All Forums > SimLeague Football > NFL > Makes me sick...
2/7/2013 2:01 PM
I don't even know what "actively anti-science" means.   Do they picket labs?   Throw holy water on guys in labs coats?   WTF makes them actively anti-science?
2/7/2013 2:02 PM
Don't agree with me.  It makes me question myself.   You're retarded in your own right.  

Oh, believe me, I don't want to agree with you, who is but another who only spouts childish insults as you just did here.

Perhaps you should be questioning why you do that instead of spending so much time attacking others.
2/7/2013 2:04 PM
If you're agreeing with me, don't.   Someone probably still hasn't blocked you and they'll say "HAHAHA!!  jtpops and bizteca agree with you.   Are you sure you want to take that position?"
2/7/2013 2:12 PM
Perhaps there is someone who doesn't understand that you constantly seek to play devil's advocate and so no one knows what your true stance is on anything.  So no one would be sure you're really agreeing with me anyway.

Besides that, agreeing with me would be a step up from the petulance you usually display, so you should be proud of it.

2/7/2013 2:12 PM
I didn't post that to say the existence of dark matter is more or less plausible than the existence of God.  I'm saying that people (Bill Nye comes to mind) who publicly say that teaching creationism is a waste of time, but belive dark matter should be taught, are exhibiting an enormous amount of hypocrisy.  Which is too bad, because I like Bill Nye, as do my kids.
2/7/2013 2:15 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 2/7/2013 2:12:00 PM (view original):
I didn't post that to say the existence of dark matter is more or less plausible than the existence of God.  I'm saying that people (Bill Nye comes to mind) who publicly say that teaching creationism is a waste of time, but belive dark matter should be taught, are exhibiting an enormous amount of hypocrisy.  Which is too bad, because I like Bill Nye, as do my kids.
Thank you.

If you go back to my very first post on this subject in this thread, I said no side is going to change the others mind - I just find it hilarious that Creationists are mocked by evolutionists who somehow think their beliefs are a proven fact with no room for disputing.

Burnsy and bad_luck fail to get that. Tec does, to his credit.
2/7/2013 2:22 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 2/7/2013 1:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 2/7/2013 1:17:00 PM (view original):
"God" in many ways is like "string theory".  Just another unproven hypothesis that would answer a whole shitload of otherwise unanswerable questions. 
The funny thing is, science isn't anti-god. Proving god scientifically would be an amazing discovery. But many religious people are actively anti-science when they shouldn't be threatened at all.

"But many religious people are actively anti-science when they shouldn't be threatened at all."

That seems like a very broad over-generalization in 2013.  It was very true back in Copernicus's time, but I don't think it's necessarily true today for most mainstream religions.  Science and mainstream religion can and do peacefully coexist today.

Your comment really only applies today to the radical religious right, and hard-line Bible thumping zealots.

2/7/2013 2:26 PM
I just find it hilarious that Creationists are mocked by evolutionists who somehow think their beliefs are a proven fact with no room for disputing.

I not only get this but agree with it 100 percent.
2/7/2013 2:42 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 2/7/2013 2:12:00 PM (view original):
I didn't post that to say the existence of dark matter is more or less plausible than the existence of God.  I'm saying that people (Bill Nye comes to mind) who publicly say that teaching creationism is a waste of time, but belive dark matter should be taught, are exhibiting an enormous amount of hypocrisy.  Which is too bad, because I like Bill Nye, as do my kids.
Bill Nye teaches science.  Dark matter belongs in that category.  The idea that Genesis is completely literal, word for word, does not belong when teaching "science."

If you teach dark matter as "fact" I would also agree that that's wrong to do.  
2/7/2013 2:46 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 2/7/2013 2:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/7/2013 1:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 2/7/2013 1:17:00 PM (view original):
"God" in many ways is like "string theory".  Just another unproven hypothesis that would answer a whole shitload of otherwise unanswerable questions. 
The funny thing is, science isn't anti-god. Proving god scientifically would be an amazing discovery. But many religious people are actively anti-science when they shouldn't be threatened at all.

"But many religious people are actively anti-science when they shouldn't be threatened at all."

That seems like a very broad over-generalization in 2013.  It was very true back in Copernicus's time, but I don't think it's necessarily true today for most mainstream religions.  Science and mainstream religion can and do peacefully coexist today.

Your comment really only applies today to the radical religious right, and hard-line Bible thumping zealots.

That's who I'm talking about. Obviously not all, or even most religious people are anti-science. But zealots who believe that the earth is 10,000 years old are at best ignoring science and, in worst cases including deciding what should be taught in schools, are taking a very anti-science position.
2/7/2013 2:49 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/7/2013 2:01:00 PM (view original):
I don't even know what "actively anti-science" means.   Do they picket labs?   Throw holy water on guys in labs coats?   WTF makes them actively anti-science?
They think that th body shuts down during rape, therefore making it impossible to get pregnant when raped? That's kinda actively anti science. I guess....
2/7/2013 2:49 PM
Posted by Jtpsops on 2/7/2013 2:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 2/7/2013 2:12:00 PM (view original):
I didn't post that to say the existence of dark matter is more or less plausible than the existence of God.  I'm saying that people (Bill Nye comes to mind) who publicly say that teaching creationism is a waste of time, but belive dark matter should be taught, are exhibiting an enormous amount of hypocrisy.  Which is too bad, because I like Bill Nye, as do my kids.
Thank you.

If you go back to my very first post on this subject in this thread, I said no side is going to change the others mind - I just find it hilarious that Creationists are mocked by evolutionists who somehow think their beliefs are a proven fact with no room for disputing.

Burnsy and bad_luck fail to get that. Tec does, to his credit.
Nothing is a proven fact.  I also don't know if George Washington existed.  Maybe it's a conspiracy, and he never was the 1st president.  It's possible.  But I am likely to argue with the person who says that this is the case. 

Based on what has been taught to me, and research I've done on my own, by people who I assume aren't lying to me, I am very confident in believing that the Earth is much much older than 10,000 years old.  
2/7/2013 2:49 PM
Could you provide some evidence of this utterly retarded statement?

"But many religious people are actively anti-science"
2/7/2013 3:01 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 2/7/2013 2:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 2/7/2013 2:12:00 PM (view original):
I didn't post that to say the existence of dark matter is more or less plausible than the existence of God.  I'm saying that people (Bill Nye comes to mind) who publicly say that teaching creationism is a waste of time, but belive dark matter should be taught, are exhibiting an enormous amount of hypocrisy.  Which is too bad, because I like Bill Nye, as do my kids.
Bill Nye teaches science.  Dark matter belongs in that category.  The idea that Genesis is completely literal, word for word, does not belong when teaching "science."

If you teach dark matter as "fact" I would also agree that that's wrong to do.  
I didn't say anything about teaching Genesis.  That's another fallacy - that all people who believe in creationism (I do) believe that the Bible is the word of God (I do not).  Besides which, there are other creationist religions beyond Judeo-Christians.  The Bible certainly wouldn't apply there.  Personally, I'm not religious at all.  I believe a God exists (or did at one time), and that God created the universe we know.  I believe that you can't create something from nothing.  The scientific argument, in my mind, necessarily reaches a dead-end.  Science can trace the origins of the universe down to a speck of matter so small that we can't possibly comprehend it, but something still had to create that speck.  So, to me, creationism is the more plausible explanation of the two.  Which is not to say I discount the other side at all.  I just don't believe the argument against creationism is any more sound than the argument for.
2/7/2013 3:09 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 2/7/2013 3:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 2/7/2013 2:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 2/7/2013 2:12:00 PM (view original):
I didn't post that to say the existence of dark matter is more or less plausible than the existence of God.  I'm saying that people (Bill Nye comes to mind) who publicly say that teaching creationism is a waste of time, but belive dark matter should be taught, are exhibiting an enormous amount of hypocrisy.  Which is too bad, because I like Bill Nye, as do my kids.
Bill Nye teaches science.  Dark matter belongs in that category.  The idea that Genesis is completely literal, word for word, does not belong when teaching "science."

If you teach dark matter as "fact" I would also agree that that's wrong to do.  
I didn't say anything about teaching Genesis.  That's another fallacy - that all people who believe in creationism (I do) believe that the Bible is the word of God (I do not).  Besides which, there are other creationist religions beyond Judeo-Christians.  The Bible certainly wouldn't apply there.  Personally, I'm not religious at all.  I believe a God exists (or did at one time), and that God created the universe we know.  I believe that you can't create something from nothing.  The scientific argument, in my mind, necessarily reaches a dead-end.  Science can trace the origins of the universe down to a speck of matter so small that we can't possibly comprehend it, but something still had to create that speck.  So, to me, creationism is the more plausible explanation of the two.  Which is not to say I discount the other side at all.  I just don't believe the argument against creationism is any more sound than the argument for.
I believe in God.  I believe he created the universe.  But I also believe that Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years, and that humans evolved.  

I think a fallacy of creationists might be that they think people who believe in an old world and evolution don't believe that God created the universe.
of 60
All Forums > SimLeague Football > NFL > Makes me sick...

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.