[to a poster who tried to direct readers to accurate information about radiometric dating]
34 comments
"Or study, learn that creation is true, then come back."
Don't debate with us unless and until we succeed in brainwashing you into our beliefs. Some debate that is going to be.
Why do the Biblical creationist have to be so selfabsorbed that they think there are only two sides to the debate, and one is necessarily their own fantasy myth? What about all the other myths? Surely the Norse myths have some merit as well? Just consider how they describe nine worlds, and look there are nine planets in the Solar system! But then the atheist science community demoted Pluto which is no longer a planet, just to deny the truth of the Norse cosmology.
Seriously though, there is only one side, and that is the side of science. There may be several competing hypotheses in science, but Biblical creationism is not one of them.
That unlettered ignoramus thinks science is a question of personal wishful thinking.
"Or study, learn that creation is true, then come back."
For my money, nothing scream "I'm a fundie fucktard!" louder than proclaiming that.
Indeed. In the developed part of the world, in this day and age, it's a tragedy that some people are still so indoctrinated, misled and ignorant. We need to stop pretending that religious faith deserves some sort of special respect.
Strangely enough, I have.
The physical evidence seems to be in favor of evolution and an old universe. Those suggesting otherwise tend to put forth faulty data that doesn't hold up under the light of scrutiny. Or their arguments tend to be based on profound misunderstandings of science in general, and are targeted at people who also lack an understanding of science.
Most of them rely at least in part on emotional appeals in an attempt to convince an audience, when by all rights their work, were it valid, would speak for itself.
A number of them, such as "Doctor" Kent Hovind, don't have the credentials and training to qualify them for work in the fields they criticize.
And MANY of them have a long-term social, religious and political agenda that's potentially dangerous to the United States and the rest of the world.
One should study BOTH sides of a debate prior to engaging oneself as a proponent of either side.
That's right. For example, a simple check would have shown that radiometric dating is nonsense. The Flying Spaghetti Monster reaches in with His Noodly Appendage and changes the readings on the scientists' test instruments to give the appearance of old age. Being a loving god, He does this to keep the scientists entertained. Praise His name. RAmen.
"One should study BOTH sides of a debate prior to engaging oneself as a proponent of either side."
So why then is providing information and links to the side PA doesn't agree with a bad thing? Surely, unless the readers were given a chance to study the other side themselves, their opinions would be worthless by his own logic?
Geez, someone'd almost think that learning both sides of the radiometric dating 'argument' would inevitably lead someone to conclude that PA was wrong and Samphire was right.
Nah, PA wouldn't just censor all information he couldn't refute, that would be the actions of a dishonest scumbag who knew he was peddling snake-oil science and outright lies!
There is no "BOTH sides of a debate", there is only scientific evidence and mythic mumbo-jumbo.
What peer-review journals should we study to find this compelling evidence that creation is true?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
