Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MC Hawking vs. Dogma man

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    MC Hawking vs. Dogma man

    http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/233937

    This is a music video about how stupid creationists are.

    I enjoyed it.


    Some of the comments that people wrote are a hoot:

    i think this to~so am i to take it that everyone that believes in any sort of supernatural intervention within or outside of our natural relm, boundries, and laws is an ignoramous? i mean, sure, new-agers and crystal freaks are definately out of the logical picture, but what about creationists? i firmly believe that there is a god and that he is responsible for the creation of the universe, the setting of it's foundations, and upholds the laws of nature. does that mean that i place my reliance on "blind faith"? am i just some back-water religious fanatic? could i even be courteously explained away as someone who has to check my brain at the door to go to a church?

    first off, by the same standard that dictates that evolution is not a religion, creationism is not a religion. you can believe that there is a god and not be religious at all (i know that my co-workers have proven that to me time and again). however, by the definition of a religion (the laws, rules, ways of life, etc. subsequent to the origins of the universe), every hard-line secularist is a religious fanatic. either way, they're in the same group.

    but why is it that i'm the ignorant one? has sience empirically done away with 'religious myths'? is religion only held on to for its indirect benefit as an incentive to be good? have i based my life solely on legends and folklore?

    what about noted scientists like kent hovind? he's a seminarist who's devoted his life to public speaking. he speaks about seven hundred times a year on the issues or creation, evolution, and dinosaurs, and the effect off secularism and theism on society. and how about the journalist lee strobel? this man started off in a christian home, became a hardent atheist because of his schooling, but when he actually looked into it for himself, he became one of the greatest apologists for the christian faith. and how about robert gentry? a fabulous man of pure science that studied radio poloneum halos. he found that this extremely common anomaly, found in granite all over the world, irrefutably points to an instantaneous, cool (not molten) origin of this earth. there are hundreds of scientists of good standing (some very well-noted) that dissent to anything other than supernatural intervention when it comes to the origin of this universe. whether is was allah, krishnu, jahova or any other established god of religion is beside the point. the point of the matter is that it didn't happen by chance (even accompanied by natural selection).

    the point that i'm making here is that i am not just some willingly ignorant, bible-spouting hillbilly. even amoung my secular circle of friends, i'm regarded as a very intuitive, knowlegeable person. now, i'm not saying that all secularists are blithering idiots either. the do have there points (i've got no problem with saying that they're wrong, but i will not call them idiots by default). i'm also not saying that everyone who believes in creation, however right i deem them to be, aren't willingly ignorant, bible-spouting hillbillies, but, by that standard, i say that there are quite a few secularists who just spout off what they were fed in school and stereotype anything spiritual as hokey, out-dated, and restraining.

    the bottom line: i take my brain with me when i go to worship. i am as much in this century as any secularist that i've debated with. creation is science

    Spoken like a true man who dosen't know enough about natural sciences to actually evaluate creationist hilarity...


    It was a funny movie, and I think too many people are being hung up over the song. It is quite ridiculous, and portrays 'fundametalist' and evil blind retarded douchebags. But are fundamentals that bad? No it isn't. Anyway, I can rant and natter on pointlessly about that subject, but luckily for you, I'm not.
    Hah hah hah, yeah, fundamentalists like the guys who crashed into 9/11 aren't that bad.


    It was a good flash but the song was annoying and STEVN HAWKING IS RETARTED!!!....MC LikeItinTheButt is more like it....
    Yes, Stevn [sic] Hawking is clearly retarded.



    Out of all the humerous ways you could have portrayed Hawkins disability you choose instead to focus on his field of research; you stupid idiot. Hawkins research actually gave credibility to Christianity by expanding on Einstein's work, you confused retard.
    Einstein was Jewish, you blithering idiot!
    Last edited by Wounded Ronin; 4/26/2005 11:25pm, .
    Lone Wolf McQuade Final Fight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmrDe_mYUXg

    #2
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...353959-3190352

    BTW the book is not some conservative attack on evolution, it won the Pulitzer Prize in history.

    However, what I find interesting is how conservatives before the New Deal supported the basic ideas of Darwinism as it applied to humans. Then came the Great Depression and the New Deal. People accepted the need of a social safety net to take care of people who were unable to take care of themselves. But today it is the religious and conservative crowd who attack evolution while liberals support Darwin without understanding how such a philosophy can be applied to undermine the welfare state.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Olorinii
      People who reject Darwinism are not stupid. They are simply unwilling to accept that humanity is no different than mere animals,
      Evolution doesn't say this. No one denies that human beings are unique as a species and face unique challenges.
      that there is no creator,
      Whilest a literal belief in the bible can not be reconsiled with the world as we know it, you can consistantly believe in a creator that chose to act through the mechanisms of the world.
      and that survival of the fittest applies to humanity.
      It does. Get over it. However, I personally believe the worth of a person (as an individual and to society)is not dependant on how well they function in a free market enviroment. It says survival of the fittest(most apropriate), not the best.

      Its right to reject half-baked political theories that claim to be based on evolution. Denying well documented and universally accepted scientific fact is just plain dumb.
      Last edited by Jekyll; 4/27/2005 2:33pm, .

      Originally posted by Stickx
      It must suck for legit practitioners of tai chi like Cullion to see their art get all watered down into exercise for seniors.
      Those who esteme qi have no strength. ~ Exposition of Insights into the Thirteen Postures Attrib: Wu Yuxiang founder of Wu style tai chi.

      Comment


        #4
        Creationists aren't stupid, any more than people who worshipped Zeus were stupid. They're simply less evolved.

        Comment


          #5
          The only problem I see is that people don't know what the fuck science is. Why? They aren't taught it in schools.

          PL

          Comment


            #6
            reject that ... and that survival of the fittest applies to humanity.
            How can you reject facts?

            I reject that I am human.
            I am in fact God.
            With a capital G.
            Bow down and pray to me, asshole.

            I am the Great Cornholio!
            You say what about my rice?

            Comment


              #7
              Oh good god WR, that person you quoted actually listed Kent Hovind (Dr Dino) as a legitimate scientist...no wonder we rank so poorly in science.
              Who, for Pete’s sake! Is opposing science? In fact, we want MORE science by CRITICALLY ANALIZING the evidence-Connie Morris, Kansas State BOE (bolding and underlining part of original quote, red is my emphasis)


              As long as you try to treat your subjective experiences as if they were objective experiences, you will continue to be confounded by people who disagree with you.-some guy on an internet messageboard

              Comment


                #8
                the issue I've always had is two fold:
                1. evolution has always had holes in it big enough to drive a truck through. This has given 'nice sounding' counter arguments for the fundies.*
                2. though the fundies really enjoy spouting off about their religion and why you have to join them, they actually have no interest in learning and scientific progress...

                followers of both side have always been equally 'fundamentalist' in their dogma. even if there are problem with their theory. this is not science, it is counterproductive.

                *(there has never been any evidence of any positive mutation only negative deletions, extinction vs mutation, ect......)



                edit: err.....yeah, my bad. I was talking about evolution...it was early. thanks PO9
                Last edited by jubei33; 4/28/2005 11:18am, .
                http://woodwardswhiskey.wordpress.com/

                He was punching him like the collective karmic debt he'd accrued was coming to collections, mostly on his face.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Hmm I never new Darwin was aware of genetics, let alone mutations.
                  Who, for Pete’s sake! Is opposing science? In fact, we want MORE science by CRITICALLY ANALIZING the evidence-Connie Morris, Kansas State BOE (bolding and underlining part of original quote, red is my emphasis)


                  As long as you try to treat your subjective experiences as if they were objective experiences, you will continue to be confounded by people who disagree with you.-some guy on an internet messageboard

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Hawking's popular works, esp. 'A Brief History of Time' have often been cited by those attempting to lend weight to the Judaeo-Christian model. Aside from expressing regret over his comments regarding 'the mind of god' has Hawking ever commented on this issue publicly? He strikes me as an odd choice for this cartoon but regardless of that, its funny.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Summer for the Gods is a good one, Olirin is correct.

                      I'd add Petter Watson's The Modern Mind to that..... mostly because a professor here assigned both those books to myself and I'm assuming Olorin got them for class as well.

                      Summer for the gods is much more focused and relevant to this in particular, but the modern mind is jstu great, covers so much of what has happened in the last hundered years with regards to science and technology, philosophy and religion: good stuff ^_^

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Olorinii
                        http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...353959-3190352

                        BTW the book is not some conservative attack on evolution, it won the Pulitzer Prize in history.

                        However, what I find interesting is how conservatives before the New Deal supported the basic ideas of Darwinism as it applied to humans. Then came the Great Depression and the New Deal. People accepted the need of a social safety net to take care of people who were unable to take care of themselves. But today it is the religious and conservative crowd who attack evolution while liberals support Darwin without understanding how such a philosophy can be applied to undermine the welfare state.

                        Sigh, they're all misguided because it's NOT a philosophy.
                        Who, for Pete’s sake! Is opposing science? In fact, we want MORE science by CRITICALLY ANALIZING the evidence-Connie Morris, Kansas State BOE (bolding and underlining part of original quote, red is my emphasis)


                        As long as you try to treat your subjective experiences as if they were objective experiences, you will continue to be confounded by people who disagree with you.-some guy on an internet messageboard

                        Comment


                          #13
                          in a way though it has been used as a philosophy. the idea of "better than" or 'better suited' has permeated our society everywhere. there is a very strong undercurrent of social darwinism here in america just to name the most obvious example...
                          http://woodwardswhiskey.wordpress.com/

                          He was punching him like the collective karmic debt he'd accrued was coming to collections, mostly on his face.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Doesn't make the theory itself philosophy.
                            Who, for Pete’s sake! Is opposing science? In fact, we want MORE science by CRITICALLY ANALIZING the evidence-Connie Morris, Kansas State BOE (bolding and underlining part of original quote, red is my emphasis)


                            As long as you try to treat your subjective experiences as if they were objective experiences, you will continue to be confounded by people who disagree with you.-some guy on an internet messageboard

                            Comment


                              #15
                              You don't 'have' a philosophy. You 'study' philosophy.

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X