Comment history

Fairy tale science

Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Chirp.

Fade to black.

April 6, 2006 at 6:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fairy tale science


So its OK for IDeists to say they don't know what the first cause was, but you get to ridicule scientists who don't have all the answers either? Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I like the old lady's answer I cited above better- "It's turtles all the way down!"

Man of La Munchies

April 6, 2006 at 4:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fairy tale science

Hey ConMan,

Who designed the Designer?

April 6, 2006 at 4:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fairy tale science

Ohhh, pleeeaaassee, forgive me. I'm sorry.

April 6, 2006 at 3:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fairy tale science


"They have Joseph Smith as their founder/prophet" Funny you should mention him. Recently, thanks to the science which you so hate (while tapping away on a keyboard connected to a computer which was "created" by science) the Mormon religion was proved to be a pack of lies. DNA markers, ConMan, DNA markers. Mutations. The stuff of evolution. The Lamanites have no Middle Eastern markers in their genes, and the central teaching of Mormonism is gone. They've proved one manufactured myth system wrong now, just a few hundred unsubstantiated unintelligently-designed superstition-structures to go.

And gr, I've changed my mind. I don't need the hug and tour. I'd believe evolution was proven wrong if the Intelligent Designer would just make the sun "stand still" in the sky for a couple hours like it did for the Israelites so they could kill a few thousand more of its creations way back in the pre-scientific days when its power seemed to be a lot stronger, at least here on Earth. All in a day's work. See if you can swing that one and I'll see you in church on Sunday. Or Saturday, whenever you go. For now, I guess I'll just assume that the Designer is just so busy somewhere designing things so far away from here that the light hasn't even gotten here yet that it doesn't have time for us anymore.

April 6, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fairy tale science


Can evolution be disproven? Yes. If the Intelligent Designer were to appear in my living room right now, give me a big hug, (or whatever my designer would want to do to show me its affection) and then take me on a tour of its creation, complete with explanations as to how and WHY it did everything, then I would certainly change my mind, but I'd still be pissed off at it for leaving so much evidence of evolution on this planet to blind us to its existence. Until then, the Big Bang is just as logical an explanation as an infinite, eternal, all-knowing, all-doing thing which made me and then left me alone to fend for myself on this god-forsaken planet with no help from it.

April 6, 2006 at 3:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fairy tale science


Great job, brother. Thanks for the link. This is another nail in the coffin of the anti-scientific magic, superstition, and myth which have held the human race down for so many thousands of years.

I concur on your view of the term "creation scientist" as well. Talk about an oxymoron. Keep up the good work.

April 6, 2006 at 11:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fairy tale science


I couldn't tell if you are directing your last remark to me, but I'll take it.

First, all it takes is one contradiction to destroy the Bible's reliability as an infallible source. If one thing is incorrectly translated (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that) then none of it can be trusted. And the contradictions in the Bible are not rare, they are legion. Science on the other hand makes no claims to infallibility, so proving any scientific theory false does not discredit science, it is rather called doing science, because that is what scientists do- discredit inaccurate, outdated theories and fine tune them to more accurately describe reality when new data become available. Creationists, on the other hand are eternally forced to make reality fit the (mostly) unchanging scriptures, with no room for correction and the contortions which you are willing to go through to do this would make any honest man cringe.

As for my lack of Biblical studies, how do you know what I've studied? Has god given you miraculous vision to see my college transcripts and private library? I actually still study the Bible, and view it as a fairly reliable source of historical information from the book of Judges on, with the occasional whopper thrown in for good measure. But Genesis is a trove of mythology, and bears no correspondance to anything close to being a valid source for scientific information. But bring your Bible Quiz on brother, I'm more than willing to play Q&A.

And you bear false witness against me if you accuse me of cutting and pasting anything I wrote above. It's all mine brother, and I challenge you to prove me wrong on that. Thou shalt not do stuff like that without proof, LOL. I should have you stoned. That's one of the big ten, bearing false witness, isn't it?

As for my bad attitude, well, I'm sorry but you maniacs are driving our world back to the Middle Ages, with nuclear weapons in the trunk. I am quite concerned about this (I know, I know- oh ye of little faith, but...). Any sane person in a vehicle being driven by a deranged maniac who is rambling about seeing and hearing things which are not there is going to be upset if he can't hit the brake or grab the wheel. The fact that your fanatical, creationist counterparts in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are heading for the same historical intersection with nuclear weapons in their trunk too, upsets me even more, so you'll have to forgive me for resenting your attempts to destroy modernity, not to mention the human race, and my attacking the absurd superstitions which are fueling them. Talk about self-fulfilling prophesies.

"George Bush is all the proof of evolution that I need. If he's not descended from an ape, who is?"

April 6, 2006 at 12:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fairy tale science


Ok, laughing boy. You tell me what's up with the sun standing still, or even the contradictions in the Bible such as the demoniac problem I pointed out above. I know you can't, and that just completely undermines your already weak position.

The problem with you, is you depend on material like Jack Chick's 'Big Daddy' tract for your science. Or maybe you watch that joke program on TBN where hillbillys sit around and expound on 'Siuntifik noludge' like it says in the Bible. You attribute what you can't prove to 'mirkles', yet laugh at science. You are the joke.

April 5, 2006 at 9:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fairy tale science


Good Bob, man are you daft? What we call antibiotics are defensive chemicals which some microorganisms evolved to keep other microorganisms at bay, probably billions of years ago. We were lucky enough to escape the control of people like you in the Middle Ages so that scientists could have a chance to find such things without being burned at the stake, like Galileo and Copernicus nearly were for challenging church dogma. Unfortunately, because of evolution, we are losing these 'drugs' as the 'disease' organisms develop 'resistance' to them. Soon we will be back to dying from simple infections, because the micros and their shorter generation times will always be able to out-evolve us.

What Kodiac is trying to argue is not whether one organism evolved the capacity in the first place millions or billions of years ago to defend itself against other ones. (Besides, what kind of god makes a world with so much death, war and disease at every level, anyway?) What he is arguing is that the rapid rate at which all antibiotics discovered in the last century have lost their efficacy is evidence of the ability for microorganisms to adapt to their environment. You IDists have been forced to admit that this is the case. Microevolution. Thirty years ago, when I was a creationist, even that was anathema. But no matter what the weight of evidence you will never admit to Macroevolution, a splitting of hairs.

Science does not claim to know all the answers. You do. Science is a process which shuns absolute belief and encourages doubt, always ready to change if new data warrants it. You cannot do this because god is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. So why don't you tell me why there was one demoniac in Mark and Luke and two in Matthew? Your absolutist drivel is unsupportable, because the Bible is unsupportable. Gone with its infallibility is everything you claim to stand on.

"Well, when I get new information, I rethink my position. What, sir, do you do with new information?"
John Maynard Keynes

April 5, 2006 at 6:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )