BuzzFeed Collects 22 Messages from Creationists to Believers in Evolution

PIC: Matt Stopera/BuzzFeed (C)

PIC: Matt Stopera/BuzzFeed (C)

BuzzFeed’s Matt Stopera asked Creationists in attendance at the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate to write a message to believers in Evolution. Click here to see the whole set.

221 Comments on "BuzzFeed Collects 22 Messages from Creationists to Believers in Evolution"

  1. How do you explain the BuzzFeed Styleguide, if there is no Satan?

  2. Simon Valentine | Feb 5, 2014 at 11:27 pm |

    science says the sun is bigger than the earth, but the entire sun fits in the sky.
    science is wrong. for shame! solicith me not withe thine deceit! thee geometer be of hell and nost thee good earth!

  3. I shouldn’t have clicked. I couldn’t help it. It was like an event horizon for a black hole of stupid…I just drifted too close and got sucked in.

    • Anarchy Pony | Feb 6, 2014 at 12:08 am |

      That’s a freshman move man.

      • I know. I should have known …I actually feel like I rick-rolled myself. I mean really… I could have just rammed my face into a brick wall until I was barely coherent, then etched 22 comments in my dazed state that would have been slightly more coherent and thought provoking than the ones lurking around Buzzfeed.

        • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 5:17 pm |

          But alas your plight is over and you are nestled comfortably back inside your in-group. What have we told you about venturing outside the group, you could have been hurt.

          • I was attempting to be nice and avoid the troll train wreck…but what the hell? Why not? In for a penny, in for a pound.

            1) The core subject that drove these little snippets above was the debate, not over the existence of a divine purpose behind the universe, which even most scientists embrace as plausible and reasonable, but over Young Earth Creationism, a fallacy so ludicrous that only a handful of disgraced pseudo science cranks ascribe to it (excepting of course the vast herd of the faithful but scientifically illiterate).

            2) I fall into the camp of people who remain, like Bill Nye, open to the arrival of evidence. Despite the lack of compelling evidence, I remain comfortable with the notion of divine purpose to the universe, but that doesn’t likewise mean that if a quack who happens to share my belief in divine purpose claims that even particle measurement, accurate testing, and geological evidence is irrelevant because his book of Bronze Age fables was interpreted as being literal truth tells him that the age of earth is 6000 years…then I must, for some reason, be obligated to agree with him.

            3) Young Earth Creationism is the hallmark of fundamentalist belief in the US and elsewhere…and is far and away the most easily debunked prattle ever to fall from the lips of any creature not actually born of the Bronze Age. Even the vast bulk of faithful persons ascribing to various religions pause for a moment and laugh uproariously when they hear that Americans are forced to debate the subject just to keep teaching science in schools without interruption from tent revivalists and hucksters. Faith is not incompatible with science. Fundamentalism, Young Earth Creationism, and the staggering stupidity and ignorance associated with them are, unfortunately, absolutely incompatible with science.

            So to sum up…I’ve been as broad minded as I can be on the subject of faith meeting science…in that I will retain faith until proven soundly that it is without value…but asking me to embrace and cheer for a Young Earth Creationist is not asking me to be open minded…its asking me to embrace the very embodiment of close mindedness and direct hostility to evidence based reasoning.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 10:50 pm |

            Actually the lion’s share of the argument in schools is not young earth related, it is general intelligent designer related. It is also the refusal to teach the actual science related to evolution, flaws included. The “teaching” of evolution steps outside it’s field and now every statement of science seems to have some stupid unqualified blurb as to how evolution produced it. No repeatable testing, demonstrating or observing required. Teaching a kid about the digestive system of a cow? Better throw some speculation in there about why the cow evolved to arrive at that state, hell the teacher can just throw some random junk in there that they came up with on the spot. It’s all OK because evolution cannot be challenged. It is the only field that shucks mathematics when it doesn’t support their cause. Assuming unguided evolution as the primary driver for current species is most certainly not deserving of the description “evidence based reasoning.” It is an abuse of science. Any teacher or professor caught making unsubstantiated claims about evolution should receive the same punishment as a teacher or professor caught preaching the resurrection in the middle of a class. That would be fair. Hey if life can spontaneously arrive from non-life, why not a spontaneous resurrection? Neither is possible according to real science and both are out of the realm of statistically probable. What is evolutionary bio-genesis other than a claim to virgin birth?

          • Again…you seem eager to rush to other issues rather than surrender ground on the source of the posting above…a groundswell of empty headed prattle support for Ken Ham…a Creationist in the theme park biz whose fiscal well being is served principally by encouraging belief in cavemen riding dinosaurs.

            I understand why you’d want to shy away from it as fast as possible, because its universally unsupportable and everyone who rushes to its defense winds up looking pathetic, but there you have it…if you don’t like topic…quit crab-crawling your way around the edges of it and just confess that Ham is actually a rigidly close minded religious bigot whose entire case is based on an absence of evidence and an excess of certainty. Nye’s case is based at the very least on the willingness to observe what can be measured…and a willingness to keep measuring and learn from what becomes available to us in the future.

            “Intelligent design” is little more than a codeword for “now we can teach full bore creationism as longf as we mention this first”. The entirety of ID theory was based on a single unreviewed paper…which was snatched up by the hard religious right and touted day and night as their saving grace, hail mary pass, route to opening school doors for creation ‘science’…which might better be called the “Poof! God Made It!” theory…also known as not doing any homework and just calling the universe magic.

            As for God making the universe and life…you’ve only pushed the question back one notch and implied that, “if we don’t know something yet, we’ll never know it, so if I don’t like the current answer or prevailing theory, my default setting is ex deus machina.”

            That’s not really an answer. Evolution is continually evolving as a field of study, with parameters that have changed drastically in the last 150+ years, changing when study and testing unveil reasons for change. Is it certain that we’ll keep evolution theory as the prime driver forever? No. That depends on what measurable data can be uncovered as we go. Creationism by comparison is an unyielding certainty in an absolute and pre-fixed source of origin, despite a complete absence of any evidence of any kind…rooted entirely in what I mentioned above…the fall back position of “We don’t know…so…God.” One position compels further study…the other position abandons it and seeks to forbid and discourage it.

            The origin of life is presently unknown. This doesn’t shake my belief in the ability to resolve that question. It also doesn’t alter my current comfort with a purposeful and potentially divinely inspired universe. But I’m with the people examining, weighing, measuring and testing…not with the people who take a lack of knowledge and make dogma of it, insisting that the same lack of knowledge is a form of evidence in itself. Those people are nuts…and its okay to call them that, and tell them to preach it all they want and be nuts in church and in their home…but when they legislate what funding schools receive and what textbooks will be adopted…I dissent…vehemently.

            As for the statistically probable…the sheer size of the measurable universe at this time is sufficient for chemical reactions and interactions that we are only barely capable of cataloging. Statistically speaking, interactions we haven’t got the ability to measure are a certainty. Life, howsoever it may have started, may have started in some unfathomable way…perhaps divinely inspired in some way, but almost certainly with some single primal source that has slowly and radically altered to claim any environment, even in the vacuum of space. In all likelihood, it is safer to postulate that that process of permanent adaption and change which we currently term as evolution…is still an INFINITELY more viable story than the central figure of a tribal Semitic storybook waving his arms and making everything pop into being instantaneously, fully formed and with no need to change in shape, habit or capacity.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 12:03 am |

            Not “crab crawling” around this Ham guy. In fact the postings here have not mentioned him. If they have I missed it. The direction of the discussion here, and the actual article itself is of the general flavor of creation vs atheistic evolution. I don’t know who this Ham guy is nor does he sound like the proper person to be debating the issue with a scientist. There are plenty of qualified physicists, biologists and mathematicians who are creationist that would have represented it better.

            You keep speaking of these people who believe in God therefore stop doing science. I don’t know what your experience is around the world of biology or physics, but I can assure you there are plenty of Christian scientists in those fields, doing real science. If you don’t know any, perhaps you should actually look into it. I’m telling you if you live in America and have any dealings with those circles you would not be making those statements. Sounds like you get a lot of opinions on it from your computer.

            It is also ok to call people who believe in a magical fossil record that explains evolution because they got it from book and not the geologic strata nuts as well. It is also ok to call those who literally believe that all known matter and energy ultimately came from nothing crazies as well. Let me tell you that this “vacuum” of space is something and a whole lot of it. Nothing means no space, matter or time. Hold out hopes if you like on discovering how that turns into the singularity, but will call you nuts if you do, and any person with the logic of a four year old will do the same. If you not one of those then great, your not nuts.

            You don’t understand where the probability statistics come from. It is a calculation based on all possible events that could have occurred with the current age of the universe and the matter contained in it. It says nothing of what specific events those were. Unguided evolution and unguided bio-genesis are statically absurd because they are vastly less probable than any one single event at any scale in our know universe! They are less probable than the number of events on an atomic scale that have ever occurred, even by the most generous estimates. This applies to each one of them, to get the total figure you would have to factor all of them. Go ahead and believe it my friend, but by doing so you are most certainly not the vanguard of reason. Go set up the church of improbability and rant about it in there or in your home because its as much a religion as anything else. Perhaps if it were an old Semitic belief you would throw it away sooner eh.

          • Well, to give you context, (which honestly you should have had before trolling the board in the first place) the article above is about people who are posting questions to Bill Nye after his debate with Ken Ham. The people posting their questions are supporting Ken Ham’s view of Creationism, and Bill Nye’s rejection of same. That’s the source of the article, and that’s why this conversation is taking place. If you decided to roll in here and start taking potshots without any knowledge of the source of the discussion…it really doesn’t speak well for you.

            Most of the scientists you mention who would have been better qualified…are more like me…and accept that science hasn’t ruled out the divine, but that evolution and even the origin of life are plausible and rational matters than can eventually be properly understood if we keep at the science long enough. The reason they weren’t at the debate is because, being scientists of any worth at all, they wouldn’t come within a mile of a true young earth creationist, any more than they would announce support for a return to flat earth theory.

            We can actually measure the age of decaying matter with ever increasing accuracy. Probably worth mentioning at this point that several of my actual acquaintances and old friends are in forensic anthropology and archaeology. They aren’t believers in ‘magic fossils’…they actually measure the age of decaying matter based on exceedingly sound and well founded science, using calibrated devices that deliver results that can be retested and retested with matching accuracy…not the 1800s method of ‘we think the dirt near here is probably X number of years old’, which was the method back when there was no other way to gauge the age of a strata. If you aren’t keen on atomic theory or carbon dating or anything else…I can see why…it must get exhausting heaping field after field of science on the dustbin so that you can cling to a pre-decided certainty.

            Creationists work backwards from a book that has given them an answer…then labor to prevent evidence from contradicting their answer. The field of archaeology, on the other hand, is locked in a perpetual state of debate as the arriving evidence keeps changing what we know about the past. This is a considerably more open minded situation than creationism allows…which is just discarding the fossil records and proclaiming them to be irrelevant because they were all created at the same time as everything else. That isn’t a search for knowledge…thats an abandonment of it.

            Regarding vacuum…I admit to a hasty misspeaking that is easily taken as …its absolutely true that space itself is actually quite full of both matter and activity, but panspermia presupposes ‘crosspollenation of worlds’ with life of at least sufficient sturdiness to exist in very hostile conditions (comet ice or meteoric cores etc). Where that life started and how it began we don’t know…which is why we search. You already seem to have an answer based on the scrawlings of frightened herdsmen some 4000 years ago…and that seems to be sufficient for you. Good for you. Just don’t stand in the way of people looking for something a little less fanciful than an origin story that largely resembles the scene in Cinderella where the magic fairy waves a wand and poof! things appear.

            Your statements about statistics rather badly suggest that, aside from not having much use for measurable data of other kinds, you also don’t have much use for math either. Quite to the contrary, statistical likelihoods emerging from the size and age of the universe and the considerable amount of interacting matter within it not only imply potential circumstances for the arrival of matter and eventually life, but actually weigh in as evidence of a near certainty of spontaneous events, not necessarily divine in origin, but certainly wondrous. Does this rule out the divine as completely implausible…no. I still think a divine purpose is within the realm of probability…but since I have only a smattering of evidence for one opinion and zero evidence for the other…it’s pretty clear that only one camp has anything going for them at all.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 9:48 am |

            Perhaps you are the chief of the disinfo kingdom, and perhaps people swallow the nonsense or are intimidated when you use a couple big words. As it stands I do have friends in some of these areas, who are familiar with things such as mass spectrometers, and scanning electron microscopes, some of them Christians and some not. As to the open-mindedness of many in the field of archaeology, that is laughable. Suggest to any of them who are atheist that evolution is questionable and watch them flip a lid. Perfect example of this is the work of Dr. Mary Schwietzer out of NCSU a few years back when she found collagen (soft tissue) after demineralizing a T-Rex fossil found in Hell Creek. This would have placed the T-Rex as less than 100,000 years old. The responses upon peer review were pretty absurd at times. At one point at the arguments challenging her data and testing methods fell like dominoes people starting just declaring her wrong because her data doesn’t match the expected era for a T-rex. By the way, she continues to test and finds the collagen in nearly every fossil she demineralizes. Get the opinion of you top notch friends after they read over Mary’s work. Trex’s existing within the last 100,000 years doesn’t say anything about how old the Universe or Earth are, just that unguided evolution become laughable surrounding any fossil that produces a collagen and is suppose to be millions of years old.

            Panspermia? That isn’t even considered strong enough to be a theory. It sits in the hypothesis area. Nobody is stopping you from sending probes to Mars or listening for frequencies from other intelligence or examining meteorites for microbial life. But here is the thing, you and others have been free to do it, in fact you have had billions of tax payer dollars and a whole Gov’t agency who contracts with the top Universities research departments for the last 40 years and you…have…found…NOTHING! Do you understand that? Nobody has stopped you and you are still bankrupt on Panspermia. Even though your ilk continue to waste billions looking for a bacteria that could have been put to use somewhere else, nobody stops you.

            Your last paragraph is a bunch of garble that you provided no basis for, just making claims that you are right provided nothing. If you are describing a refutation to “Rare Earth” theory then just present it. Give the name of the person who developed it or at least enough details to find it. Certainly the last major shift of the rare earth discussion was on the side of rare earth. Howard Smith/Senior astrophysicist at Harvard is the man who started the rare earth discussion a few years ago. I suggest you start there and get yourself up to speed.

          • Adam's Shadow | Feb 9, 2014 at 1:06 pm |

            In regards to your T-Rex soft tissue claim:


            I have found no evidence where Schweitzer herself argues that her find contradicts evolution, or that the T Rex or any dinosaur is 100,000 years old or less, merely that soft tissue can survive for far longer than previously assumed.

            Per yourself:
            “Trex’s existing within the last 100,000 years doesn’t say anything about how old the Universe or Earth are, just that unguided evolution become laughable surrounding any fossil that produces a collagen and is suppose to be millions of years old.”

            This is a red herring argument and makes no sense. How would collagen found in a fossil indicate “guided evolution?” Because it is an unexpected and controversial finding? You might as well say that dinosaurs possibly being the ancestors of modern birds indicates “guided evolution” because it was assumed for so long that dinosaurs were a primitive form of reptile. So did the “guider” guide dinosaurs to evolve into birds, or were they just a trial run for modern reptiles?

            Far too many questions that you imply can only be answered by some original intelligent designer; and which designer would we be talking about anyway? Yahweh? Marduk? Ra? Cthulhu (praise be on its name)?

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 2:53 pm |

            Your correct, I didn’t explain my point very well.
            It’s not a positive argument for guided evolution or an intelligent designer, or age of the Earth or Universe. I was not trying to imply that it is. That is exactly my point. Dr. Schwiezer was not saying those things either as she herself believes in the general unguided evolution theory and is not a known theist (I don’t know what she is because she doesn’t go around talking about it) The point is that there were implications behind her discovery that could be and were used by the young earth creationists as an argument against old earth/evolution. That implication in and of itself was enough to draw what was at times very unprofessional responses by others in her field. I was speaking to the reaction of those invested in the unguided evolution theory and how they are not “letting the evidence guide them.” as they would claim. They are instead trying to prove something they already believe to be true, even if the evidence doesn’t force that conclusion.

            You cannot say that you are open to divine first cause and the possibly that there is a God (albeit not a specific God of any particular sect.) all the while saying that all theories have to assume that there is no guider or causer. Its presupposing your conclusion. It’s a free country and you are free to think that way, but don’t claim objectivity and don’t rail against the theist that does it if you cannot refrain from doing it yourself. if your going to do it, have the moral courage to own your view, don’t wave your hand expect others not to call you on it. Dr. Schweizer was just reporting findings in a very professional and scientific manner despite they countered her beliefs. She was practicing real science. Notice the responses to her immediately concluded that the age of the dinosaurs was not to be questioned, but rather the rate of decay of soft tissue, which by the way has much sounder science behind it. Hope my point is a bit clearer now.

          • Adam's Shadow | Feb 9, 2014 at 3:48 pm |

            Then I think you would be better served arguing only the point that evolutionary theory is a scientific trend that excludes all heretical and contraindicating evidence, instead of arguing that this evidence can act as support for the ID and/or YEC crowd. I may (mostly) disagree regarding evolution proponents acting as hypocritical gatekeepers who stifle dissent and any argument to the contrary, but that is a logically consistent position; trying to say “that there were implications behind her discovery that could be and were
            used by the young earth creationists as an argument against old earth/evolution,” but then evading the issue yourself is intellectually dishonest. Stick to a “First Cause” or “irreducible complexity” argument, which is really what you seem to be saying, instead of trying to condemn only “atheistic” evolutionary science. You also seem to want to have your cake and eat it too, just as you accuse others at this site of doing.

            “You cannot say that you are open to divine first cause and the possibly
            that there is a God (albeit not a specific God of any particular sect.)
            all the while saying that all theories have to assume that there is no
            guider or causer. Its presupposing your conclusion.”

            There is no presupposition of conclusion: you don’t have to have a guider or causer for evolution to work. If there was (is) one, fine, but it’s not needed to explain the theory. No evidence seems to be present at this time to lead me to think that you need God to explain evolution and the origins of life; which does not mean that it wasn’t there, but I try to go where the evidence leads me, and the evidence leads me to a non-theistic view of evolution. At least as presented in its current form.

          • > you don’t have to have a guider or causer for evolution to work

            This is where we get into deeper waters. If we assume the universe operates logically and causally, then each instance of evolution must have a cause and be guided by the laws of physics.

          • Adam's Shadow | Feb 9, 2014 at 5:29 pm |

            Good point: I was referring specifically to an independent deity or “Creator” figure that set the whole process in motion, a la Newton’s analogy of the Clockmaker. However, I’m not convinced that a random (yes, random) convergence of molecules in the primordial soup couldn’t completely explain the origins of life on earth; then again, I’m not convinced that there isn’t more to it then that, either.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 6:42 pm |

            The bio-genesis or abiogenesis or primordial soup story is not something that has been demonstrated under conditions that have ever been shown to or even could exist naturally. That is why all the models for it remain hypothesis and not theory. This is of course required to have life not attributed to an intelligent first cause before you can even begin the process of evolution. If you invoke transpermia, you only back the question up to how did that life come to be and how did it survive the trip to earth.

            To clear up where I stand. I believe in God, I don’t believe science has proven God to exist. I do believe one can arrive at the conclusion that God exists in a logical manner. For a myriad of reasons I subscribe to the existence of the Christian God, though I don’t pretend that I got there through scientific evidence. I don’t believe it should be forced on anyone but also believe it should not silenced because people don’t agree with it. I also believe that science has come nowhere near disproving that God exists and I believe that the real scientific data that exists fits within believing in a Christian God just fine. Evolution is not required based on scientific data so I hold reservations until it does so. If it should prove to be the case I will accept it. I encourage the study of it to keep the theists honest, but it should hold the scientific method. If it did so people would find many theists giving it thought instead of opposing it out of hand. Too many claims have been made on behalf of over zealous evolutionists, some outright frauds, for me not to be skeptical of initial claims until there has been through examination. Until a proven theory of why something exists rather than nothing can be given without the logical necessity for an uncaused, timeless, full actualized, nonmaterial entity is presented, I have the logical grounds to consider that being as the most plausible explanation for the Universe.

          • Adam's Shadow | Feb 9, 2014 at 6:58 pm |

            And this is where we fundamentally disagree: I find a primordial soup scenario far more likely than an intelligent first cause or designer scenario, particularly when viewing that first cause as specifically the Judeo-Christian deity. If that is the case (which I doubt, and of course, I may be wrong), then the Bible leaves out quite a bit.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 7:10 pm |

            My reason for finding the belief in the intelligent designer as a matter of logical conclusion is through the cosmological argument, not through material science for reasons present in the cosmological argument pertaining to the need for a non-material reason for the first material cause. Of course from that argument there is no inclusion as to a Christian only version, however the Judeo/Christian God fits the conclusions laid out in the cosmological argument.

          • I should probably add that public schools have no grounds for teaching any religiously based origin theory of any kind…mostly because religion isn’t their business. We have places for that…we call them churches, and its where religious people go to be religious. Schools aren’t for that, public parks aren’t for that, city council meetings and courthouses aren’t for that. This was the basic tenet that made this country a haven for everyone who was sick of being butchered in Europe every time a government switched hands and one faith had a chance to dominate and crush the others. Since creationism/ID theory is intrinsically tied to fundamentalist/evangelical branches of Protestantism…it is absolutely unacceptable to give it a place in a science class, or anywhere else other than a church pew…where it belongs and is constitutionally protected as a person’s right to enjoy as they see fit in their home and church.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 12:11 am |

            I should also add that your belief that religion is confined to a home and a church is telling of both your pseudo tolerance and your understanding of religious freedoms. I can’t believe I have to point this out to an adult in America, but you can practice your religion in public as well. So you were better off not adding that piece.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 12:14 am |

            I must also add, teaching the unsubstantiated view that God does not exist in a formal school setting is every bit as religious and saying God does exist in school. It has no place in a classroom in public school either. Not so long as the religious have to pay the taxes to fund those schools.

          • At issue is not the claim that there is no God…nor is it necessary in the course of teaching basic science to mention the issue at all. The source of the conflict is entirely in one camp that desires immediate social dominance both in education (which then becomes proselytizing for specific faiths) and in governance.

            Note: churches don’t pay taxes. They do however receive tax dollars to fund their new schools, draining education dollars away from public schools, funding the teaching of specific faiths with monies taken from people of many many different backgrounds. Clearly they desire tax dollars and public monies…but don’t seem to share an equal concern for public institutions remaining neutral ground.

            It’s interesting that you echo Ken Ham’s recent tweet…in which he claimed that not having a religion is a religion. Wildly false, completely fallacious. By that rationale, the Lion’s Club is a church, the Scouts are a church, a knitting club is a church, and people who like the color blue are a church. The argument lowers the bar for what constitutes an actual religious faith until its defined as loosely as a few people sharing any similar secular opinion of any kind. Very much the sort of anti-intellectual pablum usually spewed by people with almost no real literacy beyond their faith.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 10:05 am |

            No, wrong again Voxi. I will spell it out for you since you apparently don’t bother to use you intelligence if it doesn’t fit your current paradigm. If your belief is unsubstantiated, such as panspermia and unguided evolution are, then they are not things that you teach outside of a university where someone is going into those areas. You are making antithetical statements about all thing religious then you are in the discussion around things like; Why are we hear? What is the meaning of life? What happens when we die? What is morality? Atheism has positions on all of these things and unfortunately for the evolutionist, those Atheists claim to justify bringing those views into schools as “science” because they are the logical conclusion of unguided evolution and unguided bio-genesis. Again, if they stuck to science and taught things that have been verified there would be no problem. In fact if they were to point out all the areas where we still don’t know what’s going on instead of throwing some unsubstantiated crap from evolution, perhaps people would begin to examine those gaps for answers. The premature acceptance of unguided evolution does just as much to stop people from looking into things as creationism does. After all, since “evolution describes the arrival of all species” why keep looking. Caught you trying to eat your own cake Voxi.

          • If your point is that public school teachers should not tell students there is no God, then I agree. If your point is that they shouldn’t teach evolution as science, or should teach Genesis as an equally viable scientific theory, then I disagree.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 10:15 am |

            I am saying teach what has been validated in evolution. That is that is can sometimes occur in bacteria and virus. It has not been demonstrated in higher life forms and there is not mechanism of science to demonstrate that people were ever anything other than people. I don’t think Genesis should be taught in a public school any more that a Koran should be. Just address origins for what they are…UNKNOWN! If you want to throw what different people in the world think about that then discuss some world religions. Your not teaching as fact any more than teaching a comparative religions class. You don’t tell students the God is real or that God made the Universe, you just point out that there are some who actually do believe that. Evolution is trying to make premature claims that real science has yet to even demonstrate, let alone verify in higher life forms.

          • Speciation has been observed in higher life forms, and that mechanism can explain how humans evolved from other primates. There’s nothing saying God couldn’t use evolutionary speciation to create us. After all, creation is an act and action ontologically necessitates time.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 3:21 pm |

            Natural selection has been observed in higher life forms, but the chromosome count is fixed, that is what science observes. This is not what the contemporary evolution theory holds. No positive mutation resulting in a new species has ever been observed or even found in the fossil record. It is assumed as an explanation for some data points but that is a entirely different that proving the theory in any way.

          • Oenothera lamarckiana with a chromosone number of 2n = 14 speciated into Oenothera gigas with a chromosone number of 2n = 28.

          • A person has no obligation to be tolerant of the intolerant. As people of one particular branch of faith move to transform government into a source of funding and support against other branches of faith (and the non-faithful), the only patriotic or even ethical action is to move against them at every turn, and to call them out as the zealots they are. The public domain has no place for demonstrations of religious dominance forced onto others. That is the issue at the very core of separation of church and state…to stand between the various faiths and to never permit them to dominate one another in the way they did in Europe. The memory and records of millions dead and crops rotting in the fields across a continent was very clear in the minds of the founders of this nation…and they knew perfectly well that religious extremism and its eternal rush toward conflict required a firm bootheel placed on its throat if this then fledgling country was to avoid the same sad fate.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 10:21 am |

            The “extremism of religion causes all evil” nonsense is used up brother. Atheism, gov’t, money, resources and land or generally any line of power produces the same effect. The fact that you refuse to see that does nothing more than establish which social group you identify with. Selection bias is going to bite you in the ass and may have already but whatever.

            The cute little phrase about “tolerant of the intolerant” is a throw away nonsense phrase as well. Your just as intolerant and therefore should not be tolerated blah blah. Go place it on a bumper sticker and maybe make a few bucks for it, but it’s philosophically bankrupt.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 12:19 am |

            The basic tenant that built this country was that there would be no established state religion. It was placed there to ensure citizens could be religious in public and not have to hide in their homes.

          • The term ‘wall of separation’ is from Jefferson, the chief architect of our founding documents. There is no mention of encouraging public religion…none…but plenty to imply that private faith should be well protected, and that the involvement of churches in politics or governance was unilaterally unwelcome.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 10:30 am |

            The keeping of the church out of the gov’t was not unilateral my friend. The church wanted just as much to stay away from the gov’t as they saw the gov’t as the thing that ruined the church in Europe. I happen to agree with them. The less grubby politicians involved in Church matters the better.
            You are certainly aware of the reformation and all the reasons it occurred. You have discussed it before.

            BTW, the Constitution encouraged life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. You may need some govt document to tell you the specifics of how to do that, but I don’t. “Gov’t doesn’t encourage public faith”?? As if I need to govt to tell me what to do in public, wouldn’t want Uncle Sam to be displeased with what I am up to. Tell me Vox (as I am in the dark on this) what does the beloved gov’t encourage me to do in public, because I desperately want to fall inline with their “encouragement.”

    • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 4:03 pm |

      An then made a post and became one with them. By the way the latest is that event horizon’s may not exist. That means you can escape to your information bias and surround yourself with like minds…enjoy.

  4. BuzzCoastin | Feb 6, 2014 at 12:19 am |

    Buzzcoastin feed to creationists & evolutionists
    this piece of media food fight
    has jumped the shark

    • Amen!

      • And yet here I am, engaging in it with someone whom I’m not sure is willing to concede a Planck length.

        Oh well, I’ve never claimed nothing is wrong with me.

  5. mannyfurious | Feb 6, 2014 at 12:20 am |

    The look in many of those people’s eyes is enough to send stone-cold vibrations down the spinal column. Jesus, I don’t have the stomach to ponder the exact kind of madness happening in those poor souls. It’s not even stupidity. All of those people have managed to survive (and perhaps even “thrive”) to this point. If they were a third as stupid as they come across in those pictures, none of them would make it through a single meal or a single trip to the nearest supermarket.

    No, it’s just an outright refusal TO THINK… mostly out of some misguided fear that a world without the jackass Abrahamic God is a world w/out meaning. I’d feel sorry for the lot of them if so many weren’t so destructive.

  6. Rhoid Rager | Feb 6, 2014 at 12:36 am |

    #7 was the only question that was reasonable, by my estimation. But only because it vaguely references the hard problem of consciousness, which institutional science is petrified of. The other questions exhibit a rampant ignorance of biology, thermodynamics, cosmology and epistemology.

    • Rus Archer | Feb 6, 2014 at 1:35 pm |

      institutional science is working on consciousness

      • Rhoid Rager | Feb 6, 2014 at 3:04 pm |

        not the hard problem. consciousness is treated as epiphenomenal to brain organization.

        • Calypso_1 | Feb 6, 2014 at 3:43 pm |

          How are you defining – hard problem?

          I have never seen a formulation of the concept that’s existence was not debatable in and of itself.

          I see a great deal of application of this term to ideas that have nothing to do with the original intent and even in its origins has more application to semantic concepts than known physical realities.

          • Rhoid Rager | Feb 6, 2014 at 4:37 pm |

            I thought you might press me on it. 🙂
            I have no problem with Chalmers’ definition–the state of being a subject of experience, or qualia.

            My take on this is from my field of specialty–international relations, or more generally, social theory. I consider the approach to the hard problem as an analogue to the burgeoning approaches in many fields of study; namely, the push away from reductionism to holism on a systematic basis. With the way science operates, this epistemological season, however, reductionism is still the most valid way of knowing the world; because it offers a measurable, safe and explicitly knowable way of understanding the world. But it’s also very conservative.

            I think we’ve been adhering to reductionism institutionally for a long time now (300 years maybe?), and, from the pulse I’ve taken, it seems that holism is making a come back–the epistemological seasons are turning. Discerning patterns, problematizing novelty, intuiting implicit relationships are taking a more prominent role in the way we understand the world. Of course, the push-pull of reductionism and holism occur regularly with the individual, and are needed for an increasingly accurate view of reality; but, the broader epistemological culture/current seems to swing back and forth.

            From my understanding of social theory, agency is the devil in the details of broader sociological trends. There’s a beautiful epistemological aesthetic about International Relations in that it has been a field devoted to the key moral question of ‘why do people do violence (war)?’; but, despite all of the schools of thought and approaches, it has never satisfactorily answered that question–if it had then violence would cease. But the beauty of it is that in vesting all intellectual inquiry into that one question, amassing a gigantic interdisciplinary edifice incorporating everything from economics to anthropology to psychology to even biology,
            the field, to me, appears to be hitting the brick wall of agency. It’s the singular problem where this enormous effort using the reductionist metamethod cannot tie the ends of the string together. This is because the question of agency is intractable. It’s an implicit aspect of reality that is receding from any analytical vantage point. That to me is a reflection of the hard problem.
            I hope I haven’t skirted around your question.

          • American Cannibal | Feb 6, 2014 at 6:31 pm |

            Great response.

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 10, 2014 at 3:32 pm |

            No feeling that you have skirted the question. It is a sensation that I am familiar with when attempting to communicate on such topics as the amount of exploration I given to them is not yet balanced with a well-formulated representation given to external representation. Thus, as you noted before, the significance of praxis, which I believe is the primary challenge at this point not a push to new levels of understanding. I see many of these questions as a reconciliation of cross-disciplinary insights and language and a pursuit by various disciplines for relevancy in the face of advancements that have led to a primacy of particular knowledge sets and fundamentally a ‘lifeworld’, dogma/mythology – guiding impulse, intuition within society at large. So many of these issues come down to intuitions about (or more properly, the assignment of- with or without intent- feelings to) the nature of reality. This is the greatest difficulty that I have with concepts behind the ‘Hard Problem’. Its formal definitions all rely on the defacto assumption of intuitions on which thought experiments are built. They bootstrap and they have no bearing on reality outside of mental constructs. There is the belief that because they can be thought of they can exist. But the conditions that are ‘thought of’ are never even shown to be representational thoughts. They are semantic superimpositions with an attached feeling of truth. It is like saying I can conceive of a square circle (Now of course you can have a square sphere – and this illustrates what much of the notion of ‘hard problem’ is: The Incompleteness Theorem, no system can fully describe itself within its own dimensional set.)

            The guiding need behind the use of a hard problem seems to be the furtherance of a mind/body divide. Behind that, an attempt to formalize an argument that current representations of mind fall short. But who is claiming otherwise? It’s a normal aspect of theory in science to speak as if a model is truly representational of reality…but that is just a convenience.

            Other aspects associated with the Hard Problem such as Qualia, I find to be represented sufficiently well as reductionist approach in the neurological studies of Gestalt psychology. The philosophical speculations regarding qualia seems so often to me to be semantic meanderings devoid of knowledge of the insufficiencies of language upon which they rest. So much of that realm has been explored in 20th century linguistics/semiology and deconstruction. These arguments seem to me to need vital integration with these other insights; of systems theory.

            In conjunction with the concept of the hard problem, as you stated, is holism. I understand how the social dynamics of this becoming an opposing plank to trending changes in scientific thought, but I really don’t see how the hard problem is holistic – rather divisional via meta-expansionism.

            Central methodologies have flourished and now we have the benefit of and necessity for ancillary and peripheral perspectives to inform and be integral at a higher level. Cybernetics, I believe, provides the most fundamental and coherent models for relationships between these systems. In particular the theory of Metasystems Transitions gives the frame work for the nature of division and replication, transitional evolution and feedback of mutually representational systems into emergent control properties.

            Cybernetics also in its study of control systems affords a great deal of knowledge about Agency.

            Are you familiar with experiments in cognitive semantics showing variations in perception of agency based on native language?

            I see the integration that must occur for the advancement of civilization to be much like that of international relations. The relationships between scientific/philosophical systems are as significant as those between nations. There are divisions are of language, as much knowledge is being lost as generated due to inability to translate or prevent duplication of effort between disciplines.

            The affordances available within a system are latent in the ecology outside of perception or means to interact. Each strata of thermodynamic equilibrium extends central attraction of control and feedback in accordance with available resource, thus the delimitation of stable duration.

            Thus to determine the actionable possibilities; design, structure, coupling of material and force — as a Reevolution of Symbols. In a time when the entropic shift of energetic resources is becoming more chaotic we need must find correspondence of thought in envisioning of integral dimensions which take flight from old regimes.

          • mannyfurious | Feb 6, 2014 at 7:06 pm |

            This is true. There is no formulation that I’m aware of that somehow proves the existence of “qualia” or the “hard” problem.

            My issue is that many of the scientists I’ve seen try to tackle the issue is that they’re not qualified to be even part of THAT debate, because they’re not seeming to understand what something like “qualia” is. Jaynes seemed to understand it, 30 years or so before it even became identified as a distinct issue, and I’m prone toward agreeing with his assessment that “consciousness” (as he termed what we later called the hard problem/qualia, and which therefore differs from how which most people use the term)is a result of language.

            When I speak of the hard problem, I speak with Chalmers’s idea in mind, although that probably isn’t always clear, and therefore causes some murkiness in the discussion.

        • Rus Archer | Feb 6, 2014 at 3:53 pm |

          that’s one aspect
          i’m seeing a lot of other stuff that suggests the primacy of consciousness
          and working on a mathematical equation to describe/define

    • mannyfurious | Feb 6, 2014 at 3:07 pm |

      I see very little evidence that most scientists even properly comprehend the “Hard” problem.

  7. kowalityjesus | Feb 6, 2014 at 12:55 am |

    I’ve got one, if there is no God, then why does music sound good? That is my best objective quandary, but not my best evidence.

  8. sonicbphuct | Feb 6, 2014 at 7:05 am |

    I couldn’t even watch it… a debate requires 2 reasonable competitors. You don’t debate your dog, or your infant, because neither is working within the same realm as you. The debate could have just as well been, “Is broccoli green or the best vegetable in the world?”

    “Is creationism viable” – sure, there’s enough fucking idiots to buy into it, debate over.

    • American Cannibal | Feb 6, 2014 at 6:51 pm |


    • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 12:34 pm |

      Mathematically, evolution would only be possible for a organism that is smaller in size than a cubic cm, must have a population size of at least a quadrillion and must have a reproductive cycle of less than three months. When we study organisms this is exactly what we see. That is why the virus is the only organism to demonstrate any evolution. It is demonstrably impossible for a higher life-form. I know, science can be a pretty rough task master sonic…perhaps you can stick with the ignorant vitriol that you militant atheists love so much.

      • sonicbphuct | Feb 9, 2014 at 10:49 am |

        since I don’t know you, I won’t call you an idiot. But, mathematically, evolution doesn’t conform to a particular formula. There has very recently been a paper released tying entropy to “evolution”, or, natural selection as a means of efficient energy dissipation.

        Also, go back and read more, viruses evolve, people evolve. It has nothing to do with god, in so far as the processes exist. You may very well believe that a “god” initiated everything, but science makes no statement regarding that – that is the realm of belief and not knowledge.

        But I like your ignorant vitriol as well, militant non-thinker.

        • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 3:51 pm |

          Evolution conforms into probability. Your right, there is no formula that describes evolution as evolution itself is unsubstantiated scientifically in higher lifeforms (just as the probability suggests.) Take the issue of God out of it and just force the strict scientific method onto the theory of evolution. that’s all you have to do. The problem is that folks see evolution in particular as the weapon against theism, something many atheists are starving for. That is the reason they end up debating theists so often. Just stick to the science and let it work itself out, don’t force something that isn’t there. As many here have said, even if true it wouldn’t disprove a first cause intelligent designer, so folks should stop trying to make it do so at the expense of sound science. If this crap passing as science in evolution is acceptable, the scientific community owes a HUGE apology to Albert Einstein for making him go through the lengths he had to go through before they accepted the theory of relativity.

  9. M00nface | Feb 6, 2014 at 7:58 am |

    I’m always absolutely appalled by the creationist vs. evolutionist debate because it’s so unnecessarily polarizing – wtf is wrong with a belief, for instance, in evolution, but started by a divine spark… (not my own btw)… There is just no need for this head to head. And to be quite honest, it’s more often the zeal and the ignorance of the evolution lot that pisses me off more than the God brigade….

    • Damien Quinn | Feb 6, 2014 at 9:51 am |

      I agree about zealous evolutionists, or whatever the hell you want to call them, so fucking annoying.

      In answer to your “why” question, the thing that’s kept me sane when thinking about the absolute, sheer insanity of the coincidences we require is that if you think about now as the destination, it seems miraculous that things are as they are but if you think about it as the result, then we seem inevitable. (Which is just as miraculous, I think)

      I think that the moons exact location stabilizes the earth just so and if it wasn’t in the exact spot it is in, the resulting change in the oscillation of the planet would have made the climate less stable or too stable. If it’s less stable, it’s less likely that complex organisms would evolve. If it’s more stable then there wouldn’t have been enough evolutionary pressure for us to develop.

      If you were to work everything out, it’s bound to be a lot more complex, but I think that if the moon wasn’t in that exact spot we wouldn’t be here to think about why it’s in that exact spot.

      • Rus Archer | Feb 6, 2014 at 1:33 pm |

        inevitability = the opposite of miraculous

        • Puddle of water says: “There must be a divine creator, otherwise how could this depression in the ground be _exactly the right size and shape_ for me to fit in it? It’s like the universe was made specifically for me!”

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 12:09 pm |

            Puddle of water says: “I must have come from nothing by chance, I wonder how long it will be before I randomly assemble molecules into a living organism for no reason?”

          • Puddle of water says: “If I was the sort of ignorant puddle of water that believed the universe to be just 6000 years old, amongst a host of other fallacies, then I too might have problems with conceiving that a puddle of water is not the centre-point of existence and end-point of all meaning.”

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 10, 2014 at 11:01 pm |

            Puddle of water after magically turning into an ape after being struck by cosmic lightning that came from nothing says: “straw men are so easy to make fun of aren’t they?”

          • Puddle of water says: yes, but even your scientifically naive straw man is infinitely more likely than a 6000 year-old universe created by Big Scary Vengeful Invisible Sky Daddy.

    • Lookinfor Buford | Feb 6, 2014 at 10:20 am |

      I can’t answer your question. May I pose another for all the enlightened, scientific, omniscient, atheist disinfonauts out there?
      Can you please explain how gravity works?
      If you are going to ask 2 billion Christians, 13 million Jews, and 1.6 billion Muslims to simply abandon 2+ millennia of ingrained faith, simply because you know something about biology, evolution, and basically, have *some* answers…..It’s the least you could do, yo!
      That is all.

      • Damien Quinn | Feb 6, 2014 at 10:29 am |

        How does gravity work!?!

        Shit rolls downhill……….yo!

        • Lookinfor Buford | Feb 6, 2014 at 10:38 am |

          Brilliant! I see the light! Are there hills in black holes? I know there’s shit in black holes. Wait, that didn’t come out right.. Doh!

          • American Cannibal | Feb 6, 2014 at 10:48 am |

            You aren’t required to have faith in the graviton. But this force that makes my balls hang low, we call it gravity, obviously exists, even though we can’t yet explain it.

          • How do you know God isn’t pulling your balls?

          • American Cannibal | Feb 6, 2014 at 12:14 pm |

            Because if God was pulling on my balls, I just know he’d have the courtesy to finish off too. My God is a polite God and he’s always up for a reach around. The Bible of Perv told me so.

          • Rhoid Rager | Feb 6, 2014 at 4:45 pm |

            shit…. wrote my reply before i read yours! goddamn time zone difference!

          • American Cannibal | Feb 6, 2014 at 6:25 pm |

            ha, ha! I gave you some points for effort.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 3:38 pm |

            Love it…this place has some real sophisticated folks. This thread does more for the theist than you all could ever know.

          • American Cannibal | Feb 8, 2014 at 3:48 pm |

            Don’t judge me for my choice in God! You’re a bigot.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 3:55 pm |

            Do comments like that get a little chuckle out of your college buddies? Some day perhaps you’ll engage in the real world and develop the ability to have a discussion with big people.

          • American Cannibal | Feb 8, 2014 at 4:07 pm |

            Are you big?

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 4:13 pm |

            Yes, plus I don’t live with my parents. It can be done so don’t give up hope. Little secret of mine, get out and meet real people and work hard. It may require you to act mature though, I’m sure there is some literature on that if you dig deep enough.

          • American Cannibal | Feb 8, 2014 at 4:19 pm |

            Mmmm.. tell me. How big? Tell me about your Big Boy plans.. Hmmm? Tell me more of your dirty little secrets you dirty, mature animal…

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 4:34 pm |

            Well, you sound genuine enough so here it is. Drugs get you fired from jobs. Try not to celebrate being high and championing the legalization of drugs, then complaining about big bad drug companies and how they are planning on enslaving all of us.

            If you are on the side of having done rigorous science before you make a claim, then don’t go around screaming that 9/11 was an inside job and everything is a conspiracy.

            Don’t own a desktop computer, laptop and smart phone while attending public schools and cry about how evil the government is for involving itself in conflict to protect our economy….are you listening cannibal?

          • American Cannibal | Feb 8, 2014 at 4:47 pm |

            BLAHAHAHAHHHAAA!! You’re waay off-the-mark, but your generalizations are quite amusing. You obviously know nothing of my work or positions. And your humourless, poor dear! Glad I ain’t you, son.

            I hope you find someone to listen to your inane rants. Good luck with that, Goof. And try not to get so much saliva dribble on your keyboard. It’s sticky enough with all that masturbating your doing to yourself. Get a hobby.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 4:55 pm |

            *blush* Well that’s what I get for basing someone’s age on behavior…I should know better. I completely retract all my previous comments. Obviously I am dealing with much older and mature person. Thank you for the lesson.

          • It’s odd that you would belittle a person for using ad hominems, but then use one in return. You’re totally not a troll.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 4:24 pm |

            If I was trying to engage in formal debate perhaps you would have a point. Trolling seems the modus operandi around these parts. Sorry for catching the subtle social norms. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the particulars of the social identity here?

          • We’re not fans of hypocrites. Not generally at least. If taking the high road, or acting like you are. It’s most effective if you actually are taking the high road. Unless you are high while walking on the road. Yet that’s something else entirely.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 4:37 pm |

            But echar, literally nobody else here follows your guidance. It isn’t a social norm if it is not actually demonstrated in the group. You sure do have the social sanctions down though.

          • American Cannibal | Feb 8, 2014 at 4:54 pm |

            You’re complaining about a joke you don’t like. How BORING. You are so boring… Why don’t you really act mature and ignore the stuff you don’t like, Big Boy.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 5:01 pm |

            But wait cannibal, are you suggesting that I should censor my own right to free speech? Well, I guess for the sake of not upsetting you, giving up a constitutional right is warranted.

          • American Cannibal | Feb 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm |

            ZZZZZzzzzzzzz…. bored to tears with you. Bye-bye…

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 5:57 pm |

            Oh you didn’t go anywhere cannibal…I bet you are reading this post. But you will be glad to know that I have reset my priorities in life. My first shall be to consider what you find entertaining before I post from this day forward.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 8:12 pm |

            Did you just go through this entire thread and give a down vote to all my posts? Well that just won’t do cannibal. Like everyone else here, I judge my status in the group by that process. My ego is damaged.

          • American Cannibal | Feb 8, 2014 at 9:44 pm |

            Wasn’t me, dude.

            You got some cake?

          • American Cannibal | Feb 8, 2014 at 4:57 pm |

            Whose sock-puppet are you? Did I hurt your feelings today? Or yesterday? Who are you really?

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 5:53 pm |

            I belong to the late Jim Henson (peace be upon him). No, actually I am a real life troll, I live under a bridge and everything. I only come out when I sense unchallenged group think. In this case, a bunch of evolutionists making claims on behalf of another group that is not present in the conversation. I prefer if people are going to have a valid discussion they should at least be challenging real points made by the other side. There have been many here who do so, you seemed however, to degenerate into childish slants…I would have hoped that the folks here don’t appreciate degrading the quality of discussion. There are some really smart people that hang out here and you can have some really good thought provoking discussions. There are plenty of places to go throw around cheap adolescent style humor. If you are trying to be funny, take a lesson from folks like Calypso. He can get his jabs in while still making you think.

          • American Cannibal | Feb 8, 2014 at 5:59 pm |

            HI CALYPSO!!!

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 8, 2014 at 7:06 pm |

            AC is going to luv you for that.

          • American Cannibal | Feb 8, 2014 at 9:47 pm |

            You got some cake!?

          • sonicbphuct | Feb 11, 2014 at 11:09 am |

            Evolutionists do not exist. People who accept the *current* scientific principles do exist. You have, in about 1,000 words or so, said exactly what Ken Ham said when asked the question: “What would make you change your mind?” – your reply: “I’m a christian.”

            That is what differentiates us. Not what one “believes” but how willing one is to accept new evidence and adjust one’s view in light of the new evidence.

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 8, 2014 at 7:05 pm |

            old-time troll. best ignore.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 7:30 pm |

            That’s what I get for mentioning your name…I summoned you like a Djinn.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 8:02 pm |

            Troll around here means out-group.

          • You are a charmer.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 6:56 pm |

            The great thing about small web-societies such as this one is that most interaction is boiled down to basic social categories. It is literally like reading a sociology 101 text book. All the complexities of physical groups seem to dissipate when people are online. Usually that is because internet anonymity allows each person to ignore competing social groups that they are a part of. In real life for example, people are usually not as blunt or aggressive on issues such as this with strangers because they are considering their role in the larger group which favors respecting others or the risk of physical confrontation. By coming to a site like DisInfo you are already establishing a small pool of profiles that would even come here. From there you simply pick the headline to refine the type of group you wish to find. Then the group is further refined to those who have the individual behavior of posting on websites. I risk spoiling the fun, but there is nothing here that is not an established human behavior that has been well studied. It certainly is not a revolution of untethered thinkers as some see themselves, ironically the behavior is starting to be considered the most predictable in all of sociology. The only real area worth studying is how it then turns back around and influences physical behavior of individuals and groups in the real world.

          • I have found it’s tough being kind when the other person is being rude or worse. I do admit that I have realized how I was getting sucked into some of the causes. I also admit that how I have acted and what I have said has caused me to lose sleep. I read one day that being kind and grateful is a way to strengthen awareness. It took about another week for that to sink in. Maybe being cruel to be kind is not very cool either. Baby steps I guess.

          • American Cannibal | Feb 9, 2014 at 8:40 am |

            Damnn U for making me agree.

          • I know right. It hurts sometimes to agree.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 3:55 pm |

            Hey! Did we just become best friends?

          • Maybe I can be a hypocrite at times. But hey, maybe what I say is more of a reminder for me.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 8:16 pm |

            Interesting, never looked at it that way. I placed it into the general fundamental attribution error (ascribing actions of others to personality flaws while ignoring external factors and doing the reverse for one’s own actions.)

          • The do as I say, not do as I do kind of thing?

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 9:01 pm |

            Kind of, that refers more to how you would teach a child because you want something better for them. The FAE has more to do with preserving your own ego and not having regard for the ego of others. After all, we all fall on the scale of psychopathy somewhere.

          • I see. I figured that out after reading the wiki. However your explanation assisted me in further understanding. Thank you.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 6:09 pm |

            I assume the down vote was because I called all of us psychopaths? Would you deny my claim?

          • Rhoid Rager | Feb 6, 2014 at 4:44 pm |

            The Big Reach Around.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Feb 6, 2014 at 11:24 am |

            Aww.. no takers? I thought you guys had ALL the answers..

            Could God be a particle?

            Could the afterlife be particulate?

            Could gravity be involved?

            Could we have faith in these things on the same basis that we have faith in gravitons?

          • We don’t need to have all the answers. We have you.

          • Rus Archer | Feb 6, 2014 at 1:32 pm |

            the god issue = difficult
            blames definitions
            and interpretations

          • Lookinfor Buford | Feb 6, 2014 at 2:11 pm |

            claims atheist have nothing to offer but hubris and contradiction.

          • Rus Archer | Feb 6, 2014 at 2:45 pm |

            well, i’m not an atheist
            but i understand why you need to eliminate him/her/it from your equations if you want to get some science done
            and enjoy the practical applications thereof

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 3:35 pm |

            How does belief in a God prevent the literally tens of thousands of believing scientists from giving you the technology you currently enjoy? Get to know some people in these circles instead of living on assumptions and nonsense rumors that are peddled through the media.

          • Rus Archer | Feb 9, 2014 at 3:18 pm |

            i already said i’m not an atheist

        • Magnets…

      • Rus Archer | Feb 6, 2014 at 1:30 pm |

        it’s not 2+ millenia of ingrained faith
        these literalist interpretations of myth = fairly recent
        can you imagine this kind of “debate” in japan? what would the arguments entail?

        • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 3:30 pm |

          It would involve a lot of Shinto philosophy and agnostic “I don’t know” responses. I’ve been there and heard them.

    • sonicbphuct | Feb 6, 2014 at 11:43 am |

      Why what? Why is the sun big enough to have a shadow that covers the moon? Because it is, that’s why. If the sun were small enough to not cover the moon, it wouldn’t. Or, are you looking for “Why did you choose to make a sun just big enough to cover the moon, on one planet in a virtually infinite universe with endless possibilities?” and to that I would answer that you are an anthropomorphist who finds it more credible that there was an interior designer in our little miniscule part of space that found the aesthetic pleasing, and maee a moon and sun the right size for you to enjoy.

      Wait, was this sarcasm that I totally missed?

      • Who is the master that makes the grass green?

        • That would be Master Chlorophyll, I believe. He was my third form science teacher, but he also moonlighted in the photosynthesis field.

      • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 3:27 pm |

        Sonic…seriously. There’s not an endless amount of possibilities (which if there were would leave room for God anyway.) Nor is the Universe infinite in any sense. It has a demonstrated beginning and boundary and limited amount of matter. If a theist were to make the claims you just made you would tear them apart.

    • sonicbphuct | Feb 6, 2014 at 11:46 am |

      Oh, and the reason I, as a person – i don’t know any electromagnetic zealots, so i’m not sure how a principle that describes how mutations occur over time can be zealots – get upset with the creationists is because their attempting to put it in science classes. Until science takes up the study of the super-natural, lets stick to calling the super-natural religion, or spirituality, or magic or whatever else you want, but not science. No need to muddle terms for children.

      • Rus Archer | Feb 6, 2014 at 4:37 pm |

        no need to send kids to school
        they’ll have plenty of torture in the near future

      • We do have a study of the “supernatural”: it’s called mythology. Not science but humanities. Sometimes, showing people where their mythology comes from, explaining how it’s all metaphors from cultures who had an oral mythology is enough. Sometimes not. I find two things in particular really surprise people: that Lilith was Adam’s first wife and Mithras (or Mithra) is Jesus’ “older brother” who paved his way.

        People of faith, well, that’s what they do. But showing them the ways that mythology can deepen their faith by shifting the focus from the dogma and personages and onto the messages and teachings is really what those stories are all about.

      • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 3:21 pm |

        Not a problem, now if they would be so kind as to teach the fatal gaps in evolutionary science and present origins as a yet unresolved issue everyone would be happy. But when we are all honest with ourselves we know exactly what is behind this issue, it’s not scientific integrity, it’s us vs them mentality that lands on the atheists as much as on the theist. Neither has the dignity to leave the classrooms full of children out of it.

        • sonicbphuct | Feb 9, 2014 at 6:47 pm |

          why not just present all origins, as taught by all cultures? Hell, throw in sombrero, do a dance and you’ve got yourself a science class!

          Put your stupidity away and use that wonderful skepticism to explore science instead of attempting to force science into the role of your enemy.

          Why is it only christians that are anti science? You don’t have a Muslim outcry against climate change or evolution. Jews don’t care. Buddhists don’t really get upset. Pretty much every other religion in the world knows to stay in their domain except American christianity. Why is that?

          • Adam's Shadow | Feb 9, 2014 at 6:58 pm |

            Well, actually… there are plenty of fundamentalist Muslims (and even a few Hindus) who view evolution as an insidious,immoral lie perpetrated by the West.

            Of course, the irony that fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are in large agreement with each other on topics like this is seemingly lost on them.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 10, 2014 at 10:42 pm |

            Not really lost. It’s pretty simple, we both believe in a divine creator. There are plenty of Jews who have a problem with it as well, your over generalizing sonic…imagine that.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 10, 2014 at 10:40 pm |

            I guess I need to remind you that there is no working theory of “origins” neither for life or for what preceded the big bang. Plenty of hypothesis but no theories. So I guess if you want it taught in schools in a science class you better come up with something, otherwise it is a pretty short class…science doesn’t know. Now if you would like to throw various beliefs into a philosophy class go ahead.

            I don’t consider science my enemy, testable, repeatable and observable science that is. Do you have some other version of it? Perhaps the atheists should try sticking to it and they would have a lot less push back, but then their over zealous claims to have eliminated arguments for God’s existence would peter out. That is exactly why they are so on fire over it.

          • sonicbphuct | Feb 11, 2014 at 10:59 am |

            are you deliberately ignoring the fact that christians (born-agains, zealots, whatever you call them) are attempting to have their creation myth taught in science class?

            are you deliberately ignoring the fact that christians are *actively* challenging a well established, observed and tested theory?

            are you deliberately ignoring the fact that no reasonable (as in, main stream) atheist makes the claim that your god’s non-existence is provable?

    • The way I look at evolution, it doesn’t seem random at all, but simply logical. If one wants to look for evidence of intelligent design, I think one needs to look at the molecular level. Why do atoms seem designed to form life? Is it because we’re designers made of atoms, and what we call consciousness is a property of what we call matter? Are intelligence and intelligibility aspects of the same thing? I do think Jeremy England has gone a ways towards explaining the thermodynamic aspect.

      • Lookinfor Buford | Feb 6, 2014 at 12:28 pm |

        God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, as moonface stated. This should be obvious to someone as intelligent as you.

      • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 1:02 pm |

        Try looking at it through the lens of statistics. The number of possible events in the universe’s history can be roughly calculated (10^110 is the highest est.) Anything statistically less probable than that is then considered impossible in statistical terms…life randomly arriving from non-life falls in this category as do many other aspects of unguided evolution. That is with each of them evaluated individually. It doesn’t even approach factoring them all together for the complete probability for atheistic evolution. Believe in it if you choose, but don’t claim logic, science or your intellect as the reason for doing so.

        • I do claim logic, science and my intellect as reasons for doing so. In a deterministic, mechanistic universe (which as I’m sure you know does not at all preclude the possibility of a God), there is no such thing as randomness, so evolution is not random at all. The statistical lens is completely irrelevant since the “possibility” that life has arisen from non-life is 100%. Evolution has been observed and replicated, and the real question in my opinion is whether a God programmed the structure of physics to enable it. Is evolution guided by God, or an ontological necessity, or are those the same thing?

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 1:30 pm |

            Actually, we cannot say that randomness is out of the question based on science. Once you get down to the Planck/quantum scale randomness seems to dominate as does statistical probability. If there is indeed a designer that would mean that life indeed came from life. Evolution has not been demonstrated in higher life forms, only in organisms such as a virus. Which by the way is exactly what statics predicts.

          • No, evolution’s been observed in larger animals too.



            Also, I’m not convinced that the fact that we can’t predict some quantum events means they’re without cause.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 9:29 pm |

            You have to look at those articles carefully. No positive mutation was demonstrated in the higher life forms. That was just natural selection, big difference. It is assumed that some animals have vestigial traits that show a previous state but that is not a demonstrated event, just an assumption. The actual mutations that were mentioned in bacteria, just like the virus were predicted decades ago. Probability modeling predicted that true evolution was not possible with organisms larger than a cubic cm, had a population size of a quadrillion or larger and a gestation cycle of less than 3 months. The population size can shrink if in the controlled setting of a lab. But in nature it won’t work below a quadrillion. Again, bacteria and viruses ect. work, higher life forms such as mammals don’t. Notice that the secondary function of the bacteria taking over in the altered environment means the secondary function’s information was already present. That is the work around for the trends of 10,000 harmful mutations per positive mutation in bacteria, a direct response to the statistical problem that all biological evolutionists are aware of. It still has not been proven to have actually occurred, that discovery only means the theory isn’t dead, it gives them hope. There is still the issue of global traits among species. Every common trait of the thousands shared by various global species would have to have a common ancestor and all the others that didn’t have that trait would have necessarily gone extinct. That is a common ancestor each time a new trait appears. That would require thousands of events where only one with the new positive mutation survived then rebooted the species with the new trait. This would have to have been happening constantly yet we don’t see it now or in the fossil record.

          • Adam's Shadow | Feb 8, 2014 at 11:46 pm |

            So micro-evolution is fact, but macro-evolution is not?

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 4:04 pm |

            Close, I would say micro-evolution has been demonstrated, which gives it credence and allows for the theory of it in nature. There are problems with scaling up to the parameters I mentioned above, which happens to hold when observed in testing. The Macro-evolution mechanism has to overcome those observations and demonstrate a naturally occurring case of positive mutation, then demonstrate that it has occurred in nature often enough to be the reason for the numerous species.

          • Considering the “species problem,” I’m of the opinion that micro-evolustion and macro-evolution are akin to inches and miles–one ontologically necessitates the other. And, as I mentioned earlier regarding the Oenotheras, macro-evolution has been observed.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 7:29 pm |

            Sorry, can’t your post on Oenotheras. Can you give me a link to get started?

          • It was in the second of the two links I provided that you told me I had to take a careful look at because they supposedly didn’t include “positive mutation” in a higher animal!

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 10, 2014 at 10:43 pm |

            Posted a link in your above comment once I found it. Forgive my laziness.

          • I don’t agree with your statistical analysis, at all. I agree that evolution may be guided, but I don’t see any rational reason for anyone, even Christians, to interpret the Genesis creation stories literally. They are obviously mythic allegories with poetic meaning.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 7:23 pm |

            There are many very educated Christian scientists who agree with you, to include scholars. I hesitate to agree with the description of mythic, but its more a matter of exegesis of the original Hebrew for the version of “day” whether its the type of day as in “back in my day” a day meaning 24 hours or the type of day referring to 12 hours of daylight. There is some very interesting theories published about how the order of creation, the matter as it is brought into the universe and the expansion of the universe and the effect that would have on time. Relativity demands that if the account in Genesis were indeed real, time would have stopped for a while here on Earth if you were to suddenly include the mass of the stars in the universe. Relativity would cause a differential so as to make claims to some universal “time” associated with the creation nothing more that relative based on your location. For a better explanation look up Dr. Russel Humphreys.

          • sonicbphuct | Feb 9, 2014 at 10:55 am |

            “No positive mutation was demonstrated in the higher life forms. That was just natural selection, big difference.”

            Um, by positive mutation, do you mean, “intentional mutation”? because, evolution is *just natural selection*. Nothing more. It is not a threat to you, it is not a challenge.

            And, not to burst yours or your lover’s bubble, but size doesn’t matter.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 4:11 pm |

            No, natural selection only works with reducing existing lifeforms to those surviving in the current environment. There is no new information introduced in the life form. In order to get from an amoeba to an ape, there is a whole lot of new information that needs to find its way into the DNA. Once the life form gets larger than about a cubic cm, has a population size of less than a quadrillion or develops a gestation cycle longer than three months the negative mutations (which are usually about 10,000 for every positive mutation) dominate and the positive mutations don’t have the strength to sustain and produce a larger population. They take too long to make and there are too few of them.

          • sonicbphuct | Feb 9, 2014 at 6:42 pm |

            not that I’m trying to validate any of your weird centimeter population gestation, but you’re excluding random mutations and environmental factors affecting mutation. Your positive and negative mutations are weird because natural selection doesn’t apply positive or negative valuations – it isn’t like horse shoes or morality – what fits continues and what doesn’t is a dead branch. You’re really putting too much effort into not seeing it; it is amazingly simple.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 10, 2014 at 10:47 pm |

            Positive mutations meaning positive for the survival of the organism in its current environment and negative meaning it would hinder the survival of the organism. Did you honestly think I was referring to some moral definition? Come on now. The environment is what intrinsically assigns the mutation as positive or negative to the natural selection process.

    • Calypso_1 | Feb 6, 2014 at 12:41 pm |

      Is there an underlying assumption that the visible moon/sun eclipse ratio is significant? Why would you ask an evolutionist view to venture an explanation for an astronomical phenomenon?

    • Rus Archer | Feb 6, 2014 at 1:27 pm |

      it’s not even creation vs evolution
      it’s one small group of people who believe in a very specific interpretation of creation vs every one else including evolution

      i wish these dorks would at least use the simulation arguments and reference some a.t. fomenko to make it more fun

      i personally prefer the hopi creation story
      but whet evar

  10. Gjallarbru | Feb 6, 2014 at 8:01 am |

    There are so many kinds of wrong with those questions.

    First, there is the almighty need for “meaning”, as if they knew the meaning of life. It is wrong because they presuppose that there is a meaning as a certainty, never considering there might not be.

    Then there is the bias of the questions, so as to make any intelligent answer impossible.

    Lastly, there is the outright ignorance, the dark-age level of ignorance. A “put someone in a closet for 20 years” kind of stupid ignorance. Those people haven’t used their reason for any kind of critical thinking because of their faith.

    This sort stupidity makes me think I’m really stuck in the middle with disinfonauts, as there are clowns to left of me and jokers to the right.

    • Are you calling us centrists!?

      • Gjallarbru | Feb 6, 2014 at 12:09 pm |

        Well, if there are clowns on the left, and jokers to the right, we might be the Circus Masters. Do you like that better? I don’t know what my prior statements make us out to be. Take it as you will, shall be a part of the of the law? 😛

        I haven’t been active here for very long, but I do like my interactions at this point. This community makes much more sense than what I see from the questions those zealots wrote down.

    • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 1:19 pm |

      You presuppose that they have never considered that there might not be meaning when in fact you have no idea what each of those people has or has not considered.

      Presupposing certainty doesn’t make them wrong, it only means that they fail to qualify their statement using formal logic. I can can make a guess on something and be right. It has just as much weight as you presupposing that there is no meaning.

      I wouldn’t call random people whom you’ve never met and know nothing ignorant simply because they have a different world view than you. You risk painting yourself with your own brush.

      • Gjallarbru | Feb 8, 2014 at 5:34 pm |

        I guess you presuppose that I supposed stuff that I might have or have not considered too, if I get your meaning. Your point is so well hidden in convoluted phrasing, it’s beautiful!

        Nonetheless, point taken. There is still a lack of basic scientific knowledge in their questions, which equates to ignorance or stupidity in my book. You are welcome to disagree.

  11. addalled | Feb 6, 2014 at 9:58 am |


  12. jasonpaulhayes | Feb 6, 2014 at 10:57 am |

    All Bill Nye was going to learn from this debate was what he already knows… for far too many people, listening is just waiting for their next turn to speak.

  13. People argue about faith… It seems to me that the need to have the answers to all life’s mysteries written down in a book by God in order to believe is some kind of lack of faith. That would be my question to the creationists: Why do you have to interpret Genesis literally in order to believe in God?

    Yes, of course a similar question could be asked of fundamentalist materialists.

    • Lookinfor Buford | Feb 6, 2014 at 12:05 pm |

      This is a good question, and it has a simple answer. You don’t.
      The MS-Religions say you do, but disagree widely on other aspects.
      Then there are those of us who are simply honest with ourselves, recognize our own ignorance, humble ourselves in the minute we exist on this earth, and realize some simple truths.
      The most important for me is that my ethics, my morals, have an origin. They are not equivocal to math, and physics, which are discovered, not invented. No, ethics actually are invented. And the ethics which Christians and Atheists actually share alike, were born of Judeo-Christian teachings. That’s right, those things we learned in Kindergarten, to love everyone, etc..
      You can deny your maker all day long. You cannot, however, deny the factual origins of our ethics. Anyone who thinks they would be the same person they are today, had they grown up in a part of the world absent these teaching, is someone who blatantly ignores evidence staring them in the face, the world over.
      I am not a Christian in the main stream sense of the word. I have my own theories about God, and I used to be a pompous atheist. Then I really thought about it, and I’ve never read Genesis.

      • People had ethics long before the christians started murdering people to force them into believing their nailed god is the one and only.

        • Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 12:18 pm |

          People were murdering people to force them into believing their version of reality long before there were Christians.

          • It’s true. Ted said something similar.

          • christians didn’t come to rule a majority of the roost because of ethics and morality. Even though that social engineering thought virus would like you to think so. It did so by control, fear, torture, murder, assassination, greed, unnatural strains commands, and the stealing of land. Hitler modeled the Nazis after the catholic church.

            Yet today Nazis are the epitome of power hunger gone way wrong. Why should not view christianity the same? Or most organized religions, because I am sure you will throw out something like you did with Manyfurious.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 6:01 pm |

            If you were addressing the catholic church I would whole hardheartedly agree with you. You instead apply your thinking to all Christians, to include those who fought or fled the catholic chruch’s oppression. Since you are so original as to go with a Nazi analogy, it is similar to accusing those who dissented and fought against the Nazis in Germany and were persecuted for it of the same crimes as the Hitler worshipers themselves. Reformers disagreed with the catholics and many fled here to get away from it, then supported establishing a gov’t that would not establish a state religion as to secure their religious freedoms. Lest the new gov’t get usurped by the catholics and deal with the problem all over again.

            I do believe in not establishing a state religion. But establishing Atheism as the approach of the state is not a good substitute. It has in other countries led to simply persecuting all religions and forcing Atheism on the population.

          • It’s not an analogy… Himmler literally modeled the SS after the Jesuits. Hitler is said to have called him his Ignatius of Loyola.

          • As the source of organized christianity, it’s as damning as any proof needed.

            Proposed heretics of the Medieval Inquisition had to wear a yellow cross for life. Remind you of anything?

            The sects would not be able to split off if the source had not been.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 9, 2014 at 7:40 pm |

            The source of Christianity is first century Judea. Organized Christianity started with Paul.

          • That’s what the “prophecy” claims. I see what I am dealing with. Carry on.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 10, 2014 at 10:03 pm |

            I think perhaps you misunderstand either the word prophecy or the fact that the text of the new testament are at minimum historical documents of events in the first century. There is no historical grounds to claim that Paul or Jesus were not real people.

          • I am done discussing this with you. That is what carry on meant. Good day sir.

          • Anti-Crowley | Feb 10, 2014 at 10:50 pm |

            Thought I would give you a chance to end on a “not so ignorant a statement” note…but have a good day as well.

  14. Rus Archer | Feb 6, 2014 at 1:25 pm |

    the inverse one = equally stupid

  15. teachpeace | Feb 6, 2014 at 2:53 pm |

    what’s so difficult about……. there, they’re, & their ? to, too, & two? etc.

  16. jimpliciter | Feb 6, 2014 at 6:12 pm |

    One’s ability to live and prosper on this earth is in no way dependent upon the apprehension of cosmology-
    religious or scientific.

  17. Anti-Crowley | Feb 8, 2014 at 12:48 pm |

    What would be the purpose in that if there is no inherent meaning to life or objective moral duty to do so? It seems our future generations will all meet a inevitable demise through entropy. Unless of course you can somehow qualify your version of “importance” without invoking a objective purpose…good luck.

  18. Seriously though, am I the only one that thinks that woman looks like she wants to eat all the babies of atheist people. She looks hungry to deny you of your freedoms.

  19. No science for you!

  20. Okay, I’ll cross “gigas” off the list. How about all the other examples?

    Feel free to continue being lazy (I am) and just post 20 or so links (that’s how many examples there are).

Comments are closed.