Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Evolution vs Creationism video


Domarius
 Share

Recommended Posts

For all the wrong reasons...

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2cpNjyVvqK0

This is the show that peanut butter thing came from.

 

"Think for yourself and reach your own conclusions" (the video starts out with the host in a jury chair, saying they're going to present the unbiased facts and want you to be the jury). but then, before presenting you with any evidence, they first brush up on religious dogma, saying "Now remember kids, you can beleve what you want, but if you don't beleive in the god side of things, you'll go to hell. Now, without any further ado..." but it goes on for ages, and it's (distirbingly) done in a really hypnotic way, with multiple images and people saying important phrases at the same time in a chanting sort of way. I can't believe anyone would not find this even just a little bit wierd.

 

You gotta see that part, about 3 minutes in. It's so blatantly "terrifying", what idiot could fall for this? "Oh no!! Three images at once with text and music!!! Arrrggghh!!! My rationality is fading..." (my brother's response, hehe)

 

They present each argument as "Lie #1 - Evolution is scientific fact, and the bible relies on blind faith". Right after saying "leave all your predjucies behind".

 

Then they show some things that contradict evolution, and put emotion into it as if scientists are angry if people won't beleive it, and lots of verbs like greedy and gloating etc. are used, and she (the host of the show) tells us that "these people have their own agenda" without actually saying what evolutionists have to gain by this.

 

Funny stuff. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You know, I keep expecting people to behave in the rational manner that distinguishes us from the animals, but then I read comments like this:

 

if God is real then that means the devil is real and if God's word is true then the devil is slick and smart. Think about it, humans are dumb compared to God and the devil fools humans all the time. You probably think you know alot but you may never know the full truth in this lifetime. I'd rather take a chance and learn more about God then not know for sure and take a chance of going to hell and being seperated from true love for all eternity, that would be the smart thing to do.

Are these people even capable of higher cognitive functions? I don't even know where to start with this! What disgusts me is that whomever wrote this probably did so smugly believing that they somehow will convert someone with their little "argument" into "renouncing evolution." All snide remarks aside, no self-respecting Jesus-freak would be caught dead spewing this mindless drivel. (So much for "all snide remarks aside.")

 

It's times like these when I wonder how the hell mankind survived this long.... <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And these are your fellow Americans after all, so you should know their motives and what sort of upbringing and influences they've had more than most here. We're mostly Europeans, where religion has dwindled to nothing more than the stubborn remains of an old tradition.

You can understand all those poverty-stricken and backward dumb masses of countries like Pakistan being blind religious fanatics, but I see no excuse for Americans.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to take your word for it. Maybe it's that way other than in Jersey, because it's not the place or people I'm familiar with. :)

 

Holy crap though, I hadn't even watched the video yet. I'm 2 mins in now, and it's already shameful, whichever side a person comes from. They start it out sounding like it's going to be an objective, unbiased view, where you can decide for yourself ('in the jury box'), but then they go immediately on to say (paraphrase, I don't feel like transcribing):

 

'...but don't let some evolutionist lead you around like sheep...'

'...fooled into trusting any "intelligent man" in a lab coat...'

'...the evolutionists have made a monkey out of you...'

 

Wow that's sure unbiased and objective!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America may claim to be a first-world nation, all grown up and socially enlightened, but there are large elements of third-world behavior all over the country. The current administration hasn't exactly helped the US progress forward in important areas.

Loose BOWELS are the first sign of THE CHOLERA MORBUS!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your attitude to guns laws is a good current example. I'm sure the massacre in Virginia will bring that up again.

80 million of you clinging on to this 200 year old piece of paper that says you have a 'right' to own guns.

If a few people can arbitrarily write a note declaring you have a 'right' to do something as bizarre as tote big lumps of metal around to fire lethal projectiles out of, then surely someone can write another note declaring the opposite.

What's the difference?

Why is what these guys 200 years ago said so right and just and perfect? Surely the constitution should be looked at on average every 200 years at least to keep up with modern times?

It's almost as bad as the people who follow what it says in a 2000 year old book.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so Evolution / Creationism becomes yet another America bash. :laugh:

 

It's time once again to sit back and have those thousands of miles away tell me what it's like in my own town. Because, you know, the sensationalism you get from your news about our lousy foreign affairs and corrupt government (etc.) so obviously indicates that we're all just a bunch o' greedy, childish, backward, ignorant, religious fanatics bent on world domination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creationism is just one symptom of a larger problem, namely that the vast majority of people (in any country) are as thick as pig-shit. Even if religion were to disappear overnight, the dumb fucks would find some other piece of ignorant hogwash to cling to, whether it is psychic powers, crystal healing or the latest Terrifying Social Menace (whatever it may be).

 

Unfortunately, other than total annihilation of the human race (which to be frank, appears more attractive every day), I can't see an obvious solution to this problem. At the very least, I think passing an examination in Critical Thinking should be a requirement for participation in the democratic process, either as a candidate or a voter. There is absolutely no justification for allowing people who are incapable of rational thought to determine the direction of governmental policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's try not coming up with a solution that encourages rampant abuse. We don't need another Patriot Act. <_<

 

80 million of you clinging on to this 200 year old piece of paper that says you have a 'right' to own guns.

Yup, the very same piece of paper that also guarantees our freedom of speech, our rights to a fair trial, and our rights to privacy. Total hogwash, all that. Let's make a deal, you get rid of yours, and we'll get rid of ours. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why Christians, by their nature supposed to follow the New Testament, go so far out of their way to defend the Old Testament myths, like Genesis, when it clearly has nothing to with them. All you have to do is compare each halve of the Bible to see a myriad of contradictions between the two; if anything it should be Jews defending the idea of creationism, since it's really their book that started it off. Why evangelicals get so hung up on the idea of creationism is beyond me; when even christ himself refutes alot of what's in the Old Testament.

 

As an aside, It was funny the way they displayed those 3 changing images on screen, with the creepy voiceover; it was exactly like they were trying to hypnotise people.

Edited by SplaTtzZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's try not coming up with a solution that encourages rampant abuse. We don't need another Patriot Act. <_<

Yup, the very same piece of paper that also guarantees our freedom of speech, our rights to a fair trial, and our rights to privacy. Total hogwash, all that. Let's make a deal, you get rid of yours, and we'll get rid of ours. ;)

 

It's got nothing to do with you, it was written 200 years before you existed. It's got as little connection to you as it has to me, since we have far more in common than we have with anyone in the 18th century.

That's the point. It as written for a very different time when the world was a very different place.

You argue like a stuffed mongoose (a live one would outwit you every time) when you say 'if we have to give up the right to carry guns it means it'll be a slippery slope and the next thing you know we'll have no freedom at all'

Strange how people in other free countries get along just fine without having the 'right' to own guns.

Why aren't you all campaigning for the 'right' to own nuclear weapons? Surely that's an outrageous infringement of civil liberties?

I'll tell you why, because they're dangerous, and any argument which applies to not letting people own nuclear weapons applies equally to not letting them own guns.

It's just that you have this piece of paper which says you can, so that overrides any notion of common sense.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's got nothing to do with you, it was written 200 years before you existed. It's got as little connection to you as it has to me, since we have far more in common than we have with anyone in the 18th century.

That's the point. It as written for a very different time when the world was a very different place.

 

Age itself is not a good argument, but such rules should definitely be overhauled or at least reviewed, if they are still appropriate.

 

Strange how people in other free countries get along just fine without having the 'right' to own guns.

Why aren't you all campaigning for the 'right' to own nuclear weapons? Surely that's an outrageous infringement of civil liberties?

 

Yup. :)

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the very least, I think passing an examination in Critical Thinking should be a requirement for participation in the democratic process, either as a candidate or a voter. There is absolutely no justification for allowing people who are incapable of rational thought to determine the direction of governmental policy.

I've often wished for an equivalent test for basic statistics and logic. Heh, I tend to believe that the sort of people who regularly purchase lottery tickets or are more afraid of terrorism than car-wrecks/heart-attacks are the sort of people whose judgment isn't sound enough to vote.

 

But I'm skeptical a critical-thought test would work out well... for one thing, how do you test critical-thinking skills while minimizing cultural bias? (a lot of tests use hypothetical situations that are most familiar to one culture) As tempting as it sounds, I suspect such tests would do more harm than good. Religious organizations would post cheat-sheets, so it wouldn't screen out people incapable of logical thought. And I think it would only be a matter of time before such a test was perverted to serve purposes other than testing critical thinking, such as only allowing people with mainstream views to vote, regardless of whether they are capable of critical thought. In America, such a test would soon evolve to exclude anybody who didn't accept god as their savior from voting.

 

Then again, I suspect you might not have been entirely serious when you suggested it... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I'm skeptical a critical-thought test would work out well... for one thing, how do you test critical-thinking skills while minimizing cultural bias? (a lot of tests use hypothetical situations that are most familiar to one culture) As tempting as it sounds, I suspect such tests would do more harm than good. Religious organizations would post cheat-sheets, so it wouldn't screen out people incapable of logical thought. And I think it would only be a matter of time before such a test was perverted to serve purposes other than testing critical thinking, such as only allowing people with mainstream views to vote, regardless of whether they are capable of critical thought. In America, such a test would soon evolve to exclude anybody who didn't accept god as their savior from voting.

 

Cultural bias could be an issue, but one that could be resolved by phrasing the questions carefully and ensuring there were no hidden assumptions regarding familiarity with a certain culture. I don't think cheating would be an problem, since real critical thinking tests cannot be solved by memorising facts alone (there was an example A-level CT paper online somewhere, but I cannot find it at the moment). The point about subversion by authority self-interest is valid, but with sufficient oversight I don't see this as being any more problematic than the many existing areas where government power could be abused.

 

Then again, I suspect you might not have been entirely serious when you suggested it... ?

 

Not really. Society as I see it is so thoroughly damaged that if I had the choice, it would be a reformat and re-install. Radical solutions are well worth consideration, even if they offend ingrained social dogma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You argue like a stuffed mongoose (a live one would outwit you every time) when you say 'if we have to give up the right to carry guns it means it'll be a slippery slope and the next thing you know we'll have no freedom at all'

Which is probably why I never said that in the first place. The Bill of Rights has three categories of rights: legal rights (5th-9th), personal freedoms, protections and privacy (1st-4th), and finally, the protection of unenumerated rights (9th and 10th). The Third Amendment is largely archaic, but I don't see why this entails its removal. The funny thing about amendments (particularly the first 10) is that there really has to be an injustice caused by its enumeration to warrant its removal. There are of course exceptions, but for the most part, that is the case. How is the legal ownership of weapons for personal defense, sport, and militias an injustice?

 

Strange how people in other free countries get along just fine without having the 'right' to own guns.

Why aren't you all campaigning for the 'right' to own nuclear weapons? Surely that's an outrageous infringement of civil liberties?

I'll tell you why, because they're dangerous, and any argument which applies to not letting people own nuclear weapons applies equally to not letting them own guns.

It's just that you have this piece of paper which says you can, so that overrides any notion of common sense.

One, you're arguing from the exception (converse fallacy of accident), and two, there isn't even a glimmer of a legitimate argument for the right to possess a weapon of mas destruction for anything outside of a militia (and that qualification itself is debatable). No functional weapon (distinguished from a tool that can be weaponized) with any sort of mass destructive effect is usable for personal defense, sport, or hunting, and any efforts of an individual to possess or acquire such a functional device for a collection is to be viewed with suspicion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strangely in other countries, like germany as an example, people also can go hunting, or shooting, but gun possesion is still quite restricted, and there are stringent regulations on those who can own a gun and those who are allowed to carry a loaded gun (which is not neccessarily the same group in both cases). So the freedom is not really hampered, because you CAN have guns, and you CAN even carry them around with you, but most poeple don't, because they don't need it. We are not living in the Wild West anymore, where you have to fear for your live at every corner.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always interpreted the second amendment as not about protection from individuals, but from the government, and complimentary with the notion that citizens have a right (and duty) to revolt against an oppressive one. Sure, guns may not keep the government from apprehending an individual, but whether or not a populace has widespread possession of guns could affect how easy or difficult it is for them to overthrow their own government.

 

Edit: Whoops, I had the wrong number... I tend to remember what the amendments generally say, but not their order. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always interpreted the second amendment as not about protection from individuals, but from the government, and complimentary with the notion that citizens have a right (and duty) to revolt against an oppressive one.

Protection for individuals, not from them, per se. As for militias and revolt, isn't that exactly what happened in the civil war? I can't seem to find any mention of it, but I always thought that secession was made illegal after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'...but don't let some evolutionist lead you around like sheep...'

'...fooled into trusting any "intelligent man" in a lab coat...'

'...the evolutionists have made a monkey out of you...'

 

Wow that's sure unbiased and objective!

That's why I posted it. :) This has to be the most BLATANTLY biased view of any unbiased view I've ever seen... who would fall for this??

 

As an aside, It was funny the way they displayed those 3 changing images on screen, with the creepy voiceover; it was exactly like they were trying to hypnotise people.

Yes, wasn't it?? :D It was even disturbing. I can't imagine the kind of person that could be manipulated in such a cheesy way.

 

 

Re: gun laws - Australia is another country with gun control, and has hunting and sport shooting etc. and yet has no school massacres every other month. There was that thing in Port Arthur (Tasmania) years and years ago, but nothing like that since. And that was a cafe, not a school.

If the justification is to have a gun to defend yourself, then I put it that all the massacres were situations where the victims never had access to a gun to defend themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • Recent Status Updates

    • peter_spy

      What a lovely game, perfect way to relax before sleep.
      · 3 replies
    • STiFU

      Anyone here clocking in some times in Neon Light?
      · 0 replies
    • JackFarmer

      Boris Johnson's resignation does not change the fact that Australia is home to 29 million kangaroos and Wales has a population of just over three million.

      If the Australian kangaroos were to invade Wales, one resident would have to fight almost ten kangaroos at a time.
      · 8 replies
    • peter_spy

      Deathloop – what a mess of a game. I'd love to see a post-mortem on it some day. I hope Arkane is doing okay though.
      · 27 replies
    • OrbWeaver

      I like house-cleaning and taking out the trash.
      · 3 replies
×
×
  • Create New...