Red_Pyramid Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 This whole thing is disgusting... http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?view...80617be62e08bdc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callyn Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Oh yeah, pi=3 and all that other good knowledge in the bible. Idiots. Edit: So I watched that entire series of videos, and they have absolutely no clue what evolution is. I want to slap that bitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 This whole thing is disgusting... Yet tens of millions of Americans will believe it without question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Everything in those videos is taken out of context so much even Fox news couldn't spin that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Godtube? Do Xians have to have their own version of everything? Just like their whole religion is basically a cut-and-paste ripoff of Judaism and various Pagan religions. Monkey see, monkey do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick5 Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 http://www.jewtube.com I just thought it was funny... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callyn Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Haha, Jewtube. The only Abrahamic faith with a sense of humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I like where she mocks the ancient Greek "mumbo jumbo" because her ancient mumbo jumbo is just so much better. Fact is, religion aside, some of those Greek philosophers were way ahead of their times (and their ideas would blow the doors off of any so called "science" you might find in the bible). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Godtube? Do Xians have to have their own version of everything? www.conservapedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 www.conservapedia.com Yeah, I saw that one a few weeks back. Makes me laugh, but cringe a little, because I would've been making a website just like that, were I still a Conservative Xian loony bird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 I can tell exactly what this is. They see specials like Nova on PBS and think that if they have a polished look and feel to their views, that it will pusuade people, just the way that Nova does. I've heard them look at what the secual world does, and ask how they can take those tools and use it to promote their views. It is disgusting as someone else said here. The reason programs like Nova are pusuasive is not becuase they have a polished and eterntaining presentation, but because they have real science backing it up. This garbage has no science backing it up. It's just the typical logical fallacies paraded in the clothes of respectiiblitiy. It is fraudulant to pose as science. In all it just goes to show how these people do not see science for what it really is, and instead percieve it as some sort of competitive philosophy. Underneath it all, the message is these people are ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartP Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 The reason programs like Nova are pusuasive is not becuase they have a polished and eterntaining presentation, but because they have real science backing it up. What they do is like Cargo Cult. The Cargo cultists build runways, build a control tower, have a guy with sticks on his head, but the planes don't come. These guys have the slick presentations and all but it's hollow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 The reason programs like Nova are pusuasive is not becuase they have a polished and eterntaining presentation, but because they have real science backing it up. What they do is like Cargo Cult. The Cargo cultists build runways, build a control tower, have a guy with sticks on his head, but the planes don't come. These guys have the slick presentations and all but it's hollow That's it precisely. They don't understand the substance of the thing which is the real source of its power, yet they seek to obtain its power through the imitation of form and ritual - the true mark of a pseudo-scientist. It all comes down to them having a lack of exposure to a balanced and liberal education, mixed with an emotional desire to believe in a god. They are indeed Cargo Cultists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 I always love when conswervatives (that's my new name for them) attempt to pull "scientific facts" out of the Bible, because they're always so general. "The Bible says that there are an innumerable number of stars". Wow, how scientifically precise! Infinity is way larger than the number projected by early astronomers! SCIENCE=PWNED!!!1 And then there's Job, which states that God "stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." And indeed, the Earth has no supports at all! WOW! 2 for 2! The Bible gets it right! Fucking dolts. Is the Earth not held in suspended orbit by the gravity of the sun? Is gravity nothing? No, gravity is a property of matter. But I suppose that this is where the Christian would say, "Well, this was written long ago before Neuton and Einstein... blah blah blah... whine whine whine... change my diapy." Fuck you! Don't in one breath state that the Bible is ahead of any science book and then in the next make excuses when the Bible doesn't quite get all the wording right? If we have to use modern science to reinterpret what the Bible means by "nothing", then we can't state that the Bible is ahead of science. And really, all the Christian is doing is attempting to spin what is actually written, which is not only a crime against science and human knowledge, but also a bastardization of literary interpretation. Godtube? Do Xians have to have their own version of everything?Because truth has a well-known liberal bias. www.conservapedia.comConservapedia is practically a parody of itself, but unfortunately, idiots seem to have trouble with even the most rudimentary critical thinking skills. I'd be more dismissive of resources such as this, if it weren't for the fact that I see Truth fish on the backs of cars every day. And I'm in a BLUE state! Just for laughs, I visited the Evolution article on Conservapedia, and here is their opening definition: "The Theory of evolution is a materialist explanation of the history of life on earth." WRONG! Wrong on so many levels! Evolution is in no way an explanation of the history of ANYTHING. It's a theory of genetic change. Then I followed a link that goes to the so-called Definition of Evolution. In this article, our Conswervapedia nimrods attempt to bemoan the ever-shifting definition of evolution, blissfully unaware that the shifting is only due to their own ignorance and the ignorance of laymen. In science, there is no such waffling. The basis for this argument is the creationist attempting to say, "I don't know what the definition of evolution is. Therefore, evolution is false." Sorry, but if you use this argument, you are an idiot. Here's some more nonsense... Development of lifeKerkut defined the General Theory of Evolution as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form" As stated, this includes the origin of life (abiogenesis), but evolutionists today generally reject that evolution includes abiogenesis, as Natural selection can only operate once life has started. Not only is this quote taken out of context, it's cited from another creationist source, which itself reveals itself incapable of dealing with evolution as a theory of genetics. It has to attack via strawman arguments. Kerkut's book The Implications of Evolution is a disection of evolutionary assumptions, one of which being abiogenesis, which he includes in his so-called "General Theory of Evolution". However, this is not to be taken as a synonym for the ACTUAL theory of evolution, as Conswervapedia has attempted to do. Even more hilarious than this is their attempt to disqualify gene frequency as a candidate for the theory of evolution... Gene frequencyIn modern scientific use, it is often defined as a change in gene frequency. E.O. Wilson defines evolution as "any change in gene frequency in a population." Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes define evolution as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next". Creationists object that this definition is used to demonstrate trivial changes that are then used to claim that the entire development of life definition has been demonstrated. This definition has also been criticised by Ernst Mayr. The "gene frequency" definition avoids the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution - a distinction which is important to anti-evolutionists. The last sentence is so ironic. Basically, they're saying, "We don't agree with this definition of evolution, because it's immune to our bullshit." Here, the Conswervapedia article complains that the gene freqency definition of evolution avoids a distinction of scale, when in fact scale is determined by the number of changes that occur in a population over many generations. In many ways, this argument is a non sequitur. They fail to realize that the only distinction between macro and micro is whether or not the degree of change inhibits or prevents cross-fertilization. Otherwise, they are products of the EXACT SAME PROCESS!!! And the whole point of evolution is to identify what that process is. Dumbasses!!! In the case of Ernst Mayr, we are again referenced to a vague creationist article which itself does not attempt to explain why Mayr objects to this definition, forcing us to dig for actual information. The typical creationist run-around. Forcing us to do their work for them. But it doesn't take us long to find a resource which brings to light the abuse of general misunderstanding that creationists are known for. Mayr's objection wasn't so much against genetic frequency change. It was that genetic interaction plays a role in the way new traits are formed, and that, in turn, has a profound impact on the survivability of particular genes. It's funny that a creationist resource would attempt to use a quote from a leading evolutionary biologist who si actually using EVIDENCE OF TRAITS ARISING FROM GENE INTERACTION as a support for his objection, and yet the creationists are attempting to employ this as an argument against evolution. Someone should submit this to the quote mine project. It is wrought with irony. Creationists define evolution as being an increase in genetic information. Translation: "We creationists insist on an inaccurate and misleading definition of evolution." Evolution makes no such claim, and even in the context of Ernst Mayr's objections, there is no room for such an assumption. In fact, Mayr's work can be used to point out that the term "genetic information" itself is a misnomer. They continue to use this canard against evolution, because they don't want to address topics such as genetic functionality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 I laughed almost all the way through. Especially when they said that creatures could adapt within a species but not from species to species, following this with an account of Darwin's finches and saying "but they were still finches". Oh yes, so that would be the well known species of 'finch' then - finchus finchus But then I got annoyed rather than amused, when she was trying to rubbish the Greek philosophers by reading the Greek mythological creation story and saying "hardly scientific, is it?" The patronising bitch! Especially considering that the ancient philosophers were very skeptical about the existence of the Greek gods. And never mind the huge influence and contribution the Greeks had on our culture and our society, never mind that Greeks formulated the idea that matter is made up of atoms and calculated that the earth would have to be round rather than flat. You can just dismiss Democritus, Socrates, Plato and Aritstotle as meaningless paganism and shut your eyes and ears to all that culture and worth and intelligence because you don't need it because you can learn all you need to know from the Bible. GRRRRR!!!! If being christian means being so incredibly DENSE - then I think the world would be better off without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poonis Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 This whole thing is disgusting... Yet tens of millions of Americans will believe it without question. That is because ignorance is the necessity of belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 I laughed almost all the way through. Especially when they said that creatures could adapt within a species but not from species to species, following this with an account of Darwin's finches and saying "but they were still finches". Oh yes, so that would be the well known species of 'finch' then - finchus finchus Yeah, that's the standard Hovind back-up argument. The "it's still a rabbit" defense. When they use that argument, they are immediately guilty of equivocation, because they're jumping from a molecular classification to morphological. Besides, they really can't demonstrate a methodology for determining that it's still a finch, except to resort to "Well, it looks like a finch to me." Guess what! There are convergent species that throw a wrench in that sort of "classification". There was once a marsupial "wolf" that basically has all the traits of a canine species, except that it's totally genetically unrelated. In fact, I think convergent species represent the greatest argument AGAINST the common designer argument, because here are two similarly "designed" species that are wildly dissimilar when compaired genetically. You'll find more genetic similarities between dogs and cats than you will between dogs and the tasmanian wolf. According to common design, they should be genetically similar. Of course, there actually is a science behind morphology, but that's one closet creationists dare not open. If they open the door to determining relation through morphology, then they have to deal with the fossil record that they've been denying all these years. Bad bombin'! If being christian means being so incredibly DENSE - then I think the world would be better off without it. Look on the bright side. The more knowledge scientists gain, the more obtuse creationism becomes. Eventually, creationism may actually turn into one of the greatest disservices of religious faith of all time. And then people will say exactly what you've said. "If being a Christian means being willfully obtuse, then count us out." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 I like where she mocks the ancient Greek "mumbo jumbo" because her ancient mumbo jumbo is just so much better. Fact is, religion aside, some of those Greek philosophers were way ahead of their times (and their ideas would blow the doors off of any so called "science" you might find in the bible). mwc Without the Greeks you'd not have the trinity. The woman is a Muppet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 The reason programs like Nova are pusuasive is not becuase they have a polished and eterntaining presentation, but because they have real science backing it up. What they do is like Cargo Cult. The Cargo cultists build runways, build a control tower, have a guy with sticks on his head, but the planes don't come. These guys have the slick presentations and all but it's hollow That's it precisely. They don't understand the substance of the thing which is the real source of its power, yet they seek to obtain its power through the imitation of form and ritual - the true mark of a pseudo-scientist. It all comes down to them having a lack of exposure to a balanced and liberal education, mixed with an emotional desire to believe in a god. They are indeed Cargo Cultists. The Second Coming of John Frum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 The woman is a Muppet. She has a hand up her ass making her talk? mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 The woman is a Muppet. She has a hand up her ass making her talk? I don't see how that's possible, considering that's exactly where her head is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 wouldn't surprise me.. Falwall's probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 The woman is a Muppet. She has a hand up her ass making her talk? I don't see how that's possible, considering that's exactly where her head is. She's recursive? Amazing. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Thompson Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Did anyone else catch the irony in the part where she's explaining Greek gods and says "not very scientific, is it?" But the best one is the closing quote: "Evolution is a model based on blind faith and hoaxes." You know, my whole day today has been quite shitty so I would personally like to thank the person who put the link to the video up for making me laugh like hell and cheering me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 The woman is a Muppet. She has a hand up her ass making her talk? I don't see how that's possible, considering that's exactly where her head is. She's recursive? Amazing. mwc With GEE-ZUSSSS nothing is hard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts