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 289
    More: Stupid, logical possibility, raptor, counter scientific theories, second law of thermodynamics, rocky planet, complex systems, biblical literalism, biological systems  
•       •       •

9237 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Dec 2012 at 10:49 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-05 08:53:41 PM  
This just in: Creationist claims are not capable of withstanding scientific scrutiny.

In other news, it's hard to breathe vaccum
 
2012-12-05 09:04:02 PM  
It's not even that subby, its more like "I don't understand X, therefore Jesus."
 
2012-12-05 09:36:46 PM  
farm4.static.flickr.com

I'd ride it.
 
2012-12-05 09:41:43 PM  
What I like is how the complaints in the comments section, that the author didn't differentiate between DERP brand X and DERP brand Y, but rather lumped them both together under the general heading of DERP.
 
2012-12-05 10:36:25 PM  
Loved this comment:

"Tried to wade through the sarcasm and snark surrounding this article, but I drowned in a Great Flood of liberal hooey."

Science = liberal hooey.

"Feel free to disagree with anyone's beliefs, but mockery merely reveals ignorance."

I've never understood this stupidity. "You were not polite enough, therefore we can disregard all the facts you stated!"

In both these statements:
"2+2 = 4, kind sir."
"2+2 = 4, you damn idiot."

The "2+2 = 4" part of the statement is exactly equally true.
 
2012-12-05 10:52:08 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-05 10:54:20 PM  
Ah yes irreducable complexity, a claim so genuine they wouldn't even defend it under oath during Kitzmiller v Dover. Oh, and then it got creamed by Kenneth Miller, PhD. and practicing Catholic.
 
2012-12-05 10:55:14 PM  
ANY CONCEPT OF THE WORLD BASED ON EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE AND VERIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS IS A LIBERAL LIE
 
2012-12-05 11:01:12 PM  
Oh gods why am I in here?
 
2012-12-05 11:01:26 PM  
Does god need to cut his toenails?
 
2012-12-05 11:01:37 PM  
I always liked the guy who disproves evolution by opening a jar of peanut butter and not finding any life. Well, shiat, I'm convinced!

Link
 
2012-12-05 11:04:57 PM  

Kittypie070: Oh gods why am I in here?


Because this shiat can be hilarious. Although I must say it was a lot more fun back when Hovind was still a free man since his dickwad son only talks science when nobody is around to challenge him and resorts to obscure and circular philosophical arguments when confronted with someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
 
2012-12-05 11:05:09 PM  

sandbar67: I always liked the guy who disproves evolution by opening a jar of peanut butter and not finding any life. Well, shiat, I'm convinced!

Link


He should check the old jar of Smuckers Natural I have in the cabinet. I think we might be able to convince him.
 
2012-12-05 11:12:22 PM  

impaler: Loved this comment:

"Tried to wade through the sarcasm and snark surrounding this article, but I drowned in a Great Flood of liberal hooey."

Science = liberal hooey.

"Feel free to disagree with anyone's beliefs, but mockery merely reveals ignorance."

I've never understood this stupidity. "You were not polite enough, therefore we can disregard all the facts you stated!"

In both these statements:
"2+2 = 4, kind sir."
"2+2 = 4, you damn idiot."

The "2+2 = 4" part of the statement is exactly equally true.


Not quite.

2+2 can equal 6 or even 8 in nine months.
2+2 can also equal -1 if the 2s are bullets.
2+2 can also add up to the best night ever if they're boobs.

So, all in all 2+2=4 is a fairly bold assertion. Kind of ballsy to even think about relying on it outside of math class.
 
2012-12-05 11:13:25 PM  
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.
 
2012-12-05 11:16:11 PM  

Flappyhead: Ah yes irreducable complexity, a claim so genuine they wouldn't even defend it under oath during Kitzmiller v Dover. Oh, and then it got creamed by Kenneth Miller, PhD. and practicing Catholic.


Less than 10 pct of the Christians in the world believe that the Bible must be literally true. The VAST majority of them live in North America. .

The other 90 pct seem to coexist with evolution just fine, although there are various levels of discomfort.
 
2012-12-05 11:16:48 PM  

doglover: impaler: Loved this comment:

"Tried to wade through the sarcasm and snark surrounding this article, but I drowned in a Great Flood of liberal hooey."

Science = liberal hooey.

"Feel free to disagree with anyone's beliefs, but mockery merely reveals ignorance."

I've never understood this stupidity. "You were not polite enough, therefore we can disregard all the facts you stated!"

In both these statements:
"2+2 = 4, kind sir."
"2+2 = 4, you damn idiot."

The "2+2 = 4" part of the statement is exactly equally true.

Not quite.

2+2 can equal 6 or even 8 in nine months.
2+2 can also equal -1 if the 2s are bullets.
2+2 can also add up to the best night ever if they're boobs.

So, all in all 2+2=4 is a fairly bold assertion. Kind of ballsy to even think about relying on it outside of math class.


Damn. All of that actually made sense... That's some might fine thinking outside the box there.
 
2012-12-05 11:19:04 PM  
"I know better than 200 years of science" is always a winning argument. Always.
 
2012-12-05 11:24:36 PM  

fat boy: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 287x400]


i172.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-05 11:26:19 PM  

MrEricSir: "I know better than 200 years of science" is always a winning argument. Always.


Meh, they don't have to "know" they just have to "believe." It's easy being a mindless puppet, you don't even have to try!
 
2012-12-05 11:28:07 PM  

ModernLuddite: ANY CONCEPT OF THE WORLD BASED ON EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE AND VERIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS IS A LIBERAL LIE


Actually, a certain famous poster here actually made that argument to me. He kept ranting that science was invalid so long as it discounted the supernatural in it's explanations.

When I asked how we were suppose to insert such things into the theory, when ID and religious folks will never give any measurable or quantifiable evidence, or even evidence to clearly divide supernatural from nature, he rejected my request. Why? Because I hadn't proved the material nature of the universe, and thus sticking to material arguments was wrong.
 
2012-12-05 11:29:46 PM  
I've actually had some experience with tje religious right, and it is scary. When I was a kid, my parents, who are educated and intelligent joined a pretty crazy church. My parent's issue was that they were 100% against abortion, so they joined a place that addressed that without anticipating all the rest of the derp that would come with it.

Anyway 6-year-old me comes home from Sunday school with a pamphlet saying that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. I remember hoping that was true because it would be awesome, but it didn't match what I had learned on school so I went to my dad for clarification.

Let's just say we never went back to that church again. My parents are still religious, and I don't press it because it makes them happy. Also, they are the "good" kind who try to help their community rather than spewing BS.

Also Bush II was the last straw for their support for the right. They both switched their registration to Democrat in 2004.

/end CSB
 
2012-12-05 11:29:52 PM  

CigaretteSmokingMan: fat boy: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 287x400]

[i172.photobucket.com image 288x401]


heh, that's the first I've seen that... that's funny.
 
2012-12-05 11:30:10 PM  
Hey subby isn't that the same argument that the Climate Change Deniers use?

Hmmmmmmmmmm
 
2012-12-05 11:30:36 PM  
Faith doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

It's a big part of why faith recoils against science. 

To be fair, that's why it's called 'faith'.
 
2012-12-05 11:30:48 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: doglover: impaler: Loved this comment:

"Tried to wade through the sarcasm and snark surrounding this article, but I drowned in a Great Flood of liberal hooey."

Science = liberal hooey.

"Feel free to disagree with anyone's beliefs, but mockery merely reveals ignorance."

I've never understood this stupidity. "You were not polite enough, therefore we can disregard all the facts you stated!"

In both these statements:
"2+2 = 4, kind sir."
"2+2 = 4, you damn idiot."

The "2+2 = 4" part of the statement is exactly equally true.

Not quite.

2+2 can equal 6 or even 8 in nine months.
2+2 can also equal -1 if the 2s are bullets.
2+2 can also add up to the best night ever if they're boobs.

So, all in all 2+2=4 is a fairly bold assertion. Kind of ballsy to even think about relying on it outside of math class.

Damn. All of that actually made sense... That's some might fine thinking outside the box there.


I made sense? Call your doctor right away. You need stronger meds!
 
2012-12-05 11:34:20 PM  
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.
 
2012-12-05 11:34:59 PM  
The real question is this: Are we evolving toward having more or fewer fundamentalist derpwads. Is derp an adaptive advantage?
 
2012-12-05 11:38:40 PM  

xant: The real question is this: Are we evolving toward having more or fewer fundamentalist derpwads. Is derp an adaptive advantage?


No. We are evolving toward extinction.
 
2012-12-05 11:39:32 PM  

xant: The real question is this: Are we evolving toward having more or fewer fundamentalist derpwads. Is derp an adaptive advantage?


I think derp is a trait that can actually be beneficial in certain amounts (making it easier to form a community, and avoid existential angst), but if it's had in too great of quantities, it will fark your shiat up. You know, kind of like how having one sickle-cell anemia gene makes you resistant to malaria, but having two means you're royally farked.
 
2012-12-05 11:42:23 PM  
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 out at all, and that there's no evidence for it.


The author of this article may have a cursory knowledge of modern "scientific creationist" claims, but if you're going to go for a list of the "Top 10 most absurd claims," you really need to dig a little deeper. I am disappoint.
 
2012-12-05 11:49:35 PM  

stratagos: This just in: Creationist claims are not capable of withstanding scientific scrutiny.

In other news, it's hard to breathe vaccum


If it's that obvious, then why aren't congresscritters that spew this garbage ostracized? Clearly it's not emphasized enough.
 
2012-12-05 11:51:23 PM  
I thought science's 'thing' was being able to prove things 100%. I agree on stuff being probable or extremely likely, but, Laws v.s. Theory and all that.

Not that Jeebus freaks are any better, if not worse. Both sides of the argument have their zealots.
 
2012-12-05 11:53:13 PM  
I say this as an ex-believer:

STFU about the 'Jesus on a dinosauer' meme.

It's boring and stupid.'

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.

And btw: whenTF are you gonna start making 'Mohammed on a dinosaur' comments?
What's wrong? Chickenshiat?
 
2012-12-06 12:00:33 AM  
I read one yesterday which basically was : you can't explain male anglerfish fusing with a female until their bodies melt so therefore GOD!

Which I guess would mean God is a really weird person to come up with those anglerfish and we'd best stay away from such a character.
 
2012-12-06 12:05:51 AM  
like kitties with fresh catnip
 
2012-12-06 12:07:55 AM  

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.


Haha, so what you're going with is that the Bible is final determination of your beliefs? I've got real bad news for you.... You might want to read it.
 
2012-12-06 12:10:49 AM  

douchebag/hater: I say this as an ex-believer:

STFU about the 'Jesus on a dinosauer' meme.

It's boring and stupid.'

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.

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


So both sides are bad, vote religious? Cuz thats what it sounds like.

Except its not true. One side has myths and fairy tales, the other has facts, science, and logic.

No one is going to tell you what to believe, but the facts will remain the facts, regardless.

Actually I'm wrong, religious people often tell you what to believe. It's why they're usually so insufferable.
 
2012-12-06 12:13:35 AM  

Flappyhead: Kittypie070: Oh gods why am I in here?

Because this shiat can be hilarious. Although I must say it was a lot more fun back when Hovind was still a free man since his dickwad son only talks science when nobody is around to challenge him and resorts to obscure and circular philosophical arguments when confronted with someone who actually knows what they are talking about.


This thread will probably be pretty quiet. We wore ourselves out bashing Charlie Brown earlier.
 
2012-12-06 12:18:02 AM  

iron_city_ap: I thought science's 'thing' was being able to prove things 100%.


Science is not an endgame. It is a process that strives toward better understanding. It is totally comfortable with, and usually excited about, not being 100% about stuff.
 
2012-12-06 12:27:53 AM  

fat boy: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 287x400]


That hasn't been working as consistently as it used to. If you want to guarantee his appearance you are going to have to add some major mana to that spell. Maybe sacrifice a PhD candidate or a goat.
 
2012-12-06 12:28:21 AM  

Martian_Astronomer: 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 out at all, and that there's no evidence for it.


Now that's an interesting concoction. It may be a crock of shiat, but I have to admit it sounds pretty cool and even semi-logical.
 
2012-12-06 12:29:09 AM  

sandbar67: I always liked the guy who disproves evolution by opening a jar of peanut butter and not finding any life. Well, shiat, I'm convinced!

Link


holy shiat, my entire IQ disappeaprj ñkjwe r5po423op5k.,s{ñ23ñ{3 fsdga
 
2012-12-06 12:29:43 AM  
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
 
2012-12-06 12:30:13 AM  
Odin and so forth
 
2012-12-06 12:32:08 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Who are these "creationists" anyway? I saw tons of accusations yet no names to go with.


Kent Hovind Ministries
Kenneth Ham
the creation museum in Kentucky
Answers in Genesis
the Institute for Creation Research

These folks are the sources for a lot of the curricula used by homeschoolers.
 
2012-12-06 12:32:37 AM  

iron_city_ap: I thought science's 'thing' was being able to prove things 100%.


You didn't pay much attention in science class, then.
 
2012-12-06 12:39:46 AM  

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
 
2012-12-06 12:39:48 AM  
 
2012-12-06 12:42:36 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-06 12:47:46 AM  
"God moves in mysterious ways, therefore probability."

Well, that's not gonna inspire anyone.

Anyone: "what was God doing before creation?"
St. Augustine: "God was preparing Hell for people who ask such questions."

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.
 
2012-12-06 12:47:47 AM  
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

― Isaac Asimov

"Blah blah blah. Liberal hooey."
 
2012-12-06 12:54:13 AM  

douchebag/hater: I say this as an ex-believer:

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


I make fun of Christians for pairing their religious figures with dinosaurs. To my knowledge, Muslims don't do that. If they did, I'd laugh at them, too.
Here's Adam and his velociraptor.

i1260.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-06 12:56:41 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
-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.
 
2012-12-06 01:02:52 AM  
If you can't get Pat Farking Robertson to agree that your position has merit, you've lost.
 
2012-12-06 01:08:46 AM  

Absurdity: I've actually had some experience with tje religious right, and it is scary. When I was a kid, my parents, who are educated and intelligent joined a pretty crazy church. My parent's issue was that they were 100% against abortion, so they joined a place that addressed that without anticipating all the rest of the derp that would come with it.

Anyway 6-year-old me comes home from Sunday school with a pamphlet saying that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. I remember hoping that was true because it would be awesome, but it didn't match what I had learned on school so I went to my dad for clarification.

Let's just say we never went back to that church again. My parents are still religious, and I don't press it because it makes them happy. Also, they are the "good" kind who try to help their community rather than spewing BS.

Also Bush II was the last straw for their support for the right. They both switched their registration to Democrat in 2004.

/end CSB


I'm curious. What's their position on birth control?
 
2012-12-06 01:15:21 AM  

Ivandrago: douchebag/hater: I say this as an ex-believer:

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

I make fun of Christians for pairing their religious figures with dinosaurs. To my knowledge, Muslims don't do that. If they did, I'd laugh at them, too.
Here's Adam and his velociraptor.

[i1260.photobucket.com image 453x604]


Where's the raptor?
 
2012-12-06 01:33:16 AM  
www.11points.com
 
2012-12-06 01:38:05 AM  
HeartBurnKid:

Our spine kinda sucks for bipedal use. You could do a lot better.

Tell me about your spine.

You can't use logic to argue someone out of a position that they didn't use logic to reach in the first place.
 
2012-12-06 01:38:08 AM  
Noah was 600 years old when God told him to build an ark. 6000 year old earth.
 
2012-12-06 01:38:26 AM  

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]


Biogeographical even! See, it's all sciency! Says so right on the sign! Praise JAYZUS!
 
2012-12-06 01:42:17 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.


Well, there's that and the fact that Mohammad didn't time travel like Jesus did.

See, Mohammed was a prophet, not a supernatural being,
 
2012-12-06 01:43:55 AM  
I wanted to post a memeish anti-creationist pic, but I found this instead.

icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com

You're welcome.
 
2012-12-06 01:47:51 AM  

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.


Sometimes I'm so stunned by the sheer creativity in things like this it makes me feel small and inadequate.
 
2012-12-06 01:54:30 AM  
This may be apocryphal, I'm looking for a source, but...

"If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences."

H. P. Lovecraft
 
2012-12-06 01:54:35 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-06 01:57:02 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.


God of the gaps

Vs

Turtles all the way down
 
2012-12-06 01:58:32 AM  
You fail at this i09

How about the craters on the moon being created by the same forces that caused Noah's flood? Yes, you read that right, there is a 'well respected' creationist contributor to conservopedia who explains the craters on the moon... As being caused by the flood.

How you say? The force of the earth splitting open along the ridges under the ocean. There was water under the crust and the pressure was enough that when the earth split open it propelled water with enough force to reach escape velocity, creating chunks of ice, that then hit the moon and caused craters. He's quite certain that if you look around the moon long enough you will even find bits of fossilized sea life.

Oh there's a whole hell of a lot more stupid from that same guy that goes along with that, but I think that's enough.
 
2012-12-06 02:02:09 AM  
Here's the official atheist position*, don't make me repeat it.

We don't give a shiat what you believe. No, really. I just don't want to have to hear about it or be affected by it in any way.
And you can't abuse your kids with it.

Do what you want to yourself, believe whatever nonsense you'd like. You can even be terminally stupid such as shunning medicine, go for it! If you can adhere the above...how the fark is anyone going to have a problem with you?

*there is no official position because atheists are merely people who don't have belief. Believers are atheists too about all the other gods they don't believe in. We're just taking it to its logical conclusion.
 
2012-12-06 02:06:28 AM  

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.


I met them with some regularity in good old Eugene, OR. They ignore my No Soliciting sign and try to proseltyze at me.

I've gotten pamphlets explaining why science was wrong from mostly Jehovah's Witnesses, but my wife actually recieved that "God doesn't believe in atheists" book by Ray Comfort from a creationist fundy she was acquaintences with.

I wanted to send "The God Delusion" in response, but was vetoed.
 
2012-12-06 02:06:47 AM  
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.
 
2012-12-06 02:10:34 AM  
Lady Indica:

Here's the official atheist position*, don't make me repeat it.

And the official position of herded cats is... "Were you saying something about your beliefs? Because I don't recall listening to whatever official position you were just talking about."
 
2012-12-06 02:11:29 AM  

Ishkur: [www.11points.com image 520x545]


shiat. As an Electrical Engineer/ Physicist, I guess I'm going to be out of a job since electricity doesn't exist
 
2012-12-06 02:15:01 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Ivandrago: douchebag/hater: I say this as an ex-believer:

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

I make fun of Christians for pairing their religious figures with dinosaurs. To my knowledge, Muslims don't do that. If they did, I'd laugh at them, too.
Here's Adam and his velociraptor.

[i1260.photobucket.com image 453x604]

Where's the raptor?


i375.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-06 02:24:40 AM  

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. 

Sorry to bang on for so long about this. As your reward for reading, have a nice picture of a kitten.

www.photo-dictionary.com
 
2012-12-06 02:26:15 AM  

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]


Wh... What? That's a real photo from a real "museum"? Oh, boy...
 
2012-12-06 02:32:45 AM  

Ivandrago: To my knowledge, Muslims don't do that.


Only because you can be killed for making an image of their religious heroes.

On the other hand, the Koran has Djinn. Aladin isn't a bedtime story, it's fact.

Kinda interesting.
 
2012-12-06 02:38:09 AM  

Wayne 985: Wh... What? That's a real photo from a real "museum"? Oh, boy...


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-06 02:53:43 AM  

Martian_Astronomer: 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 out at all, and that there's no evidence for it.


This one is my absolute favorite one ever. And supposedly the Deluge carved out the grand canyon. Like God unzipped the sky and it just blasted out the whole Colorado River. Or something. It's just the most insane BS.
 
2012-12-06 02:54:23 AM  

randomjsa: You fail at this i09

How about the craters on the moon being created by the same forces that caused Noah's flood? Yes, you read that right, there is a 'well respected' creationist contributor to conservopedia who explains the craters on the moon... As being caused by the flood.

How you say? The force of the earth splitting open along the ridges under the ocean. There was water under the crust and the pressure was enough that when the earth split open it propelled water with enough force to reach escape velocity, creating chunks of ice, that then hit the moon and caused craters. He's quite certain that if you look around the moon long enough you will even find bits of fossilized sea life.

Oh there's a whole hell of a lot more stupid from that same guy that goes along with that, but I think that's enough.


WTH???? A randomJSA post that's not idiotic? Oh wait.. (checks tab).. I'm in the geek not politics tab, carry on.

/still amazed
 
2012-12-06 03:10:44 AM  

douchebag/hater: In fact you are just as bad, if not worse, than most fundamentalists.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-12-06 03:11:44 AM  

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.
 
2012-12-06 03:11:53 AM  
"According to Genesis, most of the Flood water came from underground - what resulted in warmer than average oceans and a significant increase in global snowfall."

Huh, warmer oceans -> more moisture in the air -> more snow. Where have I seen that particular claim mocked and made fun of endlessly?

avideditor.files.wordpress.com


The take home message here is that global warming deniers are shockingly even dumber than creationists.


/image is hot, of course
 
2012-12-06 03:12:32 AM  

Ishkur: douchebag/hater: In fact you are just as bad, if not worse, than most fundamentalists.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 373x330]


BE superior. Not FEEL superior. That mistake in that particular comic is quite annoying.
 
2012-12-06 03:30:41 AM  

untaken_name: You never heard of a guy named Joseph Stalin, did you? He was an atheist dedicated to ending religion.


Stalin and Hitler were not atheists. Not once did they rant in any of their speeches that their enemies must be eliminated for the sake of secular humanism and rational inquiry. Rather, what they did was establish systems of moral absolutes with state theocracies, oppressive social obedience and strict political doctrine replacing scripture. Essentially: Political ideology as church, with themselves as God.

The whole "who committed more atrocities" argument is a mutually assured destruction debate tactic anyway. Do you really want to count them all up? Christians wiped out two entire continents and an entire race of people. And not only did they commit genocide to others, they committed genocide to themselves (the greatest enemy to Christians has always been other Christians: Quite possibly up to 50 million in just the wars of the Reformation....20 million in the 30 years war alone). But do these numbers make any argument better? Do you feel better about your side if you can tally it up and show that your beliefs only killed a few million less than their beliefs? Does that make it more right?

Today's Christians should not have to answer for every past atrocity done in the name of Christianity, just as today's atheists should not have to answer for every past atrocity done in the name of atheism (which is technically none...but even if you threw in Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot or anyone else who wasn't Christian or an atheist, that still doesn't justify either argument).
 
2012-12-06 03:50:38 AM  

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.


Let me get that last nail for you...

So, you never venture out onto Youtube? Never heard of Answers in Genesis? The Dover trial? The Texas Board of Education? Hell, I've got Young Earth Creationists in my office at work. But you just go on lying if it helps you hide from the embarrassing fact that a frightening number of your fellow Christians are complete morons.
 
2012-12-06 03:56:38 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: and he sucked at keeping an eye out for his only nemesis, Lucifer


How can Lucifer be a nemesis? Angels do not have free will. Only humans (and God) have free will. Lucifer can only do what God wants him to do.
 
2012-12-06 04:04:36 AM  

Ishkur: [www.11points.com image 520x545]


That can't possibly be real... wait. Bob Jones? *sigh*
 
2012-12-06 04:17:41 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Keizer_Ghidorah: and he sucked at keeping an eye out for his only nemesis, Lucifer

How can Lucifer be a nemesis? Angels do not have free will. Only humans (and God) have free will. Lucifer can only do what God wants him to do.


I thought the whole fallen angel thing was an extrapolation of a few verses by milton and dante
 
2012-12-06 04:18:54 AM  

HighZoolander: "According to Genesis, most of the Flood water came from underground - what resulted in warmer than average oceans and a significant increase in global snowfall."

Huh, warmer oceans -> more moisture in the air -> more snow. Where have I seen that particular claim mocked and made fun of endlessly?

[avideditor.files.wordpress.com image 480x233]


The take home message here is that global warming deniers are shockingly even dumber than creationists.


/image is hot, of course


You are saying that because you read it in a creationist pamphlet that makes it true and that creationists are on the button?

Obviously we should stop mocking the creationists. It`s settled. Don`t be a creation denier.
 
2012-12-06 04:49:23 AM  

Gordon Bennett: 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.


Subconsciously they fear science, for as you say, it challenges their faith(and wins when you get down to it), or rather, the explanations they've been taught that support their faith. Whatever, you got the sentiment right. Also works consciously(they see information as an attack), almost like a learned paranoia.

Anyway, that's pretty self explanatory if you're in the right frame of mind. The following is what I find truly interesting.

It's also a holdover from, well, really, when religion got it's start. If I lie and tell you I have knowledge X or power y, in order to garner power and respect and to get you to do my bidding.....and if you believe it...well, the obvious danger to my gained status is you learning otherwise. So, to retain that power, I've got to keep contrary factual information from you.

It's psychologically/socially genius of course, it has become a self sustaining action, the religious, even those with absolutely zero power, employ the forced ignorance technique.

In that way, religion is a marvel. Sure, people like suicide bomber recruiters have an easy time of it, befriend a troubled youth and give him hope that the desperate and weak will latch onto. That's an ugly and crude trick really, but to build a set of rules that will self perpetuate like that is a fine work of art. Sure, some of it is the act of indoctrination of children, but much of it is in the structure of the religion itself.

On that note, and here is where it get's crazy. Ever read Rant from Chuck Phalanuik(however the hell you spell his name)?
He notes that parents teach their kids how to believe. Things like santa, the bogey man, etc, it's all conditioning / priming. He does not take it quite so far as to say it's priming them for religion, but you can almost hear him type it, and then hit backspace, it's that close to what he's saying.

It's a sort of messed up book and neat things like that come in tiny portions, with an odd backdrop, mysticism mixed with sci-fi and dystopia, and it's in an odd format.(as if it's a bunch of answers from interviews and snippets from oral stories) It's a fun read if you can handle it. (Also gets to "gross out" stages, kind of assures that no christians will read it talking about, well, I don't want to push the limits of fark..., i certainly don't have sensitive proprieties but it gets dirrrty and I'd rather keep my posting privelages)
 
2012-12-06 05:08:35 AM  

omeganuepsilon: That's an ugly and crude trick really, but to build a set of rules that will self perpetuate like that is a fine work of art.


Well, the ones without that ability to perpetuate die off which only leaves the ones that are able to continue on. It's sorta like a certain theory that they're against.
 
2012-12-06 05:21:39 AM  

douchebag/hater: I say this as an ex-believer:

STFU about the 'Jesus on a dinosauer' meme.

It's boring and stupid.'

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.

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


I'am all for letting people believe what they want, I think the problem is when those people in charge use thier beliefs to make policy. (i.e. abortion, birth control, stem cell research) Don't try and force you're beliefs on others and there won't be problems.

Also, I don't care if you say that Muhammad is blowing Jesus while rising a dinosaur. The only thing in that scenario that actually existed was the dinosaur.
 
2012-12-06 05:21:51 AM  

Dracolich: omeganuepsilon: That's an ugly and crude trick really, but to build a set of rules that will self perpetuate like that is a fine work of art.

Well, the ones without that ability to perpetuate die off which only leaves the ones that are able to continue on. It's sorta like a certain theory that they're against.


Well, yeah. Hundreds(thousands if you include little cults) of religions have died off over the ages and we're seeing the "winners". Was already getting ranty and didn't want to make the post too long, nice to see you catch it though.

Can't give evolution all of the credit. It had a head start in that category even though it was a relative late bloomer. It got incorporated by the Romans, and that kind of guaranteed success for a while.
 
2012-12-06 05:28:39 AM  

jakepowers: Also, I don't care if you say that Muhammad is blowing Jesus while rising a dinosaur. The only thing in that scenario that actually existed was the dinosaur.


So what you're saying is that if you had a four-way road, in the middle was a crisp, new hundred dollar bill, and in the surrounding streets there are a male-affectionate, easy to get along with, non-political agenda lesbian, Muhammed, Jesus and a dinosaur, the one that would get to the hundred dollar bill first is the dinosaur?
 
2012-12-06 05:43:25 AM  
Nobody says you can`t believe what you want.

The problem starts when we hear about it. This should not happen.

Believing something is not the same as shouting it on the street and getting people who think the same things as you to go into political office to change the law to match your belief and preaching everywhere about it.

Atheists just want you to stop forcing what you believe onto others.

If you were doing that then nobody would hear about your beliefs to reply to them in ways you don`t like.
 
2012-12-06 05:52:20 AM  

untaken_name: impaler: The "2+2 = 4" part of the statement is exactly equally true.

[www.apfn.org image 320x174]


"How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."
 
2012-12-06 06:09:25 AM  
what a bunch of crap.

Jesus rode a T-Rex. His buddy Mohammad rode the raptor.
 
2012-12-06 06:22:38 AM  

red5ish: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

― Isaac Asimov

"Blah blah blah. Liberal hooey."


He's dead isn't he
 
2012-12-06 06:26:42 AM  
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?
 
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 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 07:17:31 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 07:24:40 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 07:33:53 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.
 
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?
 
2012-12-06 06:35:36 PM  

I drunk what: StoPPeRmobile: Have you ever read Farks ToS?

everyone knows i can't read, don't be silly


Why read if you know the maths.

Oh, and, don't tell me not to be silly. It's one of the few honest joys in life.
possil.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-06 06:37:32 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...?


We are here to talk about Jesus Raptor Cavalry.

That would be kickass.
 
2012-12-06 07:10:39 PM  
*tumbleweed blows by in thread that reached 170 or so posts then came to a screeching halt for some reason*
 
2012-12-06 07:13:12 PM  

Fano: *tumbleweed blows by in thread that reached 170 or so posts then came to a screeching halt for some reason*


IDW has that effect.
 
2012-12-06 07:17:07 PM  

Anenu: ...doesn't this mean that god can only exist because super god mad it? ...


Super God Mad is going to be the name of my new band.

/right after Skin Princess from the Charlie Brown thread
 
2012-12-06 07:23:38 PM  

Jsin82: randomjsa: You fail at this i09

How about the craters on the moon being created by the same forces that caused Noah's flood? Yes, you read that right, there is a 'well respected' creationist contributor to conservopedia who explains the craters on the moon... As being caused by the flood.

How you say? The force of the earth splitting open along the ridges under the ocean. There was water under the crust and the pressure was enough that when the earth split open it propelled water with enough force to reach escape velocity, creating chunks of ice, that then hit the moon and caused craters. He's quite certain that if you look around the moon long enough you will even find bits of fossilized sea life.

Oh there's a whole hell of a lot more stupid from that same guy that goes along with that, but I think that's enough.

WTH???? A randomJSA post that's not idiotic? Oh wait.. (checks tab).. I'm in the geek not politics tab, carry on.

/still amazed


I've seen this with some of the other trolls as well.

I suspect that they have more than one account - one for posting trolltastic derp and another for proper posting. Sometimes they forget which one they are logged in as.
 
2012-12-06 07:26:46 PM  

kg2095: Jsin82: randomjsa: You fail at this i09

How about the craters on the moon being created by the same forces that caused Noah's flood? Yes, you read that right, there is a 'well respected' creationist contributor to conservopedia who explains the craters on the moon... As being caused by the flood.

How you say? The force of the earth splitting open along the ridges under the ocean. There was water under the crust and the pressure was enough that when the earth split open it propelled water with enough force to reach escape velocity, creating chunks of ice, that then hit the moon and caused craters. He's quite certain that if you look around the moon long enough you will even find bits of fossilized sea life.

Oh there's a whole hell of a lot more stupid from that same guy that goes along with that, but I think that's enough.

WTH???? A randomJSA post that's not idiotic? Oh wait.. (checks tab).. I'm in the geek not politics tab, carry on.

/still amazed

I've seen this with some of the other trolls as well.

I suspect that they have more than one account - one for posting trolltastic derp and another for proper posting. Sometimes they forget which one they are logged in as.


Then there is BOOZE.

/booze
 
2012-12-06 07:28:21 PM  

RedVentrue: 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?


And you're requesting further discussion from him? Ah well, can't say you weren't warned, I've done my duty.
 
2012-12-06 07:32:14 PM  

omeganuepsilon: RedVentrue: 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?

And you're requesting further discussion from him? Ah well, can't say you weren't warned, I've done my duty.


Do I enjoy punishment?

Have you noticed he hasn't responded?

Am I the bigger troll, or is he?
 
2012-12-06 07:42:36 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: 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.


All true, IMO, but that doesn't make the idea ridiculous. It just makes it an idea that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
 
2012-12-06 07:46:51 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 irreducible complexity argument is quite easily disproven. Flagella on sperm are "irreducibly complex". Not true, other organisms have flagella with only one central protein filament as well as fewer outer filaments. These "broken" flagella work just fine for the organisms or cells that have them.

Eyes have developed independently multiple times. A simple patch of photosensitive cells on the surface of an organism can be a significant advantage to the organism. It is not a broken eye at all, although it is not an eye as we would think of it in a human or mammal.

I'm sure there are others.
 
2012-12-06 07:58:17 PM  

RedVentrue: Am I the bigger troll, or is he?


You.
 
2012-12-06 08:14:38 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: RedVentrue: Am I the bigger troll, or is he?

You.


Thank you, thank you.

*Applause*
 
2012-12-06 08:17:06 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: RedVentrue: Am I the bigger troll, or is he?

You.


Ya know what's really warped?

I like to troll in the geek tab, but I'm serious in the politics tab.
 
2012-12-06 08:58:10 PM  

RedVentrue: Have you noticed he hasn't responded?


Will, you did ask him to talk about science. In all fairness, he's probably still throwing up.
 
2012-12-06 09:14:12 PM  

thurstonxhowell: 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 courserepeating high school, at minimum.


FTFY

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.]


That little bit there is why what you brought up is essentially pointless.

And I see that the Selection/Confirmation Bias Troll has made his appearance so here's this:

Originally posted by Ishkur, with modifications by me.

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

IDW 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 sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached) or
3) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which includes one or more of the following: a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter

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, as evidenced by his refusal to accept or debate the basic dictionary definition of the word). 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 09:19:12 PM  
Originally posted by Ishkur, with modifications by me.

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

IDW 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 sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached) or
3) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which includes one or more of the following: a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter

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, as evidenced by his refusal to accept or debate the basic dictionary definition of the word). 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 09:27:56 PM  
*begins the a slow clap*

Magnificent.

It's what several of us in this thread think of IDW, and yes, reality is not a democracy, but occasionally that many people are correct.
 
2012-12-06 10:34:00 PM  

kg2095: I've seen this with some of the other trolls as well.

I suspect that they have more than one account - one for posting trolltastic derp and another for proper posting. Sometimes they forget which one they are logged in as.


If it helps your fragile little world view to think things like this then go right ahead. I'm completely consistent on this sort of thing.
 
2012-12-06 11:56:13 PM  

jso2897: compulsion to defend whatever superstitions you embra


Now hold up a second buddy... I understand the point you're trying to make, but you're seriously lacking nuance.

His Stalin example wasn't a problem... he could have also mentioned Pol Pot or Mao... plenty of people died because of a certain small red book - which did outline atheism as de jure....

Just hear me out for a minute...

Tamil Tigers rise to power...

Now it's not convenient that they were also Atheists and are often credited with inventing the modern suicide bombing....

You can also look at the Shining Path...

Now there's a lot of communist/atheist Maost rebel type groups out there... atheism is linked up conceptually with Marxist/Leninist teachings on purpose...

For full disclosure I AM a communist, I am a very liberal 4th international communist who has no interest in policing religion - but that makes me a MINORITY amongst communists, not the general rule. I left the communist party of New York, because I'd had enough of their war on religion - such is life.

You can say, arguably, that no one has killed anyone over Atheisms "holy books" if you define holy books in a certain way - but certainly various manifestos and such might qualify. But most of your arguments are, unfortunately, easily countered.

I have to go back to your initial detractor - zealousness gone amok is a problem for ANY philosophy - and atheism is not immune to the sort of criticism you're implying, it just isn't. That doesn't mean that religions haven't done terrible terrible things... they certainly have, but there have also been many wars fought over Pepper, Salt, and Coffee... that doesn't make spices or caffeinated bevrages good or bad...

It does show a proclivity for violence amongst the human condition. But I don't think anyone is arguing that humanity isn't, or hasn't been, wrestling with it's tendency towards war since time immemorial.

Saying .... I don't know, that old chestnut, that Vegetarianism is linked to genocide - viz; Pol Pot and Hitler being genocidal and vegetarian is definitely stupid. But trying to deny atheism in hard line communism is a losing battle, because it's right in there. I have a copy of the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital LITERALLY within arms reach... but the anti-religious sentiment of Marx and later authors is a problem that revolutionary socialism has had, and continues to struggle with. I don't think such things are necessary - I personally believe that state worship isn't better than... any other kind honestly, nor do I think a system of economics should dictate such but Marx and Lenin DID believe that.

The theory has come a long way - people who only talk about those authors, and nothing more modern, usually missing out on some great stuff by Weber and even some contemporary authors on communism are missing out. It's like trying to have an honest opinion about Capitalism - but then prefacing by saying you will not discuss anything more modern than Locke's work... it's silly, but that's usually what's happening.

I realize this is long winded... and I doubt you read the whole thing. But just... change your argument. You have a point, or even half a point, and it can be unpacked. But right now, it's just not nuanced enough to actually be true or defensible.

Just my two cents...

/Really not trying to mess with you, honestly my opinions.
 
2012-12-07 12:25:47 AM  

douchebag/hater: I say this as an ex-believer:

STFU about the 'Jesus on a dinosauer' meme.

It's boring and stupid.'

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.

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


You are a terrible troll.
 
2012-12-07 12:31:06 AM  
Any theory brought forth by individuals that make life and death decisions based on their conversations with invisible people is by default nonsense.
 
2012-12-07 01:10:47 AM  

kregh99: Any theory brought forth by individuals that make life and death decisions based on their conversations with invisible people is by default nonsense.


So I... shouldn't listen to my Oncologist over the phone?
 
2012-12-07 01:32:18 AM  

wildsnowllama: kregh99: Any theory brought forth by individuals that make life and death decisions based on their conversations with invisible people is by default nonsense.

So I... shouldn't listen to my Oncologist over the phone?


I bet you think you're clever.
 
2012-12-07 02:50:27 AM  

Ed Grubermann: 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.


Thanx for the link, I did listen to the whole thing :-)
 
2012-12-07 08:13:51 AM  

RedVentrue: Have you noticed he hasn't responded?


you know IDW has other things to do than post on Fark

1.bp.blogspot.com

omeganuepsilon: Ah well, can't say you weren't warned, I've done my duty.


that's right, you contributed your rotsky troll to this thread, good job skippy

you get a sticker

quick = quit, for any of you morans (like omega) that can't figure out what people meant to type...

i just want everyone to know that i was correcting farker's typos before it was cool, everyone pay attention to me!!!1!

RedVentrue: Okay. What do you want to talk about science?


in the battle against Religion who is winning?

has any science occurred in this thread or article that merits a discussion? i'm game
 
2012-12-07 08:29:47 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Ah well, can't say you weren't warned, I've done my duty.


starting sentences with interjections and using double negatives is bad grammar

I've done my duty.

/sorry pet peeve
//And you're requesting further discussion from him?

he can't even understand basic logic:

upload.wikimedia.org

omeganuepsilon: But which card would you flip?


can anyone help this idiot out? friday13, Keizer_Ghidorah, Raharu, omeganuepsilon, Ishkur

...anyone? bueller??

friday13:
And I see that the Selection/Confirmation Bias Troll

just to prove to everyone here that you know what these words mean (and that you're using them correctly), present your evidence to support this statement, and feel free to elaborate on how IDW qualifies for such things

go ahead lad, take your time

but don't worry about lying, i haven't seen Dimensio in this thread yet, you're safe for now
 
2012-12-07 08:30:55 AM  
third p0st reserved
 
2012-12-07 08:57:19 AM  
Oh Look its IDW popping in on a day old thread trying to look smart by getting the last word.


Well you can Have it IDW. Good Luck with that.
 
2012-12-07 09:18:42 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Who or what ensures that they stay in force and cannot be broken?


The Architect

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: How did they come to be?


Design - Spoken, by The Word


i.qkme.me
 
2012-12-07 10:29:46 AM  

Raharu: Oh Look its IDW popping in on a day old thread trying to look smart by getting the last word.


Well you can Have it IDW. Good Luck with that.


I REALLY need to watch that movie. It looks very good.
 
2012-12-07 10:42:01 AM  

friday13: Raharu: Oh Look its IDW popping in on a day old thread trying to look smart by getting the last word.


Well you can Have it IDW. Good Luck with that.

I REALLY need to watch that movie. It looks very good.


It was pretty fun to watch... not like the BEST telling of Merlin's story, but like in the top 5 for sure.
 
2012-12-07 11:51:21 AM  

kg2095: Jsin82: randomjsa: You fail at this i09

How about the craters on the moon being created by the same forces that caused Noah's flood? Yes, you read that right, there is a 'well respected' creationist contributor to conservopedia who explains the craters on the moon... As being caused by the flood.

How you say? The force of the earth splitting open along the ridges under the ocean. There was water under the crust and the pressure was enough that when the earth split open it propelled water with enough force to reach escape velocity, creating chunks of ice, that then hit the moon and caused craters. He's quite certain that if you look around the moon long enough you will even find bits of fossilized sea life.

Oh there's a whole hell of a lot more stupid from that same guy that goes along with that, but I think that's enough.

WTH???? A randomJSA post that's not idiotic? Oh wait.. (checks tab).. I'm in the geek not politics tab, carry on.

/still amazed

I've seen this with some of the other trolls as well.

I suspect that they have more than one account - one for posting trolltastic derp and another for proper posting. Sometimes they forget which one they are logged in as.


No, he really is this way. You may not agree with his politics (I know I sure as hell don't) but he is consistent in his support of evolutionary science.
 
2012-12-07 11:55:37 AM  

I drunk what: has any science occurred in this thread or article that merits a discussion? i'm game


Here's my thoughts on 1-10.

1. Rocks move around over time, but leave evidence of being disturbed when they do. Examples in the story sound like hoaxing. Science scores a point here.

2. Biology and stars are not bound to the 2nd. Neither side can claim to know why. No one scores a point.

3. The speed of light has indeed seemed to change over time. Probably relative to whatever the gravity/relativity effects were in proportion to the size of the universe at the time. Creationists can't prove 6kya, neither can Sciencists prove 13.7bya. 0 points.

4. Sciencists have pretty well proven evolution. Point goes to Sciencists.

5. We've seen stars in various stages of formation in nebulas. Point goes to Sciencists.

6. Stars and biology are not bound by the 2nd law, therefore the 2nd is at least partially crap. No proof of God being the reason, though. 0 points.

7. Cart before the horse. Sciencists +1

8. C14 dating is affected by environmental conditions. Creationists get a point.

9. Neither side can prove a damn thing here. Philisophical argument. 0 points.

10. No one witnessed and documented the formation of GC. 0 points.
 
2012-12-07 12:05:17 PM  

RedVentrue: Sciencists


is this what happens when a scientician gets demoted?

/that would certainly explain a lot
 
2012-12-07 12:10:44 PM  

RedVentrue: 3. The speed of light has indeed seemed to change over time. Probably relative to whatever the gravity/relativity effects were in proportion to the size of the universe at the time. Creationists can't prove 6kya, neither can Sciencists prove 13.7bya. 0 points


They have good evidence using more than just the speed of light for it's age being within .11billion years. In other words, ~13.59-13.81 billion years. So yeah, we're pretty damned sure. Point for science.
 
2012-12-07 12:13:57 PM  

RedVentrue: Here's my thoughts on 1-10.


are you using the same items-order from TFA? or from some list made up in the thread (if so please quote it)?
 
2012-12-07 12:26:19 PM  

I drunk what: RedVentrue: Here's my thoughts on 1-10.

are you using the same items-order from TFA? or from some list made up in the thread (if so please quote it)?


Same as TFA.
 
2012-12-07 12:28:40 PM  

friday13: RedVentrue: 3. The speed of light has indeed seemed to change over time. Probably relative to whatever the gravity/relativity effects were in proportion to the size of the universe at the time. Creationists can't prove 6kya, neither can Sciencists prove 13.7bya. 0 points

They have good evidence using more than just the speed of light for it's age being within .11billion years. In other words, ~13.59-13.81 billion years. So yeah, we're pretty damned sure. Point for science.


Assuming we know the rate of expansion over the entire period. That's a big assumption.
 
2012-12-07 12:38:43 PM  
TFA recap:

1. Humans and dinosaurs co-existed

Quite obviously, creationists aren't able to gloss over the fact that dinosaurs existed. They are clearly a part of the fossil record. But in accordance with the the Bible, creationists insist that they lived contemporaneously to humans. And in fact, they say this explains why dragons play a prominent role in our mythological record. Moreover, creationists claim that human footprints have been found alongside dinosaur tracks at Paluxy, that a petrified hammer was found in Cretaceous rocks, and that some sandal footprints have been found alongside trilobites. Other theories suggest that the Great Flood shook up and redeposited the fossil record so that it appears that dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans arrived. Real evidence and proper interpretation of the fossil record, however, supports the idea that humans first emerged about 200,000 years ago - long after the demise of dinosaurs who went extinct 65 million years ago.

2. Biological systems are too complex to have evolved
This is what biochemist Michael Behe refers to as irreducible complexity. He and other creationists complain that a complex biological system, what is comprised of many interacting parts, would cease to function properly in the event of any alteration. Proponents of intelligent design use this argument to claim that anything less than the complete form of a fully functional biological system (or organ) would not work at all - what would be catastrophically detrimental to an organism. In other words, all mutations have to be bad. The only way for an organism to evolve, the ID defenders say, is for God to guide the process every step of the way. This is silly, of course - organisms are not that fragile. And in fact, evolvability is an indelible aspect to life.

3. We can see light from distant galaxies because the speed of light is not constant
Full size
When we look up at the sky at night, we're actually looking back in time. Given the vastness of the universe, it can take upwards of millions and even billions of years for the light from the most distant celestial objects to reach us. Creationists have a rather convenient explanation for this problem: The universal constants, including the speed of light, are not constant at all. It's quite possible, they surmise, that the speed of light was significantly faster in the past, allowing it to reach the Earth in time for Adam to see it. Others speculate that the Big Bang theory is simply wrong, and that a new 'creationist cosmology' is required to reconcile the apparent anomaly in our observations. As the Creation Answers Handbook claims:

The basic biblical framework, because it comes from the Creator, is nonnegotiable, as opposed to the changing views and models of fallible people seeking to understand the data within that framework (evolutionists also often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did).

Failing this, creationists can always default to the most convenient of explanations: God simply created the light 'on it's way,' so that observers on Earth could see the stars immediately without having to wait. Mmmm, handwaving....

4. All hominid fossils are either fully human or fully ape
Full size
Given that Scripture doesn't provision for evolution, the discovery of ancient human relatives like Australopithecines and Neanderthals is deeply problematic. To explain this away, creationists argue that anthropologists are misreading the fossil record and inaccurately conflating Homo sapiens with other ape species. When it comes to Neanderthals, they say there was no such thing - that these are human remains and not some distant relative. And to explain the morphological differences, creationists simply argue that these were disfigured humans, or people suffering from rickets or arthritis.

5. Stars and planets could have never formed from dust
Full size
According to Abraham Loeb, an astrophysicist from Harvard whose work gets cherry picked by creationists, "The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level." Creationists, like Jonathan Sarfat, have used the arguments of Loeb and others to make their case against the 'nebular hypothesis' - the theory that stars and planets formed over the course of billions of years as gravity brought gasses and particles together to create large masses. It's impossible, they say, for stars to form from nebulas. They claim that terrestrial planets could never congeal from "blobs" of gas and dust, as other objects would constantly provide resistance and disruption. Creationists also argue that the temperature of nebulas following the Big Bang would have been far too hot to facilitate contraction, and that the particles would have pushed away from each other. Other inconsistencies include the sun's axial tilt and the presence of inexplicable gas giants. As Sarfat notes, the best explanation comes from the Bible, "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host." In other words, when in doubt, attribute any kind of natural phenomenon to God. Gotcha.

6. The Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution
The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe and all its systems are progressively moving towards disorder, or entropy. Evolution, on the other hand, implies the improvement of a species - what creationists say is a gross violation of the Second Law. This contradiction, say the creationists, implies that 'evolutionists' are fundamentally wrong in their assumptions - that changes to systems should be regressive and not progressive. What they fail to understand, however, is that the 2LT should only be applied to the universe as a whole, or a closed energy system - which the Earth is most certainly not. But moreover, evolution does not always lead to improvement or increased complexity. Organisms are either well adapted or poorly suited to their environments at any given point in time. And in fact, some species evolve towards too much complexity (i.e. over-specialization) and detrimental adaptations that can lead to outright extinction. Evolution is by no means a process of improvement; it's merely an autonomous system that's driven by variation and selection.

7. The Flood caused the ice age
Like the presence of dinosaurs, the ice age is another conundrum that demands a response - a glacial period that occurred during the last years of the Pleistocene, approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago. Actually, this is an easy one, say the creationists. According to Genesis, most of the Flood water came from underground - what resulted in warmer than average oceans and a significant increase in global snowfall. This gave rise to the ice sheets and the pluvial periods. In addition, large amounts of volcanic dust in the atmosphere blocked crucial sunlight, which caused cooler summers. Moreover, the ice age is a geological phenomenon that can also explain why there's no trace of the Great Flood in the sedimentary record. And on a related note, some creationists contend that the sedimentary layers were caused by the tremendous weight of the flood waters above the ground.

8. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work
For years, scientists have used radiocarbon dating to get a sense of how old ancient objects really are. They're able to do this by exploiting the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials. To sweep this inconvenient truth aside, some creationists claim that radioisotope decay rates aren't constant - and that all processes in nature vary according to different factors. Others argue that carbon dating gives inaccurate results, pointing to changing ratios of 14C in the atmosphere and varying amounts of cosmic rays reaching the Earth - what would affect the amount and ratios of 14C produced. Additionally, some claim that the Genesis Flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance; the water, they argue, buried huge amounts of carbon (which became coal, oil, etc.) lowering the total 12C in the biosphere. Read this to see why they're wrong.

9. DNA is God's signature on all living things

Some creationists argue that DNA, by virtue of the fact that it contains stored information that can be read by humans, must be the result of intelligence. The information within DNA - what facilitates the assembling of proteins and enzymes - wouldn't be coherent if someone, namely God, wasn't scripting it. Creationists clearly need to ramp-up on information theory if they ever hope to understand how complex systems actually work - and how the scientific endeavor is largely an effort to translate the mysteries of the universe into a language we can understand.

10. The Grand Canyon was formed by receding flood waters

The Grand Canyon formed about 70 million years ago - at a time when the dinosaurs still ruled the Earth. This geological time scale is obviously a problem for creationists, who simply respond by suggesting that it was created in one fell swoop when the flood waters retreated (it's amazing how many things can be explained by the Great Flood). Not only is there no evidence to support this claim, it is a geologic impossibility. Moreover, it would have likely created a huge, straight, washed out chasm, and not the intricate and winding Grand Canyon we know today. And of course, creationists are loath to explain why there's only one Grand Canyon on Earth.

---

RedVentrue: Here's my thoughts on 1-10.

1. Rocks move around over time, but leave evidence of being disturbed when they do. Examples in the story sound like hoaxing. Science scores a point here.

2. Biology and stars are not bound to the 2nd. Neither side can claim to know why. No one scores a point.

3. The speed of light has indeed seemed to change over time. Probably relative to whatever the gravity/relativity effects were in proportion to the size of the universe at the time. Creationists can't prove 6kya, neither can Sciencists prove 13.7bya. 0 points.

4. Sciencists have pretty well proven evolution. Point goes to Sciencists.

5. We've seen stars in various stages of formation in nebulas. Point goes to Sciencists.

6. Stars and biology are not bound by the 2nd law, therefore the 2nd is at least partially crap. No proof of God being the reason, though. 0 points.

7. Cart before the horse. Sciencists +1

8. C14 dating is affected by environmental conditions. Creationists get a point.

9. Neither side can prove a damn thing here. Philisophical argument. 0 points.

10. No one witnessed and documented the formation of GC. 0 points.


so i don't have to flip back and forth (don't mind this post)
 
2012-12-07 12:51:51 PM  
my thoughts 1-10

1. as a middle earth creationist, i hate to remind everyone that not all creationists are created equal. hoaxy sounding stuff should be able to verified or debunked (i will gladly hear the evidence for both sides). fossil records do not date things they merely indicated in which order things were buried or deposited. positing that a Great Flood played a role in this process creates a new problem it does not solve anything.

2. i am a fan of ID, however i'm not a big fan of its current incarnation, and behe tends to engage in too much wishful thinking (oversimplification), it is also entirely possible that God designed life sufficient to adapt up to and including any claim made by evolutionists thus far. [i recommed you start with "unlocking the mysteries of life" youtube, and go from there]

i'll continue later, and eventually respond with some thoughts about your thoughts, etc..

gotta jet
 
2012-12-07 12:54:41 PM  

I drunk what: RedVentrue: Sciencists

is this what happens when a scientician gets demoted?

/that would certainly explain a lot


Sciencists believe in the religion of science. Scienticians are their priests, and the concensus of the Scientific Community is their God. They have no room for dissenting opinions.
 
2012-12-07 01:06:32 PM  

I drunk what: my thoughts 1-10

1. as a middle earth creationist, i hate to remind everyone that not all creationists are created equal. hoaxy sounding stuff should be able to verified or debunked (i will gladly hear the evidence for both sides). fossil records do not date things they merely indicated in which order things were buried or deposited. positing that a Great Flood played a role in this process creates a new problem it does not solve anything.

2. i am a fan of ID, however i'm not a big fan of its current incarnation, and behe tends to engage in too much wishful thinking (oversimplification), it is also entirely possible that God designed life sufficient to adapt up to and including any claim made by evolutionists thus far. [i recommed you start with "unlocking the mysteries of life" youtube, and go from there]

i'll continue later, and eventually respond with some thoughts about your thoughts, etc..

gotta jet


I don't dismiss ID. I like science, but I don't make a religion of it. :)
 
2012-12-07 01:58:38 PM  
It amuses me that my big psychoanalysis of Citizen IDW has become a meme of sorts.

It should be posted in every thread. Hell, I bet he has even posted it himself because that's his way of mocking things.
 
2012-12-07 02:06:13 PM  

Researcher: But trying to deny atheism in hard line communism is a losing battle, because it's right in there.


The problem with that argument isn't whether Communism is or is not atheist (and hence its atrocities be directly attributed to atheism), the argument is essentially which is the better belief system based on the fewest number of casualties.

That is a losing argument for both sides because the casualties are heavy and catastrophic and go back eons. That's not a knock on either system, that's just human nature. All systems have blood on their hands.
 
2012-12-07 02:10:32 PM  

Ishkur: It amuses me that my big psychoanalysis of Citizen IDW has become a meme of sorts.

It should be posted in every thread. Hell, I bet he has even posted it himself because that's his way of mocking things.


You'd be right.
 
2012-12-07 02:11:08 PM  

RedVentrue: Biology and stars are not bound to the 2nd.


Sure they are. Stars burn out; living things die. The 2nd in action.
 
2012-12-07 02:27:35 PM  

randomjsa: kg2095: I've seen this with some of the other trolls as well.

I suspect that they have more than one account - one for posting trolltastic derp and another for proper posting. Sometimes they forget which one they are logged in as.

If it helps your fragile little world view to think things like this then go right ahead. I'm completely consistent on this sort of thing.


And he actually came back to respond to someone, it's incredible. I guess you only shiat and run in the politics threads.
 
2012-12-07 02:32:41 PM  

RedVentrue: I drunk what: my thoughts 1-10

1. as a middle earth creationist, i hate to remind everyone that not all creationists are created equal. hoaxy sounding stuff should be able to verified or debunked (i will gladly hear the evidence for both sides). fossil records do not date things they merely indicated in which order things were buried or deposited. positing that a Great Flood played a role in this process creates a new problem it does not solve anything.

2. i am a fan of ID, however i'm not a big fan of its current incarnation, and behe tends to engage in too much wishful thinking (oversimplification), it is also entirely possible that God designed life sufficient to adapt up to and including any claim made by evolutionists thus far. [i recommed you start with "unlocking the mysteries of life" youtube, and go from there]

i'll continue later, and eventually respond with some thoughts about your thoughts, etc..

gotta jet

I don't dismiss ID. I like science, but I don't make a religion of it. :)


Seriously, Don't respond to that shaitfark. You've previously been warned about it upthread.
 
2012-12-07 02:56:48 PM  

Ishkur: It amuses me that my big psychoanalysis of Citizen IDW has become a meme of sorts.

It should be posted in every thread. Hell, I bet he has even posted it himself because that's his way of mocking things.


It was the 2nd thing he posted, switching out his name for yours, and then he went on to do the same with other people including myself.

I suspect your NPD guess is spot on. Several times in threads where your wall of text has been posted he's gone on to do the exact things you describe.

He simply can't help himself. I think that is the saddest part too.
 
2012-12-07 03:15:25 PM  

Ishkur: RedVentrue: Biology and stars are not bound to the 2nd.

Sure they are. Stars burn out; living things die. The 2nd in action.


Stars create higher orders of elements that survive them. If not for stars the universe would consist of H and He.

Biology does the same with compounds.
 
2012-12-07 03:20:37 PM  

Ishkur: RedVentrue: Biology and stars are not bound to the 2nd.

Sure they are. Stars burn out; living things die. The 2nd in action.


Individuals die, but populations of life and stars create higher order materials over time and defy the 2nd, or we would consist only of H and He.
 
2012-12-07 03:37:31 PM  

Raharu: Ishkur: It amuses me that my big psychoanalysis of Citizen IDW has become a meme of sorts.

It should be posted in every thread. Hell, I bet he has even posted it himself because that's his way of mocking things.

It was the 2nd thing he posted, switching out his name for yours, and then he went on to do the same with other people including myself.

I suspect your NPD guess is spot on. Several times in threads where your wall of text has been posted he's gone on to do the exact things you describe.

He simply can't help himself. I think that is the saddest part too.


...suddenly I want to start a fund to get him the help he so desperately needs...

...wait...it just passed. He's a dick.

/In all seriousness, though. He NEEDS help. SOMEONE must know him; PLEASE get him to the psychiatrist, preferably BEFORE he hurts someone.
 
2012-12-07 03:45:33 PM  

RedVentrue: Stars create higher orders of elements that survive them. If not for stars the universe would consist of H and He.
Biology does the same with compounds.


That's because you're using a too-small sampleset mixed with confirmation bias (and probably apophenia) and applying an all-inclusive principle improperly. One needs to measure the whole Universe when discussing the properties of the whole Universe.

All elements will eventually be pulled apart and evaporate into nothing. The Universe is flattening out into thermodynamic entropy. Since this will occur in the order of googolplex years from now, anything that occurs on the scale of the age of life, or even the age of the Earth, or even the age of the sun or the Milky Way Galaxy, is so ridiculously insignificant next to Universal entropy that any local energy fluctuations are negligible in disproving the 2nd Law.
 
2012-12-07 03:54:09 PM  

RedVentrue: Individuals die, but populations of life and stars create higher order materials over time and defy the 2nd, or we would consist only of H and He.


Considering at the beginning of the Big Bang every point in the Universe was of infinite energy, of infinite density and infinite temperature, and now there are parts in the Universe where there are not, and in the end every point in the Universe will be at -273.15c and all the heat will be efficiently distributed everywhere equally so that there is no work to be done anywhere, the 2nd Law in progress.
 
2012-12-07 03:59:32 PM  

Ishkur: All elements will eventually be pulled apart and evaporate into nothing. The Universe is flattening out into thermodynamic entropy. Since this will occur in the order of googolplex years from now, anything that occurs on the scale of the age of life, or even the age of the Earth, or even the age of the sun or the Milky Way Galaxy, is so ridiculously insignificant next to Universal entropy that any local energy fluctuations are negligible in disproving the 2nd Law.


Interesting thought, but isn't it possible that the universal e is transforming into another state by the process of creating black holes?

Here's something else I've been pondering. Doesn't the expansion of the universe itself violate the 2nd?
 
2012-12-07 04:03:12 PM  

Ishkur: RedVentrue: Stars create higher orders of elements that survive them. If not for stars the universe would consist of H and He.
Biology does the same with compounds.

That's because you're using a too-small sampleset mixed with confirmation bias (and probably apophenia) and applying an all-inclusive principle improperly. One needs to measure the whole Universe when discussing the properties of the whole Universe.

All elements will eventually be pulled apart and evaporate into nothing. The Universe is flattening out into thermodynamic entropy. Since this will occur in the order of googolplex years from now, anything that occurs on the scale of the age of life, or even the age of the Earth, or even the age of the sun or the Milky Way Galaxy, is so ridiculously insignificant next to Universal entropy that any local energy fluctuations are negligible in disproving the 2nd Law.


It may be helpful to think of the universe as a rollercoaster -- you start at the top of a high hill, and from there you go down and then up and then side to side and through loops that appear vastly more complex than a fall straight to the ground, but eventually friction wins out and the cars just can't go anymore -- you've lost too much energy to keep going, and the lost energy is incapable of coming back to give you a push (since it's lost in heat, and heat just wants to spread out to uniformity).
 
2012-12-07 04:04:11 PM  

Ishkur: RedVentrue: Individuals die, but populations of life and stars create higher order materials over time and defy the 2nd, or we would consist only of H and He.

Considering at the beginning of the Big Bang every point in the Universe was of infinite energy, of infinite density and infinite temperature, and now there are parts in the Universe where there are not, and in the end every point in the Universe will be at -273.15c and all the heat will be efficiently distributed everywhere equally so that there is no work to be done anywhere, the 2nd Law in progress.


Energy is diluted by expanding space, but it gets more complex over time, at least to this point in time. The structure of matter and energy have been continuously evolving. Why won't that continue?
 
2012-12-07 04:06:17 PM  

RedVentrue: Energy is diluted by expanding space, but it gets more complex over time, at least to this point in time. The structure of matter and energy have been continuously evolving. Why won't that continue?


The "more complex" part is only sustained through a massive outpouring of energy. Eventually the well runs dry.
 
2012-12-07 04:07:08 PM  

Epicedion: Ishkur: RedVentrue: Stars create higher orders of elements that survive them. If not for stars the universe would consist of H and He.
Biology does the same with compounds.

That's because you're using a too-small sampleset mixed with confirmation bias (and probably apophenia) and applying an all-inclusive principle improperly. One needs to measure the whole Universe when discussing the properties of the whole Universe.

All elements will eventually be pulled apart and evaporate into nothing. The Universe is flattening out into thermodynamic entropy. Since this will occur in the order of googolplex years from now, anything that occurs on the scale of the age of life, or even the age of the Earth, or even the age of the sun or the Milky Way Galaxy, is so ridiculously insignificant next to Universal entropy that any local energy fluctuations are negligible in disproving the 2nd Law.

It may be helpful to think of the universe as a rollercoaster -- you start at the top of a high hill, and from there you go down and then up and then side to side and through loops that appear vastly more complex than a fall straight to the ground, but eventually friction wins out and the cars just can't go anymore -- you've lost too much energy to keep going, and the lost energy is incapable of coming back to give you a push (since it's lost in heat, and heat just wants to spread out to uniformity).


If space were finite, I could see that, but space is being created all the time, and the more space there is, the more space is created.
 
2012-12-07 04:07:48 PM  

Epicedion: RedVentrue: Energy is diluted by expanding space, but it gets more complex over time, at least to this point in time. The structure of matter and energy have been continuously evolving. Why won't that continue?

The "more complex" part is only sustained through a massive outpouring of energy. Eventually the well runs dry.


Why?
 
2012-12-07 04:09:55 PM  

RedVentrue: Ishkur: RedVentrue: Individuals die, but populations of life and stars create higher order materials over time and defy the 2nd, or we would consist only of H and He.

Considering at the beginning of the Big Bang every point in the Universe was of infinite energy, of infinite density and infinite temperature, and now there are parts in the Universe where there are not, and in the end every point in the Universe will be at -273.15c and all the heat will be efficiently distributed everywhere equally so that there is no work to be done anywhere, the 2nd Law in progress.

Energy is diluted by expanding space, but it gets more complex over time, at least to this point in time. The structure of matter and energy have been continuously evolving. Why won't that continue?


To be a little more complex, we're falling toward an asymptotic universal ground state where every point in the universe has just as much energy as every other point. In this state, things just don't move anymore -- to get motion you have to go from a higher potential energy state to a lower potential energy state, like with dropping a baseball (the baseball must be raised against the force of gravity, requiring work, in order to fall, otherwise it just sits at the lowest potential energy state available, most commonly represented as the ground). Sometime in the future, it's all ground all the time.
 
2012-12-07 04:13:18 PM  

RedVentrue: Doesn't the expansion of the universe itself violate the 2nd?


Link

No, it, at least in concept, is perfectly in line with it.

Drop a single drop of red food coloring into a glass of water. It dissipates and turns the water pink. That action is stopped by the glass itself. It is not in isolation, but containment. The process is halted.

Drop a single drop in an ocean, and eventually, that drop may as well have never existed. It's dissipated so far that it's base components are leagues apart, and these base components, eventually will decompose.
 
2012-12-07 04:16:39 PM  

RedVentrue: Interesting thought, but isn't it possible that the universal e is transforming into another state by the process of creating black holes?


Black Holes evaporate too.

RedVentrue: Here's something else I've been pondering. Doesn't the expansion of the universe itself violate the 2nd?


No, in fact the expansion of the Universe is what's causing the 2nd Law. If there was no expansion there'd be no laws of thermodynamics, period.


I hate using analogies, but let me draw you a stupid one: Take a glass of milk. Pour it on the ground. Watch the puddle of milk slowly spread and stretch out, and get thinner and thinner and flatter as time goes on. That's all the 2nd Law does: Flatten out all the energy in the Universe. But it is NOT a uniform distribution: Occasionally, some parts may push into other parts, causing bulges and ripples and other uneven effects in the milk-puddle. What you are doing is looking at these ripples and claiming that the puddle is not spreading out because that ripple isn't. But ultimately everything flattens out in the longterm.

That's where Earth, the sun, and all life is existing right now in terms of the Universe: In one of those little ripples. It just looks like an increase in energy on that scale. But the Universe itself is flat (and that's a mathematically proven certainty, not a metaphor).
 
2012-12-07 04:20:21 PM  

RedVentrue: Why?


Simply, every process generates heat, and heat likes to spread out. Heat can do work while it spreads, but it will only go from areas of high heat to areas of low heat, and only until those areas are equal in heat.

For example, the sun generates a gajillion heat units, which go all out into space in all directions equally. Some of those hit the earth, and as that interacts with us we take that heat energy and redistribute it into weather, plants, turning liquid ice to water, and so on. We then likewise radiate heat back into space.

In a longer analogy, think of it as boiling water to cook pasta. The stove produces the heat, which makes the water hot, which causes changes in the pasta. The stove can't run indefinitely because it's hooked up to a power plant that has a coal fuel supply. The coal fuel supply is limited to the total amount of coal on earth. If you run the stove long enough to cook the pasta, eventually you eat up all the coal and the stove goes off forever, and no more pasta ever gets cooked.

So anyway, back on the heat stuff. The universe is really big and mostly super cold, so heat spreads out rapidly into the universe, and carries with it pieces of stars, gas clouds, and whatnot. These mash up together and make new stars, planets, etc. Eventually those run out of juice and spread their heat back out into the universe again, but every time this happens the heat spreads out further and further, and a portion of it simply escapes into a state of unusability -- all of this wasted heat energy settles into the lowest possible state, never to do work again.

Eventually all the energy ends up like this.
 
2012-12-07 04:20:50 PM  

RedVentrue: Energy is diluted by expanding space, but it gets more complex over time,


What do you mean by "complex"?

Be careful when you make anthropocentric judgement calls about the properties of the Universe. The Universe is under no obligation to validate our anthropocentrism.
 
2012-12-07 04:35:10 PM  

Epicedion: So anyway, back on the heat stuff. The universe is really big and mostly super cold, so heat spreads out rapidly into the universe, and carries with it pieces of stars, gas clouds, and whatnot. These mash up together and make new stars, planets, etc. Eventually those run out of juice and spread their heat back out into the universe again, but every time this happens the heat spreads out further and further, and a portion of it simply escapes into a state of unusability -- all of this wasted heat energy settles into the lowest possible state, never to do work again.

Eventually all the energy ends up like this.



Look at it abother way. When matter becomes dense enough, it takes in heat energy, instead of releasing it, except for Hawking radiation, and I'm not sure what to think about that.

Ishkur: RedVentrue: Energy is diluted by expanding space, but it gets more complex over time,

What do you mean by "complex"?

Be careful when you make anthropocentric judgement calls about the properties of the Universe. The Universe is under no obligation to validate our anthropocentrism.


I mean that matter moves up the periodic table over time by the process of fusion. When matter becomes complex and dense enough, it punches a hole in the universe.
 
2012-12-07 04:36:33 PM  
OK, now it's starting to sound like IDW.
 
2012-12-07 04:49:31 PM  
3. too many variables, besides anything designed already contains the appearance of accelerated rate vs. assuming unintelligent cause, in the end distance =/= time, assuming one view vs. the other proves nothing

4. classification of life is an ongoing process that even the smartest biologist struggle to agree on, and considering the huge amounts of bias each one brings to the table isn't helping either, however concerning the irrefutable scientific fact that we have conclusive evidence that modern homo sapiens are direct descendants from apeicus imagininium, is simply more wishful thinking of the over religious zealots, likewise if such evidence were to be found the equally religious zealots would find a way to rationalize it as something else anyway. evolution is a scientific fact. all the bullshiat that the anti-theists try to sweep under the umbrella is not.

5. i'm getting tired of listening to YECs tell us exactly how God created the universe, as if they were there, and even more tired of atheist evolutionists doing the exact same thing (which is even worse when they do it in the name of "science") butthurt wishful thinking =/= science, in the end delusional sessions of sophistry can convince anyone of anything their twisted little heart's desire, we don't have nearly sufficient data or understanding to postulate such things and spend way too much time inferencing theoretical what-ifs

6. too many words and feelings, should say "The earth is not a closed system" ~The End. also if you don't understand how biology or physics work, then don't "debate" them, get an edumucation

7. no one has a farking clue what a global flood looks like nor what sort of circumstances it would produce, if you're going to masturbate please do it in the privacy of your own home

8. while there are alternative forms of radioactive dating, we've unfortunately already introduced the circular logic of "calibrating" one with the other (geologic columns, etc..) heavy amounts of extrapolation and inference are needed beyond a veeeeery small data set, tough it is amusing to see how confident scienticians are knowing for a scientific fact how to date things using a data set of ~6,000 years to proudly claim the precise dating of objects that are billions of years old (give or take a few seconds) meanwhile in the same breath showing their complete incompetence attempting to date things a few years old and getting that wrong, we have many centuries to go before we even begin to produce scientific measurements with a respectable amount of confidence

9. and? yes, ID needs to get off their lazy butt and produce some actual science and less touchy feely spiritual babbling, i can't help but notice how quickly the opposing team becomes silent in this area

problem?

10. no one has a farking clue what a global flood looks like or would produce, YEC like to use the Flood rug to sweep everything under on the same note that anti-theists like to use "evolution" rug to sweep everything under, both are equally lazy and stupid
 
2012-12-07 04:59:06 PM  

RedVentrue: I mean that matter moves up the periodic table over time by the process of fusion. When matter becomes complex and dense enough, it punches a hole in the universe.


That's actually not what it's doing at all. Incidentally: Black Holes remember everything they eat and they eventually spit it all back out. But there's something I don't think you're grasping, so let me give you a little History of Heat:

When the Big Bang started, time didn't exist. The Universe had to invent time in order for it to have a beginning. This was called the Planck Epoch, and things were so hot that there was only one force called the grand unified force. Nothing else existed because things were too hot.

About 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, the Universe entered the Grand Unification Epoch. The grand unified force split into two forces: Gravity and the electronuclear force. Nothing else existed because things were too hot.

About 10-36 seconds after the Big Bang, the Universe entered the Electroweak Epoch. The electronuclear force split into two forces: The strong nuclear force and the electroweak force. It also underwent a massive inflationary period that gave it enough room to cool down and create particles. At 10-32 seconds, it created quarks, anti-quarks, gluons, bosons and other particles with stupid names. Things were still too hot for them to do anything but run into and annihilate each other, however.

About 10-12 seconds after the Big Bang, the Universe entered the Quark Epoch. The electroweak force split into two forces: Electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force, bringing the four fundamental forces of the Universe to their present form. Things were now cool enough for mass to exist (cf. higgs-boson), but it was still too hot for the particles to combine.

About 10-6 seconds after the Big Bang, the Universe entered the Hadron Epoch. Finally, the temperature of the Universe was cool enough to allow the quarks to combine to form protons and neutrons. The first hydrogen nucleus was formed approximately one millisecond after the Big Bang. Things were still too hot for anything else.

About 1 second after the Big Bang, the Universe entered the Lepton Epoch. Neutrinos stopped interacting with other particles and the Universe expanded and cooled to the point that particles and anti-particles stopped annihilating each other which created, for the first time, an excess surplus of "stuff". This is why we have something rather than nothing.

(And on the 7th Epoch, the Universe rested)

A few minutes later things were cool enough for the first helium nucleus. A few hundred thousand years later, things had cooled down enough for helium and hydrogen to pick up electrons to become the first atoms. About 100 million years later, the first star. A few hundred million years later, the first galaxy. 9 billion years later, the first organic compounds. 11 billion years later, the first life.

But the crucial thing you have to understand about this process is heat. These things came about only when things got cool enough for them to do so. And things are going to get colder. To the point where life cannot survive, stars cannot form, galaxies cannot even hold together, and soon every molecule will be ripped apart and pushed away from every other molecule, as the dominating force of the expansion of the Universe overrides all the other forces and everything flattens out into Heat Death.

So I wouldn't necessarily call anything that's happening in the Universe "complex". If you define it to mean abundance, every earlier incarnation of the Universe had far more abundance of "stuff" in a much smaller area. But the stuff hasn't gotten more or less than what it is simply because we can interact with precious metals and not the quarks and gluons holding them together; your fallacy is using the human scale of classification as a qualifier. It's all the same elementary stuff to the Universe at large: The same quarks that make up your hand are in a stream of water, a moon rock and the core of the sun. There's no real delineation between matter and energy -- only one of scale and dimension.
 
2012-12-07 05:01:15 PM  

Ishkur: I bet he has even posted it himself because that's his way of mocking things.


wow that is like prophetic dude, it's a risky bet, but seeing how your intellect is sooo deep and mysterious... oh wait it's right there in the thread, in multiple posts

even the dumbest idiots wouldn't high five you for such a stupid case of stating the obvious while attempting to be clever:

meat0918: You'd be right.


i stand correct

never underestimate the power of stupidity, the IB has tapped into its unlimited POWER...

though for the record i will agree with you:

Ishkur: I bet he has even posted it himself because that's his way of mocking things.


this is the easiest way to mock the IB, all you have to do is quote their posts, no need for snark or satire

like shooting fish in a barrel, without having to shoot, because the fish are so stupid they shoot themselves

full speed ahead
 
2012-12-07 05:15:38 PM  

RedVentrue: I drunk what: has any science occurred in this thread or article that merits a discussion? i'm game

Here's my thoughts on 1-10.

1. Rocks move around over time, but leave evidence of being disturbed when they do. Examples in the story sound like hoaxing. Science scores a point here.

2. Biology and stars are not bound to the 2nd. Neither side can claim to know why. No one scores a point.

3. The speed of light has indeed seemed to change over time. Probably relative to whatever the gravity/relativity effects were in proportion to the size of the universe at the time. Creationists can't prove 6kya, neither can Sciencists prove 13.7bya. 0 points.

4. Sciencists have pretty well proven evolution. Point goes to Sciencists.

5. We've seen stars in various stages of formation in nebulas. Point goes to Sciencists.

6. Stars and biology are not bound by the 2nd law, therefore the 2nd is at least partially crap. No proof of God being the reason, though. 0 points.

7. Cart before the horse. Sciencists +1

8. C14 dating is affected by environmental conditions. Creationists get a point.

9. Neither side can prove a damn thing here. Philisophical argument. 0 points.

10. No one witnessed and documented the formation of GC. 0 points.


1. not always, and hoaxes usually don't last long, you can't fool all of the people all of the time
2. yeah they are (simplified), but figuring out whether or not the universe is a closed or open system brings up a fun puzzle, however this has no bearing on evolution
3. too many variable built on too many presumptions
4. scientists still can't properly define it and are piss poor at summarizing it, it's just their giant comfort umbrella, equivalent to the religious belief of "goddidit"
5. isn't it fun guessing what happened yesterday, and what will happen tomorrow?
6. they are called laws for a reason, but 2nd law still doesn't address cause and effect
7. whatever floats your boat
8. it's rather embarrassing when a guy like kent hovind educates you on how bad you are at science
9. this gets into the realm where science is less useful than other tools, but "philosophical" is too broad a subject. 1st how would you define Nature?
10. and all current theories sound like fussy 2nd graders trying to have a pissing contest
 
2012-12-07 05:21:15 PM  

RedVentrue: I don't dismiss ID. I like science, but I don't make a religion of it. :)


good on you, and try not to make a science out of your religion

what is your religion so that i can make fun of it?
 
2012-12-07 05:35:30 PM  

Raharu: Ishkur: It amuses me that i have become a meme of sorts.

It should be posted in every thread. Hell, I bet he has even posted it himself because that's his way of mocking things.

It was the 2nd thing he posted, switching out his name for yours, and then he went on to do the same with other people including myself.

I suspect your NPD guess is spot on. Several times in threads where your wall of text has been posted he's gone on to do the exact things you describe.

He simply can't help himself. I think that is the saddest part too.


lulz, it's so cute how Raharu has to read posts for Ishkur, because Ishkur is too stupid to do it by himself

good boy, now go fetch the paper Raharu, ....beg ......beg, you get a treat

/why is Ishkur putting peanut butter on his wang?
//you don't have to trick him
 
2012-12-07 06:10:44 PM  

Ishkur: But the crucial thing you have to understand about this process is heat. These things came about only when things got cool enough for them to do so. And things are going to get colder. To the point where life cannot survive, stars cannot form, galaxies cannot even hold together, and soon every molecule will be ripped apart and pushed away from every other molecule, as the dominating force of the expansion of the Universe overrides all the other forces and everything flattens out into Heat Death.

So I wouldn't necessarily call anything that's happening in the Universe "complex". If you define it to mean abundance, every earlier incarnation of the Universe had far more abundance of "stuff" in a much smaller area. But the stuff hasn't gotten more or less than what it is simply because we can interact with precious metals and not the quarks and gluons holding them together; your fallacy is using the human scale of classification as a qualifier. It's all the same elementary stuff to the Universe at large: The same quarks that make up your hand are in a stream of water, a moon rock and the core of the sun. There's no real delineation between matter and energy -- only one of scale and dimension.


Doesn't all that support my hypothesis that as the universe ages matter/ energy forms into more complex patterns? The meta structure of the universe is expanding, but on a local level, matter is clumping together and concentrating. I agree that the universe is getting larger and colder, but matter is still moving up the periodic table. I don't see entropy breaking matter back down to zero, and I don't see the heat death of the universe. I see heat islands.
 
2012-12-07 06:16:07 PM  

I drunk what: RedVentrue: I don't dismiss ID. I like science, but I don't make a religion of it. :)

good on you, and try not to make a science out of your religion

what is your religion so that i can make fun of it?


I don't fit into any one group, but I lean Buddhist.
 
2012-12-07 06:24:06 PM  

RedVentrue: Ishkur: But the crucial thing you have to understand about this process is heat. These things came about only when things got cool enough for them to do so. And things are going to get colder. To the point where life cannot survive, stars cannot form, galaxies cannot even hold together, and soon every molecule will be ripped apart and pushed away from every other molecule, as the dominating force of the expansion of the Universe overrides all the other forces and everything flattens out into Heat Death.

So I wouldn't necessarily call anything that's happening in the Universe "complex". If you define it to mean abundance, every earlier incarnation of the Universe had far more abundance of "stuff" in a much smaller area. But the stuff hasn't gotten more or less than what it is simply because we can interact with precious metals and not the quarks and gluons holding them together; your fallacy is using the human scale of classification as a qualifier. It's all the same elementary stuff to the Universe at large: The same quarks that make up your hand are in a stream of water, a moon rock and the core of the sun. There's no real delineation between matter and energy -- only one of scale and dimension.

Doesn't all that support my hypothesis that as the universe ages matter/ energy forms into more complex patterns? The meta structure of the universe is expanding, but on a local level, matter is clumping together and concentrating. I agree that the universe is getting larger and colder, but matter is still moving up the periodic table. I don't see entropy breaking matter back down to zero, and I don't see the heat death of the universe. I see heat islands.


Actually matter moves toward the middle of the periodic table, and generally stops at Iron. Iron isn't particularly prone to fission or fusion.
 
2012-12-07 06:29:56 PM  

RedVentrue: Doesn't all that support my hypothesis that as the universe ages matter/ energy forms into more complex patterns?


What do you mean by "complex patterns"?

It's all the same, things are just cooler. Those "complex patterns" only exist to humans. They're human constructs placed upon the properties of the Universe for purposes of understanding it better in human terms. But they don't actually exist to the greater Universe at large.

RedVentrue: The meta structure of the universe is expanding, but on a local level, matter is clumping together and concentrating.


No its not, it's actually breaking down. All matter eventually decays into non-matter.

RedVentrue: but matter is still moving up the periodic table.


No it's not, it has stopped at element 92. Anything heavier is unstable and decays too quickly. Heavier elements decay the fastest, so ultimately matter will move back down the periodic table until nothing is left again except H. And then the H will break down into quarks....

RedVentrue: I don't see entropy breaking matter back down to zero, and I don't see the heat death of the universe. I see heat islands.


Heat islands surrounded by what? The absolute zero of space. So what happens to the heat at the edge of those islands? ....right: It wafts into space, slowly shrinking the island into nothingness.

In some sense, we're there already. Galaxies tend to clump into not islands, but long, interconnected strands of superclusters surrounding pockets of absolute nothingness. Those strands are being stretched apart.
 
2012-12-07 06:32:32 PM  

I drunk what: 9. this gets into the realm where science is less useful than other tools, but "philosophical" is too broad a subject. 1st how would you define Nature?


Hadn't really thought about it, but I guess nature is the environment created by life.
 
2012-12-07 06:35:21 PM  

Epicedion: Actually matter moves toward the middle of the periodic table, and generally stops at Iron. Iron isn't particularly prone to fission or fusion.


I also want to mention that when I talk about matter decaying, its in the order of trillions of years.

Uranium is the most unstable naturally occurring element in the Universe and it has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. That means there was twice as much Uranium on the Earth when it was first being formed, and since then half of it has decayed into simpler elements.
 
2012-12-07 06:55:08 PM  

Ishkur: RedVentrue: Doesn't all that support my hypothesis that as the universe ages matter/ energy forms into more complex patterns?

What do you mean by "complex patterns"?

It's all the same, things are just cooler. Those "complex patterns" only exist to humans. They're human constructs placed upon the properties of the Universe for purposes of understanding it better in human terms. But they don't actually exist to the greater Universe at large.

RedVentrue: The meta structure of the universe is expanding, but on a local level, matter is clumping together and concentrating.

No its not, it's actually breaking down. All matter eventually decays into non-matter.

RedVentrue: but matter is still moving up the periodic table.

No it's not, it has stopped at element 92. Anything heavier is unstable and decays too quickly. Heavier elements decay the fastest, so ultimately matter will move back down the periodic table until nothing is left again except H. And then the H will break down into quarks....

RedVentrue: I don't see entropy breaking matter back down to zero, and I don't see the heat death of the universe. I see heat islands.

Heat islands surrounded by what? The absolute zero of space. So what happens to the heat at the edge of those islands? ....right: It wafts into space, slowly shrinking the island into nothingness.

In some sense, we're there already. Galaxies tend to clump into not islands, but long, interconnected strands of superclusters surrounding pockets of absolute nothingness. Those strands are being stretched apart.


I concede the point. I'll be busy studying radioactive decay for a while.
 
2012-12-07 06:57:04 PM  

Ishkur: Epicedion: Actually matter moves toward the middle of the periodic table, and generally stops at Iron. Iron isn't particularly prone to fission or fusion.

I also want to mention that when I talk about matter decaying, its in the order of trillions of years.

Uranium is the most unstable naturally occurring element in the Universe and it has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. That means there was twice as much Uranium on the Earth when it was first being formed, and since then half of it has decayed into simpler elements.


I thought uranium turned into lead. What does lead turn into?
 
2012-12-07 07:24:59 PM  

RedVentrue: I thought uranium turned into lead. What does lead turn into?


bullets.
 
2012-12-07 07:48:47 PM  

RedVentrue: I don't fit into any one group, but I lean Buddhist.


do you believe Buddha is a deity?

btw are you familiar with the buddhist-hindu history?

RedVentrue: Hadn't really thought about it, but I guess nature is the environment created by life.


does this environment have limits? (where does it begin and end?) are stars, rocks and river part of nature?

so then whatever created life is unnatural?
 
2012-12-07 07:55:26 PM  

Ishkur: That means there was twice as much Uranium on the Earth when it was first being formed, and since then half of it has decayed into simpler elements.


how much uranium was on earth when it was first formed?

also, if you don't mind

1.bp.blogspot.com

how long has this candle been burning?

i've been watching it for about 2 seconds, so i'm guessing about 6,000 years

give or take a day, since half of it is gone
 
2012-12-07 08:04:30 PM  

RedVentrue: I drunk what: 9. this gets into the realm where science is less useful than other tools, but "philosophical" is too broad a subject. 1st how would you define Nature?

Hadn't really thought about it, but I guess nature is the environment created by life.


When IDW asks you to define nature, he's merely waiting for a chance to go off on how stupid you are and lecture you on his definition of it.
 
2012-12-07 08:50:57 PM  

RedVentrue: I drunk what: 9. this gets into the realm where science is less useful than other tools, but "philosophical" is too broad a subject. 1st how would you define Nature?

Hadn't really thought about it, but I guess nature is the environment created by life.


Great. Someone went and started talking definitions with this moron. Seriously. Since you didn't get it the first time, here it is again, all big, bolded and centered so you CAN'T miss it:

Originally posted by Ishkur, with modifications by me.

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

IDW 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 sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached) or
3) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which includes one or more of the following: a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter

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, as evidenced by his refusal to accept or debate the basic dictionary definition of the word). 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.


Seriously, you have nothing to gain from talking to him, other than maybe cirrhosis.

Keizer_Ghidorah: When IDW asks you to define nature, he's merely waiting for a chance to go off on how stupid you are and lecture you on his definition of it.


You give him too much credit. He never tells you what his definition is.
 
2012-12-07 11:15:30 PM  

I drunk what: Ishkur: That means there was twice as much Uranium on the Earth when it was first being formed, and since then half of it has decayed into simpler elements.

how much uranium was on earth when it was first formed?

also, if you don't mind

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 300x400]

how long has this candle been burning?

i've been watching it for about 2 seconds, so i'm guessing about 6,000 years

give or take a day, since half of it is gone


On second thought, nature is everything, everywhere. Nature is unity.

friday13: RedVentrue: I drunk what: 9. this gets into the realm where science is less useful than other tools, but "philosophical" is too broad a subject. 1st how would you define Nature?

Snip

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 t ...


I take full responsibility for whatever I say to IDW. You will be held at no liability whatsoever.
 
2012-12-08 02:12:06 AM  

meat0918: Ishkur: It amuses me that my big psychoanalysis of Citizen IDW has become a meme of sorts.

It should be posted in every thread. Hell, I bet he has even posted it himself because that's his way of mocking things.
H
You'd be right.


It's as if Rotsky showed up in every thread to indicate how how meant to do that., for around thirty posts a thread, day in and day out.
 
2012-12-08 03:03:44 AM  

RedVentrue: I take full responsibility for whatever I say to IDW. You will be held at no liability whatsoever.


Put your therapist on speed-dial before continuing.
 
2012-12-08 06:54:52 AM  
I wonder what....nahh, I'm not gonna say it.

He'd pick it right up and beat it into the ground. And then dig a hole to beat it further into.

And then he would belabor the unhappy shovel with his insane repetitive sophistry
for digging in an insufficiently obscure and tangential way. 

Meh.
 
2012-12-08 07:49:00 AM  

friday13: He never tells you what his definition is.


on the contrary, i tell anyone anytime they ask and it is even posted for the public to peruse at their leisure

and considering that fact, ONLY an IDIOT would claim that i change the definition at will or that i am withholding information in a secretive or manipulative fashion

but if you are having trouble reading english at a fifth grade level, i'd be happy to assist... which word(s) are you not able to understand?

RedVentrue: On second thought, nature is everything, everywhere. Nature is unity.


i'm a bit confused why you posted this in response to my post to ishkur? (on a different topic) but i'm guessing your quote button malfunctioned

anyway, if Nature is "everything & everywhere" ("unity") then that means that there isn't anything that is either unnatural nor supernatural and the word Nature itself sorta ceases to have an significant meaning since it cannot be distinguished from any other thing, for example:

if i were to ask you " Is it Natural for a human mother to eat her babies? "

how would you respond, using your Nature = EVERYthing, def.?
 
2012-12-08 07:56:23 AM  

RedVentrue: I like science, but I don't make a religion of it. :)


3.bp.blogspot.com

lulz, who would be dumb enough to make this mistake? that would require a special kind of weapons-grade stupidity

and a whole lot o butthurt...

well luckily i don't have to worry about such nonsense, cause i already know there is no god, because i'm an asshole, let the muggles go chase their unicorns and invisible dragons
 
2012-12-08 08:30:20 AM  
[shamelessly ganks neato picture]
 
Displayed 289 of 289 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report