Sanding our assholes with 150 grit. Slowly. Lovingly.

Stupid microcephalic creationists strike again

...but I repeat myself.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1441818,00.html
Permalink misanthrope 
March 21st, 2005
Why do you hate the Baby Jesus?

:o(
Permalink  
March 21st, 2005
I an agnostic myself, but one thing that I really don't understand is how the religious community, in general, fails to rationalize religion with scientific discoveries -- why si there such a pigheaded, unbelievably narrow minded believe that the world is only 6K years old when at best it's a very loose interpretation?

If I were the puppet-master, I mean brain-washing commander, I mean religious head, I would incorporate the scientific world with religion - much of the bible wasn't completely literal, and the 6 days could have been 6 million years, and the 6000 years might be since the advent of modern man...whatever. Something to rationalize with reality.
Permalink ,..., 
March 21st, 2005
Sorry about the quasi-illiteracy in that post. Too much fermented cider.
Permalink ,..., 
March 21st, 2005
By winning the Civil War the North actually lost in the long run. We should have let the Cletuses secede back then and create an independent and benighted cesspool of ignorance instead of remaining attached at the hip to us.
Permalink  
March 21st, 2005
On the bright side, the South will continue to supply its illiterate and uneducated crotchfruit as cannon fodder for our invasions of third rate military powers.
Permalink Silver Linings 
March 21st, 2005
I had not heard of microcephalic creationism. Is that old world or new world or some other view
Permalink little do ye know 
March 21st, 2005
"microcephalic creationists"
...
"benighted cesspool of ignorance"
...
"illiterate and uneducated crotchfruit"
...



The off topic forum is full of linguistic treasures.
Keep it up guys!
Permalink Geert-Jan Thomas 
March 21st, 2005
*this* is why we need something like the bbc..a quasi-independent producer with no need to focus only on commercial films.
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 21st, 2005
The BBC doesn't produce IMAX films. One of the results of this is that money for future scientific films, which is IMAX's staple product, will be reduced the net effect is not censorship for those in the South but censorship for everyone and not simply the US.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
March 21st, 2005
I wonder how those fellows relate to stuff like quantum physics. I mean if darwin pisses them off, the multiverse model must give them epileptic seizures.

And if someone proves the kaluza klein model youll have a civil war on your hands. =D
Permalink Eric Debois 
March 21st, 2005
"I wonder how those fellows relate to stuff like quantum physics. I mean if darwin pisses them off, the multiverse model must give them epileptic seizures."

The thing with evolution is that it's fairly simple to understand the basics; the great unwashed masses wouldn't understandimate QED, M-theory, etc., so it's not going to upset them too much. (Unfortunately this works both ways -- sometimes they misuderstandimize things and then base years of vitriol on a gross misinterpretation of reality.)

What we need is a "B Ark". Just remember to keep some telephone sanitising spray handy...
Permalink Mat Hall 
March 21st, 2005
"I an agnostic myself, but one thing that I really don't understand is how the religious community, in general, fails to rationalize religion with scientific discoveries -- why si there such a pigheaded, unbelievably narrow minded believe that the world is only 6K years old when at best it's a very loose interpretation?"

First, religious community is a misnomer. There are plenty of mainstream popular religions that have no problem with evolution.

And why is it fundamentally flawed to believe the bible (or whatever your religious text of choice is), is literal and therefore the world is 6K years old? Its impossible to even prove cause and effect or that the world existed yesterday.

My only problem is with people who confuse religion with science.  Believing that a scientific theory is wrong because it conflicts with your faith is one thing. Trying to teach that it is wrong *IN A SCIENCE CLASS* because it conflicts with faith is another thing.
Permalink who cares 
March 21st, 2005
Why is it fundamentally flawed to believe the Bible says the world is 6K years old? Because the Bible doesn't say that.

That is an interpretation of Biblical writings. Some guy went through all the begats and came up with that number. A better example is the seven "days" of creation. That one is harder to explain, requiring looking at Hebrew culture, and the word used for "time".

As an interpretation, it may be flawed. To claim that that perhaps flawed interpretation is what "the Bible says" is a distortion. A lie, if you like. And to claim that those who do not believe in that interpretation don't believe in the Bible is yet another lie.

Now, if you said that you believe in the interpretation that says the Bible says the world is 6K years old, then you would have an accurate statement. If you say that saying all those qualifiers is too difficult, then you descend to the error that Eve and the Serpent made in the Garden of Eden.

Knowing the exact Word of God is what is required of Christians. Not some overly simplified or summarized part of it.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 21st, 2005
>Knowing the exact Word of God is what is required of Christians.




And how is that working out for you? Have you divined it yet?

ROFLMAO
Permalink puppet 
March 21st, 2005
No, exactly my point, and those who claim they have are making the mistake mentioned above.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 21st, 2005
>> By winning the Civil War the North actually lost in the long run

Hmm, maybe the North and West should secede from the South...
Permalink GML 
March 21st, 2005
Not all conservative evangelical Christians believe the same way about the details of Creation. Please do not put all Christians into the same category. For those of you who are interested, here is a web site for Christians working in or interested in science:
http://www.asa3.org/
Permalink Jim L 
March 21st, 2005
From the article: "'It is going to be hard for our film-makers to continue to make unfettered documentaries when they know that 10 per cent of the market will reject them,'"

Talk about a false economy! These are largely scientific movies. Compromising scientific validity for fear of offending fundamentalists is making a 50% worse product (with all that entails) in order to appease 10% who probably STILL WON'T BE HAPPY.

The thought that IMAX movies about science might be catering to antiscientific crowd makes me (supporter of evolution and science lover) more than 10% less likely to see those movies. And I suspect I'm not alone.
Permalink Tail of the "g" 
March 21st, 2005
"'...symptomatic of our shift away from empiricism in science to faith-based science,' [James Cameron] said."

Sorry, but faith-based science is an oxymoron. Science is based on proof. Conjecture and hypothesis are types of faith, but their only value in a scientific scope is in how well they describe provable phenomena (thus becoming "proven" themselves).
Permalink Tail of the "g" 
March 21st, 2005
Science is based on probablily, which based on nothing.
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 21st, 2005
Probabitity?
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 21st, 2005
I think I learned that "science" asks at least four questions:

* Is this theory useful (can we use it to predict experimental outcomes)?
* Is these experimental results repeatable?
* Can the theory be disproved (are there times or circumstances when we cannot use this theory to predict things, i.e. when the prediction is wrong)?
* Is this the simplest / most elegant theory (Occam's razor)?
Permalink Christopher Wells 
March 21st, 2005
Proof, probability etc all play a part in science. Proof is important, not as a way of laying down laws for how things are, but simply as the recorded results of experiments. Like, at this time, in this place the results of this experiment was this.
Once a theory has the backing of suffciently consistent experimental data we start using the theory in a predictive fashion. And then occams razor (William of Ockham was a monk by the way) says that if history shows that the result will be so, its unlikely that nature will make an exception for you, so if all relevant varibles are the same, the result will be the same.
Permalink Eric Debois 
March 21st, 2005
> I wonder how those fellows relate to stuff like
> quantum physics.

Can you quote the bible verse please?
Permalink son of parnas 
March 21st, 2005
"if history shows that the result will be so, its unlikely that nature will make an exception for you"

A monk could say that.

What's your reason?
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 21st, 2005
My reason for expecting nature to behave consistently?

Well, it has'nt so far...
Permalink Eric Debois 
March 21st, 2005
Well, science works.

It's just most scientists are more humble nowadays...
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 21st, 2005
I meant that it has.. hows that for a freudian typo.

But what do you mean? Whos more humble than whom?
Permalink Eric Debois 
March 21st, 2005
Like calling creationist stupid?

But I agree, in this case they are stupid!
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 21st, 2005
Oh, ok.

(I thought you were talking about me. Cause I'm totally humble. I'm so humble that if I fart the everyone in the room becomes humble.)
Permalink Eric Debois 
March 21st, 2005
After reading the article it became clear that these people are looking for a reason to be offended.

If they think that a movie contains views that upset their particular view of the universe, that's their business. If they choose not to see it, that's their business as well.

But what on earth gives them the right to spoil it for the rest of us that have at least somewhat more open minds? Such actions are perilously close to book-burnings.
Permalink Calgarian 
March 21st, 2005
You guys are bonkers. But the spin that the press is giving this story makes your bonkerness understandable.

Here's what is happening: imax theaters prescreen films to see if there is enough interest in the film in their market to make it profitable to show the film. If there is very little interest, the film is not shown. imax films are a bigger risk than regular ones because they tend to have runs of 6-12 months or more, where word of mouth builds up slowly and publicity is difficult to get. So it is important to guess right.

Every year, some films are shown in some markets, other films in other markets. Not all films are good enough to be shown.

In Texas, there is an imax theater that decided not to show 3 films:

- A lame computer animation film that is a 'tour of the universe'. This one was not well done and had poor music. People just didn't like it. Not just in Texas, but in many places.
- A film about the Galapagos islands. Nice film, but not enough aerial shots and dizzy-making. Everybody knows that a successful iMax film is like a ride at disneyland. it has to make you feel like you are really in outer space, or flying.
- A flim about volcanos. Great sounds in this one and some decent shots. Could have done more with the volcanos. Good aerial shots.

All three of these didn't get good enough reviews. The producers of the Volcanos film were mad that it missed some theatres and asked to review the audience forms, which included a space for comments. There were TWO comments in which people said that they didn't like to see evolution presented as fact.

Big whoop de do.

The reason it was not show was because the test audience didn't like it. Sorry, but that's life, that's just the way life is. Sorry that you weenies can't deal with reality, but if test audiences don't like a film, the film isn't going to be shown.

iMax theatres are not charities folks. They are businesses.
Permalink Ameliak Dryer 
March 22nd, 2005
"That is an interpretation of Biblical writings. Some guy went through all the begats and came up with that number. A better example is the seven "days" of creation. That one is harder to explain, requiring looking at Hebrew culture, and the word used for "time"."

It's not much of an interpretation. It involves some estimation and a tiny touch of assumption, but if the bible is literally true then the earth cannot be older than about 8k years, maybe 10k if you're willing to push it.

As for the seven "days", there is no doubt that the hebrew used means literal days - any other interpretation is pure, unadultered wishful thinking.
Permalink Mr Jack 
March 22nd, 2005
Mr Jack, I am afraid that you don't even know the word that is used in the Hebrew. And if you do, you are incomprehensibly ignorant. Which you are anyway.

The word is Yom. The one thing it probably never means is 24 hours exactly, as measured according to the current definitions of seconds based on cesium vibrations.

Yom can mean almost any period of time, a few hours, a day, a year, or one hundred million years.
Permalink Ameliak Dryer 
March 22nd, 2005
I believe the day used in Genesis means the 24 hours day.

Either the whole thing is wrong, or a analogy.
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 22nd, 2005
"Yom can mean almost any period of time, a few hours, a day, a year, or one hundred million years."

Yowm can mean, indeed, mean almost any period of time. Just like the word 'day' can (e.g. in my father's day) - the exact meaning is communicated by the context. In the case of the Genesis account the context means a 24-hour day.
Permalink Mr Jack 
March 23rd, 2005
Please continue. I had no idea we were in the presense of such a true scholar.
Permalink Ameliak Dryer 
March 23rd, 2005
We just know who are true scholar.
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 23rd, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: March, 2005 Other topics: March, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics