If the chick in the red shirt had kept her mouth shut, or at the very least refrained from making any noise through it, I would totally hit that.
How the hell did that teacher get his degree? Did he even get one? Yet again, we see another science teacher who doesn’t even know how evolution works, or what evolutionists claim, and puts words in their mouths and ideas in their brains. What the dick, man?!
Seriously, chick in the red shirt. Would totally do her.
First, yeah I’d totally hit that. Second, my “educated” and apparently douchey “elitist” perspective is making it increasingly difficult to distinguish between satire and sad reality. Making fun of creationists seems almost counterproductive, as the reality always seems inevitably dumber than the parody. When I view something like this I find myself trapped between the urges to laugh, cry, and scream. The result of this tension is a sort of apathetic stasis where I dispassionately observe the Human species circling the drain. And I then turn to my old reliable friend whiskey to make it all go away. Cheers!
I get a kick out of how EVERY argument seems to come back to “Can you prove it happened?” “Can you prove it didn’t?”. What’s wrong with these people? I am not an Atheist, nor would I call myself a Christian, I call myself (at best) a pointist. At some point, you have to accept that things happen. Either at some point, the building blocks of all life aligned and life began, or at some point a creator (God, FSM, what have you) just spoke/waved/thought and life began. If you embrace evolution, you choose to believe the science that says everything in the world was here before the big bang, and came together creating the perfect alignment for life to begin and evolve. If you embrace creationism, you accept on faith that someone made everything out of nothing. Either way, it is a choice what you believe. (I realize that choosing to believe something based on no proof is called superstition, but I’m trying to be neutral here.)
Heh… I thought we are ALL agnostic? Agnosticism is anything but a belief; it is a question of logic. There is no such thing as a gnostic person; those that claim to “know” the truth are just pretentious.
There is no physical proof for the existence nor the nonexistence of a deity, as the human mind is limited. Derby, you can say you’re not sure, but there really is no way to find out which side (whether a god exists or it doesn’t) is actually proven true, so all it matters is what YOU believe to be “truth”, meaning what makes the most sense to you.
You can be a believer or a nonbeliever, but one thing about you will never change: the fact that you (just like everyone else) do not know the real truth. You can “make” up your mind, but that doesn’t mean it is necessarily proven to be fact. Sorry if I sounded hostile or anything, but yeah, it is possible to believe and yet still question logic. For example, I’m a proud Deist, though just because I *believe* in a Creator God, that doesn’t mean I *know* that he exists. I simply believe because it makes more logical sense to me.
The difference is these people think the bible IS proof. They think they know and have no doubts. An agnostic accepts that nothing is really proof, that is what makes someone agnostic- the acknowledgment that they do not know for sure and can not know for sure either way.
I can agree with this, and I’ll add that ultimately the decision to refer to one’s self as an atheist or a deist lies in what we personally find to be the logical answer (when it comes to people like us who listen to the findings of scientific endeavors).
In terms of a universal origin, there is no solid evidence to say there is or isn’t (was or wasn’t) some super intelligent being that started it all, and so the decision here is perhaps left to logic and probability analysis alone, and what we find to be the most likely conclusion.
I’m an atheist because calling yourself an agnostic lends yourself to the possibility that Yaweh (for example) actually has as much of a possibility of existing as every other explanation for the origins of the universe.. and it most certainly does NOT.
It’s all about probability. You’ve never seen a unicorn before, but you certainly don’t remain agnostic to their existence, do you?
Andre Jun 23, 2010 @ 09:00:56
Response to Ian, not myself…
That’s where I stand as well for the most part, but I have to agree with Greenworld that I really can’t just go out and say “no hyper-intelligent being exists or existed that has or had the ability to create a planet/universe.”
Quite simply I just can’t know this, all I can do is base my stance on probability like you said.
Response to Ian, not myself…
That’s where I stand as well for the most part, but I have to agree with Greenworld that I really can’t just go out and say “no hyper-intelligent being exists or existed that has or had the ability to create a planet/universe.”
Quite simply I just can’t know this, all I can do is base my stance on probability like you said.
Sure, but why bother even debating the possibility when there’s no reason even be pondering such things? I don’t remain agnostic to the flying spaghetti monster. It’s silly, and until there’s reason to believe there’s more than an infinitesimally small chance of it’s existence, I don’t waste my time saying, “well.. maaaaaybe he/it/she exists”.
Being agnostic is mostly a posturing/argumentative title, since it gives the illusion of absolute neutrality, when in reality, no one is.
Andre Jun 23, 2010 @ 09:16:20
I do agree that it’s overwhelmingly more plausible that a being of this definition does not exist.
But I have to say again that you and I both simply can’t know this yet, I’m sure we will in the future though (maybe not we specifically, but humanity).
I should have said much earlier that I do strongly believe in the impossibility of this being being supernatural. The supernatural doesn’t exist, it’s as simple as that.
So ultimately I’m just allowing the possibility for a hyper-intelligent race of beings that decided to seed a universe from another one, not a “I am the light, the alpha and the omega, I made this shit” type of god-figure.
Capt. Munch Jun 15, 2010 @ 17:25:16
@Greenworld:
Actually it should be:
“Thank Jesus for creating this sexy AND abysmally stupid chick.”
Everyone knows that the “white man” is a higher being than the “black man.” I wonder if he also thinks that evolution says women evolved from men. Sounds like this teachers idea of “equal” time is talking about creationism in class and asking them to consider evolution on their own. I feel bad knowing that I am from the south and part of a similar gene pool.
Help! I can’t fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.
Scientific Fact No. 2 – Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists’ text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.
Scientific Fact No. 3 – Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong
Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.
Scientific Fact No. 4 – Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother’s womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
Scientific Fact No. 5 – DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
Scientific Fact No. 6 – Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong
The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.
Scientific Fact No. 8 – Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong
Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The “Big Bang” theory doesn’t solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.
Scientific Fact No. 9 – Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong
Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the “spark” of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.
Scientific Fact No. 10 – Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong
Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.
Jun 14, 2010 @ 14:30:30
“You ever notice how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved?” -Bill Hicks
Jun 14, 2010 @ 17:59:20
Let’s not forget…these kids will be able to vote in a couple of years.
Jun 14, 2010 @ 18:55:28
haha nice one
Jun 15, 2010 @ 08:07:30
Disturbingly, chances are they are already voting. This clip is from a 1996 BBC documentary – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCpFtWvECfE
If you want to lose some sleep, watch it. Decade after decade of fucking cretins.
Jun 14, 2010 @ 20:36:20
If the chick in the red shirt had kept her mouth shut, or at the very least refrained from making any noise through it, I would totally hit that.
How the hell did that teacher get his degree? Did he even get one? Yet again, we see another science teacher who doesn’t even know how evolution works, or what evolutionists claim, and puts words in their mouths and ideas in their brains. What the dick, man?!
Seriously, chick in the red shirt. Would totally do her.
Jun 15, 2010 @ 00:47:38
Shut up, y’all. Jesus Rules. xD
Jun 15, 2010 @ 00:49:43
Thank Jesus for creating this sexy (yet abysmally stupid) chick.
Hallelujah!
Jun 15, 2010 @ 00:58:42
First, yeah I’d totally hit that. Second, my “educated” and apparently douchey “elitist” perspective is making it increasingly difficult to distinguish between satire and sad reality. Making fun of creationists seems almost counterproductive, as the reality always seems inevitably dumber than the parody. When I view something like this I find myself trapped between the urges to laugh, cry, and scream. The result of this tension is a sort of apathetic stasis where I dispassionately observe the Human species circling the drain. And I then turn to my old reliable friend whiskey to make it all go away. Cheers!
Jun 15, 2010 @ 08:37:01
Cheers!
Jun 15, 2010 @ 11:33:52
I get a kick out of how EVERY argument seems to come back to “Can you prove it happened?” “Can you prove it didn’t?”. What’s wrong with these people? I am not an Atheist, nor would I call myself a Christian, I call myself (at best) a pointist. At some point, you have to accept that things happen. Either at some point, the building blocks of all life aligned and life began, or at some point a creator (God, FSM, what have you) just spoke/waved/thought and life began. If you embrace evolution, you choose to believe the science that says everything in the world was here before the big bang, and came together creating the perfect alignment for life to begin and evolve. If you embrace creationism, you accept on faith that someone made everything out of nothing. Either way, it is a choice what you believe. (I realize that choosing to believe something based on no proof is called superstition, but I’m trying to be neutral here.)
Jun 15, 2010 @ 11:34:59
That makes you agnostic. ;)
Jun 15, 2010 @ 16:49:55
Heh… I thought we are ALL agnostic? Agnosticism is anything but a belief; it is a question of logic. There is no such thing as a gnostic person; those that claim to “know” the truth are just pretentious.
There is no physical proof for the existence nor the nonexistence of a deity, as the human mind is limited. Derby, you can say you’re not sure, but there really is no way to find out which side (whether a god exists or it doesn’t) is actually proven true, so all it matters is what YOU believe to be “truth”, meaning what makes the most sense to you.
You can be a believer or a nonbeliever, but one thing about you will never change: the fact that you (just like everyone else) do not know the real truth. You can “make” up your mind, but that doesn’t mean it is necessarily proven to be fact. Sorry if I sounded hostile or anything, but yeah, it is possible to believe and yet still question logic. For example, I’m a proud Deist, though just because I *believe* in a Creator God, that doesn’t mean I *know* that he exists. I simply believe because it makes more logical sense to me.
Jun 15, 2010 @ 16:59:20
Agnostic it is, then. And don’t worry, Greenworld, I didn’t take your response as hostile, I took it as rational discourse. =) ‘Sall good.
Jun 23, 2010 @ 00:49:59
The difference is these people think the bible IS proof. They think they know and have no doubts. An agnostic accepts that nothing is really proof, that is what makes someone agnostic- the acknowledgment that they do not know for sure and can not know for sure either way.
Jun 23, 2010 @ 07:37:31
I can agree with this, and I’ll add that ultimately the decision to refer to one’s self as an atheist or a deist lies in what we personally find to be the logical answer (when it comes to people like us who listen to the findings of scientific endeavors).
In terms of a universal origin, there is no solid evidence to say there is or isn’t (was or wasn’t) some super intelligent being that started it all, and so the decision here is perhaps left to logic and probability analysis alone, and what we find to be the most likely conclusion.
Jun 23, 2010 @ 07:44:11
I’m an atheist because calling yourself an agnostic lends yourself to the possibility that Yaweh (for example) actually has as much of a possibility of existing as every other explanation for the origins of the universe.. and it most certainly does NOT.
It’s all about probability. You’ve never seen a unicorn before, but you certainly don’t remain agnostic to their existence, do you?
Jun 23, 2010 @ 09:00:56
Response to Ian, not myself…
That’s where I stand as well for the most part, but I have to agree with Greenworld that I really can’t just go out and say “no hyper-intelligent being exists or existed that has or had the ability to create a planet/universe.”
Quite simply I just can’t know this, all I can do is base my stance on probability like you said.
Jun 23, 2010 @ 09:10:47
Sure, but why bother even debating the possibility when there’s no reason even be pondering such things? I don’t remain agnostic to the flying spaghetti monster. It’s silly, and until there’s reason to believe there’s more than an infinitesimally small chance of it’s existence, I don’t waste my time saying, “well.. maaaaaybe he/it/she exists”.
Being agnostic is mostly a posturing/argumentative title, since it gives the illusion of absolute neutrality, when in reality, no one is.
Jun 23, 2010 @ 09:16:20
I do agree that it’s overwhelmingly more plausible that a being of this definition does not exist.
But I have to say again that you and I both simply can’t know this yet, I’m sure we will in the future though (maybe not we specifically, but humanity).
I should have said much earlier that I do strongly believe in the impossibility of this being being supernatural. The supernatural doesn’t exist, it’s as simple as that.
So ultimately I’m just allowing the possibility for a hyper-intelligent race of beings that decided to seed a universe from another one, not a “I am the light, the alpha and the omega, I made this shit” type of god-figure.
Jun 15, 2010 @ 17:25:16
@Greenworld:
Actually it should be:
“Thank Jesus for creating this sexy AND abysmally stupid chick.”
Jun 16, 2010 @ 03:00:23
better is she hadn’t been “made” at all.
no matter how sexy she is.
Jun 21, 2010 @ 00:13:53
She was made.
To please me.
Jun 23, 2010 @ 11:31:06
haha ok
Jun 20, 2010 @ 22:02:57
“Poe’s law.”
“Umm, Slavaa, these are real people, and a re-”
“Poe’s law. I have spoken.”
“This was nineteen ninety-”
“I have spoken! I will play MY willing ignorance card at this time and declare these people to be trolling me!
Silence!”
Jun 25, 2010 @ 21:38:20
I really could not stop laughing while I was watching this.
Jul 10, 2010 @ 20:45:16
Holy shit, the last guy is especially retarded. “How could an African American person evolve from a white person?”
Lol’d big time.
Mar 04, 2011 @ 09:34:20
Everyone knows that the “white man” is a higher being than the “black man.” I wonder if he also thinks that evolution says women evolved from men. Sounds like this teachers idea of “equal” time is talking about creationism in class and asking them to consider evolution on their own. I feel bad knowing that I am from the south and part of a similar gene pool.
Mar 04, 2011 @ 17:26:12
Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Evolution is False and Impossible
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm
Scientific Fact No. 1 – Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
Help! I can’t fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.
Scientific Fact No. 2 – Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists’ text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.
Scientific Fact No. 3 – Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong
Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.
Scientific Fact No. 4 – Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong
The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother’s womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
Scientific Fact No. 5 – DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
Scientific Fact No. 6 – Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong
The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.
Scientific Fact No. 7 – Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.
Scientific Fact No. 8 – Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong
Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The “Big Bang” theory doesn’t solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.
Scientific Fact No. 9 – Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong
Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the “spark” of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.
Scientific Fact No. 10 – Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong
Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.