Creationism propaganda for children caught on camera

[babsbunny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3bdtlNUlx4&feature=player_embedded#!

[zappaman]

1. Funny that some people still persist

with the evolution theory.
It is only a theory.
What is wrong with the creation theory?
It is just as valid in my opinion...

[FiveGoodMen]

2. Your namesake would not agree with you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Odd that it's got nothing to do with Led Zeppelin.

Go figure.

[zappaman]

Well, God does some amazing things

and the recent discovery of Noah's Ark should be all the evidence anyone needs that the bible is real.

[fascisthunter]

8. actually, I am God

and you don't know what you are talking about.

[The Magistrate]

10. You Are Indulging In Humor, Sir, Are You Not?

[depakid]

107. Poe's law is applicable, my good man

Poe's Law points out that it is hard to tell parodies of fundamentalism (or, more generally, any crackpot theory) from the real thing, since they both seem equally insane. Conversely, real fundamentalism can easily be mistaken for a parody of fundamentalism. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to be so over-the-top that they argue he's a "deep cover liberal" trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

[MattBaggins]

26. How big would that ark need to be?

[zappaman]

28. ark size

Noah's Ark was three stories high (Genesis 6:16). Its total deck area was equivalent to the area of about 20 standard college basketball courts or 36 lawn tennis courts. The world had to wait until AD 1884 before the Ark's size was exceeded, when the Italian liner Eturia was built.

[mzteris]

46. so were dinosaurs on the ark, or not? n/t

[pokerfan]

80. They were not

[neverforget]

83. The mammals won the arms race!

[frogmarch]

114. ROFL

That's a keeper!

Tooo funneee. :-)

[defendandprotect]

110. They flew over the flooded area . . . to where Noah landed and was growing some grapes for wine!!

[Tailormyst]

50. A boat built to those specs would never float

[zappaman]

68. the titanic was bigger and it floated

it just wasn't built to withstand an iceberg

[Tailormyst]

78. Please tell me you didn't just compare a boat built over 4k years ago

with the available technology to the Titanic.......

[zappaman]

82. no.

different technology obviously.
one made of wood and one made of steel.
but, Noah didn't do it by himself if that is what you are wondering...

[Tailormyst]

94. he had help from the elves of course :)

[Enthusiast]

135. Actually it is a myth,

there was NO boat at all.

[MattBaggins]

And a ship that size wouldn't split apart?

Not to mention the fact that so called "arks" that have been found were not that size.

[laconicsax]

69. Except it never existed.

A global flood never happened. If it had, there'd be at least a sliver of evidence. Instead, there is none.

[Taitertots]

147. That couldn't even fit all the insects on earth

There are over a million. Just trying to collect the millions of insect species from around the world would in itself take several lifetimes. Even if they willingly lined up for the ark it would still take YEARS to get them on board. So the ark not only needs food for the trip, it needs food for the decades many animals will wait once on board the ark.

There are animals that occupy different hemispheres with opposite winters. They couldn't all survive living in an ark, being the same temperature.

Also the ark story means all living creatures on earth are the products of repeated incest.

[zappaman]

149. there were not that many insects around 7000 years ago

plus, many of them that were could fly or float.

[Taitertots]

152. Where did the new species come from?

Even several hundred thousand insect species would take several lifetimes to collect and put onto a ship.

The ark myth only makes sense when the scale of life on earth was still unknown.

Even if they could get on the ark. It would still mean that god commanded all the animals to have incest. Since the biblical tale of creation says we are all the results of incest, I guess it is not surprising.

[mzteris]

which discovery?

the one this time or the other 10 "discoveries"? and has the "finding" been independently verified by non-biased SCIENTISTS??

[Tailormyst]

48. You know the ark discovery was a hoax right?

[zappaman]

51. a hoax?

no, I had not heard that.
got a link?

[Tailormyst]

84. Yes- it's a hoax.

A hoax by a christian film maker. I doubt any amount of logic would convince you that its just a myth.

Please tell me how 2 of every animal would fit on the ark and how they were founded and loaded about in such a short amount of time.

Then you can explain to me where the vast amount of water came from ( and went to afterwards) that would raise sea levels 13,000 feet.

[mzteris]

87. not to mention -

I don't think an ark that size would hold "all the animals" - especially after a couple of Acrocanthosauri and Agentinosauri got on...

[zappaman]

88. you ever see a chicken processing plant?

see how tightly packed they are?
you would be surprised how tightly you can pack animals together.
as for the water, it gradually evaporated or sunk into the earth.

[TransitJohn]

98. 'it gradually evaporated or sunk into the earth'

You realize this doesn't answer the question of where the water went if the Noachian Flood happened, right? If it evaporated or 'sank into the earth' it would eventually be in the oceans, so sea level should be 13000 ft higher than now, right? Oh right....goddidit.

[zappaman]

99. you must not understand the process of evaporation

water turns to a vapor and then rises into the sky.

[TransitJohn]

104. You must not understand the hydrologic cycle.

So how come I can breath without drowning?

[zappaman]

109. uh...okay

Aquaman.

[DearAbby]

127. how tightly can you pack

Marine life with fresh water life? Whales (male and Female) and other salt water species, surely that was one gigantic ship to have aquariums of that size.

[Enthusiast]

139. Now I know you are joking. nt

[Taitertots]

148. Have you ever consider how much water that would take?

To cover all the mountain ranges would take 4.5 billion cubic kilometers. That is a sphere 2/3 the radius of the moon.

Gaseous water is dramatically larger than liquid water. All that evaporated water would expand the atmosphere of the earth by several orders of magnitude.
The volume of liquid makes it impossible for it to sink into the earth.

Either way the changing atmosphere would kill all life on earth.

[Enthusiast]

136. Yeah, and did Noah

travel to the new world and Australia to gather animals unique to those places? Then did he redistribute the animals after the water went down? Fairy tale.

[defendandprotect]

111. Hadn't actually heard that . . . was it planted? Just a brief recap will do . . .

:)

Ignore this -- I see the explanation below!

[FiveGoodMen]

55. Not by a lo-o-o-o-o-o-ng shot!

"I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. ...

To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut's men to the site saw the wood, but couldn't get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters - something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it."

http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2010/04/noahs-ark-paleobabble-update

[zappaman]

57. yes, but

I am talking about the most recent discovery last week.

[FiveGoodMen]

67. So am I

The recent announcement was about the 2008 "discovery"...

Updated April 27, 2010
Has Noah's Ark Been Found on Turkish Mountaintop?

FOXNews.com

The remains of Noah's Ark have been discovered 13,000 feet up a Turkish mountain -- according to a sensational claim by evangelical explorers.

...snip...

During the press conference, team member Panda Lee described visiting the site. “In October 2008, I climbed the mountain with the Turkish team. At an elevation of more than 4,000 meters, I saw a structure built with plank-like timber. Each plank was about 8 inches wide. I could see tenons, proof of ancient construction predating the use of metal nails."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/27/noahs-ark-found-turkey-arafat/

[Enthusiast]

140. Same one.

They are just pushing it again.

[defendandprotect]

112. Not the first Christian hoax . . .not will it be the last!

[laconicsax]

62. You mean the recently published hoax?

http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2010/04/noahs-ark-paleobabble-update

I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).

To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut’s men to the site saw the wood, but couldn’t get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters – something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it.

The Bible is most certainly real--I have a couple copies and I'm convinced that they exist. What it isn't, is true.

[GoneOffShore]

125. There was no "discovery" of any ark. It was a hoax.

You really have to keep up and not read Whirled Nut Daily and Nudes of the World for your news sources.

[beardown]

126. Only god could do this. Obvious proof.

The way the heat rays shot out of the golden arc and killed all of the Nazi's who were still looking at the arc while Indy Jones and the girl were saved because they followed god's word and did not look.

[Enthusiast]

134. There was no discovery of

Noah's Ark. It was faked and proven faked. First off there is zero evidence of a worldwide flood at any time in the earth's geological history.

Sorry, go learn something from a valid source.

[fascisthunter]

5. the two are no where near comparison

One is based on mythology, fear and ignorance, while the other is based on science. You have to be completely ignorant about scientific research to even make such a statement.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Hey, atheists!

If God isn't real, who commanded that bear to eat those children?!

Atheism pwn3d!

[Frosty1]

7. Just like gravity is only a theory

right?

[zappaman]

12. gravity IS a theory

things fall down because the direction is down.
things don't fall up.
as to why, who knows for sure besides God?

[fascisthunter]

18. falling down is proof that gravity exists

the fact you even try to compare creationism to evolution proves your lack of faith.

[paulsby]

23. actually, that's somewhat tautological because "down:" is defined AS the direction that gravity

pulls toward.

think about it

[MattBaggins]

29. Things fall down because the direction is down?

WTF?

[laconicsax]

72. I know why. Does that make me God?

:shrug:

[joeybee12]

9. Funny how some people can't grasp what scientific "theory" is all about...n/t

[MattBaggins]

11. Theory with a capital T

Creationism is not a theory. It has no basis in science.

[zappaman]

13. Actually it does

there is tons of evidence out there to support creationism.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Bananas, f'rinstance.

[zappaman]

16. yes, bananas are one piece of evidence

it is amazing how it fits in your hand and that points to someone making it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. It also fits in anuses.

Try it, you'll see!

But not in a gay way.

[Taitertots]

132. It will tickle your prostate

God created bananas for anally induced orgasms. What other explanation could there be?

[Enthusiast]

142. BWHAHAHAHA

:rofl:

[MattBaggins]

32. Are you really going to use Raytard Comfort?

He even apologized for that bit of stupidity.

[zappaman]

71. I was talking about

Kirk Cameron.
an actor who has become somewhat of an expert on the false data of evolution

[neverforget]

73. kirk cameron? an EXPERT on the false data of evolution?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Tailormyst]

85. You realize he is a RW zealot right?

[zappaman]

90. I may not agree with everything he says

we differ on our views of abortion and equal rights for instance.
but in this case, he is right on!

[Tailormyst]

93. Mwahhhh!

[MajorChode]

120. In other words, he's a bullshit artist

[sensate2000]

Okay okay, now I see that you are just having a laugh. Silly troll.

[Tailormyst]

86. Okay, now I know you have to be joking.

[lazarus]

122. same with pineapples

Very convenient fruit. And durian. Made for the hand.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

130. That's it. I call Poe's Law. You're an expert satirist.

Well played, sir, well played.

[Warren DeMontague]

131. I know. I would have cracked.

This guy's a pro. :thumbsup:

[neverforget]

15. And where is the evidence?

[zappaman]

19. a simple search will show you much evidence

or a trip to the creationist museum which I highly recommend to everyone!

[neverforget]

You know I went to one last summer. I was impressed

at the ignorance and leaps of faith that show "creation". I especially liked the model of Noah's Ark that left the dinosaurs off the Ark. It's a fable.

[mzteris]

41. I was thinking about going to one,

but I'm afraid I might get arrested for hysterical laughter. . .

[neverforget]

49. It was really hard not to laugh and guffaw out loud. We were visiting

Glendive, where I was born, so we decided to visit this museum. Since Makoshika State Park is known for fossils, we thought this museum was an actual museum about science. We were wrong....
http://www.ultimatemontana.com/businessdirectory/buspages/sec01/glendivedinomus.html

[Enthusiast]

143. Yes, but while

you're in Cincinnati you can visit Boner's Ohio office. Worth a trip. :rofl:

[Webster Green]

40. Yeah, if you need a good laugh.

I'm sure the museum and the visitors are equally hilarious to see.

[joeybee12]

20. NO, there is not...just a lot of crazies who don't understand science so they try

to explain away what they don't understand as something only God can do.

[MattBaggins]

21. There is not one whit of evidence to support "Creationism"

[zappaman]

25. here ya go

The very best evidence for creationism is the claim by God Himself that He created light, the universe, the Earth and all life.
You might question whether that argument holds up under scientific scrutiny?
We all know the creation story in Genesis, but how can we know directly through scientific rationale that it is true.
We can show that it was written in the Old Testament, but how can we show direct evidence that it is true?
We only need to accept the most thoroughly documented history in existence and examine the evidence for who Jesus was.
Our calendar is based upon the birth of Jesus. How historical is that? I

[MattBaggins]

36. You spin me right round baby right round

Circular Logic much?

[laconicsax]

81. It's like this t-shirt

http://www.cafepress.com/EdwardCurrent.345898393

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. The Devil uses cut and paste errors to challenge our faith.

Do not give in to Beelzebub!

[joeybee12]

39. Our calendar is based on the brth of Jesus? No, it was created by Romans, months

named Emperors. Fail.

[Webster Green]

43. Seek help.

Seriously.

[mzteris]

45. um -

which "creation story in Genesis" - there are two versions, you know...

I say I am god. Here read this book I wrote that says i am god. So therefore it must be true. (Hey - I even created life! just see my kids as proof. )

[nonconformist]

53. That is your "evidence"? Because the Bible says so?

MAN wrote the Bible, correct? Or do you think a King James Bible in English fell from the sky?

[zappaman]

54. The Bible

is God's word.
Do you dispute that?

[mzteris]

60. Oh, most definitely do dispute that.

Even when I was a "buh-liever" - I disputed that most of the "words" in the Bible were put there by MEN with an agenda...

[MattBaggins]

70. Yes I dispute that

It's no different than any other collection of myths and fairy tales passed down through the eons.

[nonconformist]

75. See, this is why you can't have an intelligent discussion about this stuff

Inevitably, it always goes back to "because it's in the Bible".

Human beings actually wrote the thing, correct? Whether or not you believe it was dictated to them by God, MAN wrote it.

Didn't you say there was scientific evidence supporting Creationism? I'd love it hear it.

[BanzaiBonnie]

96. Someone told you that. Probably when you were a child. And?

Everything that we write or say or do is inspired --- by something. The Bible is a bunch of stories and I certainly would force it on everyone else just because mommy and daddy told me it's true. As an adult you are to think for yourself.


I don't know what God is or means, but do not continue to create God in the image of man. You diminish God (or whatever God is or isn't) by doing that. I have my own beliefs and one is not forcing what I believe onto others as "The Truth". Perhaps I have a little bit of it. But my neighbor also holds truth as does each person down the line.

[Enthusiast]

145. Yes.

It is the word of man and there is no evidence to show it isn't.

[MajorChode]

121. I hate to break this to you, but the bible is not a fax from God

It was written by sheephearders thousands of years ago and is no more proof of anything than the writings of drunks on shithouse walls.

[Taitertots]

138. Based upon the birth of Jesus, LOL

Jesus couldn't have been born in December. Christmas is just a repurposed pagan holiday. It wasn't even celebrated until hundreds of years after Jesus's death.

God himself never claimed to have created the Universe. At least not while Jesus was around. The Old Testament was written hundreds of years before he was alive, and the New testament was written hundreds of years after his death. There is no written testimony from anyone who ever met Jesus.

[ismnotwasm]

65. What the Bombardier beetle?

I may be a simple agnostic, but I do read the bible. Reminds me of archaic Stephen King. Way I read it, is your God would be pissed at creationists.


Didn't he tell you all off about that shit once already-- extensively-- in the book of Job?

[laconicsax]

74. A beetle that creationists claim as proof.

Here's a video explaining just one way that it could have evolved:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUvLR2yyWuE

[laconicsax]

76. Where? What is it? Would it still support creationism if the Bible didn't exist?

[Enthusiast]

141. Zero evidence,

non-scientific childishness.

[hyphenate]

22. ummmm

did you forget your sarcasm tag, or are you serious?

[WeDidIt]

24. Dude, that's whack

Fairy tales vs. science, dude.

[seabeyond]

30. no fuckin way... bah hahah. hm. creationist theory earth just at 7000 yrs old

and playing with the dinosaurs.

ALL scientific fact.... fact, not theory, fact.... proves otherwise.

why not creationism? valid theory? we are not teaching opinion. theory. show me the validity in the theory the earth is just under 7000 yrs old.

[sensate2000]

31. You don't know what a theory is

Evolution is a theory because it has facts that support it while creationism just has silly power point presentations for the home schooled set. At best creationism is a hypothesis. Try looking up the words theory and hypothesis. (hint: they won't be in your Bible)

[Union Yes]

33. Evolution isn't a theory, it's a proven science.

Religion isn't a theory, it's a myth.

[Webster Green]

34. One has evidence, the other has none.

One is proven, the other is absurd.

[mzteris]

35. you eitiher forgot this

:sarcasm:

or I predict the evolution of your stay here will be curtailed by a catastrophic event.

[zappaman]

42. the real question is...

can you be a Democrat AND a Creationist?

[seabeyond]

44. explain how earth is 7000 yrs old. you cannot be taken seriously if their is NO

explanation to a story told, yet you believe and promote.

[zappaman]

47. here is some science to answer your "earth age" questions

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

[mzteris]

56. I hate to break it to you, but

that's not SCIENCE...

[zappaman]

59. hate to break it to you

but just because you don't understand the complexity of the argument, does not mean it's not science

[mzteris]

64. It's not science. Really, it's not.

I probably know more about that "creationist crap" than you do, btw. Probably know the "Bible" better, too.

I also know science and history and if you'll pardon the expression - Thank GOD! I've seen the light! - and the claptrap being spouted by fundies is based on ignorance, racism, misogyny, and supersition.

You know, I remember it wasn't so long ago that the "argument" was that "god" went poof poof poof. . . well that wasn't playing too well in Peoria so the evanglists started dressing up their "magical poofs" with pseudo-scientific words designed to baffle 'em with bullshit. I'm afraid, zap, you've been baffled...

[neverforget]

58. Well, that settles it. I am awed by the logic here.

14. History is too short
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely. :eyes:

[Webster Green]

61. Wow!.. I checked that out.

:rofl:

[neverforget]

63. It's a scream isn't it?

[MattBaggins]

77. Every single one of those "dilemmas" has been thoroughly debunked.

Galaxies spin too fast?
Not enough sodium in the sea?

These are silly arguments by "Scientists" who received their degrees from places such as Liberty University.

[zappaman]

79. Debunked where?

and by whom?

[Tailormyst]

89. I have to hand it to you

YOu are pretty good. I was totally falling for it. Until the bananas!

[mzteris]

91. I think the mods are having a bit of Friday night fun with us.

They created this sockpuppet just to keep us all focused and out of trouble yelling at each other. . .

:toast:

[Tailormyst]

92. hehehe I think so !!!!!!!!

I have to give whoever the author is a big round of applause. Really well done.

[mzteris]

97. the trick is to keep replies

very short. It's easier to "stay in character". . .

I tried being a "fake poster" many many years ago on another forum, it's really hard to do! I was outed by people who figured it out and banned - numerous times. . . it was kind of fun, though. but I always felt guilty about my "friends"...

I would NEVER try that here. Being banned from DU would be like cutting off my internet!

[zappaman]

95. evidence

watch and learn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

[MattBaggins]

102. Just a few off the top of my head

Spiral Galaxies: Dirty little secret... Newton's "laws" are no longer really considered "laws". They have been known to be deficient for some time now.

Salt in the sea: The entire model for salt in salt out of this hypothesis is incorrect.

Earths Magnetic decay: Again the model is completely wrong. The data used to develop the models for the decay are pure and utter bump-kiss.

[Taitertots]

146. My physics professor said it requires tensor calculus to accurately represent gravity

Newtonian physics can't even explain the near solar system, let alone whole galaxies.

[GoneOffShore]

128. No evidence there.

Just two wankers.

[GoneOffShore]

129. Answers in Genesis? Really?

You're putting up links to a discredited, non scientific site?

Did PZ Meyers ban you outright?

He did didn't he and you come skulking over here to peddle snake oil and nonsense.

Even most of the deep woo believers here don't buy into the Idiot Design school.

So, let's see:

When are you going to trot out thermodynamics?

Soon, I hope, so you can get thoroughly and properly smacked down.

[MajorChode]

137. Next you'll tell us the world is flat and has 4 corners

But if you want to pee on your own shoes and carry an umbrella, be my guest.

[mzteris]

52. that would be an oxymoron. . . n/t

[BanzaiBonnie]

106. see no problem with someone being a creationist AND a Democrat

[LeftyMom]

115. Well of course not. Stupid people vote too.

One can not, however, be a creationist without being shockingly ignorant, mentally defective, or both.

[zappaman]

116. and why is that?

there is plenty of proof for creationism...certainly as much as there is for evolution.
I don't get why links to these videos are posted here.
Just so some people can laugh at creationists?

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atticus]

108. I vote "NO"! While we are an awfully tolerant bunch, people who choose to

live in voluntary ignorance AND insist that we respect them for it and teach our children that ignorance equals knowledge are NOT welcome in the Democratic Party---or my world.

[Mojeoux]

38. Gravity is really just a Theory, Relativity is a Theory

And just like the Theory of Evolution, these theories have been tested hundreds of thousands of times, and proved true time after time.

Oh wait....................your kidding, right Bunny?

[laconicsax]

66. Too bad your opinion is ill-informed.

Theory in a scientific sense is a model that describes and explains a set of facts and has been rigorously tested. It isn't just a hunch. The theory of evolution has been tested constantly since it was first proposed, each new piece of evidence confirms it, and there's no evidence to counter it.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a statement of belief and of ignorance.

[stanwyck]

100. OK. Theory in science is not "only"

Theory in science is based on scientific method. You don't get theory without a long string of facts. The creation theory is fiction. The evolution theory is fact=based science. You can't possibly have graduated from middle school without learning the difference. I can only assume you were home schooled without the benefit of science textbooks.

[Warpy]

101. You are in error

Evolution is established fact backed up by extensive fossil evidence.

Natural selection as the only driver is the theory and is not backed up by as much evidence.

Please educate yourself before you pop off in a forum such as this one.

[Atticus]

103. And, you are entitled to your opinion. but not your own facts.

Creationism is not a theory. It is a religious belief. It is blind faith which does not require and is not based on facts and reason.

Only when religious extremists finally acknowledged the logic and facts which support the "theory" of evolution did they decide that "Oh, yeah, we have a 'theory' ,too." After orgainizing some cartoon factoids and specious logic predicated on anecdotal supposition, they sought to have there "scientific theory of 'intelligent design'" taught along side evolution.

Pathetic, dishonest and totally lame.

Gravity is "only a theory", too. Maybe the world just sucks, right?

[TlalocW]

113. A theory is essentially an explanation of a proven phenomenom

It doesn't mean, "Guess." The theory can be updated as we better understand how it works, but it doesn't change the fact that the phenomenon is there.

TlalocW

[GoneOffShore]

123. In the immortal words of Wolgang Pauli:

Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch! "That is not only not right, it is not even wrong!"


Before you go on about "theory" learn what a theory is and exactly what it means in scientific terms.

Creationism is based on "God did it" - nothing else.

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts and evolutionary science has facts to back it up.

[Enthusiast]

133. Only a theory?

Learn what a theory actually is then get back to us.

There is NO CREATION THEORY.

Opinion? Science is not a matter of opinion.

[ima_sinnic]

144. funny that some people still don't know what "theory" means

a scientific theory is more than "opinion"--and all of biology is based on the fact of evolution--the theory is really that of natural selection, the mechanism.

if you don't "believe in" evolution, I'm sure you also don't believe in the principles of agriculture--you know, breeding of crops for their best qualities--or are you still eating maize and wild bananas? you probably also think that all forms of life on the planet are in a static condition--they are exactly the same as they were 4 billion years ago and will remain that way forever and ever. Thus bacteria will never develop resistance to antibiotics -- and so on ...

[seabeyond]

3. evolution is just a theory, ... like gravity. saw a bumpersticker, panhandle of texas

on a pick up truck and an old white man. son and i giggled. generally that description would fit a bumpsticker that read.... secede

[MajorChode]

27. Flat earth morans

[GreenPartyVoter]

105. Passed this on to my kids, not just for the video but for the interesting discussions below.

[kitkat65]

118. Why do I feel the sudden urge to fling poo?

[piedmont]

124. Here, have some ammo with sprinkles on top:

[nadinbrzezinski]

119. Well he quite never stops

[hayu_lol]

150. A few thoughts...

Take a globe of the earth. Place it on a table. Look at it carefully. In England, Newton discovered that apples fell 'down.' He discovered a theory. Wait...look at the same globe in the same position...that means that apples in Australia fall UP. Undeniable right? So, apples do fall UP. So much for theories...right? Wrong...one poster above got it right...gravity is a force of attraction.

Moving on, think about what we know about reproductive biology where the rules seldom change much. The Ark had two of each species(it would have sunk before they were all loaded aboard). Two of each species cannot successfully reproduce in numbers sufficient to provide the survival of that species. Ummm...case closed. Attempts to assist species threatened with extinction are not always successful.

One really has to have a sense of humor to believe in creationism.

[mzteris]

151. or no sense at all. n/t