Here’s the most evil thing I’ve ever done: it’s a recording from Trinity Broadcast Network (you are already recoiling) featuring Hugh Ross, Eric Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, and a couple of other guys talking about evolution. Seriously, you will lose brain cells watching this. If you try to sit through the whole two hours (!), you will be reduced to a mindless zombie with a craving for human flesh. So I may be triggering the Zombie Apocalypse by posting this. But, you know, atheist, so what do I care?
I skipped through most of it. Somewhere in the middle, Ross and Ham really get into it over the age of the earth. Unfortunately, it’s mostly the two of them citing bible verses at each other.
I wonder why they didn’t have an atheist or two in the conversation?
…Is this supposed to be a new iteration of TZT?
Maybe it will draw out new fodder we can cast into the fiery depths of TZT.
I went to a fundamentalist Christian school through the 8th grade and I remember being drilled with Hovind’s YEC nonsense. I wonder how he’s enjoying supermax federal prison?
Sorry, I can’t I’m depressed enough today.
Paul Zachary Myers. Congratulations. At least your thinking about the Creation Science viewpoint. Perhaps the evolution fairy tales may appear slightly more distasteful as you continue to consider the others’ viewpoint.
Well done, mate.
I’ve lost too many brain cells at work recently, so I dare not risk losing the rest watching this!
It’s sad that Hovind’s son, Eric, is just as big a douche as his daddy. I should hope that the apple does fall far from the tree, as I never want to be like my father, but Eric doesn’t help my case.
@Antigodless
I have a bad mood a parsect wide so please please PLEASE try to defend something from the bible.
When I heard one mentioning fine tuning, my ears perked up, but then these so called scientists started quoting passages from the Bible as a bases of their knowledge. Then my ears folded over and my eyes rolled up into my head. I have found so much evidence indicating that the Bible is pretty much myth and is not the word of God. It is time to abandoned something written by ancients who had little scientific knowledge. Even if there is a god, no one knows what this god would be like and Jesus certainly was not a manifestation of a god. Time for Christianity to go the way of the beliefs in the Greek gods. In fact, time for all religions to be abandoned. Then we will experience far fewer wars and discrimination against people who are different like homosexuals. I think John Lennon’s song Imagine says a lot.
So tell me, dumbass, how one is to think about an ancient fiction sans any evidence. Creationism is the opposite of thinking, as you amply demonstrate.
Not very clever projecting your hatred of learning onto others. But typical stupid fuckery from your sort.
Glen Davidson
You’re more of an idiot than I thought, and that’s quite an accomplishment.
Looks like it’s on me to deal with antiimaginaryfriendless for a bit. Illithid was getting stale anyway.
Congrats AG, you learned PZ’s full name in the last thread and now you just can’t help yourself. Idiot. Here’s the deal: If you believe in talking snakes you don’t get to call evolution a “fairy tale”. Simple, right? Try it with me: “I believe in talking snakes, not to mention magic men in the sky. I should refrain from calling evolution a “fairy tale” as it makes me look like a clueless fucking idiot”.
Well done, mate.
edit:
Oh, good. Ing’s here. I’m going to make some popcorn.
Scifi/Shiloh do you honestly think we don’t remember your bullshit? Identity trolling is not appriciated
You may destroy the atheists by accident doing this. Then the christens will declare it god’s curse and try to stop the zombies with holy water. It just makes them bigger.
Well I for one think the two morons already here should be able to be confronted here.
I love Hugh Ross saying some stupid mindless crap about dark matter being “evidence” for the supernatural, and then he’s asked to dumb that stupid shit down.
God, these people are pig-ignorant nonthinkers.
The hopeless non-learner Eric wants to educate people.
Glen Davidson
A creationist is telling an evolutionary development biologist that “[p]erhaps the evolution fairy tales may appear slightly more distasteful.” This antigodless idiot really doesn’t have a fucking clue.
*puts on funny hat and clown make up*
Please do not slander swine. They’re intelligent for non-primates
I can’t believe the opening sequence for that show. It reminds me of the televangelist spoof on Absolutely Fabulous.
antigodless, what is it with your omnipotent god that can create anything at all yet relies on sinners to do all the work. Wouldn’t it be easier for your god to raise a finger and make it so? No depending on disgusting, incompetent sinners.
Those of us who no longer need bedtime stories are not going to be swayed by silly believers who, like the cuckoo, dirties another’s nest. To us, the missing link is the god who has not interacted with the earth in the last, oh, 5 billion years or so (before the earth was formed). You are utterly unconvincing.
[meta]
I see what you did there. :)
OMG, the problem with science today is that it won’t allow mere fictions (gods) to be an explanation.
Hey, idiots, provide some evidence–supernatural if that’s at all possible–and then you’ll be more than a mush-headed fuckwit.
Glen Davidson
[sigh]
My previous was to Rev. BDC.
antigodless, in a previous thread I asked you a question about Satan. You have so far not answered it – why is that?
Dumbfuck Eric tells how if you squeeze atheists, they’ll admit that we can’t know anything. Because, you know, to say we know anything absolutely depends upon God.
Yeah, stupid liar.
Then he brings up the same mindless story about how he said that atheists (or whoever) say we can’t know anything at breakfast, and his seven-year old daughter asked how they can know that. And wow, she’s right on.
Hey Eric, things would be different if you would quit lying. Sure, you’re exceedingly ignorant, but clearly you’re entirely happy to lie your ass off.
Except for Hugh Ross, though, it seems that all of them accept Paul’s claim that all know that God exists (or could, something like that), so because some idiotic “holy word” babbles something, there’s no question about its truth.
So we’re all liars because of their incompetence and lack of concern about truth, and, implicitly, of course they don’t and won’t even listen to the evidence that we bring to them (I suppose Eric’s excuse for telling the same lies that he told here).
Glen Davidson
Thanks PZ. I had to read that list of names right after lunch!
Speaking of emetics, here’s antigodless, who still can’t tell me why there’s no evidence of a mass extinction event at any time when the global flood described in the Bible might have happened. That should make your skull bell ring, antigodless.
@10:35 the astrophysicist, Dr Hugh Ross claims he doesn’t know a single astronomer who doesn’t acknowledge that when we look at the universe we see overwhelming evidence that the universe is specifically designed for human life.
Really??
Wasn’t SciFi banned from all by TZT?
Therefore, I am forced to conclude that Hugh Ross is agoraphobic
“Dumbfuck Eric tells how if you squeeze atheists, they’ll admit that we can’t know anything. Because, you know, to say we know anything absolutely depends upon God.”
When Hovind says shit like this, it makes me want to bludgeon him to death with an epistemology textbook. Or anything, really.
@Nerd
I can’t remember he might just have been there voluntarily because he’s a utter tool. If so I look forward to his banning and subsequent morphing and whining. If not then I look forward to him continuing to ignore me.
Shiloh, you ever want to address my NDE or anything like that?
“Dr Hugh Ross claims he doesn’t know a single astronomer who doesn’t acknowledge that when we look at the universe we see overwhelming evidence that the universe is specifically designed for human life.”
Apparently a fortiori from not knowing any astronomers. Scientists are the tools of Satan, donchaknow.
Ross’s comment reminds me of a Dilbert punch line (ducks thrown objects) “I haven’t listened to a single complaint”
antigodless
^^^^^
PZ!!!!
there! there! quick, toss it in the pen before it escapes again!
Then my ears folded over and my eyes rolled up into my head.
whaddya mean “Then”?
did you fold your ears twice, roll your eyes 360?
Actually, if you watch the full two hours, it’s almost a surefire way to become an atheist.
The best bits are when the Ph.D’s, start arguing against the completely ignorant morons like Ken Ham and RayComfort.
The Ph.D’s are comfortable twisting the bible to fit their area of study, and it’s hilarious to see them argue their science against the others. Fantastic.
Shit we have to start over on the shiloh script of “I’m an agnostic!”
Perhaps a bit off-topic, but the nonsense has gone worldwide: http://io9.com/5915908/south-korea-will-remove-evolution-from-its-high-school-textbooks
Any bets on which argument Shiloh brings up first? Will it be “atheist Stephen Hawking mentions god therefore maybe god” or will it be “I don’t understand the Weak Anthropic Principle therefore perhaps god”? I’m just hoping it isn’t “near death experiences therefore possibly god” because that one gets really boring really soon.
@Tis
Psh way off the start of the script is always about how atheists can’t prove their point therefore “agnosticism” is the logical choice and atheists are just like theists.
Are you mad? Two hours?! I can’t watch two minutes of such Stupid without feeling the urge to pull my own head off. Or better yet, someone else’s.
Does Ken Ham get paid every time he interrupts?
So it wouldn’t be ALL bad, then…
Wow! I seem to have brought all the idiots out complete with their all their stupid mineless comments. Get a life people! You are wasting it here.
@Scifi
You make a good point. My comments are severely lacking in unrefined ore.
also Tis, we were both wrong. The right answer was “awkwardly going off script with non-sequitor trolling”
scifi:
No, PZ posted the video before you arrived brandishing your “wisdom”.
(And only one idiot has been brought forth)
<snicker>
Care to show us how it’s done, and stop wasting yours here?
Is it really broadcasted? At first, I thought it was a sketch from Saturday Night Live… but then, I realized they didn’t read their text from cue cards..
They seem to take themselves pretty seriously… Anyway, I just finished “God is not great” and went from enlightment to darkness in just a few hours :-)
PS cf. PZ@2
[meta + OT]
After the afternoon has progressed to the evening and the crepuscule has crept in, artificial lighting works pretty well.
(Thus, we transcend nature’s ostensible limitations upon us)
Paul Zachary Myers. Congratulations. At least your thinking about the Creation Science viewpoint. Perhaps the evolution fairy tales may appear slightly more distasteful as you continue to consider the others’ viewpoint.
Well done, mate.
It’s “you’re” not “your”. Perhaps you should acquire an elementary education before you try and converse with the grown-ups.
You know, what were the odds that this program would be fine-tuned for Men?
The odds are only a half of a half of a half of a half of a half of a half of one half.
The bible says God is sexist. Look at this program, it’s perfectly sexist – no women have an opinion worth hearing at all!
Thus, God Exists and is the god of the bible.
QED!
I gotta call Atheist Experience next week!
Long as I’m here, I thought I might ask for feedback.
I’ve been reading “God and the Folly of Faith” by V. Stenger. He has repeatedly used the word “evil” in various contexts. I see PZ has used it here as well.
My thought is that we, as atheists, should abandon the use of the word “evil” as a general reference to “bad” or it’s synonyms.
I just think that the word evil has too much religious connotation, and implies agency. Such as evil caused by satan. It feels to me that every time we say “evil” it conjures ideas of bad things in life being the result of supernatural purpose or intent. To me there is no such thing as evil, life is just good and bad.
Its easy enough for the religious to twist things. Using words like “evil” provides implicit agreement with their crap dogma, whether we intend it or not. Just more for them to twist.
It’s like watching a group therapy session at an alternative mental health out-patient clinic. They’re all koo-koo–some raving, some verging on hysteria, others clearly needing meds. The only treatment is talking but the more they talk, the deeper they slip into psychosis. They can’t get any real help because their group leader is just as koo-koo as they are. Spooky.
Atheists will never abandon evil!
Ing FTW
Holy Moly. Dr. Bloom’s pet peeve is that “God” is no longer allowed to be included in a scientific explanation of phenomena. (As if he ever was in real science, but anyway.)
Good luck with hearing from your doctor that your acne has been caused by a Santeria curse, while your electrician attributes your problems with intermittent power outages to a prankster poltergeist. Because if you can’t rule out God as a supernatural agent in an experiment, why would you rule out any other supernatural agent in any other practical situation? My car seems to be running roughly. I guess I’ll call in an exorcist.
For more insight into the Trinity Broadcasting network, google “trinity broadcasting network mascara”.
Heh heh. Young Hovind says he talked to lots of atheists at the Reason Rally, and they said if he could prove the existence of the Biblical God, the atheists would still refuse to worship him. Stupid atheists refusing to worship a God they despise. Young Hovind interprets this to mean that there is no intellectual reason for rejecting the Biblical God. But he’s not getting it. Those atheists are saying that the Biblical God, even if he existed, wouldn’t be worthy of worship according to human standards. Whereas young Hovind is ready to grovel to Big Creator even if Big Creator is a total jerk judged by human standards. Yay, Young Hovind for abandoning ethical standards when considering the ultimate creator.
No, I didn’t stick it out to the end. What do you think we’re made of?
I just think that the word evil has too much religious connotation, and implies agency.
The christards appropriated a word that was in secular use for centuries, if not millennia. Several words like it in assorted languages seem to derive from the Indo-European upo or upa words, which traditionally meant things like “uppity”, “excessive”, “extreme”, or “overstepping limits.”
In fact, the Old English usage was definitely something akin to “uppity” (another upo word).
it wasn’t until about the 18th century that it took on its current meaning indicated lack of morality.
So when atheists use it, think of it as taking the word back.
Wow I’d really love to watch all of this but I’ve got a baby in the oven that really needs basting.
I do not, under any circumstances, wish to describe the nastiest villains in my D&D games as Chaotic Very Naughty.
It’s sub slacktivism. it helps nothing and will go unnoticed.
oh btw, admitting that Religion has claim to Good/evil is probably a worse strategy.
That may be the connotation you’ve associated with the word by talking to religious people, but it can certainly be used without implying anything about a supernatural agency.
However, unless we were discussing theodicy, we’d have no reason to talk about “natural evil” (disease, disasters, etc.), since morality does generally imply agency, but this would apply just as much to words like “good” or “bad.” So, if we’re trying to be careful with language, that conflicts with statements like yours that “life is just good and bad,” because life itself isn’t good, bad or both. It just is what it is, and it isn’t an agent.
Maybe we could describe some people (or other organisms) as good or bad; but I think it’s better to evaluate actions as such, rather than treating someone’s “goodness” or “badness” as inherent to them as an individual.
I guess Ross is there to show that he can both twist the Bible more than the literalist morons and be as anti-scientific as anyone.
Sure Ross, the moon has a record of the very first life. That’s as big a fiction as your Bible.
My God, Sean McDowell tells us that the human body has 100 trillion cells. Wow, God. And atheist Bill Gates said something irrelevant to their BS too!
Glen Davidson
I was wondering about his ‘fossils on the moon’ story. Seems an odd idea.
Does anybody know whether New Zealand is more rational than the US? I realize that’s a pretty low bar, but if I’m gonna vacate the premises, I’d like to go somewhere where the odds of repetition are fairly low.
Also, what’s NZ’s policy on reality-asylum refugees?
[OT]
eoraptor013, try asking Ichthyic over at TET.
(He’s a recent(ish) resident there but from the USA)
The idea in general isn’t so bad, really. Guillermo Gonzalez was one of the people who brought it up, actually, and I’d give him some credit for doing so. Rocks kicked up from the earth by large asteroid strikes might very well land on the moon, and if we’re lucky we might find some microfossils in some of them–presumably if we find a good many of them.
Ross’s dishonest idea is that “first life” can be tested by this, which is absolute nonsense. Life likely wouldn’t be terribly common until photosynthesis evolved, and by that time there would be very many species. He’s hoping to claim that if we find more than one species of microfossils on the moon (or at least very different forms–since species per se are unlikely to be identifiable in any but the rarest cases), thus creationism is true.
That’s grossly dishonest, and I suspect that he knows that it is. Any life abundant enough to be preserved as microfossils on the moon is almost certain to come from well after a good deal of diversity arose. I think he just doesn’t care, that he’s lying in advance so that he or his successor can lie more convincingly in the future about this matter.
Glen Davidson
Does it actually disprove evolution to have multiple starting forms of life?
Chaotic Very Naughty is going to be the name of my new punk band.
No way I’m watching that. It just looks too much like church. Gah. I suppose you want me to wear my little fucking leisure suit, too. Sorry. It doesn’t fit anymore.
I, on the other hand, would very much like to do so. No doubt Apprentice Sorceress Zoot will be suitably punished for her Chaotic Very Naughtiness by the Dungeon Master with a +3 Paddle of Spanking. Ooh err!
Does it actually disprove evolution to have multiple starting forms of life?
nope, would only affect common descent, and only up to where we are interested in the last universal common ancestor. There’s no evidence that multiple sources, if they existed, lasted long enough to affect common descent as we are able to measure it via modern genetics.
If you’re really curious, I could try to dig up an article that explains why fully, as well as what the evidence for and against multiple, maintained, sources.
that said, this is not related to whether or not horizontal transfer might have had some affect, but I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to indicate that it has, either, to any extent we need to change the rules for common descent.
Watching this video is like holding an Ipecac syrup contest without providing the pie (http://bit.ly/L9gvQL).
Does anybody know whether New Zealand is more rational than the US?
yes, I can answer that.
A:
it depends on what you mean by “rational”.
religion has much less of an influence on life here. MUCH less.
so if you want a place where religion plays a much lesser role in politics, this is for you.
OTOH, there are plenty of people here who subscribe to “alternative medicine” and you’ll find lots of woo being sold at the pharmacies.
so, as an overall measure… I’d still say NZ has the edge over the US, but especially wrt to religion.
the main thing though, is that it is so much smaller in population than the US (hell, it has a tenth the population of CA!), that whatever insanity there is here is possessed by a much smaller absolute number of people, so they have essentially no influence on daily life. The same is not true of the US, where you have 40 millions evangelical christians, that work together as nearly a single mind.
the politics here is socialist historically, but NZ has not been isolated from the anti-progressive rhetoric that has risen in the West over the last 40 years either, hence the current National Party trying to open the country to offshore oil, scrapping government departments left and right, and trying to sell off public assets to the highest bidder.
I’m sure that’s all clear as mud.
er, let me put it this way:
I spent 10 years figuring out where in the West still had some sanity left, and would have for at least 20 more years, and this is the place I chose.
I haven’t regretted it since.
Atheists will never abandon evil!
Oh, behave!
I prefer to set up campaigns where the villains who cause the most death and suffering are the Lawful Good types…
I wish I didn’t include the part about adult conversation.
Now we’re gonna have to start talking about fairies and Santa Clause.
[meta]
rapiddominance
What, you only just became aware of this?
(Topicality ain’t important, to some)
*puts on robe and wizard hat*
Ichthyic – no need to find the article. I was just surprised to here Ross claim that finding such diverse fossils on the moon would disprove evolution as it wasn’t my understanding that evolution hinges on a single common ancestor, just that current evidence points in that direction.
oops! should be *hear*.
I’ll type this very softly: what does this have to do with this thread, shithead?
Do you think an adult can’t converse with someone whose ideas are utterly stupid and contemptible without screaming at them? The question is instead whether an adult with utterly stupid and contemptible ideas is worth conversing with at all when it comes to those subjects. Some can occasionally dump the garbage (most of it at least), but it’s almost always a long process which takes a lot of conversations. Of course, religious hatred and idiocy is often too much for anyone to handle (even an adult), so screaming has its place, but maybe you need to think again about who is to blame for that.
Go fuck yourself. Autism isn’t a joke.
John Morales
Aware of what?
I heard the phrase used some few months ago shortly before the largest secular gathering ever.
In what was not an uncommon move for me I expressed my concerns about the christian intrusion that occurred. I even made note that many in your community refrain from doing similar things.
Its not like I can talk about everything all at once. I have to prioritize.
Is this a satisfactory response or did I misunderstand your question?
I understood the concept (vaguely) long before encountering the term.
What I want now is as much description of this ‘approach’ as PZ or his audience is willing to offer.
I’d rather hear it from PZ; but then, he’s a god and I’m a cockroach so being included in his schedule would be an honor far undeserved.
83
The relevance is that by looking at a certain consistency in behavior we might be able to answer the question PZ raised. Its not all about numbers and analysis.
When you break down a comment into pieces, try to stay in tune with the big picture. There’s no reason for you to have just asked me a stupid question.
As for autism, did you not recognize the systematic approach to the comment? What if PZ has the disorder? Should he be afflicted with some condition outside of his control that creates difficulties in interpreting subtle language and behavior characteristics then I need to take it into accound.
I’m genuinely concerned.
;)
I just watched the intro. Jeez it’s long (2+ mins).
And man is it tacky? Tasteless” doesn’t do it justice. At least the Catholics and Episcopalians can claim that “high-church” crap and put on a respectable spectacle. But this is bizarrely crap. More Vegas than Jesus. The wigs and makeup just came off the floor show of some second rate casino.
And what’s with all the nuking places? I saw Milan go, southern Congo…what?, central China (oh my), and poor Costa Rica. I assume they are highlighting places involved with the program, but it’s a fairly disturbing image. And the last one was near where I live. Yikes!
Exactly how did they get the West Coast Playboy Mansion? Hef must be poorly. Love those Christmas Light Angels though. Classy.
Wow! A TBN coat of arms! “Rex Regum et Fidelum” no less. With lion and stallion charges. I’m always amazed at the monarchist tendencies of this lot. They have no sense of their own church history. Lordy mercy!
Those chairs or coaches or whatever look uncomfortable…maybe they’re a form of torture…a modern day rack. So they can feel like real martyrs.
“Matt Crouch”! Really!? No. They made that up…right? Too much. And they couldn’t find a cheap jacket that fits…where’s costuming. (Thank you Wikipedia…I get it. He’s the son of the prez and VP of TBN…she’s the one with the big wig and six inch eye lashes. A little scary. She looks exactly like a Sister of Perpetual Indulgence.)
Enough. Can’t go on. Production Values = 0. Stupid content. I wouldn’t watch it if I was Christian. They should be immensely embarrassed. If there was a god, it would nuke them.
Your concern is noted. Now like I said, go fuck yourself.
Why? Why! Even the first two minute intro was hell and now I feel an inexorable self-destructive urge to watch the whole thing…
I’m genuinely concerned.
another liar for Jesus.
keep going, fuckwit, I’m betting you’ll get tossed into the zombie pen for our amusement.
So rapiddominance is some sort of wannabe name?
Ablist insults and faux concern seem to be all xe has. Unless you count this:
There is some sort of legal saint thing going on?
I hope PZ just spares us and takes a few gentle swings with the banhammer. Illithid, raj, scifi, probably a few others. He’s out of practice.
What is wrong with Ham’s face? Yikes….Dorian Grey!!
I made it through the first two minutes, and then I felt my brain cells started to decay so I had to stop.
Impossible. Theism is a petty mind game; therefore, every theist is caught up in a petty mind game.
Theists have noticed that their dialogue is full of circular arguments?
A convocation of creationists babbling at each other is not an adult conversation except in the numerically literal sense.
Speaking of “interpreting subtle language and behavior characteristics”, did you really not understand that PZ’s question, which you spent so much effort in replying to, was sarcastic, facetious, and rhetorical? I suspect that you are in fact afflicted with some condition outside of your control.
I’m genuinely concerned.
Thanks robro @ 86 for drawing my attention to the coat of arms and its “motto”. They design a coat of arms and choose a motto and can’t even get the latin right??
It says (I’ve double checked) “Rex regum et fidelum”,
which, of course, plural genitive, should be fidelium.
If any of you TBN dunces is reading this, you can have the proofreading and the linguistic advice for free. God works in mysterious ways…
Oh, before we get started on “fidelum” also exists, it does, but not in the meaning of “of the faithful”, but with the meaning “of the trustworthy” (sic!!)
Rats! I missed the pun!
“King of kings and of the trustworthy”
The birdbath is out, and the boobies have flown in
rapiddominance
One, you’re clearly a freaky-shit virgin.
Two, an abrasive manner works best to scrub the crap off, and having to face the fact that it’s not chocolate does hurt a little.
Three, the kind gentle thoughtfulness was always there, needing no help from imaginary beings to flourish.
Adult conversation? Umm, adults accept all the facts of a subject when discussing it. That lot are discussing a grotesque parody of evolution that bears as much resemblance to the real thing as vinegar does to champagne.
Thanks a lot. The mere mention of those four names in a single sentence burnt out a bunch of pixels on my screen. I shudder to think what would have happened if I clicked on the link.
Rapiddominance is concerned? I am concerned about their concern. Can someone be concerned about my concern for their concern. If we keep this going we can set up a perpetual concern machine and Power The World™.
Louis
rapiddominance:
Now that’s an oxymoron.
They are selling god of the gaps and argument from authority to fools. Mr. PhD tells me that god is evident through the fact that science doesn’t know everything. How can anyone not be insulted by this comedy? Come forward fools and reject those pernicious facts and embrace religion as the answer for everything. Never mind that it is in reality an answer for nothing.
What is contained in that video can not be identified as an adult conversation.
It’s a conversation of a group of people determined to delude and lie to their gullible followers. There’s not a shred of reality in the whole 2 hour idiocy fest. It’s all fantasy.
Take your asshatery somewhere else, fuckwit.
Too many syllables for the god botherers?
Louis
There a few who can not be insulted by this gobbledegook, like:
1) Whiny, hypocritical Concern Trolls For Jesus who get angry over how we aren’t falling over ourselves to mindlessly worship Jesus after this gross assault on our intelligence,
2) Brain-dead Creationist followers who have have been totally shielded from any science education, and have had all ability for rational thought exorcised from their little heads,
and
3) Purveyors of “Bathroom humor” comedy who enjoy watching pompous idiots gloriously wallow in their own idiocy.
Why do you think the word “evil” has religious connotations? I’m not aware of any.
In case anyone’s wondering, most of the interesting/infuriating stuff is over when they start arguing about young earth vs. old earth. They go on about that for a LOOOOONNNNNNGGGGG time. Something about how “day” is properly translated from Hebrew ad nauseum. I made it to about the one hour mark and they stopped that for a commercial break and a musical interlude, followed by a brief video with a terrible analogy for the fine tuning argument, then back into old earth/young earth. I don’t think there’s any point watching past roughly the half hour point when young earth/old earth comes up. There, I’ve saved you an hour and a half of your life.
Marksmith, #54, take your mockery of mentally ill people and shove it up your ass.
Rick:
I disagree. See Consciousness Razor’s and Aquaria’s comments on usage.
Aquaria:
It’s from a different root. The one you’re thinking of is *uper. “Evil” comes from *wap-.
M Groesbeck:
Why?
rapiddominance:
Pobrecito.
I know quite a few people on the spectrum who are empathetic, perceptive, and kind. What’s your excuse, you steaming pile of pigshit?
I can’t speak for Groesbeck, but it doesn’t seem so strange to me. It can make for good, tragic, stories. And the archetypical LG character is always convinced that they are in the right, because hey, they’re lawful. And good! Which can lead to much blindness and destruction. After all, the mythical road to Hell is supposedly paved with good intentions.
scooterskutre @ # 92
Yes, Dorian Grey was ugly. That was a literary device. It’s unnecessary to bring Ham’s looks into this, though, as he does a great job of being ugly just by being. Whatever his looks are, they’re superseded by his being utterly contemptible.
Considering what Piggy says about atheists and jews the tone argument is fucking laughable
Tone is a rhetorical tool of communication, to be employed as needed. Honest communicators will choose to use an abrasive tone when such is the most effective way to convey what they wish to convey, to the limit of their own individual skills as communicators. That has absolutely nothing to do with how that person may choose to behave in other social situations.
Tone is always subservient to substance, and serves as a useful and quick litmus to evaluate responders. Those who cannot or will not distinguish the two are not people whose responses one needs to waste time taking seriously.
Whoever this “Dorian Grey” character is, he seems to bear no similarity to the title character of “The Picture of Dorian Gray”.
This is amazing. Seeing this idiots arguing their stupid ideas is really funny. Ken Ham may be batshit crazy, but at least he is consistent with his insanity, while the others argue and fail to compromise reality and their particular brand of religion, he just redefines reality (similar to North Carolina outlawing reality)according to his bible. It´s a competition of who is the most insane and everyone is trying to win.
Made it through to 11.54 before screaming. Is this a record?
I think I made it to Ray’s intro before having to take a really long break.
anyone else get hit up for a donation while watching that? Funny how god is always broke.
I watched way more of this than I care to admit. For those who didn’t bother, there were a few absolutely golden moments:
– In his opening statement, Hugh Ross lists the “space-time theorem” and dark energy as the most compelling evidence for a designer. He didn’t cite any actual evidence or research – all he did was toss out some sciency-sounding buzzwords. It was hilarious to see how awestruck the host was at the impressiveness of Ross’ buzzwords. I think it even caused the audience to applaud. Then the host asked Ross to back up a bit and dumb it down for him. Yeesh.
– Ken Ham looks absolutely miserable the moment it becomes clear to him that he’s sharing a panel with some creationists who don’t take Genesis literally. Sure Ross is a fellow evolution denier, but he’s the wrong kind of evolution denier, and Ham will have none of it.
– My absolute favourite part: around 9:30, the host turns to Hugh Ross and says “Dr. Ross, when you’re teaching Astrophysicis [sic] – right, you’re an Astrophysicist… what’s the… what do you teach, Astrophysi… Astrophysics!” Then he congratulates himself for finally being able to say the name of Ross’ purported field of study.
Seriously, what a bunch of clowns.
I watched a good half hour of this. My brain started to atrophy at about the ten-minute mark.
It’s unnecessary to bring Ham’s looks into this
especially since, as we all know, it’s much more important to stress the fact that Ken Ham rapes piglets.
That’s twenty minutes’ worth of some serious brain atrophy.. I suggest you do what I do when my intellect feels assaulted: go youtube some Thunderf00t.
What is shocking is that these people claim to have the scholarship that allows them to sit down and tell the public about what is wrong with the sciences. Whether they are educated or not they still severely limit themselves to a vision only framed within the unquestioned faith they have in bible scripture. Any evidence that deviates from this view is beyond consideration. What a tragically narrow minded view of the world.
It just goes to show that religion/faith/revealed knowledge DOES NOT WORK. These people clearly do not have any actual knowledge and are reduced to petty bickering about whose version is the right one.
They never will and cannot ever agree, because they’re BOTH wrong. Neither of them can gather any evidence of being righter than the other because they’re both drinking from the same poisoned fountain.