Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I highly recommend these videos to everyone with a brain!

Intelligent Design - PWNED!!!!

From the Big Band to Us -- Made Easy -- by: Potholer54

Why People Laugh at Creationists - by: Thunderf00t

Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism Series by: AronRa


Aug. 4th, 2008 10:13 am (UTC)
Did you watch the videos? Are these condesending to Kent Hovind, Kirk Cameron and other lying proproganda meant to confuse and quote mine? Yes. Is this condesending to the viewer? No. Seriously science vs. creationism they just do not have anything compatible. Do I believe in a God? Yes... am I naive enough to turn blind eyes to facts? No. and adaptation *IS* evolution. You adapt... you evolve. I can't see how anyone can think differently with so much proven scientific data. Intelligent Design has no scientific foot to stand on... it is PWNED when broken down to it's bare basics.
Aug. 4th, 2008 11:17 pm (UTC)
Why yes, yes I did. The first one said if you don't believe what the video is saying, you're stupid, here guess what's in this box. I guess a cat. The narrator even stated himself that everytime scientists try to say "this is true about the stars" things change. (Or something similar, I watched them last night) If things are changing all the time, then how is science absolute fact? You're getting onto Creationist about believing blindly what they are told, but you want me to instead gobble up something that I've been told straight out might not be absolutely true in a few years? How is that any better?

I question, I research on my own, I don't take doctrine for fact, so yes, if you're going to laugh at me, like apparently the person in your second video likes to do, then that's fine.

Do I feel sorry for people who believe everything that's thrown at them, of course, people should take personal responsibility to try and find out what they can.

That being said, I think I would have enjoyed that second set of videos better if the person making them didn't feel the need to make fun of someone unfortunate enough to think that the Earth is the only place with water.
Aug. 5th, 2008 12:50 am (UTC)
Theory vs. Theology

Facts do change as more is discovered. Facts as we know them are still facts. Facts don't suddenly "change" but as discoveries are made, NEW information is added to Old giving more conclusive detail to an already proven FACT.

I'd much rather believe a FACT that was gained via science, research and EVIDENCE as opposed to just letting magical explanations without evidence but blind faith be my explantion. "Believe it because I said so" explanations are ridiculous! "Believe it because we can PROVE IT with EVIDENCE?" Yeah, that's what I listen to.

A fact may indeed change and evolve as we learn.

accepting the mythology at face value? Nope. For extraordinary claims you must present extraordinary evidence.

Regarding these Videos:

I think the concept of satire however, scoffing at ridiculous claims is lost somewhere here. These videos do scoff at supreme ignorance. Unacceptable ignorance for adults that claim (loudly and persistently) to have knowledge of science. That is the point of satire.

The whole concept of creationism/Intelligent Design is absolutely absurd as it has been presented to the masses in Videos, propaganda, etc... If you ever watched a Kent Hovind or Ken Ham Creationist Seminar you'd see the reverse. Belittling science in satire at "how could ANYONE believe we we're monkey's?" and then they go on to insult my intelligence with just as much satire as in these videos. (Not to mention the disgusting Quote-Mining, Blatant LIES, distortions of truth, gross over-simplification of complex theories and misnomers That are also riddled throughout these atrocities of "science".)

If they can dish it out, WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE... then they can certainly take it back in kind in rebuttal... WITH A TON OF EVIDENCE right back.

Simple as that.

Aug. 5th, 2008 04:53 am (UTC)
I have never seen those people of whom you speak, I tend to stay far away from people who claim to be authorities on anything.

However, and this is my argument, I'm not disagreeing that the big bang could have happened, I'm not ignoring the evidence before my eyes, but what caused that bang?

If I want to believe in a God that's out there, if I want to believe he made humans and humans didn't evolve from apes, then what is it to you? I'm not preaching to you, I'm not telling you that your science is wrong (I'm for the most part agreeing, remember?) What is it hurting you if I believe in something more?

Seriously, why does it bother you so much? I can't explain love, I can't touch it, smell it, but I can tell you how wonderful it feels to be with the one I'm with and how gut wrenchingly painful it is to hear him talk about how he's living on borrowed time and that he might die soon, knowing part of me will probably die right along with him. For all your science, your facts, your figures, how do you explain that? Synapses in the brain firing chemicals? Yeah, sure. You're telling me that the only thing going for your new marriage is the chemicals being fired in your brain?

And why the hell are we fighting over how the universe came into existance? Why are they looking into the past? Learn how to grow organs, learn how to cure cancer, not by killing the person, just the cells, it's being done, why isn't it being implemented in more places? Why aren't scientist focusing on the people here and now but would rather get petty over how the stars came to be?
Aug. 6th, 2008 12:23 am (UTC)
A few misunderstandings on this issue I'd like to clear up:

1. Acceptance of evolution doesn't mean being an atheist. My wife and I aren't atheists. Charles Darwin was a Christian. Some Christians I debate with online accept evolution.

2. Science is concerned with improving our lives here but the medicines you speak of come from fields of study which make no sense unless you accept evolution. The very fact we need a new flu shot every year is because doctors understand that the flu virus evolves. With microbiology, the process can be observed because lifespans are so short. Even Creationists grudgingly accept what they call "microevolution" but still dispute that the process works on the macro level as well.

3. Just because we're free-thinkers doesn't mean we're Vulcans. Carl Sagan certainly lacked no sense of awe for the cosmos. Even the hard-nosed Richard Dawkins and the cynical Christopher Hitchens have spoken with sentiment about the wonders of nature.

4. People can think whatever they want to but when it comes to legislation and the teaching of children in our public schools, we need to put our beliefs aside and operate on what we know.

On that last point, I remember listening to one doctor's lecture where he spoke of how his Christian faith was important to him in church but when he was operating on a patient, it was a time to put aside what he believes and concentrate on what he knows.

Isn't it true that how we teach our children in science class or how we write public legislation is every bit as delicate as how a doctor operates on a patient?

Latest Month

June 2013


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Ideacodes