And almost 33 percent Americans believe in this theory. According to a Pew Research Center analysis published in December last year, six in ten Americans (60 percent) said that “humans and other living things have evolved over time,” while a third (33 percent) rejected the idea of evolution, saying that “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.”Are you for fucking real?
On another note:Are you for fucking real?
A whole fucking third of Americans are actually that dumb? As much as one can say that there's dumbfucks in every country... :|
Thats the argument i hear in more sensible Creationists. That 7 days is just a metaphor and since time is meningless to an omnipotent being that could mean millions of years of evolution.
Pfft. Creationism doesn't mean the Torah, the Tawrat, or the Old Testament. That is just Abrahamic religions trying once again to claim the sole authority over the concept of a god.
Creationism simply means the universe was planned and made into reality by some being, whether of it or outside of it is irrelevant, and whether it would visit the most infinitesimal part of it like a planet is irrelevant. If it weren't for Christians trying to steal an entirely plausible idea to mean what is written in their Bible, there would be very little controversy over it all. I just wish they would shut the hell up about it. Even if there was a Creator, it has very little chance of being the sky fairy in their cracked fairy tales mixed with history.
Just watched it. That was hilarious.
The Sunset Limited
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1510938/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1510938/)
You can watch it for free on youtube now :)
One of my favorite religion-related movies. There is nothing about evolution, but it's really good. On my personal scale of goodness of course :)
10/10 Armpit Stars
Creationism and most of the religion related stuff is out of science true , but religions sent by God, if you re a believer. God is above all sciences , so its normal to believers.For me , I think evolution makes sense, but i don't think human race evolved from a pink ass monkey shit.Nobody thinks the human race evolved from "a pink ass monkey shit", so....
"I'm going to create man and woman with original sin. Then I'm going to impregnate a woman, with myself as her child, so that I can be born. I will then kill myself, as a sacrifice to myself, to save you from the sin I originally condemned you to."
I have a question for the non-believers among you:
If god is unreal, what about quake and half-life?
Representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals, including the dinosaur kinds, went aboard Noah’s Ark. All those left outside the Ark died in the cataclysmic circumstances of the Flood, and many of their remains became fossils.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
After the Flood, around 4,300 years ago, the remnant of the land animals, including dinosaurs, came off the Ark and lived in the present world, along with people. Because of sin, the judgments of the Curse and the Flood have greatly changed earth. Post-Flood climatic change, lack of food, disease, and man’s activities caused many types of animals to become extinct. The dinosaurs, like many other creatures, died out. Why the big mystery about dinosaurs? (emphasis mine)
Why Such Different Views?
How can there be such totally different explanations for dinosaurs? Whether one is an evolutionist or accepts the Bible’s account of history, the evidence for dinosaurs is the same. All scientists have the same facts—they have the same world, the same fossils, the same living creatures, the same universe.
If the “facts” are the same, then how can the explanations be so different? The reason is that scientists have only the present—dinosaur fossils exist only in the present—but scientists are trying to connect the fossils in the present to the past. They ask, “What happened in history to bring dinosaurs into existence, wipe them out, and leave many of them fossilized?”4
The science that addresses such issues is known as historical or origins science, and it differs from the operational science that gives us computers, inexpensive food, space exploration, electricity, and the like. Origins science deals with the past, which is not accessible to direct experimentation, whereas operational science deals with how the world works in the here and now, which, of course, is open to repeatable experiments. Because of difficulties in reconstructing the past, those who study fossils (paleontologists) have diverse views on dinosaurs.5 As has been said, “Paleontology (the study of fossils) is much like politics: passions run high, and it’s easy to draw very different conclusions from the same set of facts.”6
For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.
But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera, most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.
My opinion to this: Of course evolutionary theorie is absolutely correct and logical, anyone denying it doesn't want to look it up closely or is ignorant. But this doesn't give you the right to put the Bible away as trash. The bible is no science book after all but a spritual/moral book. By the way there are many priests who also believe in evolutionary theorie.The Bible is about as good a moral book as Mein Kampf. Seriously.
Yeah I'm kind of offtopic I realised but anyway.
No, I'd never throw away a book in the trash.
Thought I will say, It would probably be pretty entertaining to get high as fuck and go through that museum with a few friends just for the constant lols.
I live about hour away from it and have driven past a few times, always thinking maybe it would be lark to look inside. But then I decide, fuck those guys. I'm not giving them a penny, even for a lark.
We have a strong right wing movement in Poland and they are CRAZY about "religious" stuff like abortions, sex, homosexuality, gender (nobody knows what is it we kinda reffer to it like to a Yeti)<and i have no idea why they think those are religious problems> but not even them claims that Creationism is a way to educate. I mean there are people amongs them that consider this as a possibility but in main flow they are put on a side. So to me reading this articles is like going to whole new level of idiotic denial of reality. And i'm kinda scared that one day this will be a case here also and i will have possibility to go to Polish Creationism Museum and they will tell me that i could mount a triceratops and shot lazors if i were born a bit earlier. (which is kind of inspiring but still...)
If Bill Nye wants to believe in the theory of evolution that is his choice. But he should quit calling it “science”. Those that choose to believe in the theory of evolution are choosing to have blind faith in an ancient pagan religious philosophy despite what the scientific evidence actually demonstrates.
I found this article on infowars: http://www.infowars.com/fact-check-did-bill-nye-tell-a-huge-lie-about-the-fossil-layers/All of the sources link to creation.com, sounds legit
Basically saying that there have been fossils of modern animals found with dinosaur fossils and that Evolution is incorrect when it says all organisms evolved chronologically.
Any thoughts or counter-arguments? I'm not picking sides, I'm just curious.
I found this article on infowars: http://www.infowars.com/fact-check-did-bill-nye-tell-a-huge-lie-about-the-fossil-layers/Basically by not taking sides you take side of crationism cos you think they are equally right. While its not, its comparing flinstones lightbulb with insects inside to a electricity and saying "im not taking sides but in flinstones lighbulbs works on insects"
Basically saying that there have been fossils of modern animals found with dinosaur fossils and that Evolution is incorrect when it says all organisms evolved chronologically.
Any thoughts or counter-arguments? I'm not picking sides, I'm just curious.
Oh god, it's one of those videos.
*slow, dramatic music*
*random images of people, animals and stars*
I found this article on infowars: http://www.infowars.com/fact-check-did-bill-nye-tell-a-huge-lie-about-the-fossil-layers/
Basically saying that there have been fossils of modern animals found with dinosaur fossils and that Evolution is incorrect when it says all organisms evolved chronologically.
Any thoughts or counter-arguments? I'm not picking sides, I'm just curious.
Where did the atoms that made up the Big Bang come from? Nye has no idea. Where did man’s consciousness come from? Nye has no idea. How can matter produce life? Nye has absolutely no idea. This surely is all one needs to know to recognize the utter bankruptcy of the theory of evolution.
In the end, by making a ridiculous spectacle of himself and mocking Christianity, Bill Nye is actually fulfilling Bible prophecy. The following was written nearly 2000 years ago…
Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
Anyone else think Bill Nye made a bit of a hash of it?
I actually watched the whole thing, which I regret since it was utterly pointless and almost 3 hours long. I admire Bill and his motive, but I kind of think someone else could have done a much better job.
Almost everything Ken said was blatantly untrue, and yet Bill didn't really pick up on kens bullshit and explain why he was completely wrong. But instead talked alot about general science and even stuff which didn't feel that relevant. You don't need to talk about the big bang, or possible life on mars, to prove that the world is not thousands of years old.
For instance Ken talks about how they have reinterpreted the bible's "kinds" to be like animal families, so god created groups of animals which have recently evolved. This is quite easily proven to be untrue, by the most compelling evidence for evolution; DNA hierarchy showing relativeness between animal families just as you would expect if they all came from one ancestor.
Bill didn't even go into DNA evidence, or any of the incredibly observable and obvious biological stuff like whales having vestigial hip bones. Its quite obvious he is a physicist, but he still could have made much more relevant arguments by focusing on carbon dating.
Instead he talks at length about how impossible it was to build the ark. Surely that is a waste of his breath, its obvious the ark is entirely impractical, but trying to prove that only gives it credibility it doesn't deserve. He could have been explaining concisely how its provable that the earth is way older, instead of talking about largely irrelevant history of boat-making.