Anti-Science bill passed in Indiana

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for wis3boi
wis3boi

32507

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#201 wis3boi
Member since 2005 • 32507 Posts
[QUOTE="kaangonultas"]In this day and age if you are a creationist, you are truly an idiotZumaJones07
why?

*facedesk*
Avatar image for jesuschristmonk
jesuschristmonk

3308

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#202 jesuschristmonk
Member since 2009 • 3308 Posts

Why couldn't God have created the Big Bang? :o

battlefront23
Who says it couldn't? We can't know for sure unless we somehow manage to make a time machine go back (however long) in time and see wtf happened lol.
Avatar image for battlefront23
battlefront23

12625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#203 battlefront23
Member since 2006 • 12625 Posts
[QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Why couldn't God have created the Big Bang? :o

jesuschristmonk
Who says it couldn't? We can't know for sure unless we somehow manage to make a time machine go back (however long) in time and see wtf happened lol.

All I'm saying is evolution doesn't contradict the idea of God.
Avatar image for PC360Wii
PC360Wii

4658

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#204 PC360Wii
Member since 2007 • 4658 Posts
[QUOTE="jesuschristmonk"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Why couldn't God have created the Big Bang? :o

battlefront23
Who says it couldn't? We can't know for sure unless we somehow manage to make a time machine go back (however long) in time and see wtf happened lol.

All I'm saying is evolution doesn't contradict the idea of God.

Thats because nothing can. Its so stupid its genius. make up a figure that cannot be proved because its like saying "no your gay x infinite" ... you cant do anything about it because its a circle of "Faith" ....
Avatar image for battlefront23
battlefront23

12625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#205 battlefront23
Member since 2006 • 12625 Posts
[QUOTE="PC360Wii"] Thats because nothing can. Its so stupid its genius. make up a figure that cannot be proved because its like saying "no your gay x infinite" ... you cant do anything about it because its a circle of "Faith" ....

Seems like a somewhat embittered response...
Avatar image for Charazani
Charazani

2919

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#206 Charazani
Member since 2011 • 2919 Posts
[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="PC360Wii"] Thats because nothing can. Its so stupid its genius. make up a figure that cannot be proved because its like saying "no your gay x infinite" ... you cant do anything about it because its a circle of "Faith" ....

Seems like a somewhat embittered response...

Yup
Avatar image for BossPerson
BossPerson

9177

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#208 BossPerson
Member since 2011 • 9177 Posts

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="PC360Wii"] Thats because nothing can. Its so stupid its genius. make up a figure that cannot be proved because its like saying "no your gay x infinite" ... you cant do anything about it because its a circle of "Faith" ....Charazani
Seems like a somewhat embittered response...

Yup

although he has a point

Avatar image for Mephers3
Mephers3

164

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#209 Mephers3
Member since 2011 • 164 Posts

Not really a big deal, science is always changing and adapting thats why its always called theory. Cant rule out either theories.

edit: Seems like a desperate attempt to bash religion

Avatar image for Charazani
Charazani

2919

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#210 Charazani
Member since 2011 • 2919 Posts

[QUOTE="Charazani"][QUOTE="battlefront23"] Seems like a somewhat embittered response...BossPerson

Yup

although he has a point

True.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#211 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts

Why cant they target the liberal arts. Leave my science alone! Go after those crappy liberal arts classes all you want, however.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#212 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

Not really a big deal, science is always changing and adapting thats why its always called theory. Cant rule out either theories.

edit: Seems like a desperate attempt to bash religion

Mephers3

One isn't a theory, that's why its a big deal.

Avatar image for Heisenderp
Heisenderp

815

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#213 Heisenderp
Member since 2011 • 815 Posts
[QUOTE="PC360Wii"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="jesuschristmonk"] Who says it couldn't? We can't know for sure unless we somehow manage to make a time machine go back (however long) in time and see wtf happened lol.

All I'm saying is evolution doesn't contradict the idea of God.

Thats because nothing can. Its so stupid its genius. make up a figure that cannot be proved because its like saying "no your gay x infinite" ... you cant do anything about it because its a circle of "Faith" ....

It's called a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Usually they are laughed at for being ridiculous (conspiracy theories), but God gets an exception for some reason.
Avatar image for Inconsistancy
Inconsistancy

8094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#215 Inconsistancy
Member since 2004 • 8094 Posts

It's called a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Usually they are laughed at for being ridiculous (conspiracy theories), but God gets an exception for some reason.Heisenderp

I shall call it: The Adulthood Santa Complex.

It's brought on by the same reason that kids initially believe in Santa, but there are several factors that make Santa easier to disprove, one being that he's a person who lives in the here and now and can be seen, even at malls!, and the definition for the Santa hypothesis isn't very ambiguous.

The difference is God can't be proven it, and can't disproven, and in the failed logic of many generations, friends and family believe in them as fact, this establishes the idea, in a child, that it must be true. Even when Santa is disproven, because it was illogical, this isn't, because everyone believes in it anyway. However if this, slightly more ambigious route, had been taken towards Santa, it'd be equally possible for the majority of adults in the world to believe in him. But, it'd require that previous generations believed in him as fact, and that the 'mall santa, and parent santa' were just a form of ritual worship to Santa, the god(or saint) of the North Pole. I'm absolutely certain, that if Santa was slightly more ambiguous, and referred to as a god of something, then he'd be believed in quite widely along side of religions.

This is much like Astrology, because people don't write it off as absurd, and it's ritualistic, there is a much higher chance that people will believe them as true. Even though the Astrological calender is off due to Earth's axial procession, by ~2000 years in a cycle of 26000 years, no one knows or cares. It's just vague enough to fit how you're feeling on an average day ~50% of the time. Amazingly, 26% of Americans apparently believe in Astrology.

The human mind, early on, is designed to not question authority. "Fire is hot, don't touch it" it would be far too dangerous for a child to test this, so evolution has imprinted the requirement to obey parents as a child. However false teachings during this time can perpetuate throughout adulthood, if not seen as absurd by adults. Santa is seen as absurd by adults, so teaching it to kids, who do actually end up believing in it, is fairly benign. And only because Religion isn't seen as absurd by adults, even through the lack of evidence, it perpetuates as 'fact' to the majority of people, even the most absurd bits, like Noah's Ark.

The idea of believing in Santa as an adult, culturaly, is reinforced as laughable

The idea of believing in God as an adult, culturally, is reinforced as fact

Both, however, are equally absurd. It's all the cultures' fault!

Evolution is a trick by the devil to test our faith, raidoactive dating is inaccuarte and fossils were planted by the devil to seperate the true belivers from the ones that fall into the cult of evolution.

[deleted]

If God knowingly created the devil solely for the purpose of deceiving us, to 'test faith' then what a petty and deceptive God that would be, and the type that certainly shouldn't be worshipped as 'kind'. (I detect sarcasm, but just in-case...)

Avatar image for Inconsistancy
Inconsistancy

8094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#217 Inconsistancy
Member since 2004 • 8094 Posts

Haha that reminds of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyWUn_bj5rM

[deleted]

Hahaha, Crap! :lol:

I guess he's right, I'm upset that Santa isn't real, I'm crushed by it! I guess God exists, this guy's really great at convincing people.

Avatar image for Randolph
Randolph

10542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#218 Randolph
Member since 2002 • 10542 Posts

Not really a big deal, science is always changing and adapting thats why its always called theory. Cant rule out either theories.

edit: Seems like a desperate attempt to bash religion

Mephers3

I don't think you understand what a theory means when science is being discussed. Creationism/Intelligent Design is not a theory, it is, at best, a hypothesis, which is far below a theory. It is also, to be blunt, not science. Not science has no place in a science cIassroom.

Avatar image for iskeethunters
iskeethunters

925

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#219 iskeethunters
Member since 2011 • 925 Posts

[QUOTE="Heisenderp"]

It's called a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Usually they are laughed at for being ridiculous (conspiracy theories), but God gets an exception for some reason.Inconsistancy

I shall call it: The Adulthood Santa Complex.

It's brought on by the same reason that kids initially believe in Santa, but there are several factors that make Santa easier to disprove, one being that he's a person who lives in the here and now and can be seen, even at malls!, and the definition for the Santa hypothesis isn't very ambiguous.

The difference is God can't be proven it, and can't disproven, and in the failed logic of many generations, friends and family believe in them as fact, this establishes the idea, in a child, that it must be true. Even when Santa is disproven, because it was illogical, this isn't, because everyone believes in it anyway. However if this, slightly more ambigious route, had been taken towards Santa, it'd be equally possible for the majority of adults in the world to believe in him. But, it'd require that previous generations believed in him as fact, and that the 'mall santa, and parent santa' were just a form of ritual worship to Santa, the god(or saint) of the North Pole. I'm absolutely certain, that if Santa was slightly more ambiguous, and referred to as a god of something, then he'd be believed in quite widely along side of religions.

This is much like Astrology, because people don't write it off as absurd, and it's ritualistic, there is a much higher chance that people will believe them as true. Even though the Astrological calender is off due to Earth's axial procession, by ~2000 years in a cycle of 26000 years, no one knows or cares. It's just vague enough to fit how you're feeling on an average day ~50% of the time. Amazingly, 26% of Americans apparently believe in Astrology.

The human mind, early on, is designed to not question authority. "Fire is hot, don't touch it" it would be far too dangerous for a child to test this, so evolution has imprinted the requirement to obey parents as a child. However false teachings during this time can perpetuate throughout adulthood, if not seen as absurd by adults. Santa is seen as absurd by adults, so teaching it to kids, who do actually end up believing in it, is fairly benign. And only because Religion isn't seen as absurd by adults, even through the lack of evidence, it perpetuates as 'fact' to the majority of people, even the most absurd bits, like Noah's Ark.

The idea of believing in Santa as an adult, culturaly, is reinforced as laughable

The idea of believing in God as an adult, culturally, is reinforced as fact

Both, however, are equally absurd. It's all the cultures' fault!

Evolution is a trick by the devil to test our faith, raidoactive dating is inaccuarte and fossils were planted by the devil to seperate the true belivers from the ones that fall into the cult of evolution.

[deleted]

If God knowingly created the devil solely for the purpose of deceiving us, to 'test faith' then what a petty and deceptive God that would be, and the type that certainly shouldn't be worshipped as 'kind'. (I detect sarcasm, but just in-case...)

You sir (or lady), made my day!
Avatar image for Vesica_Prime
Vesica_Prime

7062

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#220 Vesica_Prime
Member since 2009 • 7062 Posts

I just love it when religious studies is just about the Christian faith and excludes Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Sikhism, Hindusim, Buddhism.

I also love how the same turd heads hide behind the American Constitution when it comes to some policies and then completely disregard it when it comes to other policies.

Avatar image for Inconsistancy
Inconsistancy

8094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#221 Inconsistancy
Member since 2004 • 8094 Posts
You sir (or lady), made my day!iskeethunters
◄Sir, and thank you.

I just love it when religious studies is just about the Christian faith and excludes Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Sikhism, Hindusim, Buddhism.

I also love how the same turd heads hide behind the American Constitution when it comes to some policies and then completely disregard it when it comes to other policies.

Vesica_Prime
I really like Newt Gingrich on this, suggesting that we should sometimes just ignore the courts, such a swell guy, desiring to completely subvert the balance of powers.
Avatar image for Vesica_Prime
Vesica_Prime

7062

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#222 Vesica_Prime
Member since 2009 • 7062 Posts

I really like Newt Gingrich on this, suggesting that we should sometimes just ignore the courts, such a swell guy, desiring to completely subvert the balance of powers.Inconsistancy

I'm unfamiliar with some American politicians due to being on the other side of the globe, but may you explain this policy in a bit more detail?

Avatar image for Inconsistancy
Inconsistancy

8094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#223 Inconsistancy
Member since 2004 • 8094 Posts

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]I really like Newt Gingrich on this, suggesting that we should sometimes just ignore the courts, such a swell guy, desiring to completely subvert the balance of powers.Vesica_Prime

I'm unfamiliar with some American politicians due to being on the other side of the globe, but may you explain this policy in a bit more detail?

--Newt Gingrich proposed to have federal marshals bring judges before Congress to be questioned about, and face impeachment for, their opinions, and defended his position by saying, "as a historian, I understand this better than the lawyers," --

I wish I could find the exact quote, but I don't remember which debate it was in, it was quite crazy, but that's the basic gist of his position. Rather tired as well.

Avatar image for Vesica_Prime
Vesica_Prime

7062

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#224 Vesica_Prime
Member since 2009 • 7062 Posts

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]I really like Newt Gingrich on this, suggesting that we should sometimes just ignore the courts, such a swell guy, desiring to completely subvert the balance of powers.Inconsistancy

I'm unfamiliar with some American politicians due to being on the other side of the globe, but may you explain this policy in a bit more detail?

--Newt Gingrich proposed to have federal marshals bring judges before Congress to be questioned about, and face impeachment for, their opinions, and defended his position by saying, "as a historian, I understand this better than the lawyers," --

I wish I could find the exact quote, but I don't remember which debate it was in, it was quite crazy, but that's the basic gist of his position. Rather tired as well.

Ahhhh I see, and for such a radical change in policy I'm inclined to agree with him there.