Comments on: It’s Back. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/22/its-back/ by Hemant Mehta Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:55:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: SMARTCHRISTIANGUY http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-820854 SMARTCHRISTIANGUY Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:13:00 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-820854 You damn atheists will burn in hell.  I am personal friends with Pastor Tim, and I think the only people making mistakes here are all of you.  I fully understand and follow the concept of religion, and I'm in Advanced education classes.  Whenever this comes up, must I ask:  How did the world start?  You respond with many theories, and I respond with: how did those start?  SOMETHING that was already there had to catapult things into motion, and a supernatural being is what did that.  Evolution is a bunch of BS.  As it seems, the only thing you could of inherited from your "ape" friends is a brain as dumb as a monkeys.  Obviously, I didn't come from no chimp because I am able to put 2 and 2 together and see that I didn't evolve from nothing.  Try teaching you precious moneys that. You damn atheists will burn in hell.  I am personal friends with Pastor Tim, and I think the only people making mistakes here are all of you.  I fully understand and follow the concept of religion, and I’m in Advanced education classes.  Whenever this comes up, must I ask:  How did the world start?  You respond with many theories, and I respond with: how did those start?  SOMETHING that was already there had to catapult things into motion, and a supernatural being is what did that.  Evolution is a bunch of BS.  As it seems, the only thing you could of inherited from your “ape” friends is a brain as dumb as a monkeys.  Obviously, I didn’t come from no chimp because I am able to put 2 and 2 together and see that I didn’t evolve from nothing.  Try teaching you precious moneys that.

]]> By: *Smacks Laptop Screen Repeatedly* « PodBlack Blog http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-164832 *Smacks Laptop Screen Repeatedly* « PodBlack Blog Thu, 15 May 2008 06:20:03 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-164832 [...] Link. Link. Link. Link. Link. Link, oh and beautifully said by Evolution [...] [...] Link. Link. Link. Link. Link. Link, oh and beautifully said by Evolution [...]

]]> By: Friendly Atheist » It’s My Blogiversary! http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-41516 Friendly Atheist » It’s My Blogiversary! Wed, 13 Jun 2007 05:20:16 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-41516 [...] After citing many of the mistakes, they eventually took the pamphlet off the site. [...] [...] After citing many of the mistakes, they eventually took the pamphlet off the site. [...]

]]> By: Siamang http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-4582 Siamang Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:12:12 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-4582 Hey, Hemant, It's Gone now! Did Parkview and Pastor Tim take down his document? Hey, Hemant, It’s Gone now! Did Parkview and Pastor Tim take down his document?

]]> By: Siamang http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-4581 Siamang Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:04:44 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-4581 Cautious, I have the second version, the one where he updated it the first time, primarily to address the National Geographic Cover. Cautious, I have the second version, the one where he updated it the first time, primarily to address the National Geographic Cover.

]]> By: Friendly Atheist » It’s Back. Part 2. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-1131 Friendly Atheist » It’s Back. Part 2. Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:48:27 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-1131 [...] A few days ago, I wrote about the re-issuing of the Creationist pamphlet on a local church’s website. A person who attends the church had contacted me about some upcoming sermons they are having. I told her that I was disappointed that Parkview Christian Church had decided to put up the pamphlet even after they said they would remove it due to the massive errors. [...] [...] A few days ago, I wrote about the re-issuing of the Creationist pamphlet on a local church’s website. A person who attends the church had contacted me about some upcoming sermons they are having. I told her that I was disappointed that Parkview Christian Church had decided to put up the pamphlet even after they said they would remove it due to the massive errors. [...]

]]> By: Notes on “Creationism for my Child’s Teacher” « Nes’ Ramblings http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-1111 Notes on “Creationism for my Child’s Teacher” « Nes’ Ramblings Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:01:02 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-1111 [...] The Friendly Atheist has a post about a pamphlet from some church or another that’s supposed to make teachers understand kids who believe in creationism. Or something like that. I don’t remember right now, as reading it has turned my brains to mush, and I’ve only made it through page 10 so far. These are just the notes I’ve compiled of mistakes that I can spot, and know of refutations or corrections. I know there are other mistakes in there, but with some of them I recognize that something is wrong, but can’t put my finger on it, others I’m not sure what the correction or refutation is, or maybe it is just too complex a mistake to jot down and correct/refute. Cover page: - confusion of the meaning of “theory” [...] [...] The Friendly Atheist has a post about a pamphlet from some church or another that’s supposed to make teachers understand kids who believe in creationism. Or something like that. I don’t remember right now, as reading it has turned my brains to mush, and I’ve only made it through page 10 so far. These are just the notes I’ve compiled of mistakes that I can spot, and know of refutations or corrections. I know there are other mistakes in there, but with some of them I recognize that something is wrong, but can’t put my finger on it, others I’m not sure what the correction or refutation is, or maybe it is just too complex a mistake to jot down and correct/refute. Cover page: – confusion of the meaning of “theory” [...]

]]> By: cautiousmaniac http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-1110 cautiousmaniac Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:44:09 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-1110 Re-reading the earlier conversation about this document, I remembered that, for a short amount of time, the earlier "pre-revision" version of this document was posted online. That must mean that at least one person downloaded and saved the original PDF. I'm interested in seeing how much got revised. For example, in the earlier version, Pastor Tim referenced Nebraska Man being used as evidence at the Scopes trial (it wasn't) and being the tooth of a pig (it's a tooth of a peccary, not the same thing). He referenced Archaeopteryx as being "really only a few bits and pieces of bone". These exact same things are mentioned in this revised document. The only "revision" that seems to have happened is that the section on thermodynamics was thrown out... If anyone saved a copy of the original document, let us know? Re-reading the earlier conversation about this document, I remembered that, for a short amount of time, the earlier “pre-revision” version of this document was posted online. That must mean that at least one person downloaded and saved the original PDF.

I’m interested in seeing how much got revised. For example, in the earlier version, Pastor Tim referenced Nebraska Man being used as evidence at the Scopes trial (it wasn’t) and being the tooth of a pig (it’s a tooth of a peccary, not the same thing). He referenced Archaeopteryx as being “really only a few bits and pieces of bone”. These exact same things are mentioned in this revised document.

The only “revision” that seems to have happened is that the section on thermodynamics was thrown out…

If anyone saved a copy of the original document, let us know?

]]> By: afarensis http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-1109 afarensis Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:43:55 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-1109 I have responded to his paleoanthropological arguments <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/11/25/fisking_creationist/#more" rel="nofollow">here</a> I have responded to his paleoanthropological arguments here

]]> By: Monado http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-1106 Monado Sat, 25 Nov 2006 14:44:44 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/11/22/its-back/#comment-1106 John T. is absolutely right. "Creation science" is all about quoting, especially from obsolete sourrces. It's about argument and appeal to authority. It's not about questioning, testing, or the scientific method. Questions are not welcome in religion: it's all about bowing down to authority. Naturally, religious parents don't want their children to get into the habit of questioning authority: independent thought will lead to Big Trouble as children ask about the symbolic cannibalism in the Eucharist, the dubious practice punishing an innocent scapegoat, and (eventually, if they can get past the sacred cow in our broadcast industry) the total lack of evidence that Jesus ever existed as a historical person and the persuasive textual evidence that he's another example of a Hero Myth, along with Odin, Gilgamesh, and Buddha. John T. is absolutely right.

“Creation science” is all about quoting, especially from obsolete sourrces. It’s about argument and appeal to authority. It’s not about questioning, testing, or the scientific method. Questions are not welcome in religion: it’s all about bowing down to authority.

Naturally, religious parents don’t want their children to get into the habit of questioning authority: independent thought will lead to Big Trouble as children ask about the symbolic cannibalism in the Eucharist, the dubious practice punishing an innocent scapegoat, and (eventually, if they can get past the sacred cow in our broadcast industry) the total lack of evidence that Jesus ever existed as a historical person and the persuasive textual evidence that he’s another example of a Hero Myth, along with Odin, Gilgamesh, and Buddha.

]]>