Bogosity Ep. 2: Creationism EXPANDED&REMASTERED Pt. 1

Debunking the lies and misinformation produced by creationism.

Part 1 of 3.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• skeptic
• debunk
• creation
• creationism
• evolution
• kent
• hovind
• kurt
• cameron
• rational
• response
• rabidape
• thunderf00t

[StopSpamming1]

@andromidius

I admit to not understanding anything in your comment.

What is the complicated subject?

What do I accept?

What has no factual evidence?

What makes me lazy?

[andromidius]

@StopSpamming1 So basically, instead of trying to understand a complicated subject you'd rather just accept something else entirely that has little to no factual evidence supporting it?

Wow, you really are lazy.

[shanedk]

@NUTCASE71733 Michio Kaku said it happened due to the scientists not giving the committee the right answers. They were asked, "Will the supercollider find God?" They answered no. Kaku said he would have answered, "No matter what your concept of God is, the supercollider will bring you closer to him."

It's all in how you sell it.

[StopSpamming1]

@NUTCASE71733

Erm, not quite. An LHC is used to analyse particles when reproducing conditions as could have been just after the Big Bang. The CERN LHC is the largest but not the only one in the world. Even the US still has its own programme, even though the Texas Super LHC was stopped. Bush had no scientific education but would rely on his science advisors on something like this - so for once, I need to protect him :)

[NUTCASE71733]

@shanedk

AH. Well, either way it was anti-science wackjobs who killed the plans for it. God forbid the USA actually be GOOD at something anymore.

[shanedk]

@NUTCASE71733 It was actually Congress that killed the supercollider, not Bush.

[NUTCASE71733]

@StopSpamming1

The Big Bang theory certainly has more ground than the bible. Besides a big bang-like event was observed through the Hydron Collider in france. Something the USA would have done if Bush anti-science.

[StopSpamming1]

@shanedk

No, just excerpts. But you see, that's my problem with accepting it as a theory: we are still doctoring around with the concepts. It's not that it's just some open ends in the details, but real basics. I can't get myself to accept that evolution and Big Bang are at a comparable level of evidence.

Unless I call theories a scale encompassing anything from evolution, which I consider to be as factual as it gets, up to the Big Bang, where everything is still in threads.

[shanedk]

@StopSpamming1 Have you read Hawking's latest book The Grand Design? Seems pretty complete to me!

[StopSpamming1]

@shanedk

Thanks for making me really laugh. Not at but with you.

I know I'm stubborn. And difficult. But I can't get myself to accept it as a theory until the basic questions are answered. There are simply not enough facts or substantiated hypotheses. And if I look for the differences or common factors this shows me that I am right. So until I find the unifying definition or the common acceptance as a theory I will not call it one.

Where does it make a difference for you?