Young Earth Creationism....Fail

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

AbAbber2k

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
6,487
1
0
Clearly you didn't get it either.

I see what you're trying to do. Unfortunately you can't inject irony into a pre-existing statement made by someone who's too dumb to use irony to make a point. And even if he was being ironic, all he would end up doing is mock his own side of the argument. Irony FAIL.
 

Cheesetogo

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2005
3,817
4
81
Why would you ever want to debate a person like that? There's not a chance in hell either of you are going to be able to change the other's opinions.
 

yhelothar

Lifer
Dec 11, 2002
18,408
39
91
What's more depressing is that US as a whole nation has a comparable proportion of people accepting creationism over evolution to religious states of the likes of Turkey and ghettos of eastern europe.

 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,832
882
126
The US is highly religious compared to the other english speaking countries. I've never understood why.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
67,937
12,384
126
www.anyf.ca
You can spend trillians of dollars trying to "proove" that the entire universe was a huge accident that just happened out a vacuum, OR you can read Genesis 1 and have a brief idea where everything comes form.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,298
8,213
136
These 'young earth' types are fools at best, heretics at worst. Everyone knows the Earth was created a week ago. Those 'memories' of yours of, say, the Windows 7 launch, are merely implanted by God to test your faith. And apparently you've all _failed_!
 

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
I don't bother. Religion is totally unimportant to me and I try not to get into big arguments with religious people because it never accomplishes anything and usually ends up offending one or both of us and making me angry. I also don't want to be a hypocrite and judge religious people for their beliefs while expecting them to not judge me for my lack of belief. So I pretty much just ignore religion as much as possible.

The only time I'll get into an argument is if someone else starts it or it directly affects me. And I do have strong opinions on some of the "lessons" taught by various religions, but again, I don't usually bring them up because I'd rather not stir up a shitstorm without good reason.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,218
15,788
126
What's more depressing is that US as a whole nation has a comparable proportion of people accepting creationism over evolution to religious states of the likes of Turkey and ghettos of eastern europe.


What was the question? :awe:
 

Malak

Lifer
Dec 4, 2004
14,696
2
0
What's more depressing is that US as a whole nation has a comparable proportion of people accepting creationism over evolution to religious states of the likes of Turkey and ghettos of eastern europe.


This graph has absolutely nothing to do with creationism.
 

Malak

Lifer
Dec 4, 2004
14,696
2
0
I see what you're trying to do. Unfortunately you can't inject irony into a pre-existing statement made by someone who's too dumb to use irony to make a point. And even if he was being ironic, all he would end up doing is mock his own side of the argument. Irony FAIL.

To be honest, the actual content of the arguement doesn't mean anything to me. It's the way you people argue. You completely ignore one side for his supposed source and ignore the fact that your source is no different. He has a valid point that too many scientists use assumptions to create conclusions. There's no actual proof of anything.
 

ChaoZ

Diamond Member
Apr 5, 2000
8,909
1
0
To be honest, the actual content of the arguement doesn't mean anything to me. It's the way you people argue. You completely ignore one side for his supposed source and ignore the fact that your source is no different. He has a valid point that too many scientists use assumptions to create conclusions. There's no actual proof of anything.

You're saying there's no proof that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old?
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,129
1,604
126
To be honest, the actual content of the arguement doesn't mean anything to me. It's the way you people argue. You completely ignore one side for his supposed source and ignore the fact that your source is no different. He has a valid point that too many scientists use assumptions to create conclusions. There's no actual proof of anything.

That is completely false.

We ignore one point of view because it is fiction.
We believe what we believe because there is evidence to support it.
 

Malak

Lifer
Dec 4, 2004
14,696
2
0
You're saying there's no proof that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old?

Frankly I don't care how old the earth is and I think every scientist that bothers to attempt to find out wastes their entire life doing so. I think arguements on the subject are a complete waste of time.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
How people believe that our earth is 6,000 years old is beyond me. The fact that these beliefs are still around today just absolutely baffles me.

I recently got into a debate with a couple of these ignoramuses. In the picture below you will probably laugh, probably become frustrated, and maybe even cry.

http://members.cox.net/oriont3/youngearthcreationistfails.jpg

Just read the entire "debate". Hilarious stuff for 1909, forget 2009. You should have asked him how the billions of species all fit on the boat, and why if god wanted to kill all the animals in the entire world he chose to do it by flooding which wouldn't have killed most of the fish or any of the whales. Why spare the fish and whales, every one I ever met was a bastard.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Frankly I don't care how old the earth is and I think every scientist that bothers to attempt to find out wastes their entire life doing so. I think arguements on the subject are a complete waste of time.

No, going into a building once a week to ask an invisible man to do you favors and forgive you for the shit you did wrong that week is a waste of time.
 

rbV5

Lifer
Dec 10, 2000
12,632
0
0
How many people ON THIS FORUM is what is utterly amazing......and endlessly entertaining.
 

rbV5

Lifer
Dec 10, 2000
12,632
0
0
To be honest, the actual content of the arguement doesn't mean anything to me. It's the way you people argue. You completely ignore one side for his supposed source and ignore the fact that your source is no different. He has a valid point that too many scientists use assumptions to create conclusions. There's no actual proof of anything.

Yes rote > Observation and Discovery.
 

Mr. Lennon

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2004
3,492
1
81
Frankly I don't care how old the earth is and I think every scientist that bothers to attempt to find out wastes their entire life doing so. I think arguements on the subject are a complete waste of time.

Good thing your views, like Walters, are in the minority. You guys are a dying breed.
 

nixium

Senior member
Aug 25, 2008
919
3
76
I noticed that, too.

Good point. But I wish that were applicable to *all* discussions that try to prove creationism (or it's cousin, ID) using the scientific method. These people are essentially the modern equivalent of those that thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. At least at that time, they had the excuse of rudimentary science and a despotic authority that threatened to torture and execute them if they believed otherwise. Creationists have no such excuse.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
What was the question? :awe:


Shuddup, the graph is purdy!


Being inherently skeptical, I wonder just what the question was, how it was asked, and what the context (if any) was.

The problem is that any question introduces bias. If someone who wanted to make a leading question to purposefully mock the population, it would be a simple matter to design a question with a guaranteed outcome. Even then it's a known danger that if one wants an honest answer, the psychology of the preparer can unwittingly slant the results.

If people haven't read it, there's a wonderful book written half a century or so ago that has lasting value. "How to lie with statistics".

Highly recommended.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
You can spend trillians of dollars trying to "proove" that the entire universe was a huge accident that just happened out a vacuum, OR you can read Genesis 1 and have a brief idea where everything comes form.
And how did you arrive at the conclusion that this particular creation myth is the right one?



Just read the entire "debate". Hilarious stuff for 1909, forget 2009. You should have asked him how the billions of species all fit on the boat, and why if god wanted to kill all the animals in the entire world he chose to do it by flooding which wouldn't have killed most of the fish or any of the whales. Why spare the fish and whales, every one I ever met was a bastard.
Actually the change in salinity of the new global ocean (mostly freshwater now) would likely result in the deaths of many marine wildlife.
1) Anchored plant and animal life formerly at shallow depths would now be under tens of thousands of feet of water. That would all die just from the pressure, not to mention the lack of light.
2) Animals that rely on rapidly moving water would suddenly find themselves in a vast, calm sea.
3) Eggs laid on rocks and such would suffer the same problem as in #1 - pressure.
4) A much larger ocean would mean that there was much much more volume in which life could live. Prey animals could become exceedingly scarce due to this fact alone, not to mention the fact that everything's dying in general due to altered salinity and environments.


So yeah, marine life would be pretty much screwed too.


And then at the end of the 40th day, all the water magically went away, I guess from the same mystic realm that God conjured it from in the first place.




Good point. But I wish that were applicable to *all* discussions that try to prove creationism (or it's cousin, ID) using the scientific method. These people are essentially the modern equivalent of those that thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. At least at that time, they had the excuse of rudimentary science and a despotic authority that threatened to torture and execute them if they believed otherwise. Creationists have no such excuse.
It's the good old God of the Gaps.
At one point in time, Ra carried the Sun across the sky.
Nope, we orbit the Sun. Sorry pal, you're out of a job.
Atlas once held up Earth. He's unemployed too, Earth doesn't go anywhere because it is responsible for its own gravity, not some external source.
A giant whale was once responsible for creating the tides (some Native American folklore). He's done gone and beached himself, because the Moon is responsible for the tides.

Supernatural beings once had a booming job market. Unfortunately, the better our technology gets, the less of them we seem to find. Either they're getting better and better at playing hide and seek, to the point where no one believes they exist at all, or else they never existed in the first place.

They've sure got a hell of a union though, because it seems like some of them just won't give up and officially be relegated to the category of "mythology," along with thousands of other deities and the like.
 
Last edited:

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Haven't we determined scientifically that the light we see from stars had to have been shining for millions of years in order to reach us across space given how far they are and how "slow" light travels? Or are those little sparkly things just "god's rhinestones"?
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
Haven't we determined scientifically that the light we see from stars had to have been shining for millions of years in order to reach us across space given how far they are and how "slow" light travels? Or are those little sparkly things just "god's rhinestones"?
It's all part of the vast scientific conspiracy, funded by Satan, to sway us from God's ways. Mathematicians are in on it as well, for it is their evil principles which enable the calculations which are used to determine these distances.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |