Today in the brickyard. Just don't read the intro, and you'll be fine.

11/18/2009 10:21:50 AM

what's wrong with the intro?

11/18/2009 10:22:37 AM

It was written by Ray Comfort (in conjunction with Kirk Cameron) as a creationist viewpoint meant to dissuade you from really believing anything about evolution and natural selection in the book.

11/18/2009 10:24:30 AM

what is this about?

a book on evolution?


do i have to sign up for anything?

11/18/2009 10:49:59 AM

Nope, just take the book and run. They practically shove it in your face anyway.

11/18/2009 10:52:12 AM

Is it a good book to read, or just something to have for free?

11/18/2009 10:55:11 AM

some one pick one up for me. i'll come to you to pick it up.

11/18/2009 2:11:29 PM

Oh christ are those fuckers there?

Seriously, someone go there and literally piss on them. Please. I'll pay you $50.

11/18/2009 2:12:05 PM

Serously fuck creationists.

11/18/2009 2:14:04 PM

ive got it all figured out rawr rawr

11/18/2009 2:21:47 PM

is the creationist stuff all throughout the book, or just in the intro? if its just the intro, then get me one please

11/18/2009 2:22:15 PM

I mean

you people do know what origin of species is right?

11/18/2009 2:23:23 PM

Quote :

"ive got it all figured out rawr rawr"

I've got it much more figured out than these lunatics.

11/18/2009 2:24:43 PM

no, you dont.

but thanks for playing.

11/18/2009 2:25:22 PM

Wait..

are you defending Creationism?

11/18/2009 2:26:29 PM

defending? no not really. I don't really defend one extreme or the other.

The source of this universe is so far beyond our understanding now that I am not ruling anything out.

That iguana though, I believe is a result of natural selection and evolution.

11/18/2009 2:28:46 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=577216

11/18/2009 2:28:56 PM

You do realize that Creationism is literally just a wedge to get Christianity into the school curriculum, right?

11/18/2009 2:29:25 PM

It is a pretty vague term. I don't associate it with religion in schools, but if that is what you're against I can agree with that.

^^ ok yeah i read that thread. I can see its pretty much pointed at religious zealots trying to get religion into school. Carry on.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 2:36 PM. Reason : *]

11/18/2009 2:33:19 PM

No I mean it was literally proven in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial#Decision

11/18/2009 2:36:28 PM

Quote :

"I've got it much more figured out than these lunatics."

aha, you really don't...you have it "figured" out as much as they do...unless you have EVIDENCE detailing exactly how the universe came to be (heck, i'll settle for some evidence of how LIFE came to be, forget the universe), you have NOTHING figured out

you both have your OPINIONS on how it all started, but since neither of you have any EVIDENCE, your viewpoints are equal in validity

i am constantly amused by all the "enlightened" souls coming out of universities these days...your asinine and arrogant belief that your hypothesis is correct and free-standing is just as ignorant as a creationist's belief...but you scream "science!" and expect your OPINION (again, please note the lack of evidence on your end) to be given more weight than theirs

i'm not defending them, per se...mostly just pointing out how you're just as bad in EXACTLY the same way...right now, though, it's considered cool to hate on religion in the name of science

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 2:40 PM. Reason : grammar]

11/18/2009 2:39:19 PM

11/18/2009 2:41:59 PM

Are you kidding me?

Quote :

".unless you have EVIDENCE detailing exactly how the universe came to be"

Open an Astronomy textbook.

Quote :

"heck, i'll settle for some evidence of how LIFE came to be, forget the universe"

Open a Biology textbook.

Quote :

"i'm not defending them, per se...mostly just pointing out how you're just as bad in EXACTLY the same way...right now, though, it's considered cool to hate on religion in the name of science"

No, No, No, NO. NO. You have no idea what you're talking about. No one is arguing that these people can't espouse these crazy ideas, but to teach them in a scientific classroom when they have absolutely no standing among the scientific community and haven't been held to rigorous debate and testing like every other theory that makes it into a textbook is retarded.

11/18/2009 2:43:35 PM

^^ fish are still here, though...dinosaurs, not so much

Quote :

"Are you kidding me?"

not at all...your arrogance is typical, but still just as obnoxious as the creationists

Quote :

"Open an Astronomy textbook."

sorry, kid, you don't get off that easily...show me EVIDENCE...last i checked, astronomy doesn't offer EVIDENCE of the big bang, just the HYPOTHESIS (do you need a definition?)

Quote :

"Open a Biology textbook."

same as above

Quote :

"No, No, No, NO. NO. You have no idea what you're talking about. No one is arguing that these people can't espouse these crazy ideas, but to teach them in a scientific classroom when they have absolutely no standing among the scientific community and haven't been held to rigorous debate and testing like every other theory that makes it into a textbook is retarded."

haha, i didn't say anything about creationism in a textbook, you moron...i specifically pointed out how your silly-ass belief that you have it "figured out" is retarded, since what you REALLY have is an idea with no EVIDENCE (which is what creationism boils down to)...you really don't get this?

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 2:47 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2009 2:44:11 PM

BUT IF WE CAME FROM MONKEYS HOW COME THERE ARE STILL MONKEYS HMM?

11/18/2009 2:44:39 PM

Gladly accept the book, tear out the first 50 pages, throw them in the trash, say "thank you for this lovely book", and walk away.

11/18/2009 2:49:20 PM

^ excellent idea...i'd kind of like to have a copy of this book, but i'm not on main today

11/18/2009 2:50:01 PM

Quote :

"last i checked, astronomy doesn't offer EVIDENCE of the big bang, just the HYPOTHESIS (do you need a definition?)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 2:55 PM. Reason : ]

11/18/2009 2:55:02 PM

Quote :

"sorry, kid, you don't get off that easily...show me EVIDENCE...last i checked, astronomy doesn't offer EVIDENCE of the big bang, just the HYPOTHESIS (do you need a definition?)"

Last I checked you were wrong. Again.

How do you think the hypothesis made it into a textbook without any evidence? Are you serious? Do you think they just put all the different theories on a dartboard, threw a dart, and it landed on "big bang?" Do you even know HOW things make it into textbooks, the kind of rigorous study, debate, and consensus that has to happen before something gets added into a textbook?

Do you not realize that people have observed the skies for centuries, cataloging star patterns, galaxies, radiowaves, light, etc. to formulate this theory? How can you possibly say there is no evidence?

Quote :

"since what you REALLY have is an idea with no EVIDENCE "

Again, completely false. Ask any professor in the science department.

11/18/2009 2:56:06 PM

^^ & ^ your point is what, exactly? the big bang relies very heavily on two yet unproven ASSUMPTIONS: universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle...until those assumptions become FACT, they're just hypotheses...and until the big bang theory relies on actual EVIDENCE, it itself is just a hypothesis

it's really not that complex...but i guess when people aren't aware of the difference between unproven theories and factual evidence, you can't really argue with them...hmmm, reminiscent of trying to argue with a creationist...

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 3:01 PM. Reason : carats]

11/18/2009 3:00:38 PM

You don't understand how science works.

11/18/2009 3:02:38 PM

People suggesting that evolution and creationism are two sides of the same coin and that both are extreme positions ITT

11/18/2009 3:03:32 PM

^^ okay, teach me, then...are you truly saying that an idea that RELIES on UNPROVEN THEORIES is completely and unarguably true? because this IS the case of the big bang, regardless of whether you want to admit it or not...if you're saying that's the case, then i'm going to go ahead and assume you're mentally challenged and ignore you, because i will probably get farther talking to a tree stump

what you seem not to understand is that you can't have it both ways...you can't say the creationists are utterly wrong due to their lack of evidence and then turn around and state that your idea is unarguably correct even with out EVIDENCE to back it up...sure, there are studies and evidence that suggest that the big bang actually happened, but they are suggestions based on ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE NOT PROVEN...until those assumptions change to facts, everything based on those same unproven assumptions will remain theories...end of story, kid

11/18/2009 3:18:45 PM

11/18/2009 3:27:19 PM

He's right. Evolution and the idea that every human came from two people 6,000 years ago are equally likely to be true.

11/18/2009 3:29:35 PM

yo quagmire

read a fucking book already you god damned hack

11/18/2009 3:32:14 PM

^^ you're not paying attention, either, are you? we're talking about CREATIONISM, which is the belief that the universe was CREATED BY A SUPERNATURAL BEING

creationism and the idea that people poofed into existence however many thousand years ago are mutually exclusive...yes, they are oftentimes combined by the ignorant that like to hate on all religions, but that's a mistake on the hater's part, not mine...i'm trying to compare apples to apples (the existence of the universe), not mix it up with other notions

^ ah...more words that do nothing to refute my common sense...want to try something intelligent next time, or will you continue with the tried and true asshat approach?

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 3:34 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2009 3:32:59 PM

Quote :

"are you truly saying that an idea that RELIES on UNPROVEN THEORIES is completely and unarguably true?"

No one is saying they are completely and unarguably true. Like I said, you don't understand how science works. I suggest you take fifth grade science again, where you can learn about wonderful things like the scientific method and what a theory actually is.

11/18/2009 3:33:22 PM

Quote :

"^ ah...more words that do nothing to refute my common sense...want to try something intelligent next time, or will you continue with the tried and true asshat approach?"

Engaging you in a conversation at this point would mean adopting the role of the teacher and writing you a mini-text. Why don't you just educate yourself some on scientific and statistical methodology, and on the logic of confirmation and evidence? There's a huge corpus of work on this in the 20th century that should be fairly accessible.

11/18/2009 3:35:12 PM

Let's head on over to the Soap Box so we can really get this party started...for the 20th time.

11/18/2009 3:35:37 PM

Quote :

"you're not paying attention, either, are you? we're talking about CREATIONISM, which is the belief that the universe was CREATED BY A SUPERNATURAL BEING"

There's zero evidence to support creationism. There's a lot of evidence to support the big bang. How do you not see the difference?

11/18/2009 3:35:58 PM

I don't think Quagmire knows the difference between a law, a theory and a wild ass guess.

11/18/2009 3:36:00 PM

Quote :

"universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle"

Horay for Wikipedia, amririte?

Quote :

"Underlying assumptions The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws, and the Cosmological Principle. "

I doubt you even know what either of those topics discuss or how they have been and are being tested for.

Also, I don't think you understand the word "theory" in scientific context.

ALSO: what does any of this have to do with the Big Bang Theory? Origin of the Species does not = Origin of the Universe.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM. Reason : /]

11/18/2009 3:36:21 PM

Quote :

"is the creationist stuff all throughout the book, or just in the intro?"

It actually is just the intro. With no editing whatsoever. They believe their argument is strong enough to honestly discount the rest of the text and stir all the little pagan students' hearts to repentance.

No word on whether Ray or Kirk actually read the book themselves or not though.

11/18/2009 3:39:12 PM

Quote :

"There's zero evidence to support creationism. There's a lot of evidence to support the big bang. How do you not see the difference?"

Where is the evidence that creationism and the big bang don't describe the same thing?

11/18/2009 3:42:41 PM

oh noes! people keep saying poor quagmire doesn't understand, but not a single one can refute what he says? i'm still waiting for someone to come out and say that the big bang theory is NOT actually a theory, but a proven fact and therefore is right and all other ideas are wrong...until that point, all that the big bang is is a damn good best guess, but that's close enough that we must mock others, yes?

i'm sure there's nothing else in the universe beyond our comprehension, right? certainly not a single mystery waiting to be uncovered? this is the funniest thing...the part of creationism that i DO agree with is the idea that there are things out there beyond out comprehension at this point and time...not that we just haven't discovered them, but we are truly incapable of UNDERSTANDING them...the big bang theory advocates like to make fun of that, which is arrogant, immature, and just proves how parochial their views REALLY are

Quote :

"ALSO: what does any of this have to do with the Big Bang Theory? Origin of the Species does not = Origin of the Universe."

no shit, sherlock...read the thread...God looked down from his high horse and decreed that he has it "figured out"...that's what started this, his absolutely ridiculous idea that he has a fucking clue about what this universe is

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2009 3:42:43 PM

Quote :

"oh noes! people keep saying poor quagmire doesn't understand, but not a single one can refute what he says?"

"what's 2 + 2?"

"THE ANSWER IS 'B'"

You don't even understand the shit you're saying, how are we supposed to "refute" what you're saying? You're spouting a bunch of uninformed, unreflective middle-school philosophy. Get your fucking head straight if you expect people to take you seriously. Nobody here is going to take the time to educate you on the non-trivial subject of confirmation, evidence, induction, and statistical inference / scientific theorizing.

11/18/2009 3:45:56 PM

Quote :

"You don't even understand the shit you're saying, how are we supposed to "refute" what you're saying? You're spouting a bunch of uninformed, unreflective middle-school philosophy. Get your fucking head straight if you expect people to take you seriously."

but you can't actually point out what, specifically, it is that i'm saying that is wrong? oh, wait:

Quote :

"Nobody here is going to take the time to educate you on the non-trivial subject of confirmation, evidence, induction, and statistical inference / scientific theorizing."

what you meant to say is "IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DID WRONG, THEN I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU RAWR RAWR RAWR THAT WILL TEACH YOU!"

haha, okay...keep telling me how wrong i am without refuting it with anything but your opinion...i'm sure where you grew up, opinions are the same thing as facts

11/18/2009 3:50:06 PM

First, start with understanding that a theory, in the scientific sense, is not the same as a guess or even, "a damn good best guess." We'll work on the rest after that.

11/18/2009 3:52:51 PM

^ alright..princeton seems to think a theory is:

Quote :

"hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena"

and they seem to think that a hypothesis is:

Quote :

"a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations"

or

Quote :

"guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence"

so...what now? i think i understand that no matter how you look at it, neither a theory nor a hypothesis are FACTUAL because they are unproven (princeton says "not yet verified")...which means that while they might do an EXCELLENT job of defining or explaining something, they cannot be trusted to be completely and unarguably correct

but i guess y'all know better than those silly princeton folks

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2009 3:58:34 PM