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.
Duplicate of another approved link: 7304325


(Liberals Unite)   Creationists respond to Bill Nye's assertion that Creationism is not appropriate for kids with the class and wisdom you've come to expect   (samuel-warde.com) divider line 116
    More: Obvious, the Science Guy, creation museum, image of God, Answers in Genesis, innovations  
•       •       •

2917 clicks; Favorite

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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-11 06:39:45 AM
I didn't watch the videos but the written answer wasn't at all vile or tasteless.

Just sayin.
 
2013-03-11 07:01:33 AM
Well, the wisdom certainly wasn't there, but they maintained their class. It wasn't a Westboro-style name calling tantrum video. Lots of derp but not much hurr.
 
2013-03-11 07:40:15 AM
6 month old news is ancient in intertube years.
 
2013-03-11 07:52:37 AM
I've been to that Museum. It's cool as sh*t.
 
2013-03-11 07:58:36 AM
Wow, nothing beats reading/hearing about/watching the same scientist/fundamentalist slapfight about evolution for the 657th time.
 
2013-03-11 08:00:05 AM
You know Brown and Ohio State just loooove when people read press releases and see these two hacks mention where they got their PhDs.
 
2013-03-11 08:01:12 AM
Why these people believe their religious mythology should be taught as science is beyond me. They've already been slapped down by the courts on this, as well.

Creationism/Intelligent Design belongs in a Comparative Religion or Mythology class, not in a Science class.
 
2013-03-11 08:04:32 AM
Something creepy about that guy. I'm guessing he's not a married man. Just sayin', you know, you might want to tell your kids, especially the little boys, to keep some distance.
 
2013-03-11 08:05:24 AM

indylaw: Wow, nothing beats reading/hearing about/watching the same scientist/fundamentalist slapfight about evolution for the 657th time.


How about commenting on it?
 
2013-03-11 08:08:11 AM
I'm concerned that when we bicker about things like this for which there's no resolution of difference, we lose sight of the true threats we all face.
 
2013-03-11 08:09:32 AM
You don't punch down, Bill.  There's nothing you're going to get from these mouth-breathers and there's everything they're going to get from you.
 
2013-03-11 08:09:55 AM

indylaw: I'm concerned that when we bicker about things like this for which there's no resolution of difference, we lose sight of the true threats we all face.


The anti-science crowd IS one if the true threats we all face.
 
2013-03-11 08:10:36 AM
The Judeo-Christian creation myth is just as scientific as the Wiccan, Greek, Roman, Indian, Native American, an cult of the sub Genius creation myths, they should teach them all!
 
2013-03-11 08:11:58 AM
FTFA: We tell people that they do have purpose and meaning in life and that they were created for a purpose. 'No, we are not just evolved animals as Nye believes; we are all made in the image of God.'

There's a certain strain of "intellectual" fundamentalism which teaches that a "secular humanist" is only living consistently with his beliefs if he spends all of his time wallowing in nihilistic existential despair. When "secular humanists" then fail to live "correctly," it tends to attract lots of angry foot stomping and repeated accusations of intellectual dishonesty. There's very little that pisses off one of these people more than someone living positively or believing in a cause.

(And, of course, the phrase "secular humanist" can usually be read "anyone who isn't a fundamentalist.")

/Oh and yeah, old news is so exciting...
 
2013-03-11 08:13:53 AM
When did Christians lose their faith and feel the need to be proven right?
 
2013-03-11 08:17:31 AM

Noam Chimpsky: Something creepy about that guy. I'm guessing he's not a married man. Just sayin', you know, you might want to tell your kids, especially the little boys, to keep some distance.


Yeah, it's odd, now that you mention it; I've looked at several online biographies of the guy, and nowhere does it mention his family.  I thought that sort of thing was supposed to be important to creationists.
 
2013-03-11 08:18:13 AM
To me there really is no conflict in teaching both creationism and evolution. They are two distinct elements working together.There are natural occurring phenomenon (mutations, adaptations, etc) that can result in new species and advancements within others. But there is a guiding force that steers these things. They can't happen in a vacuum. It's like building an airplane. Man creates the device in such a way as to take advantage of the existing laws of aerodynamics and physics. God created life in such a way to take advantage of its environment.

Perhaps our "expert scientists" learned another way.
 
2013-03-11 08:18:53 AM

keylock71: Why these people believe their religious mythology should be taught as science is beyond me. They've already been slapped down by the courts on this, as well.

Creationism/Intelligent Design belongs in a Comparative Religion or Mythology class, not in a Science class.


You know, for people who claim to adhere to their strong faith, they sure need reaffirming of it constantly. Its almost as if they are mainly trying to convince themselves.
 
2013-03-11 08:19:29 AM

Free Radical: When did Christians lose their faith and feel the need to be proven right?


Well, Contra Celsum was written in 248CE, so sometime before then.
 
2013-03-11 08:20:10 AM
A creationist called Ham. So, he's black?

/and cursed
 
2013-03-11 08:21:08 AM

UNC_Samurai: Yeah, it's odd, now that you mention it; I've looked at several online biographies of the guy, and nowhere does it mention his family.  I thought that sort of thing was supposed to be important to creationists.


I don't respect the man or his idiot cause, but I can respect if he wants to keep his family out of the controversial spotlight.  I mean, yes, he's trying to force his idiot cause on OTHER families, but in the meantime if he wants to prevent his kids from being harassed, hey...

Then again, he may have never married because he is too busy with his idiot cause to be interested in sex.
 
2013-03-11 08:21:48 AM

WinoRhino: To me there really is no conflict in teaching both creationism and evolution.


static.neatorama.com
 
2013-03-11 08:23:31 AM
I just love presentations whose only purpose is to give some flimsy and well worn arguments to people with too little capacity to think for themselves.

The critique of 'historical' science.


1) we can't test the explanatory ideas regarding phenomena we are unable to personally witness
2) The origin and history of the universe is beyond our capacity to personally witness
3) God was a personal witness to the origin and history of the universe.

ERGO

we ought to believe what God says about the origin and history of the universe.

WELL! I have go with God then, who certainly isn't an idea from our perspective but a self revealing objective truth!

/sweet beautiful derp
 
2013-03-11 08:25:22 AM
jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com

//Article is from September 2012, subby.
 
2013-03-11 08:26:28 AM

Close2TheEdge: [jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com image 302x409]

//Article is from September 2012, subby.


Eh, I've never heard about any of this, so it's new to me. I spend way more time than is healthy on the internet, but even I can't catch everything.
 
2013-03-11 08:27:34 AM
Creationists are creepier than Scientologists.
 
2013-03-11 08:27:52 AM

WinoRhino: To me there really is no conflict in teaching both creationism and evolution. They are two distinct elements working together.There are natural occurring phenomenon (mutations, adaptations, etc) that can result in new species and advancements within others. But there is a guiding force that steers these things. They can't happen in a vacuum. It's like building an airplane. Man creates the device in such a way as to take advantage of the existing laws of aerodynamics and physics. God created life in such a way to take advantage of its environment.

Perhaps our "expert scientists" learned another way.


Citation needed.  And if you say the Bible, punch yourself in the balls.

//Hint:  The "guiding force" is the evolutionary process and natural selection.itself.
 
2013-03-11 08:29:22 AM

WinoRhino: To me there really is no conflict in teaching both creationism and evolution.


Here's your problem:

There are natural occurring phenomenon (mutations, adaptations, etc) that can result in new species and advancements within others.

That's evolution.

But there is a guiding force that steers these things.

That's not creationism.
 
2013-03-11 08:31:02 AM

WinoRhino: To me there really is no conflict in teaching both creationism and evolution. They are two distinct elements working together.There are natural occurring phenomenon (mutations, adaptations, etc) that can result in new species and advancements within others. But there is a guiding force that steers these things. They can't happen in a vacuum. It's like building an airplane. Man creates the device in such a way as to take advantage of the existing laws of aerodynamics and physics. God created life in such a way to take advantage of its environment.

Perhaps our "expert scientists" learned another way.


I'll just leave this here for you.

wiki.ironchariots.org
 
2013-03-11 08:31:12 AM

WinoRhino:  But there is a guiding force that steers these things. They can't happen in a vacuum.



Why can't they?
 
2013-03-11 08:32:14 AM

Close2TheEdge: Citation needed.  And if you say the Bible, punch yourself in the balls.

//Hint:  The "guiding force" is the evolutionary process and natural selection.itself.


Do you see how silly that sounds? It's like saying "the wind blows because that's what it does." Saying the path that something takes is the result of the path itself completely omits the idea that something had to form the path in the first place!

Preposterous. Obviously, evolutionists' suggested laws are whimsy.
 
2013-03-11 08:33:54 AM

keylock71: Why these people believe their religious mythology should be taught as science is beyond me. They've already been slapped down by the courts on this, as well.

Creationism/Intelligent Design belongs in a Comparative Religion or Mythology class, not in a Science class.


I don't know about mythology. Those classes are more about history and the mythology's contributions to literary tradition. Creationism as I know it is too new to be history and creationists don't write anything that helps literary canon. Except for people that do parody, satire, et. al.
 
2013-03-11 08:36:38 AM

WinoRhino: To me there really is no conflict in teaching both creationism and evolution. They are two distinct elements working together.There are natural occurring phenomenon (mutations, adaptations, etc) that can result in new species and advancements within others. But there is a guiding force that steers these things. They can't happen in a vacuum. It's like building an airplane. Man creates the device in such a way as to take advantage of the existing laws of aerodynamics and physics. God created life in such a way to take advantage of its environment.

Perhaps our "expert scientists" learned another way.


You appear to be referencing a form of Intelligent Design, not creationism.  It has the exact same amount of evidence to support it as creationism, but it's a distinct idea created to quell the cognitive dissonance  that results from the collision of taught mythology with observed evidence that the believer can no longer ignore.
 
2013-03-11 08:37:46 AM

WinoRhino: Close2TheEdge: Citation needed.  And if you say the Bible, punch yourself in the balls.

//Hint:  The "guiding force" is the evolutionary process and natural selection.itself.

Do you see how silly that sounds? It's like saying "the wind blows because that's what it does." Saying the path that something takes is the result of the path itself completely omits the idea that something had to form the path in the first place!

Preposterous. Obviously, evolutionists' suggested laws are whimsy.


What? Evolution is the result of natural selection. What's not to understand about that?

/it's right there in Darwin's book
//in the TITLE of the book, even
 
2013-03-11 08:38:01 AM

keylock71: Why these people believe their religious mythology should be taught as science is beyond me. They've already been slapped down by the courts on this, as well.

Creationism/Intelligent Design belongs in a Comparative Religion or Mythology class, not in a Science class.


I think that they believe that since the assertions made about evolution are not %100 verifiable, that there totally unverifiable system is just as viable.

of course, this is insanely wrong, but there it is.
 
2013-03-11 08:38:21 AM

WinoRhino: Do you see how silly that sounds? It's like saying "the wind blows because that's what it does."


Where does god come from?
 
2013-03-11 08:39:01 AM

Khellendros: You appear to be referencing a form of Intelligent Design, not creationism.  It has the exact same amount of evidence to support it as creationism, but it's a distinct idea created to quell the cognitive dissonance  that results from the collision of taught mythology with observed evidence that the believer can no longer ignore.


"Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory:it doesn't get bogged down in details. " --Scientific American, 01 April 1995
 
2013-03-11 08:40:03 AM

Khellendros: You appear to be referencing a form of Intelligent Design, not creationism.


No, I understand the difference. I suggest God created all living things of a certain variety and then guided the process of their growth and development to what we see today. Painstakingly. Over Eons. Slowly, lasting a while.
 
2013-03-11 08:41:39 AM

WinoRhino: Close2TheEdge: Citation needed.  And if you say the Bible, punch yourself in the balls.

//Hint:  The "guiding force" is the evolutionary process and natural selection.itself.

Do you see how silly that sounds? It's like saying "the wind blows because that's what it does." Saying the path that something takes is the result of the path itself completely omits the idea that something had to form the path in the first place!

Preposterous. Obviously, evolutionists' suggested laws are whimsy.


You need to learn more about what evolution by natural selection is. It is a process that does not require any guidance. It's like the path water takes down a hill, there's no guiding hand needed at all.
 
2013-03-11 08:43:56 AM
Actually, if there is a guiding force, it wouldn't be natural selection.
 
2013-03-11 08:44:03 AM

Khellendros: WinoRhino: To me there really is no conflict in teaching both creationism and evolution. They are two distinct elements working together.There are natural occurring phenomenon (mutations, adaptations, etc) that can result in new species and advancements within others. But there is a guiding force that steers these things. They can't happen in a vacuum. It's like building an airplane. Man creates the device in such a way as to take advantage of the existing laws of aerodynamics and physics. God created life in such a way to take advantage of its environment.

Perhaps our "expert scientists" learned another way.

You appear to be referencing a form of Intelligent Design, not creationism.  It has the exact same amount of evidence to support it as creationism, but it's a distinct idea created to quell the cognitive dissonance  that results from the collision of taught mythology with observed evidence that the believer can no longer ignore.


Not quite. Intelligent design IS creationism, just stripped of superficial religious reference. It is more like old-earth creationism than the traditional young-earth creationism, in that it is okay with understanding the "days of creation" as long epochs of time, but it is still creationism. The 2005 Dover case decided on that as a matter of law, which is why most creationists now have moved away from talking about ID and have either (a) gone back to strictly referencing creationism, because the ruse has been uncovered and legally recognized as such, or (b) started talking about "strengths and weaknesses" in their proposed bills and policies as a way to sneak creationism into science classes.
 
2013-03-11 08:44:35 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Where does god come from?


Come on now. Really? I'm not in a position to answer that! The Bible say those answers come in time, though. Pray often, entertain silence, listen: answers wait.
 
2013-03-11 08:46:08 AM

WinoRhino: HotWingConspiracy: Where does god come from?

Come on now. Really? I'm not in a position to answer that! The Bible say those answers come in time, though. Pray often, entertain silence, listen: answers wait.


Then you're not making any sense.

Don't conflate your beliefs with knowledge or science.
 
2013-03-11 08:47:01 AM

WinoRhino: Close2TheEdge: Citation needed.  And if you say the Bible, punch yourself in the balls.

//Hint:  The "guiding force" is the evolutionary process and natural selection.itself.

Do you see how silly that sounds? It's like saying "the wind blows because that's what it does." Saying the path that something takes is the result of the path itself completely omits the idea that something had to form the path in the first place!

Preposterous. Obviously, evolutionists' suggested laws are whimsy.


I really hope you are trolling.  I really do.
 
2013-03-11 08:48:31 AM

WinoRhino: HotWingConspiracy: Where does god come from?

Come on now. Really? I'm not in a position to answer that! The Bible say those answers come in time, though. Pray often, entertain silence, listen: answers wait.


How did the authors of the Bible know that?
 
2013-03-11 08:48:38 AM
www.naderlibrary.com
Teach the controversy.

/Happy birthday DNA
 
2013-03-11 08:55:00 AM

HotWingConspiracy: WinoRhino: Do you see how silly that sounds? It's like saying "the wind blows because that's what it does."

Where does god come from?


And why does he need a spaceship?
 
2013-03-11 08:55:28 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Don't conflate your beliefs with knowledge or science.


But to me this is the problem. People read something that claims to be "fact" but don't really have any idea where those facts come from either. Just put a few footnotes at the bottom of the page or a blue number  in brackets like Wikipedia and suddenly it's Gospel truth (funny phrase, that).  People obliviously entertain suggestions lacking any worth.
 
2013-03-11 08:58:38 AM

WinoRhino: HotWingConspiracy: Don't conflate your beliefs with knowledge or science.

But to me this is the problem. People read something that claims to be "fact" but don't really have any idea where those facts come from either. Just put a few footnotes at the bottom of the page or a blue number  in brackets like Wikipedia and suddenly it's Gospel truth (funny phrase, that).  People obliviously entertain suggestions lacking any worth.


Who are these people who do that? That's awful!

/seriously, who are they?
 
2013-03-11 09:05:59 AM

Ilmarinen: Who are these people who do that? That's awful!

/seriously, who are they?


People.Others. Everyone. Some lawyers. All whores.
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report