Kirk Cameron, spokesman for ID

SpacedTeddyBear · Post by **SpacedTeddyBear** » 2006-01-15 09:32pm

Darth Wong wrote:It's arrogance, on a stupendous level. I'm amazed at how many people I run into on the Internet who think they're qualified to discuss what is and isn't scientific even though they've never gone past grade 10 science.

It's because they believe that being able to copy and paste sources from other websites automatically makes them experts.

What's really frightening is that there are probably some people out there who may actually believe that the douchebag makes a credible arguement because he used to be on T.V.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-01-15 09:45pm

SpacedTeddyBear wrote:It's because they believe that being able to copy and paste sources from other websites automatically makes them experts.

This, in turn, has roots in both an educational system which focuses more on knowing facts and not at all on comprehending facts, and in a religious background which focuses on revalation as the truest method of gaining knowledge, rather than exploration. The whole point of the Bible is that God is telling you it's true, and if he says so, there's no reason to question it, and no reason to search for an understanding; this philosophy extends to everyday life: any source which is deemed authoritative must then, necessarily, be authoritative, and the ability to quote from it will determine the victor in any battle, just as the ability to quote relevant Biblical passages determines victory in a theological battle.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-01-15 10:35pm

Azazal wrote:So after his "thorough" debunking of evolution, you know that's even harder to type then to say. I wonder what Kirk will do next, I'm hoping he becomes the spokesman to ban dihydrogen monoxide form our drinking water. It seems his skills and knowledge of science make him a perfect candidate.

Ban water from our water?

Azazal · Post by **Azazal** » 2006-01-15 10:37pm

OmegaGuy wrote:
Azazal wrote:So after his "thorough" debunking of evolution, you know that's even harder to type then to say. I wonder what Kirk will do next, I'm hoping he becomes the spokesman to ban dihydrogen monoxide form our drinking water. It seems his skills and knowledge of science make him a perfect candidate.
Ban water from our water?

Sarcasim and irony, a lost art form

wilfulton · Post by **wilfulton** » 2006-01-16 12:48am

I had to sew my sweatpants back together and it seemed like a perfect opportunity to watch what is essentially one big long (30 min) commercial for his bible. Well on the positive side my dick won't flop out the next time I go jogging (and if only I could get it to sag...).

I'm somewhat amazed by the method that he uses to prove chimps aren't our relatives--we can't bring them on airlines with us, unless they're in a cage in the cargo hold. And that they are a different species means they have no biological relation to us.

And that a Boeing 747 didn't evolve from a Fokker Dr. 1 (okay, a biplane, so what). I wonder method he would use to prove that didn't happen. Oh wait, he used the "becuss I sayed so" method.

How many people do you suppose he tried to interview but simply told him to fuck off? I think he's lying about that thing not being scripted, because clearly the people he interviews don't have a clue what they're even talking about, and are almost trying to make the whole evolution thing sound silly. I think they're really just his minions reading off of teleprompters or somesuch.

Well, I did get one positive thing out of it. My sweats shouldn't rip again.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-01-16 02:22am

A lot of those tactics (especially the one about avoiding qualified experts and expecting ordinary people to refute their accusations) seem almost as if they were pulled straight out of a Daily Show spoof.

Vicious · Post by **Vicious** » 2006-01-16 02:30am

I so wish I could've been there when he asked someone to name a transitional form. Hmhmm, Archaeopteryx, anyone? I'd sit there and say "Now that I've provided a transitional form, thus knocking down your rediculous strawman, I'm going to ask you to do something. Prove the existence of your "God". I don't mean by spouting Scripture, I mean by providing observable, verifiable evidence of the existence of this entity which has never been documented, studied or indeed identified to exist by any credible body within the scientific community." and sit there and watch him sputter.

I did manage to sit through it, but I've got a very high tolerance for bullshit, and I tuned most of it out while browsing the forums. Oh, and I am going to Hell, except I don't believe in the rediculous notion and would just laugh at him when he attempted to convert me. I've faced people attempting to convert me and I've found that the best weapons are laughter and derision. Treat their horror story as a joke and they honestly don't know what to do.

AK_Jedi · Post by **AK_Jedi** » 2006-01-17 12:48am

I started crying about 5 minutes in. Stephen Jay Gould is rolling in his grave.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2006-01-17 02:46am

LMAO "No graphic artists" just as a graphic goes scrolling across the screen. This is a joke, right?

"There was nothing, and then there was this big bang and out came the sea, the land, the birds, flowers, and trees, and elephants, blah blah blah and of course man and women."

Ummm isn't that their claim? What do you call it when someone uses their own claim as your claim? Could that be classified as a super strawman or something else?

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2006-01-17 02:52am

Kamakazie Sith wrote:LMAO "No graphic artists" just as a graphic goes scrolling across the screen. This is a joke, right?

Act of God?

Ryushikaze · Post by **Ryushikaze** » 2006-01-17 02:56am

The opening Spiel was obviously an attempt to show that the big bang theory was absurd. That it is a blatant strawman and actually rather irrelevant totally escapes them, as it does every other time it gets brought up in that and other episodes.

About the later part though, I think, they'd object to us calling it 'their' position because their position is scientific and ours isn't. Joking aside, It's a form of projecting, I think, though it's also a strawman in its own right. Projective Strawman, mayhaps?

AK_Jedi · Post by **AK_Jedi** » 2006-01-17 08:30pm

I love the way they "prove" that orangutans are not related to us. Apparantely, table manners are the best way of determining intelligence.

the sad part is that some children have worse table manners than the orangutan. Does that mean that these children are not human, or even related to the human species?

I had NO idea.

Then they reveal that orangutans are a completely different species than humans as if its some sort of marvelous new revelation.

I kinda hope that someone like this ambushes me on the street, so that I can bash their stupid theories in front of them.

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2006-01-18 12:33am

When did the Neanderthal remains get shown to be those of a more recently deceased elderly man? Or when has this claim been made? The way they so eagerly say and pass on makes me wonder if they adlibed that for the video.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-01-18 01:09am

Oddysseus wrote:When did the Neanderthal remains get shown to be those of a more recently deceased elderly man? Or when has this claim been made? The way they so eagerly say and pass on makes me wonder if they adlibed that for the video.

Oh, it's a popular argument that Neanderthals are just the skeletons of those afflicted with rickets. Laughable, of course.

wilfulton · Post by **wilfulton** » 2006-01-18 01:18am

I have a horrible confession to make: It's all my fault. I knew they couldn't be trusted with a device like the stupidity field. I tried to tell them not to point the antennae at each other, but they didn't listen... and worse, it's contagious, because they continue pointing their stupidity field projectors at everything that moves.

(from Star Munchkin: The stupidity field gives IIRC +4 combat bonus and is only usable by humans. Hmmm....)

dr. what · Post by **dr. what** » 2006-01-18 12:14pm

Oddysseus wrote:When did the Neanderthal remains get shown to be those of a more recently deceased elderly man? Or when has this claim been made? The way they so eagerly say and pass on makes me wonder if they adlibed that for the video.

As usual they're twisting the facts. The first Neaderthal Man found--the 'stooped over' stereotype that exists in all bad sci-fi movies--turned out to be indeed an old man with arthritis.

But an old man with arthritis--who's skeleton is 50,000 years old.....

For some strange reason the creationists keep forgetting to mention that last part....

Azazal · Post by **Azazal** » 2006-01-18 01:35pm

dr. what wrote:
Oddysseus wrote:When did the Neanderthal remains get shown to be those of a more recently deceased elderly man? Or when has this claim been made? The way they so eagerly say and pass on makes me wonder if they adlibed that for the video.
As usual they're twisting the facts. The first Neaderthal Man found--the 'stooped over' stereotype that exists in all bad sci-fi movies--turned out to be indeed an old man with arthritis.

But an old man with arthritis--who's skeleton is 50,000 years old.....

For some strange reason the creationists keep forgetting to mention that last part....

Are you saying that creationist would distort the facts? Why I never... well yeah I think that's a given

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-01-18 02:10pm

dr. what wrote:
Oddysseus wrote:When did the Neanderthal remains get shown to be those of a more recently deceased elderly man? Or when has this claim been made? The way they so eagerly say and pass on makes me wonder if they adlibed that for the video.
As usual they're twisting the facts. The first Neaderthal Man found--the 'stooped over' stereotype that exists in all bad sci-fi movies--turned out to be indeed an old man with arthritis.

But an old man with arthritis--who's skeleton is 50,000 years old.....

For some strange reason the creationists keep forgetting to mention that last part....

Simple. It's because they doubt the accuracy of dating methods.

Base Delta Zero · Post by **Base Delta Zero** » 2006-01-18 06:46pm

Now I, the uneducated newbie, shall proceecd to debunk this mess.

Wow... I'm at 1:27 and already my brain has been melted. I like how they say that the studio couldn't have come into existence out of nothing... yet that's exactly what creationism is.

2:20 I like how they make fun of people for saying they're not experts... could that have something to do with the fact they're not?

3:11 Random Bystander No #3 just said the Big Bang was caused by an asteroid...

sorry, wrong answer, YOU FAIL AT LIFE!

4:00-6:20 They're assuming that a gill structure CAN'T filter air at all, which, is of course, not true.

5:15 They just asked whether the first animal to come out of the sea was male or female... *shudder* They really love their strawmen...

7:35 Strawman alert, strawman alert, man your logic cannons!

8:50 Oh noes, he's trying to control me with his mind beam... must resist...

11:04 LALALALA I can't hear you!

11:50 And there it is, folks. The Answer (TM). We can knock down strawmen, therefore, God created the universe.

16:35 Fundieman 2 proves he's not human. Something about the "Unique human ability to reason. Maybe he should try it some time.

17:40 Fundieman 1 spouts an Ad hominem, about a passage (probably taken out of context) where Darwin is being a mysogynist, and says that means evolutionists say males have evolved to a higher station than women, and repeats the same thing about black people... well, guess what...

Sorry for the utterly random long post, I just needed to debunk something.