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.

(Some Guy)   Wanted: scientists to ignore science for Jesus   (icr.org) divider line 321
    More: Stupid, creation scientists, Little Wonder, ICR  
•       •       •

9168 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jul 2013 at 12:29 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-25 09:43:36 AM
these people are farking crazy, and they're farking dangerous.
 
2013-07-25 09:54:54 AM
"Although you should not be dishonest about what you believe, it's probably prudent to not draw attention to your creationist beliefs while you are a student, particularly if you are in a field that directly touches upon the origins controversy (such as paleontology, biology, or geology)"

They're getting cagier.
 
2013-07-25 09:55:18 AM
Neil deGrasse Tyson put it best.  Paraphrasing here, if you're content enough that "god did it" and you aren't curious to find out the truth, that's fine but I don't need you in my lab.  You're useless to me.
 
2013-07-25 10:41:10 AM
Good luck with that.

Here's a hint: if you are looking for data to shore up the conclusion at the outset, as opposed to coming up with a conclusion from the data, you're not doing "science." And calling it "science" doesn't make it so. I can call a cat a dog, and I might even convince her to make a sound on occasion that sounds like a bark, but calling her a dog ain't going to make it so, and I'm not going to convince anyone that isn't terminally brain damaged that she's a dog either...
 
2013-07-25 10:46:27 AM
Therefore, we appeal to any Bible-believing young person with an interest in science-have you considered cultivating that science interest for the glory of God?

It's a good thing they didn't include computer science, cause that shiat don't compute.
 
2013-07-25 10:46:51 AM

hubiestubert: if you are looking for data to shore up the conclusion the outset, as opposed to coming up with a conclusion from the data, you're not doing "science." And calling it "science" doesn't make it so.



i54.tinypic.com
 
2013-07-25 10:47:46 AM

hubiestubert: Good luck with that.

Here's a hint: if you are looking for data to shore up the conclusion at the outset, as opposed to coming up with a conclusion from the data, you're not doing "science." And calling it "science" doesn't make it so. I can call a cat a dog, and I might even convince her to make a sound on occasion that sounds like a bark, but calling her a dog ain't going to make it so, and I'm not going to convince anyone that isn't terminally brain damaged that she's a dog either...


But it's easier to find the question once you have the answer isn't it?

/btw, correct answer is 42
 
2013-07-25 11:38:18 AM
"Are you willing to bear false witness for Jesus?"
 
2013-07-25 12:32:13 PM
Not sure what's more mind-boggling.

The admission that the only thing holding "Creation Science" back is the lack of scientists.

OR

The horribly self-serving career advice.
 
2013-07-25 12:32:30 PM
I won't name any names, but there are a number of Farkers who fit the bill.
 
2013-07-25 12:32:51 PM
phillbarron.files.wordpress.com
What does God need with a scientist?
 
2013-07-25 12:33:37 PM
creationists:  science is boring.  lets fark
atheists:  lets ignore our urges and control teh universe
 
2013-07-25 12:33:43 PM
"Given the increasing anti-Christian sentiment in society and the academic persecution in the secular universities, there may very well come a day when it will no longer be possible for a Bible-believing Christian to get an advanced degree in the natural sciences."
 
2013-07-25 12:34:00 PM

hubiestubert: Good luck with that.

Here's a hint: if you are looking for data to shore up the conclusion at the outset, as opposed to coming up with a conclusion from the data, you're not doing "science." And calling it "science" doesn't make it so. I can call a cat a dog, and I might even convince her to make a sound on occasion that sounds like a bark, but calling her a dog ain't going to make it so, and I'm not going to convince anyone that isn't terminally brain damaged that she's a dog either...


You described perfectly everything that is wrong with the AGW wackos.
/yeah I trolled ya
 
2013-07-25 12:35:30 PM
* Dr. Hebert is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research

What the hell is "Creation Research"? I mean it seems pretty cut and dried:

Hypothesis: god did it.
Evidence: The Bible says so.
Hypothesis confirmed, 'nuff said.

What more research can you do?
 
2013-07-25 12:35:43 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: "Given the increasing anti-Christian sentiment in society and the academic persecution in the secular universities, there may very well come a day when it will no longer be possible for a Bible-believing Christian to get an advanced degree in the natural sciences."


funnycatwallpapers.com
 
2013-07-25 12:35:47 PM
Given the increasing anti-Christian sentiment in society and the academic persecution in the secular universities, there may very well come a day when it will no longer be possible for a Bible-believing Christian to get an advanced degree in the natural sciences.

You can't have an advanced degree in the natural sciences and certainly not in biology or genetics without understanding how evolution works. This is like becoming an astronomer and refusing to believe in stars.
 
2013-07-25 12:36:03 PM
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a cat have? Four: a tail isn't a leg, no matter what you call it.
 
2013-07-25 12:36:05 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: "Given the increasing anti-Christian sentiment in society and the academic persecution in the secular universities, there may very well come a day when it will no longer be possible for a Bible-believing Christian to get an advanced degree in the natural sciences."


Imagine that. People stop tolerating pseudoscience.
 
2013-07-25 12:36:43 PM

nekom: Neil deGrasse Tyson put it best.  Paraphrasing here, if you're content enough that "god did it" and you aren't curious to find out the truth how he did it, that's fine but I don't need you in my lab.  You're useless to me.


FTFY from the Mormon Perspective.  The Glory of God is intelligence, so why couldnt he have employed science?
 
2013-07-25 12:37:37 PM
creationists:  believe in teh power of the mind
atheists:  believe in the power of historical tricks to make you believe in disease
 
2013-07-25 12:38:01 PM
There has never more appropriate to post this image:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-25 12:38:27 PM
Creation science.
Jumbo shrimp.
Military intelligence.
Postal service.
Homeopathic medicine.
Civil war.
 
2013-07-25 12:38:34 PM

FlashHarry: hubiestubert: if you are looking for data to shore up the conclusion the outset, as opposed to coming up with a conclusion from the data, you're not doing "science." And calling it "science" doesn't make it so.


[i54.tinypic.com image 338x434]


So you're telling me scientists don't exclude data or marginalize data that points to intelligent design? Give me a break.
 
2013-07-25 12:39:24 PM
There has never been a more appropriate time to post this image:

//How did i miss three words?
 
2013-07-25 12:40:37 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: * Dr. Hebert is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research

What the hell is "Creation Research"? I mean it seems pretty cut and dried:

Hypothesis: god did it.
Evidence: The Bible says so.
Hypothesis confirmed, 'nuff said.

What more research can you do?


It's not about research. It's about trying to  refute reality  while dressing Biblical Creationism up in a lab coat, like this idiot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1msS71xL00&
 
2013-07-25 12:40:41 PM

studs up: You described perfectly everything that is wrong with the AGW wackos.
/yeah I trolled ya


And demonstrated how little you know about science in the process. Good for you, it will make it easier for sane people to add you to their ignore lists.
 
2013-07-25 12:41:13 PM
www.theblindcard.com
 
2013-07-25 12:41:25 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: "Given the increasing anti-Christian sentiment in society and the academic persecution in the secular universities, there may very well come a day when it will no longer be possible for a Bible-believing Christian to get an advanced degree in the natural sciences."


img0.joyreactor.cc
 
2013-07-25 12:41:28 PM
I just called and asked why these people purport to be doing science. I pointed out they do nothing of the sort, and that it is theology at best. At least the old white-haired southerly lady was pseudo-polite and said "Thank you for your call" in this really annoying nasally voice.
 
2013-07-25 12:41:37 PM

Gordon Bennett: Creation science.
Jumbo shrimp.
Military intelligence.
Postal service.
Homeopathic medicine.
Civil war.


Every mail deliverer I've ever had has been awesome. Their service has been exemplary. All your arguments are nullified. Science!
 
2013-07-25 12:41:40 PM
No, seriously: is this a joke?
 
2013-07-25 12:41:41 PM
Oh come on now, they're just looking for honest scientists...

You know, as opposed to the millions of dishonest scientists that are part of Satan's massive conspiracy and who are constantly, deliberately deceiving the rest of us in order to usher in a new age of supernatural darkness under the claws of a fiery demon lord from another dimension.

Duh.
 
2013-07-25 12:42:57 PM
Creation trolls have a pretty high bar to clear here on Fark. This current crop is pathetic.
 
2013-07-25 12:43:09 PM

The Irresponsible Captain: There has never been a more appropriate time to post this image:

//How did i miss three words?


Rarely is the question asked: Is our children The Irresponsible Captain posting images their learning?
 
2013-07-25 12:43:38 PM
They aren't even trying to hide that they're starting from a conclusion and working backwards to evidence. That's either terrible science or not science at all, but it's surely some big brass ones.
 
2013-07-25 12:43:53 PM

1nsanilicious: So you're telling me scientists don't exclude data or marginalize data that points to intelligent design? Give me a break.


You beg the question here by insinuating that there is data that points to intelligent design in the first place.

Here's a clue for you. For centuries after the Enlightenment, Creationism was the default and dominant theory in the sciences. Every scientist was trying to prove the glory of God. They couldn't do it because all their data pointed the other way. Creationism was disproved in spite of the efforts of all the greatest scientists of the time.
 
2013-07-25 12:44:03 PM

1nsanilicious: So you're telling me scientists don't exclude data or marginalize data that points to intelligent design?


Citations needed on that excluded or marginalized data.
 
2013-07-25 12:44:13 PM

1nsanilicious: FlashHarry: hubiestubert: if you are looking for data to shore up the conclusion the outset, as opposed to coming up with a conclusion from the data, you're not doing "science." And calling it "science" doesn't make it so.


[i54.tinypic.com image 338x434]

So you're telling me scientists don't exclude data or marginalize data that points to intelligent design? Give me a break.


6/10
 
2013-07-25 12:44:33 PM

1nsanilicious: FlashHarry: hubiestubert: if you are looking for data to shore up the conclusion the outset, as opposed to coming up with a conclusion from the data, you're not doing "science." And calling it "science" doesn't make it so.


[i54.tinypic.com image 338x434]

So you're telling me scientists don't exclude data or marginalize data that points to intelligent design? Give me a break.


Yes.
lgcdn.candyfavorites.com
 
2013-07-25 12:45:15 PM

1nsanilicious: nekom: Neil deGrasse Tyson put it best.  Paraphrasing here, if you're content enough that "god did it" and you aren't curious to find out the truth how he did it, that's fine but I don't need you in my lab.  You're useless to me.

FTFY from the Mormon Perspective.  The Glory of God is intelligence, so why couldnt he have employed science?


And that was the prevailing attitude of most Christian scientists (as opposed to Christian Scientists) for a long time. It's only with the recent rise in uneducated, populist, Bible-literalist sects that people find science a threat to their faith.
 
2013-07-25 12:45:25 PM
i.imgur.com

The answer is always "Jesus"
 
2013-07-25 12:45:49 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: "Given the increasing anti-Christian sentiment in society and the academic persecution in the secular universities, there may very well come a day when it will no longer be possible for a Bible-believing Christian to get an advanced degree in the natural sciences."


Because they won't be able to pass the farking tests.

--Describe the method of radiocarbon dating?

-----It's a horrible lie put out by SATAN!

/Yeah, that's an F.
//Yes, I know someone who basically answered the question like that.
 
2013-07-25 12:46:30 PM

1nsanilicious: So you're telling me scientists don't exclude data or marginalize data that points to intelligent design? Give me a break.


Mostly, they just disprove intelligent design. This isn't as easy as it looks, though, since intelligent design proponents desperately avoid the notion of proving their own theory and rely instead on attempts to disprove evolution.
 
2013-07-25 12:46:42 PM

MythDragon: [i.imgur.com image 474x739]

The answer is always "Jesus"

42

FTFY.

//Don't forget your towel
 
2013-07-25 12:46:43 PM

KiltedBastich: 1nsanilicious: So you're telling me scientists don't exclude data or marginalize data that points to intelligent design? Give me a break.

You beg the question here by insinuating that there is data that points to intelligent design in the first place.

Here's a clue for you. For centuries after the Enlightenment, Creationism was the default and dominant theory in the sciences. Every scientist was trying to prove the glory of God. They couldn't do it because all their data pointed the other way. Creationism was disproved in spite of the efforts of all the greatest scientists of the time.


Creationism hasn't been disproven by science. Never has been, never will be.
 
2013-07-25 12:47:21 PM

1nsanilicious: So you're telling me scientists don't exclude data or marginalize data that points to intelligent design? Give me a break.


You do make an excellent point. Shame on the scientific community for not taking photoshops made by Kirk Cameron more seriously.
 
2013-07-25 12:47:38 PM
i42.tinypic.com

"Did God make this disease bacteria, or Satan?  Let's check the Bible to be sure".
 
2013-07-25 12:47:40 PM

DraconianTotalitarian: I just called and asked why these people purport to be doing science.

tentpegs.patrickmead.net
Cargo-cult science.
 
2013-07-25 12:48:03 PM
i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 50 of 321 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report