Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Neil de Grasse Tyson presentation about intelligent design [View all]gcomeau
(5,764 posts)16. Like I said...
...the only way to deny that the earth is older than that is to deny all evidence on approximately the same scale as would be required to deny the earth existed at all. In other words, every bit of material evidence and observation in all of human history has been magically falsified... for no apparent logical reason whatsoever... you know, just because.
Thanks for making my point.
Need to ask again why we would ridicule such a claim?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
61 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It is quality material, hopefully anyone who hasnt already watched it will give it a go
AtheistCrusader
May 2014
#4
Thats in A/A. If I misunderstood your "here" to mean this group, then I apologize.
cbayer
May 2014
#11
From an article in the Guardian concerning Tyson and The Discovery Institute (creationism group)
djean111
May 2014
#6
I'm confused. Shouldn't we be working to find common cause with these people?
Warren Stupidity
May 2014
#13
the omnipotent diety has just put all that "physical evidence' there to confuse you.
Warren Stupidity
May 2014
#15
yes I need to understand why this obvious bullshit is suitable for ridicule but not other obvious
Warren Stupidity
May 2014
#17
Since you ostensibly view life through a microscope that is an unsurprising reaction.
rug
May 2014
#42
No, it's not a "definition that cannot be defined", it's a definition that complicated.
Fortinbras Armstrong
May 2014
#50
No, we're prepared to smear at Transubstantiation because it makes no sense
skepticscott
May 2014
#51
If you accept Aristotle, which, AS I SAID, was philosophically acceptable in the 13th century
Fortinbras Armstrong
May 2014
#57
So, if we simply discard everything we've learned about the universe in the last 800 years...
trotsky
May 2014
#53