New Creationist Boardgame. I Shit You Not.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2007-01-05 01:44am

Stas Bush wrote:Look here and fall down in awe and terror. Kirk freaking Cameron and the great Banana...

Hee hee heee!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yArPNtiQDcM

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2007-01-05 01:56am

*sad sigh*

I wish I'd commented on that rediculous farce of a board game earlier- then maybe I could have gotten quoted.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2007-01-05 02:16am

For those who are interested, "bullfrog" has quite a history in regards to creationists.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2007-01-05 11:08am

Wasn't Ken Ham in prison or something? Nice reference anyway

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2007-01-05 12:26pm

wautd wrote:Wasn't Ken Ham in prison or something? Nice reference anyway

No, that's Kent Hovind.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2007-01-05 01:43pm

Ted C wrote:
wautd wrote:Wasn't Ken Ham in prison or something? Nice reference anyway
No, that's Kent Hovind.

I stand corrected

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2007-01-05 01:49pm

Lord Poe wrote:
Stas Bush wrote:Look here and fall down in awe and terror. Kirk freaking Cameron and the great Banana...
Hee hee heee!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yArPNtiQDcM

There are plenty of other videos out there of women doing certain things with banannas that slaps down this idiocy.

WarHawk · Post by **WarHawk** » 2007-01-05 02:27pm

You think the banana was something?, check out the Science of Evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp6MZL6bTTc[/url]

WarHawk · Post by **WarHawk** » 2007-01-05 02:29pm

Damn you non editable board.

The Science Of Evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp6MZL6bTTc

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2007-01-05 11:02pm

Stas Bush wrote:Look here and fall down in awe and terror. Kirk freaking Cameron and the great Banana...

I've perused the comments section, found a few gems. And I mean that without any sarcasm. Here's one:

"To 'prove' that we didn't evolve from monkeys, you describe how perfectly our hands grip a banana? Good call."
-junkfood

Sounds like a regular SDNetter. I'm sure there's plenty of "gems" too.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2007-01-06 01:20am

As an aside:

Now, THAT'S the coolness of Mad Science™ for you.

darthbob88 · Post by **darthbob88** » 2007-01-06 01:50am

Patrick Degan wrote:As an aside:

[img]The%20Bullfrog[/img]

Now, THAT'S the coolness of Mad Science™ for you.

That incompetent attempt at gene-splicing? Bah, I've seen better, and I've made better as well. Where do I start? Once I crossed Sasquatch with a baboon, got a Sassoon. It lurks in the bushes of suburbia and styles unsuspecting women's hair.

Then, of course, there was the poker beast. A King Crab, King Fisher, Jackal, Jack rabbit, and Jackass gives a full house, two kings, three jacks.

I also liked the rabbit-amoeba cross, the amoebit. It multiplies and divides at the same time.

While it didn't give the best results, the grasshopper-hippopotamus cross was impressive. The Grasshopopotamus could jump to incredible heights--once.

When we were short of funds, we crossed a sheep with a porcupine. The Sheepupine not only gives wool, but it also knits you a sweater.

One of my father's works from the sixties was a cross between a male sheep, a baby sheep, an Australian feral dog, and a mule. The result was a Rama-Lama-Ding-Donk.

The best of the bunch, though, was crossing a research primate, a salty legume, and a plant with yellow flowers to produce a Rhesus Peanut Buttercup.

I know neither shame, nor fear, gentlemen. Do your worst. The source.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-01-06 07:16pm

Love the way they claim to "present both sides of the issue" and then turn right around in the very same sentence and declare evolution a hoax.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-01-06 07:20pm

WarHawk wrote:Damn you non editable board.

The Science Of Evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp6MZL6bTTc

They're actually trying to use "Joe Aveage" as a source of their interviews?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-01-06 07:27pm

Darth Servo wrote:They're actually trying to use "Joe Aveage" as a source of their interviews?

You actually see this all the time. Creationists try to appeal to popular opinion as the ultimate arbiter. In essence, a lot of their arguments boil down to "normal people would find this totally unconvincing, so it's obviously nonsense and you have been brainwashed by science".

Never mind the fact that the average person doesn't understand most of science and is obviously a lousy barometer for the validity of scientific theories: the real point here is that they are thinking politically, not scientifically. In politics, the average person's opinion is all that really matters. In science, it means precisely dick.

Virtually all creationist tactics are based on politics. That's one of the reasons scientists have been so slow to react to the problem; they did not understand that they had to learn to be politicians in order to combat this problem. They thought they could address it the same way they normally address scientific criticisms, which is to wait for someone to formulate the criticism in the form of a scientific paper which can be peer-reviewed, and ignore it as a non-theory until someone actually did this.

WarHawk · Post by **WarHawk** » 2007-01-07 12:32am

Exactly, that video just shows that its easier to learn that an invisible being in the sky created everything in 6 days than the theory of evolution and the big bang.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-01-07 12:37am

Virtually all creationist tactics are based on politics.

Why would it not be? They are unconcerned with science; their goal is to find political acceptance of their religious idea. And they know that "tyranny of the majority" rule works, and put it to good use.

We call them morons, laugh at them, smile and say that it's stupidity rather than evil intent...

But I believe somewhere they laugh at us as creationism is trying to rise once again and take religion's myths to crush science - after all, for them it's a battle of good and evil, and their task is not to find truth but to destroy evil. Evilution, particulary.

They are not morons, neither idiots. They are agents of religion who act in full awareness, lie with full awareness and pursue political anti-science goals - with some success, however sad this is to admit. We shouldn't really be laughing at them so much.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-01-07 12:39am

Stas Bush wrote:They are not morons, neither idiots. They are agents of religion who act in full awareness, lie with full awareness and pursue political anti-science goals - with some success, however sad this is to admit. We shouldn't really be laughing at them so much.

I think you give them too much credit. I suspect that >99.9% of them honestly have no idea that their approach is totally unscientific.

People thought Dr. Dino was just a sneaky clever guy putting people on too, but he apparently believed in his own bullshit so strongly that he ended up trusting God to protect him from the IRS. Turns out he really was just a blithering idiot. And I suspect that's true for the vast majority of creationists.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-01-07 12:51am

I think you give them too much credit. ... I suspect that >99.9% of them honestly have no idea that their approach is totally unscientific.

Their "smarter" ones (like K. Wise, Behe, Dembski) have, sometimes inadvertedly, admitted that they know their approach is unscientific. Wise even said "I know most of creation science is junk but I knew if I believed science I had to throw out my Bible" or something like this.

Obviously some are blind sheep - Hovind, for example (he was, actually, lambasted even by the IDers and "more advanced" creationists).

But it would be a mistake to think all of them are like this. IMHO, of course.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2007-01-07 08:27am

You could really replace the theory of evolution in this video with anything. Ask Joe Average "Do you believe in the theory of relativity?" and it would sound exactly like this video did. Hell, I would imagine that even a scientist specializing in one of the related fields would have trouble just citing evidence and studies off the top of his head when jumped by a camera crew on an airplane, though obviously he would sound much better than just some guy they started talking to at the zoo.

If a housewife can't rattle off names and composition of alloys that make up every single part of a jet engine and says "I don't know" a lot, does it mean it's impossible for engineers to do the same?

In other words, they come out as dishonest fucks. Hell, I'm sure they did speak to some people who could defend evolution better, but just cherry picked the ones who couldn't.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2007-01-07 08:58am

Ghetto edit:
"does it mean it's impossible for engineers to do the same? "

Should go: "does it mean it's impossible for engineers to design said engine?"

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-01-07 12:42pm

That's the nature of the Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy. All you have to do is show that there are things that certain individuals can't tell you off-the-cuff, and you win. It would be nice if people were actually taught in school that the Appeal to Ignorance is in fact a fallacy.

As far as I can tell, 99% of people learn what fallacies are from the Internet, not from school.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2007-01-07 01:19pm

Darth Wong wrote:As far as I can tell, 99% of people learn what fallacies are from the Internet, not from school.

I wouldn't be surprised. My sister, a high schooler like myself, took a debate class last semester, she doesn't know what fallacies are. Even the debate classes fail to teach logic.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-01-07 01:26pm

Very few people understand logic, let alone the informal (and formal) fallacies. Hell, I first saw the words "logical fallacy" while reading the main site's hate mail, but while I knew and understood (for the most part) fallacies, I didn't really understand debating until I took a class in logic.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-01-07 01:38pm

Surlethe wrote:Very few people understand logic, let alone the informal (and formal) fallacies. Hell, I first saw the words "logical fallacy" while reading the main site's hate mail, but while I knew and understood (for the most part) fallacies, I didn't really understand debating until I took a class in logic.

That's a good point; people learn about fallacies on their own and they start getting an idea of what is not logic, but they still don't necessarily understand what is logic. And a lot of people have trouble separating "fallacies" from "dishonesty" or even "inappropriate debate behaviour".