Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Part I: " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Part II: " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Entertaining stuff about Creationist idiots. Must see shit. Part II is particularly informative.

Commenter: "It's pretty sad when an entire religion can be destroyed by a seven minute video."




SeattleGriz:


"Seattle to Ursus. Seattle To Ursus. Repent, you beer swilling, masturbating sinner!"

Christians

More Donk Hate

They don't stand for anything, so they attack the people that stand for something.

Gil Dobie wrote:More Donk Hate

They don't stand for anything, so they attack the people that stand for something.

Damn right, especially when you stand up for stupid shit, like religion.

So why do some of their top 10 reasons/questions have absolutely nothing to do with science/creationism?

Also find it funny that a lot of their "answers" were just questions.

Only got to watch the first video, but for putting so much time into a video, he could have done a much better job on points:
2 - Evolution can't be proven. He didn't prove that it could, just said so by quoting Gould who everyone knows believes in evolution.
4 - Irreducible complexity. Showed he didn't understand the concept at all. The point is that the eye cannot function without all it's components and thus, how does an eye gather all the needed components for no reason until it just miraculously forms an eye? Showing different versions could easily show an intelligent agent just as easily as convergent evolution does. Neither can be tested and they currently have no idea on the evolution side how it happens.
5 - Atheism is a religion. Personally don't know much about atheism and really don't care, but he could have used a better explanation than the typical "atheism is a religion, like being bald is a hair color".
6 - Scientist X believes in God. His reply that 93% of scientists don't believe in God. That proves what? I would be that 93% of scientists get their grants from pro evolution sources.
7 - Everything happened by chance. Guy doesn't even know natural selection is increasingly taking a beating as science gets better by looking at the cell and how it all functions.


There. Ya happy Capn. I bit! Didn't get a chance to watch second video. Gotta put my kids to bed, after I teach them how to be more judgmental of others.

-

How do you explain this my atheist Friends?

Bronco wrote:-

How do you explain this my atheist Friends?

Those wines suck balls. I don't see any Black Box, Steele Styme, Whitehall Lane, etc...

D1B wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:More Donk Hate

They don't stand for anything, so they attack the people that stand for something.

Damn right, especially when you stand up for stupid ****, like religion.

At least you don't deny not standing for anything.

grizzaholic wrote:

Bronco wrote:-

How do you explain this my atheist Friends?

Those wines suck balls. I don't see any Black Box, Steele Styme, Whitehall Lane, etc...

But there's at least a Menage a Trois and it's on sale!

That Jesus thinks of everything!

(quite possibly going to hell for that one.)

SeattleGriz wrote:Only got to watch the first video, but for putting so much time into a video, he could have done a much better job on points:
2 - Evolution can't be proven. He didn't prove that it could, just said so by quoting Gould who everyone knows believes in evolution.
4 - Irreducible complexity. Showed he didn't understand the concept at all. The point is that the eye cannot function without all it's components and thus, how does an eye gather all the needed components for no reason until it just miraculously forms an eye? Showing different versions could easily show an intelligent agent just as easily as convergent evolution does. Neither can be tested and they currently have no idea on the evolution side how it happens.
5 - Atheism is a religion. Personally don't know much about atheism and really don't care, but he could have used a better explanation than the typical "atheism is a religion, like being bald is a hair color".
6 - Scientist X believes in God. His reply that 93% of scientists don't believe in God. That proves what? I would be that 93% of scientists get their grants from pro evolution sources.
7 - Everything happened by chance. Guy doesn't even know natural selection is increasingly taking a beating as science gets better by looking at the cell and how it all functions.


There. Ya happy Capn. I bit! Didn't get a chance to watch second video. Gotta put my kids to bed, after I teach them how to be more judgmental of others.

Full on dumbass. Cult level, Joltin joe level Jesus robot.

I would love to sit with you guys, watch that film argument by argument, and torpedo each of them. Bear in mind that I am an agnostic; not a Christian. But this thing where atheists come on as saying they are the thinking ones then go on to display shallow thinking always gets me.

Like the thing about dating methods. No dating method has been validated with respect to the time scales the narrator was talking about. There is no reason we know of why they would not work for such time scales. But, like anything else, one cannot say that anything works beyond the conditions under which it has been experimentally demonstrated to work.

On the thing about evolution and invoking Stephen J. Gould: Stephen J. Gould rejected the traditional scientific method specifically because sticking to it would not allow him to declare...as he often did...that "evolution is a fact." I'm not talking about evolution in the sense of populations changing. That has been directly observed. I'm talking about the overall theory of evolution. Invoking Gould is invoking someone who was making a statement that could not be supported through application of the scientific method and he knew it could not be supported through application of the scientific method. Thus I once read an essay of his in which he called the scientific method "sophmoric" and went on to complain about how many of the things we think we know about other fields such as astronomy could never be considered to be certain if we stick to it.

Tough.

I also liked the thing about using some of Hitler's references to a diety while attempting to make a point about Hitler after ignoring Thomas Jefferson's repeated references to a diety in his writings. Like the big one about our unalienable rights being endowed by a "Creator" (i.e., no "Creator," no unalienable rights). Same with George Washington, by the way. Repeated referencecs to a diety. Clearly believed in one. I'd have to look it up but I'd be shocked if that wasn't the case with the other fathers of the nation the narrator mentioned as well.

On and on. I am not a creationist. But Creationism was not destroyed at all by the arguments presented in that video; at least not from the standpoint of anyone thinking beyond the first level.

BTW, I am also skeptical about the assertion that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences "reject the concept of God." I suppose I'll have to try to find the article in "The Nation" they reference.

Ok I found details on the survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences and, as I suspected, the idea that 93% "reject the existence of God" is not supported. See http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . Ironic that I found it at stephenjaygould.org.

Anyway, as you can see, a substantial minority (20.8%) of respondents to the "greater scientists" (National Academy of Sciences) expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Of course I think that's the most "intelligent" position to take.

Another thing is that the question was framed in terms of a "personal" God. That qualifies things.

But here is the BIG thing: The survey of National Academy of Sciences members had a very high "nonresponse" rate. It was 50%. That means...well...the bottom line is the results are not reliable. Sorry, but that's the truth. There is no way to tell whether or not there was any association between likelihood of responding and likelihood of believing in a "personal God." The results of a survey with a 50% non response rate should not have even been reported. They should've either done follow up to get a higher response rate or should've just said they failed to obtain enough data to report a result.

See, this is what I'm talking about when I talk about thinking past the first level. Think for yourself. Some of you make fun of people who believe in God. Yet you believe something immediately just because some Atheist made a Youtube video and asserted it based on an article in "The Nation."

And it was EASY in today's internet age to locate the survey they were talking about and determine that it can't be considered reliable.

I know a whole bunch of "scientists" and the like who believe in a higher power (if you will allow the term) but they don;t put a face on it nor do they pretend to "know" any more than that...

It's the pretending to "know what God wants" that drives so many thinking individuals away from Religion
It does not drive them away from the god experience
It drives them away from Organized Religions

I think the idea of God is exciting and cool
It's one of my favorite topics
Its and idea - I internalize it as a belief but I do not have a formal "This is gods plan" concept as that would require me to think and act like I know something that I do not

A huge percentage of the guys & gals working for NIF at Lawrence Livermore believe in "a higher power" concept but are of no particular religious affiliation

I do not believe that Evolution and God are mutually exclusive and neither do most "thinking" adults
two perfectly compatible ideas

I love how they refer to the four laws of thermodynamics as the first, second, third, and fourth.

Actually, they are zeroth, first, second, and third. Might want to get simple things like that correct before you lecture people on not understanding thermo.

Pwns wrote:I love how they refer to the four laws of thermodynamics as the first, second, third, and fourth.

Actually, they are zeroth, first, second, and third. Might want to get simple things like that correct before you lecture people on not understanding thermo.

'
Kinda like the over 90% yes that's right
The over 90% of Christians who haven't read the New Testament


Yikes

How can you claim to be something when you don't even know what "it" is..?
I believe this proves that: Most folks like to be told what they believe

Chizzang wrote:

Pwns wrote:I love how they refer to the four laws of thermodynamics as the first, second, third, and fourth.

Actually, they are zeroth, first, second, and third. Might want to get simple things like that correct before you lecture people on not understanding thermo.

'
Kinda like the over 90% yes that's right
The over 90% of Christians who haven't read the New Testament


Yikes

How can you claim to be something when you don't even know what "it" is..?
I believe this proves that: Most folks like to be told what they believe

Hickory smoked pork chops is what I believe. Send you a PM in the next day or two.

wow. Guy apparently blew his wad on the first video, for #2 is really, really...underwhelming. I couldn't even make it through the whole thing. At least #1 was entertaining.

By the way, God told me so.

SeattleGriz wrote:wow. Guy apparently blew his wad on the first video, for #2 is really, really...underwhelming. I couldn't even make it through the whole thing. At least #1 was entertaining.

By the way, God told me so.

'Nuff said, SeaGee!!!

The retardation of this thread is exactly why I don't post here anymore. All I will say is that evolutionary theory is observed and if anything in science is a "fact" evolution would be it. Evolution is the backbone of modern biology. No, i can't "prove with experiments" that humans have a common ancestor with other apes, but every single shread of scientific evidence points to that fact and there is literally none to the contrary. It's like saying because i didn't observe myself being born to my mother, that that is not a scientific fact that i did so. It may sound defeatest, but I'm not even going to argue evolution with you people because as my past discussions with seagriz have shown, no matter how much i refute successfully and no matter how much evidence i present, some of you will still not listen, and quite frankly it's not worth my time and effort. I know I am right, so there's really no use in trying. Unlike climate change, there is absolutely no
legitimate dissent on this subject.

I would suggest the video series "why people laugh at creationists" and "the fundamental falsehoods of creationism" on Youtube if anyone legitimatelly wants to learn anything about the "debate." also richard Dawkins books on evolution are quite enlightening as well and are not atheistic.

youngterrier wrote:The retardation of this thread is exactly why I don't post here anymore. All I will say is that evolutionary theory is observed and if anything in science is a "fact" evolution would be it. Evolution is the backbone of modern biology. No, i can't "prove with experiments" that humans have a common ancestor with other apes, but every single shread of scientific evidence points to that fact and there is literally none to the contrary. It's like saying because i didn't observe myself being born to my mother, that that is not a scientific fact that i did so. It may sound defeatest, but I'm not even going to argue evolution with you people because as my past discussions with seagriz have shown, no matter how much i refute successfully and no matter how much evidence i present, some of you will still not listen, and quite frankly it's not worth my time and effort. I know I am right, so there's really no use in trying. Unlike climate change, there is absolutely no
legitimate dissent on this subject.

I would suggest the video series "why people laugh at creationists" and "the fundamental falsehoods of creationism" on Youtube if anyone legitimatelly wants to learn anything about the "debate." also richard Dawkins books on evolution are quite enlightening as well and are not atheistic.

Hey, YT. Don't be so full of yourself that you can't commune with us. Believahs gonna believe. Just keep peckin' at 'em. That's where the fun lies.

Aliens. We were put here by Aliens,after they eradicated Dinosaurs. We are merely a science expierement for Aliens.

youngterrier wrote:All I will say is that evolutionary theory is observed and if anything in science is a "fact" evolution would be it.

No, YT.

You know as good as I that science is based on "consensus" and not fact because Algore told me so.

Baldy wrote:

youngterrier wrote:All I will say is that evolutionary theory is observed and if anything in science is a "fact" evolution would be it.

No, YT.

You know as good as I that science is based on "consensus" and not fact because Algore told me so.

Those darn scientists conspiring against God because they hate him.

give me a fucking break.