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  
•       •       •

9234 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 11:31:29 AM

wippit: 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.


Are you seriously saying that youre going to pick and choose what to believe from the bible? You defeat your own argument.

Also I presume your reply to me above was a typo, else it makes no sense.

God and science are mutually exclusive therefore science sometimes being wrong means God must exist? - that was your argument, simply reworded
 
2012-12-06 11:33:28 AM
Now using YOUR own logic, because part of the bible was wrong, that means that none of it is valid and also that science must be right.

Which is why people call religious people dumb, broadly speaking. No concept of rationality or logic.
 
2012-12-06 11:37:24 AM

Copperbelly watersnake: 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.


Alcohol.

Agriculture was because of beer, wine, or whatever fermented beverage was made back in the day once we figured out you could make alcohol.

I'd think animal domestication came before crop domestication too. So if it wasn't beer, it could have been growing forage for animals.

//My hypothesis only, do not take too seriously.
 
2012-12-06 11:38:05 AM

wippit: I take it you haven't read it.


That's nice.
 
2012-12-06 11:41:16 AM

meat0918: Copperbelly watersnake: 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.

Alcohol.

Agriculture was because of beer, wine, or whatever fermented beverage was made back in the day once we figured out you could make alcohol.

I'd think animal domestication came before crop domestication too. So if it wasn't beer, it could have been growing forage for animals.

//My hypothesis only, do not take too seriously.


I always lean on beer as one of the major reasons. Just think pyramids. A larger pool of females appears valid as well.
 
2012-12-06 11:47:45 AM

justtray: Now using YOUR own logic, because part of the bible was wrong, that means that none of it is valid and also that science must be right.

Which is why people call religious people dumb, broadly speaking. No concept of rationality or logic.



Where did I say the bible was wrong?
Please quote me where God says what will become of man if he eats the fruit.
 
2012-12-06 11:52:28 AM

StoPPeRmobile: meat0918: Copperbelly watersnake: 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.

Alcohol.

Agriculture was because of beer, wine, or whatever fermented beverage was made back in the day once we figured out you could make alcohol.

I'd think animal domestication came before crop domestication too. So if it wasn't beer, it could have been growing forage for animals.

//My hypothesis only, do not take too seriously.

I always lean on beer as one of the major reasons. Just think pyramids. A larger pool of females appears valid as well.


Also, around that time the Egyptians and Chines domesticated cats, and a little later, the Mezoamericans bred a small dog - which enabled these societies to stockpile grain faster than pests could eat them. And, of course, making beer out of grain adds value and shelf-life.
 
2012-12-06 11:53:57 AM

wippit: justtray: Now using YOUR own logic, because part of the bible was wrong, that means that none of it is valid and also that science must be right.

Which is why people call religious people dumb, broadly speaking. No concept of rationality or logic.


Where did I say the bible was wrong?
Please quote me where God says what will become of man if he eats the fruit.




And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Genesis 3:22-24
 
2012-12-06 11:59:41 AM

Raharu:
Where did I say the bible was wrong?
Please quote me where God says what will become of man if he eats the fruit.



And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Genesis 3:22-24



Hmm. I stand corrected,
Although life without cellular division errors hardly constitutes being made into gods. I'm expecting science to duplicate that within 100 years.
 
2012-12-06 12:05:58 PM
If you need to know anything about theology wippy, ask an secular humanist atheist.

We've tend to have actually read and studied the bible and other holy scripts.
 
2012-12-06 12:09:14 PM
Why do Bible interpretation arguments remind me so much of Lost fans arguing about the symbolism in the show, or Star Trek and Star Wars geeks warring about the advantages of their respective lore? Because it's all the same. It makes just as much sense to take the Bible seriously as it is to live by the tenets of The Song of Ice and Fire. Except The Song is billions of times more fun to read and is a lot less gory and repulsive.

Also, trying to argue that Bible's "day" for the creation of Earth might've been a million human years, not 24 human hours adds another reason to completely dismiss this bronze age text (Maybe God meant us not to kill *cows* when he included it in the Ten Commandments, not other humans? How can we be certain?)

Gah.
 
2012-12-06 12:09:26 PM

Raharu: If you need to know anything about theology wippy, ask an secular humanist atheist.

We've tend to have actually read and studied the bible and other holy scripts.


I actually have. I was brought up Catholic but left... I believe I'm called "Diest" now.

I'm always married to a Jehovah's Witness, so I get exposed to that side of the argument as well.

justtray: Now using YOUR own logic, because part of the bible was wrong, that means that none of it is valid and also that science must be right.

Which is why people call religious people dumb, broadly speaking. No concept of rationality or logic.


I don't recall saying science was wrong. Science can't be wrong, it's the rules which govern the universe. I interpret God as the person who wrote the rules.
 
2012-12-06 12:09:42 PM

wippit: 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 12:10:37 PM

wippit:
I'm always ALSO married to a Jehovah's Witness, so I get exposed to that side of the argument as well.


Stupid mistypes.
 
2012-12-06 12:11:13 PM
Devil's Advocate:

TFA misstates the "irreducible complexity" argument. It's not that all mutations are bad, it's that certain complex structures are worse than useless if you simplify them in any way, and thus intermediate forms (and therefore full forms) would never evolve. The idea itself isn't ridiculous. The ridiculous thing is that we've never actually observed any such structures, yet creation science nuts keep bringing it up.

For that matter, irreducible complexity theory doesn't necessarily imply a Creator. An irreducibly complex structure could have been bred into an organism millions of years ago by bored aliens on a research mission trolling the sentient beings who would someday evolve.

[NOTE: Experience on Fark has taught me that, even though I am playing Devil's advocate, and even though I called some people Creation nuts: a bunch of atheist types are going to get severe butthurt over this because apparently even conceding small, insignificant points, like saying irreducible complexity is not by itself a ridiculous idea, makes me into an Evangelical Jesus-pusher.]
 
2012-12-06 12:12:10 PM

wippit: 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 12:13:45 PM
I see wippit is just a troll, and/or ignorant. I will cease to engage him for the benefit of those with him on ignore.
 
2012-12-06 12:15:03 PM

justtray: wippit: 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.


What issue do you have this this? I can't use science to prove God exists. I can't use God to prove science is wrong.
 
2012-12-06 12:28:40 PM

zyrian: Why do Bible interpretation arguments remind me so much of Lost fans arguing about the symbolism in the show, or Star Trek and Star Wars geeks warring about the advantages of their respective lore? Because it's all the same. It makes just as much sense to take the Bible seriously as it is to live by the tenets of The Song of Ice and Fire. Except The Song is billions of times more fun to read and is a lot less gory and repulsive.

Also, trying to argue that Bible's "day" for the creation of Earth might've been a million human years, not 24 human hours adds another reason to completely dismiss this bronze age text (Maybe God meant us not to kill *cows* when he included it in the Ten Commandments, not other humans? How can we be certain?)

Gah.


You're asking for proof. Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing says God. "But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
 
2012-12-06 12:56:45 PM

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.


That and Muslims aren't generally making off the wall Creationist claims. You have to admit a battle with Jesus on a velociraptor vs. Mohammed on a triceratops would pretty awesome though.
 
2012-12-06 01:06:59 PM

wippit: What issue do you have this this? I can't use science to prove God exists. I can't use God to prove science is wrong.


I don't like this nonoverlapping magisteria stuff.

I don't see a compelling reason that you can't use science to prove a god exists, so long as you don't define the god into the equivalent of nonexistence. The only way something can escape potential observation from within the universe is to either sit outside the universe and do nothing, or fail to exist. Both of which appear equivalent, giving no credence to arguments for existence. A god that rigs the game and manages to do things inside the universe while making it appear that it's done nothing is going to appear as either nonexistent or nonactive, again equivalent in appearance to nonexistence. Breaking its nonobservability for any reason would put it into the realm of science.

Managing to somehow be observable and nonobservable at the same time would violate basic logic, and if the god can be A and Not A at the same time, then no possible attributes could ever be assigned -- and if you can't assign it any attributes, then you've failed at identifying what you're talking about in the first place.

So either you can have a god that can be observed, falling into the realm of science, or a god that can't be observed, which is equivalent to a nonexistent god.

Assuming you want this god to actually exist, then we're talking about things we can observe, label, and quantify, or in other words something that can be investigated with science.
 
2012-12-06 01:10:11 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: 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.

That and Muslims aren't generally making off the wall Creationist claims. You have to admit a battle with Jesus on a velociraptor vs. Mohammed on a triceratops would pretty awesome though.


That doesn't seem fair.

Raptor calvary with Jesus and apostles vs. Mohammed on triceratops.

/Jesus Raptor Cav
 
2012-12-06 01:13:05 PM

Martian_Astronomer: Pff, those aren't the "most outrageous" claims I've heard.

Just off top of my head, three that they're missing:

1. Solar Fusion is a lie. Seriously. This one was in print in the first edition of Astronomy and the Bible, and I think ICR might still run with it from time to time. The idea is that the light and head from the Sun is actually due to gravitational collapse, and that the sun is actually shrinking at a significant rate. The Sun couldn't possibly have been doing this for billions of years, so the universe is actually 6000 years old. This idea was put forward as a solution to the "solar neutrino problem", where scientists weren't measuring the expected level of neutrinos from the sun.

Interestingly enough, very few people still run with this claim since the solar neutrino problem was solved, but I distinctly remember some people thinking it was a big deal when I was a kid.

2. Human population grows geometrically, so the earth can't be millions of years old because there would be too many people if it was. This claim is abysmally stupid for obvious reasons, but I have met people who strenuously argued this one, and one discussion that I'm remembering actually went on for some time when people actually tried to use graphs of populations in ancient China to demonstrate that the global population of humans actually remained stagnant for a while.

3. The "Vapor Canopy". This is the idea that before Noah's flood, there was a gigantic "canopy" of water vapor, clouds, ice, or whatever in the vicinity of the upper atmosphere. This canopy supposedly blocked out UV the UV part of the spectrum (preventing cancer, aging, etc.), caused the atmospheric pressure to be much higher (contributing to animal and human gigantism,) and causing the entire surface of the earth to have a tropical climate. When God wanted to flood the Earth, he disrupted the canopy causing it to rain for 40 days and 40 nights. The main difficulties with this theory are that the math doesn't work ou ...


A water vapor canopy that massive would have boiled everything alive on earth (massive greenhouse effect), so no. But then, you can interrupt any science argument with "God did this and just made it not kill everyone", which makes it pointless to argue with them at all.
 
2012-12-06 01:17:23 PM
When is it time in the thread to bring in the relief pitcher IDW to close out the thread slowly and painfully with 50 comments?
 
2012-12-06 01:21:01 PM
hey gaiz wats this thread?

11. Darwin has a dilemma.
 
2012-12-06 01:22:08 PM

Fano: When is it time in the thread to bring in the relief pitcher IDW to close out the thread slowly and painfully with 50 comments?


Hahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaha
 
2012-12-06 01:23:22 PM

aerojockey: TFA misstates the "irreducible complexity" argument. It's not that all mutations are bad, it's that certain complex structures are worse than useless if you simplify them in any way, and thus intermediate forms (and therefore full forms) would never evolve. The idea itself isn't ridiculous. The ridiculous thing is that we've never actually observed any such structures, yet creation science nuts keep bringing it up.


Well, the failure of all of the supposed examples of irreducibly complex is certainly part of the problem with the "irreducible complexity" argument, but the argument has bigger conceptual problems: Namely that it does not account for alternate functions of intermediate phenotypes, and that it ignores the possibility of "scaffolding," i.e. that other supporting genes and or structures assisted the evolution of a trait, then disappeared after they were no longer needed. "Irreducible complexity" tends to be the biological analog of claiming that it's impossible, in principle, to construct a block arch.

It's an important distinction, because it moves the focus from batting down an endless parade of supposed instances to asking "How is it even possible to identify true irreducible complexity in the first place?"
 
2012-12-06 01:25:42 PM
I see Ishkur is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

Ishkur is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or
3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this 3 year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the wason selection test with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually concluded that everyone was wrong.

It's part of his technique to constantly assume Authoritarian control. He gets off on giving people challenges and quests with no point other than so he can withhold the non-existent answers from them (like his "True Definition of Nature" theory -- he poses this riddle to everyone but there's no answer. He just enjoys watching people struggle). It's the old schoolyard power trip: "I know something you don't and I won't tell you what it is".

That he's been doing this schtick for so long is an indication that he will never stop and there's nothing new to be garnered from him, like he's stuck in a perpetual feedback loop, recycling the same arguments in every thread pertinent to his special brand of Christian theology (he's probably already posted the Wason test that he so infamously failed at solving many years ago. It's his way of dealing with the embarrassment by mocking it).

Despite the fact that he frequently loses these discussions, he'll continue posting them as if they're unsolvable, ignoring repeated and consistent replies defeating them. He has never been the type to swallow his pride and admit when he's wrong so you'll never get anywhere with him (and he'll always mock you if you try). It is very likely that he has NPD and people replying to him on Fark is how he strokes his ego so he can never stop no matter how many humiliating threads send him down in flames.

In short: He is a complete and total waste of your god damn time. Reply at your peril; I suggest ignore.
 
2012-12-06 01:26:45 PM

Epicedion: Hahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaha


sorry i was going for a simulpost, but everyone knows i'm a slow typer :(
 
2012-12-06 01:26:51 PM

MadSkillz: A water vapor canopy that massive would have boiled everything alive on earth (massive greenhouse effect), so no. But then, you can interrupt any science argument with "God did this and just made it not kill everyone", which makes it pointless to argue with them at all.


Hence my comment about "the math not working out." It also would have increased the atmospheric pressure by some absurd factor, and released enough energy to boil the oceans as it fell.
 
2012-12-06 01:33:16 PM

Ivandrago: Kurmudgeon: None of the things listed in the article are referenced in The Bible.
False comparison is false.
Who are these "creationists" anyway? I saw tons of accusations yet no names to go with.
You'd think by 2012, the straw man argument would be out of usage, yet, there it is.
Ah well, your bias will lead you if you let it.

These are the creationists.
I took this at the Creation Museum near the Cincinnati Airport. Obviously there's enough of these people to support a whole museum. This one is my personal favorite.
I've got plenty more where that came from, too.

[i1260.photobucket.com image 604x453]


Did you make it over to the unicorn petting zoo?
 
2012-12-06 01:34:34 PM

I drunk what: I see Ishkur is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

Ishkur is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or
3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this 3 year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the wason selection test with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually concluded that everyone w ...


Cute. Just changed the name from yours.

Classic projection from a troll.
 
2012-12-06 01:35:54 PM

Raharu: Classic projection from a troll.


I see Raharu is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

Raharu is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or
3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this 3 year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the wason selection test with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually concluded that everyone was wrong.

It's part of his technique to constantly assume Authoritarian control. He gets off on giving people challenges and quests with no point other than so he can withhold the non-existent answers from them (like his "True Definition of Nature" theory -- he poses this riddle to everyone but there's no answer. He just enjoys watching people struggle). It's the old schoolyard power trip: "I know something you don't and I won't tell you what it is".

That he's been doing this schtick for so long is an indication that he will never stop and there's nothing new to be garnered from him, like he's stuck in a perpetual feedback loop, recycling the same arguments in every thread pertinent to his special brand of Christian theology (he's probably already posted the Wason test that he so infamously failed at solving many years ago. It's his way of dealing with the embarrassment by mocking it).

Despite the fact that he frequently loses these discussions, he'll continue posting them as if they're unsolvable, ignoring repeated and consistent replies defeating them. He has never been the type to swallow his pride and admit when he's wrong so you'll never get anywhere with him (and he'll always mock you if you try). It is very likely that he has NPD and people replying to him on Fark is how he strokes his ego so he can never stop no matter how many humiliating threads send him down in flames.

In short: He is a complete and total waste of your god damn time. Reply at your peril; I suggest ignore.
 
2012-12-06 01:42:59 PM

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?


Listen that you might learn.
 
2012-12-06 01:49:49 PM

Copperbelly watersnake: 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.


Security and long-term planning. Hunter/gatherer societies could only obtain and prepare food for the next day. Agricultural societies could obtain and prepare food for months... sometimes years.

This way, if there was a drought or a food shortage, there'd be no famine or malnutrition.

In addition, having surplus of food means wealth (what you don't eat you can always sell). Food booms produced healthier citizens and rapid population growth, necessitating the need for urban planning, resource allocation and administration. That required leadership and management, which meant social stratification, which meant control and power and eventually ruling classes and aristocracies which led to government and taxes. Populations supported by food and wealth booms were free to pursue non-sustenance related activities. From this excess free time came philosophy, astronomy, mathematics, law, science, music, medicine, art, theatre, writing, trade, language - in short, civilization and all the abstract conceptualizations and liberal arts crap that we enjoy today.
 
2012-12-06 01:52:53 PM

I drunk what: Raharu: Classic projection from a troll.

I see Raharu is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

Raharu is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or
3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this 3 year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the wason selection test with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and ...


Just removing your name and adding some one else's name does not make you seem witty or clever. It makes you seem like a simple minded child.

Sorry.
 
2012-12-06 02:00:15 PM

aerojockey: TFA misstates the "irreducible complexity" argument. It's not that all mutations are bad, it's that certain complex structures are worse than useless if you simplify them in any way, and thus intermediate forms (and therefore full forms) would never evolve. The idea itself isn't ridiculous


The fallacy that irreducible complexity makes is that in every intermediate form, they assume the structure is supposed to perform the same functions as it does today. This is completely wrong. Earlier forms had different structures so had different functions.

A great analogy of this was brought up at the Dover trial. Michael Behe used a mousetrap as an example of something that, if you take away any part, it ceases to function as a mousetrap. Kenneth Miller showed up the next day with a mousetrap but with the latch removed, which meant it was no longer a working mousetrap, but it made an excellent tie clip. That's evolution in a nutshell.
 
2012-12-06 02:22:20 PM

I drunk what: I see Ishkur is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

Ishkur is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or
3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this 3 year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the wason selection test with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually concluded that everyone w ...


Have you ever read Farks ToS?

Creationism Rulez!
 
2012-12-06 02:22:32 PM

wildcardjack: I remember flipping through a Creationist book that claimed a pic of something that looked like a tree stem in a cliff face under a tree was proof of sudden flooding creating layers of sedimentary rock.

It was a freakin' tap root digging down through sandstone. They can do that, and probably was somewhat responsible for the cliff cracking away to reveal the tap root. I came to that conclusion from the pic, and wanted to burn the book after reading the caption. Alas, I sold it for $20.


You are part of the problem.
 
2012-12-06 02:26:29 PM

Raharu: I drunk what: Raharu: Classic projection from a troll.

I see Raharu is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

Raharu is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or
3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this 3 year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the wason selection test with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give t ...


"seem like?"

Seems pretty definitive
 
2012-12-06 02:37:24 PM

aerojockey: Devil's Advocate:

TFA misstates the "irreducible complexity" argument. It's not that all mutations are bad, it's that certain complex structures are worse than useless if you simplify them in any way, and thus intermediate forms (and therefore full forms) would never evolve. The idea itself isn't ridiculous. The ridiculous thing is that we've never actually observed any such structures, yet creation science nuts keep bringing it up.

For that matter, irreducible complexity theory doesn't necessarily imply a Creator. An irreducibly complex structure could have been bred into an organism millions of years ago by bored aliens on a research mission trolling the sentient beings who would someday evolve.

[NOTE: Experience on Fark has taught me that, even though I am playing Devil's advocate, and even though I called some people Creation nuts: a bunch of atheist types are going to get severe butthurt over this because apparently even conceding small, insignificant points, like saying irreducible complexity is not by itself a ridiculous idea, makes me into an Evangelical Jesus-pusher.]


The supposition of evolution is that every structure is an intermediate structure. We will never see a "final structure" because it is continually changing to something else in an incremental way.
 
2012-12-06 02:59:45 PM
Hey, it's IDW, once again jumping into a religion vs science thread to preach about his personal definitions of reality and the supernatural (which change every time he posts), twist everything everyone says so he can mock it and insult people no matter how civil they were being to him, and take five posts to "answer" one question with responses that neither answer the question nor make any sense.
 
2012-12-06 03:01:03 PM

Ishkur: aerojockey: TFA misstates the "irreducible complexity" argument. It's not that all mutations are bad, it's that certain complex structures are worse than useless if you simplify them in any way, and thus intermediate forms (and therefore full forms) would never evolve. The idea itself isn't ridiculous

The fallacy that irreducible complexity makes is that in every intermediate form, they assume the structure is supposed to perform the same functions as it does today. This is completely wrong. Earlier forms had different structures so had different functions.

A great analogy of this was brought up at the Dover trial. Michael Behe used a mousetrap as an example of something that, if you take away any part, it ceases to function as a mousetrap. Kenneth Miller showed up the next day with a mousetrap but with the latch removed, which meant it was no longer a working mousetrap, but it made an excellent tie clip. That's evolution in a nutshell.



The toxin injector of a botulinum bacterium has many, but not all, of the same structures as a flagellum and it's protein "motor."
 
2012-12-06 03:02:07 PM

MadSkillz: Martian_Astronomer: Pff, those aren't the "most outrageous" claims I've heard.

Just off top of my head, three that they're missing:

1. Solar Fusion is a lie. Seriously. This one was in print in the first edition of Astronomy and the Bible, and I think ICR might still run with it from time to time. The idea is that the light and head from the Sun is actually due to gravitational collapse, and that the sun is actually shrinking at a significant rate. The Sun couldn't possibly have been doing this for billions of years, so the universe is actually 6000 years old. This idea was put forward as a solution to the "solar neutrino problem", where scientists weren't measuring the expected level of neutrinos from the sun.

Interestingly enough, very few people still run with this claim since the solar neutrino problem was solved, but I distinctly remember some people thinking it was a big deal when I was a kid.

2. Human population grows geometrically, so the earth can't be millions of years old because there would be too many people if it was. This claim is abysmally stupid for obvious reasons, but I have met people who strenuously argued this one, and one discussion that I'm remembering actually went on for some time when people actually tried to use graphs of populations in ancient China to demonstrate that the global population of humans actually remained stagnant for a while.

3. The "Vapor Canopy". This is the idea that before Noah's flood, there was a gigantic "canopy" of water vapor, clouds, ice, or whatever in the vicinity of the upper atmosphere. This canopy supposedly blocked out UV the UV part of the spectrum (preventing cancer, aging, etc.), caused the atmospheric pressure to be much higher (contributing to animal and human gigantism,) and causing the entire surface of the earth to have a tropical climate. When God wanted to flood the Earth, he disrupted the canopy causing it to rain for 40 days and 40 nights. The main difficulties with this theory are that the ...


You're thinking triceratops vs tyrannosaurus. As I recall triceratops were quite a bit larger than raptors, so I'm sure one on one it'd be somewhat fair (think like an elephant vs a mountain lion basically), though I have to admit a pack of raptors would utterly pwn a single triceratops.
 
2012-12-06 03:27:02 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, it's IDW, once again jumping into a religion vs science thread to preach about his personal definitions of reality and the supernatural (which change every time he posts), twist everything everyone says so he can mock it and insult people no matter how civil they were being to him, and take five posts to "answer" one question with responses that neither answer the question nor make any sense.


freethoughtpedia.com 

Creationism is fun.

/Rapter Jesus Cav
 
2012-12-06 03:59:40 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, it's IDW, once again jumping into a religion vs science thread to preach about his personal definitions of reality and the supernatural (which change every time he posts), twist everything everyone says so he can mock it and insult people no matter how civil they were being to him, and take five posts to "answer" one question with responses that neither answer the question nor make any sense.


But which card would you flip?

That one come out yet?
Heh, there's a reason I can't see his posts. Completely incoherent rants at times. Just bothersome. My guess at what was drunk is liquid drano.
 
2012-12-06 05:48:05 PM

StoPPeRmobile: Have you ever read Farks ToS?


everyone knows i can't read, don't be silly
 
2012-12-06 05:48:44 PM

justtray: Now using YOUR own logic, because part of the bible was wrong, that means that none of it is valid and also that science must be right.


I know when I'm reading a book that claims to be non-fiction and I find hundreds of contradictions and errors in it, I figure the parts I like must still be true, instead of just throwing the whole book out as worthless.

Logical consistency is the absolute minimum standard for truth, and the bible fails at it miserably.
 
2012-12-06 05:53:12 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, it's IDW, once again jumping into a religion vs science thread to preach about his personal definitions of reality and the supernatural (which change every time he posts), twist everything everyone says so he can mock it and insult people no matter how civil they were being to him, and take five posts to "answer" one question with responses that neither answer the question nor make any sense.


I see Keizer_Ghidorah is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

omeganuepsilon: Heh, there's a reason I can't see his posts.


I see omeganuepsilon is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions: 

i just want everyone to know, that i had IDW on ignore before it was cool, so all you posers need to quick attention whoring

hey guys let's talk about Science!

anyone here wanna talk about science...?
 
2012-12-06 06:26:41 PM

I drunk what: Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, it's IDW, once again jumping into a religion vs science thread to preach about his personal definitions of reality and the supernatural (which change every time he posts), twist everything everyone says so he can mock it and insult people no matter how civil they were being to him, and take five posts to "answer" one question with responses that neither answer the question nor make any sense.

I see Keizer_Ghidorah is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

omeganuepsilon: Heh, there's a reason I can't see his posts.

I see omeganuepsilon is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions: 

i just want everyone to know, that i had IDW on ignore before it was cool, so all you posers need to quick attention whoring

hey guys let's talk about Science!

anyone here wanna talk about science...?


Okay. What do you want to talk about science?
 
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