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)   Nineteen-year-old activist makes life hell for Louisiana's creationists   (io9.com) divider line 416
    More: Hero, Zack Kopplin, Louisiana, Education Act, science books, Discovery Institute, scientific inquiry, AlterNet, Southeastern Louisiana University  
•       •       •

34272 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jan 2013 at 9:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-15 04:58:05 PM
FARK needs a Creationist tab.
 
2013-01-15 04:59:23 PM

Equilibrist: FARK needs a Creationist tab.


It would have to be intelligently designed.
 
2013-01-15 05:00:23 PM

phlegmmo: Equilibrist: FARK needs a Creationist tab.

It would have to be intelligently designed.



And never change over time.
 
2013-01-15 05:01:02 PM
Also good use of the hero tag.
 
2013-01-15 05:07:58 PM

Raharu: phlegmmo: Equilibrist: FARK needs a Creationist tab.

It would have to be intelligently designed.


And never change over time.


Over time there would probably be schism ( Then what)?
 
2013-01-15 05:09:56 PM
I can't imagine that would be a difficult thing to do.  First, they're creationists.  Second, they're in the South.
 
2013-01-15 05:18:53 PM
FTFA:He also has his eyes set on vouchers. After an Alternet story came out about a school in the Louisiana voucher program teaching that the Loch Ness Monster was real and disproved evolution, Kopplin looked deeper into the program and found that this wasn't just one school, but at least 19 other schools, too.Oh. My. God......that's scary. And I'm not talking about a possible monster.
 
2013-01-15 05:19:42 PM
I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.
 
2013-01-15 05:23:41 PM
This kid's awesome.
 
2013-01-15 05:31:46 PM

SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

 
2013-01-15 05:32:38 PM
Gah! There was supposed to be an "Oh, hush" under that quoted post.
 
2013-01-15 05:38:30 PM

SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.


Finally over your post-election depression?
 
2013-01-15 05:38:50 PM

SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.


More deep thoughts by SkinnyHead?


/The EARTH IS FLAT!
 
2013-01-15 05:43:53 PM

SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.




Creationism isn't science. It's mythology and fan fiction.
Really really bad fan fiction.
 
2013-01-15 05:45:25 PM
It's a never ending source of sadness to see the absolute ignorance of many of our elected "leaders" on display.
 
2013-01-15 05:46:11 PM

Raharu: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

Creationism isn't science. It's mythology and fan fiction.
Really really bad fan fiction.


As opposed to the GOOD fan fic, where Snape and Malfoy talk about Russian literature before doin' it?
 
2013-01-15 05:47:44 PM

what_now: Raharu: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

Creationism isn't science. It's mythology and fan fiction.
Really really bad fan fiction.

As opposed to the GOOD fan fic, where Snape and Malfoy talk about Russian literature before doin' it?



I'll be in my bunk.
 
2013-01-15 06:38:45 PM
Why do you people respond to that troll? The lack of all caps lock and spelling errors make it obvious that he doesn't actually believe the bullshait he spews.
 
2013-01-15 07:40:04 PM
Is this the kid the same as the Faker who helped stop creationism in New Oreleans a month of so ago?
 
2013-01-15 07:47:57 PM
"Creationism is not science, and shouldn't be in a public school science class - it's that simple"

Yes, it really is that simple. If creationism wants to be taught in science classes, it has to play by science's rules.
 
2013-01-15 08:10:04 PM

Nabb1: Gah! There was supposed to be an "Oh, hush" under that quoted post.


I thought it was more elegant without.
 
2013-01-15 08:23:52 PM

MrBallou: Nabb1: Gah! There was supposed to be an "Oh, hush" under that quoted post.

I thought it was more elegant without.


Needed more Torg with just the quote.
 
2013-01-15 08:37:23 PM
SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

For years I've been petitioning my local public school system to teach that the universe is controlled by a small, yet powerful cabal of wizards rather than that crap we call "physics." They have refused to do so every year, and I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that they're actively opposing academic freedom and freedom of thought.
 
2013-01-15 08:46:19 PM
My book says that there is an all powerful Force that surrounds us, penetrates us and binds the galaxy together. Life creates it and makes it grow. And a powerful ally it is. And unlike these other theories, I have video of it. But you don't see me trying to force it in kid's textbooks.
 
2013-01-15 09:01:38 PM
This kid has to be worried about getting out of his car and being mowed down in a hail of Jesus' love.
 
2013-01-15 09:06:21 PM
I think he's a farker.
 
2013-01-15 09:07:28 PM
Does this mean we can get Intelligent Falling taught?
 
2013-01-15 09:07:30 PM

ultraholland: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

For years I've been petitioning my local public school system to teach that the universe is controlled by a small, yet powerful cabal of wizards rather than that crap we call "physics." They have refused to do so every year, and I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that they're actively opposing academic freedom and freedom of thought.


You people really make me ill.  This sort of thing only confuses our kids and makes them less likely to trust adults.
It's obviously the work of the reptilians who have taken human form.  Wizards?  Bah.
 
2013-01-15 09:09:43 PM

BunkoSquad: This kid's awesome.

 
2013-01-15 09:13:17 PM
I'll keep reporting this until Louisiana wises up:  Link
 
2013-01-15 09:15:39 PM

ultraholland: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

For years I've been petitioning my local public school system to teach that the universe is controlled by a small, yet powerful cabal of wizards rather than that crap we call "physics." They have refused to do so every year, and I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that they're actively opposing academic freedom and freedom of thought.


They don't take you seriously because you're not being serious.
 
2013-01-15 09:19:01 PM
That should also be a job for world tree activists and well every other religious creation story.
 
2013-01-15 09:26:27 PM

SkinnyHead: They don't take you seriously because you're not being serious.


At least he's obviously joking.
 
2013-01-15 09:29:00 PM

BunkoSquad: This kid's awesome.


He is also devastatingly handsome. God bless him.
 
2013-01-15 09:30:42 PM
SkinnyHead: They don't take you seriously because you're not being serious.

No...

dahmers love zombie: It's obviously the work of the reptilians who have taken human form. Wizards? Bah.

...that's not being serious. And even if it is I'll be damned if adherents to Lizardism can their foot in our educational system's door.
 
2013-01-15 09:32:41 PM

ultraholland: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

For years I've been petitioning my local public school system to teach that the universe is controlled by a small, yet powerful cabal of wizards rather than that crap we call "physics." They have refused to do so every year, and I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that they're actively opposing academic freedom and freedom of thought.


Oye if you're going to respond to that thing pls do so properly so fark will filter out your (admittedly semi-amusing) post as well, k thx bye.
 
2013-01-15 09:35:18 PM

Mentat: I'll keep reporting this until Louisiana wises up:  Link


Thanks. It took me a second to figure this out. Now I can't stop laughing. I needed that today.

www.motherjones.com
 
2013-01-15 09:35:34 PM
Do they really believe that Noah was 600 years old when God told him to build the ark? And that Noah lived for 350 years after the flood? AND that the world is only 6000 years old? The math boggles my mind. But at least they are sticking it to those liberals who are brainwashing kids at colleges.
 
2013-01-15 09:38:46 PM
My first thought was "Please let this kid not be an asshole." and then I read the article and he sounds like a total non-asshole. Just calmly and semi-quietly doing what he thinks is right. And not just to prove that he is smarter than him, but because he wants Louisianans to be successful.

The other day two church chicks came to my door and I thought "Ok, stay cool, don't be an asshole" and they gave me a little pamplet and told me where their church was. I said "Great, thanks! have a good one." and they didn't turn around to leave. Instead, the chick goes "Let me ask you- if you died today are you SURE-" and right there I rudely cut her off and said 'I'm an athiest so I don't believe in god." and she just said "WELL THERE IS A GOD!" and I said "ok, we all have our own beliefs- bye!"

and then I felt bad the rest of the day like I should have just said thanks and bye again instead of getting made and freaking her out.
 
2013-01-15 09:39:07 PM

Mugato: My book says that there is an all powerful Force that surrounds us, penetrates us and binds the galaxy together. Life creates it and makes it grow. And a powerful ally it is. And unlike these other theories, I have video of it. But you don't see me trying to force it in kid's textbooks.


Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.
 
2013-01-15 09:39:18 PM
Pray for a scientific conclusion.
 
2013-01-15 09:39:40 PM
i49.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-15 09:40:18 PM
Politicians are stupid. We know this. The thing that is wrong about this is that the teachers want to teach intelligent design.
 
2013-01-15 09:42:05 PM
I enjoy how they said he caused Hurricane Katrina. It's how you can tell you're dealing with scholars.
 
2013-01-15 09:42:17 PM
Just think how poor of a job those teachers were doing all along if they've always been itching to teach that crap.
 
2013-01-15 09:42:20 PM
Go get 'em, young man.

** Two (opposable) thumbs up **
 
2013-01-15 09:42:31 PM

SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.


If only oppressed Christians had a place where they could meet and discuss their beliefs on how the world was made.
 
2013-01-15 09:44:08 PM

Kevin72: AND that the world is only 6000 years old?


They really do.  I had a professor last term that, while excellent at teaching the subject he taught, couldn't help but occasionally throw in some of his "worldview opinions" which included that and other batshiat-crazy ideas.  I can say with 100% certainty that he actually believed all that stuff.

He also once said that slavery the way the US did it was terrible and wrong, but slavery the way the bible talked about it was wonderful and a blessing form God.
 
2013-01-15 09:45:33 PM
BronyMedic: Ah, SkinnyHead is one of those "more information" types of creationists.

I wonder what happens when we add more information to an organism. Let's add more copies of chromosome 13... Or wait, don't women have more DNA than men? Doesn't that mean women are more advanced than men? Or better designed? Hmmm.
 
2013-01-15 09:45:38 PM
I would think life as a Creationist is already Hell. Convincing yourself that snakes can talk must be f*cking hard work.
 
2013-01-15 09:45:49 PM
Sherman was an asshole for not finishing the job on the hateful hillbillies in the South.
 
2013-01-15 09:46:01 PM
Send in the palentolgists!

akamai.paramountcomedy.com
 
2013-01-15 09:46:37 PM

SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.


Why would creationists see him as a hero?
 
2013-01-15 09:46:51 PM
doyner: Just think how poor of a job those teachers were doing all along if they've always been itching to teach that crap.

but it's not just them, it's everybody around them. Their friends, family, teachers, peers...hell, society has failed them. They've been allowed to make it to the point where they find it appropriate to pass on their idiocy. I accept partial responsibility.
 
2013-01-15 09:46:51 PM

spidermilk: My first thought was "Please let this kid not be an asshole." and then I read the article and he sounds like a total non-asshole. Just calmly and semi-quietly doing what he thinks is right. And not just to prove that he is smarter than him, but because he wants Louisianans to be successful.

The other day two church chicks came to my door and I thought "Ok, stay cool, don't be an asshole" and they gave me a little pamplet and told me where their church was. I said "Great, thanks! have a good one." and they didn't turn around to leave. Instead, the chick goes "Let me ask you- if you died today are you SURE-" and right there I rudely cut her off and said 'I'm an athiest so I don't believe in god." and she just said "WELL THERE IS A GOD!" and I said "ok, we all have our own beliefs- bye!"

and then I felt bad the rest of the day like I should have just said thanks and bye again instead of getting made and freaking her out.



Sounds like they got off easy. I don't answer the door anymore unless I know who is knocking.
 
2013-01-15 09:47:58 PM
I've always liked the native american creation myths why can't the schools teach those?
 
2013-01-15 09:48:07 PM
I'd bang the fake blonde chick in the video even though she's a moron.
 
2013-01-15 09:48:11 PM
Hero tag is appropriate.
 
2013-01-15 09:49:46 PM

foo monkey: Mentat: I'll keep reporting this until Louisiana wises up:  Link

Thanks. It took me a second to figure this out. Now I can't stop laughing. I needed that today.

[www.motherjones.com image 625x400]


It's the greatest Venn diagram ever, and proof that Republicans hate set theory.
 
2013-01-15 09:50:47 PM
images2.dailykos.com
 
2013-01-15 09:51:34 PM
What is it about the Abrahamic religions that promotes such willful ignorance? Can someone explain it to me?
 
2013-01-15 09:51:36 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Doesn't that mean women are more advanced than men? Or better designed?


I dunno, but I've dated a lot of women who get off on putting me in a pink collar and making me tell them that.
 
2013-01-15 09:52:18 PM
I sincerely hope this kid is banging all kinds of hot rebellious hippy chicks.
 
2013-01-15 09:52:58 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Sherman was an asshole for not finishing the job on the hateful hillbillies in the South.


It causes you great pain to think, doesn't it? That's why you stereotype and act hypocritical, right?
 
2013-01-15 09:53:00 PM
I would prefer they teach all of the various creation stories then. I would like someone to petition the ACLU about my rights being infringed upon.
 
2013-01-15 09:54:11 PM

spidermilk: My first thought was "Please let this kid not be an asshole." and then I read the article and he sounds like a total non-asshole. Just calmly and semi-quietly doing what he thinks is right. And not just to prove that he is smarter than him, but because he wants Louisianans to be successful.

The other day two church chicks came to my door and I thought "Ok, stay cool, don't be an asshole" and they gave me a little pamplet and told me where their church was. I said "Great, thanks! have a good one." and they didn't turn around to leave. Instead, the chick goes "Let me ask you- if you died today are you SURE-" and right there I rudely cut her off and said 'I'm an athiest so I don't believe in god." and she just said "WELL THERE IS A GOD!" and I said "ok, we all have our own beliefs- bye!"

and then I felt bad the rest of the day like I should have just said thanks and bye again instead of getting made and freaking her out.


...then you lost the argument that you didn't even know you were having. If you're not willing to hurt feelings, you're not willing to change the world. This kid, at the very least, knows he's going to be fighting people who feel he's hurting them. He has to not care about that. Whether he does it calmly or whether he shouts it from the mountaintops is his choice. Neither make him an "asshole" any more than they make Richard Dawkins (Who is just as calm as this kid is, though far more outspoken) an "asshole". In fact, the only real difference between the "assholes" and the "good guys" on this issue is their volume.
 
2013-01-15 09:54:11 PM

BronyMedic: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

And now it's time for a blast from the past!

[img716.imageshack.us image 594x372]


WAIT wait wait wait. Just... just wait. Did he really post that seriously? I mean... He meant that? That's the single most amusing thing I've read all day!
 
2013-01-15 09:54:23 PM
Lawdy, that video in the article had some of the most obtuse masturdebation I've ever seen in my life and I frequent the Fark.com political tab!
 
2013-01-15 09:54:59 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: BronyMedic: Ah, SkinnyHead is one of those "more information" types of creationists.

I wonder what happens when we add more information to an organism. Let's add more copies of chromosome 13... Or wait, don't women have more DNA than men? Doesn't that mean women are more advanced than men? Or better designed? Hmmm.


I was told women have more ribs than men.

\grew up in rural Oklahoma
 
2013-01-15 09:56:46 PM

unchellmatt: BronyMedic: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

And now it's time for a blast from the past!

[img716.imageshack.us image 594x372]

WAIT wait wait wait. Just... just wait. Did he really post that seriously? I mean... He meant that? That's the single most amusing thing I've read all day!


BUT WAIT! There's more! Tell them what else we've won, Johnny!

i248.photobucket.com

img218.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-15 09:57:31 PM
Kopplin, who is studying history at Rice University, had good reason to be upset after the passing of the LSEA - an insidious piece of legislation that allows teachers to bring in their own supplemental materials when discussing politically controversial topics like evolution or climate change.

I'm not a creationist, but I'm not prepared to label a nineteen-year-old who thinks the government should prevent any deviation from (or even supplementation of) a government-controlled curriculum a "hero."
 
2013-01-15 09:57:40 PM
Teaching your kid creationism is like teach your kid Santa Claus is real.
 
2013-01-15 09:57:50 PM

SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.


How are you green? I thought I had you most definitively as redish. This must be a conspiracy.

Also whatever you said, I disagree with. You're wrong. I'd love to be proven incorrect.
 
2013-01-15 09:59:20 PM
 
2013-01-15 10:00:14 PM

Insatiable Jesus: [images2.dailykos.com image 450x300]


"Daily weblog with political analysis on US current events from a liberal perspective."


We would never skew our data, no siree!


I have a hard time believing that democrats are part of the birther movement.
 
2013-01-15 10:00:18 PM

SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.



We have a specific, individually enumerated right to free thought on the subject of religion. It's number 1, even. The state is specifically barred from interfering with religion at all. So, for instance, the state is barred from deciding what parts of the bible are more important than others - a job the various judeo-christian sects do NOT want the government to ever have.

Schools teaching religious dogma clearly violates that right. Not all christian sects believe in the charismatic view of creationism. The state is picking not only a particular religion to favor... it's actually picking a particular SECT of that religion. You really want to go down that road? You want Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer in charge of how christianity is passed on to your children? You catholic - you'll love it when the US government picks protestant. Protestant - then you'll love it when we officially teach catholic dogma to your kids. Oh heck, how about they go 7th day adventist and burn you all. Though we all know inside of two generations the scientolgists will have gamed the system and run the show.

So how about religion stays where the fark it's supposed to - in the CHURCH OF ITS CHOOSING. Don't attack religious liberty by teaching religious dogma in schools.
 
2013-01-15 10:01:12 PM

Kevin72: Do they really believe that Noah was 600 years old when God told him to build the ark? And that Noah lived for 350 years after the flood? AND that the world is only 6000 years old? The math boggles my mind. But at least they are sticking it to those liberals who are brainwashing kids at colleges.


Even if you ignore the math, there's the logistics and mechanics to consider: an old man and his three sons building a wooden ship as long and tall as a football stadium and half as wide; the seaworthiness of such a vessel; the four of them and their respective wives herding two of every land animal on Earth into that ship, including animals that probably didn't live within walking distance of their house, such as penguins, Komodo dragons and ocelots; a few months' worth of food for the lot of them, including ants for the anteaters; 40 days and 40 nights of non-stop rainfall, followed by several weeks or months of waiting for the rain waters to recede; and repopulation of the various species, which would have some serious inbreeding going on for the first few generations.

A more thorough deconstruction was in a Fark thread a few weeks ago. I can't be arsed to look it up right now, but there was detailed discussion on the rainfall, the ship and the menagerie.

_____________________________

LazerFish: Politicians are stupid. We know this. The thing that is wrong about this is that the teachers want to teach intelligent design.


And the politicians passed legislation allowing it.
 
2013-01-15 10:01:19 PM
rvesco:I'm not a creationist, but I'm not prepared to label a nineteen-year-old who thinks the government should prevent any deviation from (or even supplementation of) a government-controlled curriculum a "hero."

That pesky kid! His fighting to uphold the principles of Freedom of Religion, and keep religious zealots from promoting their doctrine on impressionable students, and using it to convert them to their religion is just Government cocksucking, you know.

He's not really a hero. If only he had Jesus in his heart!

/he's not fighting to prevent deviation from a "Government-Controlled Curriculum." He's fighting to keep religion and mythology from being taught as scientific fact.
//Anyone trying to label it as anything but this is disingeniously trying to distract.
 
2013-01-15 10:01:44 PM

unchellmatt: BronyMedic: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

And now it's time for a blast from the past!

[img716.imageshack.us image 594x372]

WAIT wait wait wait. Just... just wait. Did he really post that seriously? I mean... He meant that? That's the single most amusing thing I've read all day!



You must be new here.
 
2013-01-15 10:02:46 PM

johnryan51: Raharu: phlegmmo: Equilibrist: FARK needs a Creationist tab.

It would have to be intelligently designed.


And never change over time.

Over time there would probably be schism ( Then what)?


Wipe hands on pants?

/Ewww....
 
2013-01-15 10:02:56 PM

BronyMedic: unchellmatt: BronyMedic: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

And now it's time for a blast from the past!

[img716.imageshack.us image 594x372]

WAIT wait wait wait. Just... just wait. Did he really post that seriously? I mean... He meant that? That's the single most amusing thing I've read all day!

BUT WAIT! There's more! Tell them what else we've won, Johnny!

[i248.photobucket.com image 638x223]

[img218.imageshack.us image 850x484]


I'm going to have to do a bit of digging/googling. If there is one thing I find entertaining, it's people who don't understand science trying to scientifically defend utterly unscientific hogwash. My night just got a whole lot better. Cheers man.
 
2013-01-15 10:02:59 PM
This young man is a better man than 100 % of the Republicans in the House and Senate who are twice his age.
 
2013-01-15 10:04:27 PM
Kudos to <b>SkinnyHead</b>'s courageous attempts to debunk evolution by shiatting from his mouth.
 
2013-01-15 10:04:45 PM

bighairyguy: Yes, it really is that simple. If creationism wants to be taught in science classes, it has to play by science's rules.


I'm certainly not a supporter of teaching creationism in public school, but what's the alternative creation explanation that plays by science's rules? Personally, I believe teaching any faith-based theory as science is wrong.
 
2013-01-15 10:05:11 PM
Goddamn interface changes.
 
2013-01-15 10:05:32 PM
The gal trots out her Esquire and then denigrates people that are specialists in the field that is actually being debated for having credentials.

WHAT A COUNTRY!
 
2013-01-15 10:05:33 PM
So how do we start raising money for this kid on the FarkUs tab? Does he have a group we can donate to?
 
2013-01-15 10:06:31 PM

bingo the psych-o: What is it about the Abrahamic religions that promotes such willful ignorance? Can someone explain it to me?


Jews, and Ashkenazi jews in particular, would like a word. Even if they're not smarter on average than other groups, they're certainly not willfully ignorant. You could say the same about Islam when the Muslim world was one of the bright spots in the world for learning and education, and even Christian Europe during the renaissance.

It's not the Abrahamic religions so much as it is the human nature of these fundamentalist retards who can't bear the thought of anyone else understanding anything that they don't understand (and they don't understand anything). I suspect it would play out the same with people like that even if these particular religions had never existed.

I also suspect (but don't know for sure) that you'd get similar assholes in societies that have never heard of this particular God.
 
2013-01-15 10:08:04 PM
How come we aren't teaching the alternate theory of gravity? That ANGELS hold us down by our ankles. I mean gravity, its only a THEORY... right?
 
2013-01-15 10:08:21 PM

SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

 
2013-01-15 10:09:41 PM

alltim: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.


Sorry. meant to say anything but this^.
 
2013-01-15 10:10:52 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Sherman was an asshole for not finishing the job on the hateful hillbillies in the South.


Yup. Military incursions should always end in genocide. I'm glad I've found someone else who supports more, bigger military, with maximum civilian casualties as a goal. It must really hurt you every time someone comes home from Iraq or Afghanistan, right? I mean, there are still people alive over there. It's a pity.
 
2013-01-15 10:12:39 PM

Dokushin: Insatiable Jesus: Sherman was an asshole for not finishing the job on the hateful hillbillies in the South.

Yup. Military incursions should always end in genocide. I'm glad I've found someone else who supports more, bigger military, with maximum civilian casualties as a goal. It must really hurt you every time someone comes home from Iraq or Afghanistan, right? I mean, there are still people alive over there. It's a pity.


I didn't say genocide. Lincoln should have frog marched 'em all to Mexico.
 
TWX
2013-01-15 10:12:47 PM

bingo the psych-o: What is it about the Abrahamic religions that promotes such willful ignorance? Can someone explain it to me?


Well, as I see it, Abrahamic religions look to the past. These religions use chronicles of events that are purported to have happened centuries or millennia ago as evidence of how one should behave today, how the world functions (both societally and physically) and this guide, for some, becomes sacrosanct. The problems come about when these old documented events come into conflict with modern realities, either societal realities or physical or scientific realities.

This isn't to say that all adherents are intolerant, obviously there are many progressive adherents, but those in positions of authority that aren't able to tolerate differences, change, or definitive proof that the world isn't what they got from their book have a disproportionate influence on events and policies.
 
2013-01-15 10:13:06 PM
As a (former) Floridian, I genuinely hope - FERVENTLY - for a hurricane of such magnitude to hit the gulf of Mexico that it just destroys the south. Completely. No survivors. Raze the Earth.

Luckily, retarded policy decisions may be helping this scenario along. So drill, baby, drill, I guess.
 
2013-01-15 10:13:15 PM
Fark yeah, kid! Go get 'em!
 
2013-01-15 10:14:20 PM
Cool, good on him. And he's cute too.
 
2013-01-15 10:15:47 PM

ModernLuddite: As a (former) Floridian, I genuinely hope - FERVENTLY - for a hurricane of such magnitude to hit the gulf of Mexico that it just destroys the south. Completely. No survivors. Raze the Earth.

Luckily, retarded policy decisions may be helping this scenario along. So drill, baby, drill, I guess.


So you want folks like this kid killed too.  Good to know.
 
2013-01-15 10:16:08 PM

Relatively Obscure: Kudos to <b>SkinnyHead</b>'s courageous attempts to debunk evolution by shiatting from his mouth.


It's an evolutionary adaptation, like those lizards that squirt blood out of their eyes.
 
2013-01-15 10:18:11 PM

SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.


See? this is what happens when you mix meth and mushrooms.
 
2013-01-15 10:19:01 PM
I think there should be a separate class that teaches world beliefs. It should teach general beliefs about the major world religions and the beliefs of athiests. This way people are informed at least some what as to what others believe and they are given a choice of what to believe. It will cover creationism and why people believe it in this class. However this may be too logical and not enough Jesus for some people.
 
2013-01-15 10:19:17 PM

ModernLuddite: As a (former) Floridian, I genuinely hope - FERVENTLY - for a hurricane of such magnitude to hit the gulf of Mexico that it just destroys the south. Completely. No survivors. Raze the Earth.

Luckily, retarded policy decisions may be helping this scenario along. So drill, baby, drill, I guess.


Yeah, I support anyone who wants complete eradication of life in regions that they don't like! What if I don't like the Middle East? Do I get a Hurricane too? Or is it just your prejudice that gets sky support?
 
2013-01-15 10:20:26 PM
I think the Hero tag is well deserved in this case.

Without an understanding of evolution, we wouldn't have modern agriculture, domestic pets, vaccines, disinfection, epidemiology, pest control, etc.

You can make up whatever rules you want in religion, politics or other social constructs, but science is a cruel mistress and you can't conduct modern biological research without knowing evolution any more than you can revoke the law of gravity.
 
2013-01-15 10:21:23 PM
Silly question, I haven't been paying attention to the ID/creationism threads (my mind got made up back when creationtheory.org was still being routinely updated), but is SkinnyHead the new Bevets?
Do people still post the "Summon Bevets" Magic:The Gathering card?
Does rum go better with Pepsi Max or Coke Zero?
 
2013-01-15 10:21:34 PM
Brought to you by the state that is ranked one of the lowest in the nation for education.
 
2013-01-15 10:22:23 PM

4seasons85!: I think there should be a separate class that teaches world beliefs. It should teach general beliefs about the major world religions and the beliefs of athiests. This way people are informed at least some what as to what others believe and they are given a choice of what to believe. It will cover creationism and why people believe it in this class. However this may be too logical and not enough Jesus for some people.


If you think there was a shiatstorm about teaching science to the kids of these people, wait until the government tries to inform their kids about other religious beliefs.
 
2013-01-15 10:22:24 PM
"Kopplin would like to see $1 trillion of new science funding..."

Here you go:

fitsnews.com
 
2013-01-15 10:23:34 PM

Raharu: phlegmmo: Equilibrist: FARK needs a Creationist tab.

It would have to be intelligently designed.


And never change over time.


Awesome. You're all awesome.
Goddammitsomuch. That was beautiful.
 
2013-01-15 10:23:34 PM

queezyweezel: FTFA:He also has his eyes set on vouchers. After an Alternet story came out about a school in the Louisiana voucher program teaching that the Loch Ness Monster was real and disproved evolution, Kopplin looked deeper into the program and found that this wasn't just one school, but at least 19 other schools, too.Oh. My. God......that's scary. And I'm not talking about a possible monster.


Are you trying to say it's not real?

l2.yimg.com
 
2013-01-15 10:24:23 PM
(skipped: comment text contains 2 ignored login names 'SkinnyHead', 'Bevets')
 
2013-01-15 10:24:57 PM

Dokushin: ModernLuddite: As a (former) Floridian, I genuinely hope - FERVENTLY - for a hurricane of such magnitude to hit the gulf of Mexico that it just destroys the south. Completely. No survivors. Raze the Earth.

Luckily, retarded policy decisions may be helping this scenario along. So drill, baby, drill, I guess.

Yeah, I support anyone who wants complete eradication of life in regions that they don't like! What if I don't like the Middle East? Do I get a Hurricane too? Or is it just your prejudice that gets sky support?


It's not about "not liking" somebody, it's about destroying an enemy of America. The same group of self-righteous evil-doers who insisted on using human beings as farm machinery are still here today, doing everything in their power to destroy this country. They were our enemy once and still.
 
2013-01-15 10:25:02 PM
DeathCipris: Brought to you by the state that is ranked one of the lowest in the nation for education.

not in abstinence-only education!
 
2013-01-15 10:25:07 PM
has the stupid wrestler fan "it's real to me" dude shown up yet? I'm late for the party as usual.
 
2013-01-15 10:25:41 PM
"Just search creationism on Monster Jobs or Career Builder and tell me how many creationist jobs you find," he asks.

Big Laugh OL on that one. Good for him.
 
2013-01-15 10:27:06 PM

Dokushin: ModernLuddite: As a (former) Floridian, I genuinely hope - FERVENTLY - for a hurricane of such magnitude to hit the gulf of Mexico that it just destroys the south. Completely. No survivors. Raze the Earth.

Luckily, retarded policy decisions may be helping this scenario along. So drill, baby, drill, I guess.

Yeah, I support anyone who wants complete eradication of life in regions that they don't like! What if I don't like the Middle East? Do I get a Hurricane too? Or is it just your prejudice that gets sky support?


No, only I decide who lives or dies.
 
2013-01-15 10:27:11 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Dokushin: ModernLuddite: As a (former) Floridian, I genuinely hope - FERVENTLY - for a hurricane of such magnitude to hit the gulf of Mexico that it just destroys the south. Completely. No survivors. Raze the Earth.

Luckily, retarded policy decisions may be helping this scenario along. So drill, baby, drill, I guess.

Yeah, I support anyone who wants complete eradication of life in regions that they don't like! What if I don't like the Middle East? Do I get a Hurricane too? Or is it just your prejudice that gets sky support?

It's not about "not liking" somebody, it's about destroying an enemy of America. The same group of self-righteous evil-doers who insisted on using human beings as farm machinery are still here today, doing everything in their power to destroy this country. They were our enemy once and still.


Good job endearing yourselves to rational southerners who hold the fundies in even more contempt than you.
 
2013-01-15 10:27:42 PM
Geez, folks, why do you keep responding to the troll ShiattyHead? I can block his posts, but I can't block responses to his posts and every time I accidentally read something he wrote, I lose brain cells. Please don't feed the trolls, already!!!
 
2013-01-15 10:27:55 PM

spidermilk: The other day two church chicks came to my door and I thought "Ok, stay cool, don't be an asshole" and they gave me a little pamplet and told me where their church was. I said "Great, thanks! have a good one." and they didn't turn around to leave. Instead, the chick goes "Let me ask you- if you died today are you SURE-" and right there I rudely cut her off and said 'I'm an athiest so I don't believe in god." and she just said "WELL THERE IS A GOD!" and I said "ok, we all have our own beliefs- bye!"


And you let them go?

/always wanted to do two church chicks at once
 
2013-01-15 10:28:01 PM
SkinnyHead. Bringing the derp to the hole. For America.
 
2013-01-15 10:30:14 PM

Insatiable Jesus: It's not about "not liking" somebody, it's about destroying an enemy of America. The same group of self-righteous evil-doers who insisted on using human beings as farm machinery are still here today, doing everything in their power to destroy this country. They were our enemy once and still.


We certainly have some number of enemies in the Middle East. Surely they too must be razed to the ground?
 
2013-01-15 10:31:04 PM

ModernLuddite: Dokushin: ModernLuddite: As a (former) Floridian, I genuinely hope - FERVENTLY - for a hurricane of such magnitude to hit the gulf of Mexico that it just destroys the south. Completely. No survivors. Raze the Earth.

Luckily, retarded policy decisions may be helping this scenario along. So drill, baby, drill, I guess.

Yeah, I support anyone who wants complete eradication of life in regions that they don't like! What if I don't like the Middle East? Do I get a Hurricane too? Or is it just your prejudice that gets sky support?

No, only I decide who lives or dies.


Okay, I laughed. Go have a beer or something.
 
2013-01-15 10:32:28 PM
If fiercely enforcing a theory with no basis ever proven makes you a hero, the Fark's hero tag is not even worth wiping your butt with. That makes me sad.

Find any proponent of the Theory of Evolution, and they'll tell you that it's only a theory because it can't be proven.

Fark is choosing sides now?
 
2013-01-15 10:33:55 PM

Psycat: I can't block responses to his posts


Sure you can.
 
2013-01-15 10:34:09 PM
I'm pretty sure you don't have to be 19 to give a creationist hell. I have a 10 year old niece who I'm pretty sure has a more factual grasp on science than anyone who could truly believe in creationism. We could conduct some tests and see if my theory holds true, but if you understood why theories require testing and proof, then the chances are quite high that you wouldn't turn out to be a creationist in the first place.
 
2013-01-15 10:34:39 PM
This thread:
t1.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-15 10:35:06 PM
Why do TFers even acknowledge skinnyhead? Pretty bad that you can't pick out the serial trolls.
 
2013-01-15 10:35:34 PM

4seasons85!: I think there should be a separate class that teaches world beliefs. It should teach general beliefs about the major world religions and the beliefs of athiests. This way people are informed at least some what as to what others believe and they are given a choice of what to believe. It will cover creationism and why people believe it in this class. However this may be too logical and not enough Jesus for some people.


While I would love to see proper comparative religions, world cultures, critical thinking, philosophy, etc., courses in our public school system, I fear "proper" is not plausible except in a small amount of schools. Considering how often teachers ignorantly promote Christian beliefs and practices while exposing children to other beliefs in a manner which seems them as quaint, and considering how often there are efforts to directly promote religious beliefs in the place of substantiated and essential science, few branches of Christianity and few religions, if any, would be taught and discussed in an objective and proper light.
 
2013-01-15 10:35:38 PM

Dokushin: Insatiable Jesus: It's not about "not liking" somebody, it's about destroying an enemy of America. The same group of self-righteous evil-doers who insisted on using human beings as farm machinery are still here today, doing everything in their power to destroy this country. They were our enemy once and still.

We certainly have some number of enemies in the Middle East. Surely they too must be razed to the ground?


They're fine in the Mid-East. The Southern racists would do well there too. Anywhere but here. They hate it here anyways, since we smacked them down and told them to do their own work. Seccession by boat.
 
2013-01-15 10:36:03 PM

veryequiped: If fiercely enforcing a theory with no basis ever proven makes you a hero, the Fark's hero tag is not even worth wiping your butt with. That makes me sad.

Find any proponent of the Theory of Evolution, and they'll tell you that it's only a theory because it can't be proven.

Fark is choosing sides now?


1/10. The all bold didn't help.
 
2013-01-15 10:36:20 PM

BronyMedic: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

And now it's time for a blast from the past!


Whoa, I missed that one. That's pretty Time Cubey...
 
2013-01-15 10:36:35 PM

veryequiped: Find any proponent of the Theory of Evolution, and they'll tell you that it's only a theory because it can't be proven.


OK, troll, I'll bite. 'Theory' to a scientist means 'best explanation we have at present'. Only to idiots with a limited education does 'theory' mean 'wild guess'. Evolution has been proven a zillion times in fossils, geologic strata, carbon-14 and other radioactivity measurements, and genetics among many other things. Do cretinists, er, creationists have any proof for the 'Divine Poof Theory'? I'll take a wild guess--hell, no.
 
2013-01-15 10:37:10 PM
Seriously, WTF is wrong with you "Christians"? Isn't mankind old enough NOT to believe in fairy tales anymore?
 
2013-01-15 10:37:42 PM
Here's the biggest issue: you want to teach your religious beliefs, please do so. In the context of them being YOUR religious beliefs, and in the church or religious institution of your choice.


Public education is exactly that: public. If you don't want to teach in a public institution, and instead wish to teach in a religious school, please do so. Trying to weasel your beliefs into being taught on the public dime is a violation of the separation of church and state. It promotes your faith over others, and thus is a greater danger to the freedom of religion that folks claim to cherish so much.


You want to teach Creationism, then do so, in a the private school of your choice. With your own dollars going to its upkeep, and the possible loss of accreditation and the possibility of not being able to be placed in many universities after graduation. Your call. Go for it.


When you take the public dollar, you are then beholden to teach folks of all faiths, and even those who don't have any. Equally. Not just teach your own faith. That means actually respecting the fact that not all faiths share your zeal for the Biblical teachings. There are places to teach this: in your own churches and synagogues and mosques and temples. Teach them at home, if you are REALLY into the idea, but understand, that they aren't held by the scientific community, and that the only REAL controversy, is that you want public dollars to teach your faith. And keep anyone else from teaching their own.


I have no problem if you want to teach the "alternatives" at home. I have no problem if you want to teach the "alternatives" in a Sunday school. Or in a summer camp. Please, do so. But knowing, that they do not coincide with good science, and that if you insist on injecting your faith over all others, it's not going to make you real popular, and it may hamper you like a Bob Jones degree may keep you from a post at a real university that has actual accreditation, as opposed to some lackadaisical standard that you pull out of your tochis.


Admit it. ID and the rest are just this, and in the words of the founder of your movement...

lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-01-15 10:37:57 PM
Good for him. If private religious schools want to push creationism, let them. My problem is when the state contributes funding to them. That should definitely not happen. Likewise public schools should not be able to throw out legitimate science textbooks or even be allowed to teach young earth stuff side by side with established science.
 
2013-01-15 10:38:25 PM
fark these neanderthal nutjob creationists.

I never believed in creationism even when I was still a Christian (brainwashing is a terrible thing).
 
2013-01-15 10:38:38 PM
A well deserved Hero tag! There needs to be more folks like this taking on the Theocrats and their ignorant, superstitious constituents.
 
2013-01-15 10:38:38 PM

BronyMedic: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

And now it's time for a blast from the past!

[img716.imageshack.us image 594x372]


"not particularly effective against an insurgency"
 
2013-01-15 10:38:47 PM

SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero. People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.


SkinnyHead, you've been lied to. Probably all your life, and most likely by those closest to you. You should be pissed about that. Instead, you attack the messenger. Have you given much thought to your own motivations?

For everyone else, here's how to help:

National Center for Science Education

Freedom from Religion Foundation

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

People like SkinnyHead are expected to give 10% of their pretax income to help us all back into the Dark Ages, and quite a few of them actually live up to their commitment. Is it too much to ask that the rest of us pony up $50 every once in awhile to support organizations that, in turn, support people like Zack Kopplin?
 
2013-01-15 10:39:11 PM

HighZoolander: 4seasons85!: I think there should be a separate class that teaches world beliefs. It should teach general beliefs about the major world religions and the beliefs of athiests. This way people are informed at least some what as to what others believe and they are given a choice of what to believe. It will cover creationism and why people believe it in this class. However this may be too logical and not enough Jesus for some people.

If you think there was a shiatstorm about teaching science to the kids of these people, wait until the government tries to inform their kids about other religious beliefs.


Oh I know I can see it now: "government trying to make Johnny a mooslim!!" ... It's just a dream I guess.
 
2013-01-15 10:40:35 PM

Asphyxium: I never believed in creationism even when I was still a Christian (brainwashing is a terrible thing).


I'm also a recovering Christian myself. I fear any organization that makes any otherwise sane and intelligent adult believe in silly crap like Cretinism or Transubstantiation. Seriously, Catholics, if the bread and wine are literally Jesus' body and blood, then you are literally practicing cannibalism...
 
2013-01-15 10:41:04 PM

spidermilk:

The other day two church chicks came to my door and I thought "Ok, stay cool, don't be an asshole" and they gave me a little pamplet and told me where their church was. I said "Great, thanks! have a good one." and they didn't turn around to leave. Instead, the chick goes "Let me ask you- if you died today are you SURE-" and right there I rudely cut her off and said 'I'm an athiest so I don't believe in god." and she just said "WELL THERE IS A GOD!" and I said "ok, we all have our own beliefs- bye!"

and then I felt bad the rest of the day like I should have just said thanks and bye again instead of getting made and freaking her out.


No reason for you to feel bad about anything. She knocked on YOUR door with the intent to challenge YOUR beliefs. They're out there proselytising to sway people to join their "one true path" and if she can't handle a little atheist push back, she shouldn't be knocking on stranger's doors like that.
 
2013-01-15 10:42:06 PM

Psycat: Geez, folks, why do you keep responding to the troll ShiattyHead? I can block his posts, but I can't block responses to his posts and every time I accidentally read something he wrote, I lose brain cells. Please don't feed the trolls, already!!!


welcometofark.jpg

/had to be done
 
2013-01-15 10:42:45 PM
biatch about the south all you want, and you would be justified, but PLEASE remember that there are good things too. How about we as a country get rid of Bostonian pallid trash, and we all get the benefit of decent biscuits? We could lose the fundamentalism, and enjoy manners and shrimp-and-grits? We could blow up Bob Jones University, and have a big Low Country boil? Alternately, we could get rid of TERRIBLE southern dirvers, and get decent bagels, lox, and a non-laughable universtiy system...

/p.s. i know I'm generalizing, thank you.
 
2013-01-15 10:45:40 PM
How about we teach ALL the possibilities...

lh5.googleusercontent.com
lh3.googleusercontent.com
lh6.googleusercontent.com
lh6.googleusercontent.com
lh6.googleusercontent.com

And while we're at it...

lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-01-15 10:45:56 PM
I don't give a shiat about creation and/or evolution, religion nor politics, but I find this amusing FTA:

"Kopplin, who is studying history at Rice University, had good reason to be upset after"

...he will be flipping burgers soon.
 
2013-01-15 10:46:20 PM

spidermilk: My first thought was "Please let this kid not be an asshole." and then I read the article and he sounds like a total non-asshole. Just calmly and semi-quietly doing what he thinks is right. And not just to prove that he is smarter than him, but because he wants Louisianans to be successful.

The other day two church chicks came to my door and I thought "Ok, stay cool, don't be an asshole" and they gave me a little pamplet and told me where their church was. I said "Great, thanks! have a good one." and they didn't turn around to leave. Instead, the chick goes "Let me ask you- if you died today are you SURE-" and right there I rudely cut her off and said 'I'm an athiest so I don't believe in god." and she just said "WELL THERE IS A GOD!" and I said "ok, we all have our own beliefs- bye!"

and then I felt bad the rest of the day like I should have just said thanks and bye again instead of getting made and freaking her out.


Don't sell yourself short. I think you should feel good about yourself for not locking them both up in your rape dungeon.

/kidding
//unless you really have a rape dungeon
 
2013-01-15 10:46:30 PM

saturn badger: Psycat: Geez, folks, why do you keep responding to the troll ShiattyHead? I can block his posts, but I can't block responses to his posts and every time I accidentally read something he wrote, I lose brain cells. Please don't feed the trolls, already!!!

welcometofark.jpg

/had to be done


I've already blocked ShiattyHead. I'd hate to block everybody who responds to him because some of those Farkers might have something intelligent to contribute...
 
2013-01-15 10:47:28 PM
 
2013-01-15 10:48:08 PM
www.dudelol.com
 
2013-01-15 10:49:16 PM

Charlie Chingas: Seriously, WTF is wrong with you "Christians"? Isn't mankind old enough NOT to believe in fairy tales anymore?


The issues isn't believing in fairy tales, it's that fairy tales are being taught as science. If people want to believe that a benevolent force created the universe and cares about each and every human being out there, who cares? Teaching highschool science students that the rules and processes that govern the universe and its components can only be found in an infallible 2000 year old book is the real issue. The technology and sciences that drive our civilization (and our economies) forward is based on those governing rules; teaching students that the scientific method, arguably the most powerful thing humans have created, can be replaced by reading a book that basically says "A wizard did it" undermines future discovery, growth and progress.
 
2013-01-15 10:49:51 PM

SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.


i1240.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-15 10:52:20 PM
i154.photobucket.com

TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!
 
2013-01-15 10:52:53 PM
School vouchers, he argues, unconstitutionally fund the teaching of creationism because many of the schools in these programs are private fundamentalist religious schools who are teaching creationism"


I think he needs to take a little constitutional history. Allowing religious schools to use voucher money is NOT unconstitutional in any way.

First of all, a govt entering into a contract with a private religious organization is not the same as making laws establishing a religion.

Second, even if such a restriction existed, allowing people to use the tax money for the school of their choice is analogous to getting a tax deduction for charitable giving: its individuals who are exercising choice.

Yes we know that liberals and Democrats hate it when ppl exercise choices. They want a locked down buttoned up world where curricula are dictated by the grand Pooh Bah.

But here's the thing: its possible to make sure that parents are informed and take action without declaring individual expression to be unconstitutional.
 
2013-01-15 10:54:25 PM
Here's a bit of wisdom, folks:

You can never win a debate against somebody who is too stupid to realize they've been refuted.

That's why I never debate Cretinists in the real world, because it's usually one-on-one and a waste of time. On Fark, on the other hand, there's plenty of intelligent lurkers who might be swayed to the Evolution side through reasonable debate, so then it's worth the effort...
 
2013-01-15 10:55:21 PM
I'm an athiest who thinks Zack is probubly Jewish with a bone to pick whithin the WASP world he did not choose to be born to in. He should probubly grow a pair and move to Israel to 'fight' the Palestinians, instead of stirring up discourse whithin the world he hates.
 
2013-01-15 10:56:49 PM
As someone who IS religious AND a teacher I say good for him.

I'll sign up and subscribe to his newsletter!!!
I absolutely HATE when religion shoe-horns its way into the classroom where it doesn't belong.
Keep religion out of my science classroom, and away from my carnivorous dinosaurs who freaking ate meat ALWAYS!!
 
2013-01-15 10:56:57 PM

ambassador_ahab: Kevin72: AND that the world is only 6000 years old?

They really do.  I had a professor last term that, while excellent at teaching the subject he taught, couldn't help but occasionally throw in some of his "worldview opinions" which included that and other batshiat-crazy ideas.  I can say with 100% certainty that he actually believed all that stuff.

He also once said that slavery the way the US did it was terrible and wrong, but slavery the way the bible talked about it was wonderful and a blessing form God.


CSB. When and where I grew up in the boonies of New Brunswick (Canada, not NJ) we had Protestants, Catholics and the odd clan of JVs, Pentecosts, and a few families that were, well, not really athiest but didn't much give a damn one way or the other. Most of the Protestants were a mix of finely divided Baptists most of whom would have been at a loss to describe the doctrinal differences between them. Anyway the mind set was very strange. Bible was literally true, superficially fundamentalist. It really didn't matter because they figured the whole 6000 year age of the Earth was true, but figured that God, for his own reasons which He didn't chose to explain, created everything as if it really were as old as science said it was. Having gotten that out of the way, they were perfectly happy to take advantage of science etc. and to maintain personal faiths at the same time without dwelling on the issues. Religon was for Sunday school and church. Then shortly before I graduated HS and bailed, the Southern Baptist influence started to grow and everythings been going to Hell ever since...
 
2013-01-15 10:57:06 PM
Zach's a good guy from a good family. He hasn't been put up to anything and he makes sense. Some of the politicians are mind numbingly stupid.
 
2013-01-15 11:00:09 PM

Tyranicle: I'm an athiest who thinks Zack is probubly Jewish with a bone to pick whithin the WASP world he did not choose to be born to in. He should probubly grow a pair and move to Israel to 'fight' the Palestinians, instead of stirring up discourse whithin the world he hates.


You know who else blamed the Jews?
 
2013-01-15 11:02:52 PM
http://xkcd.com/154/

also,

averageretardedcreationists.jpg
 
2013-01-15 11:03:44 PM

doyner: Tyranicle: I'm an athiest who thinks Zack is probubly Jewish with a bone to pick whithin the WASP world he did not choose to be born to in. He should probubly grow a pair and move to Israel to 'fight' the Palestinians, instead of stirring up discourse whithin the world he hates.

You know who else blamed the Jews?


Stalin.
 
2013-01-15 11:05:19 PM

Psycat: Here's a bit of wisdom, folks:

You can never win a debate against somebody who is too stupid to realize they've been refuted.

That's why I never debate Cretinists in the real world, because it's usually one-on-one and a waste of time. On Fark, on the other hand, there's plenty of intelligent lurkers who might be swayed to the Evolution side through reasonable debate, so then it's worth the effort...


Mark Twain said it better...



1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-15 11:06:16 PM

Shirley Ujest: This young man is a better man than 100 % of the Republicans in the House and Senate who are twice his age.


You mean four times, right?
 
2013-01-15 11:06:37 PM

Psycat: You can never win a debate against somebody who is too stupid to realize they've been refuted.


I never intend to win a debate but rather inform an audience and help inoculate them against the bullsh*t being spewed opposite me. Answer an accusation or question in such a manner you are never defensive but correcting egregious mistakes for the sake of those listening or reading, leaving no question to the ignorance of the opposition.
 
2013-01-15 11:06:55 PM

Tyranicle: I'm an athiest who thinks Zack is probubly Jewish with a bone to pick whithin the WASP world he did not choose to be born to in. He should probubly grow a pair and move to Israel to 'fight' the Palestinians, instead of stirring up discourse whithin the world he hates.


I'm an atheist who thinks that your post is the dumbest thing posted in this thread.

And consider upgrading to a browser with spellcheck.
 
2013-01-15 11:09:36 PM

Vangor: Psycat: You can never win a debate against somebody who is too stupid to realize they've been refuted.

I never intend to win a debate but rather inform an audience and help inoculate them against the bullsh*t being spewed opposite me. Answer an accusation or question in such a manner you are never defensive but correcting egregious mistakes for the sake of those listening or reading, leaving no question to the ignorance of the opposition.


Agreed. The only time to debate any fanatic or ignoramus is in a public forum like Fark because the ultimate goal is to win converts from the pool of undecided lurkers...
 
2013-01-15 11:10:58 PM

IntertubeUser: Tyranicle: I'm an athiest who thinks Zack is probubly Jewish with a bone to pick whithin the WASP world he did not choose to be born to in. He should probubly grow a pair and move to Israel to 'fight' the Palestinians, instead of stirring up discourse whithin the world he hates.

I'm an atheist who thinks that your post is the dumbest thing posted in this thread.

And consider upgrading to a browser with spellcheck.


On a mobile. No spellcheck.
 
2013-01-15 11:12:16 PM

Animatronik: I think he needs to take a little constitutional history. Allowing religious schools to use voucher money is NOT unconstitutional in any way.

First of all, a govt entering into a contract with a private religious organization is not the same as making laws establishing a religion.

Second, even if such a restriction existed, allowing people to use the tax money for the school of their choice is analogous to getting a tax deduction for charitable giving: its individuals who are exercising choice.


Wait, so you're saying that it's ok for my tax dollars to go to a religious school?

Because that's basically what these voucher programs do.

Animatronik: Yes we know that liberals and Democrats hate it when ppl exercise choices. They want a locked down buttoned up world where curricula are dictated by the grand Pooh Bah.


There's that projection again. Wake me up when Texas stops rewriting their curriculum because it's "too liberal" to them.
 
2013-01-15 11:12:45 PM

Mugato: My book says that there is an all powerful Force that surrounds us, penetrates us and binds the galaxy together. Life creates it and makes it grow. And a powerful ally it is. And unlike these other theories, I have video of it. But you don't see me trying to force it in kid's textbooks.


I'd still rather have a blaster at my side.
 
2013-01-15 11:17:57 PM
<I>He also has his eyes set on vouchers. After an Alternet story came out about a school in the Louisiana voucher program <a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.alternet.org/story/155926/the_loch_nes s_monster_is_real%3B_ the_kkk_is_good%3A_the_shocking_content_of_publicly_paid_for_christian _school_textbooks">teaching that the Loch Ness Monster was real and disproved evolution, Kopplin looked deeper into the program and found that this wasn't just one school, but at least 19 other schools, too. </I>

I think I just found the new textbook maker:

www.weiserantiquarian.com

/Read the book!
 
2013-01-15 11:18:48 PM

Raharu: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

Creationism isn't science. It's mythology and fan fiction.
Really really bad fan fiction.


To be fair, fan fiction needs to be in the top 5% to be "really bad".
 
2013-01-15 11:23:25 PM

GoldSpider: If only oppressed Christians had a place where they could meet and discuss their beliefs on how the world was made.


I dunno. I figure the tax burden on such a place would kill it outright.
 
2013-01-15 11:26:37 PM

BunkoSquad: This kid's awesome.


Yep. Definite respect.
 
2013-01-15 11:27:30 PM

Tyranicle: IntertubeUser: Tyranicle: I'm an athiest who thinks Zack is probubly Jewish with a bone to pick whithin the WASP world he did not choose to be born to in. He should probubly grow a pair and move to Israel to 'fight' the Palestinians, instead of stirring up discourse whithin the world he hates.

I'm an atheist who thinks that your post is the dumbest thing posted in this thread.

And consider upgrading to a browser with spellcheck.

On a mobile. No spellcheck.


I think all of us here are deeply surprised that you know how to use a mobile phone.
 
2013-01-15 11:29:00 PM
Holoy shiat F*$

Did US get hit with the stupid stick and nobody recovered, ?

My I suggest build a wall all the way around, and make sure anybody trying to get into the real world get droned
then Im able to sleep safe,

Only worry about the over the top Jews and muslims who from what it looks like are on par with the intellectual development that you guys look to have..

Whats next God made AR15 and you only die from gun if you a bad guy, like rape sperm get rejected
 
2013-01-15 11:29:28 PM

4seasons85!: It should teach general beliefs about the major world religions and the beliefs of athiests. that there are those who do not accept any of these beliefs (called atheists).


FIFY

Not accepting someone's claim is not 'a belief'.
 
2013-01-15 11:30:20 PM
"Just search creationism on Monster Jobs or Career Builder and tell me how many creationist jobs you find,"

That's bullshait, there's lots of creationist jobs, they just aren't called that, but go by more conventional names like: night-shift stockman, gas-station attendant, grill attendant, Costco greeter.
 
2013-01-15 11:31:09 PM
Young man, you make me very proud. Carry on with your bad self!
 
2013-01-15 11:37:50 PM

Equilibrist: FARK needs a Creationist tab.


It would need Jesus riding a dinosaur if that would fit.
 
2013-01-15 11:37:54 PM

Nabb1: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.


i.imgur.com

You're not fooling anyone.
 
2013-01-15 11:38:29 PM

bingo the psych-o: What is it about the Abrahamic religions that promotes such willful ignorance? Can someone explain it to me?


Jews are not stupid...
 
2013-01-15 11:40:05 PM

Mordos: [www.dudelol.com image 477x302]


Do you expect me to believe I am a descendant from some flightless manicotti?
 
2013-01-15 11:40:17 PM

spidermilk: My first thought was "Please let this kid not be an asshole." and then I read the article and he sounds like a total non-asshole. Just calmly and semi-quietly doing what he thinks is right. And not just to prove that he is smarter than him, but because he wants Louisianans to be successful.

The other day two church chicks came to my door and I thought "Ok, stay cool, don't be an asshole" and they gave me a little pamplet and told me where their church was. I said "Great, thanks! have a good one." and they didn't turn around to leave. Instead, the chick goes "Let me ask you- if you died today are you SURE-" and right there I rudely cut her off and said 'I'm an athiest so I don't believe in god." and she just said "WELL THERE IS A GOD!" and I said "ok, we all have our own beliefs- bye!"

and then I felt bad the rest of the day like I should have just said thanks and bye again instead of getting made and freaking her out.


Church Chicks. Photos please. I already have the Church Lady on my alter, so perhaps some hot nuns in lingerie. TYIA.

/fap fap fap
 
2013-01-15 11:40:23 PM

Animatronik: School vouchers, he argues, unconstitutionally fund the teaching of creationism because many of the schools in these programs are private fundamentalist religious schools who are teaching creationism"


I think he needs to take a little constitutional history. Allowing religious schools to use voucher money is NOT unconstitutional in any way.

First of all, a govt entering into a contract with a private religious organization is not the same as making laws establishing a religion.

Second, even if such a restriction existed, allowing people to use the tax money for the school of their choice is analogous to getting a tax deduction for charitable giving: its individuals who are exercising choice.

Yes we know that liberals and Democrats hate it when ppl exercise choices. They want a locked down buttoned up world where curricula are dictated by the grand Pooh Bah.

But here's the thing: its possible to make sure that parents are informed and take action without declaring individual expression to be unconstitutional.


The issue is what is being done by teachers in public schools as well, in the "spirit" of this new law.

What folks wish to teach in a private school, that is up to them. When it bleeds into the public schools, where there IS no real choice in the matter, then it becomes an issue of the separation of church and state. Mind you, vouchers ARE sort of an issue, in that essentially, folks want public dollars to fund a religious institution, when there are perfectly good public schools in their area. Vouchers are a sort of bait and switch ploy to get public dollars to fund a private school education, without all those pesky rules and gobbledygook that bind accredited schools. That is a separate issue though, I will agree with you, in principle.

The main thrust of the issue though, is the circumvention of Louisiana's public schools' curriculum. And using those public schools as a rallying point to teach religious views, as an "alternative" to actual science. That is worth shedding some light upon. The use of vouchers, that's something else entirely, and vouchers are way of sliding public dollars into private schools' hands, and it is, at its heart, a very shady way of sliding public dollars into private hands that have no business with it.
 
2013-01-15 11:40:25 PM

Tyranicle: IntertubeUser: Tyranicle: I'm an athiest who thinks Zack is probubly Jewish with a bone to pick whithin the WASP world he did not choose to be born to in. He should probubly grow a pair and move to Israel to 'fight' the Palestinians, instead of stirring up discourse whithin the world he hates.

I'm an atheist who thinks that your post is the dumbest thing posted in this thread.

And consider upgrading to a browser with spellcheck.

On a mobile. No spellcheck.


This reply to that post about your hilariously myopic post is doubleplus funny. Thank you for the laugh. Still though, you should be mad as hell that fact is tossed out for myth and legend in a classroom setting too. Everyone should be, especially the teachers.
 
2013-01-15 11:43:35 PM
Never understood the "This vs That", "Either/Or", "Science vs Religion" battle.

In the research labs I've worked in, many of us had practicing religious beliefs, and yet had no trouble separating those views from the demands of successful peer-review scientific research.

Science = measure

Religion = belief.

Being religious is first of all about how you live and how you treat others. Do this correctly, and there is no creation/evolution issue, since one is by definition un-provable, and therefore not science, and the other is essentially unobservable (ever see a fly mutate into an alligator?) in any human time-frame.

Other than being great fodder for philosophical debate, we certainly won't answer either in a once-and-for-all fashion, and only a fool would deny the benefits of engineering research, medical research, etc.
 
2013-01-15 11:44:17 PM
images1.myreviewer.co.uk

If I had this happen to me in school, I would hope I had the guts to show that teacher all the respect they deserve: none.

There is no cause for this behavior by a supposed role model.
 
2013-01-15 11:45:18 PM
Evolution is just another religion.
 
2013-01-15 11:45:54 PM

the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.


No it isn't.
 
2013-01-15 11:49:06 PM

cameroncrazy1984: the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.

No it isn't.


You can't prove it isn't.
 
2013-01-15 11:49:13 PM

Acharne: Tyranicle: IntertubeUser: Tyranicle: I'm an athiest who thinks Zack is probubly Jewish with a bone to pick whithin the WASP world he did not choose to be born to in. He should probubly grow a pair and move to Israel to 'fight' the Palestinians, instead of stirring up discourse whithin the world he hates.

I'm an atheist who thinks that your post is the dumbest thing posted in this thread.

And consider upgrading to a browser with spellcheck.

On a mobile. No spellcheck.

This reply to that post about your hilariously myopic post is doubleplus funny. Thank you for the laugh. Still though, you should be mad as hell that fact is tossed out for myth and legend in a classroom setting too. Everyone should be, especially the teachers.


Moving on to Reddit, where the Jew bosses at least commit suicide.
 
2013-01-15 11:53:39 PM

the_chief: cameroncrazy1984: the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.

No it isn't.

You can't prove it isn't.


Yes, I can. Evolution is testable. Religion is not.

/science, it works.
 
2013-01-15 11:53:46 PM

cameroncrazy1984: the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.

No it isn't.


You aren't going to fall for this obvious a line are you?
 
2013-01-15 11:55:16 PM

the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.


You're just another uninspired troll.
 
2013-01-15 11:55:22 PM

hubiestubert: cameroncrazy1984: the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.

No it isn't.

You aren't going to fall for this obvious a line are you?


Yep!
 
2013-01-16 12:02:07 AM
2013 and people are arguing about evolution

I tell them gravity is a theory. go test it.

do it. do it
 
2013-01-16 12:02:32 AM
The point of the public education system is to prepare our future generations to compete effectively in the global workforce. Creationism does not contribute towards this. It's actually damaging towards this goal. Creationism, also known as "Intelligent Design", is nothing more than a desperate attempt by some religious christians to force theology into public schools. Church attendances are down. Crucifix-monogrammed pocketbooks are thinner than they used to be. They're worried that they're becoming increasingly irrelevant. This whole schtick is being pushed because they think if they can start pushing baseless credulity and lack of critical thinking skills onto other people's children earlier, that they stand a better chance of dragging them to church later on in life. It's no secret or grand epiphany that people who are poorer and less educated tend to be religious. But I think it's beyond despicable that these people are intentionally trying to subvert the public education system in the name of jebus at the cost of their future quality of life.

Fark these people.
 
2013-01-16 12:02:56 AM
Quick rant:

Do you Cretinists think you're actually going to get rid of evolution? You might get cretinism taught in Shiatkick, Alabammy or some other school district near the bottom of the barrel but you will NEVER remove evolution from mainstream science ever. Evolution is the key theory that holds together ALL life sciences from anthropology to zoology and it's basic validity hasn't been challenged by mainstream scientists* since the 1880s. I doubt that you could burn enough scientists at the stake to ever get them to give up evolution. And, in the very unlikely event that mainstream science abandons evolution, it will be for another theory that's just as naturalistic. So, dream on, flat-earthers...

*People who have degrees from accredited colleges like CalTech and MIT. Charlatans with degrees from the Tupelo Correspondence School of Cretinism and Clam-Digging don't count as mainstream scientists.
 
2013-01-16 12:03:31 AM

Glenechocreek: queezyweezel: FTFA:He also has his eyes set on vouchers. After an Alternet story came out about a school in the Louisiana voucher program teaching that the Loch Ness Monster was real and disproved evolution, Kopplin looked deeper into the program and found that this wasn't just one school, but at least 19 other schools, too.Oh. My. God......that's scary. And I'm not talking about a possible monster.

Are you trying to say it's not real?

[l2.yimg.com image 630x558]


this kid is just crazy-crazy. nessie is reelz@1!!eleven
 
2013-01-16 12:06:43 AM
This kid evolved some huge brass ones.
 
2013-01-16 12:08:50 AM

Cpl.D: The point of the public education system is to prepare our future generations to compete effectively in the global workforce. Creationism does not contribute towards this. It's actually damaging towards this goal. Creationism, also known as "Intelligent Design", is nothing more than a desperate attempt by some religious christians to force theology into public schools. Church attendances are down. Crucifix-monogrammed pocketbooks are thinner than they used to be. They're worried that they're becoming increasingly irrelevant. This whole schtick is being pushed because they think if they can start pushing baseless credulity and lack of critical thinking skills onto other people's children earlier, that they stand a better chance of dragging them to church later on in life. It's no secret or grand epiphany that people who are poorer and less educated tend to be religious. But I think it's beyond despicable that these people are intentionally trying to subvert the public education system in the name of jebus at the cost of their future quality of life.

Fark these people.


Glen Beck, cretinism, the made-up War on Christmas--all this crap is a sign of Christianity's dying gasp. It might at first seem horrifying that 46% of Americans believe in the cretinist nonsense, but it was actually higher in the past, so we're headed in the right direction. The megachurches and the scam artists who preach the Health 'n' Wealth gospel (e.g. Anal Roberts) which is 180-degrees out of phase with the anti-materialism taught by Jesus is corroding the hell out of true Christianity which historically has at least pretended to be on the side of the poor and downtrodden. With something like 15-20% of Americans belonging to the None of the Above religion, we should be past the Christian mythology in another 50 years or so...
 
2013-01-16 12:15:41 AM
I enjoyed the video of State Senator Julie Quinn insisting, as a lawyer, insisting on an answer. Saying she'd listened patiently to all these people with the little letters after their names.

Now that right there was some weapons grade stupidity. Even Kopplin's counsel, who didn't appear to be all that bright herself, saw the opening and proceeded to biatch slap the Senator by reading the credentials of the groups who had testified. You just know the good ol' boys over at the Rotary Club were going to have a good chuckle over Senator Quinn's discomfort. She certainly didn't look too happy and tried to walk it back but it was too late. And she is supposed to be one of the best senators in the state.
 
2013-01-16 12:18:56 AM

Nabb1: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.


It's not freedom of thought or academic freedom to lie to your students. Putting creationism in a science class is exactly that.
 
2013-01-16 12:20:34 AM

cameroncrazy1984: the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.

No it isn't.


Did you want ten minutes or the full half-hour?
 
2013-01-16 12:30:51 AM

Psycat: saturn badger: Psycat: Geez, folks, why do you keep responding to the troll ShiattyHead? I can block his posts, but I can't block responses to his posts and every time I accidentally read something he wrote, I lose brain cells. Please don't feed the trolls, already!!!

welcometofark.jpg

/had to be done

I've already blocked ShiattyHead. I'd hate to block everybody who responds to him because some of those Farkers might have something intelligent to contribute...


I just use a mental block. I don't have any cyber ones here. Works for me.
 
2013-01-16 12:31:02 AM
That's one of the better articles I've seen on Fark in a while. Good for him.
 
2013-01-16 12:38:20 AM

Glenechocreek: queezyweezel: FTFA:He also has his eyes set on vouchers. After an Alternet story came out about a school in the Louisiana voucher program teaching that the Loch Ness Monster was real and disproved evolution, Kopplin looked deeper into the program and found that this wasn't just one school, but at least 19 other schools, too.Oh. My. God......that's scary. And I'm not talking about a possible monster.

Are you trying to say it's not real?

[l2.yimg.com image 630x558]


Helps if you don't crop the photo in order to troll the Daily Fail

scienceblogs.com
Trolling was a true art back in the day.
 
2013-01-16 12:39:15 AM
LeafyGreens: Why do TFers even acknowledge skinnyhead? Pretty bad that you can't pick out the serial trolls.

it's like eating Hershey's kisses: the chocolate is bad but I'll eat a handful anyhow
 
2013-01-16 12:41:22 AM

Man On Pink Corner: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero. People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

SkinnyHead, you've been lied to. Probably all your life, and most likely by those closest to you. You should be pissed about that. Instead, you attack the messenger. Have you given much thought to your own motivations?


A man can repeat a lie once and not be a liar. If that man repeats the lie after it has been pointed out to him that it is one, then he becomes a liar.

SkinnyHead has vaulted way past that point. He spreads lies as truth himself.
 
2013-01-16 12:42:00 AM

foo monkey: Mentat: I'll keep reporting this until Louisiana wises up:  Link

Thanks. It took me a second to figure this out. Now I can't stop laughing. I needed that today.

[www.motherjones.com image 625x400]


Is it just the fact that it looks like a Venn Diagram and isn't one at all? Or am I missing something?
 
2013-01-16 12:43:51 AM

Cpl.D: Then my grandmother made the mistake of giving me a bible for my sixth birthday. I read that thing front to back. It's how I became an atheist.


I have the Wholly Babble to thank for a major part of my atheism. Reading through it convinced me that it--and religion as a whole--are the product of diseased minds. The Jehovah of the Babble is one of the most miserable, satanic monsters ever encountered in religion. A cruel bastard who knew at the beginning of Time who would end up in Hell, but created them anyways. An asshole who lets his kid suffer on a cross because of some stupid legalistic bullshiat when he could just forgive the human race for its sins already--sins that only existed because Mr. Damnation-Pants was stupid enough to give us free will in the first place.

The other major part was the sheer hypocrisy of all the greedball Christians I've met over the years who push a Health 'n' Wealth Gospel that's completely 180-degrees out of whack with the virulent anti-materialism of the New Testament. Apparently, the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus doesn't exist in the Wholly Babbles of the fascist greedheads who push the Health 'n' Wealth Gospel. BTW, isn't Uber-Christian Glenn Beck an Ayn Rand fan? It'd be funny if he were because Rand was one of the most arrogant atheists who ever lived and never hesitated to show her disdain for believers.
 
2013-01-16 12:44:43 AM
Bravo, young man. You give me hope for the future!

Maybe next he'll get to meet with the president, or even go on the Daily Show
 
2013-01-16 12:44:44 AM

Psycat: the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.

You're just another uninspired troll le trole.

FTFY

 
2013-01-16 12:45:00 AM
Religion does not belong in science class. Creationism and Intelligent Design are religion, therefore they do not belong in science class. Leave religion in the students' homes and in churches.

This is not that difficult to understand, people.
 
2013-01-16 12:45:19 AM

Tyranicle: IntertubeUser: Tyranicle: I'm an athiest who thinks Zack is probubly Jewish with a bone to pick whithin the WASP world he did not choose to be born to in. He should probubly grow a pair and move to Israel to 'fight' the Palestinians, instead of stirring up discourse whithin the world he hates.

I'm an atheist who thinks that your post is the dumbest thing posted in this thread.

And consider upgrading to a browser with spellcheck.

On a mobile. No spellcheck.


Then learn how to spell.
 
2013-01-16 12:45:59 AM
Go ahead and teach christianity in school, just be sure to teach it in a Comparative Religion class, alongside islam, judaism, satanism, hinduism, and many of the so-called pagan religions of the world. And for some reason many christians have a problem with teaching other religions in school.
 
2013-01-16 12:46:24 AM

Psycat: veryequiped: Find any proponent of the Theory of Evolution, and they'll tell you that it's only a theory because it can't be proven.

OK, troll, I'll bite. 'Theory' to a scientist means 'best explanation we have at present'. Only to idiots with a limited education does 'theory' mean 'wild guess'. Evolution has been proven a zillion times in fossils, geologic strata, carbon-14 and other radioactivity measurements, and genetics among many other things. Do cretinists, er, creationists have any proof for the 'Divine Poof Theory'? I'll take a wild guess--hell, no.


This is the standard rant of YouTuber AronRa whenever anyone tells him "evolution is just a theory":

It is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics.
It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.
It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and in practical application.
It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that several independent sets of biological markers do exist which trace these lineages backwards over myriad generations.
It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, in the same way that ducks are a subset of birds, and that humans are a subset of apes in exactly the same way that lions are a subset of cats.
It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form through reverse-sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development, as well as through chronologically correct placement of successive stages revealed in the geologic column.
It is a fact that every animal on earth has obvious relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil record holds hundreds of clearly transitional species even according to the strictest definition of that term.
It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have all withstood critical analysis in peer-review.
It is also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or measurable validity, and that no would-be alternate notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory.
 
2013-01-16 12:46:32 AM

Spartan_Manhandler: Psycat: the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.

You're just another uninspired troll le trole.

FTFY


Is the_chief another sock puppet of le trole? Or are these losers created in some clone factory?
 
2013-01-16 12:51:14 AM

IlGreven: This is the standard rant of YouTuber AronRa whenever anyone tells him "evolution is just a theory".


What really sucks about the Cretinist crowd is that their arguments never, ahem, evolve. They still play that "evolution is just a theory" card even though it just shows their ignorance of what a scientific theory is. Then there's the tiresome canard of "evolution goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics" which can be refuted by any smart high-school student with a rudimentary knowledge of thermodynamics. And then there's the old reliable argument of the Double-Digit IQ Crowd of "duh, I never saw a kangaroo give birth to a fish so you smarty-pants scientists are dumb"...
 
2013-01-16 12:52:04 AM
I wish I could win a Nobel, just so I could stuff it into Ken Ham's....
 
2013-01-16 12:58:56 AM

Tyranicle: I'm an athiest who thinks Zack is probubly Jewish with a bone to pick whithin the WASP world he did not choose to be born to in. He should probubly grow a pair and move to Israel to 'fight' the Palestinians, instead of stirring up discourse whithin the world he hates.


My, my, you're a pwecious widdle anti-semitic piece of trash.
 
2013-01-16 12:59:05 AM
Where would Fark be without a shameless alt/troll and a couple of coattail-riding wannabes working together to get everybody else into a self-righteous froth.
 
2013-01-16 12:59:14 AM

the_chief: EvolutionISM is just another religion.


Allow me to enhance your otherwise mundane troll.
 
2013-01-16 01:03:37 AM

Begoggle: the_chief: EvolutionISM is just another religion.

Allow me to enhance your otherwise mundane troll.


I think it's a fine twist on a classic.
 
2013-01-16 01:04:29 AM

Diarrhea Anne Frank: Where would Fark be without a shameless alt/troll and a couple of coattail-riding wannabes working together to get everybody else into a self-righteous froth.


Trolls or not, I love getting into a self-righteous froth. Gives me a chance to rant on the Double-Digit IQ Crowd who are trying to turn America back to the Dark Ages. However, the Cretinist trolls do help--they help me to get my bile up so I can properly vent on them. I guess you could consider this *ahem* an example of co-evolution.

/ba-dump, tchhhhhh
 
2013-01-16 01:06:04 AM
I haven't seen this card played in quite some time. Yessir, quite some time.

farm1.static.flickr.com
 
2013-01-16 01:06:18 AM

SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

 
2013-01-16 01:09:48 AM

phrawgh: I haven't seen this card played in quite some time. Yessir, quite some time.

[farm1.static.flickr.com image 288x401]


Didn't Bevets star in a cartoon series with some guy named Butthead?
 
2013-01-16 01:17:25 AM
Zack - If you're reading this...
Know that you'll never win - the blind can not be forced to see, the unwashed masses will fight to the death for their right to stupidity and superstition, there's an endless supply of them, and it will be very few that break with tradition and learn to think for themselves.
But also - don't give up and don't despair - you've already found that todays greatest minds are behind you, that the young minds that you do manage to influence could go on to discover and invent many great things - and that you can always get a job in the tech field and make many times more than 99% of the anti-inteligencia.
Good Luck!!
 
2013-01-16 01:21:49 AM
Is it wrong that the first thought in my head was one lyric line from an old song "Born On A Bayou"... and I can't remember the rest of it. Though I think it was used in a few random 80s and 90s movies
 
2013-01-16 01:22:22 AM
The first place I was taught about evolution was Sunday school. Our Anglican minister told us that the Adam and Eve story was simply an allegory for evolution. I was six and it made perfect sense.
 
2013-01-16 01:34:39 AM

TheVeryDeadIanMartin: The first place I was taught about evolution was Sunday school. Our Anglican minister told us that the Adam and Eve story was simply an allegory for evolution. I was six and it made perfect sense.


To its credit, the Catholic Church has accepted evolution since the late 19th century. One of the issues about theistic evolution, though, is determining when in the evolutionary history of the human race the first humanoid acquired a soul. I recall reading an old sci-fi story about a devout Catholic who set out to paint a picture of Adam's mother. The painter ultimately went insane because he ended up with a picture of a spiritually-dead beast with soulless eyes. Either there was a date in the human evolutionary chain where Man first got his soul (and gained the ability to attain eternal damnation), or that the idea of an incorporeal soul floating around in a human's head is irreconcilable with a scientific outlook. Eliminate the concept of 'soul' and all of the Abrahamic religions turn to dust...
 
2013-01-16 01:43:22 AM

red5ish: I enjoyed the video of State Senator Julie Quinn insisting, as a lawyer, insisting on an answer. Saying she'd listened patiently to all these people with the little letters after their names.

Now that right there was some weapons grade stupidity. Even Kopplin's counsel, who didn't appear to be all that bright herself, saw the opening and proceeded to biatch slap the Senator by reading the credentials of the groups who had testified. You just know the good ol' boys over at the Rotary Club were going to have a good chuckle over Senator Quinn's discomfort. She certainly didn't look too happy and tried to walk it back but it was too late. And she is supposed to be one of the best senators in the state.


I also liked how she equated teaching about a religion with "promoting" it. You'd think a lawyer would understand the difference. I don't think she's that good of a lawyer.
 
2013-01-16 01:45:18 AM
Churches are the places for teaching religion. Not the public school system.
 
2013-01-16 01:46:40 AM

the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.


There is at least evidence to support the theory of evolution. There is no evidence to support the existence of any divinity.
 
2013-01-16 01:51:46 AM
I'm not really sure why people fear alternate theories regarding the origins of existence. "Science" can only come up with one theory of many. Please note the word "theory" in the previous sentence. The common "scientific" belief about the origins of existence is a theory. Something that is not proven. With any theory, there are assumptions in order to make the theory "work". The theory of evolution has many, many assumptions. This theory cannot be proven and should therefore be taught as such alongside other theories about the origins of existence.

Just because a majority of people have been brow-beaten into believing a specific theory, doesn't make it right and certainly does not mean that all other theories must be kept out of the class room.

When I was in school, the topic was presented as, "this is commonly what scientists THINK happened". Now, it is presented as fact and if you don't believe it, you're just plain wrong. I do not fear allowing my children to learn about evolution. I will simply inform them of more than a single possible theory. Evolution is a theory. THEORY, not fact. Creationism is also a theory. To fear alternate lines of thinking is being closed minded.
 
2013-01-16 01:54:35 AM

Mock26: the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.

There is at least evidence to support the theory of evolution. There is no evidence to support the existence of any divinity.


Eh,there is plenty of evidence. Some people simply refuse to see it.
 
2013-01-16 01:57:39 AM
What baffles me is how Creationists think that evolution is the death of religion. To me, the fact that a seemingly nihilistic universe can, through random chemical mutations and Natural Selection, go from a primordial soup to a Beethoven or Tex Avery in a mere 3-1/2 billion years is pretty damned hard empirical evidence that there is some sort of Higher Order* to the universe. Not necessarily an anthropomorphic deity who speaks Hebrew with a Charlton-Heston accent, but at least the idea of pantheism or maybe that God is a hyper-computer in the 17th dimension playing a humongous game of SimUniverse. Or maybe the 'purpose' of the universe is to evolve a species of hairless chimpanzees whose purpose is to give the universe some purpose. Whatever. The only thing evolution endangers is the simplistic idea that life came about literally (and not metaphorically) as described in some Bronze-Age book written by scientifically-illiterate religious fanatics...

*As a Freethinker, I've pretty much ruled out the gods of organized religion as being man-made. However, since the concept of "god" is so vague and varies so much among different tribes of people, saying with absolute certainty that such a concept exists or doesn't exist is pretty silly. Personally, I think hard-core Atheists with a capital A are just as hard-headedly dogmatic as any hard-core True Believer...
 
2013-01-16 02:01:07 AM

peeledpeas: I'm not really sure why people fear alternate theories regarding the origins of existence. "Science" can only come up with one theory of many. Please note the word "theory" in the previous sentence. The common "scientific" belief about the origins of existence is a theory. Something that is not proven. With any theory, there are assumptions in order to make the theory "work". The theory of evolution has many, many assumptions. This theory cannot be proven and should therefore be taught as such alongside other theories about the origins of existence.

Just because a majority of people have been brow-beaten into believing a specific theory, doesn't make it right and certainly does not mean that all other theories must be kept out of the class room.

When I was in school, the topic was presented as, "this is commonly what scientists THINK happened". Now, it is presented as fact and if you don't believe it, you're just plain wrong. I do not fear allowing my children to learn about evolution. I will simply inform them of more than a single possible theory. Evolution is a theory. THEORY, not fact. Creationism is also a theory. To fear alternate lines of thinking is being closed minded.


You have fallen victim to the usual theological misdirection of using the common english definition of "theory" with a scientific theory. I'll elaborate.


theory

the·o·ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

There's definitions three through five also, which don't apply in this case. A guess in science isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis. Even so there's a difference between a scientific guess (hypothesis) and just a guess. A scientific hypothesis is testable. Which means that there are ways of determining whether or not a guess is true or not. This is the heart of the scientific method, and is the primary reason for science's successes.

I'll try to explain further. The scientific method's "theory" is actually a collection of laws working together. If the theory were a car engine, the scientific laws would be the manifold, the cylinders, the fuel injection system, the radiator, et cetera. The reason scientists treat theories as fact is because they are. A theory isn't perfect, because it describes how those laws interact. Sometimes science finds a new component of that engine that causes them to have to reconsider how the parts interact within that engine. The engine itself isn't a guess or a lie, it's a descriptor, one that best fits what we see, and is subject to change as we learn more.

Hope I helped.
 
2013-01-16 02:08:04 AM

cwolf20: Is it wrong that the first thought in my head was one lyric line from an old song "Born On A Bayou"... and I can't remember the rest of it. Though I think it was used in a few random 80s and 90s movies


Son, you need to learn you some musical history.

In other news, Cpl. D, welcome to the favorites list. I was unaware of the Caananite link, thanks.
 
2013-01-16 02:10:01 AM

peeledpeas: I'm not really sure why people fear alternate theories regarding the origins of existence. "Science" can only come up with one theory of many. Please note the word "theory" in the previous sentence. The common "scientific" belief about the origins of existence is a theory. Something that is not proven. With any theory, there are assumptions in order to make the theory "work". The theory of evolution has many, many assumptions. This theory cannot be proven and should therefore be taught as such alongside other theories about the origins of existence.

Just because a majority of people have been brow-beaten into believing a specific theory, doesn't make it right and certainly does not mean that all other theories must be kept out of the class room.

When I was in school, the topic was presented as, "this is commonly what scientists THINK happened". Now, it is presented as fact and if you don't believe it, you're just plain wrong. I do not fear allowing my children to learn about evolution. I will simply inform them of more than a single possible theory. Evolution is a theory. THEORY, not fact. Creationism is also a theory. To fear alternate lines of thinking is being closed minded.


Same bunch of crap that I've seen ten other high-profile trolls on Fark post at various times. You guy really need to evolve your "arguments".
 
2013-01-16 02:10:18 AM

peeledpeas: Mock26: the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.

There is at least evidence to support the theory of evolution. There is no evidence to support the existence of any divinity.

Eh,there is plenty of evidence. Some people simply refuse to see it.


I've got a great test for the existence or non-existence of a deity. It's actually one of the things that helped me get past Christianity. Unfortunately, about 99% of believers out there aren't gutsy enough to try it--instead, they'll just spew out the usual cop-outs about how "thou shallt not test thy god". I'll offer it anyways...

If you believe that God speaks to you, not necessarily in a Hebrew-accented voice, but in your thought patterns or inspiration or in some sort of spiritual way, here's a test. Simply ask God to tell you something you don't know, but can easily verify. If you don't know the first 50 digits of Pi, have God dictate them to you and write them down. Then go online and look up the digits of Pi. Or have God tell you the first name and phone number you'll see when you open a telephone directory to a random page. Or just have God give you the first verse you see when you open a Bible to a random page.

If God can't give you a simple, commonplace answer like a name or telephone number, how can you trust 'him' giving you profound spiritual truths? How then, do you know that the voice of 'god' in your head was just put there by all the hundreds of hours you spent in church over your lifetime?

I'll bet that no more than 1-2% of the Farker True Believers out there who read this post will actually attempt this test. I, Psycat the Great, profound prognosticator and know-it-all, predict that if any True Believer actually responds to this post, there's a 99% likelihood that they'll play the "thou shallt not test thy god" card or give a tired tenth-hand account of somebody somewhere far away and long ago getting some message from some god...
 
2013-01-16 02:12:05 AM

Ceiling Moran: Tyranicle: I'm an athiest who thinks Zack is probubly Jewish with a bone to pick whithin the WASP world he did not choose to be born to in. He should probubly grow a pair and move to Israel to 'fight' the Palestinians, instead of stirring up discourse whithin the world he hates.

My, my, you're a pwecious widdle anti-semitic piece of trash.


I have him ignored for Anti-Semitism. I'm glad to see it wasn't wrong. What a piece of human garbage Tyranicle is.
 
2013-01-16 02:12:09 AM
Actually, wikipedia's explanation of a scientific theory is better than mine. Here's a copy-paste.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]
Evolution is a scientific theory.
 
2013-01-16 02:12:22 AM

peeledpeas: I'm not really sure why people fear alternate theories regarding the origins of existence. "Science" can only come up with one theory of many. Please note the word "theory" in the previous sentence. The common "scientific" belief about the origins of existence is a theory. Something that is not proven. With any theory, there are assumptions in order to make the theory "work". The theory of evolution has many, many assumptions. This theory cannot be proven and should therefore be taught as such alongside other theories about the origins of existence.

Just because a majority of people have been brow-beaten into believing a specific theory, doesn't make it right and certainly does not mean that all other theories must be kept out of the class room.

When I was in school, the topic was presented as, "this is commonly what scientists THINK happened". Now, it is presented as fact and if you don't believe it, you're just plain wrong. I do not fear allowing my children to learn about evolution. I will simply inform them of more than a single possible theory. Evolution is a theory. THEORY, not fact. Creationism is also a theory. To fear alternate lines of thinking is being closed minded.


Did your school happen to be in Louisiana?
 
2013-01-16 02:16:55 AM

peeledpeas: Mock26: the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.

There is at least evidence to support the theory of evolution. There is no evidence to support the existence of any divinity.

Eh,there is plenty of evidence. Some people simply refuse to see it.


Care to give some evidence that is not only credible but can also be verified?
 
2013-01-16 02:17:06 AM
Evolution is just another atheism.
 
2013-01-16 02:20:49 AM

the_chief: Evolution is just another atheism.


Trolls are actually piles of gorilla poop that have been animated by Lucifer Himself.

/if you're gonna troll, try to put some effort in it
//throwing out a stupid line like that is even more stupid than me bothering to respond to you
///but i like to feed trolls
////feed them gorilla poop, that is
 
2013-01-16 02:22:52 AM
s3-2.kiva.org

Approves

/Have been touched by his noodly appendage
 
2013-01-16 02:25:13 AM

ladyfortuna: In other news, Cpl. D, welcome to the favorites list. I was unaware of the Caananite link, thanks.


I've done a little digging, primarily to refresh myself with the material. I've gotten things messed up, I suppose. The Ugratic's god was referred to as El or Elohim, which is also what Yahweh was referred to in the older books. There are modern lingering references in christianity to the council of gods, however, and it seems ol' Yahweh wasn't even the chief!

Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Deuteronomy 32:9 For the LORD's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

Sounds like some bigger chief splitting up the people of earth to various gods. There's other references to other gods in the bible as well:

1 kings 22:19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
(Who is the host?)

Exodus 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?
(Other gods?)

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(Note the OUR)

Christianity is rife with material from other religions, usually parted out a la carte or taken whole. I imagine that the majority of this was done to make conversion of folks from the host religion easier. But it did surprise me to learn that even the head banana was lifted from another faith.
 
2013-01-16 02:30:01 AM
Well, since this is getting dull and I really should finish up my latest art project, I'm going to call it a night. I got a buzz to catch, an Hour of Slack to listen to, and an ingenious construction to finish.

/auf Wiedersehen
 
2013-01-16 02:30:21 AM
Christianity is just another form of atheism.
 
2013-01-16 02:35:40 AM
pictures.mastermarf.com
 
2013-01-16 02:47:01 AM

SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.


I'll bite... freedom of thought and academic freedom are fine and dandy. Then teach both sides of it. The teaching creationism as the SOLE curriculum is irresponsible as it has yet to be proven in any real or tangible way. Where as evolution has been proven. You can present creationism as a theory but to teach it as this is how it is and evolution is bunk is not only wrong it is irresponsible as an educator.
 
2013-01-16 02:51:03 AM

JSam21: I'll bite... freedom of thought and academic freedom are fine and dandy. Then teach both sides of it. The teaching creationism as the SOLE curriculum is irresponsible as it has yet to be proven in any real or tangible way. Where as evolution has been proven. You can present creationism as a theory but to teach it as this is how it is and evolution is bunk is not only wrong it is irresponsible as an educator.


Except there aren't two sides. Creationism, a.k.a. "Intelligent design" is not a scientific theory, or even a scientific hypothesis. It's theology. Theology does not belong in science class anymore than automotive repair and internal detailing belongs in sunday school. The next time your pastor wants the local schools to "teach both sides", ask him what day would be a good time to have a scientist come in to sunday school to explain evolution, the scientific method, and critical thinking skills.

There is no "debate".
 
2013-01-16 02:51:42 AM

mr intrepid: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

See? this is what happens when you mix meth and mushrooms.


No, THIS is what happens:
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-16 02:53:19 AM
I love how so many of you actually believe that evolution is proven and cannot be questioned. Sounds like you've been indoctrinated to me! Evolution is NOT proven. There are very many portions of it that cannot be tested and can only be assumed to be a certain way. The assumptions are made in order to make the theory work. Simple as that. If you 100% believe in the theory of evolution, you're just as duped as a religious person who 100% believes in the six day creation. I don't 100% believe in anything except for the fact that I know there is a God that created everything. I may not know how He did it, but I know he did.
 
2013-01-16 02:57:30 AM

peeledpeas: I love how so many of you actually believe that evolution is proven and cannot be questioned. Sounds like you've been indoctrinated to me! Evolution is NOT proven. There are very many portions of it that cannot be tested and can only be assumed to be a certain way. The assumptions are made in order to make the theory work. Simple as that. If you 100% believe in the theory of evolution, you're just as duped as a religious person who 100% believes in the six day creation. I don't 100% believe in anything except for the fact that I know there is a God that created everything. I may not know how He did it, but I know he did.


Kindly refer to my post above where I explain the difference between a theory in the common english of the term and theory in the sense of the scientific method. Evolution is fact. We've got evidence upon evidence. We've even seen it happen on the fly in the wild (Fire ol' Wikipedia up and read up on Nylonaise, if you would).

Science and religion are different in whether the goal is the method or the result. Science says, "This is what the evidence and our testing tells us. What conclusions can we get from this?" Theology says, "This is the fact. What can we use to prove it?" This is why faith fails and science succeeds. This is why you use a computer to post and not a quick prayer.
 
2013-01-16 03:00:06 AM

peeledpeas: I love how so many of you actually believe that evolution is proven and cannot be questioned. Sounds like you've been indoctrinated to me! Evolution is NOT proven. There are very many portions of it that hurr durr burr....


imageshack.us
 
2013-01-16 03:09:09 AM

peeledpeas: I love how so many of you actually believe that evolution is proven and cannot be questioned. Sounds like you've been indoctrinated to me! Evolution is NOT proven. There are very many portions of it that cannot be tested and can only be assumed to be a certain way. The assumptions are made in order to make the theory work. Simple as that. If you 100% believe in the theory of evolution, you're just as duped as a religious person who 100% believes in the six day creation. I don't 100% believe in anything except for the fact that I know there is a God that created everything. I may not know how He did it, but I know he did.


Got proof that this supposed god of yours is real? After all, you say that you "know" it is real, so go ahead and prove it.

Also, evolution has been proven to be real. Here is one example of evolution in action. Now, if you are talking about humans evolving from primates, yes, you are correct. That has not been proven. But there are literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of fossil evidence to support the theory. Where is the evidence of this supposed god of yours?
 
2013-01-16 03:15:33 AM
Keep on being stupid America - it means more jobs for the rest of us who do understand actual science
 
2013-01-16 03:16:59 AM

BronyMedic: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.
And now it's time for a blast from the past!
[img716.imageshack.us image 594x372]



What does he mean by "information content"?
 
2013-01-16 03:17:46 AM

hubiestubert: cameroncrazy1984: the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.
No it isn't.
You aren't going to fall for this obvious a line are you?


Just wait 'til IDW shows up. Then the real fun begins.
 
2013-01-16 03:18:07 AM

Mock26: Here is one example of evolution in action.


Um... how is that an example of evolution in action? Here is a better example.
 
2013-01-16 03:24:11 AM

Cpl.D: JSam21: I'll bite... freedom of thought and academic freedom are fine and dandy. Then teach both sides of it. The teaching creationism as the SOLE curriculum is irresponsible as it has yet to be proven in any real or tangible way. Where as evolution has been proven. You can present creationism as a theory but to teach it as this is how it is and evolution is bunk is not only wrong it is irresponsible as an educator.

Except there aren't two sides. Creationism, a.k.a. "Intelligent design" is not a scientific theory, or even a scientific hypothesis. It's theology. Theology does not belong in science class anymore than automotive repair and internal detailing belongs in sunday school. The next time your pastor wants the local schools to "teach both sides", ask him what day would be a good time to have a scientist come in to sunday school to explain evolution, the scientific method, and critical thinking skills.

There is no "debate".


I really agree with you.
 
2013-01-16 03:32:26 AM

Cpl.D: The wife was Ashera. And the husband? Yahweh. Or YHWH in the spellings of the time.


Actually, the male head of the pantheon of the Canaanites was El, as in Elohim (which is in the Bible as one of God's names, however it is plural -- it actually means "group of gods"). El means god in just about every semitic language we know about (as in all the angel names ending in -el to mean "of god"), so there's a lot of overlap. But there's no indication that the Canaanites ever called their king of the gods Yahweh.

Just saying.
 
2013-01-16 03:34:15 AM

Ishkur: Cpl.D: The wife was Ashera. And the husband? Yahweh. Or YHWH in the spellings of the time.

Actually, the male head of the pantheon of the Canaanites was El, as in Elohim (which is in the Bible as one of God's names, however it is plural -- it actually means "group of gods"). El means god in just about every semitic language we know about (as in all the angel names ending in -el to mean "of god"), so there's a lot of overlap. But there's no indication that the Canaanites ever called their king of the gods Yahweh.

Just saying.


Correct. I clarified that in a later post when I went back to check on my work. Thank you for double checking up on me all the same ;)
 
2013-01-16 04:04:55 AM

Cpl.D: Mock26: Here is one example of evolution in action.

Um... how is that an example of evolution in action? Here is a better example.


Something in the environment changes, some of a species die off but others survive. Those who survive pass on their genes to subsequent generations. In that example the mussels with a thicker shell have survived the predation of the invasive species and have passed on their genes for thicker shells to subsequent generation. That is one way in which evolution works. But since you seem to disagree, care to explain how is that not an example of evolution?
 
2013-01-16 04:24:43 AM

Cpl.D: Correct. I clarified that in a later post when I went back to check on my work. Thank you for double checking up on me all the same ;)


I see that you have done so. Sorry, I didn't get that far in the thread before I replied.

/just the same, when it comes to some good talkin' about ancient history gods, always trust a guy named "Ishkur"
 
2013-01-16 04:26:55 AM

peeledpeas: Evolution is NOT proven. There are very many portions of it that cannot be tested and can only be assumed to be a certain way. The assumptions are made in order to make the theory work.


Such as?
 
2013-01-16 04:27:18 AM

Cpl.D: ladyfortuna: In other news, Cpl. D, welcome to the favorites list. I was unaware of the Caananite link, thanks.

I've done a little digging, primarily to refresh myself with the material. I've gotten things messed up, I suppose. The Ugratic's god was referred to as El or Elohim, which is also what Yahweh was referred to in the older books. There are modern lingering references in christianity to the council of gods, however, and it seems ol' Yahweh wasn't even the chief!

Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Deuteronomy 32:9 For the LORD's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

Sounds like some bigger chief splitting up the people of earth to various gods. There's other references to other gods in the bible as well:

1 kings 22:19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
(Who is the host?)

Exodus 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?
(Other gods?)

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(Note the OUR)

Christianity is rife with material from other religions, usually parted out a la carte or taken whole. I imagine that the majority of this was done to make conversion of folks from the host religion easier. But it did surprise me to learn that even the head banana was lifted from another faith.


You would not be far wrong. Christianity adopted the "if you can't beat them, assimilate them" method. Christmas and Easter originally had no set date, being held whenever the time felt right, until Christmas was placed on the date of the pagan midwinter festival and Easter was placed on the pagan beginning of spring festival. That's also why both have many seemingly pagan customs and symbolisms: eggs and rabbits as symbols of fertility, Yule logs, mistletoe, etc. Santa Claus is a merging of Saint Nicholas and a pagan figure called the Lord of Misrule. Christ's resurrection mirrors Persephone returning to the upper world from her time in the underworld. And, irony of ironies, Christmas was once banned by the Church because of its pagan connections (think it was in the very early days of the United States, they went so far as to have the military riding around towns and destroying Christmas decorations).

Also, the story of the Flood, a story that appears in nearly every major religion that's ever existed, all of them very similar to each other.
 
2013-01-16 04:30:14 AM
The kid would be better off just getting out of Louisiana before they have him burned at the stake.
 
2013-01-16 04:39:01 AM

peeledpeas: I love how so many of you actually believe that evolution is proven and cannot be questioned. Sounds like you've been indoctrinated to me! Evolution is NOT proven. There are very many portions of it that cannot be tested and can only be assumed to be a certain way. The assumptions are made in order to make the theory work. Simple as that. If you 100% believe in the theory of evolution, you're just as duped as a religious person who 100% believes in the six day creation. I don't 100% believe in anything except for the fact that I know there is a God that created everything. I may not know how He did it, but I know he did.


We have lots of concrete, observable, measurable, trackable, testable, existing evidence of evolution.
We have diddly-squat evidence for all-powerful invisible beings that poofed existence because they were bored and lonely.

And even if he is real, judging him by the very book he supposedly made, I would not worship God. He's a spiteful, bi-polar asshole who demands total obedience or else we suffer indescribable torture for eternity, was incapable of keeping the one thing he didn't want Adam and Eve to touch away from them as well as failed miserably at keeping his nemesis out of the garden, and is unable to do anything about the things that his followers say hurts him and saddens him so, to say nothing of how he ignores those who are suffering through no fault of their own.
 
2013-01-16 04:47:47 AM

Mrtraveler01: Animatronik: I think he needs to take a little constitutional history. Allowing religious schools to use voucher money is NOT unconstitutional in any way.

First of all, a govt entering into a contract with a private religious organization is not the same as making laws establishing a religion.

Second, even if such a restriction existed, allowing people to use the tax money for the school of their choice is analogous to getting a tax deduction for charitable giving: its individuals who are exercising choice.

Wait, so you're saying that it's ok for my tax dollars to go to a religious school?

Because that's basically what these voucher programs do.

Animatronik: Yes we know that liberals and Democrats hate it when ppl exercise choices. They want a locked down buttoned up world where curricula are dictated by the grand Pooh Bah.

There's that projection again. Wake me up when Texas stops rewriting their curriculum because it's "too liberal" to them.


I'm saying that its not your tax dollars. Allowing one family to use those dollars as they see fit is not government supporting religion, just because the voucher money is spent on a school founded by a church.

The idea that government gets to be the thought police at any institution that gets a voucher is an anti-American, socialist concept.
 
2013-01-16 04:52:49 AM

peeledpeas: I love how so many of you actually believe that evolution is proven and cannot be questioned. Sounds like you've been indoctrinated to me! Evolution is NOT proven. There are very many portions of it that cannot be tested and can only be assumed to be a certain way. The assumptions are made in order to make the theory work. Simple as that. If you 100% believe in the theory of evolution, you're just as duped as a religious person who 100% believes in the six day creation. I don't 100% believe in anything except for the fact that I know there is a God that created everything. I may not know how He did it, but I know he did.


Could you provide empirical evidence of your claims?
 
2013-01-16 04:53:29 AM

SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.


Making end runs with careful wording to get around the establishment clause is not "academic freedom", it's a bunch of pouting religious jackarses unsatisfied with the fact that they cannot use public schools as a tool to indoctrinate other peoples kids with peer pressure and creationist supporting teachers.

Attempting to establish biology and/or evolution as anything other than the only scientific explanations of life and biodiversity is not "academic freedom" either. Do I have the "academic freedom" to bring supplemental material to a science class that isn't the least bit scientific and has not nor ever will be proven? I particularly like the fact that the Discovery Institute was mentioned... With its host of experts that would not even testify under oath to defend intelligent design. Possibly because they saw the handwriting on the wall and knew ID was a sham.
 
2013-01-16 04:55:09 AM

Animatronik: Mrtraveler01: Animatronik: I think he needs to take a little constitutional history. Allowing religious schools to use voucher money is NOT unconstitutional in any way.

First of all, a govt entering into a contract with a private religious organization is not the same as making laws establishing a religion.

Second, even if such a restriction existed, allowing people to use the tax money for the school of their choice is analogous to getting a tax deduction for charitable giving: its individuals who are exercising choice.

Wait, so you're saying that it's ok for my tax dollars to go to a religious school?

Because that's basically what these voucher programs do.

Animatronik: Yes we know that liberals and Democrats hate it when ppl exercise choices. They want a locked down buttoned up world where curricula are dictated by the grand Pooh Bah.

There's that projection again. Wake me up when Texas stops rewriting their curriculum because it's "too liberal" to them.

I'm saying that its not your tax dollars. Allowing one family to use those dollars as they see fit is not government supporting religion, just because the voucher money is spent on a school founded by a church.

The idea that government gets to be the thought police at any institution that gets a voucher is an anti-American, socialist concept.


Science class is not the place for religion. You want Sunday School, go to your church. Separation of church and state. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. You're not being persecuted or attacked, that's how the founding fathers wanted America to be. Direct your whining to them.
 
2013-01-16 04:59:36 AM

randomjsa: SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.

Making end runs with careful wording to get around the establishment clause is not "academic freedom", it's a bunch of pouting religious jackarses unsatisfied with the fact that they cannot use public schools as a tool to indoctrinate other peoples kids with peer pressure and creationist supporting teachers.

Attempting to establish biology and/or evolution as anything other than the only scientific explanations of life and biodiversity is not "academic freedom" either. Do I have the "academic freedom" to bring supplemental material to a science class that isn't the least bit scientific and has not nor ever will be proven? I particularly like the fact that the Discovery Institute was mentioned... With its host of experts that would not even testify under oath to defend intelligent design. Possibly because they saw the handwriting on the wall and knew ID was a sham.


I was unaware that there are other scientific explanations of life and biodiversity that weren't biology and/or evolution, and also weren't religious. Care to educate us about them?
 
2013-01-16 05:05:34 AM

Cpl.D: peeledpeas: I love how so many of you actually believe that evolution is proven and cannot be questioned. Sounds like you've been indoctrinated to me! Evolution is NOT proven. There are very many portions of it that cannot be tested and can only be assumed to be a certain way. The assumptions are made in order to make the theory work. Simple as that. If you 100% believe in the theory of evolution, you're just as duped as a religious person who 100% believes in the six day creation. I don't 100% believe in anything except for the fact that I know there is a God that created everything. I may not know how He did it, but I know he did.

Kindly refer to my post above where I explain the difference between a theory in the common english of the term and theory in the sense of the scientific method. Evolution is fact. We've got evidence upon evidence. We've even seen it happen on the fly in the wild (Fire ol' Wikipedia up and read up on Nylonaise, if you would).

Science and religion are different in whether the goal is the method or the result. Science says, "This is what the evidence and our testing tells us. What conclusions can we get from this?" Theology says, "This is the fact. What can we use to prove it?" This is why faith fails and science succeeds. This is why you use a computer to post and not a quick prayer.


Actually, in the case of evolution its much simpler than that.

You have a set of observations from different disciplines (e.g. genetics, paleontology). Evolution is the only coherent logical system that explains ALL of them.

People who object on religious grounds are willing to allow some facts to go unexplained because they are operating by a different logical system that leads them to the wrong conclusion.

The virtue of a good theory is that it explains all of the observations in the simplest possible way.

The reason string theory is problematic is that it uses a high level of complexity to explain the observations of particle physics. Among other things, complex hypotheses can be harder to disprove with more observations because they've got an answer for everything buried in their increasing complexity.

Evolution is fundamentally beautiful in its elegance and simplicity.
 
2013-01-16 05:12:29 AM

JSam21: peeledpeas: I love how so many of you actually believe that evolution is proven and cannot be questioned. Sounds like you've been indoctrinated to me! Evolution is NOT proven. There are very many portions of it that cannot be tested and can only be assumed to be a certain way. The assumptions are made in order to make the theory work. Simple as that. If you 100% believe in the theory of evolution, you're just as duped as a religious person who 100% believes in the six day creation. I don't 100% believe in anything except for the fact that I know there is a God that created everything. I may not know how He did it, but I know he did.

Could you provide empirical evidence of your claims?


Nope. He cannot.
 
2013-01-16 05:14:02 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Animatronik: Mrtraveler01: Animatronik: I think he needs to take a little constitutional history. Allowing religious schools to use voucher money is NOT unconstitutional in any way.

First of all, a govt entering into a contract with a private religious organization is not the same as making laws establishing a religion.

Second, even if such a restriction existed, allowing people to use the tax money for the school of their choice is analogous to getting a tax deduction for charitable giving: its individuals who are exercising choice.

Wait, so you're saying that it's ok for my tax dollars to go to a religious school?

Because that's basically what these voucher programs do.

Animatronik: Yes we know that liberals and Democrats hate it when ppl exercise choices. They want a locked down buttoned up world where curricula are dictated by the grand Pooh Bah.

There's that projection again. Wake me up when Texas stops rewriting their curriculum because it's "too liberal" to them.

I'm saying that its not your tax dollars. Allowing one family to use those dollars as they see fit is not government supporting religion, just because the voucher money is spent on a school founded by a church.

The idea that government gets to be the thought police at any institution that gets a voucher is an anti-American, socialist concept.

Science class is not the place for religion. You want Sunday School, go to your church. Separation of church and state. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. You're not being persecuted or attacked, that's how the founding fathers wanted America to be. Direct your whining to them.


I see nothing wrong with challenging students to consider alternatives to evolution, whether it be Lamarckism or a fixed creation event. The key here is 'consider'.

I agree that if they teach the alternatives as fact and evolution as wrong then they've got a serious problem. What I'm saying though is that parents have a right to decide what's best for their children. We are creeping toward a state where the state is telling people what to think at every turn and what our kids should learn down to the last detail. We need less, not more socialism in the 21st century.
 
2013-01-16 05:31:31 AM

Animatronik: Keizer_Ghidorah: Animatronik: Mrtraveler01: Animatronik: I think he needs to take a little constitutional history. Allowing religious schools to use voucher money is NOT unconstitutional in any way.

First of all, a govt entering into a contract with a private religious organization is not the same as making laws establishing a religion.

Second, even if such a restriction existed, allowing people to use the tax money for the school of their choice is analogous to getting a tax deduction for charitable giving: its individuals who are exercising choice.

Wait, so you're saying that it's ok for my tax dollars to go to a religious school?

Because that's basically what these voucher programs do.

Animatronik: Yes we know that liberals and Democrats hate it when ppl exercise choices. They want a locked down buttoned up world where curricula are dictated by the grand Pooh Bah.

There's that projection again. Wake me up when Texas stops rewriting their curriculum because it's "too liberal" to them.

I'm saying that its not your tax dollars. Allowing one family to use those dollars as they see fit is not government supporting religion, just because the voucher money is spent on a school founded by a church.

The idea that government gets to be the thought police at any institution that gets a voucher is an anti-American, socialist concept.

Science class is not the place for religion. You want Sunday School, go to your church. Separation of church and state. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. You're not being persecuted or attacked, that's how the founding fathers wanted America to be. Direct your whining to them.

I see nothing wrong with challenging students to consider alternatives to evolution, whether it be Lamarckism or a fixed creation event. The key here is 'consider'.

I agree that if they teach the alternatives as fact and evolution as wrong then they've got a serious problem. What I'm saying though is that parents have a right to decide wha ...


Love how you keep misusing "socialism". Despite what you may have been taught (irony) to believe, it's not a dirty word or a demonic system meant only to make you afraid.

Back on topic, no one is preventing anything. You want to learn about creationism and intelligent design, go to church and learn them in Sunday School. That's where they belong. School is for reading, writing, math, science, and all the other non-religious things that make someone smarter and prepare them for life in society.

That is not socialism. That is common sense.
 
2013-01-16 05:34:27 AM

Equilibrist: FARK needs a Creationist tab.


Nah, what fark needs is a Religion tab.

Meanwhile, there's no shortage of derp in the article comments:

"So evolution is testable? You vibrated a different species out of water and rock? You tested the Big Bang Theory, and saw life come out of nothing? Evolution has as much bullshiat religion included as it has provable science."
 
2013-01-16 05:38:43 AM

Uncle Tractor: Equilibrist: FARK needs a Creationist tab.

Nah, what fark needs is a Religion tab.

Meanwhile, there's no shortage of derp in the article comments:

"So evolution is testable? You vibrated a different species out of water and rock? You tested the Big Bang Theory, and saw life come out of nothing? Evolution has as much bullshiat religion included as it has provable science."


What do you expect from people like them? They can't even understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. The only way they're able to think is their religious way, and they expect science to be able to perform magical miracles like God does.
 
2013-01-16 05:46:28 AM
Let them teach creationism in class but set exam papers based purely in science - natural selection will do the rest and weed out the idiots.
 
2013-01-16 06:04:51 AM
I'm jealous, I always wanted to be the anti-christ.
 
2013-01-16 06:07:06 AM

Animatronik: I see nothing wrong with challenging students to consider alternatives to evolution, whether it be Lamarckism or a fixed creation event. The key here is 'consider'.


First of all, Lamarckism was debunked over a century ago with our proper understanding of Mendelian genetics. It is not an alternative to evolution -- it is not even compatible with anything we know about microbiology today.

Secondly, science is not a Democracy. It is not there to hear "all sides" of an issue and let the people decide what's true through popular consensus, and even if it was, our schools -- where kids are first learning about these things -- are hardly the appropriate avenues to have those kinds of discussions. That's not how science works.

The correct format for introducing any valid competing theory that challenges commonly accepted scientific inquiry is a five-step process:

1) conduct experiments and/or collect data
2) publish scientific papers explaining those experiments/data
3) let that data be scrutinized and those experiments be duplicated and challenged by others (peer-review)
4) If they pass the mustard and survive harsh scrutiny they get printed up in journals and magazines for laymen
5) After about 20 years of this solid testing, experimentation and exploration backed by evidence and peer-review, the science goes for review to be inserted into high school textbooks.

THEN students can learn about it.

The main thrust of Creationists is to bypass the first four steps and insert Creationism/Intelligent Design doctrine directly into school textbooks now. Today. At once. This is not only wrong and dangerous, it is bordering on criminal.
 
2013-01-16 06:11:16 AM

Animatronik: What I'm saying though is that parents have a right to decide what's best for their children.


If parents have a right to decide what's best for their children and every parent wants their child to know the truth about how the world works then they have nothing to fear from science. If, however, they would rather their child wallow in ignorance and misery, there's always homeschooling.

Animatronik: We are creeping toward a state where the state is telling people what to think


In what way? Science is not a doctrine controlled by the state, it is a process for understanding the natural world and its faculties.
 
2013-01-16 06:15:59 AM

Deep Contact: I'm jealous, I always wanted to be the anti-christ.


If you don't follow God, you already are an antichrist. The terms simply means "non-follower of God". So there's been billions of antichrists throughout history, maybe even trillions.
 
2013-01-16 06:53:00 AM

Ishkur: Animatronik: What I'm saying though is that parents have a right to decide what's best for their children.

If parents have a right to decide what's best for their children and every parent wants their child to know the truth about how the world works then they have nothing to fear from science. If, however, they would rather their child wallow in ignorance and misery, there's always homeschooling.

Animatronik: We are creeping toward a state where the state is telling people what to think

In what way? Science is not a doctrine controlled by the state, it is a process for understanding the natural world and its faculties.


Right, so teach kids the process and teach them to think.

Science is about asking questions not dictating the right answers. Its less important to be lectured to on concepts of evolution than it is to learn to use your brain (moran).
 
2013-01-16 06:59:12 AM

Animatronik: Ishkur: Animatronik: What I'm saying though is that parents have a right to decide what's best for their children.

If parents have a right to decide what's best for their children and every parent wants their child to know the truth about how the world works then they have nothing to fear from science. If, however, they would rather their child wallow in ignorance and misery, there's always homeschooling.

Animatronik: We are creeping toward a state where the state is telling people what to think

In what way? Science is not a doctrine controlled by the state, it is a process for understanding the natural world and its faculties.

Right, so teach kids the process and teach them to think.

Science is about asking questions not dictating the right answers. Its less important to be lectured to on concepts of evolution than it is to learn to use your brain (moran).


Science does teach them to think. Religion teaches them not to think.
 
2013-01-16 07:08:46 AM

Ishkur: Animatronik: I see nothing wrong with challenging students to consider alternatives to evolution, whether it be Lamarckism or a fixed creation event. The key here is 'consider'.

First of all, Lamarckism was debunked over a century ago with our proper understanding of Mendelian genetics. It is not an alternative to evolution -- it is not even compatible with anything we know about microbiology today.

Secondly, science is not a Democracy. It is not there to hear "all sides" of an issue and let the people decide what's true through popular consensus, and even if it was, our schools -- where kids are first learning about these things -- are hardly the appropriate avenues to have those kinds of discussions. That's not how science works.

The correct format for introducing any valid competing theory that challenges commonly accepted scientific inquiry is a five-step process:

1) conduct experiments and/or collect data
2) publish scientific papers explaining those experiments/data
3) let that data be scrutinized and those experiments be duplicated and challenged by others (peer-review)
4) If they pass the mustard and survive harsh scrutiny they get printed up in journals and magazines for laymen
5) After about 20 years of this solid testing, experimentation and exploration backed by evidence and peer-review, the science goes for review to be inserted into high school textbooks.

THEN students can learn about it.

The main thrust of Creationists is to bypass the first four steps and insert Creationism/Intelligent Design doctrine directly into school textbooks now. Today. At once. This is not only wrong and dangerous, it is bordering on criminal.


Way to miss the point.

The whole point of understanding Lamarckism and 6000 year creation myth is the process if debunking them. Learning that process is more important than having natural selection drilled into your head.

This business of forcing teachers to stick to a particular curriculum and banning supplementary materials is a tricky. I believe that teachers should be given significant latitude in how they teach. Obviously, evolution should be introduced at the high school level and 99% of 'creation science' is garbage. That doesn't mean that we should react by dictating to the last detail, through state intervention, what should be taught as science.
 
2013-01-16 07:15:40 AM

Animatronik: This business of forcing teachers to stick to a particular curriculum and banning supplementary materials is a tricky. I believe that teachers should be given significant latitude in how they teach. Obviously, evolution should be introduced at the high school level and 99% of 'creation science' is garbage. That doesn't mean that we should react by dictating to the last detail, through state intervention, what should be taught as science.


Since creationism and intelligent design aren't science, those are out. What other types of science are you suggesting we teach along with the science already being taught?
 
2013-01-16 07:23:28 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Needed more Torg with just the quote.


What do The Possibility Wars have to do with it?

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-16 07:43:09 AM

Cpl.D: ladyfortuna: In other news, Cpl. D, welcome to the favorites list. I was unaware of the Caananite link, thanks.

I've done a little digging, primarily to refresh myself with the material. I've gotten things messed up, I suppose. The Ugratic's god was referred to as El or Elohim, which is also what Yahweh was referred to in the older books. There are modern lingering references in christianity to the council of gods, however, and it seems ol' Yahweh wasn't even the chief!

Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Deuteronomy 32:9 For the LORD's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

Sounds like some bigger chief splitting up the people of earth to various gods. There's other references to other gods in the bible as well:

1 kings 22:19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
(Who is the host?)

Exodus 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?
(Other gods?)

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(Note the OUR)

Christianity is rife with material from other religions, usually parted out a la carte or taken whole. I imagine that the majority of this was done to make conversion of folks from the host religion easier. But it did surprise me to learn that even the head banana was lifted from another faith.


Don't even mention bananas...
 
2013-01-16 07:45:18 AM
I never though I'd see the day when multiple people I have farkied in 'moron purple' would be arguing different sides of an issue. I'm unsure whether to be encouraged or disheartened by this event.
 
2013-01-16 07:48:44 AM
Let's see...

{According to the science 'big bang'}...
(According to the bible)

Day 1)
{There was 'the bang'}

(And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.)

Day 2)
{Subatomic particles, then atomic nuclei, then elements that make up everything}

(And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.)

Days 3 & 4)
{Elements make up planets (Earth) and Stars (Sun), First life on earth is plants}

(And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. and the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.)

Day 5)
{Next life on Earth after plants is fish/birds}

(And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.)

Day 6)
{Next life on Earth after plants/fish/birds is animals and man}

(And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.)

TL:DR - The Bible's order of operations for the creation {the bang, elements, stars/planets, and the order life appeared on Earth} matches what science has come up with to a tee! The one and only major difference is how long it took (Bible says 6 days....science says it took a LOT longer). Of course I heard once that "time" is relative so....

Conclusion: So, primitive people 3000+ years ago without the benefit of science came up with pretty much the exact same thing as our modern day scientists. Not too shabby 3000+ year old people.
 
2013-01-16 08:07:03 AM

rvesco: I'm not a creationist, but I'm not prepared to label a nineteen-year-old who thinks the government should prevent any deviation from (or even supplementation of) a government-controlled curriculum a "hero."


Oh, yes. You're not a creationist: you're just so very, very, very concerned.
 
2013-01-16 08:07:41 AM

Treb73: I never though I'd see the day when multiple people I have farkied in 'moron purple' would be arguing different sides of an issue. I'm unsure whether to be encouraged or disheartened by this event.


I call it Moran Maroon.
 
2013-01-16 08:09:25 AM

Divinegrace: Days 3 & 4)
{Elements make up planets (Earth) and Stars (Sun), First life on earth is plants}

(And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. and the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


Sounds to me like you're trying to claim that grass and trees and fruit were all in place before the sun was even formed. Your conclusion is severely flawed.
 
2013-01-16 08:10:07 AM

Divinegrace: Let's see...

{According to the science 'big bang'}...
(According to the bible


So, plants were created before a light source. Check.

What day were eukaryotes or prokaryotes "created"? Before or after man/animals, or before/after plants?

Conclusion: So, primitive people 3000+ years ago without the benefit of science came up with pretty much the exact same thing as our modern day scientists. Not too shabby 3000+ year old people.


Um, if your definition of "the exact same thing" is using nouns and verbs in their sentences, then you're spot on. If you're talking about the actual facts and assertions, then you could possibly be more wrong, but it would require Herculean effort. Best to stick with your current level of "not even close."

i651.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-16 08:17:35 AM

bemused outsider: the other is essentially unobservable (ever see a fly mutate into an alligator?) in any human time-frame.


So... wait. You work in a scientific research lab, and yet you're capable of saying something as stupid as this?

fark, no wonder our country is doomed if even the scientists are stupid.
 
2013-01-16 08:27:02 AM

James F. Campbell: bemused outsider: the other is essentially unobservable (ever see a fly mutate into an alligator?) in any human time-frame.

So... wait. You work in a scientific research lab, and yet you're capable of saying something as stupid as this?


i651.photobucket.com

It actually makes sense. To expect the custodial staff to understand the details of said research is a stretch.

i651.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-16 08:28:04 AM

James F. Campbell: bemused outsider: the other is essentially unobservable (ever see a fly mutate into an alligator?) in any human time-frame.

So... wait. You work in a scientific research lab, and yet you're capable of saying something as stupid as this?


He didn't say what kind of work in a lab....
 
2013-01-16 08:32:09 AM

Divinegrace: The Bible's order of operations for the creation {the bang, elements, stars/planets, and the order life appeared on Earth} matches what science has come up with to a tee!


The same way that The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner matches 50 Shades of Grey to a tee!
 
2013-01-16 08:35:03 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Animatronik: This business of forcing teachers to stick to a particular curriculum and banning supplementary materials is a tricky. I believe that teachers should be given significant latitude in how they teach. Obviously, evolution should be introduced at the high school level and 99% of 'creation science' is garbage. That doesn't mean that we should react by dictating to the last detail, through state intervention, what should be taught as science.

Since creationism and intelligent design aren't science, those are out. What other types of science are you suggesting we teach along with the science already being taught?


Intelligent design is in fact science, its just flawed science based on a flawed premise. Its useful to teach concepts lik Lamarckism along with evolution.

Every time I hear nonscientists and junior scientists talk about teaching science, they talk about it like its teaching history. It's not. You don't include good ideas and exclude bad ones and declare success. You teach kids how to think, because its about knowledge acquisition as much as knowledge itself.

You don't seem to grasp this idea to well
 
2013-01-16 08:35:51 AM

Ishkur: when it comes to some good talkin' about ancient history gods, always trust a guy named "Ishkur"


I rather tend to trust you because I have you fav'd as "Don't let a bunch of Aegean sophists syllogise your credibility with redundant tautologies."

/you into Finnish gods at all?
 
2013-01-16 08:42:47 AM

Animatronik: Every time I hear nonscientists and junior scientists talk about teaching science, they talk about it like its teaching history. It's not. You don't include good ideas and exclude bad ones and declare success. You teach kids how to think, because its about knowledge acquisition as much as knowledge itself.


Um, how, according to you, is history taught?

As for teaching biology, in my experience you had to learn some theory and then test it (e.g. by cutting open a small animal). I won't say history of science is useless (big fan of it myself) but it's not a major part of any science curriculum.
 
2013-01-16 09:23:25 AM

ModernLuddite: As a (former) Floridian, I genuinely hope - FERVENTLY - for a hurricane of such magnitude to hit the gulf of Mexico that it just destroys the south. Completely. No survivors. Raze the Earth.

Luckily, retarded policy decisions may be helping this scenario along. So drill, baby, drill, I guess.


Then you're a monster. I genuinely hope - FERVENTLY - that you don't procreate.
 
2013-01-16 09:31:07 AM

Animatronik: Keizer_Ghidorah: Animatronik: This business of forcing teachers to stick to a particular curriculum and banning supplementary materials is a tricky. I believe that teachers should be given significant latitude in how they teach. Obviously, evolution should be introduced at the high school level and 99% of 'creation science' is garbage. That doesn't mean that we should react by dictating to the last detail, through state intervention, what should be taught as science.

Since creationism and intelligent design aren't science, those are out. What other types of science are you suggesting we teach along with the science already being taught?

Intelligent design is in fact science, its just flawed science based on a flawed premise. Its useful to teach concepts lik Lamarckism along with evolution.

Every time I hear nonscientists and junior scientists talk about teaching science, they talk about it like its teaching history. It's not. You don't include good ideas and exclude bad ones and declare success. You teach kids how to think, because its about knowledge acquisition as much as knowledge itself.

You don't seem to grasp this idea to well




I'm going to repost this, because the founder of ID seems to have a different opinion...

lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-01-16 09:35:03 AM

the_chief: Begoggle: the_chief: EvolutionISM is just another religion.

Allow me to enhance your otherwise mundane troll.

I think it's a fine twist on a classic.


Thanks for the verification chief ... welcome to ignore.

/no time for boring, sad little trolls
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 09:55:25 AM

SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.


Ohyou.jpg
 
2013-01-16 10:05:43 AM

miss diminutive: Charlie Chingas: Seriously, WTF is wrong with you "Christians"? Isn't mankind old enough NOT to believe in fairy tales anymore?

The issues isn't believing in fairy tales, it's that fairy tales are being taught as science. If people want to believe that a benevolent force created the universe and cares about each and every human being out there, who cares? Teaching highschool science students that the rules and processes that govern the universe and its components can only be found in an infallible 2000 year old book is the real issue. The technology and sciences that drive our civilization (and our economies) forward is based on those governing rules; teaching students that the scientific method, arguably the most powerful thing humans have created, can be replaced by reading a book that basically says "A wizard did it" undermines future discovery, growth and progress.


I agree with you 100%. But also, IMHO, it stems from believing in fairy tales. Those same stories argue that EVERYONE must believe or you will (insert asinine punishment here), thus, those "believers" want EVERYONE to convert.
 
2013-01-16 10:10:47 AM
I cannot take seriously anyone who even considers the possibility that Intelligent Design is anything other than completely unscientific, religious bunk masquerading as a viable alternative to reality. Anyone who tries to insist it's actually science immediately goes on my "too dumb to live, not worth talking to" list. Good for this kid for publicly challenging this nonsense.
 
2013-01-16 10:45:51 AM
And I thought Kitzmiller v. Dover exposed the ID pseudoscience to such a degree it was gone.
 
2013-01-16 11:06:47 AM

SkinnyHead: I guess people who oppose academic freedom and support censorship would see this young man as a hero.  People who support academic freedom and freedom of thought probably don't.


I do not think this word means what you think it means.
 
2013-01-16 11:08:16 AM

Tyranicle: Acharne: Tyranicle: IntertubeUser: Tyranicle: I'm an athiest who thinks Zack is probubly Jewish with a bone to pick whithin the WASP world he did not choose to be born to in. He should probubly grow a pair and move to Israel to 'fight' the Palestinians, instead of stirring up discourse whithin the world he hates.

I'm an atheist who thinks that your post is the dumbest thing posted in this thread.

And consider upgrading to a browser with spellcheck.

On a mobile. No spellcheck.

This reply to that post about your hilariously myopic post is doubleplus funny. Thank you for the laugh. Still though, you should be mad as hell that fact is tossed out for myth and legend in a classroom setting too. Everyone should be, especially the teachers.

Moving on to Reddit, where the Jew bosses at least commit suicide.


Most gasp-worthy troll I have seen yet. Goddammit, that's the second keyboard this week!
 
2013-01-16 11:39:19 AM
Found this gem yesterday:

Since human beings are naturally solipsistic, all forms of superstition enjoy what might be called a natural advantage.

Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great
 
2013-01-16 11:52:39 AM
And furthermore,

The trouble with human evolution is that it doesn't penalize stupidity enough.

Dumb guys reproduce at the same or better rates than the educated, thanks to all that fancy medicine, vaccines, public health, adequate food supply, water treatment, electricity, heat, air conditioning, sewers, the technological economy and higher general quality of life that results from the application of science to the problems of human survival.

If they just reproduced a percent or two less than the educated people, we would be rid of them in a few generations.
 
2013-01-16 01:08:41 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: peeledpeas: I'm not really sure why people fear alternate theories regarding the origins of existence. "Science" can only come up with one theory of many. Please note the word "theory" in the previous sentence. The common "scientific" belief about the origins of existence is a theory. Something that is not proven. With any theory, there are assumptions in order to make the theory "work". The theory of evolution has many, many assumptions. This theory cannot be proven and should therefore be taught as such alongside other theories about the origins of existence.

Just because a majority of people have been brow-beaten into believing a specific theory, doesn't make it right and certainly does not mean that all other theories must be kept out of the class room.

When I was in school, the topic was presented as, "this is commonly what scientists THINK happened". Now, it is presented as fact and if you don't believe it, you're just plain wrong. I do not fear allowing my children to learn about evolution. I will simply inform them of more than a single possible theory. Evolution is a theory. THEORY, not fact. Creationism is also a theory. To fear alternate lines of thinking is being closed minded.

Same bunch of crap that I've seen ten other high-profile trolls on Fark post at various times. You guy really need to evolve your "arguments".


They can't. Their arguments are "intelligently" designed, and once in place, they are incapable of change.
 
2013-01-16 01:08:48 PM

DamnYankees: BunkoSquad: This kid's awesome.

 
2013-01-16 01:14:20 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: BronyMedic: Ah, SkinnyHead is one of those "more information" types of creationists.

I wonder what happens when we add more information to an organism. Let's add more copies of chromosome 13... Or wait, don't women have more DNA than men? Doesn't that mean women are more advanced than men? Or better designed? Hmmm.


Yes.
 
2013-01-16 02:02:32 PM

Ilmarinen: Ishkur: when it comes to some good talkin' about ancient history gods, always trust a guy named "Ishkur"

I rather tend to trust you because I have you fav'd as "Don't let a bunch of Aegean sophists syllogise your credibility with redundant tautologies."

/you into Finnish gods at all?


Only Loviator. She is HOT!!!!
 
2013-01-16 02:46:21 PM

Animatronik: Right, so teach kids the process and teach them to think.


They do.

Animatronik: Science is about asking questions not dictating the right answers. Its less important to be lectured to on concepts of evolution than it is to learn to use your brain (moran).


Yes, that's what they do. You don't seem to understand: The people who attack evolution the most are evolutionary scientists, because science is a methodology that entails constantly testing its assertions. Every single serious scientist at the forefront of their research does not accept evolution at face value like some belief system. They attack it, often with extreme prejudice, and it keeps withstanding their attacks (for 150 years). If there were holes in the theory, the millions of studies done on a weekly basis would have found them by now. Instead, predictions are made -- and then proven -- that correctly validate evolutionary assertions.

That's what makes a theory a "Theory".
 
2013-01-16 02:54:11 PM

Animatronik: The whole point of understanding Lamarckism and 6000 year creation myth is the process if debunking them


You want people to learn failed theories so they can understand why they were wrong? ...that would be an incredible waste of time for one, and usually the reasons are no so special and deductive and illuminating but just due to a lack of understanding or knowledge. As our knowledge of a subject grew, the theories changed.

And there's all sorts of them.

Like phlogiston, the scientific theory that all matter contains a base component called phlogiston that was released when you set fire to it. Of course, once people figured out oxidation and combustion this theory didn't work anymore.

There's also physiognomy, the scientific theory that human behavior could be determined by physical appearances (ie: ugly people are inherently evil and beautiful people are inherently good), and phrenology, the scientific theory that human behavior could be determined by measuring the lumps on people's heads. Of course, once neuroscience and modern psychology came into practice these theories didn't work anymore.

There's also was spontaneous generation, the scientific theory that life could spring automatically from non-living matter. Of course, once biogenesis was formalized this theory didn't work anymore.

There's also was luminiferous æther, the scientific theory that light and electromagnetic radiation propagates through an invisible medium in space. Of course, once special relativity and quantum mechanics came about this theory didn't work anymore.

There's also was miasma, the scientific theory that diseases like the Black Death, malaria and cholera are caused by miasma, a noxious form of bad air. For awhile it went hand in hand with the fermentation theory that diseases come from a process not unlike fermentation. Of course, once germs were discovered giving rise to germ theory and bacteriology, these theories didn't work anymore.

There's also contact electrification, the scientific theory that electric power could be generated by touching two different materials together (which is sort of half right but their conclusions were wrong). Of course, once electricity and electrochemistry was properly understood, this theory didn't work anymore.
Then there was the caloric theory of heat, a scientific theory that all heat consists of a substance called caloric that moves from hot to cold. Of course, once the mechanical laws of thermodynamics were finalized this theory didn't work anymore.

There's also humorism, the scientific theory that the human body is composed of four basic substances, the humors. Of course, once modern biology and medical science was established, this theory didn't work anymore.

And, of course, geocentrism, the scientific theory that the Earth is fixed at the center of the solar system and the sun, moon, and the rest of the planets revolve around it. Of course, this theory was laid to rest with the explanation of orbital mechanics and the laws of motion. And then we went to space and saw for ourselves.

All these subjects are fascinating to learn, but aren't really appropriate for a scientific curriculum. Maybe a separate "history of science and technology" course, but not science proper. The science curriculum is too full and is busy teaching students actual science that works. It's not beneficial teaching failed science that never worked.

Once again: Science is not a democracy. You don't get to choose what theory makes the most sense to you. You can only accept the one that is actually applicable to actual reality.
 
2013-01-16 02:56:58 PM

Divinegrace: Conclusion: So, primitive people 3000+ years ago without the benefit of science came up with pretty much the exact same thing as our modern day scientists.


They thought that bats were birds (Leviticus 11:13-19), insects had four legs (Leviticus 11:20), rabbits chew cud (Leviticus 11:6), doctors can't cure people as well as God (2 Chronicles 16:12-13), the number Pi was 3 (1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2), ostriches didn't take care of their eggs (Job 39:13-16), stars were smaller than the Earth (Revelation 8:10), the moon had its own light source (Isaiah 13:10), the Earth existed before the sun (Genesis 1:1), and they knew absolutely nothing about female physiology (Deuteronomy 22:13-16). They also thought the heart, not the brain, was the center of thought, emotion and moral understanding (dozens of references, but especially Luke 6:45). There is also some 60 references, give or take, to the Earth being a flat circular disk, a flat square, fixed, supported by pillars or a foundation of some sort, surrounded by water, unmoving, unchanging or at the center of the solar system. Whenever they describe the dimensions of the Earth, there is never any mention of it being a sphere, circling the sun, or rotating on an axis.
 
2013-01-16 02:58:08 PM
Farking Canuck

Creationist threads are by far the most lopsided ones on Fark.

It is like creationists are the panicking woman in the movie Airplane and we are a lining up to "help calm her down".


Considering a nun was in that line, it's a little ironic.
 
2013-01-16 03:04:13 PM

cwolf20: Farking Canuck

Creationist threads are by far the most lopsided ones on Fark.

It is like creationists are the panicking woman in the movie Airplane and we are a lining up to "help calm her down".

Considering a nun was in that line, it's a little ironic.


Nuns are catholic and the catholic church, when they are not enabling pedophiles, openly support the theory of evolution.
 
2013-01-16 03:05:49 PM

Ilmarinen: /you into Finnish gods at all?


Only if it relates to Tolkien's legendarium (he had a hard-on for Finnish language/culture/mythology, the elvish languages were based on Finnish which he thought was the most beautiful and elegant language, and a lot of the Silmarillion mirrored Norse mythology), but unfortunately my knowledge of nordic deities is not as strong as it should be. My friend has a dog named Freyja.

I should get into that.

My bread and butter is mostly near east mythology.
 
2013-01-16 03:16:44 PM
Atheism is a Religion.
 
2013-01-16 03:22:55 PM

Animatronik: Intelligent design is in fact science


No its not. It hasn't conducted any actual science yet. The Discovery Institute has done an awful lot of steps 4 and 5, but they have yet to do any of steps 1 to 3.

Animatronik: Every time I hear nonscientists and junior scientists talk about teaching science, they talk about it like its teaching history. It's not. You don't include good ideas and exclude bad ones and declare success. You teach kids how to think, because its about knowledge acquisition as much as knowledge itself.


While you think you're being the noble and open-minded one with this assertion, the truth is teaching bad science would not compel kids to think anymore than teaching bad math would, and in both cases, teaching it incorrectly or teaching depricated and discarded ideas would only serve to confuse them as they would be unable to interact with the real world afterword.

If people would like to learn the history of failed scientific ideas, there is History for that. Science, like math, is what works TODAY, in the here and now. Yes, there may come a time in the future where everything we know today might be disproven, only to be replaced by some more robust theory. And at that time, we will change school curriculums to reflect the new theory. But until that happens, what we know now is the best understanding of the Universe that we have and it is the ONLY thing pertinent to be taught in science class.

You want to teach kids to think, make a mandatory Critical Thinking course.
 
2013-01-16 03:59:25 PM

Ishkur: You want to teach kids to think, make a mandatory Critical Thinking course.


It ain't gonna happen.

"Let me have men about me that are fat:
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o' nights:
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous." -- W.S.
 
2013-01-16 04:27:10 PM

peeledpeas: I'm not really sure why people fear alternate theories regarding the origins of existence. "Science" can only come up with one theory of many. Please note the word "theory" in the previous sentence. The common "scientific" belief about the origins of existence is a theory. Something that is not proven. With any theory, there are assumptions in order to make the theory "work". The theory of evolution has many, many assumptions. This theory cannot be proven and should therefore be taught as such alongside other theories about the origins of existence.

Just because a majority of people have been brow-beaten into believing a specific theory, doesn't make it right and certainly does not mean that all other theories must be kept out of the class room.

When I was in school, the topic was presented as, "this is commonly what scientists THINK happened". Now, it is presented as fact and if you don't believe it, you're just plain wrong. I do not fear allowing my children to learn about evolution. I will simply inform them of more than a single possible theory. Evolution is a theory. THEORY, not fact. Creationism is also a theory. To fear alternate lines of thinking is being closed minded.


I'm not going to comment on the fact that you don't know what a scientific theory is because if you really don't know then you are beyond help at this point.

But even assuming that "theory" means what you think it means, scientists are still basing their theories on previous scientific knowledge, they aren't just making shiat up out of thin air. Religion on the other hand...
 
2013-01-16 04:40:29 PM

peeledpeas: "Science" can only come up with one theory of many. Please note the word "theory" in the previous sentence. The common "scientific" belief about the origins of existence is a theory. Something that is not proven.


The above passage is the core of your lack of understanding of science. Taking it one point at a time:

- "Science" can only come up with one theory of many

No, science comes up with many competing theories. They come and go as evidence is presented. The theories that stay around are the ones that have not been disproved by all the available evidence.

Please note the word "theory" in the previous sentence.

In this context the word 'theory' is referring to a scientific theory. This is very different than the "I have an idea" usage of the word. To become a scientific theory an idea must follow very specific rules including being disprovable ... ID does not follow any of the rules so it is not a scientific theory (and therefore does not belong anywhere near a science class).

Something that is not proven

Scientific theories are never proven. The value of a theory depends on the amount or "weight" of evidence in support of it. Something like evolution has so much evidence supporting it that it is doubted only by people who are blinded by preconceived notions or are dishonest.

The scientific theory of gravity has far, far less understanding or evidence than the theory of evolution (not necessarily on its existence but on how it works). But nobody trying to push Intelligent FallingTM in science classes.

It is very simple ... religion does not belong in science class. If you teach children that religion can be considered science then they will not be able to understand what science is. All of their time in science class will be wasted and any hope they have to become scientists will be greatly reduced.
 
2013-01-16 04:51:40 PM
I am so thankful for people like Kopplin. I couldn't muster the patience to deal with this kind of bullshiat in a productive way. I would just simply be compelled to kick them all in the box and shove them. These jack-offs are the "missing link".
 
2013-01-16 05:03:41 PM

Farking Canuck: Scientific theories are never proven


It's more apropos to say "Science doesn't prove certainties, only high probabilities". While your statement is correct, it causes a lot of confusion and misunderstanding so its generally not a good idea to say that. Creationists even use it as a talking point.
 
2013-01-16 05:24:11 PM
I want to say one more thing:

Animatronik: You don't include good ideas and exclude bad ones and declare success. You teach kids how to think, because its about knowledge acquisition as much as knowledge itself.


There are subjects in science where we don't have all the information yet and we don't have a clear understanding of what happened, so there are competing theories that argue different explanations. For example, the formation of the moon: One theory says it was from a rogue planet that collided with Earth (the Giant Impact Theory), while another theory says it was a captured asteroid, and still another theory says it was part of Earth that got separated early in the solar system's accretion disk. You know what theory they teach in schools? ALL OF THEM!!! .... because the jury's still out on what actually happened so we're not really sure (however the Giant Impact Theory is the runaway leader).

Same with the extinction of the dinosaurs. We're still not absolutely certain what actually happened -- could've been anything from change in atmospheric composition to global warming to continental drift to new species to aliens or who the fark knows. But the Asteroid Impact Theory is clearly the most probable especially now that they think they've found the crater in the Yucatan. You know which one they teach in schools? ALL OF THEM!!!! ..... because although the Asteroid Impact Theory makes the most sense, it's still not definitely certain.

Same with global warming. It's pretty well-affirmed that it IS happening. The big questions now surround whether it's because of man or if it's just the planet's nominal life cycle. And more importantly: What we can do about it. All these theories are introduced in schools as we don't have all the facts yet.

There are lots of fields and subjects and questionable theories in science that deserve healthy debate and skepticism. BUT EVOLUTION IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
 
2013-01-16 05:35:30 PM
What exactly is the curriculum with intelligent design? The controversy, if you will?

Chapters 1-30....the big bang, geo-genesis, evolution....

Chapter 31.....God did it.

There will be a test.

What are these people trying to accomplish?
 
2013-01-16 05:58:16 PM

Ishkur: I want to say one more thing:

Animatronik: You don't include good ideas and exclude bad ones and declare success. You teach kids how to think, because its about knowledge acquisition as much as knowledge itself.

There are subjects in science where we don't have all the information yet and we don't have a clear understanding of what happened, so there are competing theories that argue different explanations. For example, the formation of the moon: One theory says it was from a rogue planet that collided with Earth (the Giant Impact Theory), while another theory says it was a captured asteroid, and still another theory says it was part of Earth that got separated early in the solar system's accretion disk. You know what theory they teach in schools? ALL OF THEM!!! .... because the jury's still out on what actually happened so we're not really sure (however the Giant Impact Theory is the runaway leader).

Same with the extinction of the dinosaurs. We're still not absolutely certain what actually happened -- could've been anything from change in atmospheric composition to global warming to continental drift to new species to aliens or who the fark knows. But the Asteroid Impact Theory is clearly the most probable especially now that they think they've found the crater in the Yucatan. You know which one they teach in schools? ALL OF THEM!!!! ..... because although the Asteroid Impact Theory makes the most sense, it's still not definitely certain.

Same with global warming. It's pretty well-affirmed that it IS happening. The big questions now surround whether it's because of man or if it's just the planet's nominal life cycle. And more importantly: What we can do about it. All these theories are introduced in schools as we don't have all the facts yet.

There are lots of fields and subjects and questionable theories in science that deserve healthy debate and skepticism. BUT EVOLUTION IS NOT ONE OF THEM.


That's actually been pretty conclusively determined (you'd have to be akin to a creationist at this point to deny that it's human-caused) - the remaining questions concern how much warming there will be and how that will play out precisely in terms of smaller scale changes.
 
2013-01-16 06:28:57 PM

HighZoolander: That's actually been pretty conclusively determined


The planet has been hotter before. The planet has been colder before. In what manner do you think we're interrupting that metric?
 
2013-01-16 06:51:32 PM
My surname is Le Trôle.
 
2013-01-16 07:11:54 PM

Ishkur: HighZoolander: That's actually been pretty conclusively determined

The planet has been hotter before. The planet has been colder before. In what manner do you think we're interrupting that metric?


It's not so much that I think it, it's that there is a ton of scientific evidence.

This should get you started

Also, in relation to your (almost entirely irrelevant) assertion that the planet has been hotter/colder before - Link

/I'm too lazy to summarize the info in those links, but as a science-type you might enjoy them.
 
2013-01-16 07:16:53 PM

Ishkur: Farking Canuck: Scientific theories are never proven

It's more apropos to say "Science doesn't prove certainties, only high probabilities". While your statement is correct, it causes a lot of confusion and misunderstanding so its generally not a good idea to say that. Creationists even use it as a talking point.


It's perhaps relevant for me to point out that climate change deniers use the 'the planet has been hotter before' as a talking point, even though it's an incredibly poor argument (as you'll see in the above link).
 
2013-01-16 07:31:05 PM

Ishkur: I want to say one more thing:

Animatronik: You don't include good ideas and exclude bad ones and declare success. You teach kids how to think, because its about knowledge acquisition as much as knowledge itself.

There are subjects in science where we don't have all the information yet and we don't have a clear understanding of what happened, so there are competing theories that argue different explanations. For example, the formation of the moon: One theory says it was from a rogue planet that collided with Earth (the Giant Impact Theory), while another theory says it was a captured asteroid, and still another theory says it was part of Earth that got separated early in the solar system's accretion disk. You know what theory they teach in schools? ALL OF THEM!!! .... because the jury's still out on what actually happened so we're not really sure (however the Giant Impact Theory is the runaway leader).

Same with the extinction of the dinosaurs. We're still not absolutely certain what actually happened -- could've been anything from change in atmospheric composition to global warming to continental drift to new species to aliens or who the fark knows. But the Asteroid Impact Theory is clearly the most probable especially now that they think they've found the crater in the Yucatan. You know which one they teach in schools? ALL OF THEM!!!! ..... because although the Asteroid Impact Theory makes the most sense, it's still not definitely certain.

Same with global warming. It's pretty well-affirmed that it IS happening. The big questions now surround whether it's because of man or if it's just the planet's nominal life cycle. And more importantly: What we can do about it. All these theories are introduced in schools as we don't have all the facts yet.

There are lots of fields and subjects and questionable theories in science that deserve healthy debate and skepticism. BUT EVOLUTION IS NOT ONE OF THEM.


That is because all the other theories are at least plausible. What you are advocating is teachers teaching Flat Earth as 'another theory'. Creationism is not science, never has been, will never be a science. As such, it is Theology, and we just cannot seem to get this message into the skulls of any idiot who think Creationism should be taught in a public school.

They also miss the point of the word 'public' when it comes to public schools.

No. They don't teach all the theories. They teach plausible competing theories and sometimes cover 'what the quaint people of old' used to believe.

When ID is taught in schools, everyone loses, no one wins. When Evolution is taught, the only people who feel like losers are those who aren't paying attention.
 
2013-01-16 07:43:00 PM

HighZoolander: It's not so much that I think it, it's that there is a ton of scientific evidence.


Oh, I get it. You seem to think that I'm a climate change denier. I'm not. You're arguing against a position I'm not making.

Actually, I don't particularly think climate change is the problem -- rather, it's a symptom of the problem and the problem is overpopulation, but that's an entirely different discussion. Be that as it may, I am in agreement that the human impact on climate change is evocative, but I think its overstated.
 
2013-01-16 07:44:26 PM

HighZoolander: It's perhaps relevant for me to point out that climate change deniers use the 'the planet has been hotter before' as a talking point, even though it's an incredibly poor argument (as you'll see in the above link).


You seem to think that I'm a climate change denier. I'm not. You're arguing against a position I'm not making.
 
2013-01-16 07:57:34 PM

Ishkur: HighZoolander: It's not so much that I think it, it's that there is a ton of scientific evidence.

Oh, I get it. You seem to think that I'm a climate change denier. I'm not. You're arguing against a position I'm not making.

Actually, I don't particularly think climate change is the problem -- rather, it's a symptom of the problem and the problem is overpopulation, but that's an entirely different discussion. Be that as it may, I am in agreement that the human impact on climate change is evocative, but I think its overstated.


No, I didn't mean to accuse you of being a denier, and I don't think you are, though you made an erroneous statement and another that deniers commonly make. If anything I attributed it to a gap in your knowledge, rather than the product of unscientific thinking. I wasn't trying to pin a position on you and argue against it, just to point out and correct the misstatements.
 
2013-01-16 08:19:35 PM

HighZoolander: No, I didn't mean to accuse you of being a denier, and I don't think you are, though you made an erroneous statement and another that deniers commonly make. If anything I attributed it to a gap in your knowledge, rather than the product of unscientific thinking. I wasn't trying to pin a position on you and argue against it, just to point out and correct the misstatements.


That's certainly a condescending way of putting it.
 
2013-01-16 08:43:31 PM

Ishkur: HighZoolander: No, I didn't mean to accuse you of being a denier, and I don't think you are, though you made an erroneous statement and another that deniers commonly make. If anything I attributed it to a gap in your knowledge, rather than the product of unscientific thinking. I wasn't trying to pin a position on you and argue against it, just to point out and correct the misstatements.

That's certainly a condescending way of putting it.


That wasn't intentional.
 
2013-01-16 09:06:55 PM

HighZoolander: 4seasons85!: I think there should be a separate class that teaches world beliefs. It should teach general beliefs about the major world religions and the beliefs of athiests. This way people are informed at least some what as to what others believe and they are given a choice of what to believe. It will cover creationism and why people believe it in this class. However this may be too logical and not enough Jesus for some people.

If you think there was a shiatstorm about teaching science to the kids of these people, wait until the government tries to inform their kids about other religious beliefs.


Um, I actually had this in High School. It was called WORLD HISTORY and was a required class.

Seriously, you can't study about the different cultures in the world without knowing what they all believed in. We started in Japan and made our way West.

I also had to go to a religious in High School too. It was called Sunday School and took place after church every week. There I got to learn about Jesus in peace away from all the pesky Buddhists, Mormons, JWs, Baptists Muslims and Jews. It wasn't gonna get me into college, but mother made me take the class to save my soul...

/I kid of course. School was the one place where we can all mix and learn about each other.
//Lucked out w/ my public education in Hawaii
 
2013-01-16 09:12:59 PM

Ishkur: That's certainly a condescending way of putting it.


Don't say stupid things, then.
 
2013-01-16 09:14:15 PM

Ishkur: I think its overstated.


Ishkur: the problem is overpopulation


These two beliefs of yours are at obvious odds with one another, which is why I said "stupid."
 
2013-01-16 09:20:40 PM

James F. Campbell: These two beliefs of yours are at obvious odds with one another, which is why I said "stupid."


No they're not. I'd explain, but don't feel like writing another essay about it.
 
2013-01-16 09:34:50 PM
Save the climate change debate for the climate change threads. This thread's been derpy enough with one subject, let's not overload it and create a derp hole.
 
2013-01-16 09:54:06 PM
I don't usually discuss religion but on occasion someone presses the issue. In that case I generally ask them about their faith and where it comes from. I have never gotten a reasonable explanation. Many have said their faith comes from God but when I point out that you need to have faith first before you can believe in God they just talk about what is in the Bible. I ask where their faith in the Bible comes from and they say it comes from God. One guy even told me that it was circular.

I'm truly baffled by this. You could offer to pay me a billion dollars and I still couldn't force my mind to accept something for which no credible or conclusive evidence exists.

Sometimes I wonder if people realize what a creationist is actually saying when they talk about someone who "believes" in evolution. This is because to a creationist a belief is something that is permanently etched into your brain. A scientist would be horrified to corrupt their mind in this way. To a scientist a belief is just the best current explanation for a phenomena. A scientists mind is open and willing to change if better evidence comes along.
 
2013-01-17 12:05:01 AM

peeledpeas: Mock26: the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.

There is at least evidence to support the theory of evolution. There is no evidence to support the existence of any divinity.

Eh,there is plenty of evidence. Some people simply refuse to see it.


Care to give some evidence that is not only credible but can also be verified? Or are you too afraid to reply?
 
2013-01-17 01:48:59 AM

Mock26: peeledpeas: Mock26: the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.

There is at least evidence to support the theory of evolution. There is no evidence to support the existence of any divinity.

Eh,there is plenty of evidence. Some people simply refuse to see it.

Care to give some evidence that is not only credible but can also be verified? Or are you too afraid to reply?


Like I said, you will refuse to see it. Creation, all the way, dude.
 
2013-01-17 02:36:19 AM

peeledpeas: Mock26: peeledpeas: Mock26: the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.

There is at least evidence to support the theory of evolution. There is no evidence to support the existence of any divinity.

Eh,there is plenty of evidence. Some people simply refuse to see it.

Care to give some evidence that is not only credible but can also be verified? Or are you too afraid to reply?

Like I said, you will refuse to see it. Creation, all the way, dude.


Just as I expected, you have nothing.
 
2013-01-17 05:14:31 AM

peeledpeas: Mock26: peeledpeas: Mock26: the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.

There is at least evidence to support the theory of evolution. There is no evidence to support the existence of any divinity.

Eh,there is plenty of evidence. Some people simply refuse to see it.

Care to give some evidence that is not only credible but can also be verified? Or are you too afraid to reply?

Like I said, you will refuse to see it. Creation, all the way, dude.


If you give up that easily, you must not be very convinced of it yourself. Either put out or shut up.
 
2013-01-17 08:36:12 AM

Ishkur: It's more apropos to say "Science doesn't prove certainties, only high probabilities".


Do you really think they will acknowledge this difference??

Their position boils down to: "Ugggg. They say they not know for sure! Magic must be real!!!".
 
2013-01-18 04:28:25 AM

peeledpeas: Mock26: peeledpeas: Mock26: the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.

There is at least evidence to support the theory of evolution. There is no evidence to support the existence of any divinity.

Eh,there is plenty of evidence. Some people simply refuse to see it.

Care to give some evidence that is not only credible but can also be verified? Or are you too afraid to reply?

Like I said, you will refuse to see it. Creation, all the way, dude.


Actually, what you said was "some people." You claim you proof, and I am seeking proof. And does not your own faith command you to go forth and spread the word? Well, for me that word needs proof to back it up. So why are you so damned afraid to provide this evidence that you claim you have? Are you afraid? I bet that is it. I bet that your faith is so damned weak that it cannot stand up to any scrutiny. And if that is the case, then the basis of your faith is pretty damn pathetic.
 
2013-01-18 05:35:37 AM

Mock26: peeledpeas: Mock26: peeledpeas: Mock26: the_chief: Evolution is just another religion.

There is at least evidence to support the theory of evolution. There is no evidence to support the existence of any divinity.

Eh,there is plenty of evidence. Some people simply refuse to see it.

Care to give some evidence that is not only credible but can also be verified? Or are you too afraid to reply?

Like I said, you will refuse to see it. Creation, all the way, dude.

Actually, what you said was "some people." You claim you proof, and I am seeking proof. And does not your own faith command you to go forth and spread the word? Well, for me that word needs proof to back it up. So why are you so damned afraid to provide this evidence that you claim you have? Are you afraid? I bet that is it. I bet that your faith is so damned weak that it cannot stand up to any scrutiny. And if that is the case, then the basis of your faith is pretty damn pathetic.


Her profile says she joined in 2005, but this is the first time I've ever seen her. I think someone reactivated an old account to troll, and I doubt she'll be back.
 
2013-01-18 01:10:41 PM
The evidence I cite is something that you people will explain away as, "it just happened that way". I believe the sideways tilt of the planet Uranus is an indicator that something supernatural exists (big comet knocked it sideways? Really?). Also, the precise placement of the Earth in orbit. A slight variation in either direction and we fry or freeze. The complexity of the Earths ecosystem could not have happened by chance. And, the very idea that the entire Universe appeared out of no where, in a "big bang", for no reason other than, "we say it happened" is stupid. Where I see proof, you see "it just happened".

Also, I am not a female and I have posted since 2005.
 
2013-01-18 01:52:55 PM

peeledpeas: The evidence I cite is something that you people will explain away as, "it just happened that way". I believe the sideways tilt of the planet Uranus is an indicator that something supernatural exists (big comet knocked it sideways? Really?). Also, the precise placement of the Earth in orbit. A slight variation in either direction and we fry or freeze. The complexity of the Earths ecosystem could not have happened by chance. And, the very idea that the entire Universe appeared out of no where, in a "big bang", for no reason other than, "we say it happened" is stupid. Where I see proof, you see "it just happened".

Also, I am not a female and I have posted since 2005.



Let's say theoretically I agree that the complexity I see in the earth ecosystem indicates it was created by a form of intelligence. I still don't see how that explains religion. If intelligent design were a scientific theory it would incorporate evolution into it and strive to figure out how the intelligence that created us developed the process of evolution.

What you are asking us to believe is completely different. You are asking us not only to believe in intelligent design but also that the intelligence is known and that it is named God. If you are Christian you are also asking us to believe that the Bible is the word of this God. You are asking us to trust in the Bible 100% over all other holy books with no evidence that God has even existed at any point in human history.
 
2013-01-18 02:18:34 PM

Robert Farker:


Let's say theoretically I agree that the complexity I see in the earth ecosystem indicates it was created by a form of intelligence. I still don't see how that explains religion. If intelligent design were a scientific theory it would incorporate evolution into it and strive to figure out how the intelligence that created us developed the process of evolution.

What you are asking us to believe is completely different. You are asking us not only to believe in intelligent design but also that the intelligence is known and that it is named God. If you are Christian you are also asking us to believe that the Bible is the word of this God. You are asking us to trust in the Bible 100% over all other holy books with no evidence that God has even existed at any point in human history.


He's really asking us to believe some nitwit's interpretation of the bible instead of the scientific evidence that evolution is happening (which everyone can see/verify/question for themselves), all because "whoah, complexity"

peeledpeas: The evidence I cite is something that you people will explain away as, "it just happened that way". I believe the sideways tilt of the planet Uranus is an indicator that something supernatural exists (big comet knocked it sideways? Really?). Also, the precise placement of the Earth in orbit. A slight variation in either direction and we fry or freeze. The complexity of the Earths ecosystem could not have happened by chance. And, the very idea that the entire Universe appeared out of no where, in a "big bang", for no reason other than, "we say it happened" is stupid. Where I see proof, you see "it just happened".

Also, I am not a female and I have posted since 2005.


Where you see people saying 'it just happened' the rest of us see people making reasoned arguments based on observations and *gasp* evidence.

It's very strange to me that you see 'proof' in the absence of evidence, but not in its presence. It's like you'll happily jump off a cliff but are scared to step off the sidewalk because it's too high. Makes no sense to me.
 
2013-01-18 02:27:14 PM

peeledpeas: The evidence I cite is something that you people will explain away as, "it just happened that way". I believe the sideways tilt of the planet Uranus is an indicator that something supernatural exists (big comet knocked it sideways? Really?). Also, the precise placement of the Earth in orbit. A slight variation in either direction and we fry or freeze. The complexity of the Earths ecosystem could not have happened by chance. And, the very idea that the entire Universe appeared out of no where, in a "big bang", for no reason other than, "we say it happened" is stupid. Where I see proof, you see "it just happened".

Also, I am not a female and I have posted since 2005.


OK, fine, let us say that Uranus being tilted and the Earth's "precise placement" are because of a divine being, Prove that it is the supposed god of the christian mythology and not some other God, Goddess, or group of Deities. Where is your evidence that your god created the universe? And where is the evidence that proves that Thor, for example, did not knock Uranus askew like that? Or Odin? Or Zeus? Or Ares? Or Ra? Or Thoth? Hmmm? You claim that these things are proof of god but you have no proof that it is your specific god. You are merely assuming that it is.

Also, I feel that I should point out that you are making guesses on the causes of these things. You see this as proof but there is no proof. Did someone witness god doing this? Is there some sort of divine fingerprint on Uranus? One cannot simply look at something and say, "Well, since science cannot explain it with 100% certainty then god must have done it!" You are merely filling in the gaps with a convenient answer, and that is not a very good way to get answers

And, you are mocking those who accept the Big Bang merely because they are told to believe it to be true but what about your faith? Why do you believe? More than likely because your parents told you to believe. You were conditioned to believe in a god, and therefore you do. And that is a horrible basis for faith.

PS That "precise" orbit is not very precise. The difference between perihelion and aphelion is 3.5 million miles!
 
2013-01-18 02:28:32 PM

HighZoolander: peeledpeas: The evidence I cite is something that you people will explain away as, "it just happened that way". I believe the sideways tilt of the planet Uranus is an indicator that something supernatural exists (big comet knocked it sideways? Really?). Also, the precise placement of the Earth in orbit. A slight variation in either direction and we fry or freeze. The complexity of the Earths ecosystem could not have happened by chance. And, the very idea that the entire Universe appeared out of no where, in a "big bang", for no reason other than, "we say it happened" is stupid. Where I see proof, you see "it just happened".

Also, I am not a female and I have posted since 2005.

Where you see people saying 'it just happened' the rest of us see people making reasoned arguments based on observations and *gasp* evidence.

It's very strange to me that you see 'proof' in the absence of evidence, but not in its presence. It's like you'll happily jump off a cliff but are scared to step off the sidewalk because it's too high. Makes no sense to me.


Brainwashing as a child.
 
2013-01-18 02:30:37 PM
I would like to add another thing.

The big bang is simply an explanation for the measurable and observable evidence. It is not treated as gospel. Any scientist will tell you that we don't know for sure. The same is true about how life formed on this planet. The scientific theories are simply the best explanation for what is measurable and observable. Any scientist will tell you that we don't know for sure.

The fact is nobody knows for sure how the universe was created or how life started on this planet. All we can do is go by what we can measure and observe. The reason why people are so confident that you are wrong is because it's so insanely transparent that your belief system is based things that you can not possibly know.
 
2013-01-18 03:21:40 PM
I get really tired of people equating atheism with belief in the big bang theory, abiogenesis, and/or evolution.

There is no connection between atheism and these scientific theories and the position that these theories are correct is not exclusive to atheists. There are plenty of religious people who believe in some or all of the above theories.

That is not to say that atheists do tend to gravitate towards scientific explanations. But this is not required to be an atheist.
 
2013-01-18 04:07:50 PM

peeledpeas: Also, I am not a female and I have posted since 2005.


Then why is your name Shannon?
 
2013-01-18 04:26:42 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: peeledpeas: Also, I am not a female and I have posted since 2005.

Then why is your name Shannon?


It's entirely plausible as a male's name
 
2013-01-18 04:31:16 PM

Robert Farker: The fact is nobody knows for sure how the universe was created or how life started on this planet. All we can do is go by what we can measure and observe. The reason why people are so confident that you are wrong is because it's so insanely transparent that your belief system is based things that you can not possibly know.


Uncertainty makes some people nervous and upset, to the point that they structure their whole lives around an invisible best friend.
 
2013-01-18 04:51:06 PM

ko_kyi: Robert Farker: The fact is nobody knows for sure how the universe was created or how life started on this planet. All we can do is go by what we can measure and observe. The reason why people are so confident that you are wrong is because it's so insanely transparent that your belief system is based things that you can not possibly know.

Uncertainty makes some people nervous and upset, to the point that they structure their whole lives around an invisible best friend.


Exactly. This is why they attack atheists for not having answers ... they cannot understand that we can exists without these answers.

Personally, I find the answer of "We don't know for sure but here are some theories supported by this evidence" to be far more satisfying than "god did it ... no, we have no evidence".
 
2013-01-18 05:26:48 PM

Robert Farker: I would like to add another thing.

The big bang is simply an explanation for the measurable and observable evidence. It is not treated as gospel. Any scientist will tell you that we don't know for sure. The same is true about how life formed on this planet. The scientific theories are simply the best explanation for what is measurable and observable. Any scientist will tell you that we don't know for sure.

The fact is nobody knows for sure how the universe was created or how life started on this planet. All we can do is go by what we can measure and observe. The reason why people are so confident that you are wrong is because it's so insanely transparent that your belief system is based things that you can not possibly know.


Well, this began as a reasonable rebuttal until the contradiction at the end. You say you don't know something and then criticize me for the same thing? What?
 
2013-01-18 05:28:26 PM

Mock26: HighZoolander: peeledpeas: The evidence I cite is something that you people will explain away as, "it just happened that way". I believe the sideways tilt of the planet Uranus is an indicator that something supernatural exists (big comet knocked it sideways? Really?). Also, the precise placement of the Earth in orbit. A slight variation in either direction and we fry or freeze. The complexity of the Earths ecosystem could not have happened by chance. And, the very idea that the entire Universe appeared out of no where, in a "big bang", for no reason other than, "we say it happened" is stupid. Where I see proof, you see "it just happened".

Also, I am not a female and I have posted since 2005.

Where you see people saying 'it just happened' the rest of us see people making reasoned arguments based on observations and *gasp* evidence.

It's very strange to me that you see 'proof' in the absence of evidence, but not in its presence. It's like you'll happily jump off a cliff but are scared to step off the sidewalk because it's too high. Makes no sense to me.

Brainwashing as a child.


And you couldn't be more wrong. I became a Christian well into adult life.
 
2013-01-18 05:33:24 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: peeledpeas: Also, I am not a female and I have posted since 2005.

Then why is your name Shannon?


My name is Shannon because it is what my parents named me. It's origins are firmly rooted in it being a unisex name and is fairly common in use as a male name.
 
2013-01-18 05:43:07 PM

peeledpeas: Robert Farker: I would like to add another thing.

The big bang is simply an explanation for the measurable and observable evidence. It is not treated as gospel. Any scientist will tell you that we don't know for sure. The same is true about how life formed on this planet. The scientific theories are simply the best explanation for what is measurable and observable. Any scientist will tell you that we don't know for sure.

The fact is nobody knows for sure how the universe was created or how life started on this planet. All we can do is go by what we can measure and observe. The reason why people are so confident that you are wrong is because it's so insanely transparent that your belief system is based things that you can not possibly know.

Well, this began as a reasonable rebuttal until the contradiction at the end. You say you don't know something and then criticize me for the same thing? What?


You misunderstand, I'm not criticizing you for not knowing how the universe was formed or how life started on earth. As I said before, I don't know these things and either does anybody else. I'm criticizing you because you refuse to admit that you do not know these things any better than anyone else. You also refuse to acknowledge the body of evidence that does exist in favor of evolution.
 
2013-01-18 05:45:31 PM

peeledpeas: I became a Christian well into adult life.


What made you select Christianity as a religion?
 
2013-01-18 06:26:32 PM

peeledpeas: The evidence I cite is something that you people will explain away as, "it just happened that way". I believe the sideways tilt of the planet Uranus is an indicator that something supernatural exists (big comet knocked it sideways? Really?). Also, the precise placement of the Earth in orbit. A slight variation in either direction and we fry or freeze. The complexity of the Earths ecosystem could not have happened by chance. And, the very idea that the entire Universe appeared out of no where, in a "big bang", for no reason other than, "we say it happened" is stupid. Where I see proof, you see "it just happened".


Ah yes, the fine-tuning argument.

Okay, obviously you think that the Universe has been fine-tuned for life by an intelligent being. I have some questions:

First of all, why would an all-powerful being need to fine-tune anything? Why is it that we can only survive on some of this planet's surface for only a fraction of its history and not everywhere in the Universe that we'd like to go? Because everywhere else will kill us and even most environments here on Earth will kill us.

So what would a Universe not fine-tuned by an intelligent designer look like? Would we be able to go anywhere and do anything and if so wouldn't that make it better than this one? So God actually made things worse for us? Without a standard of comparison, how can we be sure whether we're really living in the fine-tuned Universe or not? Because while arguments can be made whether our world is mostly ordered or chaotic (or both), there's nothing in it that suggests perfection.

What would a supreme being want perfection for? Why would He prefer patterned order over random chaos and what difference would it make to Him? And how could anyone justify making such a claim on His behalf?

See, understand that order and chaos are anthropocentric judgment calls that we humans use as labels for pattern recognition. So how can we use that same standard for an entity that is outside humanity? We think a supreme being wants an ordered, patterned fine-tuned Universe only because we humans want an ordered, patterned fine-tuned Universe but there is no indication that this is the case (that the Universe is patterned order or that a supreme being wants patterned order).

Neither the Universe nor God is under any obligation to validate our anthropocentric views of how things are (or how we perceive them to be). Insofar as order and chaos is concerned, all reality contains ample amounts of both in varying quantities depending on what you're observing.

In other words: A fine-tuned Universe created by God would look exactly the same as a non fine-tuned Universe ordained by physics. Because everything we know right now about how the Universe works points us in the same direction, to the same origins. Things are the way they are because they can't NOT be the way they are, whether God was involved or not.

Understand?

/oh, and the Universe did not just "appear out of nowhere for no reason". I'll be happy to explain what really happened if you're still around in the thread
 
2013-01-18 07:36:46 PM

Robert Farker: peeledpeas: I became a Christian well into adult life.

What made you select Christianity as a religion?


Christianity is the only religion that does not focus on what YOU can do for God. It focuses on what God did FOR YOU.
 
2013-01-18 07:40:01 PM

Ishkur: /oh, and the Universe did not just "appear out of nowhere for no reason". I'll be happy to explain what really happened if you're still around in the thread.



You know exactly how and why the Universe formed? This is interesting since no one else in the world knows this information. You should share.
 
2013-01-18 07:57:46 PM

peeledpeas: You know exactly how and why the Universe formed? This is interesting since no one else in the world knows this information. You should share.


Okay, but first I need to clarify why your assertion is malformed as it's invoking the First Cause fallacy (ie: "something cannot come from nothing").

The First Cause fallacy is wrong because it's relying not on the actual laws of physics but on the philosophical laws of causality.

The laws of causality aren't actual physics laws. They're only used in philosophy and they are predicated on an absolute temporal constant. But we know that time is not absolute or constant; it is relative and predicated on velocity. So asserting cause and effect is a meaningless conjecture. Even still, if you want to use the laws of causality to describe the origin of the Universe, you still run into two philosophical problems:

1) The laws of causality do not apply to the quantum level, so somethings can come from nothings.
2) The laws of causality only apply to somethings, not nothings (everything that has a cause is a Something coming from another Something, not a Nothing*). We don't have any examples of nothing so we cannot verify whether something can come from it.

But when we're talking about the beginning of the Universe, which is where you want to assert the First Cause fallacy, all that exists is at the quantum level therefore we must use quantum laws to describe what's happening. There is no macro level to describe or even quantify the Universe at that stage so please throw out all notions of causality and stop insisting that nothing became everything at once for no reason. That is simply the wrong way to describe what's happened with the Universe.

Now for the quantum mechanics (and cosmologists have mathematically proven this so stop insisting that no one knows): The sum total of everything that exists in the Universe - including forces, light, energy, matter, and even the hypothesized dark stuff - is zero. That is, the cumulative positive mass-energy content of the Universe is balanced by the negative mass-energy content of the Universe, or that the "something" is counterbalanced by the "minus-something" that it exists in.

There's only one way to have nothing and that's to have zero entropy and zero mass-energy. But if the total mass-energy of everything in the Universe is apparently zero, and since nothing means no space-time and thus no time to keep everything from happening at once, the inherent tendency is for nothing to instantly become everything. Because nothing cannot be nothing forever, especially at the quantum level.

QED: The Universe exists because it's impossible for it not to exist.

* It's hard to talk about nothing or even describe it as a quantitative value since its very nature negates any attempt to conceptualize it. As soon as you identify nothing, you automatically attribute qualities to it that make it a something which by its very nature it cannot be. The concept of "nothing", like "infinity", cannot be conceptualized or explained except through mathematics. The philosophical First Cause argument falls apart principally for this reason.
 
2013-01-18 08:03:52 PM
Ok, that was mind bending but what I get out of what you just said is that the Universe has always been and always will be.

Anyway, I'll throw these articles out there.


http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm

http://www.icr.org/article/177/
 
2013-01-18 08:09:26 PM

peeledpeas: Ok, that was mind bending but what I get out of what you just said is that the Universe has always been and always will be.


No, the Universe definitely had a beginning and it will definitely have an end in the temporal understanding as we know it.

But it doesn't need a God to do all that. It's perfectly capable of doing all of it by itself.

Your links have nothing to do with the origins of the Universe and are talking about abiogenesis, an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT. Why do you creationists keep doing that?
 
2013-01-18 08:16:03 PM

peeledpeas: Ok, that was mind bending


What part did you not understand? I'll be happy to clarify.

In fact, Dr. Krauss can probably explain it better than I can -- no, watch the whole thing if you're intrinsically interested in this stuff. Cosmology has come up with some incredible findings, especially within the last few decades, that I don't think you're aware of. It's actually a really exciting time to be a scientist as our understanding of everything is accelerating at an unprecedented rate and we are discovering things that are rapidly changing society that we couldn't even dream about a mere decade ago.
 
2013-01-18 08:21:34 PM
If the origin of life is God then certainly God is the origin of the universe. These articles point out that life cannot come from lifelessness. If life cannot come from lifelessness, then there had to be a creator. It is logical, then, if a creator created life, He also created the universe.

I'm not really sure why you are all spending so much time trying to educate me. It's not that I don't believe any of the evidence you all have presented. I am simply open to the fact the human intellect is limited. There have been a great many times in humanities past where we THOUGHT we knew something that turned out to be totally false (flat-earth, anyone?) Those people in the past had overwhelming evidence to support their false claims. What makes you think it's any different today? "We're more sciency now!" Eh, no. We are arrogant.
 
2013-01-18 08:27:28 PM

peeledpeas: Ok, that was mind bending but what I get out of what you just said is that the Universe has always been and always will be.

Anyway, I'll throw these articles out there.


http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm

http://www.icr.org/article/177/



The first is simply another form of the intelligent design argument that the complexity of life could only have been the result of an intelligent being. As I explained before that doesn't come close to explaining religion.

The second article disagrees with the collective works of evolutionary science. It's also conveniently 100% void of any testable or reproducible evidence. In that way it impossible to verify as being accurate. The Bible is also impossible to trust as being accurate. It was written by many authors as I understand. Not only is it not clear that God exists, there is no evidence he had anything to do with the Bible.

I have sometimes asked people where their faith comes from. I have never gotten an answer that made any sense to me.
 
2013-01-18 08:37:09 PM

peeledpeas: If the origin of life is God then certainly God is the origin of the universe


No no no. That is a bad deduction. There is no evidence, reason, indication, suggestion or fact that even links the two. By what metric do you assert that the cause behind one thing means it's automatically behind the other? That is worse than the worst correlation fallacy -- you are automatically jumping to a conclusion for B based on the specious evidence for A. That is bad logic and it is WRONG.

Origin of the Universe.
Origin of life.

Two completely separate, distant, unrelated events that happened about 8 billion years apart. The ONLY thing they have in common is that life is IN the Universe therefore it cannot exist without the Universe, so the Universe technically has to come first. But other than, there is almost no connection between the two.

How conditions were eventually set up to produce life is another interesting topic (and I'll be happy to explain that if you want me to. You need but ask). But that has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the Universe.
 
2013-01-18 08:37:42 PM

peeledpeas: If the origin of life is God then certainly God is the origin of the universe. These articles point out that life cannot come from lifelessness. If life cannot come from lifelessness, then there had to be a creator. It is logical, then, if a creator created life, He also created the universe.

I'm not really sure why you are all spending so much time trying to educate me. It's not that I don't believe any of the evidence you all have presented. I am simply open to the fact the human intellect is limited. There have been a great many times in humanities past where we THOUGHT we knew something that turned out to be totally false (flat-earth, anyone?) Those people in the past had overwhelming evidence to support their false claims. What makes you think it's any different today? "We're more sciency now!" Eh, no. We are arrogant.


What if your articles are wrong? What if what you understand about life is wrong and life can in fact come from lifelessness? All we can do is go by what we can measure and observe. There have been a great many times in humanities past where we THOUGHT we knew something that turned out to be totally false (flat-earth, anyone?) Those people in the past had no evidence to support their false claims. What makes you think it's any different today? "We're more Jesusy now!" Eh, no. We are arrogant.
 
2013-01-18 08:46:03 PM

peeledpeas: I'm not really sure why you are all spending so much time trying to educate me


Because fighting ignorance might very well be the most noble pursuit in all of humanity.

peeledpeas: It's not that I don't believe any of the evidence you all have presented. I am simply open to the fact the human intellect is limited. There have been a great many times in humanities past where we THOUGHT we knew something that turned out to be totally false (flat-earth, anyone?) Those people in the past had overwhelming evidence to support their false claims. What makes you think it's any different today? "We're more sciency now!" Eh, no. We are arrogant.


Yes. This is certainly true.

It is possible that we may be completely wrong about everything. We do not possess the ability to jump outside our skulls - outside human perception, reasoning, and comprehension of the natural world and its faculties - and truly observe the Universe on a completely impartial level. Everything we know comes to us through biased human filters. Even things we think are universal absolutes, like logic, math and physics - they're all human constructs: Human tools created by humans and used by humans to understand human perceptions of the Universe in human terms that humans can understand, for the benefit of humanity. We may be way off with all of this and never know it. The true answers may never be knowable, but that's okay because our current observations are the best guesses we got.

Just because we can't count to infinity is no reason to stop counting.

The very worst thing you can do is turn your back on this conceit and claim that the true answers are already knowable...... in a book..... written by desert campfire cultures thousands of years ago. Because the moment you do that is the moment you stop counting and claim "this number is high enough. We have no reason to count any higher."

There is ALWAYS a reason to count higher, even if that reason is only to see what the next number is. And that old dusty tome written thousands of years ago will only let you count so high.
 
2013-01-18 08:49:34 PM
Well, the Bible does tell about people like you and others who just cannot believe in God. I don't have to have a reason that can be put into words that will convince you. I can only live my life and try to reflect God's love and pray that others will come to know Him. While it's baffling to you that I believe what I believe, it is equally baffling to me that others refuse to acknowledge the existence of God. I see the evidence of God every day. In His creation. The trees, flowers, insects, animals.....it all works too well together to NOT be designed to work that way.
 
2013-01-18 08:51:27 PM

peeledpeas: The trees, flowers, insects, animals.....it all works too well together to NOT be designed to work that way.


Even if you believe that, how in the world do you get from that deistic belief to the specific Judeo-Christian mythos?
 
2013-01-18 08:54:13 PM

Man On Pink Corner: peeledpeas: The trees, flowers, insects, animals.....it all works too well together to NOT be designed to work that way.

Even if you believe that, how in the world do you get from that deistic belief to the specific Judeo-Christian mythos?


I believe I answered this question. Scroll up.
 
2013-01-18 08:57:26 PM

Ishkur: peeledpeas: I'm not really sure why you are all spending so much time trying to educate me

Because fighting ignorance might very well be the most noble pursuit in all of humanity.



You assume much about me.
 
2013-01-18 08:58:16 PM

peeledpeas: Well, the Bible does tell about people like you and others who just cannot believe in God. I don't have to have a reason that can be put into words that will convince you. I can only live my life and try to reflect God's love and pray that others will come to know Him. While it's baffling to you that I believe what I believe, it is equally baffling to me that others refuse to acknowledge the existence of God. I see the evidence of God every day. In His creation. The trees, flowers, insects, animals.....it all works too well together to NOT be designed to work that way.


So why isn't the Bible compatible with what you can see every day? Why does Genesis contain an impossible story that conflicts with what we do know and can prove about evolution. Why doesn't Genesis just say God started evolution in motion knowing beforehand it would produce humanity? Why is what is in the Bible any more credible than any other holy book? Is it really that impossible to see how someone could wonder these things?
 
2013-01-18 08:59:11 PM

Ishkur: peeledpeas: I'm not really sure why you are all spending so much time trying to educate me

Because fighting ignorance might very well be the most noble pursuit in all of humanity.


QFT.

Peeled Peas, you are correct that Humanity is arrogant. The recognition of that fact alone should be all the sway you'll ever need to dismiss creationism.
 
2013-01-18 09:06:27 PM

peeledpeas: Well, the Bible does tell about people like you and others who just cannot believe in God. I don't have to have a reason that can be put into words that will convince you. I can only live my life and try to reflect God's love and pray that others will come to know Him. While it's baffling to you that I believe what I believe, it is equally baffling to me that others refuse to acknowledge the existence of God. I see the evidence of God every day. In His creation. The trees, flowers, insects, animals.....it all works too well together to NOT be designed to work that way.


Ah yes, the Argument From Trees. Humans see patterns and beauty in things, therefore a human-centric God that invented patterns and beauty exists so that humans can recognize patterns and beauty in things....like sunsets. And double rainbows and snowflakes and galaxy clusters and frozen waterfalls and sand dunes and rain forests and anything in the Universe that literally has your jaw hanging down in utter awe at the striking magnificence. How can there not be a God with all this impressive beauty all around us?

Have you ever watched with fascination a really long turd come out of a dog? Or a smiling child with a bilateral cleft lip and palate? Have you ever squeezed and popped an epidermoid cyst? How about the slow growth of foot fungus? Do you know anyone who knows anyone who had epidermolysis bullosa, a rare disorder that affects 1 in 50,000 live births which causes acute and severe blistering on the skin and is ultimately fatal? Most babies with this condition do not live to see their first birthday. It's an event every bit as magical and beautiful as the sunrise. Or how about viruses and parasites and predators and pestilence. Or wildfires or volcanoes or hurricanes or earthquakes or avalanches. Or floods or droughts or storms. Or prickle bushes or poisonous venom or tooth decay or acne or diarrhea or prostate cancer or menstruation or aging or paraplegia or miscarriages. Or howabout pollution, noxious fumes, hazardous radiation, corrosive acids, radioactive elements, oxidizing agents.

And let's not forget the human ailments: aphasia, epilepsy, agnosia, stroke, schizophrenia, dysarthria, multiple sclerosis, apraxia, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, meningitis, autism, encephalitis, cerebral palsy, Bell's palsy, Tourette's syndrome, central pontine myelinolysis, dementia, hydrocephalus, psychosis, neuritis, vertigo, phenylketonuria, porphyrias, neoplasms, synesthesia, hypertensive encephalopathy, paracusia, mania, and tons of other neurological dysfunctions. These are just the mental ones. Let's not forget the blood ones: hemophilia, leukemia, anemia, lymphoma, myeloma, sepsis and blood poisoning, purpura and vasculitis, neutropenia, cholemia, iron deficiencies and a ridiculous number of other disorders that are neither caused by nor the result of infection or the environment - they just happen. I won't go into the rest of the diseases and disorders or else this post would be ten times longer.

Yes, all these things are evidence of God's praise and worship. If he exists, he is an asshole.

The truth is, if you really want to take everything into account, nature is populated by an enormous number of contrasts and juxtapositions, only a sliver of which I would consider remotely beautiful and perfect and by design. Everything else is a mangled bag of failure just struggling to survive.


But the REAL problem with saying God is behind these things is that it's not really a satisfactory answer. Answering a question in science always leads to more questions, in much the same way that cutting up a piece of fruit will lead to more pieces of fruit. Eating some of those pieces - obtaining knowledge through observation and experimentation - means less fruit will be lying around even though there are more (smaller) pieces. Using a God-of-the-gaps argument (or in this case, God of the remaining pieces) for some of life's more evocative questions isn't consuming fruit, it's just cutting it up into more and more pieces and you're still hungry with twice as many questions. How did God make the sunrise? Why did God make the sunrise? Why couldn't it be God's cousin or somebody else? What was the process that went into sunrise making? How long did it take to make it? Can it be reproduced? Do all sunrises need transparent atmospheres to scatter light? Do all animals see sunrises the same way?

(yes, the fruit analogy was deliberate)

Reverting to a theological "God did it" position brings up hows, whys, whens, what fors and other annoying questions that cannot be resolved without further circular reasoning. It may be useful as a stopgap for insufficient data, but it's ultimately inadequate as far as explaining the bigger picture.

When someone asks me what I see when I look at a sunrise, I tell them the truth: An optical illusion brought on by the sun's rays passing through the earth's atmosphere at a severe angle resulting in a great deal of atmospheric refraction with the solar light being scattered by the air molecules producing a wide spectrum of gradient colors. That's not to say that I can't - or don't - appreciate it, just that I recognize what it is I'm seeing.

It is pretty, after all.
 
2013-01-18 09:07:31 PM

peeledpeas: You assume much about me.


I assume you're intelligent and can listen to reason.

Am I being presumptuous?
 
2013-01-18 09:24:33 PM

Ishkur: peeledpeas: You assume much about me.

I assume you're intelligent and can listen to reason.

Am I being presumptuous?


Not if "reason" means that I must believe everything you believe. To assume that your point of view is the only reasonable one is highly arrogant.
 
2013-01-18 09:28:03 PM

peeledpeas: Ishkur: peeledpeas: You assume much about me.

I assume you're intelligent and can listen to reason.

Am I being presumptuous?

Not if "reason" means that I must believe everything you believe. To assume that your point of view is the only reasonable one is highly arrogant.


Do you feel that it is reasonable to believe that God does not and has never existed?
 
2013-01-18 09:34:04 PM

peeledpeas: Ishkur: peeledpeas: You assume much about me.

I assume you're intelligent and can listen to reason.

Am I being presumptuous?

Not if "reason" means that I must believe everything you believe. To assume that your point of view is the only reasonable one is highly arrogant.


It's reasonable because it has a great deal of evidence to back it up. The only evidence of God is a book written from word-of-mouth stories several centuries after all the supposed events happened. That's also the only evidence of all the other deities humanity created over the years, but Christians arrogantly insist that their one God is the only one that exists.
 
2013-01-18 10:13:13 PM

peeledpeas: Not if "reason" means that I must believe everything you believe. To assume that your point of view is the only reasonable one is highly arrogant.


I'm not asking you to believe everything I believe because I don't believe in anything. I'm serious: I quite literally do not know what that word means. I am to understand it means accepting something as true irrespective of any empirical evidence or confirmation, correct? ....I do not know how to do that.

So I do not believe.

What I do is ACCEPT the statistical probability of our current understanding of our observations of the faculties and properties of the Universe given the available evidence.

So I'm not asking you to believe. I'm asking you to understand.

It is not arrogant to point out and explain facts.
 
2013-01-18 11:10:49 PM

Robert Farker: Do you feel that it is reasonable to believe that God does not and has never existed?


Yes. God tells us in the Bible that there will be many more who do not believe than do believe.


Keizer_Ghidorah: It's reasonable because it has a great deal of evidence to back it up. The only evidence of God is a book written from word-of-mouth stories several centuries after all the supposed events happened. That's also the only evidence of all the other deities humanity created over the years, but Christians arrogantly insist that their one God is the only one that exists.


Jesus is also proof of God's existence. Even his enemies of the time wrote about the things He was doing and did not deny the miracles He performed. Why would His enemies confirm His activities? Many people of mixed company were there and witnessed Jesus raise Lazerus back to life after being in a tomb for three days. Jesus fulfills hundreds of prophecies. That kind of thing cannot be faked. Also, I don't know if you begun to understand my position or not but I would rather rely on God instead of the limited intellect of mankind.

Ishkur: So I'm not asking you to believe. I'm asking you to understand.


Oh, I understand that the things we see around us can mislead us into thinking certain things. When you take God out of the equation, it becomes much more complicated.
 
2013-01-18 11:21:07 PM

peeledpeas: Oh, I understand that the things we see around us can mislead us into thinking certain things


Like what?

peeledpeas: When you take God out of the equation, it becomes much more complicated.


No it doesn't. Especially when he wasn't part of the equation to begin with.

Besides, what does complexity have to do with it? Do things have to be simple to work? ....I thought the theory was that things are TOO complex to happen without a creator, now you're saying adding God makes it simpler? ....how does that work?
 
2013-01-18 11:23:06 PM
phlegmmo:

Cheers!
 
2013-01-18 11:28:53 PM

Ishkur: Cheers!


Tip o' the hat
 
2013-01-18 11:57:19 PM

peeledpeas: Jesus is also proof of God's existence. Even his enemies of the time wrote about the things He was doing and did not deny the miracles He performed. Why would His enemies confirm His activities? Many people of mixed company were there and witnessed Jesus raise Lazerus back to life after being in a tomb for three days. Jesus fulfills hundreds of prophecies. That kind of thing cannot be faked. Also, I don't know if you begun to understand my position or not but I would rather rely on God instead of the limited intellect of mankind.


They never mentioned any of the miracles he supposedly did. I'm also curious as to what prophecies Jesus supposedly fulfilled, since there's still sin and most of humanity is still sentenced to eternal indescribable torture. And what was Jesus needed for, God couldn't just wave his hand and fix everything that he screwed up to begin with? He put the one thing he didn't want Adam and Eve touching right in the middle of the garden (and since they had no idea of right or wrong, they couldn't know why it would be wrong to eat from it), then did a piss-poor job of keeping the only thing in existence that was against him (Lucifer) out of the garden. And what was God's response when the only possible outcome happened (which he knew would happen, being all-knowing and all)? He throws such a tantrum that he curses all of creation to punish two humans and all of their descendants until such time as God destroys existence.

It's also funny how God only seemed concerned about a tiny patch of desert in the Middle East when it came to all of his actions, since the rest of the world had no knowledge of him until the Christians started forcing it on them under threat of genocide. Apparently for an omnipotent being God has trouble paying attention to more than one place at a time.

/also, most of what's in the Bible was taken practically word-for-word from earlier and contemporary religions, with the names of the characters changed
 
2013-01-19 12:08:41 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: I'm also curious as to what prophecies Jesus supposedly fulfilled, since there's still sin and most of humanity is still sentenced to eternal indescribable torture.


This is a good point.

It seems to me that Odin promised to protect us from the Ice Giants and he has been very, very successful.

If I ever decide that magic is real I am definitely going to sign up for the Norse religion.

/Loki is only mischievous ... not truly evil like the devil. Win-win for everyone.
 
2013-01-19 12:24:20 AM

Farking Canuck: Keizer_Ghidorah: I'm also curious as to what prophecies Jesus supposedly fulfilled, since there's still sin and most of humanity is still sentenced to eternal indescribable torture.

This is a good point.

It seems to me that Odin promised to protect us from the Ice Giants and he has been very, very successful.

If I ever decide that magic is real I am definitely going to sign up for the Norse religion.

/Loki is only mischievous ... not truly evil like the devil. Win-win for everyone.


Was Lucifer really evil? Looking through God's resume, he seems to be the truly evil one of the story. Lucifer didn't curse creation because two humans ate figs and became intelligent (and God wanted them to stay stupid so they would always worship him), didn't try to destroy creation with a flood because a few thousand humans didn't kowtow to him, didn't send ten plagues on Egypt, ruin Job's life, order an old man to sacrifice his son as a test of loyalty, or the multitude of other horrors described in the Bible. All Lucifer did was challenge God's idea of how to do things.
 
2013-01-19 12:32:45 AM

peeledpeas: Jesus is also proof of God's existence. Even his enemies of the time wrote about the things He was doing and did not deny the miracles He performed. Why would His enemies confirm His activities?


They didn't. There are no contemporary sources of Jesus' life or ministry. Everything written about him has come two generations after he died, and of all the official sources that mention anything about him, the only one who mentions anything was Tacitus, and all he mentioned was that there was a cult of Khristos, and that it's leader/founder was tried for sedition and crucified during the reign of Tiberius on orders by Pontius Pilate. That's it.

Seutonius and Josephus also mention the Christ cult but they were likely getting their info from Tacitus. None of them mention Jesus specifically.

Jesus' life is a complete mystery. We have no evidence, no confirmation, no firsthand accounts or sources, and no objective verification that anything he did in his life actually happened. The nativity, the sermons, the miracles... all are completely specious and unfounded. We do know he existed, and we know he was a rabbi with a following who was crucified, but that's as far as any corroborative evidence can tell us.

The general consensus among the first generation of Christians in the 1st century was that Jesus was going to return within their lifetimes. It was only when they got old and most of them started dying off that they realized it might not actually happen so they started bickering about what to do and before long the upstart religion had about a dozen denominations and schisms. Each of them scrambled to write down what they could remember about Jesus. These writings became the gospels.

There were over 50 gospels in the Christian Church at one point, some of them not very flattering about the life of Jesus. Only four of them made it into New Testament canon - the most exalted ones that affirmed each other and affirmed the selected dogma of Jesus being God. Some others were semi-canonical or apocryphal, but nearly all of them were eventually destroyed, discredited, censored or branded as heresy by the Nicene Creed (Catholicism wiped out all the other sects). Some formed the basis for other early schisms of Christianity (Gnosticism, Christianic Judaism, Marcionism/Arianism). Only about a dozen exist as complete works today. Others exist partially or as surviving fragments. Over half are completely lost to time and mystery.

So even if you think you know everything about Jesus... you don't know anything about Jesus.
 
2013-01-19 12:37:11 AM

peeledpeas: Mock26: HighZoolander: peeledpeas: The evidence I cite is something that you people will explain away as, "it just happened that way". I believe the sideways tilt of the planet Uranus is an indicator that something supernatural exists (big comet knocked it sideways? Really?). Also, the precise placement of the Earth in orbit. A slight variation in either direction and we fry or freeze. The complexity of the Earths ecosystem could not have happened by chance. And, the very idea that the entire Universe appeared out of no where, in a "big bang", for no reason other than, "we say it happened" is stupid. Where I see proof, you see "it just happened".

Also, I am not a female and I have posted since 2005.

Where you see people saying 'it just happened' the rest of us see people making reasoned arguments based on observations and *gasp* evidence.

It's very strange to me that you see 'proof' in the absence of evidence, but not in its presence. It's like you'll happily jump off a cliff but are scared to step off the sidewalk because it's too high. Makes no sense to me.

Brainwashing as a child.

And you couldn't be more wrong. I became a Christian well into adult life.


What were you raised as, then?

And why no response to my other post? Hmmm?
 
2013-01-19 04:53:16 AM

peeledpeas:
Jesus is also proof of God's existence. Even his enemies of the time wrote about the things He was doing and did not deny the miracles He performed. Why would His enemies confirm His activities? Many people of mixed company were there and witnessed Jesus raise Lazerus back to life after being in a tomb for three days. Jesus fulfills hundreds of prophecies. That kind of thing cannot be faked. Also, I don't know if you begun to understand my position or not but I would rather rely on God instead of the limited intellect of mankind.


It's already been pointed out to you that the Bible is an unreliable source. Your claim that it can not be faked is 100% baseless and self-serving. It's arrogant to ask people to understand a position that you can not explain or justify externally. It's arrogant to expect people to understand you when you say the same things about other religions that we are saying about yours. If God were real I'm willing to bet he would be disappointed by your arrogance and wonder why you chose to follow one of man's many flawed religions.

The reason people are arguing with you is because of posts like this one. You try to prove things without credible evidence. Do you actually realize fully how things are done in Science? Science deals with facts that can be measured and observed repeatedly. Nothing in the Bible can be measured or observed much less repeatedly. There is no justification in treating the Bible as gospel. You would same the same thing about any other holy book I'm sure.

This is completely a matter of us observing that you are claiming to know far more information that you can provide proof for. Also, as you have demonstrated, your standard for "evidence" is below useless.
 
2013-01-19 05:08:47 AM

peeledpeas: Jesus is also proof of God's existence.


No. jesus is proof that jesus existed. That is it. But, since you obviously think differently, please explain in great detail exactly how jesus is proof that god exists. Is there a birth certificate with god's name on it? Did god come down and deliver jesus himself? Did jesus have a "made by god" sticker on the bottom of his foot? Maybe god's signature was on is butt? Please, give us this proof that you claim is there. Merely stating that jesus is proof of god's existence is not proof. That is what is known as a bare assertion fallacy.
 
2013-01-19 05:10:05 AM

peeledpeas: Jesus is also proof of God's existence. Even his enemies of the time wrote about the things He was doing and did not deny the miracles He performed. Why would His enemies confirm His activities? Many people of mixed company were there and witnessed Jesus raise Lazerus back to life after being in a tomb for three days. Jesus fulfills hundreds of prophecies. That kind of thing cannot be faked. Also, I don't know if you begun to understand my position or not but I would rather rely on God instead of the limited intellect of mankind.


What enemies? What testimonials? Please give us examples of these enemies reporting his miracles. And, of course, you will provide us with non-biblical sources, right?
 
2013-01-19 05:43:12 AM

peeledpeas: If the origin of life is God then certainly God is the origin of the universe.


Why?

These articles point out that life cannot come from lifelessness.

Those articles (assuming I'm looking at the right links) are from creationists. I generally assume that everything a creationist says (WRT the relevant topics) is wrong (if not an outright lie) unless proven otherwise. What little I bothered to read at those links was, you know, wrong, including the egg-or-hen fallacy with protons. Wrong wrong wrong.

Living things are made of the same things as non-living things. The same atoms, the same electrons, the same laws of nature. The only difference between life and non-life is the way the elements are arranged. There is no reason why life shouldn't be able to come from lifelessness.

If life cannot come from lifelessness,

You're basing your argument on an unfounded postulation.

then there had to be a creator. It is logical, then, if a creator created life, He also created the universe.

Who created the creator?
 
2013-01-19 05:49:38 AM

peeledpeas: Jesus is also proof of God's existence.


First of all, no.

Second: do you have proof that Jesus existed?

Even his enemies of the time wrote about the things He was doing and did not deny the miracles He performed. Why would His enemies confirm His activities?

Who? Where did they write about these things?

Many people of mixed company were there and witnessed Jesus raise Lazerus back to life after being in a tomb for three days. Jesus fulfills hundreds of prophecies. That kind of thing cannot be faked.

Maybe no, but it can be made up.

Also, I don't know if you begun to understand my position or not but I would rather rely on God instead of the limited intellect of mankind.

The limited intellect of mankind is real. I have no reason to believe your God is real.
 
Displayed 416 of 416 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report