OH MY FUCKING GOD

Nick
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-08-01
User is offlineOffline
OH MY FUCKING GOD

http://www.jesuschrist.com/

Ever heard of this? They have a $250,000 reward for anyone who can prove evolution is a fact. Here's what they say on their front page:

Quote:
Don't believe in a false god. Don't believe that there is NO god. Reject the degrading 'theory of evolution'. 'Wet dirt' NEVER turned into a flamingo by accident! It is a cruel, God rejecting, easily disproved lie. God designed you. Jesus Christ came to save us from our sins.

Notice they never try to prove anything they say...

Fuck, this is so god damn stupid. I hate these hypocritical idiots. We should tell Richard Dawkins. Arrg!

Here's another irrational precept:

16. Belief that the people at JesusChrist.com are intellient, honest human beings.

Wilson: "We were afraid that if you found out you solved a case with absolutely no medical evidence you'd think you were God." House: "God doesn't limp."


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
They are stupid fucks. They

They are stupid fucks. They made it a straw man that is impossible to prove.


Joe
Joe's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2006-08-12
User is offlineOffline
Wow, that's pretty pathetic.

Wow, that's pretty pathetic.


The_Fragile
The_Fragile's picture
Posts: 102
Joined: 2006-07-16
User is offlineOffline
I find those challenges to

I find those challenges to be completely ridcioulus. They ultimately decide what is evidence to them. Judging from that site it looks like nothing would be suffcient evidience to them, even if it is evidience.

I hope they cannot see
the limitless potential
living inside of me
to murder everything.
I hope they cannot see
I am the great destroyer.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
It's not their $250,000

It's not their $250,000 offer, it is that of Kent Hovinds. Kent is a fundy who believes that he lives on Gods land and not that of the American Govt. Because of this, he's avoided taxes for many years, and is likely soon to be behind bars for quite a while. He was arrested earlier this year. He has appeared on the Infidel Guy show several times, and we've all had several cow tipping moments at his expense.

As for the 250,000 offer, he sets up the offer in an impossible manner. What he seeks to find is not how evolution occurs. However several people have sent plenty of evidence of evolution to him over the years, however he's never paid out.

His offer was a dishonest response to James Randis' offer to anyone who can prove a supernatural or paranormal event. The James Randi test could be won legitimately if someone could prove a supernatural event scientifically.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Those idiots try to say the

Those idiots try to say the Randi challenge is impossible. Well, yeah, it is, but only because nothing supernatural exists.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Nick
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-08-01
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Those

MattShizzle wrote:
Those idiots try to say the Randi challenge is impossible. Well, yeah, it is, but only because nothing supernatural exists.

Here here.

Wilson: "We were afraid that if you found out you solved a case with absolutely no medical evidence you'd think you were God." House: "God doesn't limp."


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I"m not sure whether to

I"m not sure whether to laugh at the absurdity of this...or feel outraged that people like this exist. I think it is a combination of the two. I say stop linking to the page, because the more hits the page gets the more justified the author feels.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Jutter
Jutter's picture
Posts: 65
Joined: 2006-08-24
User is offlineOffline
I'll improve the overall

~Let us be reasonable~

You want to claim there's such a thing as "the supernatural"? Fine. I hereby declare you to be "paracorrect" in doing so. 


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
now those are quality links.

now those are quality links. Eye-wink


FreeThoughtMake...
Superfan
FreeThoughtMakesMeTingle's picture
Posts: 173
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
Indeed and love your avi

Indeed and love your avi lol.


photog
photog's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-08-02
User is offlineOffline
Prove this((()))

Ok will someone Please prove that the Land of OZ really doesn't exsist. I know there really is a city in the clouds where a wise wizard and his brainy scarecrow assitant rule a land of peace and fight the powers of the Evil wicked Witch of the East. I read it in the Book it must be true.

Someone prove it isn't.

I believe in science. Imagine that.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
photog wrote:Ok will someone

photog wrote:
Ok will someone Please prove that the Land of OZ really doesn't exsist. I know there really is a city in the clouds where a wise wizard and his brainy scarecrow assitant rule a land of peace and fight the powers of the Evil wicked Witch of the East. I read it in the Book it must be true.

Someone prove it isn't.

I can prove it does exist using the Christian method of proof.

1. I have seen the movie, therefore I have personally exoerienced it.

2. Someone had to write it, therefore it actually existed in his mind too.

3. Even though it was written as fiction, imagination exists in the mind and the mind is real, therefore imagination is real and it was created in the imagination, therefore it is real.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh, I almost forgot: 4.

Oh, I almost forgot:

4. Kansas is real place and Kansas is in the movie. This gives archeological evidence that it is real.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
Their layout is LOL

Their layout is LOL


random_antitheist
Posts: 38
Joined: 2006-07-22
User is offlineOffline
gg guys. that 250k is mine.

gg guys. that 250k is mine. jk


neon
neon's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Whenever you see a website

Whenever you see a website with just a horrible, eye-destroying design, there is a 98% chance that the material on it is going to be bullshit.


Driux
Posts: 4
Joined: 2006-11-02
User is offlineOffline
The loophole in Kent

http://drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67 wrote:
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

The loophole in Kent Hovind's reward is in the wording. It asks for "scientific proof". However, science does not deal with proof. It only considers that which is most likely according to the evidence, not proof. It deals with hypothesis, theories and facts, non of which are as strong as proof. Technically speaking, it is impossible to "prove" anything in a scientific context.

Also, the claim itself is misleading in another way. Much further down the page Kent provides a drastic redefinition of what he means by "evolution".

http://drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67 wrote:
*NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

This is also a blatant straw man, since most of it has nothing to do with evolution. Asking for "proof" of any one of those positions individually is flawed enough, let alone demanding proof of all of them under the title of "evolution". And if all the claims under five numbers is what he really demands proof for, then why would he even use the word evolution in the first place. He is obviously being intentionally misleading.

------------------

neon wrote:
Whenever you see a website with just a horrible, eye-destroying design, there is a 98% chance that the material on it is going to be bullshit.

I would disagree on that statistic. But more importantly, it's fallacious to judge the merit of a webpage on style over substance. If we are at all interested in encouraging people think rationally, this would be wrong way to go about it. Particularly when the substance of the website in question is so poor.


neon
neon's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Uh, it was a joke... And

Uh, it was a joke...

And anyway, I still think it's probably true!

"If we are at all interested in encouraging people think rationally, this would be wrong way to go about it."

Yes, my little joke is the reason people can't think rationally.

finger

Take off your Mr. Serious glasses and go buy a clue.


Driux
Posts: 4
Joined: 2006-11-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Uh, it was a

Quote:
Uh, it was a joke...

That's fine.

Quote:

"If we are at all interested in encouraging people think rationally, this would be wrong way to go about it."

Yes, my little joke is the reason people can't think rationally.

finger

Take off your Mr. Serious glasses and go buy a clue.

Before my post, there was no implication that your comment was necessarily a joke at all, and it would be a mistake on my part to automatically assume that it was. Just because you indicate that it was a joke only after the event does not mean that I should have known or assumed that in advance. My criticism was justified. And even so, joke or not, it was still fallacy.

I didn't mean to be offensive. You shouldn't take criticism so personally.


neon
neon's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Huh, you meant what you

Huh, you meant what you said, but I shouldn't take the criticism?

Either you mean it or you don't.

I stand behind what I said. Now don't be ridiculous.

If you don't understand my post, that doesn't mean it wasn't clear. I do not have to write in huge fonts, "This is a joke." It's not my fault what goes on or does not in your mind.


Driux
Posts: 4
Joined: 2006-11-02
User is offlineOffline
neon wrote:

neon wrote:

Huh, you meant what you said, but I shouldn't take the criticism?

Straw man. I said, "You shouldn't take the criticism so personally". Stop changing my words, I don't reword your comments to introduce mistakes, so don't do it to mine. I only comment according to what you say at the time, which I did correctly.

neon wrote:

Either you mean it or you don't.

Of course I meant it.

neon wrote:

If you don't understand my post, that doesn't mean it wasn't clear. I do not have to write in huge fonts, "This is a joke." It's not my fault what goes on or does not in your mind.

You didn't need to write in hug fonts "This is a joke", but at the same time you didn't need to make a personal retaliation on the assumption that I should have known your post was a joke. Just as often, people make that kind of comment that and they're not joking at all. I don't know who you are, nor what your sense of humor is like, so it wouldn't have made any sense to assume that it could only be a joke. No one is expecting you to read my thoughts and I am not expecting to read yours. You seem to expect that I should have assumed only the only possible interpretation being that it was a joke in advance and therefore not point out that style over substance is fallacy. This doesn't follow.

And even if you did inticate that you were joking in the original post. I would still think it important to bring up the fact that style over substance is fallacious, even in the case that it did not apply directly to you.


Driux
Posts: 4
Joined: 2006-11-02
User is offlineOffline
neon wrote:Whenever you see

neon wrote:
Whenever you see a website with just a horrible, eye-destroying design, there is a 98% chance that the material on it is going to be bullshit.

Quote:

Uh, it was a joke...

And anyway, I still think it's probably true!

Just at random I hit "genetic algorithms" into Google. The fifth Google entry was this.

http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol4/tcw2/report.html

The styling on that looks surprisingly similar to the following page (but probably even worse).

http://www.jesuschrist.com/

Its pretty easy to find good topic with bad styling of different kinds too, it doesn't need to be the same style as the jesuschrist.com site, but this certainly makes a good example. Many academic pages are very often often horrible looking or just plain, but the content is still often top notch.