digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at motherjones.com

Coming Soon to Texas: A Master's Degree in Creation Science

motherjones.com — Texas - in its continuing effort to be the laughingstock of the country - has allowed a "science institute" the privilege to give out masters in what is essentially creationism.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jkbowman, on 12/26/2007, -52/+23When it comes to science and mathematics Texas is in there like a thong.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 12/26/2007, -4/+10Oh, God Bless!!!!
    • gregcotten, on 12/26/2007, -31/+10Shut the ***** up. Ever heard of Texas Instruments?
      • Anorhc, on 12/26/2007, -3/+42But the founders of Texas Instruments got their degrees in other states and countries.
      • Terr01, on 12/26/2007, -3/+9Like Anorhc said...

        Founders? Cecil H. Green, J. Erik Jonsson, Eugene McDermott, and Patrick E. Haggerty.

        Graduates of? Massachusetts Institute of Technology (New York), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Stevens Institute of Technology (New Jersey), Marquette University (Wisconsin)

        Don't believe me? Take a look:
        http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/company/history/founde ...

        Moron.
        • DarkDragon, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3Massachusetts Institute of Technology is in Massachusetts
          • Terr01, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1I know. I just misplaced things when I was pasting in (New York), it's supposed to be after Rensselaer, obviously.
    • williamdyer, on 12/26/2007, -1/+16***** yeah. I'm getting my degree in foreign policy eschatology.
      • lateralus, on 12/26/2007, -0/+14With a minor in Homeland Security?
    • SpiceWare, on 12/26/2007, -11/+18Heard of the Johnson Space Center? How about the Texas Medical Center(just the largest medical district in the world)? I could go on, but I'm not sure you're worth the bother.
      • Linzee82, on 12/26/2007, -2/+6He isn't. Save your time.
      • nycmac247, on 12/26/2007, -11/+4Wihin 10 years all of the accomplishments of those institutions will be eclipsed by foreign nations...never to be reclaimed (sorry the US is gonna be a third world country and is well started down the path already)
    • LordZaos, on 12/26/2007, -5/+6I think I just threw up a little.. in my mouth.... :/
      • hittnrun, on 12/26/2007, -3/+6i'm sure it was jism
      • DangerMouse9, on 12/26/2007, -6/+0as opposed to throwing up out of your ass? Honestly, where else would you throw up out of? Oh that's right, you must be Texas educated. Let me put this in terms you can understand:
        "DERRRRRRRR!"
        • bbqsalad, on 12/26/2007, -1/+1I just threw up out my ass actually.. it smellt like poo.
        • bludragn0, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2It was funny until you decided to ruin it with the texas education jive. And DERRRRRR hasn't been funny since carlos mencia.
          • robbh66, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4Carlos Mencia was never funny :(
          • DangerMouse9, on 12/27/2007, -1/+0The derrr had nothing to do with that untalented hack Bud "Carlos Mencia" Johnson or whatever redneck name he has.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 12/26/2007, -2/+19Yep Texas is an odd mix. I've been here 2 years now. I've never seen more strip clubs and churches. Modern humans and Fundamentalists co-existing. White racist Christians and black racist Christians. Yehaw!
    • gn0stik, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3I don't see the difference between this and a doctorate of divinity. Why does nobody bitch about that? It's a religious degree that religious people will get. Nobody else will bother with it.
      • Nitesmoke, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2exactly, i knew many preachers who were Doctors of theology and monotheism, this is no different
      • GGoldberry, on 12/27/2007, -0/+4Because a doctorate of divinity doesn't claim to be SCIENCE. This isn't a Masters in ID, it is labeled as a Masters in SCIENCE.
    • solid12345, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1At least Texas isn't full of acclaimed MIT engineers who are responsible for the great wonder of the Big Dig in Boston.
  • felman87, on 12/26/2007, -16/+121oxymoron?
    • emalen, on 12/26/2007, -4/+14Everyone should read the actual THECB Agenda. The THECB is considering allowing the Institute to award a Masters of Science (not Masters of Creation Science) that focuses on preparation for Science Education, which includes studies in the natural sciences as well as and in conjunction with the idea of creation. Regardless of what you believe on this matter (and I am not advocating any belief), it is important to make the distinction between what is actually happening and the exaggerations of an angry blogger.
      • narciblog, on 12/26/2007, -3/+8I look forward to the time where I can study for a Masters of Science that focuses on preparation for Science Education, which includes studies in the natural science as well and in conjunction with the idea that the earth is flat and that atoms don't exist.

        Look, there's a reason creationists are targeting the pre-college educational system and not the scientific community with their fantasy. It's because they know they have no scientific basis to stand on, and would be laughed out of the laboratory. So they go to the secondary school system where people are less educated about science. Teach them false facts early and it will be that much harder to teach them the truth when the get to college, or basically impossible for those that don't go to college.
    • sjmorton, on 12/26/2007, -10/+5Mmm, I love oxymorons:

      British Intelligence (it's ok, I'm British so I can say it)
      Progressive Conservative (I'm Canadian too so I can say it)
      President Bush (I'm not American but fsck it)
    • diggingaround, on 12/27/2007, -0/+5no.... just a moron... no need for oxy...
    • HippyInASuit, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1No, you are!
    • ostracize, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1I don't know, they do have this stuff down to a 'science'
  • swordedge, on 12/26/2007, -26/+321how do you issue a masters degree in something that takes a grand total of three minutes to explain in the fullest?
    • EarlOfLade, on 12/26/2007, -8/+65Easy...
      You simply take one of those pre-printed master degree diplomas and fill in the name of the ***** and voila! A Masters degree in Creation *****!

      • TheAmbushAhead, on 12/26/2007, -3/+38 A B.S. degree?
      • azimir, on 12/26/2007, -1/+18You forgot the minute it will take you to write the check for your "tuition".
    • williamdyer, on 12/26/2007, -3/+30Since knowledge about this can be revealed through prayer, there'll be no problem doing original research.
    • diskit, on 12/26/2007, -4/+78three minutes to explain?
      More like three words: "God did it".
      • Dumbledorito, on 12/26/2007, -4/+31Well, for someone seeking this sort of "degree," you probably have to speak very slowly and repeat things a few times for it to stick.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 12/26/2007, -4/+26Or for the true fundamentalists, try to speak to their level of understanding.
        "RRRrrr... science BAD! Bible GOOD! RRRRRRRrr!"

        If they don't get it then, then there just isn't a bus short enough...
        • DangerMouse9, on 12/26/2007, -2/+7Creation Scientist, meet Caveman Lawyer.

          Creation Scientist: RRRRrrRRRr science BAD!
          Caveman Lawyer: RRrrRRRRRRr FIRE BAD!
          Creation Scientist: God Good! RRRRRRrrrrRR!
          Caveman Lawyer: I'm sorry, I don't comprehend. I'm just a simple caveman.
          Creation Scientist: RRRrRRRrrRrR! You ride dinosaur to hear god! RRrRRr
          Caveman Lawyer: I do not understand what you mean by dinosaur.
          Creation Scientist: RRRRRrrrRR! Big scary thing! It only 500 years old! You same age! RRRRrrrRR
          Caveman Lawyer: I do not understand what you mean.
        • badenglishihave, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3Not all Christians hate science. I had a Christian professor for astronomy and he made it very clear that he believed in evidence that the earth was billions of years old, among other things. This made a lot of the fundamentalist Christians in the class angry, but he told us that it didn't bother him since his faith had nothing to do with science in the first place. No scientific discoveries could ever get in the way of his faith because his faith was in the unobservable, the unexplainable and the unprovable.

          And yes, I think getting a degree in Creationism is a bunch of crock.
    • dcmjzero, on 12/26/2007, -14/+3isn't that what grad students already do?
    • scott1, on 12/26/2007, -10/+4at least they are making it a different course instead of just teaching it in a biology class.
      • chaosium, on 12/26/2007, -1/+14Uh dude, this IS their Biology class.
      • DangerMouse9, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2I guess this would be the easiest degree in the world, all the answers would be "God" instead of "C". When in doubt, answer "God".
    • Ninjab3ar, on 12/26/2007, -15/+5I don't see why people are in such a fuss. I dont support creationism, but I consider this degree to be similar to a degree on "Religious Studies".
      • mleh, on 12/26/2007, -2/+15It's "such a fuss" because it gives creedence to Creationism (or Intelligent Design, whatever they're calling it these days). A 'Religious Studies' degree means the recipient studied more than just one religion and was exposed to differing views about religion. No differing views are possible with Creationism -- God did it because he wanted it that way and that's final so shut up about it.

        Think about what this could potentially mean as far as hiring public school teachers.
        • Ninjab3ar, on 12/26/2007, -8/+1Creationism doesnt narrow anything down to one religion. And dont expect People with a degree in "Creation science" to be teaching biology in a public school, they dont have the credentials.... This isnt as bad as the people in digg make it sound.....
          • chaosium, on 12/26/2007, -0/+9"Creationism doesnt narrow anything down to one religion."

            While theoretically a UFO cult promotes Creationism, it is nearly exclusively practiced by Christians, and 100% religious in origin.

            "And dont expect People with a degree in "Creation science" to be teaching biology in a public school, they dont have the credentials.... This isnt as bad as the people in digg make it sound....."

            THIS DEGREE IS DESIGNED TO GIVE "CREDENTIALS". THAT IS THE VERY CONTROVERSY.
          • enogtres, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2It isn't nearly exclusively practiced by Christians. You forgot the people they're bombing and the Chosen Ones :)~
          • TwistedRonin, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1"And dont expect People with a degree in "Creation science" to be teaching biology in a public school, they dont have the credentials.... This isnt as bad as the people in digg make it sound....."
            You forget who the Texas Board of Education is made up of now. It's entirely possible that they'd allow them to teach such subjects.
      • haterofps3, on 12/26/2007, -4/+9It means that Univeristies can teach Lies and ***** and award masters degrees for them.

        This under minds the concept of higher education and belittles other institutions of higher learning
        • burrgrinder, on 12/26/2007, -3/+4A higher education which apparently you don't possess. You meant to say "Undermines", as in, eroding the support of something. "Under Minds" means absolutely nothing in that context. Anyone with a HS education should be able to draw from their knowledge of basic vocabulary to see the difference.
      • chaosium, on 12/26/2007, -2/+4"I don't see why people are in such a fuss. I dont support creationism, but I consider this degree to be similar to a degree on "Religious Studies"."

        It's not called or promoted as "Religious Studies", though.
        • TrevorBradley, on 12/26/2007, -1/+5Actually a degree in religious studies could, in theory, be rather historical.

          If for instance, you wanted to do a thesis on how the Spanish Inquisition affected the migration of Jews in Europe, I think that might be a splendid topic. Or Protestantism's effects on religious wars and political marriages. Or its effects on the waging of 21st century wars in the middle east.

          Am I sensing a theme here?
        • burrgrinder, on 12/26/2007, -0/+6Religion in historical context is a great thing to study. Religion in modern science is a complete waste and does nothing to further knowledge. Religiously motivated science has all the answers it wants before it starts. All research performed is only done to find evidence for their claims, instead of honestly evaluating what they find, regardless of their results.
      • GeneralFailure0, on 12/26/2007, -2/+10But Religious Studies isn't peddled as a Science.
    • Andysan, on 12/26/2007, -1/+11There is a huge difference between a master's degree and an accredited master's degree. Without national accreditation the program is just junk. Notice that there was no mention of any accreditation. In fact, someone could offer a master's degree in Digg Studies but it wouldn't mean squat.
      • chaosium, on 12/26/2007, -3/+9"Notice that there was no mention of any accreditation"

        What on earth do you think the "Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board" is?

        http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/AAR/PrivateInstitutio ...

        "Texas law requires colleges and universities operating in Texas to be approved by the Coordinating Board or accredited by an accrediting association recognized by the Board"

        This would in effect Certify and Accredit Creationists in a "Science" degree.
    • sjmorton, on 12/26/2007, -0/+10Actually it takes several years of concentrated effort to "unlearn" the scientific method. This is required so that you can "debunk" legitimate evolution research by saying "See! they can't prove exactly how x evolved into y therefore it didn't happen. Nanny nanny boo boo."
    • Foamator, on 12/27/2007, -0/+4Less than 3 minutes:
      http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id= ...
    • principle, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Definition of STUPIDITY
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-259995429 ...
    • aurorion, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1I am sure they will have to learn the Bible a lot.
  • FriskDown, on 12/26/2007, -23/+200With a ***** degree like this, you could become a tour guide at the Creation Museum!
    • breckinshire, on 12/26/2007, -5/+27Yeah, but like their science, the paychecks are also fake.
    • over900000, on 12/26/2007, -8/+13"God created everything"

      more like 2 seconds.
    • dcmjzero, on 12/26/2007, -5/+42or you could get a position in the bush administration.
      • pyronik, on 12/26/2007, -19/+1is that kind of clever wit all you need to get dugg up, turn it around and make it about bush... if so Digg me down please
        • krebcycle, on 12/26/2007, -0/+8your comment made zero sense, even as an insult
          • alpharaptor, on 12/30/2007, -1/+1i hit the wrong comment button i meant to imply that the word "liberals" wasn't brought up yet as neo-cons oft do
        • alpharaptor, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2at least he didn't use the "L" word... no, not lesbian.
      • johnnick, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3pyronik - Since the number of Bush administration appointees/hires who graduated from places like Liberty University, Messiah College, etc. became public knowledge around the time we were introduced to Monica Goodling (the number was estimated in various articles to be between 120 and 150), this is actually a more clever comment than you give it credit for being. Just do some searching on the articles about Monica Goodling and you'll find a lot of that stuff. So, you get dugg down because your comment shows a lack of awareness of current events.
    • shinb0, on 12/26/2007, -8/+3Creation Museum?? Church?
    • geddon, on 12/26/2007, -3/+5Or the next president of the United States!
      http://www.digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_does_NOT_Acc ...
      • alpharaptor, on 12/26/2007, -3/+5but we trust him not to mix it in the classroom as science. after all, our freedom is the space between church and state.
    • StevenJV, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3Makes me a bit embarrassed to come from Cincinnati, where the first Creation Museum is. Thank God its in Kentucky at least
    • HippyInASuit, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1AKA the Church?
  • TornACL, on 12/26/2007, -89/+29More valuable than a degree in women's studies
    • chaosium, on 12/26/2007, -3/+24I could see women as "not existing" to a virgin, I guess.
    • mdcarso, on 12/26/2007, -4/+8Amen!
      Women's studies: A college course that attempts to indoctrinate radical feminism into one's head.
      Women's Studies is famous for remaking history, misandry (hatred of men), and giving highly unlikely interpretation of books. Also, Women's Studies tend to assign books that have very little value such as "Handmaid's Tale" or any literature by radical feminists.
      Generally, Women's Studies is a detestable course and would be an overwhelming waste of money and life to attend.
      • chaosium, on 12/27/2007, -5/+1So in other words, you've never taken a class on it and you're regurgitating talking points from your favorite AM talk show host.
        • mdcarso, on 12/27/2007, -1/+5Spoken like the dried-up, bitter shrew that you are.
        • chaosium, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1Thanks for agreeing with me.
    • Pritchard, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2A study in bitches goes a long way though. Just look at P. Diddy, Snoop Dog...
  • RickS2, on 12/26/2007, -19/+132Creationism is not science..so yes it is an oxymoron.
    • pintomp3, on 12/26/2007, -4/+16ron paul disgrees:
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-205984174 ...
      "evolution is a theory and i don't accept it"
      • toxicshok, on 12/26/2007, -5/+5hooray.... you have officially made anti ron paul spammers as bad as ron paul spammers
      • Neiby, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3I, as a Ron Paul supporter, find his answer to that question very disturbing. I still think he is by far the best candidate of those running, but this particular stance does make me a little concerned.
      • tyywebb, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3You just ruined my day. I hope you're happy.
    • Gamer2k4, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1The point of creation science is to find scientific evidence for creation: evidence for a young earth, evidence for a global flood, etc. It's trying to make creationism more than just a faith issue.
    • kalleanka, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1Please help out to digg the Ron Paul video about evolution to the front page:
      http://www.digg.com/politics/RON_PAUL_on_EVOLUTION
  • macweirdo42, on 12/26/2007, -13/+62Alright, that's it, I'm leaving. No, seriously, I'm moving back up to Minnesota in a couple of weeks. Not exactly related, but it certainly is motivation for me to get packing.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 12/26/2007, -17/+5http://canada.gc.ca/home.html
      • macweirdo42, on 12/26/2007, -4/+15No. I will forever resent Canada because their stupid Monopoly money is worth more than good old fashioned American dollars.
        • mugsoh, on 12/26/2007, -2/+21It's not Canada's fault that the US dollar has dropped in value against just about ALL other currencies
          • macweirdo42, on 12/26/2007, -1/+19I know, I know, and it's wrong for me to blame Canada, but damnit, it's just not right!
        • janoo1989, on 12/26/2007, -0/+9Our bills are prettier...
          • darkphenox, on 12/26/2007, -0/+8and more distinguishable of their value when drunk
          • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+6Our bills are manlier!
    • mdcarso, on 12/26/2007, -13/+2Like anybody gave a ***** whether you stayed or left...
  • johnnick, on 12/26/2007, -7/+13I wonder if accreditation boards can certify (or decertify) programs at a university piecemeal, like a line item veto, or if they have to evaluate an entire institution at once. You'd think that the faculty would go up in arms (or run like rats from a sinking ship) if the university actually planned to do this.
    • scallon, on 12/26/2007, -5/+16And that heretic faculty would probably be run out of the college by an angry mob of rednecks with torches and pitchforks.
    • rroberts45, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2The University may begin to split further. They lost the Baylor College of Medicine back in 1969.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baylor_college_of_med ...

      Serious scientists have reputations to worry about. Those that haven't decided to end their careers in Waco would probably pull the ejection handle without a lot of hesitation.

    • Andysan, on 12/26/2007, -0/+5You better believe the accreditation agencies can decertify a specific program. If a university should insist on offering questionable programs, the whole university could eventually lose accreditation. Without accreditation, schools lose out on all sorts of funding such as Pell grants, research money, and etc. No university can risk losing accreditation.
  • XBunnyRacer, on 12/26/2007, -11/+176I would like to get a degree in Breakfast Cereal Preparation. Think Texas can help me out there?
    • MadKennyP, on 12/26/2007, -6/+49If you can tie it to the Bible, you'll be fine. And Bush will probably provide funding.
      • ordig, on 12/26/2007, -3/+29How about a degree in preparation of jesus flakes.
    • spamly, on 12/26/2007, -2/+31I've got three words for you: Double Major.
    • dcmjzero, on 12/26/2007, -1/+6I hear that Texas Tech has a great BCP program.
      • TxAggie08, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Texas Tech's entrance requirement is fogging a piece of glass. I hate Tech, the school is a party school in the middle of ***** nowhere. It makes the other Texas universities look bad just by having Texas precede the name. Down here we refer to them only as the classless clowns.
    • ubitendo, on 12/26/2007, -2/+10REMEMBER: Add the cereal first, then the milk!
      • dondara, on 12/26/2007, -0/+12Dude, you just gave away the entire lesson plan. CHEATER
      • alexkorova, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3I actually prefer it the other way around...
    • dannyapplesauce, on 12/26/2007, -2/+13That's tough. I dropped out and got my degree in Poptart Toaster Studies. Much easier and quicker.
    • ussoldier, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3No, but you can get a Masters Degree in Executions.... to become a fully qualified Execustioner
  • Nudar, on 12/26/2007, -124/+16Despite how the press has brainwashed so many of you, there are many thousands of scientists and other smart individuals who believe in intelligent design. Just wait for Ben Stein's new movie. Trailer can be found at http://www.expelledthemovie.com
    • debauch, on 12/26/2007, -12/+69they can believe whatever they want, but it does not change the fact that intelligent design is less scientific than astrology. at least stars and planets can be proven to exist. think about that for a second. it means you're dumber than some hippie that thinks they can predict their future based on the positions of stars relative to their location on earth. guess you sure showed everyone how smart you are. go ahead, give yourself a pat on the back. you deserve it.
    • macweirdo42, on 12/26/2007, -6/+44Okay, because you say a lot of people believe in something, I'm just supposed to accept it? That's the most idiotic logic I've ever heard. If thousands of scientists and other smart individuals jumped off a bridge, would you do it? Honestly...
      • macten, on 12/26/2007, -5/+3You mean like man made global warming?
        • Totalchaos02, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1You do understand that widespread acceptance of man made global warming has nothing to do a bunch of smart people believing in it? It has to do with a lot of smart people that have EVIDENCE that it is happening, and that a lot of other really smart people agree that they are looking at EVIDENCE for it. Believing in something without EVIDENCE because other people say its true is called faith.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 12/26/2007, -7/+74The proposition is that God created the universe.

      In order to be scientific or even logical, you have to demonstrate that God exists. Go.
      • macweirdo42, on 12/26/2007, -5/+42No, because you can't prove that God doesn't exist, and so therefore he MUST exist. At least, that's Creationist logic for you.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 12/26/2007, -6/+15I can prove that God doesn't exist.
        • macweirdo42, on 12/26/2007, -4/+23Pssh... Your so-called "proof" probably relies on facts and logic. Those have no place here.
          • thetechkid, on 12/26/2007, -1/+5By "here" You mean Texas, the South, and all of middle america right?
        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/26/2007, -4/+29Nah, I use their own crap.

          God doesn't exist because Alphonso, the galactic overlord, killed god. He told me he did.
          • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -2/+8Hail Alphonso!
          • johnnick, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2I'm sorry, but his telling you doesn't cut it. You have to tell the story to your children and their children and a few more generations, then it needs to be written down, translated a few times, edited, re-translated, explained, interpreted, etc. and then MAYBE it'll qualify as proof.
        • ubitendo, on 12/26/2007, -3/+4If you can seriously prove that God doesn't exist...go right ahead -- no on is going to stop you.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/26/2007, -4/+7Ok, let's define God as most religions would portray him, a thinking being that created the Universe and existence itself.

          A thinking being cannot exist before there is something to think about.

          Now, you can make the hippy God argument, he is an all powerfull and all knowing being but is a product of the Universe. He is a celestial being.

          Well if he didn't create us and didn't create himself, what the ***** is his purpose and why do we worship him? He is the equivalent of a ghost.
          • ubitendo, on 12/26/2007, -3/+1You're actually using philosophy as the basis of your argument instead of science -- which is what those of who believe in God use to say that he exists.

            Someone can also use philosophy to prove God exists, and we're back to square one.

            However, if you do have some scientific evidence -- I definitely want to see.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3No, I'm using logic, the basis of all science to demonstrate that God can't possibly exist.

            X which is the mechanism that involves A and B cannot exist before A and B are introduced.

            Those who believe in God don't study philosophy. Philosophy is what brought me to the conclusion that God didn't exist. Religious people use religious texts, none of which constitute philosophy, to justify their position.

            Logic is how you tell that science is right.
          • CoppellStereo, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1logic is philosophy, or atleast part of it..
        • Daz3, on 12/26/2007, -1/+1The argument from evil is still undefeated. Plantinga is the latest to try and fail.
    • FriskDown, on 12/26/2007, -4/+42Are you saying that those who don't believe in intelligent design have been brainwashed by the press? Give me a break! If you want to see brainwashing, check out Jesus Camp.
    • Ramble, on 12/26/2007, -5/+15Ok, I study biology, supporter of the facts (evolution). Go ahead and give me some evidence and a hypothesis for ID.
      • thetechkid, on 12/26/2007, -3/+2Zodberg Robot Jebus and the Five Galactic Ponies.
      • bomb288, on 12/27/2007, -0/+6The bible says God created man. The bible is true because it says in the bible that it's true. How retarded can you be not to understand this?
        /sarcasm
    • Zlorp, on 12/26/2007, -10/+11Hey guess what moron, you have no explaination for a God do you? so doesnt that end you up back at the same point? not having any ***** clue how anything got here? at least science admits that, and bases ALL of their claims on OBSERVATION. Where as you ***** moron ID idiots seem to think that an unexplainable God explains everything? seriously WHAT THE ***** IS WRONG WITH YOU?

      since we're so brainwashed by millions and millions of man hours of observation, maybe you can explain to us how your intelligent designer existing makes far more sense than our universe existing? please. go on. like you said there are thousands of "scientists" who believe in ID, surely they've thought this question through right? i mean a scientists job is to ask questions until the answer reveals itself, so surely something revealed to these "scientists" that an intelligent designer appearing from nothing makes far more sense then our universe appearing from nothing right?

      oh wait no, all of the "evidence" these ***** have is based on the assumption that the bible is correct, just like EVERY LAST ***** ARGUMENT that christians make for ANYTHING. when are you ***** going to realize that you have to prove it WITHOUT this assumption for anyone to take you seriously? hmm?
      • ogsy, on 12/26/2007, -2/+9Woah there. This degree is BS and everybody knows it. Relax.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 12/26/2007, -2/+15Well, it is quite frustrating to have to defend science in the 21st century...
        • Zlorp, on 12/26/2007, -2/+11sorry this whole topic pisses me off. people trying to act like evolution and ID are on some kind of level playing field or something, like religion is something that is legitimate and should be taken seriously. it makes me want to break things
      • CoppellStereo, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1isn't a fundamental part of science you can't create something from nothing? this 'big bang' had to have happened some place, it couldn't have happened in a place that doesn't exist. but that also brings the question, how did God become into existence? both are the same question but one is ID and one is 'science'. some people have what you call 'faith' and some people have to have tangible evidence.
        • Versipellis42, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2The big bang doesn't describe the creation of the universe, but rather its expansion. We don't currently have any models of physics that describe or predict the nature of the universe before an age of planck time, so it's entirely possible that, at the time, conservation did not apply.
        • Zlorp, on 12/28/2007, -0/+0its very possible that our universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, merely expanding and contracting over a period of many billions (or trillions) of years. and like Versi said, we cant know what kind of laws govern the universe at such extreme energies, its possible the laws of physics change everytime the universe contracts into a big bang.

    • rhabd0mancer, on 12/26/2007, -3/+26Ben Stein the game show host?

      Why should I care about what he believes?
      • Nudar, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2He's not just a game show host. He was a speech writer for Nixon and Ford.
    • MisteryMeat, on 12/26/2007, -2/+9Brainwashed? If the press actually talked about biblical facts we would not have 80-90% of the population continuing to believe in America.
    • Dumbledorito, on 12/26/2007, -4/+16Ah, yes, Ben Stein's movie, where almost everyone in the scientific community he interviewed is pissed because he edited their comments completely out of context.

      But what else should we expect from a Nixon Administration refugee?
    • etnu, on 12/26/2007, -4/+7Ben Stein also thought Richard Nixon was a good president and has repeatedly given bad financial advice to millions of people during almost every major financial crisis in the last 30 years. He's a lawyer and an economist, not a scientist. He should stick to acting since that's the only thing he actually seems to do well at.
    • bowens44, on 12/26/2007, -0/+6You're the one who is brainwashed. There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea of 'intelleigent design'. None. Zero Zip. Zilch. It is nothing more then bible thumpers trying to sneak Genesis in through the back door.
      • CoppellStereo, on 12/27/2007, -3/+2show me a science book or biology book that doesn't have terms like this in it "it might have happened this way", "maybe", "probably", "we don't know for sure". reading things like that makes me think that scientist really don't know what they are talking about. it's like they have solved a puzzle but have missing as well as pieces that don't fit. at least the bible is more confident than the scientists who teach
        • Versipellis42, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2Confidence with zero evidence still has zero evidence.

          Also, every biology textbook I've used has described evolution as a currently occurring process and described its mechanics to me. In those classes, I was required to recreate natural selection using populations of varying different kinds of animals.

          Any instance of "maybe" would have been backwards extrapolation to describe the past using knowledge of how the present works, which is valid, thanks to the principle of uniformitarianism.
    • wettap, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3All you need to do, is provide the least bit of evidence for ID that stands up to scientific scrutiny. You know... maybe peer review in some sort of scientific journal. Or better yet, if your "evidence" is rebuffed by the myopic scientific scholars who edit these journals, offer up your thesis in some sort of "scientific ID journal". If there isn't one, I am sure Ben Stein (and assorted other big-money Believers) would be more than happy to fork over some start up jing to get it off the ground. ID doesn't hold up to the least of scientific standards and scrutiny? No wonder "Flying Spaghetti Monster Science" isn't taught in my local public schools.
    • cranium, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2Two words: Dover trial.
  • EntropyGun, on 12/26/2007, -8/+80This is a good idea. I got my masters in astronomy from GWBU after my thesis on Apollo's chariot. It ended up landing me a job at NASA where I was instrumental in helping fake the moon landings.
    • trisquithere, on 12/26/2007, -13/+4you're a liar! moon landing was real!
      • johnnick, on 12/26/2007, -1/+8Easy there, Skippy. I think you might've missed the silent "/sarcasm" tag there at the end of the post.
        • trisquithere, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2skippy is as skippy does -.-
        • GhostyBoy, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3Wow, dude, I can hardly believe the irony.
      • WaltDismal, on 12/26/2007, -2/+3The moon landing WAS real!!! I know!!! Because I was there to welcome them!!!
        (I was going to type in all caps, but I thought that would reduce my credibility.)
    • ubitendo, on 12/26/2007, -1/+12If you're going to go the anti-religion route at least have the good sense to say you did a thesis on Artemis's bow, because everyone knows Apollo is linked to the sun whereas his sister, Artemis, is linked to the moon.

      Stupid Greek Mythology n00bz.
    • adh3isive, on 12/27/2007, -1/+0George W. Bush University? Oh god, if that ever happened...
  • Elderon, on 12/26/2007, -8/+58wouldn't this be considered a degree in theology? how can you have a degree in creationism when creationism is not a science and is religious in context?
    • ElAssoWipo, on 12/26/2007, -6/+46It's Texas.
      • Linzee82, on 12/26/2007, -7/+2Please leave Texas out of this. It's idiots worldwide, not just Texas. Unfortunately, our brilliant education board has shot us all in the foot.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 12/26/2007, -1/+7"It's idiots worldwide"

        You think Buddhist, Hindu and Islamic countries learn about Christian creationism? It's not even North America wide. It's just America, mostly the south. Texas is usually the prime example of the South. It's the embodiement of the South, historically and culturally.

        The rest of the world wouldn't even consider christian creationism.
    • britno03, on 12/26/2007, -18/+8IT has nothing to do with the fact that it is Texas, and has everything to do with the fact that Baylor is a PRIVATE, BAPTIST, university. I'm sure other private religious schools will soon follow Baylor. Have you done any research on anything else that Baylor teaches? They also have studies on world religions including, Islam. Do some research and then come back and say "It's Texas"
      • ElAssoWipo, on 12/26/2007, -4/+6Bush.

        It's Texas.
        • Linzee82, on 12/26/2007, -3/+3REAL research *****. Texas is not full of Bush loving morons. The rest of us are trying to figure out how to bury them all without arising anyone's suspicions.
    • sophiaperennis, on 12/26/2007, -0/+6Yes. Creationism is part of a Th.D. (Doctor of Theology), J.C.D. (Doctor of Canon Law), as well as S.T.D. (Doctor of Sacred Theology). Creationism is not a science, and should not be considered as such. I.D. (Intelligent Design) is by far the most feeble attempt to represent creationism as an exact science.
      • kalleanka, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1You said: "Creationism is /.../ S.T.D."

        I agree. They are both something you don't want to get and that once you get it, it's hard to get rid of.
  • usjamerica, on 12/26/2007, -10/+45Wait, how exactly is African-American studies ridiculous? We do have a rather large and historic presence in this country, with a varied and diverse intellectual history that was largely ignored until relatively recently.
    • macweirdo42, on 12/26/2007, -11/+28Because apparently, African Americans aren't allowed to have a culture or heritage of their own. Any acknowledgement of that culture or heritage is considered racist against White culture.
      • fyngyrz, on 12/26/2007, -4/+7So. You got your degree in "European Amercan Studies"... where? Do you think world studies leaves Africa out? Tell me again why, other than pandering, there ought to be a degree in African American studies?

        If you want to study Africa, fine. If you want to study America, fine. If you want to study Europe or some country somewhere, anywhere, fine. But when you say that you want to study only the culture(s) of people of a particular region, and that there *ought to be* a course in that offered, then the same goes for all other peoples of all other regions.
        • alexkorova, on 12/26/2007, -3/+5Well, the thing is, that a lot of normal history courses etc in the USA is European American Studies, they are just not labeled as such.
          • InspectorGadget, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2Because most of the worthwhile history until fairly recently was happening in Europe and in parts of Asia. See: Industrial Revolution.
        • chaosium, on 12/26/2007, -1/+5"So. You got your degree in "European Amercan Studies"... where? Do you think world studies leaves Africa out? Tell me again why, other than pandering, there ought to be a degree in African American studies?"

          Why are there degrees in electrical, computer, mechanical, and civil engineering?!!

          Just take Engineering degrees!

          That's an incredibly stupid statement from you, what is wrong with a degree focused around any continent's culture and peoples?
        • bobbyi, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1Yeah, no one has ever gotten a master's studying the history of europe or european peoples.
    • chicofaraby, on 12/26/2007, -9/+30It's not ridiculous. The moron that claimed that is just another right wing racist a-hole.
    • krnldmp, on 12/26/2007, -13/+4Well hey, call me a moron, but if it's so Present, why the need to "study"? Seems like that's a better plan to create and indoctrinate something that doesn't really exist.
    • InspectorGadget, on 12/26/2007, -7/+21The common criticism is that "African American Studies", like "Chicano Studies", "Women's Studies", and any sort of "Critical _______" program, is inherently political rather than academic and tends to be a concession to minority interests rather than a real attempt at providing a worthwhile education. This has proved all too often to be true. For examples, look to the ties at any college in the University of California system between the "Chicano studies" program and political organizations like MeCHA, etc. Generally, the people that major in those areas go on to be small-time identity politics trolls.
      • fugazied, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3Same for anthropologists and historians that specialize in studying a certain culture I suppose? Because essentially thats what womens studies etc is - a specialized history and anthropological study. History and anthropology are widely accepted as valid areas of study.
      • chaosium, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2"The common criticism is that "African American Studies", like "Chicano Studies", "Women's Studies", and any sort of "Critical _______" program, is inherently political rather than academic "

        So what? Politics and Academics are not mutually exclusive.

        "Well hey, call me a moron, but if it's so Present, why the need to "study"? Seems like that's a better plan to create and indoctrinate something that doesn't really exist."

        It's the past, current history, and future positionings of a culture. Sounds like you're talking about things beyond your understanding.
    • ScornForSega, on 12/26/2007, -7/+4Because the term "African-American" is ridiculous. You're either African or American. Pick a side. Unless you're actually from Africa... like Dave Matthews. He's more African-American than you.

      • faskippy, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3My point exactly. African Americans can be white. It's totally stupid to refer to a persons color by using a term meant for immigrants directly from Africa.
    • fishbert, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1I think someone forgot to use the 'reply' feature...
    • l0k0, on 12/27/2007, -0/+0Maybe he got mixed up and meant ebonics. Or maybe he's retarded. I've got my money on the latter.
      • tyywebb, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1James D. Watson approves this comment.
  • Shawn4168, on 12/26/2007, -97/+23It's frustrating to see the ignorance and hypocrisy present in a thread here like this. Creationism is a scientific theory that has merit, just the same as Evolutionism. There are tons of people that make a living out of studying sciences that have been disputed. Some search for extraterrestrial life, some study Freudian psychology, others explore theoretical physics. Does this mean that these people aren't scientists, that they're the "laughing stock" of the scientific community? Hardly. Evolution fails to account for how life came about to exist here on Earth in the first place, yet many people study and believe the theory anyway. Neither evolutionism nor creationism has been proven or disproven yet, so if somebody wants to dedicate their studies to researching one of the theories, then I say let them.

    Remember, people laughed when somebody said the Earth was round, or that the Earth revolved around the Sun, or that we could land on the Moon.
    • debauch, on 12/26/2007, -9/+37people that believe in intelligent design are not part of the scientific community because id is not fawking science. have you ever heard of the scientific method? try applying it to your intelligent design. show me a hypothesis that can be tested and proven true or false then perhaps you might have a leg to stand on. oh and a jar of peanut butter does not prove the existence of god, some jackass already tried that.
      • Shawn4168, on 12/26/2007, -37/+6Try applying the scientific method to evolution. Get yourself a control group and an experimental group, and watch them evolve. Let me know how it turns out.
        • debauch, on 12/26/2007, -4/+30you'll notice below is the scientific method. the theory of evolution to this day continues to be subjected to rigor of all 8 steps listed. id can't even get past step 3. you have no argument.

          1. Define the question
          2. Gather information and resources (observe)
          3. Form hypothesis
          4. Perform experiment and collect data
          5. Analyze data
          6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
          7. Publish results
          8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

          • geddon, on 12/26/2007, -14/+3Before the Age of Science, Man saw the Earth as a Creation of God. This meant that any hypothesis could be both observed in the natural world and explained through verifiable means. In other words, the rose was red because of the love God has for his children. 400 years later we've concluded that the color of the rose has nothing to do with God. And 400 years from now we will conclude that Science has nothing to do with the rose being red.
          • debauch, on 12/26/2007, -2/+7it only took me 10 seconds to conclude that you are dumb
          • whorunbartertwn, on 12/27/2007, -0/+0Then you're a slow reader ;)
        • macweirdo42, on 12/26/2007, -4/+17That doesn't even make sense. Just... maybe you want to pull your foot out of your mouth before speaking next time.
          • geddon, on 12/26/2007, -10/+1Nobody has come close to producing life out of non-living substance, much less growing a tap dancing monkey out of a protozoa. Maybe you should question authority before taking such blindingly enormous leaps of faith.
        • chicofaraby, on 12/26/2007, -2/+16It's been done. Learn to use google or always look like a dumbass.

          http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.h ...
          • geddon, on 12/26/2007, -11/+1I see nothing about fish sprouting wings, or monkeys learning to breath underwater.
          • Dimensio, on 12/26/2007, -0/+7@geddon:
            "I see nothing about fish sprouting wings, or monkeys learning to breath underwater."

            Why would you expect to see any such thing?
          • nitsuj, on 12/26/2007, -0/+7"I see nothing about fish sprouting wings, or monkeys learning to breath underwater."

            Which is good, because if you did observe those things it would constitute evidence AGAINST evolution.
        • beakerwimp, on 12/26/2007, -1/+4How does a flaw in the theory evolution say anything about whether or not ID should be taught as science? Even if evolution was completely wrong and could be shown through use of the scientific method to be incorrect, why would that be a good argument for teaching ID (or anything else) as science? I feel that ID should be shown to be decent science based on its own merits.
        • geddon, on 12/26/2007, -15/+2Most people forget that the theory is a theory, with no way to quantify the evidence; in much the same way that gravity is a theory, lacking the necessary "graviton" to pull it all together. The end result being that the Great Creator is just as much a story as the Big Bang.
          • Encablossa, on 12/27/2007, -0/+6Evolution seems to be the best theory that we have, saying 'God did it' isn't much of an effort.
          • MoClippa, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3Geddon... there is a massive difference between how one formulates a scientific theory vs. how one comes up with a religious theory.

            Yes yes I know, they both use 'theory'... but the word has multiple definitions, as such, scientific theory is in no way similar to creationist theory. Don't bugger off science due to misunderstood colloquialisms!
          • MacBastard, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3DAMMIT - another one of those idiots who misuse the scientific meaning of the word "theory"!

            Stop using the layman's definition of "theory" with the way the word is used in science. If you want people to actually take you seriously, talk the talk, for *****'s sake.

            Just for you, straight from the Random House dictionary....

            theory -
            1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
            2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
            3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
            4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
            5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
            6. contemplation or speculation.
            7. guess or conjecture.

            [Origin: 1590–1600; < LL theōria < Gk theōría a viewing, contemplating, equiv. to theōr(eǐn) to view + -ia -y3]


            —Synonyms 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

            So, to sum up: The Theory of Evolution is a more or less VERIFIED OR ESTABLISHED EXPLANATION ACCOUNTING FOR KNOWN FACTS OR PHENOMENA. Creation "Science" is a CONJECTURE which unfortunately can never withstand ARGUMENT OR EXPERIMENTATION to reach the truth.

            You may now bite my ass.
        • Dimensio, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3@geddon:
          "The end result being that the Great Creator is just as much a story as the Big Bang."

          Why are you changing the subject? The Big Bang is not the current subject of discussion.

          Additionally, I am unaware of any scientific theory referencing a "Great Creator". Please provide references for such a theory.
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 12/26/2007, -0/+10"Remember, people laughed when somebody said the Earth was round, or that the Earth revolved around the Sun, or that we could land on the Moon."
        This is the exact same type of people that now believe in Creationism.
        Religion has been holding science back as long as science has existed.
    • Jexie, on 12/26/2007, -10/+41Creationism is completely unscientific - there are no testable hypotheses, there is no evidence. If creationists would at least consider all possibilities out there (i.e. the world was created by Vishnu, or the flying spaghetti monster) instead of just equating creationism to jesus it might be able to be accepted as metaphysics/philosophy. I hate to break it to you, evolution has been seen in action - creationism still fails to account how things started too. Who created god or gods? Why the hell should any of us take seriously someone telling us the universe could not spontaneously just come into existence when their solution to the issue is that there must be some god that has just always existed from nothing with no creator itself? Perhaps before creationists start to try to BS us they have evidence they should work on BS'ing us they even have logic first.....
      • Sraza, on 12/26/2007, -0/+11"Who created god or gods?"

        Turtles all the way down my friend. It's deliciously simple.
      • ogsy, on 12/26/2007, -5/+2Just want to point out that string theory also has no testable hypotheses (at the moment). If the degree was called creation theory that would be more sensible.

        Anyway, it's irrelevant. Unless this is taught from a sociological or theological standpoint the degree is going to be worthless, and the 11 people who study for it will have wasted their time.
        • Ramble, on 12/26/2007, -1/+7And that's why string theory isn't used.
          • ogsy, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2You misunderstand. I was simply saying that just because something has no testable hypotheses doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught or discussed in a science context. There are many better reasons than this for not teaching Creationism in a science context which have been discussed at length in this comment thread.

            I think we're arg-greeing here so I'll shut up.
    • geddon, on 12/26/2007, -33/+2It's amazing how intolerant the "Land of the Free" manages to be.
      • Turambar, on 12/26/2007, -3/+28it's ok to discriminate against the willfully stupid. they brought it on themselves.
        • geddon, on 12/26/2007, -17/+3By "willfully stupid" do you mean those who believe in a higher intelligence or trillions and trillions and trillions of random coincidences?
          • Turambar, on 12/26/2007, -1/+6"higher intelligence"

            i can see why i'd need to be more clear...
          • ApokalypseNow, on 12/26/2007, -0/+7The "higher intelligence" one - because until we see evidence for it, there's no point in pursuing that line. We *do* have evidence of evolution, however, such as the fossil record. However, you are mistaken, as it is not random coincidence that constitutes evolution, but rather the non-random survival of randomly occurring traits.

            For a good example of evolution, go look up foraminifera - it is an oceanic life form for which we have a COMPLETE and CONTINUOUS fossil record back to the mid-Jurassic. Think about it - a perfect and complete fossil record for almost an entire phylum of life detailing exactly how evolution can and *did* evolve and diversify a parent species into a vast diverse range of modern species over hundreds of millions of years.
        • Ramble, on 12/26/2007, -1/+5He means the magic invisible man in the sky.
        • johnnick, on 12/26/2007, -0/+7@geddon - To quote the great Louie Armstrong, "Man, if you gotta ask, you'll never know."
        • chaosium, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4I don't know, I think "geddon" (likely as in the Rapture) was born stupid and didn't have much of a choice in the extra chromosomes.
      • kreneskyp, on 12/26/2007, -0/+6since its an issue of freedom do you have a problem with me making up a bunch of theories and then giving myself degrees in them?

        The problem with this "degree" is that there is nothing that can or will be proven. Any thesis that comes out of this program will be pure conjecture. I suspect the majority of things that will be "taught" are the probabilities of some event occuring (like the human eye). The probabilities themselves are also conjecture. If you actually had a clue about scientific method, specifically 'margin of error', you'd know that for every variable in the equation you estimate, or aren't accurate enough with, dramatically increases your margin of error. Conjecture based on more conjecture based on more conjecture has a pretty high margin of error.
      • Linzee82, on 12/26/2007, -1/+5We're not intolerant, we're smart.
      • jsmu, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Excuse me? This is the land of the fascist theocrats. *****, Bush, the list goes on. Get a ride, *****
    • mulling, on 12/26/2007, -2/+23You're completely right. The magic sky wizard created the world in seven days, this is a proven scientific theory. All you people saying otherwise are just being ignorant. You'll be sorry when you find yourself in hell (which exists, it's a proven scientific theory. Look it up).

      Also, it's a proven scientific theory that a woman's place is in the home, and homosexuals should be bludgeoned to death with heavy rocks.
    • MCShortbus, on 12/26/2007, -3/+21Uh, the people who were saying that the world is flat and the sun revolves around the Earth are the same type of people who are advocating Intelligent Design. You know, Bible thumpers.
    • dcmjzero, on 12/26/2007, -2/+30evolutionism? that has got to be the stupidest made up word ever. there is no belief system for evolution. there is no evolution church on sundays. there is no evolution pope. if i do something bad, i do not ask darwin for forgiveness.
      keep your -ism's to yourself.
      • geddon, on 12/26/2007, -18/+2An -ism is not a religion, it's a series of beliefs, which the theory of Evolution most certainly is.
        • aurorion, on 12/27/2007, -0/+4Gravity-ism, Relativity-ism, Quantum Mechanics-ism.....
      • mulling, on 12/26/2007, -1/+16Wrong. But thanks for playing.

        The Theory of Evolution is not a belief system. It's a conjecture which has stood up to repeated controlled experiments. This has led to some conclusions, but these conclusions are not dogmatic beliefs, and the conclusions will be discarded the moment research indicates they should be.

        Call me when scientists start burning heretics, and we'll talk.
        • dcmjzero, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1methinks your misunderstood my post
    • michael43, on 12/26/2007, -12/+2It's not a matter of wheather your comment has merit (and I think it does) but rather the fact that you did not slander Christians that got you dugg down.
    • beakerwimp, on 12/26/2007, -1/+11Wait Shawn. I think we can all agree that there is some limit to the kind of logic you are using in your argument, right? I mean, are you saying that studying anything one believes in (or could possibly imagine) could be classified as "scientific"? Even if one's methods are scientific, there is some threshold of likelihood that one's studies are pointless, no? What if a university in New York decided they should start an academic program in which students can earn a masters degree in Spaghettism (creation of the earth and humanity by The Flying Spaghetti Monster)? They'd have a right to do it if they were a private institution, but deep down inside would you feel that it was a valid form of scientific study or inquiry? I wouldn't. You need to ask yourself WHY you would not feel good about that form of scientific inquiry in order to understand the frustration being vented by people on this thread. Perhaps you would feel just fine about it. In that case you are entitled to your opinion. That seems silly to me though. It seems like a waste of time, a waste of money, and a waste of human potential.
    • MisteryMeat, on 12/26/2007, -2/+13They likely laughed at the thought of a round Earth because the Bible indicates that it's flat.
      • PabloMac, on 12/26/2007, -8/+2Please provide the Bible book, chapter and verse that indicates the Earth is flat.
        • geddon, on 12/26/2007, -6/+3In a similar fashion to today's "Scientific Community," the "Religious Community" cast out those who disbelieved that the universe revolved around the Earth. Those who stepped outside the consensus were thought to be heretics -- either religious heretics of yesteryear, or scientific heretics today. This doesn't mean that the shape of the earth or the trajectory of the sun is described in the bible, but in the scientific and religious dogma of their respective believers.
      • PabloMac, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3I'm sure I'll be dugg down here, but:
        Isaiah 40:22: "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,.."
        Job 26:7: "He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing"
        Of course, some people dispute various interpretations of these Scriptures. I'm just offering food for thought for those with an open mind.
        • smthop3, on 12/27/2007, -1/+4OH WOWZERS, YOU'RE RLY SMART! I SEE YOU CAN GOOGLE "BIBLE CIRCLE EARTH" AND PICK AND CHOOSE THE BIBLE VERSES YOU'LL SNEAKINGLY TRY TO SHOW AS THE BIBLE NOT BEING PRO-FLAT EARTH....
          HEY LOOKY, I CAN USE GOOGLE TOO, AND IM GONNA GOOGLE "BIBLE FLAT EARTH"!

          I'm tired of people like you, the kind who pick specific bible verses to quote without showing the other ones just to push your own agenda:

          (Hey look, this is in Isaiah too, how did you miss it?!?)
          Isaiah 11:12
          12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

          Revelation 7:1
          1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

          Job 38:13
          13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

          Jeremiah 16:19
          19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

          Daniel 4:11
          11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

          OH GOSH, CIRCLES HAVE 4 CORNERS RITE?!?
          • Muligan21, on 12/27/2007, -2/+0You are quoting KJV which utilizes a lot of figurative language. Even today, people say the "four corners of the earth" it doesn't mean corners of a square but indicates N, S, E, W. This is one of the worst arguements that comes up by uneducated people. The Ends of the Earth is poetic language. I mean come on, it doesn't take very much to see the text in context.

            1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree

            Angel in the east, in the west, to the north, and the south. Why strain at a gnat guys? People are just trying way to hard anymore.
          • smthop3, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2There is no North, or South, or East, or West on a freaking circle!

            Believe me, I could do much better than arguing about stupid Bible quotes and their truthiness. I don't even like doing this because I know the first thing people are gonna say is "You are quoting [THE BIBLE] which utilizes a lot of figurative language" so I prefer to argue about the credibility of the bible and god's characteristics rather than this crap.
          • MisteryMeat, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2How many shapes do you know of with 4 corners? Don't you ever wonder why God would allow this language in the Bible at all? If he really loves everyone so much why not prove his existence and give us a book without the physical inaccuracies and contradictions? Does he get his kicks letting so many go to hell? How are we supposed to know what is true and what is just "poetic"? Stop blinding following what everyone tells you and think about it.

            BTW, it's not just the KJV that mentions the 4 corners.
        • MisteryMeat, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3Thanks for looking those up smthop3. I'd also like to add Joshua 27 where the Sun stopped moving. For those of you not so familiar with actual science, the Earth actually revolves around the Sun.
    • antitab, on 12/26/2007, -2/+15" Evolution fails to account for how life came about to exist here on Earth in the first place"
      That's because Evolution is not a theory of origin, it's a theory of diversification. It has never claimed to account for the origins of life. I like how you Creationists lump big bang theory and abiogenesis in with evolution.
      Hell, one could believe that God created the universe and life and still accept evolution. One has nothing to do with the other.
      • geddon, on 12/26/2007, -12/+1Evolution is based on a similar leap of faith: because animals adapt to their surroundings, then logically protozoa evolved into the human race.
      • TechyLah, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3"Hell, one could believe that God created the universe and life and still accept evolution. One has nothing to do with the other."

        Does that really make sense? You believe in a tremendous power and intellect great enough to conceive, implement, and create the Universe in all it's complexity, including the 10 billion precise sequence and coding for life, and then cling to a little, "that's all we got", "life just evolves complexity", un-evidenced theory that claimes humans came from trees since they both have DNA encoding (same start/stop sequences, etc..)?

        COME ON! Admit that you JUST HAVE to accept evolution theory no matter what.

        The truth - there is no NEED for evolution theory (macro, we're talking) if you accept a Creator of the Universe!
        • chaosium, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1"COME ON! Admit that you JUST HAVE to accept evolution theory no matter what."

          If you are to understand and teach biology, yes.
        • Asrrin29, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Pretend you are a programmer. Do you really want to type every single piece of redundant code, over, and over, and over, and over again? no, you write functions and subroutines to do the busy work for you so you can get other things accomplished. Why can't someone believe in a Creator and also believe in physical laws, biological laws, that may have been put here to help automate the system he created?
    • Linzee82, on 12/26/2007, -2/+6Your problem is that you fail to see that evolution is supported by scientific evidence, while creationism is supported by the idea of a flying spaghetti monster.
      • geddon, on 12/26/2007, -6/+1Scientific consensus and scientific evidence are two different things. Creationism proposes the possibility of a higher intelligence -- not necessarily God or the spaghetti monster. Hell, for all we know it could be the collective unconsciousness that shapes our world!
    • Dimensio, on 12/26/2007, -1/+5"It's frustrating to see the ignorance and hypocrisy present in a thread here like this. Creationism is a scientific theory that has merit, just the same as Evolutionism."

      "Evolutionism" is not a scientific theory. You are misstating the term "theory of evolution", and demonstrating that you are fundamentally ignorant of even the most basic elements of the theory.

      Please state the "theory of creationism". State the events that it purports to explain, describe the known extant and observed mechanisms that it employs as an explanation for these events, reference evidence that has elevated the claim to the status of theory and offer a hypothetical means by which it can be falsified.
    • bowens44, on 12/26/2007, -1/+5"'s frustrating to see the ignorance and hypocrisy present in a thread here like this. Creationism is a scientific theory that has merit, just the same as Evolutionism. "
      Creationism is not a scientific theory. There is no such thing as 'evolutionism'.
      "There are tons of people that make a living out of studying sciences that have been disputed. "
      There is no dispute in the scientific community as to whether or not evolution is the correct explanation for the diversity of life on our planet.
      "
      Some search for extraterrestrial life, some study Freudian psychology, others explore theoretical physics. Does this mean that these people aren't scientists, that they're the "laughing stock" of the scientific community? Hardly. "
      That is correct, they are not laughed at because there areas of study have merit.
      "Evolution fails to account for how life came about to exist here on Earth in the first place, "
      That's true but then, it doesn't attempt to. How life began is irrelevant to evolution.
      "yet many people study and believe the theory anyway. "
      Evolution is probably the most well supported scientific theory there is. Of course educated people believe it. The evidence supporting it is overwhelming and undeniable.
      "Neither evolutionism nor creationism has been proven or disproven yet,"
      There is no such thing as 'evolutionism" . Scientific theories are NEVER proven. They are always theories. Theory is the best you get in science. Creationism doesn't even come close to being a theory.
      "so if somebody wants to dedicate their studies to researching one of the theories, then I say let them."
      Sure they can but it's no more valid then devoting your life to stdying the easter bunny of leprechauns. It isn't science.
      "Remember, people laughed when somebody said the Earth was round, or that the Earth revolved around the Sun, or that we could land on the Moon."
      True and those are the same people who believe in creationism. They were wrong then and they're wrong now.
  • cespee, on 12/26/2007, -43/+4No one has it all figured out until all the pieces of the jigsaw fit. We do share the same DNA with apes, but at the same time, we're so different. Why did art, religion, talking, musical ability, and culture evolve almost instantaneously in the evolution timeline? Why would playing the flute really help some monkey survive the wilderness? Why do people see UFO's? Why does religion ring so true in people's minds (all these supposed athiests seem to listen to songs about religion and angels)? Why do drugs produce such profound emotional effects? Why would we have "evolved" THC receptors? Maybe we don't have it all figured out. Maybe every "theory" is half true. Sitchin says that evolution's timeline for humans went way to fast, and has an evolution / creationism hybrid theory where aliens came and genetically engineered humans. Maybe that theory is half true, half false and there's also some sort of spiritual element that created humans too. But at least a theory like that takes several more jigsaw pieces about human nature and history and attempts to fit them together. At least that theory doesn't just block out or completely discount all human history recorded in bibles, Korans, mythology, etc.
    • macweirdo42, on 12/26/2007, -3/+22Look, I don't care what substances you ingest in your free time. It's not my business, and I certainly don't think it should be criminalized, but at the same time, maybe you wanna cut back a little there?
    • debauch, on 12/26/2007, -2/+14sorry to break it to you but every theory is not half true, and mythology is not science. if you like mythology masquerading as science i hear this great new museum opened up in kentucky, sounds right up your alley.
    • Ramble, on 12/26/2007, -1/+11Because evolution is sometimes exponential. Look at anything and you'll sometimes see changes that happen amazingly fast, we've even replicated it.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 12/26/2007, -0/+5Exactly - Stephen J. Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Long periods of relatively static life with brief periods of "rapid" change. When I say rapid, though, I mean rapid on a GEOLOGICAL time scale.
    • Zlorp, on 12/26/2007, -1/+8the bottom line is that when you look at the big picture, a creator doesnt explain anything at all. it merely goes another step further before arriving at "who the ***** knows".

      think about it. lets assume there is a creator God, and he "designed" our universe. where did that God come from? The explaination is outside of our comprehension in either case im sure, but how does throwing a God into the mix solve anything? couldnt an incomprehensible explanation be the reason our universe appeared rather than the reason a God appeared to create the universe? see what i mean? ID solves NOTHING and merely tries to teach us to ignore the results of millions and millions of hours of observation.
      • antitab, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3I'm pretty partial to the theory of "who the ***** knows?", myself.
    • dcmjzero, on 12/26/2007, -1/+11"We do share the same DNA with apes, but at the same time, we're so different."
      So different? Taller and less hairy. Sometimes a bit smarter. But otherwise remarkably alike.

      "Why did art, religion, talking, musical ability, and culture evolve almost instantaneously in the evolution timeline?"
      You must be using "instantaneously" in the geological sense.

      "Why would playing the flute really help some monkey survive the wilderness?"
      It doesn't. Just a side benefit.

      "Why do people see UFO's?"
      The same reason why we see ghost, bigfoot, and the chupachapra. Because we are paranoid and like to make things up.

      "Why does religion ring so true in people's minds (all these supposed athiests seem to listen to songs about religion and angels)?"
      For the same reason everyone likes Seinfeld.

      "Why do drugs produce such profound emotional effects?"
      Because they play directly with our minds chemistry. And chemicals produce our emotions.

      "Why would we have "evolved" THC receptors?"
      We didn't. THC merely behaves like chemicals already present in the body.

      "Maybe we don't have it all figured out."
      Probably.

      "Maybe every "theory" is half true."
      Probably not.

      "Sitchin says that evolution's timeline for humans went way to fast, and has an evolution / creationism hybrid theory where aliens came and genetically engineered humans."
      And I say you may have been overusing those "THC receptors".

      "Maybe that theory is half true, half false and there's also some sort of spiritual element that created humans too. But at least a theory like that takes several more jigsaw pieces about human nature and history and attempts to fit them together. At least that theory doesn't just block out or completely discount all human history recorded in bibles, Korans, mythology, etc."
      Most great science break-thru's are done by completely blocking out everything we know and finding the truth- see Newton, EInstein, Bohr, Tesla, etc.
    • johnnick, on 12/26/2007, -1/+8"Sitchin says that evolution's timeline for humans went way to fast, and has an evolution / creationism hybrid theory where aliens came and genetically engineered humans."

      Ok, there's a hypothesis for you that (a) is testable (analyze evolutionary history, look for unusual or otherwise unexplained changes in the fossil record, etc. and look for specific evidence of alien presence and look for methods by which such accelerated evolution could be achieved) and (b) doesn't involve an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent deity. The difference between what you said there and ID is that Creationism/ID does not provide any such testable hypothesis. The essence of Creationism/ID is: We think a deity was involved because we don't think there's a good enough explanation for how everything happened and we don't think you'll ever be able to prove any other explanation to our satisfaction. That's it. And if you're going to believe that, you may as well fold up the scientific tent and go home, because there's no reason to try to understand anything - god did it and it's just too complicated for our poor feeble minds.

      You'll notice, though, that this debate doesn't happen with other branches of science. Only evolution. Those who believe in Creationism have no problems accepting the science that produces their cars, their computers, their cell phones, TVs, medicines, etc., etc., but make a claim that contradicts their creation myth and suddenly science doesn't work for them any more. The same scientific methodology that produced all the rest of our technology and understanding of the world goes into the study of evolution, and a lot of it is interrelated. The science that is used to date fossils and other artifacts is also used in medicine and physics, where it works just fine. If it were inaccurate for dating, it wouldn't work for physics and medicine. The biology that is used to analyze evolution is the same biology used to study medicine. If it's right in one place, odds are it's right in another.

      Creationists/ID-types only object to evolution. Not any other type of science, and that's because it contradicts the creation myth in the Bible and no other reason. They will never be satisfied with any evidence of evolution, until we have time travel and can go back and watch the whole thing in fast forward to fill in all the details that have been destroyed over the millenia. And even then they won't be satisfied, because it will STILL contradict the Bible, so they'll come up with all kinds of other explanations for why it's wrong.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4The problem that many creationists have with evolution is it means "humans aren't special" and that's a mental hurdle that Christians in this country just can't manage to get over. The hubris of modern Christians is that human beings are different from other animals, not just in amount of some attribute, but in category. Humans and animals must be in different categories from each other or else most of the Biblical statements on humans is flat out wrong.

        If someone with no degree and no special study in quantum mechanics or relativity were to assert that the experts in the field were all wrong and claim that there didn't exist any evidence to back up that field, that person would be ridiculed and insulted. For some reason it is only in the field of biology that some people violate that common sense rule, and are shocked and play the persecuted victim when they get insulted and ridiculed for it.
    • bowens44, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea of intelligent design , creationsim or even the existence or need of a creator. To assume that because we don't have all the answers that 'god did it' is asinine.
  • Frei, on 12/26/2007, -7/+31I'd take that course for laughs and to break balls.
    • MacEnvy, on 12/26/2007, -3/+4The degree on the wall would sure be a good conversation piece ... hmm, that gives me an idea. I wonder how strict the entry standards are at that school.
    • Jpotts12, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4I would try to take the course, but I wouldn't be able to attend lecture without laughing my ass off.
  • santasing, on 12/26/2007, -7/+37Wonder if these graduates will compete with us people for jobs like "creating software" or "creating buildings".
    • macweirdo42, on 12/26/2007, -1/+27Thankfully, they'll never replace me. No piece of software I've ever created was intelligently designed. I just keep adding random bits of code until it does what I want it to do.
  • Vektuz, on 12/26/2007, -5/+28A degree like this severely tarnishes the principles of the institution involved. I'm guessing its from some mail order university that also offers you pope certification for another 20 bucks.
    • dondara, on 12/26/2007, -3/+10I was ordained as a shaman for $5. For another $15 I could get the tax exempt kit. I have the 4 followers that my state requires. Now I just need this degree and a compound somewhere. What flavour kool-aid would you like?
  • INDOAZZ, on 12/26/2007, -13/+4They all will still be at the FOOTBALL game in town FRIDAY NIGHT! It's what they have evolved in to!
  • Botanicus, on 12/26/2007, -72/+7Its just as valid of a study as the theory of evolution. Both have substancial evidence supporting them, though Creation DOESNT have evidence against it. In the end they are BOTH theories and require a certain level of faith to believe. If you can get a degree in evolutionary study, you should be able to get a degree in creationistic study as well. Its that whole freedom of religion thing.
    • TheDHC, on 12/26/2007, -4/+32in science, a theory means supported by facts. creation "science" is no where near a valid theory. evolution is the most researched field in biology and has mountains of credibility. put down your bible jethro and pick up a biology book

    • sirloin, on 12/26/2007, -2/+21lol no they dont.. creationism has zero evidence.. everything they have ever come up with as "evidence" has been disproved.
      Evolution makes predictions and can be disproved, bioth these are nessariy to be caleld a science.. with creationism, once you disprove part of it, rather than collapse, they simply change the throry. creationism also doesnt predict anything
    • ordig, on 12/26/2007, -4/+13No. If you are studying evolutionary biology, you are looking at physical characteristics of animals and trying to figure out what evolved from what animal. What the ***** kind of research would you do as a creation scientist? would reading the bible be your "research"?

      You are correct that they are both theories, but one is a scientific theory that uses a scientific methodology and the other is not. Trying to make creationism a science is just wrong. It should be included in a theology degree. Freedom of religion does not mean religious studies should be respected by the scientific community.
      BTW learn how to spell substantial. Dumbass.
    • Ramble, on 12/26/2007, -2/+17Really? I'm open minded, I'd love to hear this evidence.
    • michael43, on 12/26/2007, -28/+3You can't argue with an atheist. Anything that contradicts their belief is immediately classified as BS and you are laughed at. They cannot grasp the concept that their could be more to life than an accidental combination of cosmic soup. Even if you take it that far, they can't tell you where the ingredients for the soup came from. They'll digg this comment down too, because it does not add air to their inflated egos.
      • macweirdo42, on 12/26/2007, -1/+23Your comment makes no sense. Atheists have no beliefs, only facts and evidence. Of course you get ridiculed for contradicting facts and evidence, you deserve it.

        Believe me, I have the utmost respect for differing opinions, but only if those opinions are justified.
        • antitab, on 12/26/2007, -6/+2'Atheists have no beliefs, only facts and evidence."
          There are no facts or evidence against the existence of God (argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, remember), yet Atheists believe that a God does not exist.
          I think you meant to say Agnostics. Agnostics avoid the whole mess that is trying to make claims about that which we cannot observe, prove, and know.
          • kayala, on 12/26/2007, -3/+9But claiming, with zero evidence, that God does exist makes you an idiot.
            You can't prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, so do we assume that he does?
          • jartur, on 12/27/2007, -1/+5Occam's razor, yes.
            If we can explain everything without introducing God, then we shouldn't introduce it.
        • kreneskyp, on 12/26/2007, -2/+5In this case were not trying to prove that god doesn't exist, only that he didn't create the earth and everything on it. Any fact proving evolution, and we have plenty, are facts disproving creationism.
      • TheHydrogens, on 12/26/2007, -1/+15I like that you say atheists have inflated egos because they DON'T believe that the universe was created especially for them by an all powerful being that loves them the most out of everything....

        Also, I know this has been asked several times, but could you please provide a testable hypothesis for creationism? Or is it NOT a science, but a philosophy?
      • bdbthinker, on 12/26/2007, -2/+9only one problem with your post there chief. atheists would never dare pretend to know (with certainty) where everything came from. to do so is just dishonest. now theists.....
        • michael43, on 12/26/2007, -5/+1that's exactly what you're doing there "chief"
        • bdbthinker, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1i dare you to find any peer-reviewed, scientific journal or credible scientist who says he KNOWS how the universe came to be. Oh sure, we can all look at the evidence and draw wild claims. But let's not pretend, a theist doesn't get his ideas from looking at the evidence...instead they base it off what they WANT to believe which is usually a book that's just Truth. The truth is no one knows how things came...we can only speculate. Yet the theist KNOWS that goddidit. don't believe me? ask one, chief.
      • kreneskyp, on 12/26/2007, -2/+3perhaps there is no answer for where the ingredients come from? Its like the question of what is the meaning of life? Even if you answer the question with "to serve god" or something similar you have not truly answered the question. That only shifts the target of the question. Instead of "where did the universe come from" you will be asking, "where did god come from?". This will repeat infinitely, an endless paradox.

        The only explanation is that "god just is" or "the universe just is".
      • Linzee82, on 12/26/2007, -2/+7Actually, we're digging you down because you're a dumbass.
        • michael43, on 12/26/2007, -5/+2You prove my point with your smart ass comment you conceited bitch. Before you tell me I can't say that because I'm a Christian, I can because it's the truth and you are.
          • Linzee82, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Wow. I'm so not insulted. Here's the point. Atheists are capable of thinking that there could be more to life. But we also take a look at evidence. Everything that science has taught us has led to the theory of evolution. Any evidence for the idea of creationism comes based on the bible. Sorry but science doesn't accept the bible as factual information. And yes, we can't give the answers to how the universe started. No one can for that matter. It's the big question in life that we all need to find out. Your comment got dugg down because your reasoning is all wrong. You talk as if you're so high and mighty because you have faith and you think you know something that the rest of us don't. You're not alone and neither am I. Neither of the groups is mightier than the other. It was your blanket assumption that all atheists are egotistical that got you dugg down. Now stop with the childish name-calling.
          • TheDHC, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1michael, go back to worshiping your invisible sky dictator. leave science to the real scientists
      • toxicshok, on 12/26/2007, -2/+5actually I think we DO know where the "ingredients" for the "cosmic soup" came from.
        • michael43, on 12/26/2007, -5/+2Where? Is it a secret? Where did everything come from? Where did the basic elements come from? Maybe they have always been here? We can't have that because that would make it possible for God to have always been here too.
          • Linzee82, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Read an astronomy book. Or does that go against the bible?
      • fakekevinrose, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2lol you think the universe is 6000 years old
        go back to your cave
    • janoo1989, on 12/26/2007, -1/+5you can't be serious...
    • orangefly, on 12/26/2007, -2/+10people that think the world is 6,000 years old rank right up there with people that think the world is flat.
      • mdcarso, on 12/26/2007, -6/+2Wrong... I know that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, the Earth is 1 day older that the Sun, and that the Earth is round.
        In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. [DD]
        A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth."
        • neognostic, on 12/26/2007, -1/+5Please go back to your cave................
        • nitsuj, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2Too bad for you that your bronze age myth book is completely wrong on the matter. Which means that you're wrong.

          Way to back the wrong horse by believing ancient mythology over modern scientific knowledge you dipstick.
        • Linzee82, on 12/28/2007, -0/+0I'll listen to you as soon as you show me one scientist that accepts the bible as factual information. That's it, just one. I'm waiting...
    • bowens44, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2I suggest you go back to sch