1 2 3
“Science replaces private prejudice with public, verifiable evidence.” ~Richard Dawkins
Every question you asked seems more applicable to ID Creationsim.
2/10/2013 7:08:35 AM
At first, I thought that this was a real scientist's critique against creationism, but then I saw the note about the book in 1859 and saw that he was actually promoting creationism over evolution. Writer needs to look in a mirror.
2/10/2013 7:11:53 AM
REAL = Religious Evangelical Antagonistic Libel
2/10/2013 7:32:36 AM
Is he talking about Creationism?
2/10/2013 7:36:26 AM
• Of what possible worth is a "science" that attacks its opponents for using "outdated" arguments, but that has as it foundation a book published in 1859, when knowledge of the awesome complexity of life did not exist?
Of what possible worth is a 'science' (religion) that is based upon a book which teaches that the earth is a flat circle suspended in space upon pillars and that it's the center of the universe?
People who can think outside of those religious boundaries know the difference between a bat and a bird, while your bible tells us that they are the same thing. It also provides a bunch of bullshit about 'likes' and 'kinds' but doesn't bother to explain exactly what they mean, nor does it identify either.
ID is ridiculous because it is religion masquerading as science. Pointing at something and saying 'GODDIDIT' is not science, it is lazy thinking based upon dogmatically generated fear. Anyone who can not see that the 'designer' is the christian god is not paying attention; do you honestly think that not calling 'the designer' god is fooling anyone? If there was even the slightest mention that 'the designer' might be other than YHWH (say Allah, Zeus, Cerridwen or any other non-christian deity) you would be immediately in the media denouncing ID as pseudoscience (which it is) and destroying it with a vengeance. The fact that you fuckers support it exposes it for the religious fakery that it is, and yourselves as a group of doltish charlatans.
2/10/2013 7:39:49 AM
a "science" that is intractably hostile to REAL science?
And what is "REAL science", Doomy? Goddidit?
2/10/2013 7:40:18 AM
Those are some very good questions, DoctorDoom. But to answer them, first you'd have to abandon your prejudices.
2/10/2013 7:49:49 AM
"Your pseudoscientific religion cannot withstand objective analysis". Oh, I see what you did there. You took something that people have said to you and said it back to them. Very clever.
Of what possible worth is a "science" based on the Bible? See, I didn't even need bullet points. Occam's Razor strikes again.
2/10/2013 8:10:16 AM
Of what possible worth is DoctorDoom?
2/10/2013 8:19:53 AM
"• Of what possible worth is a "science" that survives only by using the legislatures and the courts to enforce its exclusivity?
• Of what possible worth is a "science" that employs censorship to silence its critics?
• Of what possible worth is a "science" that seeks to destroy the reputations, the careers and the lives of scientists who dare to question it?
• Of what possible worth is a "science" that dares not encounter its critics in an academic setting?"
All Dominionist tactics claiming the scientific field cannot deny supernatural claims. It can and can continue to until you provide evidence. They also deny Astrology and witchcraft a place for the same reason.
The rest are all assertions, again with no grounds, that science operates with no evidence, must accept unproven claims and is somehow inferior to an unnamed superior system. All bullshit.
Yes I know Doom's a Poe but this is all right out of the Dominionist Wedge Document.
2/10/2013 8:22:43 AM
Sounds like you're describing "creation science."
2/10/2013 8:25:28 AM
Other than the date of publication of the bible, you are describing creationism to a "T". And, of course, you are exactly correct, in supposing that creationism is a worthless "science" - one REAL Scientists have been opposing for hundreds of years.
2/10/2013 8:45:02 AM
"Of what possible worth is a "science" that attacks its opponents for using "outdated" arguments, but that has as it foundation a book published in 1859, when knowledge of the awesome complexity of life did not exist?"
Science didn't start with Darwin & evolution isn't the only science out there, Doctor Doofus!
"Of what possible worth is a 'science' that is intractably hostile to REAL science?"
Dude, YOU'RE hostile to "REAL Science!"
And an allegorical myth in an ancient religious text is NOT "Science"!
Finally, Dr. Dummy...YOU CAN STILL BE A DEVOUT RELIGIOUS PERSON WHILE STILL BEING A BELIEVER IN EVOLUTION, YOU MEATBALL-HEAD! WHY CAN'T YOU GUYS GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS?! COUNTLESS DEEPLY RELIGIOUS JEWS, CHRISTIANS & MUSLIMS BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION! *AAAAAARRRGGGLLLEEE!*
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?!
2/10/2013 8:47:02 AM
"Of what possible worth is a "science" that dares not encounter its critics in an academic setting?"
Hey Doomie... if those "critics" would *try* bringing something to the Academic setting, then maybe ToE might just encounter some of them. Hell, if those critics would try bringing something to the SCIENTIFIC setting (like they continually avoid like the fucking plague... why do you think we have to keep on going to courts to get the underhanded attempts your lot make to get your religious belief mandated as "science" in schools?) then you might have something close to a point.
"Of what possible worth is a "science" that is assumptions heaped on conjectures piled on suppositions overlaid with wild-ass guesses?"
About the same amount of worth as all your "points" here, since that's exactly what you used when coming up with them...
2/10/2013 9:55:21 AM
Of what possible worth is Doctor Doom?
2/10/2013 10:04:09 AM
1) None, just like creationism.
2) That's called peer review, fucknut.
3) Creationists don't need someone else to ruin their reputations; they only need to open their mouths.
4) Well, if you dimwits actually did science instead of blindly following an old book, we may be able to get to this point. Until then, you don't belong there.
5) I know. I think creationism is total bunk, too.
6) Nice willful ignorance you got there.
7) Dude. Stop.
8) Really. Just shut up.
9) You don't understand what science is.
10) Shut up.
11) Shut your festering gob, DoctorIsACreationistFuckwit Doom.
2/10/2013 10:07:45 AM
2/10/2013 10:08:46 AM
Is this one of the cases where FSTDT turns the mirror on atheists? Oh you clever site you, wait a minute. "based on a 'theory'" Oh jeez, this is saying creationism is the "real" science, isn't it? Uhh.
2/10/2013 10:48:33 AM
Except for that figure of 1859, I wouldn't have any idea which side was yelling about which, since I haven't a clue what that "ETBs" acronym means.
2/10/2013 10:53:15 AM
This sure looks like a copy-pate job from The Discovery Institute or Ray Comfort's blog. I will still give the Doc partial credit for making his questions sound credible without the benefit of actually knowing what most of the words mean.
2/10/2013 10:54:58 AM
This. Just this. You could not make it more parallel to the evolutionary argument against creationism if you TRIED. This is the most powerful projection I have ever seen.
2/10/2013 11:02:11 AM
* It has gone into courts to get into schools, not to be verified in courts. Not that you would know anything about schools, you tool, but still.
* Just go to youtube to see the creationist censorship, and then apply your own rule.
* when has this ever happened? Note: Ben Stein's 'Expelled' is not an honest and reliable source on this matter (nor is it on anything).
* This has been settled quite some decades ago. Oh, you want to know why academic debates like that don't happen today anymore? Well, it's for the same reason astronomers don't debate astrologists anymore.
* Go ask that to people like Nephilimfree or VFX. Their suspension of disbelief (AKA faith) about creationist nonsense is so great that even a caveman would be skeptical of their nonsense.
* You should ask IDiots about this, they know everything about useless science.
* You just managed to debunk all the arguments of the 'It must have happened therefore God did it with some retarded magic' kind, which pretty much includes all creationist arguments.
* Obviously, the theory of gravity is also wrong, because it's foundation is 300 years old, when the awesome complexity of quantum mechanics and relativity was not known.
* No such theory has existed. ever. Your ass is not a good source of knowledge about the history of science.
* And with that, you mean your 'Biblical worldview', i.e. foundational bias against reality?
* Keep your mirror polish away from children. It's the strongest I've ever seen.
Now never use the word 'science' again. You are not worthy.
2/10/2013 11:07:06 AM
I am not a scientist. I work in finance. In numerous places in my office, there's a sheet of paper with a large circle, and inscribed within the circle are the instructions "BANG HEAD HERE".
I suspect this is how legitimate scientists feel after trying repeatedly to demonstrate that the same tired arguments against evolution not only have all been addressed, answered, and refuted. I'm sure it's quite tedious and distracting from the real research.
Every argument against the validity of evolution or in favor of creationism demonstrates -- if we're being charitable -- a misunderstanding of evolution. If you think evolutionary theory provides us with no breakthroughs in other places, then I suggest you eschew all medicines, vaccines, and foodstuffs.
2/10/2013 11:18:33 AM
ETB stands for evolution true believer.
2/10/2013 11:30:34 AM
"Of what possible worth is a "science" tl;dr...
(From 4chan's /b/):
'I love it when godfags try to use science to disprove someones opinion that there is no god. Listen godfags, one of the things you fail to realize is that science has a built in system to keep it in check. It's called the scientific method. I'll cut to the chase. What you quoted are "theories" they do require that we test them. Upon testing you can say if it's been proven or not. Religion on the other hand does not. It's has "dogma" which means "STFU don't question anything get back in line you fucking noob". So as you can see that does not allow for one to seek out truth now does it? Why not try to hold your same level of requirement of proof that you put science to? Because it would endanger your precious belief system and put your faith at risk. And you can't have that now can you?'
(From a thread in /b/, in 2007):
'People believe in science because science works.
When your religion is able to teach you how to design and build any object that you can see around you (and if you live in a city, the only non man-made object your eyes can see right now are probably plants if you have any and possibly the sky if you don't live in a basement), then wake me up.
When your religion performs one single life-saving miracle (unlike medicine which, founded upon science, manage to actually do this, and on a daily basis), wake me up.
In fact, simply by writing on this forum, you have faith in the underlying engineering and science that makes the internet work to make it possible for other people to read it.
So if you actually don't believe that science works, please kindly stop using anything that exists thanks to science, and go live in a muddy hole in the ground and eat bugs and roots or something.
Otherwise, you just come up as the most fucked up hypocrite ever.
Also, no-one ever said that what we call science is a complete and exact description of how the universe works. Knowing that we don't know is the very reason we can learn things and is why the scientific method works, but since you religion fags have thrown logic out the window a long time ago, you can't comprehend that.'
'I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent.'
-Arthur C. Clarke
Of what possible worth is Creationism?
You, Conservative Christians who believe in Creationism, voted for Dumbya - twice - a Conservative Christian who believes in Creationism. Who in turn (in 2002) personally appointed to the Federal bench John E. Jones III. A Conservative Christian himself.
Sooooooo... you gonna tell the Honourable Judge John E. Jones III to his face that he's a liar
? Because it's not as if he's going to take you to court for making allegations of perjury, a very serious offence in the eyes of the court, nosiree!
So your precious (un)'Intelligent Design' - the last, best hope for right-wing Fundie Christianity's Creationist
educational agenda, masquerading as non
-peer reviewed pseudo-science
- was completely annihilated in court, Duckturd Dumb? I think you'll find that, as proven above, it was ultimately you
& all your fundie ilk who are responsible for it's own
censorship; enforcement of peer-reviewed exclusivity, Michael Behe's auto
-career destruction; Creationist 'scientists' not daring to speak out; the exposure of Creationism's own conjectures, suppositions & wild-ass guesses; 'I.D.' that was proven to be untestable & unfalsifiable; it's own outdated arguments; a worse than fairy story that can't be considered a 'theory'; that which can never define itself, other than a spurious concept called 'Truth'; the hostility directed towards Judge Jones, post-KvD, and - as proven in KvD, 'I.D.' having less than zero evidence, seeing as your so-called 'Creator' couldn't appear in court himself, to test, falsify, and duplicate his own 'Creation', thus defending his own Creationist case.
Remember, Creationists: We have the evidence
. We win. And in more ways than one.
Of what possible worth is 'Belief', 'Faith', and 'Truth', Duckie? Of what possible worth are you.
2/10/2013 11:39:59 AM
1 2 3