Reaper

http://www.okcupid.com/virgin here you go. And post your scores. BTW, I scored 75%.

1veedo, this guy was a troll in case you haven't noticed. But if you want to continue the argument against him, do it here, and see if he gives a rat's ass : http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=368469#post368469 N0000!!!!!!!! it IS PIRTES!!!!! LOOOOK @ TH3 L@ARGE GRAF!!!!!!! ITS TH4T B1G BECAUSE ITS SOO TROOO!!!! LOL!!

I think the reason that there are some people who dislike wikipedia is because its, well, how do I put it, one of those "new trendy things" or something like that. The idea and the concept of wikis have only been around for less than 10 years, and so I would imagine that some in the academic field will need some time to either accept it, or get used to it at the very least. After all, something like this has never been possible and they may not like the idea of "regular" people contributing information. It's actually quite similar to the backlash against "counter-culture" or video games or anything that is considered new. Certainly, the other encyclopedia companies have a lot to worry about, given that it is free... But, I always tell the critics, it is a FREE encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit, which also means them. So, why don't you take advantage of that instead of sitting up in your ivory tower and complaining about it? Also, they have a very good system set up to prevent vandals or other idiots from coming in and spouting libel and all other sorts of gross inaccuracies. Besides, I don't use any encyclopedias as a primary source, whether they are Britannica or Wikipedia. But wikipedia is a reliable place to get an overview or basic info on a topic I happen to be interested in. Plus, they have links and a bunch of sources that I can look into if I want to look greater in depth, so I go there for that too.

13.7 billion years, accurate to about +/- 200 million years. Also, make it clear that a big bang does not mean an explosion.

LMAO! Now if only we could actually make that really happen... I seriously doubt this. The ones who are messed up typically commit suicide or are institutionalized long before they actually resort to this kind of behavior. The google search and this thread does indicate though that he(she?) seems to do this at regular intervals, once every month or so.

I wonder what he hopes to accomplish by doing this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBVmfIUR1DA Angry German kid, fully translated. He is trying to play a video game.....

It is not an argument from analogy, because it isn't using analogies to prove creationism wrong (e.g. it does NOT assert that creationism is wrong because it is like believing a whole bunch of other things that are known to be wrong, which is what you are assuming and a gross misinterpretation). It is, just a CDarwin says, a video for those who already know, or are unsure, to show them just to what degree they are off by. And using analogies, it give a perspective, to make it easier to understand a point or an assertion or a theory. It's actually just the same way one explains the curvature of spacetime by using a rubber sheet and a massive ball. Using analogies to convey a point is not invalid in itself. But you know what, everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the video. I already gave you my reasons, you either take it or leave it. I stand by my defense of it, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Chicken chicken chickens!! Chickens!!!!!!...... chicken

Damn, now I see why we can't have religious discussion on this site. People here are WAY too sensitive about it here. I say we just lock this topic.

Jesus christ! This is just so dumb. That's a rather hasty conclusion drawn from my posts, because I never claimed any of the above. All of that is strawman. It was never about God, or religion, or anything of the sort. And do I have to give specific examples as to why holding your breath for a year is impossible? Try it yourself and see how far you get! And yes we can demonstrate why perpetual motion machines can't be built, or why 2+2=4, etc. But I don't need to since you can look it up yourself. Go to the pseudoscience section for examples. ======================================================================== Why do you guys have such a hard time believing that creationism can be as wrong as 2+2=5?

No, I was one of the ones saying that creationism is wrong. Its okay. If you read the earlier posts, lucaspa is basically trying to lamblast me over a video I posted.

But its not really meant to show any data, because you can always look it up yourself. It's basically there to put things into perspective. As far as this science site is concerned, there is a huge number of threads and posts that already explain why it is wrong so I see no need to repeat them again. After a while it just becomes redundant. See my earlier statement. And why can't creationism be as wrong as believing that you can hold your breath for a year, to give an example. In fact, why can't it be as wrong as saying that things fall up, or that 2+2=5, or that perpetual motion machines can be built? They have already been demonstrated to be false, so we don't really need to consider them. For all intents and purposes, all those things are taken to be self-evident. But I never meant that. I know all about the logical fallacies. What you just did was the appeal to pity fallacy (which I could tell by the way you reacted and made statements on how "insulting" they are, along with making a strawman out of my posts). The reason I asked you to look at his other videos is because he (she?) does have a point and a reason to compare it to other totally wrong statements. It is not a "baseless" conclusion. Granted, credentials are purely cosmetic, but I do know that he/she at least has some sort of background in a particular field of study. I'm well aware of that. All I was doing was telling lucespa that we are already aware of the arguments that discredit creationism. And yes I am aware of that too. It wasn't a comment about science. =================================================================== Indeed.

If you are referring to certain nameless subsects of Christianity, then yes that statement is fair enough. They have been trying to force their dogma for quite a while now, and it seems as if they are now gaining some ground. But in most cases you have to remember that there are several aspects of religion that just isn't provable, or disprovable, because most of it is taken on the basis of faith. To insist that religion itself should be denounced in a classroom is rather unfounded. Science simply just doesn't have any say as to whether or not God, or Goddesses, or anything supernatural exists.

The problem with that statement is that being a "logical, fair-minded" person can lead you astray. After all, religious leaders of any kind (including atheists) have used logic to come to their conclusions. Aristotle, for example, came to his conclusions about the physical universe by the use of logic and he was totally wrong. So if the question is using logic, how does using it lead to vastly different conclusions? You cannot solve the mysteries of the Universe by the use of logic alone. Galileo used observation and experiment to deduce certain truths about the physical universe, the only logic used was that in mathematics and making conclusions. Science is not perfectly logical.

I don't know where to post this, but I think its more appropriate here. Last night I watched something about the human body and brain on National Geographic, and in it they did scans of people who meditate, such as Buddhist monks. What they revealed is that people who meditate can quite literally control their brain, and that the scans show that when they are meditating the left side of their brain lights up, and that there is better communication and coherence among the various brain structures. In addition, those who meditate are found to have bigger brains than those who don't, and that the brain does not deteriorate as much as one ages (which you can read more about here: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2006/01/23-meditation.html). Sometimes I wonder if this information could be used to help with psychiatric disorders or anxiety disorders or something like that. Because it seems that there is something to meditation after all. What's your take on this?

Well, do I really need to? We all know why it is so wrong so its kind of pointless to have to repeat it over and over again. And besides, you should look at his other videos and his credentials... They are not ad hominem, and this one isn't either. The analogies are there to demonstrate a point about creationism. Besides, I find it rather comical that despite being that wrong they still insist on forcing their beliefs on others and in the education system.

I think the cow comments were referring to when part of the audience was yelling "boo". I like the video it was hillarious, I would say that the show did not go as planned.... I would guess that the correct question here is, did they ever think for themselves to begin with?

:eek: You think that is for real?

How wrong are YEC's and advocates of intelligent design? Here you go... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDERsZUVn0&mode=related&search=Evolution%20Intelligent%20Design%20ID%20Creation%20evidence%20facts%20education%20DNA%20mutation%20time%20human%20chimpanzee%20common%20ancestor Enjoy

alright, I think I have successfully renormalized it: or All the big terms and irrelevant sentences were canceled out, and all meaningless terms were accounted for. Though I am sure that something did get lost in translation, this is a pretty accurate one, and what ever was lost is unlikely to have made a difference. ====================================== Well, actually, you know what, I think its just easier to call him a stupid spammer.

Speculations, why? It doesn't really say anything. It looks to me that this guy just took a bunch of big words and tried to pretend he was smart

what, can't you appreciate my sarcastic humor Yeah I know. I've had that happen quite a few times. I don't really take as much offense though, because it usually means a sign of resignation, or that maybe they do understand they are wrong at least. I suppose, but the fact that its a pejorative term can be unsettling. Its not about changing their minds though. Not quite. It wasn't a comment about lack of emotion. Pretty much, it was a comment about the fact that I tend to be critical of everything (In this particular case I was criticizing my high school for teaching inaccurate information and/or "half-truths"). Another thing that really gets them (Not just my family that is) is the fact that I could be critical of things that most people don't really think about or question.

Just out of curiosity, has anybody viewed you as some sort of snob because of your intellectual skills? Just this week, my parents called me some sort of intellectual snob! Well, it isn't my fault that their arguments are usually riddled with logical fallacies (usually the appeal to emotion or hasty generalizations/conclusions), or that most people use (or even worse, teach) inaccurate information. The thanks I get for trying to enlighten them...