What a $27 million tribute to ignorance looks like

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by james_bond_3rd, Jun 8, 2007.

  1. http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/ars-takes-a-field-trip-the-creation-museum.ars
    "There were posters explaining just how coal could be formed in a few weeks as opposed to over millions of years and how rapidly the Biblical flood would cover the earth, drowning all but a handful of living creatures. The flood plays a big part in the museum's attempt to explain away what we see as millions of years of natural processes. There was also an explanation as to why, with only one progenitor family, it wasn't considered incest for Adam and Eve's children to marry each other. Apparently there was less sin back then, and therefore fewer mutations in their DNA. Evidently sin, not two copies of the same recessive trait, gives rise to congenital birth defects."
  2. maxpi


    Just because ALL the evidence fits is not a reason to be questioning a theory.

    Oldest tree ring count takes us right back to the flood, the Sahara desert is 4000 miles across and growing a mile a year, takes you right back to the flood, fossils completely mixed in the layers of earth, takes you right back to the flood, scientists really have no explanation for how the grand canyon could be formed the way it is, takes you right back to the flood, or how Niagara Falls could be there for "millions of years" but at the rate it is moving it would have cut a path all the way to the north pole and beyond by now. Besides that, the map of the continents they call Panangea has one continent made larger by 40% without changing the shape!!!!!!!!!!!! Synthetic diamonds are made by putting pressure on carbon, gee are they a conspiracy theory thing by Bible readers to prove their coal theory? There are hundreds of pieces of evidence like the above that are not really addressed by the publicly funded schools, people have to find them and address them for themselves.

    I've been telling people for years to watch the drdino.com videos. Sure, the guy is a political kook but he was a high school science teacher for decades, has a 160 IQ and he had time to think about things and investigate...... and he did.
  3. The Sahara Desert : If a desert 4000 miles across grows 1 mile a year, how fast does a 1000 mile wide desert grow per year? I'm not saying that they all should grow at the same rate. Just demonstrating the silliness of linear extrapolation.

    The Niagara Falls: Have you heard of something called the Wisconsin glaciation? That's how the Niagara Falls (and the Great Lakes) were formed. Again, your linear extrapolation is sheer silliness. BTW, it wasn't "millions of years."

    Pangea: You might learn some (although not too much) by reading this book: Genesis Flood, by John Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris.

    Amazing people are so proud of their ignorance.
  4. jsl50a


    I think Maxpi is right. His claims are rock solid, and couldn't possibly be debunked by elementary study in the fields he references.

    Not to mention the fact that he is relying on Kent Hovind for information. I mean, duh, the guy has an IQ of 160 (everything he says must be true [especially the fact that he has an IQ of 160]). Plus he used to teach high school science, in ideologically based christian schools, obviously a man at the top of his field. Sure he has no formal training in science. I'm much more comfortable believing someone who reverse engineers their eveidence from their conclusions; it reinforces rather than tears down, that's important. He's a minister, which is all the science education I need. I'm so sick of all these hell-bound scientist telling us the earth is old. I bet they don't have IQs of 160, that's for sure (if they did, I wouldn't know who to believe). Plus, now that he's in prison, he'll have so much more time to produce his excellent videos. Can't wait.

    Praise Jesus.
  5. At first I thought you were serious ......
    The ability to keep a straight face is a natural talent.:D
  6. Oh this is beautiful. The guy who reads a report that observed bees reproducing into more bees, and thinks that what it proves is that bees don't come from bees, is at it again. Now, he purports to bee worried about this 27 million dollars. Hey, as long as you're worried about money, what about that FOUR TRILLION that you and your liberal friends have spent since the 1960's on the "war on poverty"? Is the poverty rate lower? Let me give you one guess, out of a possible two, and just maybe you'll have a chance of getting a correct answer. Nah, you can't get it. I give you an F in this course. Failing. Drop out material. You're four trillion failed to bring down the poverty rate, (that is the purpose of a war on poverty isn't it), and yet you liberals still have no plan to end this war. Not even a "phased withdrawal".

    I get it. You're too worried about 27 million being spent on a religious purpose to spend time worrying about your FOUR TRILLION albatross. :p
  7. Notice how this moron is emphasizing the $27 million and overlooking the point of this thread? I guess that's an implicit admission of ignorance. :D
  8. Perhaps scientists have reached a "consensus" that poverty will be eradicated if we just keep doing the same thing. They have the models to prove it. Therefore, it is a waste of time to reexamine the issue, and anyone who wants to do so should not be allowed to speak. They are part of the "poverty eradication deniers" kook fringe and probably on the take from Big Oil.
  9. You're back at your rumor mongering job again. Where did you get your information that scientists have anything to do with poverty or "war on poverty?" Was LBJ a scientist? The conservatives are really shameless.

    BTW, here are some real numbers:

    In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to 11.1% and have remained between 11 and 15% ever since. Since 1973 poverty has remained well below the historical U.S. averages in the range of 20-25%.

    Poverty among Americans between ages 18-64 has fallen only marginally since 1966, from 10.5% then to 10.1% today. Poverty has significantly fallen among Americans under 18 years old from 23% in 1964 to 16.3% today. The most dramatic decrease in poverty was among Americans over 65, which fell from 28.5% in 1966 to 10.1% today (thanks to social security).

    OTOH, what happened to your conservatives' favorite war, "war on drug?"