Hilarious explanations of the Bill Nye Debate notepad creationist photos.

Grimpachi

borntowatch
its just so cool of atheists to belittle and deride people for their beliefs

You are all the smartys

Not like yours arnt beliefs either though

Faith is believing in things without evidence reason. Religious faith is believing in magic without evidence. Seems stupid to me.
Those people use faith as an excuse to be dumb! In an age of computers and Wikipedia.
"Scientific theories must be falsifiable." It explains in a scientifically RATIONAL manner, unlike creationism. So yes we are having a laugh at people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and the flintstones cartoons is somewhat accurate.

If you believe that scientific facts and creationism are on par with each other in any way, well that is your belief, and I acknowledge it.

We are not required to respect the beliefs of others. We are required to acknowledge them. Some beliefs are not worthy of respect.

So states the jedi

we can all get along if we dont become so arrogant we dont value other people, their views or their beliefs
Flinstones? Are you using that to belittle others. Do you know anyone who believes the flinstones depicts ancient civilisation
Seriously

reply to post by borntowatch

Flinstones? Are you using that to belittle others. Do you know anyone who believes the flinstones depicts ancient civilisation
Seriously

Perhaps you have never heard of Ken Ham and the creation Museum.

I do not personally know any, but I have debated with them on these boards. I think the picture below would qualify as people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and the flintstone cartoons are somewhat accurate.

The proper way to get people to learn isn't by making fun of their belief system. While I don't subscribe to any creation belief, there isn't enough proof for EITHER side to claim superiority.

Science hasn't proven at all that the Big Bang Theory is any more plausible than a bearded God doling out punishment as He sees fit. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any Biologist who agrees with the outdated nonsense that is The Origin of Species. That whole book has been debunked time and again and I haven't the slightest idea why people continue promulgating it.

When Science can create a living organism from some primordial ooze and a lightning strike or create matter where there was none before (Big Bang), then perhaps they'll have a leg to stand on. But they can't and won't ever be able to do that without violating the "laws" that are already subscribed to.


On a side note, religion isn't only about who or what created the heavens and earth. It's about how you should treat your fellow man and promote goodness in the world. This is the antithesis of what Science does. If you add up all the things that science has given the people of this planet...it's done far worse for people than good imo. I'll stick to a God that smites rather than science that soft kills.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people have no clue what a Scientific Hypothesis is or a Scientific Theory. They are usually the same ones who think the big bang, Abiogenesis, and the evolutionary theory are connected together. It is always telling when they say it is just a theory. Most do not even know which subjects are Hypothesises or which ones are Theory nor could they tell you why.

I wonder how much publicity this whole thing is netting Nye...

That said, when I first saw those posters, I cringed then laughed. I figured someone would do something like this (and originally saw it somewhere else).

My biggest dissapointment is that a lot of the "response" ones just dont hit the mark for me. I didnt even smirk at the majority of them.. Though I certainly did with most of the original posters!

So, I am giving this one to the "believers." I found their posters to be far more humorous.

Miniscuzz


When Science can create a living organism from some primordial ooze and a lightning strike or create matter where there was none before (Big Bang), then perhaps they'll have a leg to stand on. But they can't and won't ever be able to do that without violating the "laws" that are already subscribed to.

Seems like a good start...

Yes, indeed it seems like a good start.

To the OP: I found the link hilarious. Thanks for that.
I also found the original notebook scribblings, when I first saw them, disturbing and upsetting.

Miniscuzz
On a side note, religion isn't only about who or what created the heavens and earth. It's about how you should treat your fellow man and promote goodness in the world. This is the antithesis of what Science does. If you add up all the things that science has given the people of this planet...it's done far worse for people than good imo. I'll stick to a God that smites rather than science that soft kills.

Uh, no, that's not what religion is about. Religion is about control and who has the bigger god-penis than other peoples' god-penises.

Science hasn't "done far worse for people than good".

Even the paper that religious books are printed on are the product of Science, as, it can be argued are so many other beneficial discoveries which far outweigh the bad, imo

You can keep your smiting brute bully of a god. I'm happier with my Science.

We are a tiny speck of cosmic dust when you compare the sizes of objects in the universe. Our galaxy does not compare to billions of others. The creationists seem to think that the whole universe was made at once because a book said their god made it that way. Science says, we measured it and it appears to be billions of years old when you consider the speed of light, gravity, and expansion that has been observed by multiple observatories around the world and in orbit.

What if there is another possibility? A scientist in another dimension next to this one, creates an exact duplicate of his own universe at a point and time in our past. He can walk through a portal and be any life form or matter in this universe.

We are connected to that universe by our own conciseness. Anyone can travel between universes and some never return once they have learned the truth. Loved ones that have died in this universe are alive and well in the other universe because they made different decisions.

The general population is completely unaware of what the scientist has done.

Time is much slower as the earth in the other dimension orbits the sun 39 1/2 hours to our 24. The portals on their side of our dimension only open up when our universes equalize in frequency. The crossover between worlds may last hours to days. This allows for many people from the other dimension to visit often as they like.

What if this universe was created by a super scientist? Can they handle that?

boncho
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

What really stood out to me was the guy that asked "where do you derive objective meaning in life?". I think that's a decent question. The next picture says "I think we should take advice on modern living from a bronze age mythology".

In my uneducated agnostic opinion, thats just a low blow.

And whats the real purpose behind this, to debate and show facts or to belittle them?

Yeah actually, not a bad question…

Context is important. If the question is rhetorical, and implies that we can derive objective meaning from the bible, then take all the facts surrounding the bible and historical period it was created. If the comment implies we can find objective meaning in the bible, it's actually kind of ironic.


Here is an example of the questions being taken seriously and answered seriously.



---
In any case, if anyone thinks these all are "low blows"…

OKAY…

This girl after sitting through the debate decides to post this picture. OH WOW, EVOLUTION TOTALLY DISPROVED.

Nice one!

Simply acknowledging the fossil record however, goes against the belief that the world only existed 6000 years. This and many other points were failed to be addressed by Ham in the debate.

That's not true mate, all good Christians (like a friend of mine) KNOW that fossils were put there by the Devil in order to test their faith and turn them from God.

I don't know why he didn't go the whole hog and create an entire fossil record showing the false evolution from monkey to man, or why God didn't just remove them since He is all powerful.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people can deny fact or go through the process of logical thought and would rather instead cling to beliefs that they found in an old story book written by who knows who, and that is full of inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and is blatantly wrong in others.

Floydshayvious
Sometimes I think of two scenarios.

The world full of religion - people would still fight and bicker and kill over whose God is right or real.

The world full of atheists - people would still fight and bicker and kill over whose Theory is right or real.

These were all pretty funny yeah I'll star and flag it - lot's of ignorance in religion - but this boils down to little difference from "red" versus "blue" politics and "us" versus "them" - ridicule solves nothing.

The more I try to be quiet and listen to the world the more it sounds like listening to white noise while the toilet is flushing.

edit on 11-2-2014 by Floydshayvious because: boop

Hmmmmm..... The glaringly obvious difference between those two statements would be that scientists aren't actively encouraged to kill other scientists that don't happen to subscribe to their particular theory!! Many, many, many deaths have occurred because of a difference in religious belief.... I would hazard a guess at saying hardly any have occurred due to scientists difference of opinion.....

There is an extremely important quote hidden within the beautiful depths of the Kevin Smith film Dogma... it's wonderfully simple....

"People should just have an "idea" when it comes to the bigger questions of life, it's having a BELIEF that causes all the problems.... people are willing to DIE for a belief, no-one ever died for having an idea"

(Transpose idea for theory)....

PA

Wow that was a good laugh I'm glad I read this thread. I'm surprised at the behavior of Christians/Christian apologists here on this thread. It was a funny parody nothing to get riled up and offended about. I saw the debate and thought it was good didn't surprise me one bit how it turned out.

I liked what one poster said about voluntary ignorance. There's a big difference between belief and fact.

Personally... I would have found this funny if the questions had been answered!!!

Minus the Sunset one if I was playing along that was pretty retarded

However the Big Bang & Evolution are just theory... Definition "Speculation"...or "Guess"..."Conjecture" is my personal favourite... so they shot themselves in the foot with that one.
The theory of Gravity is now Scientific Fact, it was a theory, but to keep calling it such is a horrendous use of the English language.

Like I said if they had been answered I would have laughed.
This just seemed petty in my opinion.

Peace.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Butchering the English language I see.

Synonym of Theory...Hypothesis.
They are one in the same.
There is no difference except for the spelling.

This is a common argument from fans of Science, who actually need to pick up a dictionary before they spout nonsense.

Peace.

Another favourite among the fans of Science is Ockham's Razor...

Let's entertain Ockham...

So God did it with an intended purpose from among the smallest of microbial essence such as Atoms.. to all lifeforms big and small from Elephants & Blue Whales, Humans & Ants... even including Stars and Planetary bodies... To the extremeties of billions of Galaxies... All with a drive and purpose of sustaining themselves in a systematic manner...

Or...

It was an impossible reaction of non-existent chemicals...caused by accident... that turned into purpose and drive of sustaining itself infinitely among all walks of life & existence...

Ockham's Razor says that the Godly explaination is the more simple of the two.

Or is this the exception to the rule for those who love to use Ockham's Razor to choose a theory???

Peace.

CharlieSpeirs
Personally... I would have found this funny if the questions had been answered!!!

So you would find it funny that your entire belief system (assuming you are a creationist, which you are) would be crushed with knowledge that an average 8th graders has access to?

CharlieSpeirs
Minus the Sunset one if I was playing along that was pretty retarded

All of them were stupid, and deserved ridicule. These are not toddlers, these are adults with the minds of toddlers.

CharlieSpeirs
However the Big Bang & Evolution are just theory... Definition "Speculation"...or "Guess"..."Conjecture" is my personal favourite... so they shot themselves in the foot with that one.
The theory of Gravity is now Scientific Fact, it was a theory, but to keep calling it such is a horrendous use of the English language.

The thoery of gravity is still a theory, and what you are doing is conflating hypothesis with theory, quite deliberatly, in an attempt to appologize for creationism and its blatant lies. And when we catch you in a lie, you try to redefine what a lie or 'science' actually is.

What does your invisible magic man say about bearing false witness?

CharlieSpeirs
This just seemed petty in my opinion.

You are uneducated, and it is not just my opinion. Your ignorance is NOT just as good as everyone else's logic.

CharlieSpeirs
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Butchering the English language I see.

Synonym of Theory...Hypothesis.
They are one in the same.
There is no difference except for the spelling.

This is a common argument from fans of Science, who actually need to pick up a dictionary before they spout nonsense.

Peace.

I find it hilarious that you don't consider yourself a "fan of science", seeing as you are communicating through the #ing internet right now, but ok.

" A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts." -Stephen Jay

reply to post by CharlieSpeirs


Yes, which is simpler regarding evolution.


A)
Evolution is the result of genetic mutation and natural selection. This is supported by evidence and testable claims.


B)
An invisible wizard in the sky created everything in a week. This is supported by elderly virgins who worship bronze age mythologies without actual evidence. But this is just the meaning of a faith, a suspension of critical thinking.

Instead of wasting everyone's time with this child like logic, log into talkorigins.com and enlighten yourself.

CharlieSpeirs

The theory of Gravity is now Scientific Fact, it was a theory, but to keep calling it such is a horrendous use of the English language.

To say that is to NOT understand the use of the English language.

It is a Scientific Theory. It doesn't mean guess or conjecture.

Google it

CharlieSpeirs

It was an impossible reaction of non-existent chemicals...caused by accident... that turned into purpose and drive of sustaining itself infinitely among all walks of life & existence...

Again, how can it be impossible if it happened?

CharlieSpeirs
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Butchering the English language I see.

Synonym of Theory...Hypothesis.
They are one in the same.
There is no difference except for the spelling.

This is a common argument from fans of Science, who actually need to pick up a dictionary before they spout nonsense.

Peace.

Err... No there is still a significant difference. That is why it is a common argument. A suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. Someone can have a theory (common language ) that god farted the universe into existence but that could not be a scientific hypothesis.

The theory of Gravity is now Scientific Fact, it was a theory, but to keep calling it such is a horrendous use of the English language.

Wrong again.

Newton's theory of gravitation is still used today because it is a much simpler theory to work with than general relativity, and gives sufficiently accurate results for most applications involving sufficiently small masses, speeds and energies. You see there was a discrepancy in Mercury's orbit using newtons formulas which was resolved in 1915 by Albert Einstein's new theory of general relativity but non-relativistic gravitational calculations are still made using Newton's theory for its simplicity. There is also Newton's law of universal gravitation. So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other.


So I suggest you start using the computer you are on to actually look up subjects before spouting off about them because you seem to be exactly the type I described in my previous comment. There is no excuse for willful ignorance.