This totally proves that Jesus made the earth is 14 weeks nine days and four hours... If you stop the video at exactly 43 seconds frame 31, you can clearly see a message from god, It looks like just a flash, but in it there is a message that says a whole new verse from Jesus Christ. You may not believe it's in there, but if you have faith, you shouldn't need to look... But, take my word as one of the only living prophets of god... It's in there.
This is the video conservapedia so immaturely boasts as evidence that atheists are fat morons? An old guy in a suit trying to carefully climb on an oddly shaped statue and he doesn't actually have much trouble at all? I guess I shouldn't expect any less from those willfully ignorant, juvenile bigots.
Read creationist or young earth material. Sounds compelling? Cool you're literate. Read evolutionary evidence and material... wait... that's not what the creationist said they said... wtf... why would creationists and young earthers lie about what the REAL scientists said? Quickly you come to the realization you don't need to really understand every detail about evolution... but the fact that the creationists are lying OR have been lied to, AND fear burning in eternal hell fire if not believing.
Seems PZ Myers has the maturity of a 17 year-old. Note there is a sign near the triceratops that stated it was only for children to sit on. I guess I shouldn't be surprised given his reputation. That said, as a Christian, even I see the Creation Museum as a sham! I believe God created everything, but science MUST NOT be ignored. Yes, dinos died 65 mil. yrs ago. Yes, earth is 4 bil. yrs old. YES, the Bible and science ARE compatable. Google "ANSWERS IN CREATION" and see.
@Timbrock1000 You know, science doesn't actually say that the Earth has to be billions of years old. Evolutionists just came up with that to support their theory. The is a lot of REAL science supporting a young earth. See earthage . com
@SpeX7X Actually, Science DOES say earth is 4.5 billion years old. Radio-carbon dating puts our planet at that age. Then, theres the "K-T Boundry", a layer of rock with a high level of irredium that seperates dinosaurs from life on earth today. (no dinos above it, no humans below it). I believe in the Biblical account of creation, but Science must also be awknowledged. The "days" mentioned in Genesis are perverbial, not literal.
@Timbrock1000 Radio-carbon dating is extremely unreliable... I've heard of tests where it puts fresh sheep's wool at several hundred thousand years old. This 'K-T Boundry' thing is easily explained by the Great Flood, the Dinosaurs being large and rather slow were killed by the flood and their bodies were covered by sand and stuff over time, while humans, being the smartest living things on earth, all got to higher ground and were much higher in the layers of the Earth. YECism is scientific.
@SpeX7X I don't know where you get the idea of Radio Carbon dating being inaccurate, it's a proven dating method (where did you hear about the wool?). The K-T boundry is a thin layer of rock with a high level of irredium. Irredium is extremely rare on Earth but is common in metorites. This shows the dinos likely died out from a meteor hitting the earth. Also, the flood was likely regional, not global. if it were global, a uniform layer of sediment would exist. YEC is mostly pseudoscience.
@Timbrock1000 Well I got the idea of Radio Carbon dating being inaccurate from that test I mentioned, among others like it... A LOT of people dispute RCD's validity. And there are other explanations for that thin layer of rock you've mentioned. It could very possibly be a natural formation. It's very easy to say that God made the earth with a thin layer of 'Irredium' in it. By the way, Irredium seems to not exist. I have never heard of it and neither has Google. Is it possible you meant iridium?
@SpeX7X Yes, it was Iridium. But the idea it is a natural formation is unlikely since the element is extremely rare on Earth but abundant in meteors. Tell me, what REPUTABLE scientists dispute RCD? I USED to believe in YEC, but the more I looked at & compared it to OLC, the less sence it made. Most of the YEC "scientists" are frauds (Kent Hovind, Ken Ham). Sorry, YEC doesn't hold water. OLC does. Google "ANSWERS IN CREATION", see what I mean. I don't see any point in debating this any longer.
@Timbrock1000 Well that wouldn't be the only element in the world that is only common at a certain depth... Even if it is a very thin margin it wouldn't be the first time. Now RCD is very disputable, just look at this: earthage . org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric_Dating_and_The_Age_of_the_Earth.htm As you can see by that, it is extremely unreliable and the evidence proves it. YEC DOES hold water, just look around on that site I gave. Every group has frauds, but YEC certainly does not have many.
@Timbrock1000 And there are signs of a Global flood all over Earth. Given the evidence, it was almost certainly one huge flood rather than several regional ones. YEC is by no means pseudoscientific, it has a lot of legitimate evidence and shouldn't be dismissed. A LOT of people follow it. Far more people believe in YEC than do In OEC, which apparently you believe in... YEC is a MUCH larger belief, and certainly shouldn't be dismissed as pseudoscience.
Another thing: Humans and coelacanths have are also separated by this boundry, as shown by the fossil record, yet both humans and coelacanths exist today. Further evidence that it doesn't mean anything. The Bible does fit perfectly with science, and that is with a literal interpretation. There is a lot of evidence for a young Earth, but the Evolutionist-controlled media suppresses it to make it sound untrue, then makes up facts just to fit their own theories. I've seen this myself.
@Solitarious2011 When babies need cancer so god concept can be said to work in mysterious way and when my balls are boiling and I need to drain them into Jesus, Allah and the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) then the god concepts(fill in name Zeus,Wotan,Thor etc etc) exist so I may have painful rape sex with their components. So yes god concepts do exist. Thank you. Burn a bible and a Koran and save a human.
"The creationist Ken Ham, who is a big believer in medical science and exercise science and is much thinner than PZ Myers, climbs up and down the triceratops at the Creation Museum all by himself!"
LOL! Who says creationists don't have a sense of humor?
@MeBeMat My grandfather could climb that, and he's 70. Perhaps it's just because PZ doesn't work out and is a bit chubby. Maybe he just doesn't work out because he is so busy indoctrinating little children with that 'evolution' theory. Yes, that must be it.
@MeBeMat Teaching established scientific knowledge is not indoctrination, but evolutionary theory is far from established scientific knowledge. Although I love it how you people actually convinced yourselves that evolution is somehow a scientific fact, despite an utter lack of solid evidence. I laugh a little every time I see one of you 'evolution people' talk about your little theory like that. It's just funny.
@SpeX7X I suppose your theory of the magical sky man makes much more sense. I find your attempt at condescension telling, however, and speculate that you know precisely nothing legitimate on the subject except what Ken Ham, in no plainer words, makes up for the sake of reconciling it with the bronze age book. Do you understand the mechanics of evolutionary processes?
@MeBeMat Yes, God does make much more sense. It is a legitimate explanation of now the universe and life came to be, neither of which can be explained without God. Sorry to tell you, but 'it exploded from nothingness into perfect harmony and order' doesn't work. And I do understand the evolutionary theory process, and I also understand that there are things it can't explain. Some creatures don't fit into this mold, and it still lacks an explanation of how life came to be in the first place.
@SpeX7X Evolution doesn't try to explain how the universe or life came to be, it's a scientific model that explains how life managed to become so diverse once it's already there. Nobody, not even cosmologists, say that the universe "exploded out of nothingness into perfect harmony and order", do some research! You claim you understand the evolutionary process, but your comment indicates that you very clearly don't have a clue, as you systematically spew out every misconception in the book!
@MeBeMat I never said it tries to explain that, I'm just saying that life and the universe had to come from somewhere, and the Evolutionary model fails to explain how this came about in the first place. Unless you are an 'evolutionary theist', but that has it's own unrelated problems. That is a debate for another time, though. Now you say that no one says that the universe 'exploded out of nothingness into perfect harmony and order', ever heard of the Big Bang theory?
@SpeX7X The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with the Evolutionary model; unless you're trying to rope Cosmic Evolution into this, which PZ Myers, the subject of this video and you're so-called "indoctrinator" is not involved with. Biological evolution and the Big Bang Theory are completely separate theories. This is precisely why, as you just repeated, the Evolutionary model doesn't explain the life's origins: the study of abiogenesis explains life's origins. Do some research, please.
@MeBeMat I know that the Evolutionary Theory does not explain life's origins, but like I said before, you either believe life and the universe was started by God or you don't. Generally, people who believe God started the universe don't believe in Evolution (Except for the 'Theistic Evolutionists', but that's not as 'popular' as the 2 major theories, and I can pick at the problems of that one all day.) So the only problem is Evolution is impossible if there is nothing to 'start' the universe...
@MeBeMat ...Given that the people who believe it was started by God refute the Theory of Evolution (Ignoring Theistic Evolution again). PZ Myers is an Atheist, and this is one reason why I find Atheism to be highly unlikely at best. Whether or not Evolutionary theory is plausible, it doesn't mean much without a plausible explanation of how things could have come about without God. (Still ignoring Theistic Evolution...)
@SpeX7X I must've missed the meeting where the validity of scientific models was contingent on it's ability to explain everything outside it's field as well. You seem to think that evolution is a dogma that precludes atheism when it isn't. People accept the evolutionary model because of the evidence, their religious beliefs or lack thereof after that is completely seperate. Abiogenesis is the science that investigates the origin of life and it doesn't presume magical sky man at the start.
@MeBeMat I'm not saying Evolution is invalid by this, we're talking about what PZ Myers is spreading, remember? He's an Atheist, and I'm explaining why that is an invalid theory, it just happens to be paired with Evolution most of the time. Abiogenesis, now, isn't science. It contradicts the Law of Biogenesis, proven by Louis Pasteur that life doesn't just 'happen'. Atheists say that it could have been an event that only happened once in the past, and cannot happen any more. They fail to explain
@MeBeMat ...Why it isn't possible currently. And so, if it is an event exclusive to the past and impossible today, then it is impossible to test it's validity in any way. This means it remains complete speculation and blind faith upon which Atheism relies.
@SpeX7X Your ignorance on evolution is astounding and yet you make such bold assertions. Evolution can and has been observed, see the Lenski experiments, in the form of "microevolution" which demonstrates that a species can evolve if beneficial mutations which aid survival and become dominant in the species as these traits are passed onto offspring. We have fossil and genetic evidence that demonstrates macroevolution has arisen to allow for the diversity and complexity of life on earth.
@MeBeMat But here you have one major misconception. Microevolution is not related to Macroevolution. For example, there are many species of dogs, caused by Microevolution. But they are all dogs. They are all just as much dogs as the rest, and none are even slightly anything else but dog. Macroevolution requires that these dogs eventually become something else that is not a dog. There is not the slightest bit of evidence for this, and evolutionists try to link Microevoluion to Macroevolution.
@SpeX7X I don't think there could be a bigger display of your sheer ignorance on the subject than your last comment. It seems hardly worth writing a response for the deaf ears it will inevitably fall on but here goes. "Microevolution" IS "Macroevolution": organisms that encounter a mutation that is more conducive to survival will pass it on to it's offspring and, by natural selection, the trait will be dominant in that population of the species. Continued...
@SpeX7X With enough time, these mutations can amass, having altered the biology and physiology of the population to the extent that a speciation event occurs, and the population has become biologically and aesthetically different to the extent that one would differentiate it from it's ancestor.
We have genetic and fossil evidence for this, such as sharing 99% of our DNA with apes from whom we share a common ancestor and clear fossil progression going from our ape-like ancestors to modern humans
@MeBeMat Yeah... I don't think this is gonna go anywhere, you obviously think that Microevolution and Macroevolution are the same, and I obviously do not. I don't feel like I can say anything more on that subject I've not already said, I don't exactly expect you to believe me anyways. And there isn't any 'clear fossil progression' between two species like Man and Ape, the 'intermediate stages' people find are always one-of a kind, probably mutations or deformations. Nothing clear about it.
@SpeX7X Yeah, because you can't trust science with it's evidence and peer-review, no let's take a bronze-age book of dubious authorship as our source instead.
@MeBeMat Sure you can trust SCIENCE. Note I said SCIENCE. It's really disappointing how much bias goes into the things that actually pass as 'science' these days. Yet it still passes as 'science' because the people who decide whether something gets classified as 'science' or 'pseudoscience' are biased. People in the public eye who can dig up the biggest turd of a lie, put it on television, and get millions of people to believe that it is true, even without evidence. REAL science gets buried.
@MeBeMat And you can call the Bible a bronze-age book all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it is filled with scientific prophecy that has been proven true. A few examples:
- The Bible predicted that the Earth was round. That was not even theorized until centuries later.
- The Bible predicted Continental Drift.
- In the time of Jesus it was thought that Leprosy was extremely contagious, Jesus was the first to state that it wasn't. This was not proven until the 20th Century.
@SpeX7X Let's face it, there's no point going through these points and showing you bible passages to the contrary, you know it far better than I do so know the verses I'll cite and already thought of a way around it. But if I point you to a load of examples where the Bible: infallable word of the all-knowing creator, got it wrong, that is what it claims to be true has since been disproven by science, what does that prove? If biblical scientific foreknowledge is noteworthy, then that must be too.
@MeBeMat Well a lot of these things need to be interpreted correctly. It's easy to put things out of context. Not to mention there are a few translation errors that have been found, although rare, have been used to call the Bible inaccurate when it was just a bad translation. Like where it supposedly said that bats are actually birds, for example, the Hebrew translation was referring to any winged creature, when translated the word bird was used. So given that I've yet to hear of a real 'error'.
@SpeX7X So every instance of the bible being correct is genuine, but every instance of it being inaccurate simply must be a translation error or an interpretation mistake...double standard much?
@MeBeMat I'm just saying that I've yet to see an instance where a so-called 'error' has been found that can't be explained by one of those things. But the leprosy story for example, it is obviously literal and has been mentioned thoroughly enough to not be a simple translation error. So no, I would not consider that a double standard.
@SpeX7X By 'leprosy story' I presume you're talking about the one in Leviticus 14:2-52 which graphically describes how to cure leprosy by sprinkling the blood of a lamb and a dead bird, using another bird, on a leper along with a burnt offering of a dove.
I'm curious, by what standard would you consider this, by your own admission, literal interpretation evidence of biblical foreknowledge. Or is this another of those 'misinterpretation' instances, in which case I'm keen to hear your take on it.
@MeBeMat No, Leviticus was written before Jesus was even born. This however is not literal misinterpretation, but... I'll just use a quote from a Christian website to explain:
"Most of Leviticus is filled with laws and codes, many of which are ritualistically followed by Orthodox Judaism. Much of Christianity, but not all, sees the law structure as being superceded by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ."
For future reference, this applies to a lot of the Old Testament.
@MeBeMat Well, I'm not Jewish. Really when you try to make the Bible sound false, use things in the New Testament because most Christians consider most of the Old Testament overwritten by Jesus' Sacrifice. Then you ask why is it still in the Bible if it is overwritten? For two reasons:
1. It's not entirely superseded by the New Testament, for example most if not all of the Book of Genesis still applies.
2. For reference. Many times the New Testament makes references to the Old.
@SpeX7X Yes, I think it's very convenient that you can so confidently assert that passages x, y and z demonstrate vague scientific foreknowledge, but any instance where it gets it wrong can be so easily waved away.
@MeBeMat It's just that passages x, y, and z are obvious enough and generally in the New Testament, whereas the instances of being 'wrong' are either questionable as to the meaning, or in certain parts of the Old Testament that are considered superseded by the New Testament. Read the Bible yourself, you'd see that it is really the case. Read it with the knowledge of what can be considered questionable anyways.
@07rabo Actually, you're wrong. Romans 1:26-27 (that's in the New Testament) says something about men 'committing what was shameful' by having 'lust for one another', and receiving the 'penalty of the error'. Well just read it here: biblegateway . com/passage/?search=romans%201:26-27&version=NKJV
It's pretty obvious it's referring to homosexuality, and calling it shameful.
@07rabo So how exactly is that immoral? Homosexuality HAS bed linked with several diseases. Humans just aren't SUPPOSED to do that. Homosexuality is not natural, and nothing good comes of it.
@07rabo That's because of spreading the disease from one to another. Two perfectly healthy individuals with none of those diseases will not get any of those diseases from sex. Homosexual sex on the other hand can cause one of those diseases from two perfectly healthy individuals. Intestinal cancer, for example, in the same way that oral sex can cause throat cancer. A certain foreign matter goes somewhere that it shouldn't. And Christians do not harm others, don't try to act so offended.
@SpeX7X So how exactly is that immoral?Not using a condom HAS bed linked with several diseases. Humans just aren't SUPPOSED to not do that. Not using a condom is not natural, and nothing good comes of not using it. How would you respond to that?
@SpeX7X Funny you should say so, because it doesn't really seem to have taught science to anyone, but rather given arguments to obscurantists who tried to block the progress of scientists like galileo and Darwin. And, about the earth being round, I remember a passage where the devil brings Jesus on the top of a mountain from which he could see the whole world. Now that would, of course, be possible if the earth was flat but I don't see where you see any sign of a "round" earth in the bible.
@SpeX7X well, I'll answer the question as if it was directed towards myself;
Why I wouldn't look at any other opinion than the "evolutionist" one? Well, I do listen to others. I just happen to put my trust rather in the hands of scientists, who have established a theory as undeniable as the theory of gravity, than in the hands of religious people, who believe a mythology to be historical evidence.
@07rabo Hahaha, you're serious about what you just said, right? Certainly you must be aware of the fact that the theory of evolution is HARDLY as undeniable as gravity. In fact, people deny the theory of evolution every day. It's not that hard. It's not a complete theory, there are gaps in it's explanation. And there are scientists who believe in God, you just don't hear about them because the media is controlled by evolutionists. They find legitimate evidence FOR God, why not listen to them?
@SpeX7X well, you apparently ignore the fact that over 99 percent of scientists (among which circa 40% are believers) accept evolution as undeniably true. And, funny enough, the few scientists who keep denying it all happen to be religious! Now isn't that a coincidence? It suggests that only scientists that are sufficiently fanatically religious can force themselves to deny all the evidence proving evolution.
P.S.- "Legitimate evidence for god"??? Let me Laugh!
@07rabo Like 80% of those 'scientists' are people who had evolutionary bias from the start and only attempt to further the theory of evolution, not find REAL science. And of course no atheist is going to go against the theory of evolution, because that's really the only explanation they have for life existing as it is, and an unsatisfactory theory at that. If there was an atheistic 'scientist' going against the theory of evolution without any kind of alternate theory, they'd be a hypocrite.
@SpeX7X And, by the way, if you know anything about biology and physics, you'll notice that "most" young-earth debaters very simply lie at least once in an public debate. (I'm being generous with saying "most", for I have yet to see a single one who doesn't)
@Stianchez Good question. Either there is a God and he is the embodiment of these things, or they are simply features of the world. Even so, this doesn't change the fact that Genesis cannot have been literal.
@Stianchez Logical absolutes aren't material, anyone who thinks they are is a fool. They are beyond time, space matter and energy. They are not contingent on them.
@ClamCrunchy Welcome to getting to know Jesus Christ if you already haven't.
->If<- everything was made by nature, laws of logic would be made by nature. Which you just confirmed weren't true. Naturalism
As you stated yourself logic is not part of nature. The only world view that can account for the laws of nature is christianity by the one and only God
Either you believe nature created everything, or you dont. You already sided with me, whether you knew it or not.
@Stianchez I'm not a materialist in the sense that I think absolutely everything is made of matter and energy. But I think it's an unjustified leap to go from absolute laws of logic being beyond matter and energy to a theistic God. I don't see why that would follow. And I must say, it certainly does not follow that abiogenesis is not true, if logical absolutes are beyond the natural world.
@ClamCrunchy I understand your position, although you have to accept that either there is a God who created the standard, or everything was created by natural means. There is no inbetween. A yes and no answer basically. Maybe just mean's you haven't picked sides yet.
You cannot have half a God and half Nature. There either is, or is not.
Im not interested in discussing abiogenesis as it is merely an idea, and to try to disprove an idea is in itself pretty hard.
@07rabo It ends before they can become any other kind of animal. A dog will always be a dog through every generation, and through all the differences between dogs they are all still dogs.
pz is my hero, along with dawkins, dennett, hitchens and posthumously carl sagan. pz is turning out to be a chuck norris like entity of the science world. but unlike norris, pz isn't a dumbass creationist... or former bruce lee student.
And then they wondered why they were asked to leave.
This seems to be what the Darwinist calls rational action and thought. If creationism is not science, then they have no right to take a bunch load of rowdy low life's to the creation museum in the name of science. People go of there on their own free will, no one is forced into believing it, or gets a bad grade for not accepting it. Their activist judges have no power in private funded establishments. Little green men ok, but a designer no?
How could any rational person not find the creation museum entertaining.?
As for entertaining, I agree, many people of all sides have said the same, as far as causing an openly hostile environment at a place where children are present, I personally don't find this type of behavior very dignified or very rational, but tolerance is something I'm willing to accept for living in a free society. Just please don't confuse activism and personnel world views with science, there not the same.
One might as well laugh instead of cry at the stupidity, I suppose. At least they didn't kick him out like they did during the debut of the crockumentary "expelled".
This is one of the few, perhaps the only single point I can agree with Ken Ham on.
Do you normally go into museums and make a loud scene? Whether or not you agree with the exhibits, it was rude.
But more than that, the sign next to the triceratops says it is for kids 12 and under, not for agitated heavy-set grown men to jump on like it's indestructable. (Not PZ, but the fella at the start)
Other people's property, folks. They would have been well within their rights to toss you out.
PZ did the right thing. As an atheist he should. All should. There is nothing to respect there. He has the right to attack their museum verbally or "otherwise" (would be more preferable).
Personally, I would rig the whole place and blow it to kingdom come. But, maybe I'm being to harsh, it would a waste of material after all. I would turn it into an observatory or zoo or shelter or fitness center or something USEFUL.
@pfarabee That'd be a fair comment if the Creationism Museum were an actual museum and not a freakish comedy sideshow, dedicated to the propagation of falsehood and superstition. It's a parody of itself, cf. the saddle on a dinosaur.
Yeah I agree with you but I also think that some dollars from these tickes won´t make a big difference. Maybe creation museums will help unimaginative religious people to see for themselves how ridiculous is the idea of man interacting with dinosaurs really is.
@pranays But what a brilliant conversation they've brought us - what a pinnacle of misunderstanding. I'm very glad this place exists as a center for discussion and refutation. It's a phenomenal symbol of the issue and lends great credence to my concerns, as an Atheist.
By the way jmch, why do you defend the creation "science museum" so fervently against ridicule? I would assume you agree with their assertions about a young earth and all the nonsense claims that go with it?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ridicule is not a legitimate argument against someone's position. (And to think you just posted about logical fallacies, too.) The Creation Museum presents arguments for their position and against yours. You present ridicule and nothing more.
its perfectly legitimate against untenable propositions discounted by the entire scientific community. Is the germ theory denial of some random kook organization above ridicule and scorn as well? what about HIV denial?
Cute. These nitwits moved the sign that clearly indicated the dinosaur was for children to sit on for photographs. You can clearly see the sign a couple feet from the dinosaur at 0:24, but then a second later (after a brief cut), the sign is gone - moved into the corner several feet away.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Whatever happened to respect and following rules of the museum. It says 12years and under only on the sign. If something like this happened at other museums, you'd be thrown out for sure. This raucous, rowdy, disrespectul behavior will not be tolerated at the De Young Museum in SF. If fact, a security guard is stationed to watch you everywhere. Where are the staff of this museum. How tolerant of them to allow such a disturbance. Finally, if you don't like them- live and let live in peace
So when are you going to build the creation "museum" disputing the theory of gravity, or germ disease? Oh that's right, those well established theories don't conflict with your kooky religious beliefs.
These people respect nothing but their own bloated egos. They were constantly disruptive and had to be approached several times by museum staff. One student had to be kicked out (and can be seen in another YouTube video near tears as he tells Papa PZ about it) and one family's visit was ruined by these clowns. The museum should be commended for their restraint and their tolerance of these childish antics.
HOW EMBARRASSING FOR THAT FAT ATHEIST. HAHAHA LOOK HOW EMBARRASSED FAT THAT ATHEIST IS. WHY ARE ALL ATHEISTS SO FAT AND EMBARRASSING
Zetapimpkin 1 month ago
This totally proves that Jesus made the earth is 14 weeks nine days and four hours... If you stop the video at exactly 43 seconds frame 31, you can clearly see a message from god, It looks like just a flash, but in it there is a message that says a whole new verse from Jesus Christ. You may not believe it's in there, but if you have faith, you shouldn't need to look... But, take my word as one of the only living prophets of god... It's in there.
charliemarz1 2 months ago
This disproves evolution.
ultramaster123 2 months ago
@TheRyeguy123 because he was made in god's image ;)
gigisdad 4 months ago
lol seems like you have to be fat in order to critique intelligent design
IloveYOUviruses 6 months ago
This is the video conservapedia so immaturely boasts as evidence that atheists are fat morons? An old guy in a suit trying to carefully climb on an oddly shaped statue and he doesn't actually have much trouble at all? I guess I shouldn't expect any less from those willfully ignorant, juvenile bigots.
unyobro 6 months ago 5
Conservipedia sent me here. Just goes to show how dim they are to include a link that exposes their stupidity.
But what a crock of shite that Creation Museum must be. Have they never heard of the term "Science"?
pilgrimpater 6 months ago
Read creationist or young earth material. Sounds compelling? Cool you're literate. Read evolutionary evidence and material... wait... that's not what the creationist said they said... wtf... why would creationists and young earthers lie about what the REAL scientists said? Quickly you come to the realization you don't need to really understand every detail about evolution... but the fact that the creationists are lying OR have been lied to, AND fear burning in eternal hell fire if not believing.
chicarbiomed 6 months ago in playlist The Faulty Creation Museum (For the LULZ!)
Painful to watch him , old fat slow . Poor PZ. :(
MrBongers 6 months ago
@MrBongers hate much ?
robertmck12 4 months ago
@SpeX7X
Still attempting to parade your utter ignorance of evolutionary theory as an informed opinion, I see.
MeBeMat 7 months ago
Nice! Where can I see this Flinstone's movie?
cperez1000 7 months ago
i came here from trollolololopedia and the comments on this video are everything that i had hoped they would be and more. hats off to you folks.
thejuggernautbitch7 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ha. Triceratops didn't even exist. It was an immature Torosaurus. What fools these creationists are.
JedahMA 9 months ago
Thumbs up if u came here when looking for what was new on Conservapedia! XD
rolingpingu 10 months ago 25
@rolingpingu Actually, all it said was that he was fat over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
kidkong584 5 months ago
PZ seriously has to limber up-do some stretches :)
zeplinair 10 months ago
1:55 to 2:05 was awkward.
ClamCrunchy 10 months ago
Seems PZ Myers has the maturity of a 17 year-old. Note there is a sign near the triceratops that stated it was only for children to sit on. I guess I shouldn't be surprised given his reputation. That said, as a Christian, even I see the Creation Museum as a sham! I believe God created everything, but science MUST NOT be ignored. Yes, dinos died 65 mil. yrs ago. Yes, earth is 4 bil. yrs old. YES, the Bible and science ARE compatable. Google "ANSWERS IN CREATION" and see.
Timbrock1000 11 months ago
@Timbrock1000 You know, science doesn't actually say that the Earth has to be billions of years old. Evolutionists just came up with that to support their theory. The is a lot of REAL science supporting a young earth. See earthage . com
SpeX7X 10 months ago
@SpeX7X This is completely false. Pay more attention in your Science classes.
narutorox85 10 months ago
@narutorox85 Haha, you were indoctrinated well.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X Actually, Science DOES say earth is 4.5 billion years old. Radio-carbon dating puts our planet at that age. Then, theres the "K-T Boundry", a layer of rock with a high level of irredium that seperates dinosaurs from life on earth today. (no dinos above it, no humans below it). I believe in the Biblical account of creation, but Science must also be awknowledged. The "days" mentioned in Genesis are perverbial, not literal.
Timbrock1000 10 months ago
@Timbrock1000 Radio-carbon dating is extremely unreliable... I've heard of tests where it puts fresh sheep's wool at several hundred thousand years old. This 'K-T Boundry' thing is easily explained by the Great Flood, the Dinosaurs being large and rather slow were killed by the flood and their bodies were covered by sand and stuff over time, while humans, being the smartest living things on earth, all got to higher ground and were much higher in the layers of the Earth. YECism is scientific.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X I don't know where you get the idea of Radio Carbon dating being inaccurate, it's a proven dating method (where did you hear about the wool?). The K-T boundry is a thin layer of rock with a high level of irredium. Irredium is extremely rare on Earth but is common in metorites. This shows the dinos likely died out from a meteor hitting the earth. Also, the flood was likely regional, not global. if it were global, a uniform layer of sediment would exist. YEC is mostly pseudoscience.
Timbrock1000 9 months ago
@Timbrock1000 Well I got the idea of Radio Carbon dating being inaccurate from that test I mentioned, among others like it... A LOT of people dispute RCD's validity. And there are other explanations for that thin layer of rock you've mentioned. It could very possibly be a natural formation. It's very easy to say that God made the earth with a thin layer of 'Irredium' in it. By the way, Irredium seems to not exist. I have never heard of it and neither has Google. Is it possible you meant iridium?
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X Yes, it was Iridium. But the idea it is a natural formation is unlikely since the element is extremely rare on Earth but abundant in meteors. Tell me, what REPUTABLE scientists dispute RCD? I USED to believe in YEC, but the more I looked at & compared it to OLC, the less sence it made. Most of the YEC "scientists" are frauds (Kent Hovind, Ken Ham). Sorry, YEC doesn't hold water. OLC does. Google "ANSWERS IN CREATION", see what I mean. I don't see any point in debating this any longer.
Timbrock1000 9 months ago
@Timbrock1000 Well that wouldn't be the only element in the world that is only common at a certain depth... Even if it is a very thin margin it wouldn't be the first time. Now RCD is very disputable, just look at this: earthage . org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric_Dating_and_The_Age_of_the_Earth.htm As you can see by that, it is extremely unreliable and the evidence proves it. YEC DOES hold water, just look around on that site I gave. Every group has frauds, but YEC certainly does not have many.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@Timbrock1000 And there are signs of a Global flood all over Earth. Given the evidence, it was almost certainly one huge flood rather than several regional ones. YEC is by no means pseudoscientific, it has a lot of legitimate evidence and shouldn't be dismissed. A LOT of people follow it. Far more people believe in YEC than do In OEC, which apparently you believe in... YEC is a MUCH larger belief, and certainly shouldn't be dismissed as pseudoscience.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
Another thing: Humans and coelacanths have are also separated by this boundry, as shown by the fossil record, yet both humans and coelacanths exist today. Further evidence that it doesn't mean anything. The Bible does fit perfectly with science, and that is with a literal interpretation. There is a lot of evidence for a young Earth, but the Evolutionist-controlled media suppresses it to make it sound untrue, then makes up facts just to fit their own theories. I've seen this myself.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X It's .org not .com, excuse me.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@Timbrock1000 He went on there because he found it funny that it was outside a Creationist Museum, not because he's immature.
narutorox85 10 months ago
shame on the faithful. Have you NO shame. There is no god except when babies are given cancer, then it was because your god concept wished it
699backstab 11 months ago
@699backstab aaaah so you except the existence of god when everything goes wrong ?
Solitarious2011 10 months ago
@Solitarious2011 When babies need cancer so god concept can be said to work in mysterious way and when my balls are boiling and I need to drain them into Jesus, Allah and the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) then the god concepts(fill in name Zeus,Wotan,Thor etc etc) exist so I may have painful rape sex with their components. So yes god concepts do exist. Thank you. Burn a bible and a Koran and save a human.
699backstab 10 months ago
I like how his entourage needs to carry him on and off the triceratops.
DrDavidHowler 1 year ago
From conservapedia:
"The creationist Ken Ham, who is a big believer in medical science and exercise science and is much thinner than PZ Myers, climbs up and down the triceratops at the Creation Museum all by himself!"
LOL! Who says creationists don't have a sense of humor?
terrymorse 1 year ago
Oh newsflash Conservapedia, 53 year old men probably aren't as spry as the ten year olds that the Creation Museum seeks to indoctrinate.
MeBeMat 1 year ago
@MeBeMat My grandfather could climb that, and he's 70. Perhaps it's just because PZ doesn't work out and is a bit chubby. Maybe he just doesn't work out because he is so busy indoctrinating little children with that 'evolution' theory. Yes, that must be it.
SpeX7X 10 months ago
@SpeX7X Yes, my dear, teaching established scientific knowledge MUST be indoctrination.
MeBeMat 10 months ago
@MeBeMat Teaching established scientific knowledge is not indoctrination, but evolutionary theory is far from established scientific knowledge. Although I love it how you people actually convinced yourselves that evolution is somehow a scientific fact, despite an utter lack of solid evidence. I laugh a little every time I see one of you 'evolution people' talk about your little theory like that. It's just funny.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X I suppose your theory of the magical sky man makes much more sense. I find your attempt at condescension telling, however, and speculate that you know precisely nothing legitimate on the subject except what Ken Ham, in no plainer words, makes up for the sake of reconciling it with the bronze age book. Do you understand the mechanics of evolutionary processes?
MeBeMat 9 months ago
@MeBeMat Yes, God does make much more sense. It is a legitimate explanation of now the universe and life came to be, neither of which can be explained without God. Sorry to tell you, but 'it exploded from nothingness into perfect harmony and order' doesn't work. And I do understand the evolutionary theory process, and I also understand that there are things it can't explain. Some creatures don't fit into this mold, and it still lacks an explanation of how life came to be in the first place.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X Evolution doesn't try to explain how the universe or life came to be, it's a scientific model that explains how life managed to become so diverse once it's already there. Nobody, not even cosmologists, say that the universe "exploded out of nothingness into perfect harmony and order", do some research! You claim you understand the evolutionary process, but your comment indicates that you very clearly don't have a clue, as you systematically spew out every misconception in the book!
MeBeMat 9 months ago
@MeBeMat I never said it tries to explain that, I'm just saying that life and the universe had to come from somewhere, and the Evolutionary model fails to explain how this came about in the first place. Unless you are an 'evolutionary theist', but that has it's own unrelated problems. That is a debate for another time, though. Now you say that no one says that the universe 'exploded out of nothingness into perfect harmony and order', ever heard of the Big Bang theory?
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with the Evolutionary model; unless you're trying to rope Cosmic Evolution into this, which PZ Myers, the subject of this video and you're so-called "indoctrinator" is not involved with. Biological evolution and the Big Bang Theory are completely separate theories. This is precisely why, as you just repeated, the Evolutionary model doesn't explain the life's origins: the study of abiogenesis explains life's origins. Do some research, please.
MeBeMat 9 months ago
@MeBeMat I know that the Evolutionary Theory does not explain life's origins, but like I said before, you either believe life and the universe was started by God or you don't. Generally, people who believe God started the universe don't believe in Evolution (Except for the 'Theistic Evolutionists', but that's not as 'popular' as the 2 major theories, and I can pick at the problems of that one all day.) So the only problem is Evolution is impossible if there is nothing to 'start' the universe...
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@MeBeMat ...Given that the people who believe it was started by God refute the Theory of Evolution (Ignoring Theistic Evolution again). PZ Myers is an Atheist, and this is one reason why I find Atheism to be highly unlikely at best. Whether or not Evolutionary theory is plausible, it doesn't mean much without a plausible explanation of how things could have come about without God. (Still ignoring Theistic Evolution...)
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X I must've missed the meeting where the validity of scientific models was contingent on it's ability to explain everything outside it's field as well. You seem to think that evolution is a dogma that precludes atheism when it isn't. People accept the evolutionary model because of the evidence, their religious beliefs or lack thereof after that is completely seperate. Abiogenesis is the science that investigates the origin of life and it doesn't presume magical sky man at the start.
MeBeMat 9 months ago
@MeBeMat I'm not saying Evolution is invalid by this, we're talking about what PZ Myers is spreading, remember? He's an Atheist, and I'm explaining why that is an invalid theory, it just happens to be paired with Evolution most of the time. Abiogenesis, now, isn't science. It contradicts the Law of Biogenesis, proven by Louis Pasteur that life doesn't just 'happen'. Atheists say that it could have been an event that only happened once in the past, and cannot happen any more. They fail to explain
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@MeBeMat ...Why it isn't possible currently. And so, if it is an event exclusive to the past and impossible today, then it is impossible to test it's validity in any way. This means it remains complete speculation and blind faith upon which Atheism relies.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X Your ignorance on evolution is astounding and yet you make such bold assertions. Evolution can and has been observed, see the Lenski experiments, in the form of "microevolution" which demonstrates that a species can evolve if beneficial mutations which aid survival and become dominant in the species as these traits are passed onto offspring. We have fossil and genetic evidence that demonstrates macroevolution has arisen to allow for the diversity and complexity of life on earth.
MeBeMat 9 months ago
@MeBeMat But here you have one major misconception. Microevolution is not related to Macroevolution. For example, there are many species of dogs, caused by Microevolution. But they are all dogs. They are all just as much dogs as the rest, and none are even slightly anything else but dog. Macroevolution requires that these dogs eventually become something else that is not a dog. There is not the slightest bit of evidence for this, and evolutionists try to link Microevoluion to Macroevolution.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X I don't think there could be a bigger display of your sheer ignorance on the subject than your last comment. It seems hardly worth writing a response for the deaf ears it will inevitably fall on but here goes. "Microevolution" IS "Macroevolution": organisms that encounter a mutation that is more conducive to survival will pass it on to it's offspring and, by natural selection, the trait will be dominant in that population of the species. Continued...
MeBeMat 9 months ago
@SpeX7X With enough time, these mutations can amass, having altered the biology and physiology of the population to the extent that a speciation event occurs, and the population has become biologically and aesthetically different to the extent that one would differentiate it from it's ancestor.
We have genetic and fossil evidence for this, such as sharing 99% of our DNA with apes from whom we share a common ancestor and clear fossil progression going from our ape-like ancestors to modern humans
MeBeMat 9 months ago
@MeBeMat Yeah... I don't think this is gonna go anywhere, you obviously think that Microevolution and Macroevolution are the same, and I obviously do not. I don't feel like I can say anything more on that subject I've not already said, I don't exactly expect you to believe me anyways. And there isn't any 'clear fossil progression' between two species like Man and Ape, the 'intermediate stages' people find are always one-of a kind, probably mutations or deformations. Nothing clear about it.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X Do some research.
MeBeMat 9 months ago
@MeBeMat Why don't you? And not from an evolutionist source either, that's not going to give you anything but the evolutionist's answer.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X Yeah, because you can't trust science with it's evidence and peer-review, no let's take a bronze-age book of dubious authorship as our source instead.
MeBeMat 9 months ago
@MeBeMat Sure you can trust SCIENCE. Note I said SCIENCE. It's really disappointing how much bias goes into the things that actually pass as 'science' these days. Yet it still passes as 'science' because the people who decide whether something gets classified as 'science' or 'pseudoscience' are biased. People in the public eye who can dig up the biggest turd of a lie, put it on television, and get millions of people to believe that it is true, even without evidence. REAL science gets buried.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@MeBeMat And you can call the Bible a bronze-age book all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it is filled with scientific prophecy that has been proven true. A few examples:
- The Bible predicted that the Earth was round. That was not even theorized until centuries later.
- The Bible predicted Continental Drift.
- In the time of Jesus it was thought that Leprosy was extremely contagious, Jesus was the first to state that it wasn't. This was not proven until the 20th Century.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X
lol @ your vague prophecies and confirmation bias
brxbrx1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brxbrx1 Nothing vague about it.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X Let's face it, there's no point going through these points and showing you bible passages to the contrary, you know it far better than I do so know the verses I'll cite and already thought of a way around it. But if I point you to a load of examples where the Bible: infallable word of the all-knowing creator, got it wrong, that is what it claims to be true has since been disproven by science, what does that prove? If biblical scientific foreknowledge is noteworthy, then that must be too.
MeBeMat 9 months ago
@MeBeMat Well a lot of these things need to be interpreted correctly. It's easy to put things out of context. Not to mention there are a few translation errors that have been found, although rare, have been used to call the Bible inaccurate when it was just a bad translation. Like where it supposedly said that bats are actually birds, for example, the Hebrew translation was referring to any winged creature, when translated the word bird was used. So given that I've yet to hear of a real 'error'.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X So every instance of the bible being correct is genuine, but every instance of it being inaccurate simply must be a translation error or an interpretation mistake...double standard much?
MeBeMat 9 months ago
@MeBeMat I'm just saying that I've yet to see an instance where a so-called 'error' has been found that can't be explained by one of those things. But the leprosy story for example, it is obviously literal and has been mentioned thoroughly enough to not be a simple translation error. So no, I would not consider that a double standard.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X By 'leprosy story' I presume you're talking about the one in Leviticus 14:2-52 which graphically describes how to cure leprosy by sprinkling the blood of a lamb and a dead bird, using another bird, on a leper along with a burnt offering of a dove.
I'm curious, by what standard would you consider this, by your own admission, literal interpretation evidence of biblical foreknowledge. Or is this another of those 'misinterpretation' instances, in which case I'm keen to hear your take on it.
MeBeMat 9 months ago
@MeBeMat No, Leviticus was written before Jesus was even born. This however is not literal misinterpretation, but... I'll just use a quote from a Christian website to explain:
"Most of Leviticus is filled with laws and codes, many of which are ritualistically followed by Orthodox Judaism. Much of Christianity, but not all, sees the law structure as being superceded by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ."
For future reference, this applies to a lot of the Old Testament.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X How convenient.
MeBeMat 9 months ago
@MeBeMat Well, I'm not Jewish. Really when you try to make the Bible sound false, use things in the New Testament because most Christians consider most of the Old Testament overwritten by Jesus' Sacrifice. Then you ask why is it still in the Bible if it is overwritten? For two reasons:
1. It's not entirely superseded by the New Testament, for example most if not all of the Book of Genesis still applies.
2. For reference. Many times the New Testament makes references to the Old.
Still convenient?
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X Yes, I think it's very convenient that you can so confidently assert that passages x, y and z demonstrate vague scientific foreknowledge, but any instance where it gets it wrong can be so easily waved away.
MeBeMat 9 months ago
@MeBeMat It's just that passages x, y, and z are obvious enough and generally in the New Testament, whereas the instances of being 'wrong' are either questionable as to the meaning, or in certain parts of the Old Testament that are considered superseded by the New Testament. Read the Bible yourself, you'd see that it is really the case. Read it with the knowledge of what can be considered questionable anyways.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X well, I guess that means there is no reason to be against homosexuality, then, since it's in the old book.
07rabo 9 months ago
@07rabo Actually, you're wrong. Romans 1:26-27 (that's in the New Testament) says something about men 'committing what was shameful' by having 'lust for one another', and receiving the 'penalty of the error'. Well just read it here: biblegateway . com/passage/?search=romans%201:26-27&version=NKJV
It's pretty obvious it's referring to homosexuality, and calling it shameful.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X
Hi, thanks for the reference, I didn't know that. Well, I guess that is just yet another immoral passage in the bible.
07rabo 9 months ago
@07rabo Immoral? What's immoral about it?
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@07rabo Immoral? What's immoral about it?
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X well, thefact that it talks about homosexuality as a "shameful lust" to be "punished".
07rabo 9 months ago
@07rabo So how exactly is that immoral? Homosexuality HAS bed linked with several diseases. Humans just aren't SUPPOSED to do that. Homosexuality is not natural, and nothing good comes of it.
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X
Well, sex, in general, has been linked to several diseases to, but I don't suppose you wish to campaign against sex, do you?
And, unlike christians, homosexuals don't force their way of life on others, and theydon't harm others either.
07rabo 9 months ago
@07rabo That's because of spreading the disease from one to another. Two perfectly healthy individuals with none of those diseases will not get any of those diseases from sex. Homosexual sex on the other hand can cause one of those diseases from two perfectly healthy individuals. Intestinal cancer, for example, in the same way that oral sex can cause throat cancer. A certain foreign matter goes somewhere that it shouldn't. And Christians do not harm others, don't try to act so offended.
SpeX7X 8 months ago
@SpeX7X
Regarding the phrase " A certain foreign matter...",
Are you so fearful that you chose not to type the word "semen"?
ShawnsterVideos 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpeX7X So how exactly is that immoral?Not using a condom HAS bed linked with several diseases. Humans just aren't SUPPOSED to not do that. Not using a condom is not natural, and nothing good comes of not using it. How would you respond to that?
wikuk 8 months ago
@SpeX7X Funny you should say so, because it doesn't really seem to have taught science to anyone, but rather given arguments to obscurantists who tried to block the progress of scientists like galileo and Darwin. And, about the earth being round, I remember a passage where the devil brings Jesus on the top of a mountain from which he could see the whole world. Now that would, of course, be possible if the earth was flat but I don't see where you see any sign of a "round" earth in the bible.
07rabo 9 months ago
@SpeX7X well, I'll answer the question as if it was directed towards myself;
Why I wouldn't look at any other opinion than the "evolutionist" one? Well, I do listen to others. I just happen to put my trust rather in the hands of scientists, who have established a theory as undeniable as the theory of gravity, than in the hands of religious people, who believe a mythology to be historical evidence.
07rabo 9 months ago
@07rabo Hahaha, you're serious about what you just said, right? Certainly you must be aware of the fact that the theory of evolution is HARDLY as undeniable as gravity. In fact, people deny the theory of evolution every day. It's not that hard. It's not a complete theory, there are gaps in it's explanation. And there are scientists who believe in God, you just don't hear about them because the media is controlled by evolutionists. They find legitimate evidence FOR God, why not listen to them?
SpeX7X 9 months ago
@SpeX7X well, you apparently ignore the fact that over 99 percent of scientists (among which circa 40% are believers) accept evolution as undeniably true. And, funny enough, the few scientists who keep denying it all happen to be religious! Now isn't that a coincidence? It suggests that only scientists that are sufficiently fanatically religious can force themselves to deny all the evidence proving evolution.
P.S.- "Legitimate evidence for god"??? Let me Laugh!
07rabo 9 months ago
@07rabo Like 80% of those 'scientists' are people who had evolutionary bias from the start and only attempt to further the theory of evolution, not find REAL science. And of course no atheist is going to go against the theory of evolution, because that's really the only explanation they have for life existing as it is, and an unsatisfactory theory at that. If there was an atheistic 'scientist' going against the theory of evolution without any kind of alternate theory, they'd be a hypocrite.
SpeX7X 8 months ago
@SpeX7X And, by the way, if you know anything about biology and physics, you'll notice that "most" young-earth debaters very simply lie at least once in an public debate. (I'm being generous with saying "most", for I have yet to see a single one who doesn't)
07rabo 9 months ago
@07rabo If you know anything about REAL biology and physics, you'd know that evolutionary/old earth debaters twist the truth all the time.
SpeX7X 8 months ago
@SpeX7X Common ancestry is a fact of science.
ClamCrunchy 8 months ago 8
@ClamCrunchy Yes, thanks to Adam and Eve you're sitting here writing on youtube.
Stianchez 6 months ago
@Stianchez Amazing you really believe that. God, it must be nice to be that ignorant.
ClamCrunchy 6 months ago
@ClamCrunchy On the naturalistic view, how do you accont for morality, logic, truth?
Stianchez 6 months ago
@Stianchez Good question. Either there is a God and he is the embodiment of these things, or they are simply features of the world. Even so, this doesn't change the fact that Genesis cannot have been literal.
ClamCrunchy 6 months ago
@ClamCrunchy You didn't answer my question at all. How can you account for moraltiy logic and truth if we are only a mixture of a biochemical soup.
In regards to Genesis, Enjoy /watch?v=SXpXJTu8enU
Now answer my question.
Stianchez 6 months ago
@Stianchez Sure I did. And even if there is a God, that doesn't make Genesis literally true.
ClamCrunchy 6 months ago
@ClamCrunchy If they are features of this world, all you need to do is to look at logic. How on earth is logic material?
Stianchez 6 months ago
@Stianchez Logical absolutes aren't material, anyone who thinks they are is a fool. They are beyond time, space matter and energy. They are not contingent on them.
ClamCrunchy 6 months ago
@ClamCrunchy Welcome to getting to know Jesus Christ if you already haven't.
->If<- everything was made by nature, laws of logic would be made by nature. Which you just confirmed weren't true. Naturalism
As you stated yourself logic is not part of nature. The only world view that can account for the laws of nature is christianity by the one and only God
Either you believe nature created everything, or you dont. You already sided with me, whether you knew it or not.
Stianchez 6 months ago
@Stianchez I'm not a materialist in the sense that I think absolutely everything is made of matter and energy. But I think it's an unjustified leap to go from absolute laws of logic being beyond matter and energy to a theistic God. I don't see why that would follow. And I must say, it certainly does not follow that abiogenesis is not true, if logical absolutes are beyond the natural world.
ClamCrunchy 6 months ago
@ClamCrunchy I understand your position, although you have to accept that either there is a God who created the standard, or everything was created by natural means. There is no inbetween. A yes and no answer basically. Maybe just mean's you haven't picked sides yet.
You cannot have half a God and half Nature. There either is, or is not.
Im not interested in discussing abiogenesis as it is merely an idea, and to try to disprove an idea is in itself pretty hard.
You are very mannered, cheers
Stianchez 6 months ago
@SpeX7X Well, where does microevolution end, then?
07rabo 9 months ago
@07rabo It ends before they can become any other kind of animal. A dog will always be a dog through every generation, and through all the differences between dogs they are all still dogs.
SpeX7X 8 months ago
@MeBeMat Half of the contributors to Conservapedia are Poes who do it for a laugh.
ClamCrunchy 6 months ago
LOL at his crocoduck tie! I hope Kirk Cameron saw that one.
neosoc 1 year ago
I can see it now, PZ Myers patronizing the exhibits
"Oh look, they got a model of man and a t-rex coexisting. They have SUCH imaginations!"
CorpsmanUP87 1 year ago
They stole my idea!
videorprologic 1 year ago
Since the triceratops never existed, I wonder what the Creation Museum has to say?
furita53 1 year ago
@furita53 What the fuck am I reading?
itarethetroll 1 year ago
@itarethetroll Google "Triceratops Never Existed", and you'll find out what I mean.
furita53 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@itarethetroll Google "Triceratops Never Existed", and you'll find out what I mean.
furita53 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@itarethetroll Google "Triceratops Never Existed", and you'll find out what I mean.
furita53 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@itarethetroll Google "Triceratops Never Existed", and you'll find out what I mean.
furita53 1 year ago
I know the this man does have a sense of humor.
granddad2002 1 year ago
PZ looks so ungainly on the dinosaur....lol
theunraveler 1 year ago
pz is my hero, along with dawkins, dennett, hitchens and posthumously carl sagan. pz is turning out to be a chuck norris like entity of the science world. but unlike norris, pz isn't a dumbass creationist... or former bruce lee student.
mistereveready 1 year ago 2
And then they wondered why they were asked to leave.
This seems to be what the Darwinist calls rational action and thought. If creationism is not science, then they have no right to take a bunch load of rowdy low life's to the creation museum in the name of science. People go of there on their own free will, no one is forced into believing it, or gets a bad grade for not accepting it. Their activist judges have no power in private funded establishments. Little green men ok, but a designer no?
benthemiester 1 year ago
"And then they wondered why they were asked to leave. This seems to be what the Darwinist calls rational action and thought." ... benthemiester
No, this is what Darwinists call good clean fun. How could any rational person not find the creation museum entertaining.?
prschuster 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How could any rational person not find the creation museum entertaining.?
As for entertaining, I agree, many people of all sides have said the same, as far as causing an openly hostile environment at a place where children are present, I personally don't find this type of behavior very dignified or very rational, but tolerance is something I'm willing to accept for living in a free society. Just please don't confuse activism and personnel world views with science, there not the same.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester These people created an openly hostile environment by brainwashing their kids.
BoredInfidel 1 year ago
@benthemiester No, this isn't rational action, it's open mockery of barefaced ignorance and stupidity. Get it straight.
berpppp 1 year ago 9
Comment removed
benthemiester 1 year ago
Oh, wow! 0_0
jereamygrayrose 1 year ago
lol awesome :)
LordNapalm 1 year ago
how do i give it more than just 5 stars?!!?!?
hardtomemorize 1 year ago 2
Fucking hilarious!
QuarkyGideon 2 years ago 11
One might as well laugh instead of cry at the stupidity, I suppose. At least they didn't kick him out like they did during the debut of the crockumentary "expelled".
SuperImready 2 years ago 3
this was hilarious but disrespectful I must o-o but who gives a crap XD ride that shit
KRB1592 2 years ago
"There is nothing here but a bunch of bald assertions. There is no evidence to back up their claims."
And PZ is right. Naturally.
MattHunX 2 years ago 3
This is one of the few, perhaps the only single point I can agree with Ken Ham on.
Do you normally go into museums and make a loud scene? Whether or not you agree with the exhibits, it was rude.
But more than that, the sign next to the triceratops says it is for kids 12 and under, not for agitated heavy-set grown men to jump on like it's indestructable. (Not PZ, but the fella at the start)
Other people's property, folks. They would have been well within their rights to toss you out.
pfarabee 2 years ago
What museam?
HitodamaKyrie 2 years ago
PZ did the right thing. As an atheist he should. All should. There is nothing to respect there. He has the right to attack their museum verbally or "otherwise" (would be more preferable).
Personally, I would rig the whole place and blow it to kingdom come. But, maybe I'm being to harsh, it would a waste of material after all. I would turn it into an observatory or zoo or shelter or fitness center or something USEFUL.
MattHunX 2 years ago
@pfarabee This is not a museum. This is a sideshow.
BoredInfidel 1 year ago
@pfarabee That'd be a fair comment if the Creationism Museum were an actual museum and not a freakish comedy sideshow, dedicated to the propagation of falsehood and superstition. It's a parody of itself, cf. the saddle on a dinosaur.
berpppp 1 year ago 2
I think PZ is a smart person but the more of us that go to these Museums to the stupidity of Religion just give them money to create more.
I think we should not be funding these abominations to knowledge and history by going even if it is just for laughs.
pranays 2 years ago 7
Yeah I agree with you but I also think that some dollars from these tickes won´t make a big difference. Maybe creation museums will help unimaginative religious people to see for themselves how ridiculous is the idea of man interacting with dinosaurs really is.
PabloFerroDesign 2 years ago
Uh...doubtful...they just become more delusional.
MattHunX 2 years ago
@pranays But what a brilliant conversation they've brought us - what a pinnacle of misunderstanding. I'm very glad this place exists as a center for discussion and refutation. It's a phenomenal symbol of the issue and lends great credence to my concerns, as an Atheist.
StevenBradleyScott 1 year ago
@StevenBradleyScott
I never thought of it that way but you make a good point.
pranays 1 year ago
@pranays i'm pretty sure the .0001% of patrons who are non-believers aren't going to be adding a new wing any time soon.
FatherofMan25 1 year ago
Fuck yeah! PZ Myers!
doctormurray91 2 years ago 2
By the way jmch, why do you defend the creation "science museum" so fervently against ridicule? I would assume you agree with their assertions about a young earth and all the nonsense claims that go with it?
sh0ckerturb0 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ridicule is not a legitimate argument against someone's position. (And to think you just posted about logical fallacies, too.) The Creation Museum presents arguments for their position and against yours. You present ridicule and nothing more.
JMcH 2 years ago
its perfectly legitimate against untenable propositions discounted by the entire scientific community. Is the germ theory denial of some random kook organization above ridicule and scorn as well? what about HIV denial?
sh0ckerturb0 2 years ago 2
the creation "museum" is nothing more than evolution denial.
sh0ckerturb0 2 years ago 3
@JMcH " Ridicule is not a legitimate argument against someone's position. "
It is when their position is ridiculous.
BoredInfidel 1 year ago
Cute. These nitwits moved the sign that clearly indicated the dinosaur was for children to sit on for photographs. You can clearly see the sign a couple feet from the dinosaur at 0:24, but then a second later (after a brief cut), the sign is gone - moved into the corner several feet away.
JMcH 2 years ago
And that proves what exactly? Oh no 2 adults climbed on an toy for children! Evolution is sooo false now!
sh0ckerturb0 2 years ago
It proves that PZ is a buffoon, a jackass and should not be taken seriously regarding anything.
JMcH 2 years ago
Wow, somebody never learned about logical fallacies.
sh0ckerturb0 2 years ago
Who? You?
JMcH 2 years ago
hey JMcH, what happened? figure out you got your ass handed to you on a silver platter and decided to stop posting? what's the matter?
sh0ckerturb0 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I decided to go talk to the adults - i.e. not you.
JMcH 2 years ago
Lmao. A typical response from someone who has had their arguments utterly destroyed.
sh0ckerturb0 2 years ago
Hey, look! A dinosaur with TWO assholes on it! Evolution is amazing!
JMcH 2 years ago
Hey look, a pissed off, offended fundamentalist Christian! god is amazing! I wish he would stop showing up all the time sheesh! Lmfao
sh0ckerturb0 2 years ago
Hey look - a mocking, offended fundamentalist atheist! I guess that means God doesn't exist and evolution is true!
JMcH 2 years ago
You are growing increasingly incoherent. By the way, fundamentalist atheist? Lol
sh0ckerturb0 2 years ago
Is there some reason why those two terms cannot go together?
JMcH 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Whatever happened to respect and following rules of the museum. It says 12years and under only on the sign. If something like this happened at other museums, you'd be thrown out for sure. This raucous, rowdy, disrespectul behavior will not be tolerated at the De Young Museum in SF. If fact, a security guard is stationed to watch you everywhere. Where are the staff of this museum. How tolerant of them to allow such a disturbance. Finally, if you don't like them- live and let live in peace
2liveinpeace 2 years ago
Holocaust deniers should not have their views challenged. We should just "live and let live"... FAIL
eveningcoconut76 2 years ago 8
This is a "museum" of ignorance and deserves to be ridiculed.
sh0ckerturb0 2 years ago
Scare quotes are scary.
JMcH 2 years ago
By the way, read the wiki entry for scare quotes, creation science "museum" is listed as an example ROFL.
sh0ckerturb0 2 years ago
Yes, I know. I added it after being inspired by your beloved lord and master PZ.
JMcH 2 years ago
So when are you going to build the creation "museum" disputing the theory of gravity, or germ disease? Oh that's right, those well established theories don't conflict with your kooky religious beliefs.
sh0ckerturb0 2 years ago 2
These people respect nothing but their own bloated egos. They were constantly disruptive and had to be approached several times by museum staff. One student had to be kicked out (and can be seen in another YouTube video near tears as he tells Papa PZ about it) and one family's visit was ruined by these clowns. The museum should be commended for their restraint and their tolerance of these childish antics.
JMcH 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cry me a river.
sh0ckerturb0 2 years ago
@2liveinpeace but this is just a 'pretend' museum.
stratocaster539 1 year ago