual food
-fix all of the genetic malfunctions that cause cancer, sickle-cell anemia, baldness, etc

And boom, a lot of problems solved.

/of course, in the beginning everything was perfect, until God threw a hissy fit so big he cursed all of creation to be farked up, because he put something he didn't want Adam and Eve touching right in the middle of the garden with no fence or anything, and he sucked at keeping an eye out for his only nemesis, Lucifer
//sounds like this God fellow really isn't all-seeing, all-knowing, or all-loving

Also:

- Our spine kinda sucks for bipedal use. You could do a lot better.
- Our taste buds are kind of wired to lead us to foods that aren't very good for us.
- The appendix. What the fark.


All you have to look at to know that there was no creator, or he's a major dick, is the sensation of pain.
In some instances it is very useful: touch something sharp, hot, caustic, etc., and you learn quickly not to do that. The lingering pain of an injury keeps you from overusing or straining the injured part.

But of what use is the excruciating pain of kidney stones? Yes, it does let us know that something in wrong, but what would a sufferer in the Paleolithic do? What about the agony of appendicitis? What use does that have?

So either there is no creator, or he/she/it is a sadistic fiend.
 
2012-12-06 10:39:16 AM  
I guess I'm not a very good Christian, then. To me the Big Bang is just the theory explaining the limits of our knowledge. I read here on FARK a while back a continuation of the theory is we're all in the middle of a wormhole between two massive areas in space, and the Big Bang was the assemblage of matter after it punched through a black hole.

Assuming that theory holds, all it does it back up the question from "What was before the Big Bang?" to "What was before the black hole passage?"

And if you really want to believe in Creation, who says evolution isn't just the aftermath of God throwing a bunch of matter around and letting it coagulate over time? Who says a day to God is 24 hours? Couldn't a "day" be a billion or trillion years to a dude who is eternal, omniscient, and immortal?

Fundies never bothered me before, but now I'm starting to see them as complete screwballs.
 
2012-12-06 10:42:38 AM  

Epicedion: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I'm not blind to scientific fact and so I believe in what science calls evolution, but still, there is one thing I wonder about. The laws of physics and nature. How did they come to be? Who or what ensures that they stay in force and cannot be broken?

"Laws of physics and nature" aren't rules things have to follow, like every particle in existence looks it up in the big book of physics. What we see in the universe is the emergent result of properties that emerged from the big bang -- this is the universe we get if whatever constant is some X and whatever other constant is some Y and so on.

I have to bring up the anthropic principle, or at least my really short version: if things were different, they wouldn't be the same. It's conceivable that there could be a universe where all the physical constants fluctuate, but I can't imagine that anyone would be around in that universe to ask why.


That's a good point, thanx :-)
 
2012-12-06 10:49:38 AM  

IlGreven: HeartBurnKid: - Our taste buds are kind of wired to lead us to foods that aren't very good for us.

We're not getting fat because of our taste buds. We're getting fat because we don't have to hunt and/or gather the food ourselves anymore, so the amount of food we absolutely have to eat is far less than our primate cousins who hunt and gather.


Our bodies crave things like salt, sugar, fat and cholesterol bc in the small, hard to find quantities that exist in nature they are actually good for us. In the abundant, easy to find quantities we have right now they are bad for us.

Also, anthropologists have found that hunter/gatherers spent less energy acquiring food than agricultural socities. Its a bit of mystery why agriculture started in thecfirst place given that it didn't show real advantages over hunting/gathering until it was pretty well developed.
 
2012-12-06 10:58:32 AM  
Science is often wrong so therefore God might exist is easily the dumbest argument on the planet. If you cant figure out why, I dont understand how you have the mental capacity to breathe.

MBrady good troll. I especially like how you call 'literal' interpretation of the bible "etreme." Those goalposts are on wheels! Yet you probably consider yourself a deep and logical thinker when you're anything but.
 
2012-12-06 11:05:45 AM  

MBrady: Anenu: I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that things in nature are to complicated to come around naturally and therefore must have had a creator. If a watch can only exist because a man made it and man can only exist because God made it then doesn't this mean that God can only exist because super God mad it? After all a less complex thing could not create a more complex thing so by their own logic God is irrelevant on a cosmic scale merely having been created by a greater super being that was in turn created by an even greater being continued into infinity.

How is God "less complex?" Since God is all powerful, why would he make anything just as all powerful as He is?

You must have much faith to be an athiest, eh?


But the Abrahamic god isn't all powerful. If Adam and Eve had eaten from the Tree of Life, they would have been just as powerful as God. That's the reason they got kicked out of Eden, after all.
 
2012-12-06 11:11:13 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: MBrady: StoPPeRmobile: MBrady: How is God "less complex?" Since God is all powerful, why would he make anything just as all powerful as He is?

So she can have her creations murder her as a him on cross. Duh.

God was not on the cross. It was Jesus in human form. Duh.

Why not teach both versions and let the children decide?


I can't stop laughing at this. Let the children decide. LOL!
 
2012-12-06 11:11:51 AM  

IlGreven: HeartBurnKid: - Our taste buds are kind of wired to lead us to foods that aren't very good for us.

We're not getting fat because of our taste buds. We're getting fat because we don't have to hunt and/or gather the food ourselves anymore, so the amount of food we absolutely have to eat is far less than our primate cousins who hunt and gather.


According to the CDC in 1990 the 'fattest' states in the US had obesity rates under 15%, today their rates are above 35%, and no state in the country has obesity rates under 20%. Our thinnest states today are significantly fatter than our fattest states only 20 years ago.

I buy that we live very different lives than our primate ancestors. I don't buy that the way we live has changed significantly since Seinfield hit the airwaves.
 
2012-12-06 11:15:34 AM  

justtray: Science is often wrong so therefore God might exist is easily the dumbest argument on the planet. If you cant figure out why, I dont understand how you have the mental capacity to breathe.


God existence and science are mutually exclusive. You can use one (or the lack of one) to prove the other.
 
2012-12-06 11:15:54 AM  

untaken_name: Mayhem_2006: douchebag/hater: I say this as an ex-believer:
As for atheists: STFU, also. People believe things, let them believe what they want.
You are not better for your supposed enlightenment in the way you treat and your attitude toward the religious.
You are giving 'tolerance' a bad name.

In fact you are just as bad, if not worse, than most fundamentalists.

Atheists are as bad as fundementalists?

Number of laws enacted to force atheist behaviour upon others: Zero
Number of planes flown into buildings in the name of atheism: Zero
Number of atheists who have bombed or shot or otherwise maimed athiests in Northern Island for not sharing the exact smae version of atheism: Zero
Number of times atheists have threatened me with eternal torture: Zero
Number of people discriminated against because of what it says in the atheist holy book: Zero
Number of witches tortured to death in the name of atheism: Zero
Number of wars started specifically to spread the word of atheism: Zero
Number of times atheists have knocked on my door and preached at me: Zero
Number of times atheists have tried to disrupt a funeral to spread a message of hate and intolerance: Zero
Number of mutilations performed in the name of atheism: Zero
Number of honour killings by atheists: Zero

But yes, they are clearly just as bad as the religious fundementalists.

You never heard of a guy named Joseph Stalin, did you? He was an atheist dedicated to ending religion. He was responsible for more murders than any other single person in history. All zealots are dangerous. It doesn't matter which religion they're zealous for. It's the "zealot" part that is dangerous.


The philosophy the Soviet union was based on was not atheism. That's like citing Jimi Hendrix as evidence that psychedelic rock was a product of left-handed people.Concurrence lacking causation is coincidence.
To make your false argument from equivalence, you have to look seventy years back in time in the hopes that the mists of time will what a bad example it is - but you can't show me any atheists that are doing any of these bad things. The lack of belief in INHERENTLY less fanatical that positive belief, because it does not require agreement to be validated.
You can't show me atheists that are blowing things up, shooting people, or torching other people's houses of religion - I can show you Christians, Muslims, and Jews doing all these things. Right NOW - not in some imaginary past. Your argument is false. Try another.
Better yet, just believe what you believe, and quit trying to excuse and defend religion - you are under no compulsion to defend whatever superstitions you embrace, and the attempts are tedious, and boring.
 
2012-12-06 11:18:22 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: But the Abrahamic god isn't all powerful. If Adam and Eve had eaten from the Tree of Life, they would have been just as powerful as God. That's the reason they got kicked out of Eden, after all.


No, they got kicked out of Eden for disobeying God.

Nobody knows what would've happened to man if they'd eaten from the Tree of Life. The only info we have on that comes from someone who has been known to misrepresent the truth from time to time.
 
2012-12-06 11:20:41 AM  

wippit: The only info we have on that comes from someone who has been known to misrepresent the truth from time to time.


The writers of the bible?
 
2012-12-06 11:22:29 AM  

Epicedion: wippit: The only info we have on that comes from someone who has been known to misrepresent the truth from time to time.

The writers of the bible?


I take it you haven't read it.
 
2012-12-06 11:28:02 AM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I don't buy that the way we live has changed significantly since Seinfield hit the airwaves.


...he said from his position on the toilet, from which he was speaking to hundreds of people, using a device more powerful than was possible for any amount of money in 1990.
 
Displayed 50 of 294 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report