Documentary on Creationism Museum watch!
youtube.com — 3 students decide to attend the grand opening of the controversial creationism museum. Will make you laugh and cry!
Ubersmush- 364 diggs
- digg it
- browny1978, on 10/10/2007, -16/+1Imagine a world without america??? what damn boring place it would be, im so glad we the the us-of-a, it makes me glad in english.
- TheChihuahua, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6...just a shame you can't speak the damn language.
I mean seriously, does NO-ONE proof-read any more? - bruenig, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3He makes a good point, what would the world be like without dumbasses to make fun of, quite boring.
- brainvdm, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3Evolutionists?
- wafflez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3*sigh* message to the rest of the world: We're not all this arrogant or stupid, stop mocking the entirety of this country's population for a few.
- stimpack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Its the contrast of extremes about the US that fascinates me. From something as amazing as a body such as NASA, to something as ludicrous as creationists, funny stuff. But yes, we all have our own asshats :).
- brainvdm, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2That sounds pretty ignorant. My bet is that you know nothing of the subject...
- brainvdm, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2No, some of us do believe in Creationism. Please don't mock us that some don't.
- stimpack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Its the contrast of extremes about the US that fascinates me. From something as amazing as a body such as NASA, to something as ludicrous as creationists, funny stuff. But yes, we all have our own asshats :).
- rodii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, how did the world get by all those centuries without knuckleheads like you?
- TheChihuahua, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6...just a shame you can't speak the damn language.
- mille716, on 10/10/2007, -4/+53Did anyone else laugh when they showed the "World without God" exhibit? I loved the screams and scary music as they showed pictures of genocide, atomic explosions and gay marriage. Quick question: which one of those three will not harm anyone on earth?
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Hmmm... The atomic explosions? this better not be a trick question..... >:-(
- bradg2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16The funny thing is those pictures were taken while they beleive in god.....
- IllBeBack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Uh, all that stuff has already happened while people believe in God. These people seem to have supreme difficulty with extrapolation and examining ultimate eventualities. They can't apply simple logic to their fear-controlled thoughts.
- Puppyfam, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0I've visited the museum. If I recall correctly, that area was trying to explain why there is suffering in a world with God, not suggesting those things would only happen in a world without him.
- HPCELarry, on 10/10/2007, -9/+28I'm a conservative Christian, and i find this completely repugnant. It is a total and complete misinterpretation of the Bible, and does not qualify as a scientific theory. Such theories must be able to predict future results, and this cannot what so ever. Sorry folks, Darwinism wins.
- Abennobashi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31A conservative Christian on Digg? hahhahahahahahaa never.
- Ramble, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11As a Christian you should probably do something, lord knows the atheist community is trying. Please, outline it as unacceptable behaviour, you'd have more credibility.
- Roblodocus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Conservative Christian that believes in Darwinism, isn't that a conflict of interests?
- rodii, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0That term does not mean what you think it does.
- TypeEE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I wish there are more of your species, however, your species is about to extinct due to nature selection. A Christian who believes in creationism might be a better fit.
- xDibblerx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Conservative Christian that believes in Darwinism, isn't that a conflict of interests?
Totally! It'd be like someone from this site saying: "I'm a total Mac and Apple fan and I just have to say Windows Rulez!"
- Ocelot13, on 10/10/2007, -10/+30Evolution FTW!!
- Starskey, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Stop it.
- stigma15, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Evolution STW! (save the world)
- deathweaver108, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8A+
- Vodka2389, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Not really... We already know why normal people resent that "museum." It would be more interesting to interview somebody who can give a legitimate reason why he/she supports it. (unless there aren't any of those people, which is likely)
- Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4they showed like 3 people that did......
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Key word there was "legitimate." Try again skippy.
- Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4they showed like 3 people that did......
- Vodka2389, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Not really... We already know why normal people resent that "museum." It would be more interesting to interview somebody who can give a legitimate reason why he/she supports it. (unless there aren't any of those people, which is likely)
- TroubleInMind, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21It's perfectly fine to have a Museum of Creationism. A museum is "A building, place, or institution devoted to the acquisition, conservation, study, exhibition, and educational interpretation of objects." One could have a museum of Pokemon or a museum of The Three Stooges and it could be a perfectly interesting place to visit, regardless of whether the subject matter was based in fiction or fact.
However, it appears this particular place should not be called a museum. It appears to be a bastion of advocacy.- Hermitwise, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I think they're more afraid of schools sending children there like it's a science museum than it just existing.
- kelly, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2The museum is based on at LEAST as much factual evidence is is evolution and big bang theories. I don't see you calling out those museum for being "a bastion of advocacy."
- TroubleInMind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You completely lost me, dude. I think it's cause your premise is flawed. Evolution and the big bang are hypotheses based on scientific, observable evidence. Those ideas can and do change, as new science explains new things and our views become clearer.
The claim that dinosaurs walked among men, there is no scientific evidence to support that whatsoever. Yet this facility has elaborate, professionally designed exhibits stating it as fact.
And what evidence would you offer to support your view that the Earth was created in six days by a supreme being? If he's such an awesome guy, why did it take six days? Couldn't he just blink like I Dream Of Jeannie and [boingggggggg] it's all there? - ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What kelly actually means is that he personally heard and read about as much factual knowledge. However, kelly has never read s single book on evolution.
- TroubleInMind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You completely lost me, dude. I think it's cause your premise is flawed. Evolution and the big bang are hypotheses based on scientific, observable evidence. Those ideas can and do change, as new science explains new things and our views become clearer.
- andrewrocks, on 10/10/2007, -7/+22"Does it have to do with The Bible? Then it's *****." That dude is my new hero.
- wastedlife, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Isn't he the guy from the "The Price of Atheism" video?
- Ronnie, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5We can laugh at this crap all day long. But at the end of the day, These are the zealots that are running our country.. Think I'll go home and cry all night
- Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6You damn well better make sure you vote them out next year then.
The world is laughing at you America.- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Unlikely. We have to replace the current president with SOMEBODY. The list of options are mostly more of the same.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1They're running our country? Can you show me some proof of that? The Supreme Court has consistencly ruled against these nuts.
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3ok ok sorry... TRYING to run our country and failing. Does that work better?
- Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6You damn well better make sure you vote them out next year then.
- WonderBoy55, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Dugg to raise awareness of peoples idiocy.
- kelly, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2And you got dugg down by be because of your idiocy.
- rune420, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I love how you misspelled a two letter word.
- TheDrop, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I thought he just had a sty stu stuttering problem. I felt sorry for the little guy.
- kelly, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2And you got dugg down by be because of your idiocy.
- sdubois92, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Is that the whole "documentary"?
- Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1i think it was a high school project so most likely, very well done for a high school documentary
- oMeSSiaHo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+29The "World without God" section is a joke. They showed pictures of a wolf eating an animal (how is the wolf supposed to live BTW?), the skulls from Cambodia, a starving child and a nuclear explosion. All of those things happened in a world WITH God. That section is working against itself!
- plundstedt, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1That's accurate because that's what happens when the world turns from God and decides to go it's own way. When a nation decides to be obedient to God, you will see a huge change for the better.
- mille716, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3First off, how can you realistically get an entire nation to follow your God and not any...you know what, you're not going to be pursueded by anything I write. Lets just agree to disagree.
- Jergens, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Yes. If only the entire nation would turn to god, then those wild dogs with sharp teeth will start to eat the leaves and the grass. Makes perfect sense!
- Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Yep, that's why Iran is heaven on Earth! Oops, sorry, wrong God...
- ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He is right ... or not.
* Buddhism vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasions of Vietnam, 1258-1285
* Buddhism vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasion of Vietnam, 1288
* Buddhism vs. Communism, Chinese Invasion of Tibet, Tibet, 1950-1951 CE
* Confucianism vs. Taoism, Mongol invasion of Western China, 1205-1209 CE
* Confucianism vs. Taoism, Mongol invasion of Northern China, 1211-1234 CE
* Confucianism vs. Islam, Mongol invasion of Central Asia, 1218-1220 CE
* Confucianism vs. Islam, Mongol invasion of Baghdad, 1258
* Confucianism vs. Shinto, Mongol invasions of Japan, 1274-1281
* Confucianism vs. Islam, Mongol invasion of Baghdad, 1258
* Confucianism vs. Buddhism, Mongol invasions of Vietnam, 1258-1285
* Confucianism vs. Taoism, Mongol invasions of Southern China, 1279
* Confucianism vs. Christianity, Mongol invasion of Hungary, 1285
* Confucianism vs. Christianity, Mongol raid against Bulgaria, 1285
* Confucianism vs. Christianity, Mongol raid against Poland,1287
* Confucianism vs. Buddhism, Mongol invasion of Vietnam, 1288
* Confucianism vs. Islam, Mongol invasion of Syria, 1299
* Christianity vs. Zoroastrianism, Roman-Persian Wars, Mespotamia and Modern Turkey, 502-562 CE
* Christianity vs. Islam, Byzantine-Arab Wars, Modern Lebanon and Turkey, 632-750 CE
* Christianity vs. Islam, Umayyad Conquest of Iberia, Modern Spain and Portugal, 711-718 CE
* Christianity vs. Islam , History of Islam in Southern Italy, Sicily and Southern Italian Peninsula, 831-902 CE
* Christianity vs. Islam and Judaism, Reconquista, Iberian Peninsula, 923-1212 CE
* Christianity vs. Islam, Crusades, Middle East, 1091-1402 CE
* Christianity vs. Judaism, German Crusade, Germany, 1096 CE
* Christianity vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasion of Hungary, 1285
* Christianity vs. Confucianism, Mongol raid against Bulgaria, 1285
* Christianity vs. Confucianism, Mongol raid against Poland,1287
* Christianity vs. Indigenous Beliefs, European colonization of the Americas, The Americas, 1492-1890 CE
o Catholicism vs. Eastern Orthodoxy, Fourth Crusade, Balkans-Greece and Anatolia, 1201-1204 CE
o Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Wars of Religion, France, 1560-1598 CE
o Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Thirty Years War, Western Europe, 1618-1648 CE
o Protestantism vs. Catholicism, The Troubles, Ireland, 1609-1998 CE
* Hinduism vs. Zoroastrianism, Seleucid Invasion of India, Indus River, 304 BCE
* Hinduism vs. Pantheism, Battle of the Hydaspes River, Indus River, 326 BCE
* Hinduism vs. Islam, Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent, 664-712 CE
* Islam vs. Pantheism, Wars of Arabian Unification, See(Muhammad as a general), Arabia, 622-632 CE
* Islam vs. Christianity, Byzantine-Arab Wars, Modern Lebanon and Turkey, 632-750 CE
* Islam vs. Zoroastrianism, Islamic conquest of Persia, Modern Iran, 637-651 CE
* Islam vs. Hinduism, Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent, 664-712 CE
* Islam vs. Christianity, Umayyad Conquest of Iberia, Modern Spain and Portugal, 711-718 CE
* Islam vs. Christianity, History of Islam in Southern Italy, Sicily and Southern Italian Peninsula, 831-902 CE
* Islam vs. Christianity, Reconquista, Iberian Peninsula, 923-1212 CE
* Islam vs. Christianity, The Crusades, The Middle East, 1091-1402 CE
* Islam vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasion of Central Asia, 1218-1220 CE
* Islam vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasion of Baghdad, 1258
o Shi'ism vs. Kharijism, Battle of Nahrawan, Mesopotamia, 657 CE
o Sunnism vs. Shi'ism, First Fitna, Arabia and Mesopotamia, 656-661 CE
o Sunnism vs. Shi'ism, Second Fitna, Arabia and Mesopotamia, 683-692 CE
o Sunnism vs. Shi'ism, Iraqi Civil War, Iraq, 2004 CE-ongoing
* Judaism vs. Pantheism, Great Jewish Revolt, Levant, 66-135 CE
* Judaism vs. Christianity, Reconquista, Iberian Peninsula, 923-1212 CE
* Judaism vs. Christianity, German Crusade, Germany, 1096 CE
* Shinto vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasions of Japan, 1274-1281
* Taoism vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasion of Western China, 1205-1209 CE
* Taoism vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasion of Northern China, 1211-1234 CE
* Taoism vs. Confucianism, Mongol invasions of Southern China, 1279
* Zoroastrianism vs. Hinduism, Seleucid Invasion of India, Indus River, 304 BCE
* Zoroastrianism vs. Christianity, Roman-Persian Wars, Mespotamia and Modern Turkey, 502-562 CE
* Zoroastrianism vs. Islam, Islamic conquest of Persia, Modern Iran, 637-651 CE
- kelly, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Before the fall of man, (In Genesis) all animals were herbivores.
- Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3is there proof of this other than, uhh the bible?
- Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nope. I don't even think that's in the bible,but I've not read it since i was a kid.(and yeah,I'm an atheist.)
All land creatures evolved from sea creatures.
- Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nope. I don't even think that's in the bible,but I've not read it since i was a kid.(and yeah,I'm an atheist.)
- Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3is there proof of this other than, uhh the bible?
- plundstedt, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1That's accurate because that's what happens when the world turns from God and decides to go it's own way. When a nation decides to be obedient to God, you will see a huge change for the better.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8It's amazing to me how some people when given hard facts will still cling to the superstitious. I remember in a philisophy class my prof had use watch some doc on creationists somewhere in the bible belt. Many of them creeped us out. More than a few actually said they would wish their children dead before they would want them taught the theory of evolution. Fanatic Islam anyone? There are nutjobs in every religion I guess....
- kelly, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2"It's amazing to me how some people when given hard facts will still cling to the superstitious"
I can give you cold hard facts that support creationist theory and discredits big bang evolution and big bang theories yet something tells me that you will still clicthose. Am I right?- mille716, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8You are wrong. There are no cold hard facts to support creationist theory. Sorry.
- glasgowm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No you can't.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Hard to say since you gave us jack *****. It would have been nice if you would have actually shown us your hard facts instead of just telling us you have them. Maybe THEN I could have answered your question honestly. Maybe it's becasue you know your "facts" are crap and we would be able to tear it apart? As to your Big Bang ref. Not all scientists agree the Big Bang actually happened. Shocking I know.... There is enough data out there which doesn't seem to fit the Big Bang theory but that does not in ANY way prove your creationist thoery has ANY validity. There are alternate SCIENTIFIC theories about the creation of the universe and none of them involve some god. Now that being said I am an openminded person and if you honestly feel you have good scientific data which supports your view please share it with us.
- rodii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I keep seeing this conflation of "big bang" and "evolution" these days. What's up with that? Are these fundie talking points that are being circulated somehow? The big bang and evolution are completely independent of one another.
That said, I doubt there are many physicists who doubt the big bang account of things in its outline. Even people who hypothesize that instead of a singularity, there might have been a moment of maximum density, with another expanding and contracting universe before it, agree (I think) that no information could be transmitted from the old to the new. So it may not be a big bang in the sense of a singularity, but it's an account of the beginning of *our* universe that, after that first tiny fraction of a second agrees with the standard big bang theorie(s).- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"I doubt there are many physicists who doubt the big bang account of things in its outline. "
Good thing you aren't betting on this because you are wrong. Just as in with the whole human global warming debate, there is no consensus on the big bang theory. For a long time it has been the best explanation we had but that is not true anymore. I went to a top 5 college and my physics prof was one of those not entirely convinced the big bang fits the current body of data. If you do some looking you will find legit astrophysicists who feel the same way. They don't just feel it's wrong there is data that seems to say it's not correct.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"I doubt there are many physicists who doubt the big bang account of things in its outline. "
- Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0you say that yet present none.....so until you do STFU
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2every one that commented up to this point took the wrong approach ###
correct approach: No I will not cling to my old opinions If you can provide CONCLUSIVE evidence that both the big bang theory and evolution are wrong. By conclusive I mean evidence which can not be explained away. If you can do that then I would not cling to my beliefs and would in fact renounce them. Just a word of warning though, if you disprove evolution you still need to prove creationism before I will agree with. ###
Now go ahead. I'm listening to what you have to say. I'm gonna go watch a thirty minute Metroid retrospective on gametrailers.com. When I'm done I'll come back and look to see if you at least agreed to the challenge and read what you have to say. - wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+131 minutes later and no reply.
- kelly, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2"It's amazing to me how some people when given hard facts will still cling to the superstitious"
- kelly, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5The guy says, you can't prove creationism scientifically. It's important that the same can be said of evolution and big bang theories. There is however some evidence that supports both theories.
The problem I have is with people who think that creationists believe it based solely on faith. That simply isn't true.
While its true that there is a great deal of creationism that we don't know... the same can be said of evolution and big bang theories. By that notion, they are BOTH faith-based theories.
More info can be found here: www.drdino.com- mille716, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You are totally wrong and I was about to bury your comment till I went to the drdino website. That was hilarious. Thank you. I will digg you up now for the enjoyment I found there. Please view some Dr. Dawkins videos or read his books now.
- glasgowm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9No, Evolution is proven.
Stupid christians see "The Theory Of Evoltion" and assume that means we don't fully understand it yet, its not - it's because everying in science is a theory, just like the theory of gravity,etc..
Evolution is 100% fact.- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The evolutionary process is 100% fact of that there is zero doubt. The big bang is another story. The big bang is another story. But why is it that the creationists feel they have prooven their own theory just because there may be a problem with soem established theory? They do not understand the scientific method. Unlike a religious belief, scientific theories are not set in stone. They can and most often do change as we get better data. They usually change in small ways but sometimes in very major and important ways. Their religious belifes are pretty much set in stone. They can not change. If they change then that means the invalidation of their religion.
- mille716, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2kelly, thank you soooo much for posting that site. Everybody, watch these videos on that drdino site. They. Are. Hilarious!
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php - rodii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Evidence for creationism" would be facts that can be explained in a Creationist framework that *cannot* be explained in an evolutionary framework. Arguments against evolution aren't arguments for creationism, they're just areas that *any* theory has to account for.
- Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1ever heard of gravity, it's actually called the gravitational theory, so because it's a called the gravitational theory does that mean gravity isn't proven? no it just means, we're still learning about it......same with the theory of evolution and the big bang theory......
- TypeEE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There are proof to creationist? They found trace of god?
- hypertron, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1I find these kinds of institutions despicable. They perpetuate complete lies and *****. Any religion can have fanatics, and every religion does. I hate to say it, but I love hearing about these things because they are always something new to make fun of. Just like watching the O'Reilly factor.
P.S The guy with the gray hair and the bandana was the same guy from another video. He was the father of the girl who was prosecuted at her school because she was an atheist and would recite the lord's prayer. - ryno35, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2from this site: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1328
Professor Wickramasinghe of the department of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff, Wales, did not take the stand for the creationists in Arkansas out of sympathy for their alternative scenario. A non-Christian from Sri Lanka, the professor said that it was for him not a question of the Bible’s inerrancy; he didn’t believe in the Bible at all. He testified for the creationists solely because he felt it was important to puncture neo-Darwinism’s pretenses. “Some 2,000 or so enzymes are known to be crucial for life,” he reported, and continued:
"At a conservative estimate, say 15 Sites per enzyme must be fixed to be filled by particular amino acids for proper biological function. . . [T]he probability of discovering this set by random shuffling is one in [10 to the power of 40,000], a number that exceeds by many powers of 10 the number of all atoms in the entire observable universe" [Science News, Vol. 121 (January 16, 1982)].- maffiou, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I said in the past and I say again:
The odds are stacked against life, yet, they're only odds... It's all a mater of probability... It's unlikely, yet unlikely things happen all the time...
There is one chance in a million you'll win the lottery, but for one lucky individual, that chance was his and that was enough to get the lot...- ryno35, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You misunderstand probability. The chance I might win the powerball is actually well over 1 in 100 million but if that chance was 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000 no one would ever win. At some point probability shows impossibility. There must be some mathematicians up here that would agree with that statement.
- ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Too bad he made it all up.
- Fetttson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You can't look back and call something impossible.
Imagine that you're playing cards. You deal out the hand and say "Wow, look at this hand! We could play for years and never get this exact hand again!" But the fact remains that you got it. - ryno35, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I doubt any of you who have commented here are either mathematicians or biologists and I doubt you know anything about evolution besides what you read in high school.
If you want to put your faith in what you see as a consensus or an absurdly small chance as to be mathematically impossible or whatever, go ahead, it's really not my concern. I do think though that what Dr. Wickramasinghe has to say is quite interesting and really IMO, blows the lid off Darwinism.
http://www.panspermia.org/chandra.htm
- ryno35, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You misunderstand probability. The chance I might win the powerball is actually well over 1 in 100 million but if that chance was 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000 no one would ever win. At some point probability shows impossibility. There must be some mathematicians up here that would agree with that statement.
- maffiou, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I said in the past and I say again:
- DaniFilth, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0I didn't laugh or cry, I puked from the shaky cam. Nice effort though.
- russTtraumbowen, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2ahhhhh, ignorance is truly blissful.
- brainvdm, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Yes, I agree evolutionists can be a bit ignorant.
- ingenium21, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The problem with that statement is that its wrong. "Darwinists" do not believe it all happened out of random shuffling, none of them do. And those of us that do not believe in this idiotic notion of intelligent design refuse to believe in the fact that a "magic man did it".
- Gl4di4tor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14"Christian Hillbilly"- - anyone see that guy's hat lol
- Dulcinea80, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Oh I saw it... and boy howdy did I laugh!
- ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think it's they guy from http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Atheist+Experience
- kelly, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6Interesting how he cuts off the creationists when they get into the science... but they leave the camera on the Christianity bashers for their full comment.
- strifeprime, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5I don't believe in Creationism or Evolution, but I am all for people's right to religion and to believe in whatever they want. We should never try to silence anyone if we wish for this to remain a free society.
- allenthar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's when belief turns into policy that it becomes ugly.
- arcooke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6A free society is good, but an educated one is better. When the world has billions of people running around hugging onto ancient stories written by uncivilized people, theres a problem.
- cptpike, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Wow, what a statement.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It's insanity to me when you can decide one religion is correct and the countless others are wrong. It's even more insane when you can then say since theses other people are doomed to eternal torment because they don't believe as you do. I'm pretty sure the ancient Greeks were every bit as convinced in the reality of their gods as modern religious folk are of their own gods yet today we call their religion myth. What has happened in the past shall happen again. today's religions are tomorrow's mythology.
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In a way he is right. An educated society will gravitate to less dictatorial forms of government by nature simply because an informed public makes a dictatorship harder to maintain without resorting to force. Once you resort to force the cat is out of the bag and your clearly a dictator. At that point you can expect a coup ether some time in the near future are shortly after you die and your idiot brother takes over.
An educated society desiring a truly free government is even better and is required for a democracy to survive for long periods of time. It makes the lowering quality of our schools seem like a massive conspiracy doesn't it?
- Vodka2389, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So what do you believe in, just out of curiosity?
- Lax32, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Its absolutely ridiculous. Im a pretty big christian and I dont even know how that got built.
The fact is, evolution and the general scientific story about how the world was made can be backed by evidence. There are a few things you can debate, but for the most part everything is scientifically solid. The idea that the world is 6 million years old and that dinosaurs walked with man cannot. That doesnt mean Christianity itself is flawed, it means that a different interpretation of the bible is needed. These people just dont want to get with the program.- Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1people mistake that evolution throws out god (i don't believe in god..i think it's a joke) but perhapes god got life rolling and just sat back and watched what happened who knows but then again.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Fox.27s_experiments
- Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1people mistake that evolution throws out god (i don't believe in god..i think it's a joke) but perhapes god got life rolling and just sat back and watched what happened who knows but then again.....
- Ubersmush, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2How'd this make front page? It's 6 minutes of crap!
- HumanWaste, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11The cool thing about this video is that it makes both sides look like dicks. Probably the most unbiased reporting I've seen this month.
- plundstedt, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2I guess we can debate the issue of creationism and Darwinism till we get blue in the face, and we really won't which is the real truth one way or the other until this world ceases to exist. There are good arguments for both sides.
- stimpack, on 10/26/2007, -3/+3No such debate exists outside small cliques of religious fanatics. Bear in mind most religious people believe in Darwinism, at least here in the UK, most likely in the US too even if these zealots gets all the airtime.
- wolferz, on 10/26/2007, -4/+0Uhm, how will we know after this world ceases to exist? I imagine if we don't know by then we never will. And I still haven't seen any good arguments for creationism.
- brainvdm, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Then you haven't looked or haven't listened.
- gregdbowen, on 10/26/2007, -2/+1no - there are no decent arguments on the creationism side. Nada - zip - zilcho.
You have been brainwashed by an ignorant vocal minority. You might as well say there is good evidence that witches float.
The erosion of reason and numb acceptance of wannabeism is dangerous and embarrassing. You evolved from an ape like creature. The earth and life are millions of years old and eveloved through natural selection and processes. This is fact and has been for hundreds of years - Darwin is on one of the bills in England! There is no Santa Claus god a the end of the tunnel. Sorry but it just is not so. I know it seems comforting and the truth is hard to accept.
- SilentSpyder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That last guy is the father from the girl atheist. Vid below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL3LY09PP_Y - LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0That link was too one sided, for the REAL blasphemy one has to take in the 'facts' from the creationism point of view
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzjjxi7f0Oc&mode=related&search=
btw he says the T-rex boarded the ark, OMG!- veoeluz2268, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2what makes you think that that would be impossible? Many people get the idea that noah put every animal, or at least two of every single animal into the ark. This isn't necessarilly true; All sea and water life would remain in the sea, and many of the birds would remain in the air (think of how far and how long some birds travel to migrate!) also, the Bible states in Gen 6:19 "And you shall bring into the ark two of every kind..." kind... so they didn't have to take two of every type of dog, just two of them of its kind. The same would work for all the other major types of animals, and most likely they would pick the smallest ones available.. A baby t-rex would be much more manageable than its mommy. Also, the ark was to be built by measurements in cubits (the length of ones elbow to the tips of their middle finger). If you take the Bible as accurate, at least in some account, people lived much longer in those days, due to the different environment of that time (study the deposits of air that were found in amber (tree sap) dated by trees from a long time ago). Noah could very well have been a bit bigger than what our average old person is today; which in turn, would make his cubit, and the ark, much larger.
For more details please study the videos and other materials located on http://www.drdino.com/- gooch411, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Funniest thing I read all day. Thanks. :)
- LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0yeah and all that carbon dating is all a bunch of hooey. Creationism is soooooooooo lacking in facts. Go pick up a ***** book.
- gooch411, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Funniest thing I read all day. Thanks. :)
- veoeluz2268, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2what makes you think that that would be impossible? Many people get the idea that noah put every animal, or at least two of every single animal into the ark. This isn't necessarilly true; All sea and water life would remain in the sea, and many of the birds would remain in the air (think of how far and how long some birds travel to migrate!) also, the Bible states in Gen 6:19 "And you shall bring into the ark two of every kind..." kind... so they didn't have to take two of every type of dog, just two of them of its kind. The same would work for all the other major types of animals, and most likely they would pick the smallest ones available.. A baby t-rex would be much more manageable than its mommy. Also, the ark was to be built by measurements in cubits (the length of ones elbow to the tips of their middle finger). If you take the Bible as accurate, at least in some account, people lived much longer in those days, due to the different environment of that time (study the deposits of air that were found in amber (tree sap) dated by trees from a long time ago). Noah could very well have been a bit bigger than what our average old person is today; which in turn, would make his cubit, and the ark, much larger.
- jbob2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2whats the name of the song at 4:15?
- stigma15, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2'Layla" by Eric Clapton
- FlapJaw, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1DOGS OF WAR
- kinoshita, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0ahah lol what a joke eh?
- joshman5k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I wish Kim Ham would stop speaking with an Australian accent it really is embarrassing.
- brainvdm, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Considering he's from Australia.... I'll let it pass.
- gregdbowen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2IGNORANT DESIGN
hillbilly American trash. How shameful. - Nerfatron, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"Museum" ? WTF?
museum- noun. A place where objects of artistic, scientific or historical interest are displayed to the public, preserved and studied.
Chambers Reference Online
It would be more accurate to describe that as a "Creationism Fantasy Theme Park."- Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2 Yup,that sums it up pretty well.
- brainvdm, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2I don't know who brain-washed you, but "A place where objects of artistic, scientific or historical interest are displayed to the public, preserved and studied" is exactly what the Creation Museum is...
- Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2 Yup,that sums it up pretty well.
- MN1962, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Is it anywhere near Ned Flanders Praiseland Amusement Park.
- tehkain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Oh man - my heart stops when I hear science being called 'just another religion'. Really? People like this do not understand what science provides for them indiscriminately. Science builds civilizations - I just wish I could shows these people what it would be like to live in a world without science. That world would make the Amish look like a bastion of scientific knowledge.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful - Seneca the Younger- ryno35, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I'd check your facts on that last statement. Many wise men and intelligent scientists believe in the truth of the Bible. One example being Donald Knuth considered by many to be the father of modern computer science algorithms.
- Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Many?" HOW many? Can you back this up?
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
i would think that would be hard to prove one way or the ither.- ryno35, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How many would it take to convince you?
- LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1tehkain is absolutely right.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful - Seneca the Younger
Think long and hard about that and get back to me on that.
- Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Many?" HOW many? Can you back this up?
- brainvdm, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1OK, OK, symantecs.... evolutionary science is a religion, not science...
- ryno35, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I'd check your facts on that last statement. Many wise men and intelligent scientists believe in the truth of the Bible. One example being Donald Knuth considered by many to be the father of modern computer science algorithms.
- gafasiesornivek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I can't wait to see your faces mashed into the dirt. Maybe it will wipe the stupid look off of them.
- TroubleInMind, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Probably. Maybe we can discuss this in terms of Why This Thing is Bad, as opposed to discussing religion. How's that?
There is a Museum of the Holocaust. It has historical items, information, films, pictures, exhibits, and educational context regarding the Holocaust, and serves to educate visitors regarding the historical record, about what you'd expect.
Now, there's another Museum of the Holocaust over there. You go in. It says the Holocaust never occurred. There are some pamphets about the Zionist conspiracy, and professionally created fancy exhibits illustrating all the conspiracy theories such folk use to explain the physical evidence away without admitting that the Jews were rounded up and killed.
One is in line with legitimate historical evidence, the other purports to be legitimate but actually serves as a "bastion of advocacy" for a group of folks trying to create traction for their own agenda.- brainvdm, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2One is in line with legitimate "historical evidence" - You mean your interpretation of the evidence.
- robszol, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1lmao. "I'm an engineer."
- BeLogical, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0You ever wonder why the people against the things of God are so angry all the time? The truth is out there, just keep searching...
Matthew 7:8 "For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." Ask God to reveal himself to you today. - monroetransfer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"I can't believe anybody would believe a cell could create itself."
... you did pass ninth grade science?
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by