Creationists grow increasingly desperate in feud with Neil deGrasse Tyson

[theeedude]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/fa1a1c8fb7/creationist-cosmos

 

[shira]

Now its atheists excuse making. That's like saying if gays didn't put their noses in the media, id accept them.

Same thing, bigot.

Boy, you really have a stick up your ass.

Creationists don't belong in a scientific discussion because they refuse to abide by the scientific method. Saying that it's "bigotry" to exclude their world view from science instruction is like saying it's bigotry to exclude a Holocaust denier from expressing their views as part of a high school history class focusing on World War II. THAT's a fitting analogy.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Simple experiment (which of course would not be accepted as proof by religious people as they don't like proof or facts):

Put 100 scientists in a lab for 8h a day, 5 days a week, 6 months.
Put 50,000 religious people in churches as often and as long as they want for 50 years. Count the number of inventions and important scientific discoveries done in the lab, and those done in churches.

 

[Retro Rob]

Simple experiment (which of course would not be accepted as proof by religious people as they don't like proof or facts):

Put 100 scientists in a lab for 8h a day, 5 days a week, 6 months.
Put 50,000 religious people in churches as often and as long as they want for 50 years. Count the number of inventions and important scientific discoveries done in the lab, and those done in churches.

You can conduct the exact same experiment using factory workers, school teachers, or financial advisors in the place of religious people and get the same results.

You know why? Well, because factory workers, school teachers, and financial advisors aren't scientists! How could that happen!

But the hilarious thing about these sort of posts is that somehow and somewhere along the lines, 21st century atheism thinks it can lay absolute claim to science, conveniently forgetting (rather, ignoring) that both Islam and Christianity gave massive contributions to the advancement of math and science, and religious people still do today.

Atheists were around back then, but you could probably count them on one hand. It had no hand in scientific advancement, showing that science is not inherently "atheistic", its more agnostic or in different to claims of God's existence.

My point in this? That there is no dichotomy between religion and science, but there is with Fundamentalism, which IS opposed to scientific advancement.

Religious people ARE scientists, and scientists ARE religious....there is no "you have religious people, and then you have scientists".

You're welcome, greenhorn!

 

[Rakehellion]

It says your priest is an idiot.

I love how religious people are of such a high moral fiber, but can't help flinging insults like a neanderthal.

Religion brings people comfort and hope

Then maybe you need more religion because you sound nothing but angry and bitter.

 

[Retro Rob]

I love how religious people are of such a high moral fiber, but can't help flinging insults like a neanderthal.

Um...I am a Neanderthal, just more advanced!

Then maybe you need more religion because you sound nothing but angry and bitter.

Perhaps, you're right.

 

[Paratus]

Um...I am a Neanderthal, just more advanced!



Perhaps, you're right.

Um you are almost all Cro-Magnon. You'd know that if you took a damn science class.

 

[Retro Rob]

Um you are almost all Cro-Magnon. You'd know that if you took a damn science class.

Your sarcasm-o-meter needs tweaking, my friend....

 

[SlowSpyder]

You can conduct the exact same experiment using factory workers, school teachers, or financial advisors in the place of religious people and get the same results.

You know why? Well, because factory workers, school teachers, and financial advisors aren't scientists! How could that happen!

But the hilarious thing about these sort of posts is that somehow and somewhere along the lines, 21st century atheism thinks it can lay absolute claim to science, conveniently forgetting (rather, ignoring) that both Islam and Christianity gave massive contributions to the advancement of math and science, and religious people still do today.

Atheists were around back then, but you could probably count them on one hand. It had no hand in scientific advancement, showing that science is not inherently "atheistic", its more agnostic or in different to claims of God's existence.

My point in this? That there is no dichotomy between religion and science, but there is with Fundamentalism, which IS opposed to scientific advancement.

Religious people ARE scientists, and scientists ARE religious....there is no "you have religious people, and then you have scientists".

You're welcome, greenhorn!

I'd say christianity held science back more than it contributed. Individual christians who explored various fields certainly have contributed, as have members of other religions and non-believers. But on the whole, when you look at scientific movements that christians felt were at odds with their faith, when religion actually wielded power, science certainly wasn't able to move forward easily because of the faithful.

 

[realibrad]

You can conduct the exact same experiment using factory workers, school teachers, or financial advisors in the place of religious people and get the same results.

You know why? Well, because factory workers, school teachers, and financial advisors aren't scientists! How could that happen!

But the hilarious thing about these sort of posts is that somehow and somewhere along the lines, 21st century atheism thinks it can lay absolute claim to science, conveniently forgetting (rather, ignoring) that both Islam and Christianity gave massive contributions to the advancement of math and science, and religious people still do today.

Atheists were around back then, but you could probably count them on one hand. It had no hand in scientific advancement, showing that science is not inherently "atheistic", its more agnostic or in different to claims of God's existence.

My point in this? That there is no dichotomy between religion and science, but there is with Fundamentalism, which IS opposed to scientific advancement.

Religious people ARE scientists, and scientists ARE religious....there is no "you have religious people, and then you have scientists".

You're welcome, greenhorn!

Christianity did not contribute to science. People who were Christians contributed to science.

Your argument would lead to this statement. People forget that NAMBLA has contributed to science.

The beliefs of Christianity did not do anything. You can find far more examples of where the institutions of Christianity hurt science more than helped.

 

[soulcougher73]

Ah, another religious-bashing thread. This is what modern atheism has become.

Stop begging to be bashed and we'll stop bashing. Until then enjoy the ride you create for yourself.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Um...I am a Neanderthal, just more advanced!

First of all, whether you have Neanderthal DNA or not would depend on whether one of your Homo Sapiens Sapiens ancestors bred with Neanderthals.

Second, you are not more advanced, you are different but not more advanced.

So not one right and your biology teacher should be flogged.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Christianity did not contribute to science. People who were Christians contributed to science.

Your argument would lead to this statement. People forget that NAMBLA has contributed to science.

The beliefs of Christianity did not do anything. You can find far more examples of where the institutions of Christianity hurt science more than helped.

Very true, having personal beliefs that you are willing to change depending on found evidence is one thing but having personal beliefs that trump observable reality is something quite different.

Look at creationists, this is exactly their problem and they are doing their best to hold progress back by enforcing it in schools and limiting funds for research.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'd say christianity held science back more than it contributed. Individual christians who explored various fields certainly have contributed, as have members of other religions and non-believers. But on the whole, when you look at scientific movements that christians felt were at odds with their faith, when religion actually wielded power, science certainly wasn't able to move forward easily because of the faithful.

Fair enough, good points.

Too bad fundamentalism has surfaced, though.

 

[Retro Rob]

First of all, whether you have Neanderthal DNA or not would depend on whether one of your Homo Sapiens Sapiens ancestors bred with Neanderthals.

Second, you are not more advanced, you are different but not more advanced.

So not one right and your biology teacher should be flogged.

Did you see the "!" at the end of that quote? You really ought to stop taking yourself so seriously, my biology teacher was supremely qualified.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Did you see the "!" at the end of that quote? You really ought to stop taking yourself so seriously, my biology teacher was supremely qualified.

Oh i thought you were being sarcastic but not in the way you intended, I blame this on Poe's law. You can never be sure when someone like yourself is actually serious when it comes to the batshit insane stances of your religion.

Such as the idea of humans being directly created by god and not coming from Neanderthals (as the evilutionists believe). I was just quashing the idea that anyone who has a biology education thinks that Neanderthals are ancestors to modern man or that modern man is in any way more advanced than Neanderthals.

 

[Retro Rob]

Oh i thought you were being sarcastic but not in the way you intended, I blame this on Poe's law. You can never be sure when someone like yourself is actually serious when it comes to the batshit insane stances of your religion.

Such as the idea of humans being directly created by god and not coming from Neanderthals (as the evilutionists believe). I was just quashing the idea that anyone who has a biology education thinks that Neanderthals are ancestors to modern man or that modern man is in any way more advanced than Neanderthals.

Not a problem. Just glad we understand each other.

 

[alzan]

Fair enough, good points.

Too bad fundamentalism has surfaced, though.

I agree. I've never understood why the fundamentalist and/or evangelical members of any religion are so anti-evolution.

I sometimes think it may be due to the confusion that arises from a misunderstanding of evolution's definition and how humans were created; i.e. the origin of life from non-living matter is "abiogenesis". Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life.

It may also be that since evolution has yet to be disproven that it shows that the Genesis account of life's origin to be incorrect which is untenable to a fundamentalist.

 

[Atreus21]

Observation trumps Creation Myths, maggots do not spontaneously generate from rotted meat or mice from stored grain as was believed to happen about two hundred years ago.

Interesting you say this, considering spontaneous generation was (1) advanced by atheists of the time, and (2) disproved by Pasteur, a catholic.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Not a problem. Just glad we understand each other.

Well... in that case let me rephrase what i said (not for any other reason than that i misrepresented your religion) and replace "your religion" with "some followers of your religion".

I'm glad you are not a creationists.

 

[Atreus21]

I agree. I've never understood why the fundamentalist and/or evangelical members of any religion are so anti-evolution.

I sometimes think it may be due to the confusion that arises from a misunderstanding of evolution's definition and how humans were created; i.e. the origin of life from non-living matter is "abiogenesis". Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life.

It may also be that since evolution has yet to be disproven that it shows that the Genesis account of life's origin to be incorrect which is untenable to a fundamentalist.

The Catholic church has no beef with evolution.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

The Catholic church has no beef with evolution.

It certainly has *some* problems with it as far as the individuals representing it goes.

It's what i was talking about earlier, the exclusions of some things that are actually part of evolutionary theory such as the common ancestor for humans.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Interesting you say this, considering spontaneous generation was (1) advanced by atheists of the time, and (2) disproved by Pasteur, a catholic.

This would be relevant if Pasteur used his religious study to come to that conclusion, if not it's completely irrelevant whether he was a Catholic, a Muslim or what have you.

The point being that science works when it comes to finding truth and religion does not, that religion has hindered scientific progress is fairly well accepted by anyone and everyone also.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well... in that case let me rephrase what i said (not for any other reason than that i misrepresented your religion) and replace "your religion" with "some followers of your religion".

I'm glad you are not a creationists.

Don't misunderstand my position, while I am not a YEC, I do believe God created us and undoubtedly exists. I don't believe the world is young, I do believe in the miracles recorded in the Bible.

As far as God using evolution, I would say that's yet to been seen. For the present, I reject theistic evolution.

 

[alzan]

The Catholic church has no beef with evolution.

Officially, no. I'd dare say however that on an individual basis there are disagreements. Not all adherents of Catholicism are in lock-step agreement with RCC leadership; whether the subject is evolution, contraception, etc.