Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

[Vigormortis]

Haha, I have been. I haven't seen an episode in a year or two though. But mostly I learned the fallacies by looking them up myself when I was engaging in comment wars on youtube(I could call them debates, but that's giving them too much credit).

I still occasionally listen to the Thinking Atheist podcast, or check if AronRa has released another video.

The main reason I stoped watching The Atheist Experience was that I was fed up with the same moronic arguments again and again from christians calling the show, and in the comment sections. I basically can't even listen to them anymore because I ran out of tolerance for stupid, same with every single one of the creationist talking heads, and I'm a very patient guy. I couldn't watch the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate because the stupid it burns. Some are worse than others De Souza especially rubs me the wrong way, Kent Hovind is almost tolerable because he's so absurd that he can be unintentionally funny.

I still occasionally catch an episode or two. If only because it's still fascinating, and a bit uplifting, to hear that rare caller that, after hearing the counter-points to their arguments and thinking on them for just a moment, starts to question their long-held beliefs. You can just feel the walls of a closed-mind starting to break down. You know that they're starting to think for themselves for the first time in a long time. (even if, in the end, they decide to retain their faith it's still good to see someone thinking outside of dogma and rhetoric)

This rarely happens, sadly. But, when it does, it's nice to hear.

I too love to listen to some of Aron Ra's videos and lectures. He and Matt Dillahunty helped me gain a better understanding and appreciation of what the Bible and other religious texts contain and what religions actually stand for. (and the dangers therein)

Though, I do harbor a bit of resentment for the two of them as, because of them, I actually sat down some years ago and read the Bible from cover to cover. Both new and old testaments.

So it's because of them that I read one of the most repugnant pieces of literature in human history...

 

[Zepherus14]

Ok so first of all let's make this clear.

"Creationist anything, does not belong on Cosmo."

Now with my opinion out of the way, I'd like to mention one extra thing. From reading through the comments here, I see a
striking lack of one of the most important components of science. Skepticism.

Quite a large majority of you are acting like all the scientific discoveries we've made in the last century are 100% full truth. You realize that kind of mindset was also common with the scientists that held onto Classical theories?

They also thought that they knew everything, but then Black Body Radiation came along, and completely turn Classical Theory on its head, and now we have Quantum. What is stopping the next 'Black Body Radiation' from flipping Quantum on its head too?

Don't get me wrong, we know way more than we had before, but we should never forget to doubt our findings, and keep an open mind.

 

[mitchell271]

And I'd like a threesome with Emma Watson and Jennifer Lawrence but we can't all get what we want, especially when what we want is incredibly unrealistic.
Read: if it does happen, it'll be against all odds.

 

[Zepherus14]

And I'd like a threesome with Emma Watson and Jennifer Lawrence but we can't all get what we want, especially when what we want is incredibly unrealistic.
Read: if it does happen, it'll be against all odds.

By the way, love that avatar of yours. Very nice!

And ya, definitely agree that there would be no way for the Creationists to get into Cosmos.

 

[Cerebrawl]

I still occasionally catch an episode or two. If only because it's still fascinating, and a bit uplifting, to hear that rare caller that, after hearing the counter-points to their arguments and thinking on them for just a moment, starts to question their long-held beliefs. You can just feel the walls of a closed-mind starting to break down. You know that they're starting to think for themselves for the first time in a long time. (even if, in the end, they decide to retain their faith it's still good to see someone thinking outside of dogma and rhetoric)

This rarely happens, sadly. But, when it does, it's nice to hear.

I too love to listen to some of Aron Ra's videos and lectures. He and Matt Dillahunty helped me gain a better understanding and appreciation of what the Bible and other religious texts contain and what religions actually stand for. (and the dangers therein)

Though, I do harbor a bit of resentment for the two of them as, because of them, I actually sat down some years ago and read the Bible from cover to cover. Both new and old testaments.

So it's because of them that I read one of the most repugnant pieces of literature in human history...

I like those ones too, though my favorites otherwise is Tracie Harris shows about the history of judaism, how to used to be many gods and how it kind of fused with canaanite religion, how the original hebrew actually has several gods that have later all been translated as the Lord, or God, but were originally separate entities and that's why you have god arguing with himself and such. (Yahwe and El are two separate gods and the Elohim is an entire pantheon). Israel means struggle with god, but the funny thing is that the god isn't Yawhe, the monotheist god, it's El, the head of the canaanite pantheon, the Elohim.

Also your comment about the best call ins made me think of this one:

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

I've learned most of the formal and informal fallacies by heart in the process of standing up to this sort of ignorance. Basically going from "wait, that's not logical" to "it's this particular logical fallacy and this is how it works and why you're wrong". Hey at least I learned something.

Why do I get the feeling you're a regularly viewer of The Atheist Experience?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJV8mC8GYk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpkjTn11DPM

Here it is.

So...

Do we consider it "divine justice" that this dick-bag not only lost another of his shows but has also become a mockery in two continents?

Who? Penn Jillette? Or the Host? Your question is unclear to me. I am unaware of which of these two lost a show and is a Mockery. My $20 is on the CNN guy though.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

I still occasionally catch an episode or two. If only because it's still fascinating, and a bit uplifting, to hear that rare caller that, after hearing the counter-points to their arguments and thinking on them for just a moment, starts to question their long-held beliefs. You can just feel the walls of a closed-mind starting to break down. You know that they're starting to think for themselves for the first time in a long time. (even if, in the end, they decide to retain their faith it's still good to see someone thinking outside of dogma and rhetoric)

This rarely happens, sadly. But, when it does, it's nice to hear.

I too love to listen to some of Aron Ra's videos and lectures. He and Matt Dillahunty helped me gain a better understanding and appreciation of what the Bible and other religious texts contain and what religions actually stand for. (and the dangers therein)

Though, I do harbor a bit of resentment for the two of them as, because of them, I actually sat down some years ago and read the Bible from cover to cover. Both new and old testaments.

So it's because of them that I read one of the most repugnant pieces of literature in human history...

I like those ones too, though my favorites otherwise is Tracie Harris shows about the history of judaism, how to used to be many gods and how it kind of fused with canaanite religion, how the original hebrew actually has several gods that have later all been translated as the Lord, or God, but were originally separate entities and that's why you have god arguing with himself and such. (Yahwe and El are two separate gods and the Elohim is an entire pantheon). Israel means struggle with god, but the funny thing is that the god isn't Yawhe, the monotheist god, it's El, the head of the canaanite pantheon, the Elohim.

Also your comment about the best call ins made me think of this one:

WOW, I am still chortling about that. He fell to the Unicorn argument XD

 

[Vigormortis]

Who? Penn Jillette? Or the Host? Your question is unclear to me. I am unaware of which of these two lost a show and is a Mockery. My $20 is on the CNN guy though.

I'll put it this way: I have a lot of respect for the one that performs magic, not the one that believes in it.

The "divine justice" was a jab at Morgan. He's a laughing stock both here in the States and in much of northern Europe.

 

[Vykrel]

someone should tell him that the creationist theory is not represented for the same reason that the flat Earth theory is not represented.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

Who? Penn Jillette? Or the Host? Your question is unclear to me. I am unaware of which of these two lost a show and is a Mockery. My $20 is on the CNN guy though.

I'll put it this way: I have a lot of respect for the one that performs magic, not the one that believes in it.

The "divine justice" was a jab at Morgan. He's a laughing stock both here in States but in much of northern Europe.

"Not the one that believes in it" XD I LOLed. I'm glad though, that people realize he is a silly, silly man.

 

[Nyaliva]

I like how the Creationist is a scientist of astronomy and physics and is debating a biological concept. A completely trustworthy source there.

Or, you know. All science that we see everywhere is true because God did it. Why is it so hard for these two views to coexist? God made the universe able to run on science. He made it with a firmly established set of rules for physics, biology, geology, etc, etc... Why is this so hard to understand?

THANK YOU!!!!!!!! I'm so glad I finally found SOMEONE who sees the obvious. Go! Spread the good word!

 

[Bleidd Whitefalcon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJV8mC8GYk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpkjTn11DPM

Here it is.

Yeah, so apparently I get a warning for this as it is "Low content" and I don't bring enough to the discussion, by Virtue of too few words on the Screen? So here a some more words!

Babble babble ***** ***** rebel rebel party party Blah blah blah got your lovey-dovey sad and loneley stick your stupid slogan in and everybody sing!

There you go Escapist - is that more relevant now?

...you just called attention to it. You might not have gotten a warning this time - I think you were past low content. But calling attention to it like that? Yeah, you probably just guaranteed yourself a second warning

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJV8mC8GYk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpkjTn11DPM

Here it is.

Yeah, so apparently I get a warning for this as it is "Low content" and I don't bring enough to the discussion, by Virtue of too few words on the Screen? So here a some more words!

Babble babble ***** ***** rebel rebel party party Blah blah blah got your lovey-dovey sad and loneley stick your stupid slogan in and everybody sing!

There you go Escapist - is that more relevant now?

...you just called attention to it. You might not have gotten a warning this time - I think you were past low content. But calling attention to it like that? Yeah, you probably just guaranteed yourself a second warning

I know, It's deliberate. I sent a very reasonable request to please actually look at my post, and its context and see that there was no need for me to add commentary. I am pretty sure the warning was issued by a content algorithm and not a person.
I just wanted to bring to attention that more words does not equal more relevant discussion, just more text.

/edit

This rule about low content: I assume it is to reduce posts consisting of just "I agree!" and the Like, which I understand. I also understand that you need 5 warnings or so before a ban? I only hope to highlight that a warning for what I posted is Silly, as there is in fact, about 20 mins of video content in my "low content" post

also I have noticed since becoming active on the forums that more warnings seem to bee issued for format than for actually being offensive. I'm pretty sure I offended somebody in this thread, though I have received no warnings, or even complaints from other Posters.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

I like how the Creationist is a scientist of astronomy and physics and is debating a biological concept. A completely trustworthy source there.

Or, you know. All science that we see everywhere is true because God did it. Why is it so hard for these two views to coexist? God made the universe able to run on science. He made it with a firmly established set of rules for physics, biology, geology, etc, etc... Why is this so hard to understand?

THANK YOU!!!!!!!! I'm so glad I finally found SOMEONE who sees the obvious. Go! Spread the good word!

I have often wondered why so few firmly devout people have not yet tried the argument "Evolution: It's a Miracle!"

As a person who doe not believe in any God, I am perfectly open to discovering that this is true. You would have to be able to demonstrate properly that God (which /whatever God it turns out to be in this case) exists. But, Hypothetically speaking if this occurs, I rather think God would have no trouble making the Physical Universe, running on "The Science," then watching with the delight of a Dedicated Miniatures Hobbyist as His Children learn more about Creation and go "Oooo!" And, "Aaah!"

My Issue with religion, (as opposed to the IDEA of a God) is that Human Beings do NOT know ANYTHING about God. All the writings, all the scriptures, were written by the hand of a person. Everything people "know" about God is things that Humans wrote. There is a great line in Babylon 5: "The closer we think we are to defining God, the further we are from Him." I think it nicely sums how I feel about religion and God.

 

[The Great JT]

Creationism or Intelligent Design or whatever you care to call it isn't science. Creationism is religious dogma dressed up to seem like science. Their proof is hogwash and their theories obviously based in Judeo-Christian creation myth as opposed to scientific findings. I won't say their viewpoint is invalid (hey, I don't know if they're right or wrong) but if your source of scientific proof is the Bible, you're just wrong. The Bible, for as much as it is claimed to be "the one true word of the Lord" has been tampered with, altered, edited and had entire verses left out by the hands of man over the last 2000+ years and therefore is ineligible as a source of truth. Even the King James Bible, the version I've heard described as the definitive version of the Bible, is not the original, unaltered work and therefore is not the true word.

*Looks back at what I said* Wow, I'm sorry if that came across as spiteful, vitriolic or anti-religious, that was not my intention. I just get sick of the argument "Creationism is just as valid as Evolution." I just see it as religious nutjobs trying to stick their fingers where they shouldn't be.

 

[IceForce]

I just wanted to bring to attention that more words does not equal more relevant discussion, just more text.

Except you got a warning for it either way, so the point is moot.

I only hope to highlight that a warning for what I posted is Silly, as there is in fact, about 20 mins of video content in my "low content" post

Unfortunately, the Code of Conduct doesn't make this distinction:

Pictures, Links and Videos
These will all be considered low content posts if not accompanied by a well thought out opinion, debate or reasoning. Pics, links and videos should help to strengthen your stance or opinion, not the other way around.

I don't necessarily agree with the rule myself, but it does say that videos must be ACCOMPANIED by an opinion debate or reasoning, they can't BE the opinion debate or reasoning.

 

[wolfyrik]

I've learned most of the formal and informal fallacies by heart in the process of standing up to this sort of ignorance. Basically going from "wait, that's not logical" to "it's this particular logical fallacy and this is how it works and why you're wrong". Hey at least I learned something.

Why do I get the feeling you're a regularly viewer of The Atheist Experience?

Haha, I have been. I haven't seen an episode in a year or two though. But mostly I learned the fallacies by looking them up myself when I was engaging in comment wars on youtube(I could call them debates, but that's giving them too much credit).

I still occasionally listen to the Thinking Atheist podcast, or check if AronRa has released another video.

The main reason I stoped watching The Atheist Experience was that I was fed up with the same moronic arguments again and again from christians calling the show, and in the comment sections. I basically can't even listen to them anymore because I ran out of tolerance for stupid, same with every single one of the creationist talking heads, and I'm a very patient guy. I couldn't watch the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate because the stupid it burns. Some are worse than others De Souza especially rubs me the wrong way, Kent Hovind is almost tolerable because he's so absurd that he can be unintentionally funny.

This^^

AnonRa is pure win. I still watch Atheist Experience occasionally. I tend to try stay away from youtube debates though becaue I'm sick of repeating the same facts and answering the same questions from ignorant creationists(and other religious extremists) over and over again. You can only ruin someone in a debate so many times before it becomes a chore.

 

[wolfyrik]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJV8mC8GYk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpkjTn11DPM

Here it is.

Yeah, so apparently I get a warning for this as it is "Low content" and I don't bring enough to the discussion, by Virtue of too few words on the Screen? So here a some more words!

Babble babble ***** ***** rebel rebel party party Blah blah blah got your lovey-dovey sad and loneley stick your stupid slogan in and everybody sing!

There you go Escapist - is that more relevant now?

...you just called attention to it. You might not have gotten a warning this time - I think you were past low content. But calling attention to it like that? Yeah, you probably just guaranteed yourself a second warning

I know, It's deliberate. I sent a very reasonable request to please actually look at my post, and its context and see that there was no need for me to add commentary. I am pretty sure the warning was issued by a content algorithm and not a person.
I just wanted to bring to attention that more words does not equal more relevant discussion, just more text.

/edit

This rule about low content: I assume it is to reduce posts consisting of just "I agree!" and the Like, which I understand. I also understand that you need 5 warnings or so before a ban? I only hope to highlight that a warning for what I posted is Silly, as there is in fact, about 20 mins of video content in my "low content" post

also I have noticed since becoming active on the forums that more warnings seem to bee issued for format than for actually being offensive. I'm pretty sure I offended somebody in this thread, though I have received no warnings, or even complaints from other Posters.

I've had two now, one for a post in which I broke the quotes down into chunks to answer seperately; apparently their quote was my whole post. Clearly an error. The other was for the oh so terrible crime of quoting someone, only to have them delete the post days later. So because they deleted their post, I got an infraction.....

Doesn't make sense to me.

Either there's a bot with bugs or there's a modereator who erm...leans to the right. I suspect bot.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

that'd be like asking a pastor to read Genesis and immediately follow it up with "But modern scientific thinking states...". You're free to believe what you like, you can think the entire universe started when the internet was created and everything before then an illusion, but your viewpoint is not more valid than any other insane one. If you have solid evidence for it, it can be scientific. Creationism (that is, the idea God created the world in 7 days and mankind is special and the earth is 4,000 years old) is demonstrably wrong, it is a theory that doesn't correlate to the evidence.

If you want to believe God caused the Big Bang, as it stands, we haven't got a better theory for what caused it (to my knowledge, feel free to correct me physicists) so I'm completely OK with that. I'm LESS OK, denying the dinosaurs because it means a book written thousands of years ago and translated numerous times would be innaccurate as a guideline for how to function in a society completely different to the one it was written in. Meaning of the words is more important than THE words.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I dunno, are churches throwing in scientific facts & theories in their sermons? Then why does the academia have to cut those guys a slack?