Wendy Wright shouldn't reproduce

[HappyTauren]

What is it with creationists anyway?

There was not a single moment that I didn't want to punch her incredibly stupid face

 

[gorillabull]

reminds me of

 

[HappyTauren]

Can you transcribe what exactly she's saying?

 

[trolman]

>richard dawkings
>is right

pick one

 

[saphiree]

I don't have time to watch it all right now, but how can he stay so calm? I would have slapped that bitch! :O

 

[trolman]

Because hitting women makes you a real man.

 

[HappyTauren]

^that was completely unnecessarily sexist. :troll:
I'd hit a man who was spewing such shit, too.

 

[trolman]

^So im not the only one who wants to hit dick?

 

[HappyTauren]

wat

Anyway, it baffles me how many times she uses the world 'believe' and how she calls Dawkins an EVOLUTIONIST. He's not a fucking evolutionist. He's a scientist who happens to know facts. The fact that someone is a creationist means that they BELIEVE (aka without any facts) in a tremendous amount of bullshit and then look for ways to prove it by science... which is never going to happen. Yet they offer their 'alternate beliefs' completely disregarding the fact that evolution is not supported by BELIEF but FACTS.

Man...

The bitch is like "Oh that's some funny thing you're saying, Richie... Only God did it and I know it because I am so awesome and educated..."

 

[trolman]

dick is short for richard

@video its nice to see the biggest troll getting trolled

 

[saphiree]

Because hitting women makes you a real man.

I'll quote Happytauren.

I'd hit ANYONE stupid enough to say shit like that. Even a fucking child! #NotGivingAFuck

 

[takakenji]

dont ever use a hashtag again

 

[Talavaj]

Not saying creationists are right whatsoever, but scientists often act a bit cocky despite history proven that what they stoicly believed to be "scientific facts" was later proven to be horribly wrong. Our technology is still in diapers to completely prove everything.
I'd refrain from calling things "scientific facts", they are theories which were often proven wrong when people knew better. Also don't forget that that big bang is very much just a theory, largely unsupported by facts merely by other theories and "observational evidence" which in itself is barely evidence.

 

[Crazed_seal2]

Not saying creationists are right whatsoever, but scientists often act a bit cocky despite history proven that what they stoicly believed to be "scientific facts" was later proven to be horribly wrong. Our technology is still in diapers to completely prove everything.
I'd refrain from calling things "scientific facts", they are theories which were often proven wrong when people knew better. Also don't forget that that big bang is very much just a theory, largely unsupported by facts merely by other theories and "observational evidence" which in itself is barely evidence.

A scientific theory is different to "theory".
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

 

[Zombie]

I'm glad Elenai and Poot aren't around to make a 500 pages long discussion out of this.

 

[HappyTauren]

Not saying creationists are right whatsoever, but scientists often act a bit cocky despite history proven that what they stoicly believed to be "scientific facts" was later proven to be horribly wrong. Our technology is still in diapers to completely prove everything.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before

I'd refrain from calling things "scientific facts", they are theories which were often proven wrong when people knew better.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Theory

 

[Nuclear]

Not saying creationists are right whatsoever, but scientists often act a bit cocky despite history proven that what they stoicly believed to be "scientific facts" was later proven to be horribly wrong. Our technology is still in diapers to completely prove everything.
I'd refrain from calling things "scientific facts", they are theories which were often proven wrong when people knew better.

Evolution is just a theory

lol

Also don't forget that that big bang is very much just a theory, largely unsupported by facts merely by other theories and "observational evidence" which in itself is barely evidence.

Lack of evidence for big bang is not an argument for creationism.

 

[Talavaj]

Lack of evidence for big bang is not an argument for creationism.

And who is argumenting about creationism ? For god's sake.
This is why nobody really wishes to discuss anything with scientists, because of their zealotical belief (that often rivals or way exceeds that of believers) that their "truth" is absolute, and when it turns out not to be they shrug it away with them only being "inaccurate" or "less true" or wrap it in some other BS argument such as "being wrong is relative".

 

[HappyTauren]

And who is argumenting about creationism ? For god's sake.

You sort of answered this yourself. People who understand evolution don't question it other than for religious reasons. By 'understanding evolution' I actually mean reading what Darwin wrote on it, how others have corrected him, what evidence there is on display, etc, which I am not completely convinced you have done.

This is why nobody really wishes to discuss anything with scientists

Ugh... What do you mean nobody really wishes to discuss anything with scientists? You mean, not a single person wants to discuss anything with scientists? The only reason this would be true (on a personal basis) is if the person is repelled by scientific method (and, therefore, its capability to approach facts) by claiming they know more and different. Just like Wright!

because of their zealotical belief (that often rivals or way exceeds that of believers) that the only truth is theirs

So let me get this straight. Scientists believe more than religious people, right? Well, I'd say that's true. The computers work. As intended. We also have cars and infrastructure. There's no reason not to believe in many things. However, it is a scientist's job to be skeptical of everything. You need to reconsider your definition of a scientist. It is a person that utilizes a scientific method to come to truth. Scientists don't believe in scientific method the same way people believe in God or books. It has to be a product of critical and analyticall thinking. Then you need someone to test your theory and possibly correct you if you are wrong. You are ALWAYS free to propose a better way than scientific method. If it turns out to be better in bringing truth - scientists will LOVE it and use it, thank you very much. Another reason many scientists can come off as aggressive is that they are overwhelmed by stupidity and ignorance of those who question their claims - WITHOUT KNOWING ALL ABOUT THOSE CLAIMS. Learn everything there is on evolution, and THEN question it. I can't come to school and ask how it's possible that 3+7=10 if I don't know anything about numbers. Then the teacher tells me I need to learn numbers, and I say BUT I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT 3+7=10!!! Try to put this in perspective and understand how stupid your reasoning is here.

, and when it turns out not to be they shrug it away with them only being "inaccurate" or "less true" or wrap it in some other BS argument such as "being wrong is relative".

You should realize that it's hard to grasp 100% accuracy. That would require that all the premises we have are ABSOLUTELY correct, which extends onto the notion that WE KNOW EVERYTHING which would make a human being an omniscient being, which it is not. That would mean that a scientific claim would have to be true at all circumstances, but it has been proven, over the years, that some claims work only in certain conditions. This doesn't mean those claims are false, but that they are true to what premises were. As I said, as premises advance - so the knowledge has to advance too. So yes, being wrong IS somewhat relative. Unless you are some sort of a deity and can decide for yourself what is true and what is not, which I am quite sure you are not. According to the evidence we have - evolution is true, both in macro and micro forms. If there are some other forms of evidence, like those of aliens dropping us on earth, they will be considered and scientific theories on origin and development of life would have to be reevaluated. Would you then argue how scientists WERE WRONG BEFORE? This is also a continuum fallacy.

In order to talk of scientific truth you have to use scientific terms and scientific methods. You seem to shrug at the scientific method a lot, so you should go live in a cave and never use a computer again, because SCIENCE WAS WRONG BEFORE.

Also, this thread is not for discussion with morons. If you are just like Wendy Wright you can't be helped because you are obviously repelling any attempt. She cries how she's not convinced. Well, people with shoe size IQ can't understand basic equations either, hard to convince them as well.

 

[trolman]

Whats with all the buthurt?

 

[HappyTauren]

Whats with all the buthurt?

Many people can't deal with the fact majority of population are morons.

 

[Talavaj]

Just a note, I'm a complete atheist I do not believe in deities nor in supernatural neither was I argumenting against evolution.
I was just pointing out the utter "scientific arrogance" (which you so perfectly demonstrate in your replies) and their inability to accept their past mistakes and acknowledge that their past theories (products of critical and analytical thinking) were indeed wrong.

 

[HappyTauren]

Ugh...
Inability to accept past mistakes? Well, I haven't seen scientists who would claim that earth was actually flat but it changed to the shape we have today. Modern scientist obviously claim that scientist who claimed the earth is flat were wrong. You also fail to grasp the fact that people had different premises at the time, making them not wrong but not even wrong in the said context.

The problem is that you're really talking out of your ass and seem to think that all scientists think and talk alike.

There is a way to prove evolution wrong. To do this, you should prove premises wrong. That is, that there was some way the fossils arranged themselves into the form we have them or to prove that tested micro evolution is magic and doesn't really work. Until then, you can't really debate it.

Newton's laws are actually WRONG. Yet we use them in schools because they simplify physics to some degree, to 'barely show' how things work. Once you get to the university, formulas get more complex as there are more attributes to them and more dependencies. This is to say that we will probably not have the final formula to calculate gravity in all possible circumstances (because we are not omniscient!) but that we can safely assume that for most intents and purposes the one we have at the moment is sufficient (even though we test it every time we use it and try to improve upon it!)

If you want to devise complex formulas you have to spend years studying them first! That's what scientists have a problem with: people thinking that they can know something they can't know.

 

[saphiree]

Please close this thread someone -_-

 

[trolman]

Why?

 

[The_Taxidermist]

I'm glad Elenai and Poot aren't around to make a 500 pages long discussion out of this.

I can't emptyquote

 

[HappyTauren]

Per request.