Scientific Creationists (Yes, the same people who teach bullshit at schools, vandalized two of Charles Pellegrino's labs and flipped and burnt a car in front of his house)
Why do they call themselves 'Scientific'? Religious bullshit aside, it is possible that life was created by a superior entity, but that's not a theory. There's nothing one can observe or experiment because such an entity would be outside our physical or non-physical realms. It's barely a hypotheses because there's barely anything to build on: There's no evidence to tell us the existence of a higher, outside-known-physics being is possible. Even Quantum Physics that allows all sorts of "Trippin' Balls!" kind of shit would not allow something like that. But these people don't just claim that, they also claim Earth was created in six days. A planet created in six days? To radiate that much excess heat in such a short period of time Earth should've been 15,000 brighter than the Sun.
Yet they call themselves 'Scientific Creationists'.
And even worse, there are people who think Creationism is somehow science.
</rant>
You know, post what you think about them, and what you think should be done with them/what they do, etc etc.
I guess someone should post a copy of Article Eleven of the Treaty of Tripoli every-fucking-where.
[QUOTE]Art. 11. [B]As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion[/B],—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[/QUOTE]
If they label it as science and call it intelligent design people might think they're intelligent and scientific.
But that's only if your bullshit detector is in the shop.
Damn them bitches.
lol scientific creationists. what a load of shit.
That's a contradiction..
[QUOTE=skidude28;21494604]That's a contradiction..[/QUOTE]
My point exactly.
The reason Scientific Creationism is bullshit is because it is an Oxymoron. A total Contradiction.
Religion and Science do not go well. [u]At all[/u].
edit: god damn ninjas.
Do these people have a website where they explain this shit? I've never seen their actual theories or hypotheses etc etc, the only thing I've ever really seen them do is disagree with real scientists.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21494623]Do these people have a website where they explain this shit? I've never seen their actual theories or hypotheses etc etc, the only thing I've ever really seen them do is disagree with real scientists.[/QUOTE]
A quick google search only revelaed how to deal with them and such things.
Wikipedia Time...
[quote]
"Creation science means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those evidences. Creation science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
Sudden creation of the Universe, energy and life from nothing.
The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism.
Changes only with fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals.
Separate ancestry for man and apes.
Explanation of the Earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of worldwide flood.
A relatively recent inception of the Earth and living kinds."
This legislation was examined in McLean v. Arkansas, and the ruling handed down on January 5, 1982, concluded that creation-science as defined in the act "is simply not science". The judgement defined the following as essential characteristics of science:
It is guided by natural law;
It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
It is testable against the empirical world;
Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
It is falsifiable.
The court ruled that creation science failed to meet these essential characteristics and identified specific reasons. After examining the key concepts from creation science, the court found:
Sudden creation "from nothing" calls upon a supernatural intervention, not natural law, and is neither testable nor falsifiable
Objections in creation science that mutation and natural selection are insufficient to explain common origins was an incomplete negative generalization
'Kinds' are not scientific classifications, and creation science's claims of an outer limit to the evolutionary change possible of species are not explained scientifically or by natural law
Separate ancestry of man and apes is an assertion rather than scientific explanation, and did not derive from any scientific fact or theory
Catastrophism, including its identification of the worldwide flood, failed as a science
"Relatively recent inception" was the product of religious readings and had no scientific meaning, and was neither the product of, nor explainable by, natural law; nor is it tentative[/quote]
Creation Science: just as scientific as Scientology!
[quote]While creation science purports to be a genuinely scientific challenge to historical geology, the antiquity of the universe, and the theory of evolution, [b]it is a religious, not a scientific view[/b]. Creation science does not qualify as science because [b]it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes[/b].[5][6][/quote]
History of the Universe and everything: Bullshit edition.
Source: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Science[/url]
That's like saying i can't be called a student because I go home and skateboard.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;21494696]Wikipedia Time...
Creation Science: just as scientific as Scientology!
History of the Universe and everything: Bullshit edition.
Source: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Science[/url][/QUOTE]
Wikipedia: Cockslapping ignorants
[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;21494729]That's like saying i can't be called a student because I go home and skateboard.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no. Not at all.
Care to explain past a nonsensical analogy?
[QUOTE=SkinkYEA;21494617]The reason Scientific Creationism is bullshit is because it is an Oxymoron. A total Contradiction.
Religion and Science do not go well. [U]At all[/U].[/QUOTE]
+1. Count me in. I hate it when these "so-called" scientists start analyzing that piece of shit called... errr Turin's Shroud... it makes me rage so much... GRR!
BTW, relevant (Copypasta from Wikipedia):
[quote]In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical," says the professor.[/quote]Read all about it [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_religious_belief_and_I.Q."]here[/URL], pretty good read.
They're just trying to look smart, when they clearly aren't, in any shape, way or form...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
