The Ebolaworld Happy Fun Blog Comment Post Page
How dare you insult the New York Times!
I live in a cave.
the religous right seem to love the grand canyon, yet they and their republican allies are destroying just about every other natural wonder in the u.s.....hypocrites.
I wasn't insulting the New York Times.. I was being sarcastic. Rush Limbaugh and the gang love to demonize the paper because it tells the truth.
Yeah so much for the NYT being liberal bias. This kind of "everything's an opinion, therefore all opinions are equal" is bullshit. Creationism in any form is coming up first with a conclusion then finding evidence to match that. Bad idea.
Heh, don't take my comment the wrong way, Sam... I just live in NYC and decided to make a jab at you making a jab at... well, you know what I mean.
just wow
I'll jab you.
Here, use this argument next time you argue with a creationist:
Since God is by definition "beyond human understanding", saying "God made this" is actually saying "something beyond human understanding made this". Since it's beyond human understanding, it's useless as an explanation of anything (since we can't understand it, you see).
Let's see them try to get around THAT one. :P
Oh, and in other news, most Christians still do not know what "theory" means.
BTW, here's an extremely usefull website:
http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/
Ooooh. That's a good one, Esn. *bookmarks*
IT's probably at least a little off-topic--in which case, I'm sure this post will just be deleted; I have no problem there--but I figured you guys would get a kick out of this site called "The Online Atheists' Dictionary". It's a dictionary of various religious terms, defined from an atheist point of view. I've submitted a few of my own, including the entries for "Vogon", "The DaVinci Code", and the second definition of "Christian Fundamentalist".
http://www.atheistdictionary.com/
Wow. Christians these days are sooo stupid (I apologize in advance if I offended you. While I think Christians are stupid, I do not necessarily hate them. Thank you)
hey, i'm catholic but i'm not some dumbass like bush that promotes the so called theory of "intelligent design". its retarded.
The grand canyon was formed when god took a really long pisss. Almighty stream of thunder carved the canyon on "day 7". Oh yeh, and Sam T. is a Prophet for the ages (well, ages >1
.
That smiley face is the devil! It was really an 8 and ) Doh!
hey sam i bet you are wondering what the resident rebublican thinks about this.... well as a christian i believe that both theories are true and god created all creatures by evloution like the scientists say.
But the bible doesnt back up your belief what so ever. It says everything was created in only 6 days, not 6 million years. Also, the bible also says the earth is only 6000 years old.
I just love how freely the right uses the word "theory".
Look. A theory is more than an educated guess, which has a different name: hypothesis. A hypothesis, not a theory, is an educated guess.
A hypothesis becomes a theory when it has undergone extensive testing with repeatable and reliable results. Most scientists won't accept something as a theory until they've tested it themselves, and even then they'll want to repeat it once or twice just to make sure. This is where evolution is now; it is a THEORY for which more and more and more evidence is found every day.
The story of creation is not a theory. It is not even a hypothesis. All that creationists have to prove the creation story is the Bible or the Qu'Ran or whatever other holy book they happen to follow, and the fact is that almost every single line in the Bible goes against known history, makes a mockery of science, contradicts something else in the book, or is just plain and simple bullshit.
This is NOT a matter of opinion.
Amen brother!
although one must concede that because even though there is overwelming evidence that evolution did and still does occur, you can't exactly watch it happen and we can't test it, so its still technically a "theory".
We can watch viruses evolve. They do it at a much faster rate.
bacteria too. i stand corrected..... i guess
are virus's considered living organism yet?
Technically, no, as they don't have all of the traits required to be considered alive, such as being able to reproduce without another organism be present. They need to use another cell to produce new viruses, they just tell them how.
Viruses blur the line between life and non-life... they are perhaps the simplest "lifeform" (if they can be called that) found today. Until they enter another living organism, they are nothing more than a collection of chemicals.
If there is something simpler, it has not been found yet (AFAIK), and perhaps it no longer exists on Earth.
i was wondering that.
you guys! you won't believe it! i found someone that we would be worse off with than we are right now with bush!!! its
ian paisley! if the link doesn't work, copy/paste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Paisley
User banned, comment deleted for impersonating Sam T
Edited By Siteowner
You think THAT's bad? Visit godhatesamerica.com sometime! Yes, it's actually real (along with godhatesfaqs.com, godhatessweden.com, and godhatescanada.com). If you don't believe me, search Wikipedia for "Fred Phelps".
hoooooleeeeeeeeeee crap.
woooooooow. looks like something the kkk
would do.
actually, maybe not.
Pen & Teller already covered that one.
Ok, since I am a Protestant Christian, believe in God, and believe His Word (by the way EvilPie how could you believe the Gospel and be a Christian if you don't believe anything else), I can see why it might look like I'm a little biased but here is the text from one of my Science lesson (I'm going to put it in the next blog).
Mechanical Weathering. Mechanical weathering is preceded by the shrinkage of rock during cooling or drying out. Shrinkage produces cracks that often run hundreds of meters. Water enters the cracks, freezes, and expands, splitting the rock. In cold climates, freezing water may be the main process by which rocks are split into smaller pieces. The expansion of rock through crystals absorbing water is considered a part of mechanical weathering, although the inclusion of water in crystals is actually a chemical process. Mechanical weathering can eventually turn mountains of granite into the kind of domes seen at Yosemite National Park. The broken rock that piles up at the foot of a mountain or cliff forms a talus slope. Talus may range in size from huge boulders to sand-sized particles. Examination of the base of many canyons such as the Grand Canyon, Arizona, and erosional remnants curiously do not have any significant buildup of talus. Perhaps these landforms were not subject to long eras of weathering.
Here is a another article
This assumption has remained the underlying foundational principle of modern geology to this day. The uniformitarian theory is taught as an objective fact; however, it is actually a subjective assumption which has been accepted as fact since its publication. The theory is easy to understand and it appears logical, but objective observations of the crust of the earth clearly demonstrate that this theory is invalid.
Uniformitarian principles assume that:
1. The very slow current processes of erosion and deposition of sediments which we usually
observe today have been the major cause of shaping the earth since its origin.
2. These processes have been operating slowly for countless ages past and therefore the
landforms of the crust must be extremely old.
3. Rapid catastrophic processes which could affect large areas of the earth are not considered
possible. All features of the earth are considered to have formed slowly.
Based on the assumption of this principle, attempts were made to estimate the age of the earth. The attempts were made based on the idea that the rate of the geological activities of erosion and deposition of sediments now occurring on the earth's surface can be extended back in time indefinitely. Using this assumption, of course, would result in calculating long ages to account for the current appearance of the earth's topography.
This hypothesis has never been verified and, in fact, recent research is continuously demonstrating through more objective data that much of the earth's geologic history has involved massive catastrophic global events. The great bulk of the geologic field evidence points to the inevitable conclusion that the Bible's account of a world-wide cataclysm provides a much more probable and accurate assessment of the fossil record and structure of the earth.
drew, i'm catholic. as you may have heard the vatican recently denounced intelligent design. is that a satisfactory answer for your idiotic question?
Commenting by HaloScan
