Why people laugh at Creationists

[Dave Lane]

Taking a lead from Killer Clown I thought I'd create a alternative thread to post some videos I like...

[EDIT New video here]

So on with the show:

Here's the Kent Hovind Theory:



"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

No thats a disaster on a biblical scale so it does belong in here

good point...

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

JFC I can't rep you again, I can't believe a donkey fan is becoming my new favorite poster.

i gotcha covered...

i gave rep to listo for you...

he is pretty fascinating isn't he?

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by go bowe

i gotcha covered...

i gave rep to listo for you...

he is pretty fascinating isn't he?

Dude is killing it. Funny, provocative and sarcastic. I thought I was sarcastic enough for this site but I may have to work at upping my game if I want to stay in this.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

Fantastic Neil deGrasse Tyson discussion on "God of the gaps"

That is a very interesting video, much of what was covered I have seen and read before. It however was a entertaining presentation and well worth the view~

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

That is a very interesting video, much of what was covered I have seen and read before. It however was a entertaining presentation and well worth the view~

NDT rocks. Best spokesman for NASA since Sagan.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

NDT rocks. Best spokesman for NASA since Sagan.

His "interviews" with Stephen Colbert are usually pretty funny.

[CLX]

Originally Posted by Fish

You are quite right about the first sentence. But not the second.

Evolution is not based on belief. It's based on repeatable observation. We can observe a species, and then observe them again at a later date in time, and note special changes. That one simple fact is what makes it different than a religious belief.

Let's use an example. Say I have a species of ants. I observe and record the ant physiology over 40 years of my life. At the end of my 40 years, I can compare my observations, and note the changes. I've had complete control of the ant environment for 40 years, to ensure there were no outside influences. I can offer evidence such as continuous video recording to prove that my ant experiment happened exactly according to my observations. I can hold up an ant from the end of the experiment, and compare it to ones preserved at the beginning of the experiment, to directly show physical changes. All of that is actual evidence I have that evolution occurred over the 40 years of the ant species.

Now let's attempt the same example with religious Creation. But where to start? We have no evidence of an experimenter. In the evolution example, we can show exactly who the experimenter was. We have proof the experimenter existed. But we cannot prove that a God existed. Huge difference. OK, moving on... Do we have proof the experiment happened? Nobody recorded the biblical creation, so no. Can we look at fossil records to show that the experiment happened? No, as fossil records actually show the opposite, indicating that the Earth is billions of years old instead. So where's the evidence? We can't seem to find any for the biblical creation. In our evolution experiment, we easily had lots of evidence to point to.

Comparing the two experiments, one provided a great deal of evidence. And one did not. One of the experiments is considered a belief. The other is a proven scientific theory.

And you really believe that shit? No joking, you really believe that?

Amazing, just ****ing amazing.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by CLX

And you really believe that shit? No joking, you really believe that?

Amazing, just ****ing amazing.

I have no idea what you are attempting to imply. Are you certain you understand what was written?

[CLX]

Originally Posted by Fish

I have no idea what you are attempting to imply. Are you certain you understand what was written?

I fully understand your comments, I just think your scientific basis is flawed.

Any species adapting to an environment might be considered a kind of evolution, but to tie the changes in a species to the evolution of man is absurd. There is no proof, only speculation. Speculation, even if using what might be considered the best scientific practices, is still speculation. Conclusions based on incomplete data cannot be used as proof.

My point of view might not be correct, but your point of view seems to be as correct as mine.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by CLX

I fully understand your comments, I just think your scientific basis is flawed.

Any species adapting to an environment might be considered a kind of evolution, but to tie the changes in a species to the evolution of man is absurd. There is no proof, only speculation. Speculation, even if using what might be considered the best scientific practices, is still speculation. Conclusions based on incomplete data cannot be used as proof.

My point of view might not be correct, but your point of view seems to be as correct as mine.

On the contrary, there is abundant evidence for human evolution from a wide range of independent sources. It's not speculation in the slightest.

That last sentence is just hilarious by the way... Is that really what you meant to type?

[CLX]

Originally Posted by Fish

On the contrary, there is abundant evidence for human evolution from a wide range of independent sources. It's not speculation in the slightest.

That last sentence is just hilarious by the way... Is that really what you meant to type?

I don't buy your evidence in the manner you feel it applies, that is nothing new.

I could have said it in different ways, but the meaning is the same. I'm not always right and neither are you and in this case you are not.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Fish

On the contrary, there is abundant evidence for human evolution from a wide range of independent sources. It's not speculation in the slightest.

That last sentence is just hilarious by the way... Is that really what you meant to type?

It's a good thing we have hard evidence of that...err wait.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by CLX

I fully understand your comments, I just think your scientific basis is flawed.

Any species adapting to an environment might be considered a kind of evolution, but to tie the changes in a species to the evolution of man is absurd. There is no proof, only speculation. Speculation, even if using what might be considered the best scientific practices, is still speculation. Conclusions based on incomplete data cannot be used as proof.

My point of view might not be correct, but your point of view seems to be as correct as mine.

So you are acknowledging evolution of species, just with the caveat that humans didn't evolve? It is a step in the right direction I guess...

[CLX]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

So you are acknowledging evolution of species, just with the caveat that humans didn't evolve? It is a step in the right direction I guess...

If that's what you want to take from it then you happy. Who am I to pop your bubble?

I'd rather consider it adaptation to conditions. You can adapt a monkey to live in a house but that monkey will never adapt, or evolve, to be a man.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

So you are acknowledging evolution of species, just with the caveat that humans didn't evolve? It is a step in the right direction I guess...

So is it your belief(religion) that a Dog evolved from something other than a dog? is there any evidence whatsoever of that?