Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If being an intellectual elitist snob means thinking that people being proud of this...
...and actually believing this...
...is a national embarrassment, then so be it.
another leftie example of an "intellectual"
their hero che'
If being an intellectual elitist snob means thinking that people being proud of this...
...and actually believing this...
...is a national embarrassment, then so be it.
Are you saying that people lived with "dinosaurs"?
The funny thing about scientific contributions to the US is that they are real.
People making "creationist" museums aren't out digging up fossils and doing carbon dating and studying radioactive decay. They're not "contributing". They don't publish scientific papers, or even write any. They don't study geology or paleontology. Or plate tectonics. They don't dig up air bubbles from Antarctic ice pack to see what the air was like 100,000 years ago and figure out how it's changed and is changing. Those people don't study the earths magnetic field and how it keeps us safe from cosmic rays. They don't dig up meteors to find the source of iridium that blanketed the earth in the past leaving indisputable proof of meteor collisions. They don't study the grand canyon and figure out why the fossils at the bottom are simple and grow more complex as you move up through the layers of earth.
What they do is confuse people who already think the Sun travels around the Earth. And please don't look surprised and say, "It doesn't?"
If being an intellectual elitist snob means thinking that people being proud of this...
...and actually believing this...
...is a national embarrassment, then so be it.
Are you saying that people lived with "dinosaurs"?
The funny thing about scientific contributions to the US is that they are real.
People making "creationist" museums aren't out digging up fossils and doing carbon dating and studying radioactive decay. They're not "contributing". They don't publish scientific papers, or even write any. They don't study geology or paleontology. Or plate tectonics. They don't dig up air bubbles from Antarctic ice pack to see what the air was like 100,000 years ago and figure out how it's changed and is changing. Those people don't study the earths magnetic field and how it keeps us safe from cosmic rays. They don't dig up meteors to find the source of iridium that blanketed the earth in the past leaving indisputable proof of meteor collisions. They don't study the grand canyon and figure out why the fossils at the bottom are simple and grow more complex as you move up through the layers of earth.
What they do is confuse people who already think the Sun travels around the Earth. And please don't look surprised and say, "It doesn't?"
You're so right, as usual.
Present Creationist ScientistsIndividuals on this list must posess a doctorate in a science-related field
Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Are you saying that people lived with "dinosaurs"?
The funny thing about scientific contributions to the US is that they are real.
People making "creationist" museums aren't out digging up fossils and doing carbon dating and studying radioactive decay. They're not "contributing". They don't publish scientific papers, or even write any. They don't study geology or paleontology. Or plate tectonics. They don't dig up air bubbles from Antarctic ice pack to see what the air was like 100,000 years ago and figure out how it's changed and is changing. Those people don't study the earths magnetic field and how it keeps us safe from cosmic rays. They don't dig up meteors to find the source of iridium that blanketed the earth in the past leaving indisputable proof of meteor collisions. They don't study the grand canyon and figure out why the fossils at the bottom are simple and grow more complex as you move up through the layers of earth.
What they do is confuse people who already think the Sun travels around the Earth. And please don't look surprised and say, "It doesn't?"
You're so right, as usual.
Present Creationist ScientistsIndividuals on this list must posess a doctorate in a science-related field
Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
I've seen this silly list before. The very first one I look at, Dr. Steve Austin, I do a quick search and there is a review of a paper he wrote. Here is part of the review:
"I don't think there can be any doubt that Steven Austin's young-Earth, catastrophic model for the formation of the Colorado Plateau and the Grand Canyon fails in a great many ways. It does not explain the known facts, despite calling on a number of unjustifiable ad hoc hypotheses. It is internally contradictory, as well as inconsistent with the known evidence. Quite simply, it doesn't work, and there doesn't appear to be any way to salvage it so that it does work. Rationally, the only conclusion is that Austin's model fails, and it must be discarded."
GRAND CANYON: MONUMENT TO CATASTROPHE
Steven A. Austin
c. 1994, Institute for Creation Research
This comment is even better: "It is even less meaningful if one seeks to perform an experiment under circumstances that are known beforehand to be inappropriate, and this is precisely what Steven Austin is doing. He has set up an experiment that will fail because he has chosen circumstances that guarantee the outcome."
The scientific community sees him as ridiculous. I just have to visit some of the rest of the list for even more entertaining reading. You point to a clown as evidence?
You're so right, as usual.
Present Creationist ScientistsIndividuals on this list must posess a doctorate in a science-related field
Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
I've seen this silly list before. The very first one I look at, Dr. Steve Austin, I do a quick search and there is a review of a paper he wrote. Here is part of the review:
"I don't think there can be any doubt that Steven Austin's young-Earth, catastrophic model for the formation of the Colorado Plateau and the Grand Canyon fails in a great many ways. It does not explain the known facts, despite calling on a number of unjustifiable ad hoc hypotheses. It is internally contradictory, as well as inconsistent with the known evidence. Quite simply, it doesn't work, and there doesn't appear to be any way to salvage it so that it does work. Rationally, the only conclusion is that Austin's model fails, and it must be discarded."
GRAND CANYON: MONUMENT TO CATASTROPHE
Steven A. Austin
c. 1994, Institute for Creation Research
This comment is even better: "It is even less meaningful if one seeks to perform an experiment under circumstances that are known beforehand to be inappropriate, and this is precisely what Steven Austin is doing. He has set up an experiment that will fail because he has chosen circumstances that guarantee the outcome."
The scientific community sees him as ridiculous. I just have to visit some of the rest of the list for even more entertaining reading. You point to a clown as evidence?
One out of how many?
I was simply ponting out the falicy of your statement. Whether you approve of the people on the list or not is up to you, I could care less. Whether right or wrong each person on the list has the academic credentials proving they are indeed scientists which negates your premise concerning scientists and creationism. That was the only point of my post.
Besides this is actually a topic for a different thread, we've hijacked this one long enough.
I've seen this silly list before. The very first one I look at, Dr. Steve Austin, I do a quick search and there is a review of a paper he wrote. Here is part of the review:
"I don't think there can be any doubt that Steven Austin's young-Earth, catastrophic model for the formation of the Colorado Plateau and the Grand Canyon fails in a great many ways. It does not explain the known facts, despite calling on a number of unjustifiable ad hoc hypotheses. It is internally contradictory, as well as inconsistent with the known evidence. Quite simply, it doesn't work, and there doesn't appear to be any way to salvage it so that it does work. Rationally, the only conclusion is that Austin's model fails, and it must be discarded."
GRAND CANYON: MONUMENT TO CATASTROPHE
Steven A. Austin
c. 1994, Institute for Creation Research
This comment is even better: "It is even less meaningful if one seeks to perform an experiment under circumstances that are known beforehand to be inappropriate, and this is precisely what Steven Austin is doing. He has set up an experiment that will fail because he has chosen circumstances that guarantee the outcome."
The scientific community sees him as ridiculous. I just have to visit some of the rest of the list for even more entertaining reading. You point to a clown as evidence?
One out of how many?
I was simply ponting out the falicy of your statement. Whether you approve of the people on the list or not is up to you, I could care less. Whether right or wrong each person on the list has the academic credentials proving they are indeed scientists which negates your premise concerning scientists and creationism. That was the only point of my post.
Besides this is actually a topic for a different thread, we've hijacked this one long enough.
The list includes people that have doctorates, not what they actually DO with those doctorates. BIG FREAKIN DIFFERENCE.
There aren't even 300 names on that list. We number about 300M now, not exactly convincing. Try again.
I've seen this silly list before. The very first one I look at, Dr. Steve Austin, I do a quick search and there is a review of a paper he wrote. Here is part of the review:
"I don't think there can be any doubt that Steven Austin's young-Earth, catastrophic model for the formation of the Colorado Plateau and the Grand Canyon fails in a great many ways. It does not explain the known facts, despite calling on a number of unjustifiable ad hoc hypotheses. It is internally contradictory, as well as inconsistent with the known evidence. Quite simply, it doesn't work, and there doesn't appear to be any way to salvage it so that it does work. Rationally, the only conclusion is that Austin's model fails, and it must be discarded."
GRAND CANYON: MONUMENT TO CATASTROPHE
Steven A. Austin
c. 1994, Institute for Creation Research
This comment is even better: "It is even less meaningful if one seeks to perform an experiment under circumstances that are known beforehand to be inappropriate, and this is precisely what Steven Austin is doing. He has set up an experiment that will fail because he has chosen circumstances that guarantee the outcome."
The scientific community sees him as ridiculous. I just have to visit some of the rest of the list for even more entertaining reading. You point to a clown as evidence?
One out of how many?
I was simply ponting out the falicy of your statement. Whether you approve of the people on the list or not is up to you, I could care less. Whether right or wrong each person on the list has the academic credentials proving they are indeed scientists which negates your premise concerning scientists and creationism. That was the only point of my post.
Besides this is actually a topic for a different thread, we've hijacked this one long enough.
The list includes people that have doctorates, not what they actually DO with those doctorates. BIG FREAKIN DIFFERENCE.
There aren't even 300 names on that list. We number about 300M now, not exactly convincing. Try again.
Whether, you, I or anyone else agree/disagree with their methods or beliefs has nothing to do with my response, simply that they are scientists.
Whether, you, I or anyone else agree/disagree with their methods or beliefs has nothing to do with my response, simply that they are scientists.
Their methods have everything to do with it.
You're so right, as usual.
Present Creationist ScientistsIndividuals on this list must posess a doctorate in a science-related field
Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
I've seen this silly list before. The very first one I look at, Dr. Steve Austin, I do a quick search and there is a review of a paper he wrote. Here is part of the review:
"I don't think there can be any doubt that Steven Austin's young-Earth, catastrophic model for the formation of the Colorado Plateau and the Grand Canyon fails in a great many ways. It does not explain the known facts, despite calling on a number of unjustifiable ad hoc hypotheses. It is internally contradictory, as well as inconsistent with the known evidence. Quite simply, it doesn't work, and there doesn't appear to be any way to salvage it so that it does work. Rationally, the only conclusion is that Austin's model fails, and it must be discarded."
GRAND CANYON: MONUMENT TO CATASTROPHE
Steven A. Austin
c. 1994, Institute for Creation Research
This comment is even better: "It is even less meaningful if one seeks to perform an experiment under circumstances that are known beforehand to be inappropriate, and this is precisely what Steven Austin is doing. He has set up an experiment that will fail because he has chosen circumstances that guarantee the outcome."
The scientific community sees him as ridiculous. I just have to visit some of the rest of the list for even more entertaining reading. You point to a clown as evidence?
One out of how many?
I was simply ponting out the falicy of your statement. Whether you approve of the people on the list or not is up to you, I could care less. Whether right or wrong each person on the list has the academic credentials proving they are indeed scientists which negates your premise concerning scientists and creationism. That was the only point of my post.
Besides this is actually a topic for a different thread, we've hijacked this one long enough.
People making "creationist" museums aren't out digging up fossils and doing carbon dating and studying radioactive decay. They're not "contributing". They don't publish scientific papers, or even write any. They don't study geology or paleontology. Or plate tectonics. They don't dig up air bubbles from Antarctic ice pack to see what the air was like 100,000 years ago and figure out how it's changed and is changing. Those people don't study the earths magnetic field and how it keeps us safe from cosmic rays. They don't dig up meteors to find the source of iridium that blanketed the earth in the past leaving indisputable proof of meteor collisions. They don't study the grand canyon and figure out why the fossils at the bottom are simple and grow more complex as you move up through the layers of earth.
I think it is pretty clear why some folks desperately need to discount intelligence in order to maintain a healthy self-image.
I've seen this silly list before. The very first one I look at, Dr. Steve Austin, I do a quick search and there is a review of a paper he wrote. Here is part of the review:
"I don't think there can be any doubt that Steven Austin's young-Earth, catastrophic model for the formation of the Colorado Plateau and the Grand Canyon fails in a great many ways. It does not explain the known facts, despite calling on a number of unjustifiable ad hoc hypotheses. It is internally contradictory, as well as inconsistent with the known evidence. Quite simply, it doesn't work, and there doesn't appear to be any way to salvage it so that it does work. Rationally, the only conclusion is that Austin's model fails, and it must be discarded."
GRAND CANYON: MONUMENT TO CATASTROPHE
Steven A. Austin
c. 1994, Institute for Creation Research
This comment is even better: "It is even less meaningful if one seeks to perform an experiment under circumstances that are known beforehand to be inappropriate, and this is precisely what Steven Austin is doing. He has set up an experiment that will fail because he has chosen circumstances that guarantee the outcome."
The scientific community sees him as ridiculous. I just have to visit some of the rest of the list for even more entertaining reading. You point to a clown as evidence?
One out of how many?
I was simply ponting out the falicy of your statement. Whether you approve of the people on the list or not is up to you, I could care less. Whether right or wrong each person on the list has the academic credentials proving they are indeed scientists which negates your premise concerning scientists and creationism. That was the only point of my post.
Besides this is actually a topic for a different thread, we've hijacked this one long enough.
They are NOT scientists.
Let me explain the very simple difference between science and magic. With Science, you start off with "observation" and "collect data", but when you make your first hypothesis, you try to disprove it. All scientists try to disprove other scientists work. Only when it stands up to intense scrutiny is is considered.
With magical creation and other such nonsense, the outcome has already been created, magically. Only data they feel "supports" their outlandish fables is ever considered. EVERYTHING ELSE IS DISCARDED. You know what you are looking for even before you start looking for it. THAT ISN'T SCIENCE.
THAT IS IT. THAT IS THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY.
With the religious, evidence doesn't lead to THE GARDEN OF EDEN. Because there is no evidence. Evidence doesn't lead to Noah's Ark or the Tower of Babel. Give me a break!!!!
Not to cons. They admire people who are ordinary or tending towards stupid.Urban Dictionary has the answer! Here are a few definitions:
Intellectual
- Someone who has found something more interesting than sex and alcohol.
- A person with a creative mind who studies and reflects and thinks himself out of a basic knowedge of who he really is.
- Word that people who have no good looks associate themselves with in order to have some self-worth.
- A person whose education surpasses their intelligence.
- Someone who thinks they are better than the "common people".
You only quoted. Are you saying that "intellectual" is something not worth aspiring too?
