Previous Story for I Think Creationism Should Be Taught In All Schools Next Story for I Think Creationism Should Be Taught In All Schools

The Atheist Professor With No Brain

Posted November 20th, 2008 at 10:09PM

What's Your Story?

Share It Here

  • Vote up! 6

  • |Favorite
  • |Flag

22 Comments (add your own)

Sort By  
  1. ThinkingGuy - 51-55 years old - male

    Posted by ThinkingGuy on Nov 21st, 2008 at 11:57AM

    Sadly typical. Man wanting to define god based on what man has seen or experienced. It is inferred that mankind, specifically 'science', is the source of all knowledge. And this view is pushed down the throats of those that do not so believe, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto, or whatever. 'You must believe what we call fact!!!'
    Science is science, it is not god. Or, in your eyes, maybe it is, and you are trying to convert others to your 'belief' as you would not like others trying to convert you to their beliefs. I am not attempting to shove my belief down your throat; please dont try to shove your belief (whether you call it 'scientific fact' or not) down mine.

    Reply | 2dislike | Flag

  2. infintessimal - 18-21 years old - female

    Posted by infintessimal on Nov 21st, 2008 at 12:21PM

    Hm. Well, I am not trying to push anything down your throat at all. You believe what you believe and I don't believe what I don't believe. If you read my last post you would know that this experience was created for satirical reasons. The creator told me herself. I am simply expressing myself as you are, I have not picked anyone in particular and aimed this post at them, I am just putting it out there.

    Also, the professor's argument is incredibly undeniable, while the Christian's is mind-blowingly full of fallacies and rubbish. Even before the professor tore it to shreds, I was.

    And btw, you're in a group called Creationism Should Be Taught in Schools, and yore asking me not to force my beliefs down people's throats? Hypocrisy's a *****, no?

    Reply | 4dislike | Flag

  3. ThinkingGuy - 51-55 years old - male

    Posted by ThinkingGuy on Nov 21st, 2008 at 1:50PM, last updated Nov 21st, 2008 at 1:55PM

    I grow tired of being called stupid. Not by you, mind you, you didnt. Those people that ridicule me because I have faith and they do not...it is wearing.
    The original posting is, after all, a fabricated story, and not even original at that. The original story stated that the second student was Albert Einstein, which was not the case. So, somebody decided to add to that story.
    As it is, I am in this group because I disagree with the premise, not because I agree with it. But I have a different perspective, from that of faith, and was simply trying to make an observation.
    Evolution, you see, is currently taught as fact, not theory. From my point of view, this is an attempt to separate those students that have a faith from their faith. Hence my comment about being called stupid. It has happend too many times and I am sick and tired of it.
    The buzz word these days is 'tolerance'. It used to mean that one disagreed with an action or belief but allowed it anyway to be civil. These days it means acceptance of everything/everybody/every lifestyle. Except, of course, Christianity.
    Please note that I have not shared my faith. I would like to, but have found that the response generally has something to do about shoving beliefs down throats. I am not going to force you to believe anything you dont want to. In turn, I would appreciate it if I were not also forced to believe what I dont believe, even if it goes under the name of 'science'.

    Reply | 3dislike | Flag

  4. winstonwelles - 22-25 years old - male

    Posted by winstonwelles on Nov 22nd, 2008 at 12:03AM

    "Evolution is taught as fact, not theory" - well firstly "evolution", as in changes in genotype between generations, is an observable fact, go breed fruit flies if you disagree. Or buy a pug and a Great Dane and have a long hard think. Of course we can only -theorise- that natural selection pressures might, theoretically, be able to achieve what we know for a fact selective breeding can. Oh, of course we *could* look at bacteria doing precisely that, being naturally selected for resistance to antibiotics, but who studies bacteria? SCIENTISTS. And we all know whose side they're on, am I right?

    Reply | 3dislike | Flag

  5. infintessimal - 18-21 years old - female

    Posted by infintessimal on Nov 22nd, 2008 at 2:21AM

    Here, here winstonwelles.

    Reply | 1dislike | Flag

  6. infintessimal - 18-21 years old - female

    Posted by infintessimal on Nov 22nd, 2008 at 10:36PM

    You said yourself that your beliefs aren't contradictory, therefore, this doesn't apply to you. The point of this post was to point out the flaws in flawed arguments for evolution and things of that matter, that's all.

    I highly doubt that you are just some dimwit, cripplecrow.

    Reply | 1dislike | Flag

  7. winstonwelles - 22-25 years old - male

    Posted by winstonwelles on Apr 19th, 2009 at 10:23AM

    "Humanity's best estimate of the probability of divine creation dropped steeply in 1859 when The Origin of Species was published, and it has declined steadily during the subsequent decades, as evolution consolidated itself from plausible theory in the nineteenth century to established fact today." - and the thing is, that's not because anyone's trying to "convert people to atheism", it's just the way science works - people believe the most rationally convincing argument. And while I'm not sure creation has ever been the *most* rational argument, at least not since the only alternative was "just.... because, alright?", it was a lot more believable before Darwin came up with a good explanation for speciation (and that's all it even is! The way some of them talk you'd think Darwin came up with Big Bang theory...) argh. [/rant]

    Reply | 1dislike | Flag

  8. humblegal - 18-21 years old

    Posted by humblegal on Jul 5th, 2009 at 1:36AM

    www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html
    http://ecclesia.org/truth/objections.html

    check it

    Reply | 1dislike | Flag

  9. iceraider28 - 16-17 years old

    Posted by iceraider28 on Jun 7th, 2010 at 4:40AM, last updated Jun 8th, 2010 at 5:32AM

    I am deeply offended by what this story says, the statements against Christians are all lies!
    Even the evolutionist statements are lies!
    u dont have a story at all, both sides are not real.
    U may not think there is anything wrong with this, u may think this is just a story, u may think i am just another Christian with no argument. well u are wrong

    U probably think i am another Christian who takes offense to everything. You are incorrect. I take offense because u say things against us that are lies.
    One example is we dont let christian children watch secular shows, documentaries and science shows, all LIES.
    I dont take offense to everything, but u are attacking me personally, u are attacking every Christian personally. But how would u like it if i personally attacked u, if i called ur mother a (insert rude word here), u would take offense to it, that is a personal attack. I bet u would take offense.

    This is an example of how u lie saying Christians do not know anything about evolutionists:

    "Well, if you don't believe in god, then you must believe we came from apes."
    The professor laughed. "Evolutionists don't believe that people came from apes or even monkeys. They believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor."

    This statement by the professor is incorrect!
    There are 6 different views of evolution, not the one, not every evolutionist believes this.
    You may think all we do is teach children that evolutionists believe we came from apes, incorrect again.

    Here are the six types:
    1. Evolution as the history of nature - It is just change in the world, any change is evolution
    2. Evolution as Gene Frequency Change - geneticists study change in the frequency of alleles in gene pools, any change in this is evolution
    3. Evolution as limited common descent - many different varieties of similar organisms within different species, genera or families are related by common ancestry.
    4. Evolution as a mechanism that produces limited change or descent with modification - natural selection with slight random changes in genetic variations (mutations)
    5. Evolution as universal common descent - all organism come from one or very few common ancestors.
    6. Blindwatchmaker thesis - One of the Darwinian ideas that all things come from unguided, purposeless genetic changes or mutations, we are random. Like a blind watchmaker making a watch, by chance we are who we are.

    See, even evolutionists are divided by how we got here.

    BTW evolution may be taught as a fact, but it is still a theory. If u can show me someone that has bought a pug, sat down and seen or showed it to turn into a Great Dane (or visa versa) tell me!

    How can u say we have flawed arguments, u have not yet proved any of our arguments are flawed. Yet u say they are.

    Reply | 1dislike | Flag

  10. stevester - 46-50 years old - male

    Posted by stevester on Jun 8th, 2010 at 4:06AM

    These are not different theories of evolution. They are some elements of the overall theory. all you do is describe some adaptive processes. Evolutionists will agree that the process is best recognised when the adaptive processes lead to speciation. all darwin said is variablilty exists in the phenotype and under selection pressures changes can happen. Things developed from that. As for the issue about christians.....my issue is that religion should be taught in religious class. Creationism is not an equal scientific theory to evoution. The biblical story is not an alternative natural philosphy ...it is a faith. You're welcome to it but keep it in your church or your faith school i don't want my education system contaminated by it.

    Reply | 1dislike | Flag

  11. iceraider28 - 16-17 years old

    Posted by iceraider28 on Jun 8th, 2010 at 5:28AM, last updated Jun 8th, 2010 at 5:32AM

    Who are u to say Creationism in not an equal scientific theory to evolution. Creationism is proven by science, that same thing u claim can prove evolution.

    I can prove evolution is wrong with common sense.

    A building cannot be made without intelligent design. Throwing up wood and nails does not make a building. No complex thing in this universe can be made out of chaos or chance. When u do make something with chaos, tell me!
    Just like evolution, no complex organism, like us, can be made out of chaos and chance. It had to have intelligent design, God.

    A book has many works and letter in it. It is written in a complex language with rules and correct punctuation. Evolution is by chance we got here, or a process we got here, no intelligent design.
    But can a book be created without intelligent design. In u saying evolution is real, u are saying a book 100 pages long, all making sense and with correct grammar, punctuation and rules, is created by a computer with no outside help, no programing from intelligent design.
    Or a photocopier exploded and created a book 100 pages long, all making sense and with correct grammar, punctuation and rules.

    Reply | 1dislike | Flag

  12. stevester - 46-50 years old - male

    Posted by stevester on Jun 9th, 2010 at 3:31AM

    You simply demonstrate the lack of understanding of chaos, randomness and directed selection. Throwing nails and wood in the air will not build a house so what? any moron knows that. Talk a bit about how speciation occurs when isolated variants of a population are subjected to differential environmental pressures and then get back to us. recognise the concept of Darwinism, ORIGIN of SPECIES...............ORIGIN of LIFE is another topic.


    As for your opening statement that creationism is proven by science I refer you to the comments of your creationist supporters that to be proven by science means observable and repeatable, so when did you observe the creation and when is it going to be repeated???????

    Reply | 1dislike | Flag

  13. infintessimal - 18-21 years old - female

    Posted by infintessimal on Jun 10th, 2010 at 9:33PM

    Okay, Iceraider.... you are ******* stupid. All the "different" types of evolution you jsut stated are ALL THE SAME THING. You just said it in different ways. As for your pug turning into a Great Dane comment... Holy ****, dude. Eat a ******* bullet, will you? Where do I start with that little paragraph?

    First off: Yes, evolution is still a theory. So is gravity. Theory means there has been no evidence to counter what we have discovered (except for your silly ideas which if you choose to call them that. I'd settle for "a bunch of idiots whose lives will seem worthless without the concept of God and any new idea differing from that of the Bronze Age is frightening). If anything, we continually find evidence that progresses our theory. Bringing more evolution **** to light.

    Secondly: You obviously have no ******* clue how evolution works. It takes a f**kton of time for **** evolve. You could probably breed pugs to be more like Great Danes but it'd take a long *** time. Does this make sense to you? Maybe you should pay more attention in school. Read up a bit more on evolution before you open your ******* mouth.

    Thanks.

    Reply | 1dislike | Flag

  14. muffineater - 18-21 years old

    Reply by muffineater Jun 21st, 2011 at 2:33AM

    ugh you're an idiot; at least think before you speak. think about what iceraider28 said. now multiply it by 5000; THAT's evolution: tell me, if you gave a monkey a type-writer, and 10 billion years, would he come out with a book? no now think for a moment about DNA. the simplest and most primitive of cells' DNA would fill up thousands of books. DNA that is so excrutiatingly specific that just one wrong base pair would mean faulty DNA and no life. it's excrutiating precise. put random molecules together, give it a TRILLION years, and i will bet a million bucks that it will never combine in such an excruciatingly precise and specific sequence. basically what you believe is that by random molecules bumping into each other, DNA was created that actually worked. and it couldn't have just worked. it needed to program the cell to make proteins for metabolism, and very specific sequences of amino acids. rememeber, something like this would fill up thousands of books for the simplest of DNA. i can't even CONTEMPLATE the probability - or rather, the lack of it - for that to happen over the course of a TRILLION years. so next time THINK before you post, mkay?

    Reply

  15. infintessimal - 18-21 years old - female

    Posted by infintessimal on Jun 10th, 2010 at 9:43PM

    Oh, also, if you really did some digging on your silly little cult you'd realize that the story of your messiah is that of multiple messiahs throughout history. Here, let me help you:

    http://www.venusproject.com/ecs/true_origins_christianity.html

    Seriously, just think a little bit, man.

    Reply | 1dislike | Flag

  16. infintessimal - 18-21 years old - female

    Posted by infintessimal on Jul 17th, 2010 at 6:29PM

    Oh yeah also... Creationism isn't ******* science. Creationism is looking at what a centuries old, butchered, many times translated and ****** around with text claims to have happened at the beginning. So, tell me. How is the bible scientific AT ALL? Please, I'd love to hear your reasoning.

    Reply | 1dislike | Flag

  17. quitcallingmedude - 16-17 years old

    Posted by quitcallingmedude on Mar 27th, 2011 at 9:45AM

    winstonwelles, in your above reply to the Christian, isn't that only describing microevolution?

    Reply | 1dislike | Flag

  18. ILoveTheWhole - 22-25 years old

    Posted by ILoveTheWhole on Jul 25th, 2011 at 6:20PM, last updated Jul 25th, 2011 at 7:01PM

    Creationism is irrelevant for the proof of God.

    The Vedas, are a tradition who believe in a god.
    Some of the Vedas believe that there is no cause for this, as there is no cause of a god.
    This, has always been there, and has been changing and evolving and will keep changing and evolving as the play of god.

    The big bang theory, the theory above, and the god theory could all three coexist.
    It has the possibility to coexist, in here.
    Just adding this, to help stretch your brain.

    God, is existance itself. And the existance of that, is undeniable.
    God is consciousness, god is existance.
    The buddhist say so, the vedas say so, the hindus say so,
    Even the bible says so.
    In the bible it says that; 'I am that i am', and that is all that has to be said.
    Which means; I am, that 'I am', which is the sense of 'I exist,
    which is consciousness, which is existance itself.

    Also, what i want to add, as a response to the text above which is highly flawed;
    where the professor proceeds to proof that this God is evil,
    he just passed through a beautiful evidence that god is good.
    And that is, Evolution.
    Evolution is goodness, and proofs the goodness of God, as goodness in its creation.
    Because Evolution, works towards ballance, and ballance, is good.
    Good, towards the whole of creation that is... and only that, can be called good.

    Also, the inaction of God, is neutrality, which is good!

    I could go on for hours.

    God, which is existance, is undeniable.
    And it is good!

    Have a nice day y'all ;-)

    Reply | 1dislike | Flag

  19. stevester - 46-50 years old - male

    Posted by stevester on Jul 26th, 2011 at 3:39AM

    good is a subjective term. Many belive evolution in its simplest form, survival of the fittest is bad. The idea that evolution is a totally random process is also wrong. The random variations are also subject to selective pressure and under that selection process the variations are magnified and retained in specific populations that adapt to become species. Intelligent design is not intelligent at all if one considers the number of extinct species that obviously didn't work out. There is no observabale or repeatable evidence of ID - the pre-requisite for a scientific basis. Falling back on the old saw that we don't know everything about various aspects of natural history doesn't mean that any alternative is either possible or worthy of consideration. We actually don't know what we don't know but we will.

    Reply | 2dislike | Flag

  20. progressivemsnbctotop - 46-50 years old

    Posted by progressivemsnbctotop on Aug 7th, 2011 at 6:25PM

    Hum.. if evolution is a process of selective "pressure".. can someone please bottle me an ouch of this "selective" pressure or describe it properties.

    O. gravity is not a theory. Push a glass off a table a few time and tell me it a "theory"

    Reply | 1dislike | Flag

  21. infintessimal - 18-21 years old - female

    Posted by infintessimal on Aug 10th, 2011 at 4:54PM

    Progressive, I can't make heads or tails of your comment. But I suspect that I gathered the gist of it... Yes, dumbass, gravity is a theory. And clearly, you cannot grasp the concept of evolution. By selective pressure, it means natural selection. So, when your cousin Jim-Bob eats rat poison because he is too stupid to tell if it is people food or not, he dies and his genes leave the gene pool. Thereby eliminating his stupidity, giving humanity a chance at breeding smarter people who don't eat rat poison. It is such a simple concept, it is beyond me why people like you don't get it. Oh, wait. Eat some rat poison and give humanity chance. Logicked your ***. Kthx.

    Reply | 1dislike | Flag

  22. therationalist - 31-35 years old

    Posted by therationalist on Apr 25th, 2012 at 12:28AM

    Progressive, you're getting your terms mixed up. In science, what we call a 'theory' is something that has been tested enough that we believe it, with the knowledge we have presently, to be fact. This can of course change if we find different, contradictory evidence down the line. That's the great thing about science: it doesn't do dogmatic adherence to an idea DESPITE ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

    What you're thinking of, incidentally, is called a 'hypothesis' - an untested idea that, at this point, may or may not be true. However, both evolution and gravity are both accepted by 99.99% of scientists as theories -- that is, in scientific terminology, FACT.

    Reply | 1dislike | Flag

  23. theAxolotlAtheist - 18-21 years old

    Posted by theAxolotlAtheist on Apr 25th, 2012 at 9:46AM

    So many trolls in this thread... If any one of the fundies posting here had the slightest knowledge of how science actually works, maybe they could understand and respond to our arguments, rather than simply regurgitating the same bile that was spewed at them from a pulpit somewhere by a man who also had 0 understanding of science and how the world actually works.

    Reply | 1dislike | Flag

Experience Project is a community based on authenticity, support, and respect. EP encourages you to post with these values in mind.

Add your Comment