Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

Isn't this illegal down there? :/

[pisskop]

Now, now; we don't know for sure that a global flood wouldn't create rapid fossils . . .  We have freeze dried ice cream, after all.

The only way is to test this.  Its time to flood the Earth.  Go burn styrofoam and do your part.

[Loud Whispers]

Now, now; we don't know for sure that a global flood wouldn't create rapid fossils . . .  We have freeze dried ice cream, after all.

The only way is to test this.  Its time to flood the Earth.  Go burn styrofoam and do your part.

That's more likely to just kill you. Not in a spectacular fashion either.

If you want results, nuke the antarctic sheets.

[MaximumZero]

Isn't this illegal down there? :/

If only. I need to go visit Congress.

[Descan]

You could just go face-punch basic science rigor into the AiG guys...

[Morrigi]

If only it were that easy. See what I mean about societal decay in America, Descan?

[Neonivek]

Hmm let me see...

11-14 are all correct and are in the religious realm so there is nothing that conflicts with anything else. Though I wouldn't be surprised if you get 14 wrong even though frankly that cartoony depiction is likely completely inaccurate to what it would have to be.

15 is a misleading question. Now by average are we talking about species to species or are we talking dinosaur to dinosaur? Since while I know the common depiction of Dinosaurs are that they are huge, there were many MANY very small dinosaurs which I am sure brings the average down. So 15 could be right but I don't know enough about the subject.

16 is... actually probably the most correct answer there. I mean I know some people are going "But the answer is D!!!", in which I must state evolution doesn't turn a dinosaur into a fossil.

17 is also correct >_<

The creationist Quiz is so far actually pretty tame and I only seen Page 2. I mean, if you erased the "creationist" part it could easily be a REAL test of science and religion.... judging ONLY by Page 2.

[Descan]

If only it were that easy. See what I mean about societal decay in America, Descan?

Nope. This kind of shit has been going on FOREVER, but it's only recently that a) we know about it, b) we care about it, and c) we know the actual answer.

In the past, this kind of ill-education has been hidden, no one cared about it, and no one actually KNEW that the bible was wrong so they thought it was good, wholesome teaching.

[Gentlefish]

The problem is that congress cannot intervene. It's a private school. It's a bass-ackwards school, but they can teach what they want. They don't even have to be state-certified because they're not a highschool. Unless they teach highschool grades. Then they wouldn't be able to get a state-certified diploma.

TL;DR they're a private institute and can therefore teach whatever they want. It's a crying shame, but it's true.

[Neonivek]

In the past, this kind of ill-education has been hidden, no one cared about it, and no one actually KNEW that the bible was wrong so they thought it was good, wholesome teaching.

I am going to contain my displeasure and just ask. How far in the past are we talking about?

[Descan]

In the past, this kind of ill-education has been hidden, no one cared about it, and no one actually KNEW that the bible was wrong so they thought it was good, wholesome teaching.

I am going to contain my displeasure and just ask. How far in the past are we talking about?

Up to early 1900s. After that, people steadily started knowing, caring, and having knowledge, and it spiked up with the advent of the internet.

[Morrigi]

In the past, I was under the impression that God and the theory of evolution were taught side by side.

[Descan]

Maybe it was, but it shouldn't have been.

And a) we've only known about evolution as a teachable thing for -maaaybe- a hundred years, a hundred sixty if you want to base it off of when Darwin published, and b) even then, it wasn't actually taught until maybe 1930s, 1950s. Remember the Scopes trial?

Even now, I don't know if it's a nationwide thing that (public at least) schools need to teach evolution, but you hear every few months of yet -another- legislator or school administrator trying to "teach the controversy" (there is none) or flat out try and get the bible in to public schools science classrooms.

[Neonivek]

In the past, this kind of ill-education has been hidden, no one cared about it, and no one actually KNEW that the bible was wrong so they thought it was good, wholesome teaching.

I am going to contain my displeasure and just ask. How far in the past are we talking about?

Up to early 1900s. After that, people steadily started knowing, caring, and having knowledge, and it spiked up with the advent of the internet.

Honestly I think that is mostly untrue. I just think the "bigotry" has been refocused in other areas and that people are just as dumb and ignorant as they were a thousand years ago, they just delude themselves otherwise.

Where people decry the ignorance of others for "not seeing the facts" they themselves accept the facts in the exact same ways just with different sources.

We just got lucky and for once the stupidity is working for our advantage in some areas.

[Descan]

What other areas, what kind of bigotry are you talking about (no one mentioned bigotry), and while people may be dumb and ignorant, the average intelligence and knowledge has been steadily rising.

And I can barely even begin to go into how your second statement was wrong, but "knowledge" based off of a translated and transcribed hundreds if not thousand of times (with errors abounding) book thousands of years old, hearsay, "just-so stories" and "Don't question just believe" tales, VS. knowledge based off of experiment after experiment after test after test, hundreds of thousands of times and all reaching the same answer, rigourous peer review and hundreds of thousands if not millions of people looking for problems so they could become a household name?

I think it's clear which one is more likely to be correct.