# Science minister won't confirm belief in evolution



## Ruby Tuesday (Apr 6, 2011)

> Canada's science minister, the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won't say if he believes in evolution.
> *
> "I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate," *Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.
> 
> ...



Whoa Whoa Whoa there Canada your Science minister is a _chiropractor_  a creationist one at that. Sorry Canada I don't care how good your health care system is you have officially lost the ability to call us Americans dumb. In fact that is so stupid that you have also lost the ability to call us fat as well.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Apr 6, 2011)

What this means is that he has two conflicting beliefs, not that he's dumb


----------



## Syed (Apr 6, 2011)

Whatever. Canada rocks regardless. So what if he's a creationists.
Haters gonna hate.

LOL funny, this guy grew up really close to where I did >_>


----------



## Mintaka (Apr 6, 2011)

Lemme get this straight.

He's a chiropractor which is a field full of psuedo sceinctific crap anyway and he thinks that believing in evolution has something to do with his religion?

If this doesn't raise a few hundred alarm bells than something is wrong.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Apr 6, 2011)

I am disappoint.


----------



## saprobe (Apr 6, 2011)

Agah!



> Canada's science minister, the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won't say if he believes in evolution.
> 
> "I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate," Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.



So, that's a "no", then. That is not a question about his religious belief unless his belief excludes Evolution. There are Christians who fully accept Evolution and there are even evolutionary biologists who are Christian (I've met some).

And chiropractors. Pffft.


----------



## Mintaka (Apr 6, 2011)

But saprobe it's Adam and Eve not Adam and the Primordial Soup.

Although that would make a hilarious story.

I swear I didn't mean to kill all life on earth while it was developing, the snake MADE me eat the primordial soup.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 6, 2011)

Atheists bitch and moan. More at 11.


----------



## Mintaka (Apr 6, 2011)

Wait.......wut?


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

Evolution doesn't exist. And neither do the hundreds of breeds of dogs created in the last decade.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Atheists bitch and moan. More at 11.



Religious person releases angst and doesn't know how to not look like an idiot by using words like "Some". More at every day.

Oh yea, not a single person mentioned anything about religion or atheism. Except to point out that they have nothing to do with the guy being an idiot.


----------



## Ruby Tuesday (Apr 6, 2011)

Tokoyami said:


> Lemme get this straight.
> 
> He's a chiropractor which is a field full of psuedo sceinctific crap anyway and he thinks that believing in evolution has something to do with his religion?
> 
> If this doesn't raise a few hundred alarm bells than something is wrong.



This was pretty much what I was getting at. 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Atheists bitch and moan. More at 11.



Come on CTK you're above that. 

Nobody mentioned atheism or was mentioning religion. If anything there was more Canada bashing then religion bashing going on. We were talking about the state of science in Canada. If you relate science with atheism that says more about your side then it does mine.


----------



## saprobe (Apr 6, 2011)

Tokoyami said:


> But saprobe it's Adam and Eve not Adam and the Primordial Soup.
> 
> Although that would make a hilarious story.
> 
> I swear I didn't mean to kill all life on earth while it was developing, the snake MADE me eat the primordial soup.



primordial soup -> primordial poop


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Evolution is false nonsense anyway.


----------



## Santí (Apr 6, 2011)

The Bible approves of slavery


----------



## Enclave (Apr 6, 2011)

To be fair, it is a Conservative government currently in power and as everybody knows, to be a conservative you need to be legally retarded.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

What a disgrace. What's next, a flat-earther?



Inuhanyou said:


> What this means is that he has two conflicting beliefs, not that he's dumb



It means he holds a belief that requires him to be mentally challanged.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Atheists bitch and moan. More at 11.



And there comes the paranoid schizophrenic. Seeing Dawkins in your dreams again, CTK? Are you telling us that you're a creationist, too, now or is it not one of your christian duties to care about the truth as long as the one who's lying is also a christian?



Santisimo said:


> The Bible approves of slavery



We really shouldn't ask politicians if they oppose slavery, their religious beliefs are their own


----------



## iander (Apr 6, 2011)

I don't know why people expect different when you elect conservatives to power.  They stuff science and tech positions with people who are anti-science and regulating bodies with former corporate whores.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2011)

I thought Canada was up there with the nordic countries as one of the most rational/developed nations... I know this is just one case of retardation, but it's pretty serious.


			
				superstars said:
			
		

> Evolution is false nonsense anyway.


I knew there was something wrong with this one.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

impersonal said:


> I thought Canada was up there with the nordic countries as one of the most rational/developed nations... I know this is just one case of retardation, but it's pretty serious.



It's not just one case, there must be someone who appointed him and he must be pretty high up in the ranks if he can appoint a minister.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> It's not just one case, there must be someone who appointed him and he must be pretty high up in the ranks if he can appoint a minister.



By "one case", I didn't mean "one person" -- I meant one situation. The situation in which you have a creationist chiropractor as Science minister who says _"I know *Science*, I've learnt about muscle anatomy"_. And, I agree with you, this is pretty bad. Makes you wonder whether this is happening in Canada or Zimbabwe.

Edit: This is actually pretty old news. The interview is from 2009.

According to wikipedia, the man is ignorant as fuck of all things scientific, starting with biology which should be his strong point. I hope nobody ever asks him if he believes in black holes. His reaction would likely be _"What? Sure I do, I have one right there!"_


> *Evolution controversy*
> 
> In a March 2009 interview, The Globe and Mail asked Goodyear if he believed in evolution. He responded, "I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate." While many scientists and educators expressed shock at this,[8] others defended the minister, citing statistics that show a majority of Canadians believe God played a role in creation.[9] Later that day, however, Goodyear said that he believed in evolution during an interview with CTV News.[10] When asked to clarify this belief, Goodyear responded *"We are evolving, every year, every decade. That’s a fact. Whether it’s to the intensity of the sun, whether it’s to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it’s running shoes or high heels, of course, we are evolving to our environment."*[11]



Anyway, to be fair, the man is the "science, technology and industry" minister. So he's not solely (at all?) concerned with science.


----------



## blue berry (Apr 6, 2011)

I like his last name


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Evolution is false nonsense anyway.



That's why there are hundreds of new breeds of dogs right? That's why banana's still look like this? 
That's why you eat countless animals that have been bred using "evolution"(ie artificial selection) to make them bigger/healthier/fastermaturing/etc/etc/etc right?


----------



## Draffut (Apr 6, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> What this means is that he has two conflicting beliefs, not that he's dumb



Anyone who believes a background in chiropracty gives them any sort of scientific credibility is dumb.

Now, he may very well have some real scientific understanding, but his defense there was just bunk.


----------



## Draffut (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> What a disgrace. What's next, a flat-earther?



You skipped over the geocentrists.


----------



## Syed (Apr 6, 2011)

kazuri said:


> That's why there are hundreds of new breeds of dogs right? That's why banana's still look like this?
> That's why you eat countless animals that have been bred using "evolution"(ie artificial selection) to make them bigger/healthier/fastermaturing/etc/etc/etc right?



If you want a better example of evolution I'd go with this...


----------



## DominusDeus (Apr 6, 2011)

I'd just go with the whole "Greatest Show on Earth" book by Richard Dawkins. Anyone who reads that and doesn't "believe" in evolution afterwards deserves a Darwin Award.


----------



## Sarry (Apr 6, 2011)

Why does it matter what he believes in?


The article doesn't give reasons to worry, only that he is chiropractor and refuses to answer a question....
Wow talk about paranoia


----------



## Syed (Apr 6, 2011)

DominusDeus said:


> I'd just go with the whole "Greatest Show on Earth" book by Richard Dawkins. *Anyone who reads that and doesn't "believe" in evolution afterwards deserves a Darwin Award.*



That was mean


----------



## WakaFlocka (Apr 6, 2011)

Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution deserves a Darwin award period.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Sarry said:


> Why does it matter what he believes in?
> 
> The article doesn't give reasons to worry, only that he is chiropractor and refuses to answer a question....
> Wow talk about paranoia



He is the science minister, yet opposes science. Denying evolution, means denying the scientific method, it means denying mountains of facts.

This is like an economy minister believing inflation and deflation don't exist, because after all the coins and the bills always have the same numbers on them. That's the level of stupid we're talking about here.


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

Syed said:


> If you want a better example of evolution I'd go with this...



I saw a documentary about this lake recently, some of the strategies the fish use are awesome, like tricking the other fish into raising their young, etc.


----------



## Syed (Apr 6, 2011)

kazuri said:


> I saw a documentary about this lake recently, some of the strategies the animals use are awesome, like tricking the other fish into raising their young, etc.



Yep. I've owned some of these fish and they do indeed have some really awesome survival strategies and instincts.

This Lake as well as Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria are beautiful examples of evolution at work in short amounts of time. Honestly if people aren't convinced of evolution after researching the cichlid fish from these lakes I don't know what will convince them.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Apr 6, 2011)

Who cares?

Unless it hinders his job functions.


----------



## Hi Im God (Apr 6, 2011)

More like Kim Jong Harper gave him this job and if he says he does believe in evolution King Harper will turf him and cut even more money to Science. 

Harper is the issue here.


----------



## Syed (Apr 6, 2011)

Hi Im God said:


> More like Kim Jong Harper gave him this job and if he says he does believe in evolution King Harper will turf him and cut even more money to Science.
> 
> *Harper is the issue here.*



This. Hopefully the douche gets taken out in the next election.


----------



## Juno (Apr 6, 2011)

This wouldn't have happened if America had been properly quarantined.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> Who cares?
> 
> *Unless it hinders his job functions.*



He's the science minister


----------



## Gnome (Apr 6, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> Who cares?
> 
> Unless it hinders his job functions.



Well, he claims to be a scientist; saying something like this can ruin your credibility.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Apr 6, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:
			
		

> What this means is that he has two conflicting beliefs, not that he's dumb



Except Evolution isn't a belief.  Its a fact. Evolution is one of the most heavily supported theories in science, with not just mountains of evidence to support it, but also multiple lines of evidence that support each other.  The genetic evidence re-confirms the morphological evidence, the geologic evidence re-confirms the fossil record. So one and so forth.  

. Both in the lab and in the wild.  Evolution is the backbone of modern biology.  Its the reason we heve the life saving medicines and procedures that save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.

This has nothing to do with a belief system, this has nothing to do with atheism, this has nothing to do with Christianity or even religion in general.  Evolution is a testable, verifiable, observable *fact* and to deny Evolution would be akin to denying the Earth is round, or that it travels around the Sun.

For a science minister to say he doesn't "believe" in evolution would be like a geologist saying he doesn't "believe" in rocks.  This man is an embarrassment to his position, his country, to science, and the the people he serves.  He may not be "dumb", but he certainly is willfully ignorant, and that's not a trait you should have in a "science" minister.


----------



## lucky (Apr 6, 2011)

Ruby Tuesday said:


> you have officially lost the ability to call us Americans dumb. In fact that is so stupid that you have also lost the ability to call us fat as well.



..............


that was quite dumb of you to say, fatty.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 6, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Atheists bitch and moan. More at 11.



Oh come on.  Plenty of people who believe in evolution are religious, its not just atheists.  As a minister of _science_ he should be in favor of supporting currently accepted scientific beliefs and principles.  His religion shouldn't factor into it.

If it does then he is unfit for the job.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Apr 6, 2011)

TO ALL THE EVILUTIONISTS IN THIS THREAD:

How do you explain the banana, or peanut butter ?

You can't.* Evil*ution is lies


----------



## fantzipants (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> What a disgrace. What's next, a flat-earther?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



flat earth theory is an ancient scientific theory and was never accepted within christianity nor judaism. one member of the clergy was influenced by hellenic teaching and people blame all of christianity. There are atheists also who do not support evolution. Evolution is a mere theory and not a truth until proven other wise. The people in here claiming science = is truth are not only unscientific but too full of themselves to even listen. Today's science can be tomorrows lie. What is the old saying? theories aren't wrong they just get modified or something like that? basically it says "we screwed up and changed it as new data comes along".

We barely know anything of the universe and yet people claim themselves king of the universe with out a God.


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

> Evolution is a mere theory and not a truth until proven other wise.



Tell that to your dog/fish/bananas/hamburgers.


----------



## Plain Scarfs (Apr 6, 2011)

He doesn't deny evolution or accept it. He's standing on neutral territory, he's not forcing any particular viewpoint on anyone.

Let the man have his beliefs, and judge his creditability not on the Evolutionist debate but on his other scientific merits.


>chiropractor

...

/:


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2011)

fantzipants said:


> flat earth theory is an ancient scientific theory and was never accepted within christianity nor judaism. one member of the clergy was influenced by hellenic teaching and people blame all of christianity.


 Flat earth was just an example. He could have said "geocentrism".



fantzipants said:


> There are atheists also who do not support evolution.


Yeah, I've heard there's eight of them. One lives in the US, but he is mentally unstable.



fantzipants said:


> Evolution is a mere theory and not a truth until proven other wise.


 There is no way to prove that _anything_ is true.



fantzipants said:


> The people in here claiming science = is truth are not only unscientific but too full of themselves to even listen. Today's science can be tomorrows lie. What is the old saying? theories aren't wrong they just get modified or something like that? basically it says "we screwed up and changed it as new data comes along".


Science is not truth, it is the closest thing we have to truth. In any and all cases where there is competition between a scientific theory and a non-scientific one, the scientific theory is much more likely to be true. In the case of evolution, there isn't even any serious competition at all, which is why it is downright stupid not to believe in it.




			
				Plain Scarfs said:
			
		

> He doesn't deny evolution or accept it. He's standing on neutral territory, he's not forcing any particular viewpoint on anyone.
> 
> Let the man have his beliefs, and judge his creditability not on the Evolutionist debate but on his other scientific merits.


Yeah, I wonder if he is also "neutral" and "not forcing any particular viewpoint" on relativity, quantum physics, algebra, set theory, tectonics, the theory of entropy... Maybe we should let people have their beliefs and allow someone whose beliefs places him in the 11th century to be in charge of a modern country's scientific research programs. Why not?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 6, 2011)

Plain Scarfs said:


> He doesn't deny evolution or accept it. He's standing on neutral territory, he's not forcing any particular viewpoint on anyone.
> 
> Let the man have his beliefs, and judge his creditability not on the Evolutionist debate but on his other scientific merits.
> 
> ...



He is a SCIENCE minister "standing on neutral ground" on a matter of SCIENCE.  If he can't take a firm stance here then he really shouldn't be in that position.


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

fantzipants said:


> flat earth theory is an ancient scientific theory and was never accepted within christianity nor judaism.


Flat earth was never a scientific theory, at the time that it was believed the earth was flat there was no scientific method. 

Christianity and Judaism accept the earth was flat, There are many references in the bible and Torah of the earth being flat.  



fantzipants said:


> one member of the clergy was influenced by hellenic teaching and people blame all of christianity.


Hellenic had a spherical earth 

Quote from plato
one of those balls which have leather coverings in twelve pieces, and is decked with various colours, of which the colours used by painters on earth are in a manner samples." (thanks wikipedia)



fantzipants said:


> There are atheists also who do not support evolution.


and?


fantzipants said:


> Evolution is a mere theory and not a truth until proven other wise.


A scientific theory is the greatest framework for understand our world that exist today. 


fantzipants said:


> The people in here claiming science = is truth are not only unscientific but too full of themselves to even listen. Today's science can be tomorrows lie. What is the old saying? theories aren't wrong they just get modified or something like that? basically it says "we screwed up and changed it as new data comes along".
> 
> We barely know anything of the universe and yet people claim themselves king of the universe with out a God.


Science doesn't claim to know truth, it claims to the have the best understanding of the world today. 

The fact that the bible was proven wrong and has stayed wrong for well over 2000 years doesn't lend to it's credibility.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Flat earth was never a scientific theory, at the time that it was believed the earth was flat there was no scientific method.
> 
> Christianity and Judaism accept the earth was flat, There are many references in the bible and Torah of the earth being flat..



Stop lying. Never in the word of God it said the earth was flat..Man and everyone else believed that it was flat. The word of God [Bible] has said the earth was round thousands of years before man ever discovered this truth.



impersonal said:


> I knew there was something wrong with this one.


I'm not the one who believes in a fairy tail like evolution, co-signed by stan lee, lol.



kazuri said:


> That's why there are hundreds of new breeds of dogs right? That's why banana's still look like this?
> That's why you eat countless animals that have been bred using "evolution"(ie artificial selection) to make them bigger/healthier/fastermaturing/etc/etc/etc right?


New breeds of dog? LOL, no. Just different types son and none of this is the false religion evolution.


----------



## Plain Scarfs (Apr 6, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Flat earth was just an example. He could have said "geocentrism".
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've heard there's eight of them. One lives in the US, but he is mentally unstable.
> ...



If you want to twist stuff around we can do it all day. If a scientist believes 100% in the theory of evolution then every other theory he believes is right, even if the evidence is still being disputed will be set in stone.

Let's not get hypothetical, let's stick with what's in front of us, and the issue at hand.



Tsukiyomi said:


> He is a SCIENCE minister "standing on neutral ground" on a matter of SCIENCE.  If he can't take a firm stance here then he really shouldn't be in that position.



For him it is not only a matter of Science but also a matter of faith. Let him have his conflict, he has no intention of involving anyone else in it; if it DOES start to interfere with his post, then there's ground for concern.


----------



## Arishem (Apr 6, 2011)

I'm no monkey.














*I'M AN APE!!!*


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

fantzipants said:


> flat earth theory is an ancient scientific theory and was never accepted within christianity nor judaism. one member of the clergy was influenced by hellenic teaching and people blame all of christianity.



Wrong, it's not a scientific theory and never was. I've explained to you several times what scientifc theory is, you just stop posting for a few weeks and then come back saying the exact same thing I've explained to you over and over again. It's quite tiring and speaks volumes about your willingness to learn.



> There are atheists also who do not support evolution.



Name a few.



> Evolution is a mere theory and not a truth until proven other wise. The people in here claiming science = is truth are not only unscientific but too full of themselves to even listen. Today's science can be tomorrows lie. What is the old saying?



See above, you are intentionally misleading people or just wilfully ignorant. Theory is the highest status any hypothesis can ever obtain. 



> theories aren't wrong they just get modified or something like that? basically it says "we screwed up and changed it as new data comes along".
> 
> We barely know anything of the universe and yet people claim themselves king of the universe with out a God.



I'll try to explain it to you one more time, I even thought of a nice analogy that anyone should be able to comprehend. A scientific theory is like a world record in an athletic sport. When someone completes a 100m run faster than anyone before him, he is considered the world's fastest person. A theory is supported by a vast amount of evidence, it can explain facts and correctly predict them, it is considered the best explanation available.

Now, nobody says that the world record holder is the maximum possible and nobody can be faster, but it is entirely possible that the person is in fact the fastest and nobody will ever be faster. Regardless, we are always open for the possibility of someone being faster. Same with a theory, it might just be absolutely perfect (although it rarely is) and it might be adjusted in the future.

What creationists do is saying "we'll never know who really is the fastest person, it can change anytime, therefore it is valid to say this man here that was born without legs is the fastest 100m runner in the world". No, it's not valid to say that.



Plain Scarfs said:


> He doesn't deny evolution or accept it. He's standing on neutral territory, he's not forcing any particular viewpoint on anyone.
> 
> Let the man have his beliefs, and judge his creditability not on the Evolutionist debate but on his other scientific merits.
> 
> ...



So a science minister should stand on neutral ground between chemistry and alchemy? Alstrology and astronomy? Flat earth and spherical earth? Sexual intercourse and stork delivers babies? After all, we shouldn't force anything on anyone.


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Stop lying. Never in the word of God it said the earth was flat..Man and everyone else believed that it was flat. The Bible has said the earth was round thousands of years before man ever discovered this truth.
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who believes in a fairy tail like evolution, co-signed by stan lee, lol.
> ...



Every time you eat a banana, you are eating something you do not believe in. 



> Just different types



And those different types arise by... THE VERY SAME PROCESSES OF EVOLUTION.

There are COUNTLESS examples of a mutation occuring in an isolated area, breeders noticing, using the single specimen as a breeder, and creating entirely new "types" with entirely "new features". If you don't believe it, do a few seconds worth of research and prove to god you aren't an idiot.


----------



## Plain Scarfs (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> So a science minister should stand on neutral ground between chemistry and alchemy? Alstrology and astronomy? Flat earth and spherical earth? Sexual intercourse and stork delivers babies? After all, we shouldn't force anything on anyone.



As long as it doesn't have any effect on how good he is at the job he's been given then no, it doesn't matter at all.


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

> As long as it doesn't have any effect on how good he is at the job he's been given then no, it doesn't matter at all.



His title has science in it and he doesn't even know what a mutation is. If he did, he would have no problem believing in evolution.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Apr 6, 2011)

Plain Scarfs said:


> As long as it doesn't have any effect on how good he is at the job he's been given then no, it doesn't matter at all.



Did you miss the part where his job is to be a _*SCIENCE*_ administrator?


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Stop lying. Never in the word of God it said the earth was flat..Man and everyone else believed that it was flat. The word of God [Bible] has said the earth was round thousands of years before man ever discovered this truth.



Here are the lines from the bible speaking of a flat earth. 

Job 26:
10He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
11The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof. 

Isaiah 40
 21Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

 22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Daniel4:
 10Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.

 11The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Matthew 4:
 8Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Here are the lines from the bible speaking of a flat earth.
> 
> Job 26:
> 10He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
> ...



None of those verses talk about the Earth's form besides Isaiah's [and all were explained in a poetic symbolic way] Where it specifically states the earth is round.




kazuri said:


> Every time you eat a banana, you are eating something you do not believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't know what this nonsense called evolution is, no where is it ever documented or seen where animals transform into BRAND NEW animals from gaining new information.


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

> The word of God [Bible] has said the earth was round thousands of years before man ever discovered this truth.



Yea, false.



> You don't know what this nonsense called evolution is, no where is it ever documented or seen where animals transform into BRAND NEW animals from gaining new information.



Evolution = and only = BRAND NEW, yea, thats false too.


----------



## Plain Scarfs (Apr 6, 2011)

kazuri said:


> His title has science in it and *he doesn't even know what a mutation is*. If he did, he would have no problem believing in evolution.



I have no idea where this claim comes from.

He never declared his beliefs either way. I interpret that as him having an unresolved personal conflict, which he doesn't want to focus too heavily on when it comes to his job.




Doesn't declare belief in evolution ---> all scientific merit of the man is discredited

Flawless logic.


----------



## Perseverance (Apr 6, 2011)

Evolution hasn't yet been proven.

We come from apes aparently, but no one can find the missing gap.


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

Perseverance said:


> Evolution hasn't yet been proven.
> 
> We come from apes aparently, but no one can find the missing gap.



Show me where there is a gap?


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

> Evolution hasn't yet been proven.
> 
> We come from apes aparently, but no one can find the missing gap.



You eat things every single day that would not be possible if evolution "hasnt been proven."



> I have no idea where this claim comes from.



He will not admit to believing in evolution because he is christian. That being, he does not believe in evolution, that being, he doesn't believe in mutations.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 6, 2011)

Plain Scarfs said:


> For him it is not only a matter of Science but also a matter of faith. Let him have his conflict, he has no intention of involving anyone else in it; if it DOES start to interfere with his post, then there's ground for concern.



A science minister not taking a stance on evolution on religious grounds is like the minister of health not taking a stance on vaccines on religious grounds.

Its not unreasonable to demand someone take a definitive stance on the subject their job revolves around.  Evolution is very much a part of modern science.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

kazuri said:


> Yea, false.
> 
> Evolution = and only = BRAND NEW, yea, thats false too.


That's right about Evolution it is just that concerning the species [humans and animals, lol] ..And The word of God said the earth was round in Isaiah chapter 40:21-22 way before man ever discovered.


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> That's right..And The word of God said the earth was round in Isaiah chapter A40:21-22



No it didn't, it said it was a flat circle. I suggest you read your bible.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Plain Scarfs said:


> As long as it doesn't have any effect on how good he is at the job he's been given then no, it doesn't matter at all.



 SCIENCE! It's in the job description, so how can it have no effect on his job that he denies science?



Perseverance said:


> Evolution hasn't yet been proven.
> 
> We come from apes aparently, but no one can find the missing gap.



We are apes. That's a fact, not a theory.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> No it didn't, it said it was a flat circle. I suggest you read your bible.


More denial..Nowhere in the text is the word FLAT.


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

> That's right about Evolution it is just that concerning the species [humans and animals, lol]



Incorrect. Evolution is the process of change. This has been demonstrated so many times, it is now a part of everyone's everyday lives.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> More denial..Nowhere in the text is the word FLAT.



A circle is 2-dimensional, thus flat.


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> More denial..Nowhere in the text is the word FLAT.



Circle are flat objects. The world CIRCLE MEANS FLAT.



			
				superstars said:
			
		

> None of those verses talk about the Earth's form besides Isaiah's..Where it specifically states the earth is round.


the rest of these which you ignore deal with the fact that you can't see from a high mountain or a tall place EVERYTHING if the world is a sphere. You can only see EVERYTHING if the world is flat. 

A sphere also does not have foundations, only FLAT surfaces have foundations. (as there is nothing UNDER a sphere in space.)


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Apr 6, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

kazuri said:


> Incorrect. Evolution is the process of change. This has been demonstrated so many times, it is now a part of everyone's everyday lives.


No it is not, evolution is natural selection son, where it is survival of the fittest where you have animals dying off and other animals getting stronger by gaining new information and then lol changing into BRAND NEW kinds of animals..NEVER SEEN OR DOCUMENTED..It is nonsense.



			
				sauldofust said:
			
		

> A circle is 2-dimensional, thus flat.





sadated_peon said:


> Circle are flat objects. The world CIRCLE MEANS FLAT.
> 
> 
> the rest of these which you ignore deal with the fact that you can't see from a high mountain or a tall place EVERYTHING if the world is a sphere. You can only see EVERYTHING if the world is flat.
> ...




Stop the denial please.


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

> No it is not, evolution is natural selection son, where it is survival of the fittest where you have animals dying off and other animals getting stronger by gaining new information and then lol changing into BRAND NEW kinds of animals..NEVER SEEN OR DOCUMENTED..It is nonsense.



Looks like you've read as much about evolution as you have the bible. Also shapes.


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Stop the denial please.


From you definition

Circle:
1.  *A plane* curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center.
2.  *A planar region* bounded by a circle.
3.  Something, such as a ring, shaped like such* a plane* curve.

*Planar*

1.  Of, relating to, or situated in *a plane.*
2. *Flat: a planar surface.*
3. Having a *two-dimensiona*l characteristic.

A Plane

1.  Mathematics A surface containing all the straight lines that connect any two points on it.
*2. A flat or level surface.*


----------



## Plain Scarfs (Apr 6, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Its not unreasonable to demand someone take a definitive stance on the subject their job revolves around.  Evolution is very much a part of modern science.



I think it's asking a lot if they genuinely have a 50/50 split on the subject. If he does back one theory, and believe it 100%, I agree that he should be public on it.



Saufsoldat said:


> SCIENCE! It's in the job description, so how can it have no effect on his job that he denies science?



Person A does a brilliant job as Science Minister
Person B does an equally brilliant job as Science Minister

Person B has not publicly declared his stance on Evolution; any stance he does hold has had no effect on policy/spending decisions.


That's how it can have no effect on his job. IF he does allow his personal beliefs to get in the way, then there is cause for concern. There is thus far no evidence of such occurring.

I do believe that a man can provide funding, resources and time to causes he disagrees with if his job requires it; perhaps I'm more optimistic than most.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> No it is not, evolution is natural selection son, where it is survival of the fittest where you have animals dying off and other animals getting stronger by gaining new information and then lol changing into BRAND NEW kinds of animals..NEVER SEEN OR DOCUMENTED..It is nonsense.



Yeah, who would thing millions of small changes stacking up over billions of years would eventually add up to big changes.  Nonsense.



Superstars said:


> Stop the denial please.



Where in there do you _think_ it says a circle isn't flat?



Plain Scarfs said:


> I think it's asking a lot if they genuinely  have a 50/50 split on the subject. If he does back one theory, and  believe it 100%, I agree that he should be public on it.



If he has a 50/50 split on it then he should public about THAT.   Someones opinion on the subject their public office revolves around is  very much the public's business.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> From you definition
> 
> Circle:
> 1.  *A plane* curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center.
> ...



Yeah, now finish reading the sentences and see the examples drawn..You people are terrible liars.


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

> Person B has not publicly declared his stance on Evolution; any stance he does hold has had no effect on policy/spending decisions.



Um, the very fact he wont take a stance shows how he lets religion interfere with his job of science.




> Yeah, now finish reading the sentences and see the examples drawn..You people are terrible liars.



You mean the example drawn not showing any spheres, which also happens to be right beside...


> A closed curve whose points are all on the same plane and at the same distance from a fixed point (the center).


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> No it is not, evolution is natural selection son, where it is survival of the fittest where you have animals dying off and other animals getting stronger by gaining new information and then lol changing into BRAND NEW kinds of animals..NEVER SEEN OR DOCUMENTED..It is nonsense.



I know, reality must seem like nonsense to a fundie, but that doesn't change the facts.  (yes, never before seen of documented) has been observed and is therefore a fact.

Hate to break it to you, but your arguments are so 19th century.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Apr 6, 2011)

When even the Catholic Church has recognized evolution you know you dun goofed.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2011)

Plain Scarfs said:


> (...) I do believe that a man can provide funding, resources and time to causes he disagrees with if his job requires it; perhaps I'm more optimistic than most.



That's like appointing a funeral director as a doctor. It's just a stupid idea. There's plenty of people who could do that job, and who neither (a) are completely ignorant of the subject at hand and (b) have a personal interest in failing to do their job.


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Yeah, now finish reading the sentences and see the examples drawn..You people are terrible liars.



What the fuck are you talking about?
The sentences all support a flat object. All of them support Circle as being Flat.


----------



## Gnome (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Yeah, now finish reading the sentences and see the examples drawn..You people are terrible liars.



Circles exist on a 2-dimensional plane, when they move into a 3-dimensional plane they become Spheres and cease being described as Circles.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> No it is not, evolution is natural selection son, where it is survival of the fittest where you have animals dying off and other animals getting stronger by gaining new information and then lol changing into BRAND NEW kinds of animals..NEVER SEEN OR DOCUMENTED..It is nonsense.



No, that's not what evolution is and I'm not going to waste time debating against someone who cant even be bothered to educate themselves on what it is they're debating about.  


That being said, the next part of my post is not for you, since no amount of information or facts will change your mind.  I'm posting it so others reading this can have a decent understanding about what Macro and Micro Evolution really is, and that the only difference between them is time scale.  



Gooba said:


> I stole this from someone on another forum because I liked it.
> 
> We all can agree (save for the severely color blind) that this text is red.
> 
> ...




Saying Evolution doesn't happen because you've never seen one animal give birth to another species of animal is like aging doesn't happen because you've neer seen a 7 year old child fall asleep one night and wake up the next day as a 70 old man.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Plain Scarfs said:


> Person A does a brilliant job as Science Minister
> Person B does an equally brilliant job as Science Minister
> 
> Person B has not publicly declared his stance on Evolution; any stance he does hold has had no effect on policy/spending decisions.
> ...



 So if a politician is asked "do you believe men should be allowed to rape their wives?" and he replies "my religious beliefs are my own", you think that would be cool? If you ask the defense minister "do you think we should try to preserve peace?" and his answer is "my religious beliefs are my own", nobody would think it's suspicious?


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Yeah, who would thing millions of small changes stacking up over billions of years would eventually add up to big changes.  Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Where in there do you _think_ it says a circle isn't flat?


Where the definition of round is also the samething..A circle.




> I know, reality must seem like nonsense to a fundie, but that doesn't change the facts. Speciation (yes, never before seen of documented) has been observed and is therefore a fact.
> 
> Hate to break it to you, but your arguments are so 19th century.



Too bad that's not what evolution is..and that proves nothing.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Too bad that's not what evolution is..and that proves nothing.



You asked for a specific piece of evidence, which I have supplied and then you say it proves nothing? 

Then what evidence would convince you? Ask and you shall receive.



Superstars said:


> Where the definition of round is also the samething..A circle.



And a circle is flat, yes. Round doesn't mean 3-dimensional.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> What the fuck are you talking about?
> The sentences all support a flat object. All of them support Circle as being Flat.



No it doesn't, cause round is the same as circle and you can see the drawn example of the circle along with it being defined as round.



> No, that's not what evolution is and I'm not going to waste time debating against someone who cant even be bothered to educate themselves on what it is they're debating about.
> 
> 
> That being said, the next part of my post is not for you, since no amount of information or facts will change your mind. I'm posting it so others reading this can have a decent understanding about what Macro and Micro Evolution really is, and that the only difference between them is time scale.



The facts of evo I gave you came straight from the book of foolish darwin himself.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Where the definition of round is also the samething..A circle.



Something can be round and flat at the same time.   A disc is round but flat.



Superstars said:


> Too bad that's not what evolution is..and that proves nothing.



That's exactly what evolution is.  The accumulation of small changes over extreme periods of time into major changes.  The fact that you choose to think otherwise doesn't change that.  Every species changes slowly with its environment eventually becoming new species.


----------



## Garfield (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Where the definition of round is also the samething..A circle.
> Too bad that's not what evolution is..and that proves nothing.



Round isn't even definite. Round just means something that curves. It's like calling an apple "something" and saying you are perfectly right.

Of course you'd be right but would that be amazing?


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> You asked for a specific piece of evidence, which I have supplied and then you say it proves nothing?
> 
> Then what evidence would convince you? Ask and you shall receive.


Don't need it because there is none. The info I gave on evo which is actually evo has no proof behind it. stop fooling yourself.



> And a circle is flat, yes. Round doesn't mean 3-dimensional.


Stop contradicting facts, it isn't, as the definition states.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> No it doesn't, cause round is the same as circle and you can see the drawn example of the circle along with it being defined as round.
> 
> 
> 
> The facts of evo I gave you came straight from the book of foolish darwin himself.



Really, what page? I have Origin of Species sitting right here next to my computer.  So please, tell me where I can find that particular passage?


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

adee said:


> Round isn't even definite. Round just means something that curves. It's like calling an apple "something" and saying you are perfectly right.
> 
> Of course you'd be right but would that be amazing?



It is definite, fools when we say the earth is round we mean circular shape. God you people are dull.


----------



## Garfield (Apr 6, 2011)

superstars said:
			
		

> The facts of evo I gave you came straight from the book of foolish darwin himself.


Great people CAN be stupid, does that mean that their ideas are terrible? Did you know that Edison vehemently opposed AC, something that drives the whole world today?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Apr 6, 2011)

ITT:Religious people go full retard. More at 11


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> Really, what page? I have Origin of Species sitting right here next to my computer.  So please, tell me where I can find that particular passage?


Why ask me the page when I thought you read it? Go read it yourself and find out.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

adee said:


> Great people CAN be stupid, does that mean that their ideas are terrible? Did you know that Edison vehemently opposed AC, something that drives the whole world today?



Darwins ideas where hot garbage..straight from a comic book.


----------



## Garfield (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> It is definite, fools when we say the earth is round we mean circular shape. God you people are dull.


IF it was definite you wouldn't have expressions like "Go round the block once"
When you go round the block, do you travel in a circle?


----------



## Garfield (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Darwins ideas where hot garbage..straight from a comic book.


Do you consider yourself smarter than most scientists? Because scientists in general agree on evolution as being the acceptable theory.

For a religious man you lack terribly at humility.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Why ask me the page when I thought you read it? Go read it yourself and find out.



The bible says that all Christians should go out and rape babies in front of their mothers before eating them.....oh I can't tell you where in the bible it says that.  Go read it yourself and find out.


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> No it doesn't, cause round is the same as circle and you can see the drawn example of the circle along with it being defined as round.


As others have said. 

Round is no the same things a circle, A circle is round and flat. A coaster is round. A disk is round. A CD is round.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

adee said:


> IF it was definite you wouldn't have expressions like "Go round the block once"
> When you go round the block, do you travel in a circle?


Not the samething, stop nitpicking, weak argument.


----------



## Arishem (Apr 6, 2011)

Speciation isn't good enough for these guys. They literally want to see a coastal carnivore start losing its legs or a rodent to start growing wings in a human lifespan, which is flat out impossible working with natural processes. These changes happen incrementally, and due to the conditions required for fossilization, we will never know all of the creatures that have existed. Even with that limitation, we've still found obvious transitional forms. 

A fish that can support its weight with its fins?! Say it isn't so.Oh my! Is that an early bipedal ape with an awkward gait and opposable thumbs on its feet?


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> As others have said.
> 
> Round is no the same things a circle, A circle is round and flat. A coaster is round. A disk is round. A CD is round.



just like the earth is described..round meaning cicular form, dang our school systems are failing us.

The bible is truth get over it.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars' inability to understand basic concepts like geometry explains how he can enjoy garbage like Naruto and Bleach. He clearly lacks even a rudimentary High School level of education.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Don't need it because there is none. The info I gave on evo which is actually evo has no proof behind it. stop fooling yourself.
> 
> Stop contradicting facts, it isn't, as the definition states.



Concession accepted.



Superstars said:


> It is definite, fools when we say the earth is round we mean circular shape. God you people are dull.



The bible doesn't just say round, it says circle. A circle is round, but flat.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> The bible says that all Christians should go out and rape babies in front of their mothers before eating them.....oh I can't tell you where in the bible it says that.  Go read it yourself and find out.


I did and it never said that.

bunch of slappy's


----------



## Garfield (Apr 6, 2011)

The bible is truth

Because it said so

Never has an argument been more convincing. Lets not nitpick.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Concession accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> The bible doesn't just say round, it says circle. A circle is round, but flat.



Cicle means round..get out of denial.  Evo has no proof but the bible is true.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Where the definition of round is also the samething..A circle.


 There is no mention of "round" in the link you provided. You are making less and less sense. A circle is the kind of line you can draw with a compass. It is flat, unlike a *sphere*.



Superstars said:


> Too bad that's not what evolution is..and that proves nothing.


... It proves that evolution occurs and gives rise to speciation (the appearance of new species).


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> just like the earth is described..round meaning cicular form, dang our school systems are failing us.
> 
> The bible is truth get over it.


The line from the Isaiah is
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,"


The earth is describe as a circle, it is described as a FLAT object.
A circle is round, but it is also FLAT. 

The earth is described... a circle meaning, circular and flat.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

adee said:


> The bible is truth
> 
> Because it said so
> 
> Never has an argument been more convincing. Lets not nitpick.



The bible is truth because of facts like the earth being round and stating it hangs in space on nothing. Divine word of God.


----------



## Plain Scarfs (Apr 6, 2011)

impersonal said:


> That's like appointing a funeral director as a doctor. It's just a stupid idea. There's plenty of people who could do that job, and who neither (a) are completely ignorant of the subject at hand and (b) have a personal interest in failing to do their job.



The subject of his job is Minister of Science not Minister of Evolution. He may have other merits outside of the evolution debate.



kazuri said:


> Um, the very fact he wont take a stance shows how he lets religion interfere with his job of science.



No it doesn't.

I BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM =/= I'm going to be biased




Saufsoldat said:


> So if a politician is asked "do you believe men should be allowed to rape their wives?" and he replies "my religious beliefs are my own", you think that would be cool? If you ask the defense minister "do you think we should try to preserve peace?" and his answer is "my religious beliefs are my own", nobody would think it's suspicious?



Strawmans. Strawmans everywhere.

Anyway; if anyone gave those responses it would be bad. However if the imaginary defence minister could say 'I don't think we should, but we will' then I'm cool with it. 



There are is so far no evidence to show that his beliefs have directly harmed his service in this public office. He may have harmed his public image and caused some lapses in confidence, but I've yet to see evidence of him doing a poor job because of it.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> The line from the Isaiah is
> "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,"
> 
> The earth is describe as a circle, it is described as a FLAT object.
> ...



lol, no fool man said the earth is round meaning cicular and that is a fact. God said it way before ships and satelites could spot it.


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> lol, no fool christopher columbus said the earth is round meaning cicular and that is a fact. God said it way before ships and satelites could spot it.



I just quoted the bible saying that it is a circle, which is flat. 
You are contradicting the bible.


----------



## Garfield (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> lol, no fool man said the earth is round meaning cicular and that is a fact. God said it way before ships and satelites could spot it.


You know what, your ID card must contain only the word "living being" and rest blank white.

Apparently that level of definition is good enough for you.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Why ask me the page when I thought you read it? Go read it yourself and find out.



You haven't read it, so stop pretending you have.  The only thing you know about Evolution is the misinformation you've gathered from fallacious apologetic websites like answersingenesis.

I'll ask again, and I'll even give you the chance to apologize for lying about having read it when you obviously haven't. Where in this book, that I have read, and that I'm holding in front of me as we speak:



Does it explain Evolution as you say it does? Because I can't find it.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Plain Scarfs said:


> Strawmans. Strawmans everywhere.
> 
> Anyway; if anyone gave those responses it would be bad. However if the imaginary defence minister could say 'I don't think we should, but we will' then I'm cool with it.



Not strawmen, I'm afraid, just comparisons. The science minister is asked a very simple, very basic question, that anyone scientist will easily answer with "yes, of course". I was trying to give you an understand of how fundamental and basic the question is in biology and science in general. An economy minister who doesn't reply to the question "Should we try to reduce debt?" with "yes, of course", but instead says "my religious beliefs are my own" would be laughed out of office, the same thing should happen here.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> I just quoted the bible saying that it is a circle, which is flat.
> You are contradicting the bible.



And cirlce means round not flat, and you ignored all evidence. get out of denial.



> You haven't read it, so stop pretending you have. The only thing you know about Evolution is the misinformation you've gathered from fallacious apologetic websites like answersingenesis.
> 
> I'll ask again, and I'll even give you the chance to apologize for lying about having read it when you obviously haven't. Where in this book, that I have read, and that I'm holding in front of me as we speak



I just summarized what Darwins theory was concerning nonsense like evo, read the book yourself and prove me wrong, you can't.



> You know what, your ID card must contain only the word "living being" and rest blank white.
> 
> Apparently that level of definition is good enough for you.



YAWN..do better.


----------



## Dionysus (Apr 6, 2011)

Yes, the Conservatives are a tragic bunch. More so that they are in power, albeit a minority. (Looks to remain so.) Their power core is a splinter group that was disgruntled of the old (and mostly reasonable) Progressive Conservative (PC) group. Another Conservative minister (who, thankfully, is not running again) believes the world to be just a few thousand years old. One of the great cons of the early 21st century was this group of people convincing PC voters that this Conservative party is worth voting for and isn't beholden to a lot of nasty special interests. The splinter group eventually conquered the old PC party, with a lot of drama ensuing.

This is largely why Harper muzzles his ministers and his backbenchers. A lot of them hold scary views about homosexuality, minorities, etc. If they open their mouths and say something, Con poll numbers go down. So we have the most secretive government in modern Canadian history. (I'll refrain from comparing them to a WW2 government...)

In stark contrast to this is that Canadian students receive one of the best educations in the world (score high in international testing, amongst Finland, South Korea, etc.), and the general population is also one of the best educated. Luckily for academics like me, education is a _*provincial*_ matter in Canada. I'll be applying for national grants though. Condensed matter physics typically avoids the scorn of the flat earthers and intelligent designists, so I should be safe...


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> And cirlce means round not flat, and you ignored all evidence. get out of denial.



Round and flat are not mutually exclusive. Round does not mean spherical, round just means that something has curves. A DVD is round, but it's not a sphere.


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> And cirlce means round not flat, and you ignored all evidence. get out of denial.



Objects can be round and flat, they are not exclusive. 
A Circle is round and flat. 

The bible says circle, which means flat. Just like a CD, or a DVD, or a Coaster. 
Circle means a circular FLAT object.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Round and flat are not mutually exclusive. Round does not mean spherical, round just means that something has curves. A DVD is round, but it's not a sphere.





sadated_peon said:


> Objects can be round and flat, they are not exclusive.
> A Circle is round and flat.
> 
> The bible says circle, which means flat. Just like a CD, or a DVD, or a Coaster.
> Circle means a circular FLAT object.





It is concerning the Earth when stated/discovered it is a circle IE round. Stop, you guys look so pathetic it isn't even funny. The word of god is truth way before man ever discovered such facts.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> It is concerning the Earth when stated/discovered it is a circle IE round. Stop you guys look so pathetic it isn't even funny. The word of god is truth way before man ever discovered such facts.



A round circle is flat.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> A round circle is flat.


Not the earth's it is circular, round proven fact. God's word is truth man is foolish.


----------



## abcd (Apr 6, 2011)

I think one should not hold a position which has conflict of interests :/



Superstars said:


> Stop you guys look so pathetic it isn't even funny. The word of god is truth way before man ever discovered such facts.



Yeah ! .. You nailed the argument so hard , I think romans wouldtime travel to learn from you


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> It is concerning the Earth when stated/discovered it is a circle IE round. Stop, you guys look so pathetic it isn't even funny. The word of god is truth way before man ever discovered such facts.



It is stated concerning the earth, so that means that the bible claims that the bible is flat. It is evidence that you bible is wrong, and that your god was the mythos of bronze age tribesmen.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> I just summarized what Darwins theory was concerning nonsense like evo, read the book yourself and prove me wrong, you can't.



I can't prove something to someone who's just going to ignore the evidence anyway.

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

This exchange is pointless, and I'm done wasting my time.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> It is stated concerning the earth, so that means that the bible claims that the bible is flat. It is evidence that you bible is wrong, and that your god was the mythos of bronze age tribesmen.



Wrong, man confirms that the earth is round just like the word of God said before man ever found out. Your attempts suck, very bad. God's word is truth you are false along with the majority of the world.


> can't prove something to someone who's just going to ignore the evidence anyway.
> 
> "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
> 
> This exchange is pointless, and I'm done wasting my time.


I can't ignore evidence when I just GAVE you the facts myself about your own comic book fairy tail.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Not the earth's it is circular, round proven fact. God's word is truth man is foolish.



What do you mean the earth's? Why the possessive   's ? It is concerning the earth, the planet we live on. And it doesn't say circular, it says circle.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> I can't ignore evidence when I just GAVE you the facts myself about your own comic book fairy tail.



You're asking him to prove a negative.  If you're so sure its in there why don't you point to the exact page, unless you _can't_.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> What do you mean the earth's? Why the possessive   's ? It is concerning the earth, the planet we live on. And it doesn't say circular, it says circle.


WHICH MEANS CIRCULAR, round. Pathetic and dull, your whole argument is a loser argument.



> You're asking him to prove a negative. If you're so sure its in there why don't you point to the exact page, unless you can't.


I didn't ask him to prove anything when I ALREADY proved it too him about what evo is...Tell him to go find the part concerning natural selection and then read the nonsensical jargon...


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Wrong, man confirms that the earth is round just like the word of God said before man ever found out. Your attempts suck, very bad. God's word is truth you are false along with the majority of the world.


The bible said the earth was a circle, the Greeks disproved this. 
Your bible has been wrong for thousands of years, and is still wrong today.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> WHICH MEANS CIRCULAR, round. Pathetic and dull, your whole argument is a loser argument.



Neither "circular" nor "round" mean "not flat". A DVD is circular and round, but still flat, because it's a circle.


----------



## Garfield (Apr 6, 2011)

Last two pages of this thread are like

"Does too!"
"Does NOT"
"Does too"
"Does not!"
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> *I didn't ask him to prove anything* when I ALREADY proved it too him about what evo is...Tell him to go find the part concerning natural selection.



You didn't?



Superstars said:


> I just summarized what Darwins theory was  concerning nonsense like evo, read the book yourself and* prove me wrong*,  you can't.



What do you call this then?


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> The bible said the earth was a circle, the Greeks disproved this.
> Your bible has been wrong for thousands of years, and is still wrong today.



The bible can't be disproven because it was corect on the shape of the earth. Sphere, circle, round...get out of denial please.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Neither "circular" nor "round" mean "not flat". A DVD is circular and round, but still flat, because it's a circle.


Sigh, the hebrew word for circle means sphere, round circle..Which is what the earth exactly is proved by science, man, christopher columbus.
You guys fail really hard and I found out many of you can't read.



> What do you call this then?


I call that a challenge to go research himself.


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> The bible can't be disproven because it was corect on the shape of the earth. Sphere, circle, round...get out of denial please.



A sphere is not a circle. 


Here is the earth described in the bible, therefore the bible is wrong.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> I call that a challenge to go research himself.



You _directly_ asked him to prove a negative.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> A sphere is not a circle.
> Here is the earth described in the bible, therefore the bible is wrong.


That's not what the bible said,...stop trying to make stuff up for the last time.the bible's shape of earth is proven by science, christopher colombus and whoever else...way before the greeks...So stop with your nonsense.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You _directly_ asked him to prove a negative.


No to confirm what I said is not proving a negative.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> No to confirm what I said is not proving a negative.



You asked him to prove you wrong.  In order to prove you wrong he would have to prove the book _doesn't_ contain what you said which is a negative.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You asked him to prove you wrong.  In order to prove you wrong he would have to prove the book _doesn't_ contain what you said which is a negative.



I asked him to resaerch himself, ultimately, and he will see that I was right..


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Sigh, the hebrew word for circle means sphere, round circle..Which is what the earth exactly is proved by science, man, christopher columbus.
> You guys fail really hard and I found out many of you can't read.



So the hebrew word for two entirely different things are the same? And why then do 9 out of 10 bible translations say circle? That's very misleading.

Also, I'd like to see the evidence.


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

First of all earth is not a sphere or a circle, as euclidian geometry IS  impossible(outside of thought experiments), and only useful(very) for approximation. (not to mention the earth is "squashed"..)

Second, 



> proven by science, christopher colombus and whoever else...way before the greeks...



Columbus: 1451-1506

Ancient greece: 8th to 6th centuries BC to 146 BC

That basically sums you up.



> If the athiest don't believe there is a God why do they fight him so hard?



Because most of them care about their fellow man without being told they have to or be punished.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> I asked him to resaerch himself, ultimately, and he will see that I was right..



If you're so sure the book has what you say in it then why can't you say _where_ it has that in it?  Seems like a very simple request for someone so confident that they're right.


----------



## abcd (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> The bible can't be disproven because it was corect on the shape of the earth. Sphere, circle, round...get out of denial please.



U seem to have a problem differentiating 2D and 3D

but u are perfect with circles


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> That's not what the bible said,...stop trying to make stuff up for the last time.the bible's shape of earth is proven by science, christopher colombus and whoever else...way before the greeks...So stop with your nonsense.



christopher colombus way before the greeks?

It is confirmed the Greeks knew this since 600 BC, that is 2000 years before Christopher Columbus. 

Do you know anything about history at all?


----------



## fantzipants (Apr 6, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> A sphere is not a circle.
> 
> 
> Here is the earth described in the bible, therefore the bible is wrong.



The bible describes an orb and mideavil european commentary isn't the bible. It's not even middle eastern commentary.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> So the hebrew word for two entirely different things are the same? And why then do 9 out of 10 bible translations say circle? That's very misleading.
> 
> Also, I'd like to see the evidence.


It's very truthful...And what evidence? I just gave it to you from God's word.


----------



## abcd (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars is like an awesome troll


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> christopher colombus way before the greeks?
> 
> It is confirmed the Greeks knew this since 600 BC, that is 2000 years before Christopher Columbus.
> 
> Do you know anything about history at all?



I said that, the fact is the Word of God said it before all and it is truth.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

fantzipants said:


> The bible describes an orb and mideavil european commentary isn't the bible. It's not even middle eastern commentary.





Superstars said:


> It's very truthful...And what evidence I just gave it to you from God's word.



I'd like to see the evidence. You guys claim that 9 out of 10 bible translation are factually wrong, so I'd like to see some Hebrew from you.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> If you're so sure the book has what you say in it then why can't you say _where_ it has that in it?  Seems like a very simple request for someone so confident that they're right.



Because I don't recall where exactly. Didn't I say go to where natural selection/survival of fittest gets talked about.


----------



## abcd (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I'd like to see the evidence. You guys claim that 9 out of 10 bible translation are factually wrong, so I'd like to see some Hebrew from you.



He will give u evidence from 4 corners of the earth


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Because I don't recall where exactly. Didn't I say go to where natural selection/survival of fittest gets talked about.



Translation: "I've never actually read it or seen that in there so I'm going to spit out a very vague area".


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

fantzipants said:


> The bible describes an orb and mideavil european commentary isn't the bible. It's not even middle eastern commentary.



The bible describes a disk, a flat surface, which is why and put a "Tent" over it.
Something your can't do with an "orb". 

The midevil translation, confirms the hebrew. (here is a literal translation)


Here is the Hebrew

in context


Edit


			
				Superstars said:
			
		

> I said that, the fact is the Word of God said it before all and it is truth.


You said something wrong, I corrected you. 
Your bible said it was flat, which was incorrect. It said the wrong thing, and continues to say the wrong thing.


----------



## Dionysus (Apr 6, 2011)

Sorry, fellas. I posted on topic. My mistake.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Because I don't recall where exactly. Didn't I say go to where natural selection/survival of fittest gets talked about.



That's chapter 4, just read it.  Nothing like...



> No it is not, evolution is natural selection son, where it is survival of the fittest where you have animals dying off and *other animals getting stronger by gaining new information and then lol changing into BRAND NEW kinds of animals..NEVER SEEN OR DOCUMENTED..It is nonsense.*



... is written anywhere in the chapter, must be somewhere else huh?

I could even quote the whole chapter, but I doubt that would make any difference anyway, since what you require me to do is to quote something _from_ the book that's not _in_ the book to prove that it's not there.

Which pretty much sums up creationist logic in a nutshell. 

Just admit that you lied about reading Origin of Species and I'll drop it.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Apr 6, 2011)

This has degenerated quite a bit hasn't it? 

I wonder how Superstars would explain the genetic diversity observed today, or how new kinds of bacteria pop out of old strands.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I'd like to see the evidence. You guys claim that 9 out of 10 bible translation are factually wrong, so I'd like to see some Hebrew from you.


----------



## abcd (Apr 6, 2011)

Colonel Awesome said:


> This has degenerated quite a bit hasn't it?
> 
> I wonder how Superstars would explain the genetic diversity observed today, or how new kinds of bacteria pop out of old strands.



Were bacteria documented in the bible? .. If not do u think they exist


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Apr 6, 2011)

abcd said:


> Were bacteria documented in the bible? .. If not do u think they exist



Pff. Bacteria is just nonsense. The bible says so. But I won't tell you where in the bible it says that so you'll have to read it yourself.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> You said something wrong, I corrected you. Your bible said it was flat, which was incorrect. It said the wrong thing, and continues to say the wrong thing.



The circle of the earth is not flat son but round, compass, a sphere..You lose. God's word is true.


> ... is written anywhere in the chapter, must be somewhere else huh?
> 
> Just admit that you lied about reading Origin of Species and I'll drop it.



You didn't read it or understand it..Natural selection/survival of the fittest evo is exactly as the way I said it was.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

circle, 1; circuit, 1; compass, 1; 

None of those are spherical, all flat.


----------



## abcd (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> The circle of the earth is not flat son but round, compass, a sphere..You lose. God's word is true.
> 
> 
> You didn't read it or understand it..Natural selection/survival of the fittest evo is exactly as the way I said it.



A compass looks flat to me :/


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

abcd said:


> A compass looks flat to me :/



Well, maybe cylindrical, if it's a thick compass, but definitely not spherical.


----------



## abcd (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Well, maybe cylindrical, if it's a thick compass, but definitely not spherical.



Maybe he is talking about Oda when he talks about god :}


----------



## Gnome (Apr 6, 2011)

Evolution is the change of a _population_ over time by means of natural selection. It does not contain individual animals "Lol changing into new animals", that would be pokemon.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> circle, 1; circuit, 1; compass, 1;
> 
> None of those are spherical, all flat.



No they are all spherical because they are round.


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

"circle, circuit, compass "

right, so once again you provide a definition that means flat. 



Superstars said:


> The circle of the earth is not flat son but round, compass, a sphere..You lose. God's word is true.


A circle is flat, a compass is flat. flat objects can be round. 

Do you even know what a compass is?


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> "circle, circuit, compass "
> 
> right, so once again you provide a definition that means flat.
> 
> ...


All those words means round, not flat...Keep making up lies.


----------



## abcd (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> No they are all spherical because they are round.



I accept this mans word and concede lest i commit the sin of killing more neurons


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

abcd said:


> I accept this mans word and concede lest i commit the sin of killing more neurons


You already did with your own foolish lies.


----------



## Grrblt (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> No they are all spherical because they are round.



Take an elementary geometry course instead of wasting our time.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> You already did with your own foolish lies.



Tell me. Did the bible not say circle? We know a circle is round. But it did say circle, did it not?


----------



## abcd (Apr 6, 2011)

The science minister is right because circle is round


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> All those words means round, not flat...Keep making up lies.



They mean both, round and flat. look up images of these things, none of them are spherical. 


But I think I am done, you are fucking moron who has the mental capacity of genital louse. I don't think I can stand to watch such a failure of a human being.


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

> All those words means round, not flat...Keep making up lies.



it is IMPOSSIBLE for anything to be a sphere, or a circle, outside of idea's. Why? Because spheres are smooth. It is IMPOSSIBLE for anything like that to exist in this universe. If you zoom in far enough on anything you will realize this. You don't even need to zoom in though. Go find a hill. Sphere theory proven wrong. If you consider the bible the word of god(even though he didnt write it) he lied to you.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> No they are all spherical because they are round.



A DVD is round, are you saying DVDs are spherical?


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Take an elementary geometry course instead of wasting our time.



Says the people who can't read.



> They mean both, round and flat. look up images of these things, none of them are spherical.
> 
> 
> But I think I am done, you are fucking moron who has the mental capacity of genital louse. I don't think I can stand to watch such a failure of a human being.


You are the liar here who believes man came from ape when it's never been seen or documented? You are the fool who can't see circle means ROUND not a flat disc. You deny truth so you have to lie and twist facts up. Your argument was a loser argument from the start.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> You are the liar here who believes man came from ape when it's never been seen or documented? You are the fool who can't see circle means ROUND not a flat disc. You deny truth so you have to lie and twist facts up. Your argument was a loser argument from the start.



A flat disc is still ROUND, the two are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Says the people who can't read.
> 
> 
> You are the liar here who believes man came from ape when it's never been seen or documented? You are the fool who can't see circle means ROUND not a flat disc. You deny truth so you have to lie and twist facts up. Your argument was a loser argument from the start.



So DVDs aren't round then? 

If this is the case, then what does that make them?


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

kazuri said:


> it is IMPOSSIBLE for anything to be a sphere, or a circle, outside of idea's. Why? Because spheres are smooth. It is IMPOSSIBLE for anything like that to exist in this universe. If you zoom in far enough on anything you will realize this. You don't even need to zoom in though. Go find a hill. Sphere theory proven wrong. If you consider the bible the word of god(even though he didnt write it) he lied to you.



A ball is a sphere but we say it is round, same way the bible described the earth's shape a circle that hangs on nothing in space.



> A DVD is round, are you saying DVDs are spherical?


No, I'm saying the earth is just like God said and proved by man. It is a fact.


----------



## Grrblt (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Says the people who can't read.


No, I'm the one saying it.

Here's a puzzle for you:

Is a pizza round?
Is a pizza flat?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> No, I'm saying the earth is just like God said and proved by man. It is a fact.



Don't change the subject. A very simple question:

Are DVDs round? Just yes or no, please.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Colonel Awesome said:


> So DVDs aren't round then?
> 
> If this is the case, then what does that make them?


We are talking about the facts of the earth, keep up here son.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Apr 6, 2011)

DVDs are also circles. Since circle = sphere now, then DVDs must also be spheres!


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Don't change the subject. A very simple question:
> 
> Are DVDs round? Just yes or no, please.



Why are you so slow? The subject is the earth which is described by all of man as round just like the word of God says..proven fact. You lost from the start.


----------



## Grrblt (Apr 6, 2011)

Colonel Awesome said:


> DVDs are also circles. Since circle = sphere now, then DVDs must also be spheres!


Shhh, we're trying to make the idiot figure it out on his own.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Why are you so slow? The subject is the earth which is described by all of man as round just like the word of God says..proven fact. You lost from the start.



Just yes or no, please.


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

> You are the liar here who believes man came from ape when it's never been seen or documented?



You are the liar here who believes man came from god when it's never been seen or documented?

The bible documented it? 

Ok, here, I have a book that documents my side.

Dna.



> A ball is a sphere but we say it is round, same way the bible described the earth's shape a circle that hangs on nothing in space.


ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYTHING TO BE A SPHERE, EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY ISN'T "REAL WORLD GEOMETRY"(albeit very useful anyway.)

You can go outside and see for yourself that the earth is not a sphere, there are hills, mountains, trenches. These all disqualify it.


----------



## Gnome (Apr 6, 2011)

Fucking Circles, How do they work?


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Apr 6, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Shhh, we're trying to make the idiot figure it out on his own.



I'm not sure that he can.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Colonel Awesome said:


> DVDs are also circles. Since circle = sphere now, then DVDs must also be spheres!


Don't change the subject..The earth is round and it is a proven fact by God's word. No comparison to DVD's..


----------



## saprobe (Apr 6, 2011)

Well, since this thread has degenerated this far already I might as well do this:

[YOUTUBE]mDu351QNoZE[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Just yes or no, please.



Concession accepted. The earth is round, man itself proves God's word.


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

> Concession accepted. The earth is round, man itself proves God's word.



Your eyes themselves prove it wrong. Hills =/= not sphere.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Concession accepted. The earth is round, man itself proves God's word.



Just yes or no, please. Is a DVD round?


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> You didn't read it or understand it..Natural selection/survival of the fittest evo is exactly as the way I said it was.



Cite me 1 peer reviewed research paper by an actual evolutionist that backs up you're definition of Evolution. 

One. Find just one and I'll concede the point.

And when I say "cite", don't tell me where you thought you read it, provide a link to the actual peer reviewed research paper to back up your point. This information is on the internet, if it exists as you say it does, it shouldn't be hard to find.  And don't weasel out of this by telling me to do your research for you.  You're the one making the claim, it's your job to back up that claim.  

Or, again, you can just make it easy on yourself and admit that you were lying, and that you've never read the book. 

Any response other than the two above actions (providing me a link to a scientific paper citing your definition, or simply admitting you're lying), will be considered a concession on you're part.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 6, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEP50dxfRAw[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

kazuri said:


> Your eyes themselves prove it wrong. Hills =/= not sphere.



The bible didn't say hills..read again.



> Just yes or no, please. Is a DVD round?



Why are you so dense, a circle is round which is a sphere..


Get out!


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Why are you so dense, a circle is round which is a sphere..
> 
> 
> Get out!



Just yes or no, please.


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

> The bible didn't say hills..read again.



...What? You are saying the bible called the earth a sphere. Spheres do not have hills. Earth has hills, valleys, mountains, etc etc etc. Spheres are PERFECTLY round. The earth is not. The earth is not a sphere. God lied.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> The bible didn't say hills..read again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



DVDs are spheres! Hey, maybe we could play soccer with a DVD now that they're spheres. Or maybe I could now fit my soccer ball in my DVD player if they're all the same.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> Cite me 1 peer reviewed research paper by an actual evolutionist that backs up you're definition of Evolution.
> 
> One. Find just one and I'll concede the point.
> 
> ...


So from the start you knew nothing of what you were chatting and claim to believe in and then question facts?
Do you even understand that Darwin believes one type of organism can change into another type? 

Does natural selection lead to new species, and if so, how?


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Just yes or no, please.



I just proved to you a circle is round which is spherical concerning the earth. You lost from the beginning.


> What? You are saying the bible called the earth a sphere. Spheres do not have hills. Earth has hills, valleys, mountains, etc etc etc. Spheres are PERFECTLY round. The earth is not. The earth is not a sphere. God lied.


Wrong the earth's shape is circle; round, sphere and this is a FACT..science proves God's word.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> I just proved to you a circle is round which is spherical concerning the earth. You lost from the beginning.



Just yes or no, please. Is a DVD round?


----------



## Toroxus (Apr 6, 2011)

You can't be a Scientist and a Theist at the same time. Science doesn't prove "God's Word," it just so happens that the humans who wrote down "God's Word" either made a lucky guess or had some academic experience.


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

> Wrong the earth's shape is circle; round, sphere and this is a FACT..science proves God's word.



By this logic anything can be considered a sphere if you look at it from far enough away.

"science" proves its impossible. Spheres are SMOOTH down to ANY level. The earth is SO not smooth.


----------



## Toroxus (Apr 6, 2011)

kazuri said:


> By this logic anything can be considered a sphere if you look at it from far enough away.
> 
> "science" proves its impossible. Spheres are SMOOTH down to ANY level. The earth is SO not smooth.



The earth is a oblate spheroid. Learn to wikipedia.

Oh, and folks. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. The event of something living coming from things that are not living is called Abiogenesis. Learn to Biology.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars, in my country, people learn what a circle is at the age of 6-7. Many of the people you are currently arguing against have done several years of studies after that. In my case, I have done about 20, including about 18 years that involved geometry to some degree. I know what a circle is. I know that pretty fucking well. Everybody else in this thread does. The dictionary definition you have provided does. Wikipedia does. Google image search does. . You don't. You have a problem. Fix it, then come back.


*Spoiler*: __ 




Circle:


Sphere:




kazuri, for god's sake, don't go and pretend that the earth is not a sphere. That's a close enough approximation. Just like saying "the earth is a circle" is a close enough approximation of a flat earth (which of course is not really a circle, due to actually existing in 3D-space). By requiring irrational precision, you will only confuse superstars more, and none of us want that.


----------



## WorstUsernameEver (Apr 6, 2011)

Pretty embarrassing for Canada


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> The earth is a oblate spheroid. Learn to wikipedia.



Absolutely nothing to do with the point I'm making. And for that matter I already mentioned its squashed.

Perfect shapes are NOT possible. At best, you can say earth is "closest to." 

We use IDEAS like spheres because we can't comprehend the scaling of the universe. When you look close enough, you find everything is terribly "jagged". Now this may sound stupid, but it is the exact same principle as what I said before, ANYTHING *LOOKS* like a sphere from the right distance away. This doesn't change just because sphere is "Good enough for everyday use."



> kazuri, for god's sake, don't go and pretend that the earth is not a sphere.



Technically right is good enough for me.


----------



## Syed (Apr 6, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> The earth is a oblate spheroid. Learn to wikipedia.
> 
> Oh, and folks. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. The event of something living coming from things that are not living is called Abiogenesis. Learn to Biology.



Yep. The earth is not a sphere. A sphere is perfectly round, the earth is not due to the uneven distribution of gravity/matter on its surface.




WorstUsernameEver said:


> Pretty embarrassing for Canada



Could have been worse.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Just yes or no, please. Is a DVD round?



You lost, concession accepted. 



			
				kazuri said:
			
		

> By this logic anything can be considered a sphere if you look at it from far enough away.
> 
> "science" proves its impossible. Spheres are SMOOTH down to ANY level. The earth is SO not smooth.


The Earth is in fact what the Bible [Word of God] said it is not flat but circle, round, spherical like man/science has proven.


----------



## Toroxus (Apr 6, 2011)

kazuri said:


> Absolutely nothing to do with the point I'm making.
> 
> Perfect shapes are NOT possible. At best, you can say earth is "closest to."
> 
> ...



So you're arguing that the Earth is not a perfect geometrical shape. And this has what bearing on what we are talking about? The only perfect shapes are made by equations, there is no such thing as a perfect shape because no matter how hard you try, even some atoms would be out of place. The point is that the earth's is generally-speaking a sphere, or if you're more specific a slightly flattened imperfect sphere called a oblate spheroid.


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

Yea, keep saying the same thing over and over. I'm not saying it again and again because you are ENTIRELY missing the point.



> The only perfect shapes are made by equations, there is no such thing as a perfect shape because no matter how hard you try, even some atoms would be out of place.



Are you trying to use my argument against me....? And it has nothing to do with atoms persay, even the parts of the atoms follow the same fate.



> The point is that the earth's is generally-speaking a sphere,



Live I've pointed out several times?



> And this has what bearing on what we are talking about?



I don't know what "we" you are talking about, but I am talking to the guy who says it is ABSOLUTELY IN GODS NAME a sphere. When it is clearly, not, because spheres are just IDEAS, and are only "CLOSE ENOUGH'S" for everyday use.

The bearing it has is that the bible is either lying, wrong, or dumbing itself down for you. Which is pretty fucking important.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Superstars, in my country, people learn what a circle is at the age of 6-7. Many of the people you are currently arguing against have done several years of studies after that. In my case, I have done about 20, including about 18 years that involved geometry to some degree. I know what a circle is. I know that pretty fucking well. Everybody else in this thread does. The dictionary definition you have provided does. Wikipedia does. Google image search does. . You don't. You have a problem. Fix it, then come back.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



Don't be a fool like the rest of em.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> So from the start you knew nothing of what you were chatting and claim to believe in and then question facts?



You haven't provided any "facts" to question.



Superstars said:


> Do you even understand that Darwin believes one type of organism can change into another type?



No, he didn't, and neither do I, and neither does any evolutionary biologist. Did you even read the article you cited.  Where in there does it say that any organism ever "changes" into a different kind of organism.  Organisms speciate through successive generations of incremental changes. What you seem to be suggesting of some kind of leap from one animal to another in a single event or single generation.  That's not what happens, and that's what I'm trying to tell you. 



Superstars said:


> Does natural selection lead to new species, and if so, how?



Organism *A* gives birth to Organism *B*, *B* gives birth to *C*, *C* gives birth to *D*, *D* gives birth to *E*, so forth and so on.  By the time this process reaches Organism *Z*, *Z* is a different species than *A*, but Z is still connected to *A* through descent regardless of the fact that it is no longer the same species as *A*

This does not happen in a single leap like you seem to think.  Organism *A* doesn't give birth directly to organism *Z*


I also showed you this, which is a (literally) more colorful way of explaining my previous (very simplified  analogy) above. 




> We all can agree (save for the severely color blind) that this text is red.
> 
> We can also similarly agree that this text is blue.
> 
> ...



On top of the fact that several links to documented events of speciation and explanations on how that happens have already shown to you many times in this thread.  But if you can't even be bothered to read the article you yourself linked as a proof of what you're claiming despite the fact that it isn't, then I can't really expect you to read or understand any of the other links that have been provided you. 

Hell, I can't even expect you to understand the difference between a circle and sphere, so really don't know why I'm wasting my time with this.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2011)

kazuri, I don't get your point either.

superstars... The words "round" and "circular" appear as _related_ words. Not _synonyms_. The definition of "sphere" points out that it is *three-dimensional*, where the definition of "circle" pointed out that it is *planar* (=2-dimensional). You insist on providing definitions that prove that you are wrong.

The concept "round" is less precise than any of the others. It can refer equally to spheres, circles, cylinders, and even 2 or 3-d objects which are none of these things but whose angles are not sharp. You thus cannot say that because objects A (circles) are round, and objects C (spheres) are round, then objects A (circles) are objects C (sphere).

This is one of the most basic false syllogisms.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> You lost, concession accepted.



Just yes or no, please.


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

> kazuri, I don't get your point either.



ALL euclidean geometry is "impossible." The building blocks of the universe just dont allow it. So, NOTHING outside of idea's, are spheres. Is the earth closer to a sphere than a triangle? Sure, but it isn't a sphere, and no 3 lines is ever a "real" triangle. You can never measure one of the legs, you can ALWAYS get a more accurate measure with a more accurate measuring device. While science hasnt caught up on the whole fractal universe thing.. It still works even on the scales we do accept, atoms, etc.

I suggest this documentary "how long is a piece of string. "

But to put it in simplest terms... Ever seen a diagram of a sphere with a gigantic ass mountain, or hole in it? That's not exactly it.. but it's the easiest way to say it.

Think about it. If you look at ANYTHING from far enough away, it looks like a sphere. Now, is it a sphere just because it looks like one from the right distance? Nope. The earth is the same way. Is it close? Sure. But its not one.

Close enough for everyday use for children and projects where a close approximation will be beneficial is not close enough for "gods divine word."


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> You haven't provided any "facts" to question..


The fact that you don't understand one type of organism changing into another means animals changing *into brand new *animals [something different] has NEVER happened, never been documented or seen. You are bias and can't read. You are in denial.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2011)

kazuri said:


> ALL euclidean geometry is "impossible." The building blocks of the universe just dont allow it. So, NOTHING outside of idea's, are spheres. Is the earth closer to a sphere than a triangle? Sure, but it isn't a sphere, and no 3 lines is ever a "real" triangle.
> 
> I suggest this documentary "how long is a piece of string. "
> 
> ...


I got that part. What I don't get is how this is relevant to the current discussion.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

impersonal said:


> kazuri, I don't get your point either.
> 
> superstars... The words "round" and "circular" appear as _related_ words. Not _synonyms_. The definition of "sphere" points out that it is *three-dimensional*, where the definition of "circle" pointed out that it is *planar* (=2-dimensional). You insist on providing definitions that prove that you are wrong.



No circular and round are synonyms, please read.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> No circular and round are synonyms, please read.



Circular and round are not synonyms. The link you gave has it written black on white. But here's a further explanation, courtesy of myself:


> The concept "round" is less precise than any of the others. It can refer equally to spheres, circles, cylinders, and even 2 or 3-d objects which are none of these things but whose angles are not sharp. You thus cannot say that because objects A (circles) are round, and objects C (spheres) are round, then objects A (circles) are objects C (spheres). Similarly, dogs are mammals, cats are also mammals, but dogs are not cats.



Since it seems you need an escape route, consider this: the world circle is used in the Bible _metaphorically_. For example, sometimes people say _"the 4 corners of the world"_. Do these people believe the earth is square shaped? They don't. But the expression is used nonetheless.


(sidenote: square is to cube what circle is to sphere).


----------



## kazuri (Apr 6, 2011)

> I got that part. What I don't get is how this is relevant to the current discussion.



The whole point I was trying to make is the bible is wrong, wether or not you use sphere or circle. "close enough" isnt good enough for me when it comes to gods word.

The only god I would accept would be perfect. He wouldn't make a huge mistake like that. IE he makes no tiny mistakes either.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Circular and round are not synonyms. The link you gave has it written black on white. But here's a further explanation, courtesy of myself:



Take your bias shades off...Round is a synonym, please stop.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2011)

kazuri said:


> The whole point I was trying to make is the bible is wrong, wether or not you use sphere or circle. "close enough" isnt good enough for me when it comes to gods word.
> 
> The only god I would accept would be perfect. He wouldn't make a huge mistake like that. IE he makes no tiny mistakes either.



Well, given our language's limitations, the only way to be exact is to add "more or less" at the beginning of every single sentence (since words _always_ have imprecise _connotations_ which can never be exactly met). Even the terms "more or less" or "approximately" are not fully precise, and can mean different levels of approximation.

It seems normal to me to assume that these "more or less" are to be assumed, since this is inevitable given human languages in general.

This is not to say that the Bible is devoid of contradictions. Just that "sphere", frankly, would be completely acceptable in this context.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Take your bias shades off...Round is a synonym [labeled with green], please stop.



There are lists of synonyms and related words from two different sources given. The first list is _"based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. ? 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc."_ This source distinguishes between synonyms and related words. Round is present under the category "related words". The second list is based on _"Collins Thesaurus of the English Language ? Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 ? HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002"_. It does not distinguish between synonyms and related words. It also mentions "round", but does not give any precision as to whether it is a synonym or a related word.

Who has "bias shades"?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 6, 2011)

WTF Canada? 

We Americans are the only ones who can look foolish on stuff like this, now you're stealing our ignominy.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

impersonal said:


> There are lists of synonyms and related words from two different sources given. The first list is _"based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc."_ This source distinguishes between synonyms and related words. Round is present under the category "related words". The second list is based on _"Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002"_. It does not distinguish between synonyms and related words. It also mentions "round", but does not give any precision as to whether it is a synonym or a related word.
> 
> Who has "bias shades"?



Again, Don't be a fool. Round and circle ARE RELATED words to sphere which means connected they are kin and it is what people use to describe the shape of the earth. This proves the word of God as a fact.

you can leave now.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Again, Don't be a fool. Round and circle ARE RELATED words to sphere which means connected they are kin and it is what people use to describe the shape of the earth. This proves the word of God as a fact.
> 
> you can leave now.



So you retract that they are synonymous and agree that they are merely related.

As explained earlier, round means: spherical, OR circular, OR cylindric, OR without pointy angles.

Circular refers to a 2-dimensional shape such as a disk.

Spheric refers to a 3-dimensional shape such as a ball.

Circular things are round, spheric things are round, but circular things are not spheric.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> The fact that you don't understand one type of organism changing into another means animals changing *into brand new *animals [something different] has NEVER happened, never been documented or seen. You are bias and can't read. You are in denial.



Except that is has, and as I pointed out in my last post, several links to observed examples of speciation have been provided to you.  I'm not going to bother doing it again because its very transparent that you're not going to read them anyway. You have no knowledge about what evolution really is, and no interest in educating yourself, and therefore I have no interest in continuing this conversation. 

Have a nice night.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

impersonal said:


> So you retract that they are synonymous and agree that they are merely related.
> 
> As explained earlier, round means: spherical, OR circular, OR cylindric, OR without pointy angles.
> 
> ...







stab-o-tron5000 said:


> Except that is has, and as I pointed out in my last post, several links to observed examples of speciation have been provided to you.  I'm not going to bother doing it again because its very transparent that you're not going to read them anyway. You have no knowledge about what evolution really is, and no interest in educating yourself, and therefore I have no interest in continuing this conversation.
> 
> Have a nice night.



No proof, never documented or seen and you didn't even know what you were chatting from the beginning.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

That's not the hebrew word used in the passage posted earlier, I'm afraid.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> That's not the hebrew word used in the passage posted earlier, I'm afraid.



This is the actual word with the highest authority from Strongs concordance.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> This is the actual word with the highest authority from Strongs concordance.



You know superstars, to be honest, I had to go through so much trouble to show such a basic evidence that "circle" does not equal "sphere"... That anything you say will be taken with extremely strong doubts from now on.


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

Hebrew: chuwg
vs
Hebrew: duwr

Changing the word that was used, that's a lie, you're going to hell for that.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Hebrew: chuwg
> vs
> 
> Hebrew: dur
> ...



Highest authority is strong's concrdance.



> You know superstars, to be honest, I had to go through so much trouble to show such a basic evidence that "circle" does not equal "sphere"... That anything you say will be taken with extremely strong doubts from now on.



According to the Bible and hebrew it does. was right from the start.


----------



## Aruarian (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> No proof, never documented or seen and you didn't even know what you were chatting from the beginning.



Anyone relish in the irony here?


OT: Yeah... kinda ridiculous, but eh.


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Highest authority is strong's concrdance.



I caught you in a lie, and now you are compounding it by being unrepentant. 
This means you going to hell.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Highest authority is strong's concrdance





Here's the same in strong's concrdance, only this time the actual word that's used in Isaiah 40:22

Stop lying about the inerrent word of god, please. You'll go straight to hell for this.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Here's the same in strong's concrdance, only this time the actual word that's used in Isaiah 40:22
> 
> Stop lying about the inerrent word of god, please. You'll go straight to hell for this.





sadated_peon said:


> I caught you in a lie, and now you are compounding it by being unrepentant.
> This means you going to hell.



No it was a mistake I simply looked at the wrong word...




Still doesn't change the fact that the earth being a circle, round is a fact.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2011)

Plain Scarfs said:


> The subject of his job is Minister of Science not Minister of Evolution. He may have other merits outside of the evolution debate.


I think you should directly say "he may have other merits outside the realm of science". Not believing in evolution is an extremely strong indicator that he is incompetent in science generally speaking. (His further declarations show that it's not just that he doesn't believe in evolution... He has absolutely no idea what it is).

However, his job is to be an administrator of scientific institutions (along with "technology and the industry"). So indeed, he may have other merits. However, he has a pretty damn strong handicap. It is highly doubtful that in all of Canada, there wasn't a single person with administrative skills comparable to this guy who was also happened to have highschool-level scientific knowledge.

Hence, appointing him to that position was idiotic.



			
				Superstars said:
			
		

> No it was a mistake


You keep making "mistakes". All your mistakes are always in your favour, and occur when you are facing overwhelming evidence that you are wrong.

I gave you earlier an escape route. It is time you take it.



			
				Superstars said:
			
		

> Still doesn't change the fact that the earth being a circle, round is a fact.


We've been there already.


----------



## Toroxus (Apr 6, 2011)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> No, he didn't, and neither do I, and neither does any evolutionary biologist. Did you even read the article you cited.  Where in there does it say that any organism ever "changes" into a different kind of organism.  Organisms speciate through successive generations of incremental changes. What you seem to be suggesting of some kind of leap from one animal to another in a single event or single generation.  That's not what happens, and that's what I'm trying to tell you.
> 
> Organism *A* gives birth to Organism *B*, *B* gives birth to *C*, *C* gives birth to *D*, *D* gives birth to *E*, so forth and so on.  By the time this process reaches Organism *Z*, *Z* is a different species than *A*, but Z is still connected to *A* through descent regardless of the fact that it is no longer the same species as *A*
> 
> ...



You're kind of on the right track, but evolution works by natural selection. You might have meant that, but never clarified. Natural Selection works by selecting against organisms with undesirable traits against the selectors while selecting those with desirable traits against the selectors. All species have different traits so that their species is more likely to survive given that many of their traits suddenly become selected against.

And since Biology is one of the major divisions of Science, and Biology does not work without evolution... And since Science revolves around using the Scientific method to determine truths, and Christianity or an theism does not fit at all into any of our knowledge of the sciences because Christianity relies on "faith" which is the exact opposite of the scientific method.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Apr 6, 2011)

This guy seems pretty terrible at the biological side of science, yet I am not sure I would disqualify his knowledge on other aspect/ subjects. The article does give the impression that he is better with machinery and technology that does not have to do with biology.  Even still, this is terribly embarrassing for a science minister. And his religion appears to be an obstacle.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

impersonal said:


> You keep making "mistakes". All your mistakes are always in your favour, and occur when you are facing overwhelming evidence that you are wrong.
> 
> I gave you earlier an escape route. It is time you take it.



I've made no mistakes but this one. Like I said circle; round are linked with sphere even COMPASS is synonymous with orbit which is synonymous with sphere.. it is poetic truthful language from the truth of Gods word. You people continue to deny this fact.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2011)

adee said:


> Last two pages of this thread are like
> 
> "Does too!"
> "Does NOT"
> ...


Yeah. I thought explaining slowly might work, but there are limits even to the most patient pedagogy.



			
				superstars said:
			
		

> *poetic* truthful language



Ah... Finally.


----------



## Toroxus (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars said:


> We've been there already.



I've made no mistakes but this one. Like I said circle; round are linked with sphere it is poetic truthful language from the truth of Gods word.[/QUOTE]

"Truth of god's word?"
1.Please use the one way we use to find truths by using the  to determine the "Truth of God's Word."
2. Publish it.
3. Enjoy your fame and fortune.

Many have tried, but all seem to fail on the 1st step for some funny reason.


----------



## eHav (Apr 6, 2011)

superstars got this to 13 damn pages?


----------



## Syed (Apr 6, 2011)

So...we gonna get back on topic?


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Apr 6, 2011)

Superstars, in addition to not accepting evolution I am just curious about some other views you might posses.  How old do you think the earth, life on earth and the sun is?   What about stars in general, did light on earth exist before stars? Have dinosaurs ever existed?  What existed first, birds or insects?  What about birds and sea life, what existed first? 

Do you believe that the Adam and Eve story is literal?

Was Noah really hundreds of years old? Did Giants really exist in the past?


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Apr 6, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> Superstars, in addition to not accepting evolution I am just curious about some other views you might posses.  How old do you think the earth, life on earth and the sun is?   What about stars in general, did light on earth exist before stars? Have dinosaurs ever existed?  What existed first, birds or insects?  What about birds and sea life, what existed first?
> 
> Do you believe that the Adam and Eve story is literal?
> 
> Was Noah really hundreds of years old? Did Giants really exist in the past?



I wonder if he also thinks Obama is the Anti-Christ.


----------



## Mintaka (Apr 6, 2011)

I find people who don't accept evolution as a fact amusing.

Seeing as the fact that the theory of gravity has less evidence going for it.


----------



## DominusDeus (Apr 6, 2011)

Basically, this:


----------



## thunderbear (Apr 6, 2011)

I really didn't want to come 10ft near this thread, but since the ignorance is abounding, I feel that I must.


You want to discuss what the Bible says? Sure, I'll do that; but this is neither the time nor the place for it.  Thats for the debate section, which this thread has turned into.  But since this has gone on for so long, I won't be fueling the flames much if I jsut give my 2cents.

You guys think the Bible supports geocentrism? Fine, give me some verses. I _dare_ you.  If they have already been given from pages 2-12 of this thread, which havent read yet, then fine by me, ill edit this post and respond to them when I see them.

You guys think I'll debate with you there also, but this topic really belongs in the debate forum, which is very clearly what this thread was posted here for: to incite a debate.

EDIT: Sorry Superstars, I was too late to join this thread to help you debate this; just letting you know you aren't alone on these forums, brah.


----------



## Shock Therapy (Apr 6, 2011)

so i think we can all confirm that superstars failed geometry during school.


----------



## thunderbear (Apr 6, 2011)

rawrawraw said:


> so i think we can all confirm that superstars failed geometry during school.



Wtf geometery? Looks like you failed reading comprehension if you think we're talking at all about geometery, either that or you just threw out a pointless ad-hominem because youre butthurt about a Christian posting on these boards.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Apr 6, 2011)

thunderbear said:


> Wtf geometery? Looks like you failed reading comprehension if you think we're talking at all about geometery, either that or you just threw out a pointless ad-hominem because youre butthurt about a Christian posting on these boards.



Geometry came up because apparently by Superstars' logic, a flat circle, like a DVD, is a sphere.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

rawrawraw said:


> so i think we can all confirm that superstars failed geometry during school.



It has nothing to do with geometry but the simple lack of reading comprehension on this website.



Colonel Awesome said:


> Geometry came up because apparently by Superstars' logic, a flat circle, like a DVD, is a sphere.


No, it came up because you people claimed circle meant flat in the Word of God. Which is false.


----------



## Syed (Apr 6, 2011)

This thread is gonna explode soon


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Apr 6, 2011)

Syed said:


> This thread is gonna explode soon



It hasn't already?


----------



## Syed (Apr 6, 2011)

Colonel Awesome said:


> It hasn't already?



Nah, that was just the lighting of the fuse. :ho


----------



## Mintaka (Apr 6, 2011)

> No, it came up because you people claimed circle meant flat in the Word of God. Which is false.


Are you being intentionally stupid?

A circle is a 2 dimensional object and 2 dimensional objects ARE FLAT IN THE THIRD DIMENSION.   The earth is a 3 dimensional object.....if the bible meant a spherical object why not say that instead?

The earth in praticular is an oblate spheriod.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Apr 6, 2011)

Syed said:


> Nah, that was just the lighting of the fuse. :ho



If _that _was only the lighting of the fuse then... Oh god...

Run for the hills!


----------



## Syed (Apr 6, 2011)

Colonel Awesome said:


> If _that _was only the lighting of the fuse then... Oh god...
> 
> Run for the hills!



Where's that Winnie the Pooh guy? We need him for the explosion LOL.


----------



## Hwon (Apr 6, 2011)

thunderbear said:


> I really didn't want to come 10ft near this thread, but since the ignorance is abounding, I feel that I must.
> 
> 
> You want to discuss what the Bible says? Sure, I'll do that; but this is neither the time nor the place for it.  Thats for the debate section, which this thread has turned into.  But since this has gone on for so long, I won't be fueling the flames much if I jsut give my 2cents.
> ...



We don't need to waste our time listening to your ex post facto rationalizations and interpretations.  People can open up a history book and see what people interpreted the Bible to say prior to the establishment of heliocentrism.  At no point in history did the Bible in of itself convince someone that heliocentrism is corrrect while even now the Bible is still convincing people into accepting geocentrism.

The best argument you could make is that the Bible was poorly worded and misleading for those who were and are uninformed, but that would kind of defeat the purpose of defending the Bible wouldn't it.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 6, 2011)

Tokoyami said:


> Are you being intentionally stupid?
> 
> A circle is a 2 dimensional object and 2 dimensional objects ARE FLAT IN THE THIRD DIMENSION.   The earth is a 3 dimensional object.....if the bible meant a spherical object why not say that instead?
> 
> The earth in praticular is an oblate spheriod.



I DID say that.


----------



## Mintaka (Apr 6, 2011)

> I DID say that.



So lemme get this straight.

You're saying circles ARE flat while saying this,



> _*No, it came up because you people claimed circle meant flat in the Word of God. Which is false.*_



So which one is it?


----------



## Superstars (Apr 7, 2011)

The Bold.^


----------



## Mintaka (Apr 7, 2011)

Then you are ignoring the fact that circles are 2 dimensional and flat in the third dimension.

The fact is circles are flat and spheres are not.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Apr 7, 2011)

Religion is a system of beliefs built on faith not supported by scientific evidence (all "evidence" is circumstantial or circular, not scientific) - on the other hand evolution is supported by actual scientific evidence. Evolution is science, while creationism is religion and CANNOT be science. If this science minister cannot make this distinction - if he cannot seperate his religious beliefs from science, he should not be the science minister.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 7, 2011)

Tokoyami said:


> Then you are ignoring the fact that circles are 2 dimensional and flat in the third dimension.
> 
> The fact is circles are flat and spheres are not.



You don't realize the poetic writing style of the verse? And everyone in there right minds knows stating the earth is circle [ROUND] means spheric in nature. No one claimed Columbus or anyone else was talking 2-D when he/they said the earth is round and not spherical. No different from stating a basketball is round but technically it is a sphere. The scriptures were NOT talking about a circle drawn on paper [or a CD/disk]. Add to the truth that Job also said that the earth is suspended in space on nothing which is another fact. The nitpicking, technical nonsense shows how desperate you people are in trying to disprove the facts.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Apr 7, 2011)

The Bible? As proof?


----------



## GrimaH (Apr 7, 2011)

Evolution's not supposed to be a belief-



> "I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about *my religion* is appropriate," Gary Goodyear, the federal *Minister of State for Science* and Technology



I, uh, what?


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 7, 2011)

Evolution is bullshit. The only true way is Scientology. It is my strong belief that all of this mumbo jumbo about this evolution from apes is nothing but crap and that yahweh character is merely a creation of Xenu to mislead you all to damnation.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Apr 7, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Evolution is bullshit. The only true way is Scientology. It is my strong belief that all of this mumbo jumbo about this evolution from apes is nothing but crap and that yahweh character is merely a creation of Xenu to mislead you all to damnation.



Finally, someone with some sense!


----------



## fantzipants (Apr 7, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I'd like to see the evidence. You guys claim that 9 out of 10 bible translation are factually wrong, so I'd like to see some Hebrew from you.



i'm tired and have two tests coming up in the next few days and i want to start the nursing program in august so why don't you do the effort this time? oh i forgot you told me you don't care about hearing the truth. i met another person like you online along time ago but then again... forget it i thought you were him for a second : )


----------



## saprobe (Apr 7, 2011)

OK, with all this talk of circles you have convinced me that the one true religion was founded by the Egyptian Pharoah Akhenaten around BC 1320.

Behold, the Sun Disk Aten, Ruler of the Skies and Giver of All Life:



Also: Not a Sphere


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 7, 2011)

saprobe said:


> OK, with all this talk of circles you have convinced me that the one true religion was founded by the Egyptian Pharoah Akhenaten around BC 1320.
> 
> Behold, the Sun Disk Aten, Ruler of the Skies and Giver of All Life:
> 
> ...



Pssh more Xenu mind fuckery to keep you people ignorant of the one true religion.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 7, 2011)

fantzipants said:


> i'm tired and have two tests coming up in the next few days and i want to start the nursing program in august so why don't you do the effort this time?



We already did, you're late to the party. The hebrew word used is chuwg, which means circle, circuit, compass. Sorry, but those are all flat, so you lied about the word of god just like superstars.



> oh i forgot you told me you don't care about hearing the truth. i met another person like you online along time ago but then again... forget it i thought you were him for a second : )



Lies and slander, how low can you go?


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Apr 7, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Evolution is bullshit. The only true way is Scientology. It is my strong belief that all of this mumbo jumbo about this evolution from apes is nothing but crap and that yahweh character is merely a creation of Xenu to mislead you all to damnation.



Not sure if serious.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Apr 7, 2011)

Colonel Awesome said:


> Not sure if serious.



Xenu is always serious.


----------



## saprobe (Apr 7, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Pssh more Xenu mind fuckery to keep you people ignorant of the one true religion.



ORLY? Just how circular is Xenu?


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Apr 7, 2011)

Xenu is a flat sphere.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 7, 2011)

saprobe said:


> ORLY? Just how circular is Xenu?



He is as circular as a square.

He uses the circle to hide his true geometric shape. Do not fall for his tom foolery or you'll continue on your never ending banishment and you'll never be able to unlock your omnipotent powers to fight back against Xenu.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Apr 7, 2011)

Cthulhu > Xenu.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 7, 2011)

Colonel Awesome said:


> Cthulhu > Xenu.



Pssh Im above Xenu because I have found the one true path to enlightenment and omnipotence that is Scientology. Xenu is the bad guy in our never ending struggle against his evil tyrannical methods against our ancestors.

Dont ask me to try and explain this because that would require you to invest in me by paying me lots of money. I will then give you a machine that will guide you to enlightenment and you too can then join me against the evil that is Xenu.


----------



## Mathias124 (Apr 7, 2011)

Ruby Tuesday said:


> Whoa Whoa Whoa there Canada your Science minister is a _chiropractor_  a creationist one at that. Sorry Canada I don't care how good your health care system is you have officially lost the ability to call us Americans dumb. In fact that is so stupid that you have also lost the ability to call us fat as well.



Hahahhahaahahahahhahaa..

Some states dont teach evolution.

but one fuck up makes canada worse than the us. rol 

the most backwater country in the western world is the Us, but only because of the ignorant bigots


----------



## ez (Apr 7, 2011)

Maybe he's like kirkegaard.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Apr 7, 2011)

Let me put this in Creationist terms. This would be like having an agnostic pope. Who isn't okay with molesting children!


----------



## Toroxus (Apr 7, 2011)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> Let me put this in Creationist terms. This would be like having an agnostic pope. Who isn't okay with molesting children!



Great Scott!
/thread


----------



## Altron (Apr 7, 2011)

Norse Paganism is where it's at


----------



## fantzipants (Apr 7, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> We already did, you're late to the party. The hebrew word used is chuwg, which means circle, circuit, compass. Sorry, but those are all flat, so you lied about the word of god just like superstars.
> 
> 
> 
> Lies and slander, how low can you go?



must have been tired cuz i just re-read it and you are right you didn't say that. i got 10 minutes to get ready for work... if i can get to it later on i will find it.

i don't lie about the word of God. you must mistake me for an american fanatic.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 7, 2011)

fantzipants said:


> must have been tired cuz i just re-read it and you are right you didn't say that. i got 10 minutes to get ready for work... if i can get to it later on i will find it.
> 
> i don't lie about the word of God. you must mistake me for an american fanatic.





Here's the passage.



Here's the hebrew word for "circle" used in the passage.

QED


----------



## Hand Banana (Apr 7, 2011)

fantzipants said:


> i don't lie about the word of God. you must mistake me for an American fanatic.



What does this have to do with anything?


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 7, 2011)

fantzipants said:


> must have been tired cuz i just re-read it and you are right you didn't say that. i got 10 minutes to get ready for work... if i can get to it later on i will find it.
> 
> i don't lie about the word of God. you must mistake me for an american fanatic.



You sir are indeed a fanatic. You are a fanatic of a false faith designed and created to mislead those who would rise up against Xenu the oppressor of our great true faith Scientology.

If you wish to see the light and become a powerful force against Xenu please PM me and Ill send you payment plans on how you too can become like me. A justicar against Xenu. We can stand and fight this horrible disease that affects us called "Christianity" and other fake beliefs such as this evolution this people keep on going on about.


----------



## Talon. (Apr 7, 2011)

not very news worthy, but theres lulz in the irony


----------



## Shock Therapy (Apr 7, 2011)

thunderbear said:


> Wtf geometery? Looks like you failed reading comprehension if you think we're talking at all about geometery, either that or you just threw out a pointless ad-hominem because youre butthurt about a Christian posting on these boards.



Geometry (Ancient Greek: γεωμετρία; geo- "earth", -metri "measurement") "Earth-measuring" is a branch of mathematics concerned with questions of shape, size, relative position of figures, and the properties of space.

yeah I don't know what I'm talking about right? kthxbai


----------



## Santí (Apr 8, 2011)

Canada Eh?


----------



## Gnome (Apr 8, 2011)

Santisimo said:


> Canada Eh?



Aye, the frostbacks.


----------



## neko-sennin (Apr 8, 2011)

Is Canada starting to devolve its own anti-intellectual movement? 



Mintaka said:


> Lemme get this straight.
> 
> He's a chiropractor which is a field full of psuedo sceinctific crap anyway



The fact that he hails from a field rife with more quackery and hokey gimmicks than any other field in medicine doesn't make his snake-oil salesman evasions very surprising. Nor the fact that he would try to deny and brush off the very foundation of modern medical science. Nothing in medicine, biology, zoology, anthropology or other study of living organisms makes any sense at all except in terms of Natural Selection.



Mintaka said:


> and he thinks that believing in evolution has something to do with his religion?



The question itself is flawed. People "believe in" religions and superstitions; there is no need to "believe in" something for which there is a growing mountain of evidence.

The difference between "faith" and "trust" is that the latter has a basis in reality, while the former is just an emotional coping mechanism in the absence of comprehension.

The real question, the revealing question, someone needs to ask him is if he is willing to follow the *evidence*, no matter where it leads, even if it flies in the face of his own assumptions, hypotheses and prejudices.



> Later that day, however, Goodyear said that he believed in evolution during an interview with CTV News.[10] When asked to clarify this belief, Goodyear responded "We are evolving, every year, every decade. That’s a fact. Whether it’s to the intensity of the sun, whether it’s to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it’s running shoes or high heels, of course, we are evolving to our environment."[11]



Well, that's a relief. Down here, Obama's already got his work cut out for him trying to keep science in the science room and mythology in literature class, after 8 years of Neo Cons stacking as many decks as they could with religious demagogues, I'd hate to see Canada slipping the same way.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Apr 8, 2011)

I'm closing this thread as the issue it's dealing with is more or less over and it's going to go on forever in a bukkake of last-wordism.  If you wish to debate the merits of things tangential to this story, please form a thread in the Debate Corner, and you too may become a Master Debater.


----------

