Honest John – Design Flaws
Posted by James on November 1, 2013 · 22 Comments
http://www.zazzle.com/fairshare http://honestjohnproductions.blogspot.com/ http://Kunaki.com/Sales.asp?PID=PX003M5I7T Believers in Intelligent design have no…
Comments
22 Responses to “Honest John – Design Flaws”Speak Your Mind
Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
A much more? productive way to spend the day
Another? flaw in thr design
I went to a really good catholic high school. We? didnt have religoon class, we had theology class and studied religion in general. First day of freshman year tjey teach the difference between literal and contextual. Even scholars within the church have been trying to make this point. But at church its all wizards and fluff. Iand people buy it because they want to. I just go to the movies
Viewing our bodies as being “designed” by the gradual process of evolution opens up a world of wonder; viewing it as created by an all-powerful being who could have done much better if he only gave a shit is fucking depressing. I mean, if I? pick up something too heavy too quickly I’ll hurt my balls?!?! That’s just wrong! ;-p Peace.
Those are good questions?
Once you realize that much of the bible is not to be taken serious, why keep clinging to? it at all? We know that divine creation as it is described in the bible is a myth, we know that the stories of Abraham and Moses are mere myths, we know that the story of Noah’s ark is just fantasy, and we know that the stories of Jesus are just fables. Why not just drop the whole thing and embrace reality, which is more beautiful, more fascinating and more valuable than anything in any bronze age story?
I agree?
The creators of the creationist curriculum? know damn well they are lying.
Embarassing?
Maybe YOU don’t care, but then again, why the? fuck should I give a rat’s ass what you care about? For that matter, how is your opinion of what I should do relevent to the issue? The fact that your only statement is about ME and not the issue shows clearly that you don’t have an argument that refutes my position. I definitely didn’t start the thread because I though someone like you would agree with me. Or is it you just cannot stand to hear someone disagree with you?
So you don’t understand the concept of independence of coordinate systems. Are you trying to claim that it’s impossible to for the polio virus to be shown to not cause polio? That would be an unscientific idea that could not be falsified.
Like most scientism fans, you are attempting to inflate the credability of your argument by the misuse of a word that? is never used in real science. You are implying a permanence that doesn’t exist in ANY scientific endever.
Wow. You must be a lot of fun to hang out with (that’s sarcasm). This is a youtube video not a submission to a scientific journal. No? one cares if he used the word “proven” regardless of your opinion about it being proper to use or not. Tip for you: stop going around just looking for things to nitpick and criticize. You might be a bit less miserable then.
What you have to understand about beechgrovejoe is that he is an “expert” on anything and everything. He’ll jump on any little thing then twist and distort it until it looks like a pretzel rather than admit that he was wrong, made a mistake or overreacted. Then when you prove he was? wrong he goes into high denial mode.
So then I take it that science hasn’t? proven that the earth revolves around the sun or that polio is caused by the poliovirus?
OH, so you are just a science fan boy without the training and you don’t like it when someone challenges your dogmatic view. We would expect you to take your childish “nobody cares” attitude when the question involves YOUR understanding of the terms. So given your refusal to answer the challanges I put forth in the form of questions, it’s easy to conclude you don’t know what you are? talking about. You are just cheer leading for your belief system.
Just fuck off with your pedantry, please. Nobody other than? you gives a shit about whether “proven” was the correct term.
Actually nobody with much scientific training will use the term? proven especially when talking to their peers. That’s a term that science fan boys use when they are attempting convince people without the training they are right. Let’s test your understanding. How many theories do you think produce the exact same set of predictions as say special relativity? All experiments and observations support all of them just as well as SR itself.
This is just semantic bullshit you’re spouting now. In scientific terms, the word “proven” is used because it’s easier to say than “There? exists a preponderance of evidence to support the theory and it is the best model we currently have for explaining (x).”
So you are advocating a definition of proven that is? really not certain but simply not shown to be wrong. How is that any different than a christian belief that god exists because no one has shown he doesn’t? For that matter, how do you handle equivilent theories that predict the same thing with different assumptions? It seems to me choosing the word “proven” is an attempt to give an argument a credability it doesn’t deserve,
I think he meant that there is enough evidence to? prove it true to an acceptable degree until new data is discovered that overturns the accepted model.
You are WAY wrong about a scientific theory being a proven hypothesis. If it was proven it could no longer be falsified rendering it a non-scientific idea. Nothing in science is ever proven. It must alway be open to new evidence showing it’s wrong so therefore it cannot ever be? proven to be correct.
If God applied for his professional engineer’s license, he’d be? DENIED