The Incredible Exploits of www.allaboutscience.org
Not an attack on anyone, only a boring boring rebuttal

Sponsorships:

Vote metrics:

rating total votes favorites comments
(4.04) 409 24 221

View metrics:

today yesterday this week this month all time
0 0 0 0 6,832

Inbound links:

views url
4 http://www.google.com/
2 http://www.google.com/search
2 http://www.google.com/search?q=allaboutscience.org&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
1 http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=SegSt
1 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=%22allaboutscience%22&start=10&sa=N

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
August 9th, 2006
(0)
shut up
August 9th, 2006
(0)
boooooooooooooooooooooooooring.
August 9th, 2006
(0)
right on
August 9th, 2006
(0)
way to go out of your way there. what are you trying to prove?
August 9th, 2006
(0)
"Leave science to the scientists" I was thinking about doing a similar rebuttal to that stupid over-exposed YTMND, but I haven't had the time recently. Glad to see this out there. Unfortunately it will probably be downvoted by the easily-offended Christian YTMND'ers. I will keep you in my fav's.
August 9th, 2006
(0)
fight the down voters!
August 10th, 2006
(0)
You are absolutely right. Also pointing out that their argument is ludicrous: 1) The universe is to complex to simply exist by chance, therefore God made it. 2) This God is infinitely more complex than the universe in order to have created it. 3) However, this God simply exists. |Now logically, the complex universe as explained by science began simply and became complex, whereas apparently God has always been infinitely complex. That doesn't work, I could say "God is too complex to just be", too.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
2 factors that are required for the existence of anything: the possibility and the sufficient conditions. They admitted that it was possible, we know that we have the sufficient conditions (given that you accept that we are alive and exist), so their argument about likelihood doesn't really say anything. They could say that the probability that life exists is 1 in (total number of planets in all universes). That neither means that we do not have life nor that life doesn't exist anywhere else.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
too much text on a single frame
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5 for the only intelligent Exploits YTMND.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
you hurt the downvoters brainz.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Kudos, man. Great YTMND. Although, you ARE a big stinking liar. That time travelign bacteria was most definitely teh funny.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5 for bacterial flagellum
August 10th, 2006
(0)
an i the only person on earth who thinks god could have started evolution? is that so hard to fathom?
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Maybe slow down the slides by a few more seconds?
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Science IS the answere and the bible is just VERY OLD FICTION!
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I support you totally.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
terrible argumentation, go back to school
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5'd for showing people what exactly science is, it isn't something made to knock anyone's beliefs, or force another... it's just to discover as much as you can about as much as you can.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
owned
August 10th, 2006
(0)
science and the bible are both wrong.... intelligent design bitches
August 10th, 2006
(0)
cool
August 10th, 2006
(0)
You are the win.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Interesting.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
guys I got the answer!!! we don't exsist! we are all characters from a story that somone once wrote! our world is a fiction!!!.....aren't I smrat!?
August 10th, 2006
(0)
"science and the bible are both wrong.... intelligent design bitches" QFT
August 10th, 2006
(0)
you dont qft yourself go f*ck a goat and die
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I'm fiving on principle, but here are my gripes. You're preaching to the choir here... the ignorant people who don't alreday know this stuff won't take the time to read everything you've included. They're not ignorant because of a lack of information... they choose to ignore the facts because they can't handle the truth.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5'd for understanding and reminding others that science is only a method of learning, not a system of beliefs. Albert Einstein, one of the greatest scientists (if not the greatest) was credited to have developed such a complex theory so well because he didn't take for granted anything he was taught up into college. This is also why he was known for failing courses. He didn't show up to class, didn't "honor" his professors, and didn't just regurgitate information.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
awesome, pay no attention to the ignorant. Just because science cannot yet explain something does not make it supernatural, it just means we don't yet have sufficient data or capabilities. Single celled organisms weren't believed to exist until somebody finally proved it by inventing a microscope. So don't shrug off the unexplained as "god's magic finger".
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Boring. Pointless. I award you no points.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
tell them like it is and stick it to the ID fools!
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Leave science to the scientists, indeed. And for those of you who claimed "no point"....did you even SEE the last slide? Ah well.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
"only a boring boring rebuttal"
August 10th, 2006
(0)
"'science and the bible are both wrong.... intelligent design bitches' QFT" My god, the stupidity of this statement is incredible. My dog just yelped in pain because of it!
August 10th, 2006
(0)
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Excellent
August 10th, 2006
(0)
good work sir, good time travel bacteria added
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Brilliant argument there. Besides, really educated Christians know that the Bible is a moral guideline, not a historically accurate representation of history.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Someone should make a graph plotting the correlation between the vote given to this YTMND and a voter's IQ.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
NEDM?
August 10th, 2006
(0)
slideshow
August 10th, 2006
(0)
It's better then one of those "has ONE weakness" YTMND's.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
ugh, someone from lehigh said that? im there right now - MAIM KILL BURN
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Good, but it's pointless to try and get mouth breathing creationist dullards to think scientifically or consider the option that the bible might be a big book of fairy tales.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
My brain just grew.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I 1'd peterguy's site for the same reason I'm giving this one the same vote: boring. Keep your squabbles confined to PMs.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Its no use trying to explain to religious fanatics. They are so self-righteous that they wont even consider alternatives to their "theories".
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I think a major problem here is assuming that intelligent design and scientific theory have to be mutually exclusive. true in a scientific work religion should be irrelevant. But the big bang does not disprove creation by a higher power. The Drake equation actually calculates the probability of life on other planets based on star qualities. Pretty interesting if you want to look it up.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Debunking creationist arguments is easy. Getting them to listen is impossible.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I agree with all your points except in your last frame. It is NOT as easy as sending a scientific article to a University/Think Tank/Scientific Journal. In this day and age, when everyone is trying to come up with the Theory of Everything based upon the String Theory, it is almost impossible to lead people out of that. Because people have worked so hard and gotten so far in the string theory, no one wants to admit defeat and go back. There are currently hundreds of seperate, viable theories to explain...
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I don't care
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Very nice
August 10th, 2006
(0)
good stuff! its funny all the downvoters dont have anything intelligent to say, just "boring" lol i think you hurt them. They were prolly looking for the lohan facial expression YTMND anyways!
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5'ed to counter downvoters
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Well made, but the big bang only makes sense until like .0039824892 somthing seconds before the world started, dun dun da dun, you loose sir good day. No but really well done. You got facts, kinda long text to read, enjoyed!
August 10th, 2006
(0)
everything we haven't already proven, yet, people scoff at it because it's not what the majority think. So, while I do completely agree with what you say, just remember that we still have our animal instincts: If we hide in a pack and follow the non-existant leader, then we're less likely to be hurt or killed in the long run. But, besides that, I'm glad you made this rebuttle. Thank you.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Pearls before swine.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Leave science to the scientists TenaciousA, this is ytmnd.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Well done! Nice, well-researched YTMND... don't see something this intellectually stimulating everyday.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Good points, but this should NOT be a YTMND.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
The universe isn't something you just dump something on. It's a series of tubes!
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I'm not reading all that sh*t, but if the christians don't like it, I love it.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I'm all about rebuttals, and this was well concieved and very well done. I especially enjoy how you flipped the role, while peterguy's ytmnd is satirical to the point that it makes fun of the people who believe in the big bang theory, you do a good job in accepting the chance of god into your explanations, bravo.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5 for questioning the norm.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
All I could think that whole time was "Wow, another full page of writing? uleauleauleaulealu"
August 10th, 2006
(0)
*head explodes*
August 10th, 2006
(0)
omg man, this shat is too complex for YTMNDers (Including me) Freakin make a version that i can understand too!
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I think that this is the greatest YTMND ever made. You win, good sir.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Search Google for the drake equation and then tell me how many planets in the galaxy support life.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Thanks for making this so I can upvote it instead of making one myself...
August 10th, 2006
(0)
F*ckinnnnng gayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
this is good, a nice level headed rebuttal. too bad you will never get a rebuttal more advanced than "yer stoopid, jesus iz my homeslice, we didn't cum frum no steenkin monkeez".
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5'd for explaining it well
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5 just for the single cell mullet.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
goodgame!
August 10th, 2006
(0)
You have the right idea, but you got some stuff wrong. For one, the probability of life evolving on earth is actually much higher than their figure, due to the fact that chemicals naturally react with each other and the events are not sequentially dependant.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Also, the 'irreducible complexity' argument does have an explanation. Behe and his ilk assume that the flagellum must have just appeared one day, when in fact it could have developed from a more primitive structure that was originally used for a different purpose.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
In addition, Charles Darwin laid out a sequence for the evolution of the eye in his early writings, it is hardly a new thing.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5'ed. Very nice. I personally believe that theology has a place in our lives because of what it does for people, and I think it's possible for it to co-exist with science because of all the ambiguity tied up in religion. Anyway, this was very tastefully done and I would like to give you major props.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5 for truth
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5'd for effort, the facts you present and for split second also c*cks.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
-
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I counter your really f*cking long rebuttal with my 1 star. Your argument is defeated.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Also Aquinas-es
August 10th, 2006
(0)
A very well researched and well laid out presentation. I agree whole heartedly with the statement that people should actually find some energy to support an arguement than just go "I don't like that theory"
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Remember - ytmnd is a humour site. This is too long and barely gives the basic ytmnd user time to actually read any of it.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Where's the funny?
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Any of you who still believe in "ID"- you are the laughing stock of the intelligent world. Intelligently design yourself a brain.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
WE ARE ALL IN GOD'S DREAM INSIDE OF A MATRIX WHERE ONLY NEO AND JESUS WHO ARE ACTUALLY ONE AND THE SAME CAN BATTLE THE EVOLUTIONARY CYBERNETIC T3 SENTIENT BEINGS! DURKA DURKA SHALL BE OUR BATTLE CRY! KAPLAAAAA! (Seriously though, good rebuttal, please speed it up though, smart people read fast.)
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Hmmmmmmmmm... I most certainly agree with you, and I realize that you cannot scientifically prove the existance of god (or really anything metaphysical, for that matter), but that doesn't mean whoever still holds these beliefs is delusional or anything. Science and religion just don't mix. I respect people for their various beliefs (for the most part) but ultimately, you're right--claiming that you can scientifically "prove" the existance of god, no matter what you believe, is still nonsense.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
In all honesty, I became a Deist, it is for proving the existance of God through logic and reason. http://www.deistnet.com/
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Intelligent design? You find it impossible to give any merit to the big bang theory but you have no problem with some amazing sentient being appearing out of nothing to a complex functioning level with motives and desires?
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Exactly. What are you trying to prove? You never make lucid your argument, it seems you're just trying to decry someone elses because they want their religious beliefs to accomodate science.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Finally, something actually educational. Unless you have ADHD or are just plain retarded, don't downvote this for being 'boring'. Try to learn something for a change.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5'd for "Also c*cks..."
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Well, well done. Can't wait to see how he responds to this... or if it's just ignored.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
also see: http://linkstobullsh*t.blogspot.com/2006/08/links-to-23-penn-and-teller-bullsh*t.html
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Agreed. I hate those who say, "Understanding all this is just too HARD." You can be both scientific and religious. I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. Good for you.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
we're artists damnit not scientists!
August 10th, 2006
(0)
You need to make some of the slides last longer.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Lengthen some of the slides. Rock on.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
ah the age-old fight of "nuh-uh cause I'm right". But seriously, the universe was created by God in the beginning and everything evolved from there.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Though I'll stay on God's side, that was truly excellent. Good job!
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I love this. this is exactly what I want to say, but put into perfect words. What a wonderful presentation, science FTW! Without science we'd be animals.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
fiv
August 10th, 2006
(0)
This one of the coolest I have seen in the last couple days. I give you a pi
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I know some religious people who are quite smart. My conclusion: they are psychotic. 5 for being right, -2 because this sort of thing is for debate forums, not humor sites.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I am a christian, I believe in the christian god, but I also believe in everything science has proven. What I think the other site and this site have missed is what happened to make "SOMETHING." I have no question in my mind that science is right, that things can happen by random chance, and that we're not alone in the universe.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
+3 for good arguments although not teh funny, +2 for time travelling bacteria.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
What the scientifically inclined christian believes as "god's work" would be the transition from "NOTHING existing" to "something existing." From there, science does the rest. It's not the complexity argument, it's the "Unmoved mover" or the "uncaused cause." Saying that everything happened because something else made it happen, and if you trace it back far enough, there is something that happened to start it all that had no cause.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
if you believe that the universe has always existed forever and that nothing started the universe at any time... and you are OK with there being nothing that put everything in motion (as in, it's really hard to have anything before anything exists... as in the universe not existing) If you'd really like my take on this, I could shoot you an email, but it's really not a comment driven conversation.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Excellent work
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Okay, so Jesus, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and a man hating dyke all walk into a bar...(stop me if you've heard this joke before)
August 10th, 2006
(0)
the most professional and well put together rebuttal i have ever witnessed. this is truly good.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
LAWL WE SHARE DIFFERENT VIEW POINTS, DOWNVOTE!!!!!!! Seriously, no reason why you should get a high grade while essentially being the same thing as peterguy's YTMND.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Hey dumbasses - if you had paid attention you would have known it wasn't your cup of tea. Does the warning 'this is long and not funny' signal to you that you should watch the whole thing, then call it boring and downvote?
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Makes you think. You can tell by the 1 stars Who is lower on the Evolutionary Ladder ^_^
August 10th, 2006
(0)
In principle I'll 4 this to maintain the status quo. Your arguments to leave science for the scientists is counter productive. All that seeks to do is polarize us. Scientists should try and study religion, and religious folk should try and study science, they would learn a lot from each other. All Scientists now just want to prove that God doesn't exist to shut the religous wackos up, and all the religous wackos want to do is censor the scientists. All this does is mar the true beauty of both S & R.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
"good stuff! its funny all the downvoters dont have anything intelligent to say, just "boring" lol i think you hurt them. They were prolly looking for the lohan facial expression YTMND anyways!" Was that the best you could come up with, twit? This is YTMND, a place for laughs and fads, not people bickering about something that won't change anyone's mind. Had you any brain at all, you would know that other than joining in the circle jerk because you have nothing relevant to add on your own.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
+1 for effort. You take a Devil's Advocate approach, which is good. It's a nice time out from "teh funny"
August 10th, 2006
(0)
The bible is a book of lies!!!
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Nice job! You really put some effort in.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Wow. You deserved this. Down with the dowbvoters! Also, (no, not c*cks) it's very easily explained WHY we are here... We evolved this way. The little bacteria we were back then went on to be more efficient to it's surroundings.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
"The Un-funny Tuth About All Religion"
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Also, c*cks. Laugh!
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Hi. Slideshow. Failure.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
slow it down please
August 10th, 2006
(0)
boring, sure. Correct, definately.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
You put a lot of time in it and I really respect that. Good to know there are some intelligent open minded individuals out there.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I was going to give this a piddling, mediocre "3" but that sudden bacteria mullet man cracked me up. 4.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
let this controversy sh*t die
August 10th, 2006
(0)
and honestly you get it wrong too. good try, but everybody involved should still get off their asses and go to the library.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
well, not 'wrong,' it's just that the content to these explanations is more fitting to the size and scope of books, not several sentences in a slideshow.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I can appreciate the fact that you put a lot of time and effort into this, and that a lot of the original poster's information either WAS ignorant or at the very least came off as both obnoxious and slightly retarded. I think that a lot of the people that are upvoting you are doing so because they believe themselves to be "open-minded" when they won't spend any time to examine Christianity or any religion outside of Darwinism for that matter. 4'd for your effort and non-aggressive stance.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
My problem with creationism is...OK, if science is wrong, how does that make creationism all of a sudden correct? I mean shouldn't the site be, Evolution is wrong, who knows what's right? if you want to talk about chance, what are the odds a convoluted religion that has changed over the years and years is *correct*?
August 10th, 2006
(0)
This is one of the most amazing YTMND's I have ever seen. I love this site for the humour but you restored my faith in humanity today! Are you sure you aren't related to Sagan in some way? Great use of logic and showing the 'true nature' of science - a tool that can be used for logic and reason not only within the realm of science and technology but also in other fields. AMAZING!!!
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5 for teh science.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
i couldnt even read all that sh*t, needs more NEDM.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
how is it harder to believe that God was just there than it is to believe that a fireball that just seems to randomly explode was there at the beginning, hmm?
August 10th, 2006
(0)
very extremely well thought out. I give you props my friend
August 10th, 2006
(0)
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I appreciate this ytmnd alot especially after a year in AP Biology
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I sent you a PM. The discussion really needs to be about the time when "nothing" turned into "something" the whole science of evolution from chemicals into the universe as we know it is very widely accepted... at least by us non lunatics.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
YOU WIN
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5'd for truth.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Well timed slides, i didn't feel rushed, or that I had to wait. Well done. Oh, and good arguements.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
sorry, but these guys are " professionals " what they say is what they do for a living, I am not intrested in listening to the opinion of a simple " YTMND user " , I am sorry but I believe in the christ no matter what you say, and I don't downvote to be evil I just do it because I think it's the right thing to do.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
so boring... i was hoping it would be saved at the end with NEDM
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5 for also c*cks.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
"Makes you think. You can tell by the 1 stars Who is lower on the Evolutionary Ladder ^_^" BTW, we are all equal on the evolutionary ladder. And by we, I mean all living things.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Fived for truth
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I had this argument with a theist once. I said, "why is it that the universe itself cannot have the property of necessary existance while God can?" He didn't really know what to say to that. (btw, some scientists argue the big bang wasn't the beginning, but was a point where 2 string-universes collided, as in, our universe simply is and always will be... sound familiar?)
August 10th, 2006
(0)
And how! Also, it might interest you to know that Behe's argument about the flagellum got owned a while back, I forget who debunked it. Behe says the flagellum can be thought of as a mouse trap - if any one part is removed the trap won't work. A real scientist pointed out that if you take a mouse trap apart, you don't have a mouse trap but instead parts to other useful things with other useful purposes (ex: the baseboard makes a kickass paperweight). The same is true for the parts of the flagellum.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
very nice and i'll support this one. personally, i believe there are some greater forces at work. you made very many valid points in your case, though and i commend you. by the way you spelled "the" wrong in the frame with the eye. (they)
August 10th, 2006
(0)
who came first the chicken or the egg????.......... CHUCK NORRIS CAME FIRST C*CKF*GS!
August 10th, 2006
(0)
In the end, a good, wholesome argument free of biased, opinions and feelings will always be the better one from my perspective. The problem with people who are very religious is that they rarely argue rationally and never consider the facts from any other point of view. Though you may be downvoted my short-attention spanned 10 year olds and angry chriastians, I enjoy ytmnd that attempt to educate and present a rational viewpoint.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5 for brainy YTMNDs.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
"Makes you think. You can tell by the 1 stars Who is lower on the Evolutionary Ladder" Judging by your response, it's pretty clear you're braindead and nearly illiterate. Most of the people downvoting this isn't because they disagree with the info, but don't think something like this belongs here. Next time, kid, at least pretend to have those brain cells given to you through evolution.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
boring
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Thank you Tenacious A. You have expressed my entire belief system. However I do consider myself a devout Christian. I do not believe everything in the Bible though, such as the creation, the wisdom is what is infallible. There should be no religion, only beliefs. Science and religion should meld to become one open-ended belief system.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Nicely done.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Quite good
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Uh, since when is YTMND a forum for serious debate? "only a boring boring rebuttal" at least you admit it, though.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Wow, I'm amazed this stayed on up and coming for so long without getting pummeled too badly by downvotes. Thanks for all the support. Realistically, I never intended for this to be on the front page. I figured it would just be for people who were going through peterguyís comments and they wanted to see a rebuttal. I only made it into a YTMND because it would have been impractical to make these points in comments. Cheers to everyone that actually took the time to read it!
August 10th, 2006
(0)
"terrible argumentation, go back to school" - A demonstration of how it should really be done.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
And jeers to those who didnít bother to read and just assumed it was against religion. I have no problem with peopleís religious beliefs. If youíre gonna downvote, do it because it had no business being on the front page! Or because you actually read it all and you have a disagreement that you can back up.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
It is possible that there is a smaller chance of life, and (I forgot the name, Hawking's dead pal.)'s theory that every possible action has been taken out in another universe, makes life impossible not to be created. An infinite amount of chances will create anything. We just happen to be the byproducts of a life producing chance. So there. :P
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Thanks.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I kind of mixed theories a bit. Infinite universes, planes and other multi dimensional things. The point remains the same.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Interesting ... personally, I've always looked at it not so much that God is where the little unexplainable mysteries are, but is instead in everything (not just the gaps). But then, I'm also a heretic who doesn't see a problem with God using evolution to fit His means.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Three for effort but you're only going to convince the people who understand science already, and those people would never believe some bs propoganda like allaboutscience.org. I am baffled though why there are smart christians out there, yet the religious leaders that get all the attention are like rejects from the dark-ages.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
not enough doom music. this isn't slashdot, lets not start forming opinions or anything like that.
(0)
yay for science and time-traveling bacteria
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5d just to piss the other people off woot.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Bravo. An interesting and well thought-out YTMND. Very nice.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I couldn't get thru the whole thing, a bit slow. You know, someone labels YTMND users as artists and now we suddenly become scientists and theologists. I miss humor. :(
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Picture. Sound. Text. A singular focus, not some f*ggy short film.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I read your comments and what you do in your free time seems way less interesting then what I do with mine.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
A good response. And this ytmnd is teh funny, if you're patient. Also C*cks.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
It's always good to see all sides. I also liked how you were extremely open-minded and didn't insult anyone by this. Personally I believe there is a God and a complex system which supports a form of evolution. I have no proof of this, but this belief leads me to not waving my hand off at theories. ^^
August 10th, 2006
(0)
skfyre: Stupid people tend to stick out more. =( Kind of like sore thumbs.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I find it just amazing how incredibly stupid both sides are on this issue of science vs. religion. Religion trying to "prove" that God exists is ludacris. It defeats the purpose of faith. Speaking from a Judeo/Christian standpoint, I think God cares a lot more about you being a good person than wasting your time trying to misuse the scientific method to prove whether he exists. Science observes, it doesn't explain, so trying to use it to explain the existence of the universe is futile. Stick to faith, there
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Well said! Needs more NEDM...
August 10th, 2006
(0)
there's more merit to it. And science claiming that is has all the answers is equally stupid. It's called the Big Bang THEORY instead of the Big Bang LAW for a reason. The hypothesis that the the universe was created from an explosion 15 billion years ago is unrejectable. (Evolution isn't a law either.) So speaking as if it's fact when in reality it could be totally wrong is also abuse of the scientific method. With the advent of Intelligent Design, the majority of the science community has been actively tr
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5 FOR ALSO C*CKS. And learning.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
trying to disprove the existence of God. Like I said earlier, impossible to do with science. Science will NEVER be able to prove that God didn't create the universe.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
gg
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I aint readin dat sh*t. 5'd
August 10th, 2006
(0)
bravo.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Christianity pwned
August 10th, 2006
(0)
nice piece of brain food
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Bible = teh sux. lolz PS: fuk george bush.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
"I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand." -Albert Einstein
August 10th, 2006
(0)
"so poorly presented. break up your ideas into chuncks we can read, not a clusterf*ck of scattershot, desultory ideas. a honest to god awful, awful, awful, awful ytmnd--and not because i'm too lazy to read, but because i did, and it was horrid." there is probably no way to do this given the size restraints of ytmnd. it's like taking a complex law and saying what it means without simplifying it too much.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
well-resoned, well-thought-out. not every YTMND has to be funny.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I feel the need to say this as possibly one of the only Christians willing to post a comment: 1. Good argument. 2. Good use of of a Christian artist's music. 3. Thanks for not bashing Christianity or any religion just because you believe something else. No, I don't believe in evolution or that God created evolution. I take the Bible as it is and I'm not going to yell at you for saying something I don't like. I'm sorry for those Christians that will. Just know that a real Christian's focus is on Jesu
August 10th, 2006
(0)
And each of those points give you a star! :D
August 10th, 2006
(0)
5'd for reason and non-belief bashing.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
...needs more jazz hands.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Ok, so I'm not the only Christian who posted a comment. I'm sort of with the8ball on the stance that it's not about proving God exists (that's a little silly for a Christian, amirite?) it's about faith. Yup... I hope people read these comments. I also hope they'll go to blueletterbible.org, but who knows.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Man, I wish I still had my Andy Hunter CD. They are pretty awesome.
August 10th, 2006
(0)
I give this site five pikachu clocks, Bitch!
August 10th, 2006
(0)
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm
August 10th, 2006
(0)
Obviously becuase it uses method, data, understanding and logic as opposed to blind faith to answer questions
August 20th, 2006
(0)
very interesting, thanks.
August 24th, 2006
(0)
You WIN. Good day sir!
August 31st, 2006
(0)
While it's true that there are Billions of galaxies and thus planets, the odd's of sustaining life are indeed great. However, you yourself have also omitted very important information. Though it's very possible for a planet to sustain life, the actual evolution of a one celled organism to a two celled organism represents a similar chance of occurance. Now, a human being is made up of millions upon millions of cells, and when the odds of just human evolution (forgetting all other animals) are added up, th
August 31st, 2006
(0)
odd's of actually creating an organism as complex as a human being simply shatters statistics. No, I am not supporting any religion, I'm just stating what I know.
September 1st, 2006
(0)
Good comment! In Response: So far, science has been unable to tell the circumstances that caused one cell to work symbiotically with another, and therefore it is impossible to calculate the odds of such an occurrence, however, once 2 cells began to work together it cannot be suggested that the odds of 3 cells, 4 cells and 5 cells working together is against the odds.
September 1st, 2006
(0)
^^. It is reasonable to assume that working together offered cells an advantage in terms of survival, and so through natural selection the cells that worked together, passed on their genes and so future generations began to work together in greater numbers.
September 1st, 2006
(0)
^^This is all suggested by fossil evidence which supports the claim that cells working together is ridiculously against the odds. There is about a 2 billion year gap between the appearance of the first single celled organism and the rise of multi-cellular organisms (in comparison, multi cellular organisms have only existed for between 1.5 billion to 6 hundred thousand years).
September 1st, 2006
(0)
^^That means that itís likely that hundreds of trillions of cells lived and died before ever working with each other. When they finally did begin to work with each other, it offered such an advantage that multi cellular organisms began appearing in huge numbers relatively quickly.
September 1st, 2006
(0)
^^When it comes to the odds of something as complex as a human being, we are no longer dealing with random chance. Millions of generations undergoing natural selection ensures that the organism who is best suited for the surrounding environment survives and adapts. It is an unimaginably long and complex process and it is often oversimplified by people who assume that all of a sudden a fish gave birth to a duck and so forth.
September 1st, 2006
(0)
^^So while it does seem against the odds, it can arguably be easily accounted for by statistics given the timescale.
October 16th, 2006
(0)
Dude, I did a whois lookup on www.allaboutscience.org and it showed that "All About God Inc." registered it. Go figure the rest.
January 4th, 2007
(0)
Would be better id after the the final page you added another saying also c*cks
(0)
So, any word yet on when the religiotards will be eliminated from this species?
March 22nd, 2007
(0)
OMFG WOT. TL; DR