trexmaster

[

mood

|

amused

]

Have any of you here seen this one?

Some previews to give you a scintilla of an idea of just how filled up with stupid it is:


Bah, cavepeople vs dinosaurs is so cliche. Let's do medieval Europeans vs dinosaurs instead!

As if the sauropod wasn't anachronistic enough, Jack Chick now has these pre-Columbian, medieval European villagers eating hamburgers which weren't invented until the 19th century in the USA. Also note how Jack can't decide whether the villagers call non-avian dinosaurs "dinos" or "dragons".

Since big animals died from oxygen deprivation according to Chick, that's why elephants are extinct along with sauropods and stegosaurians, while Velociraptors and Compsognathuses are still running around, preying on livestock and civilians. Uh, no, wait...

Come to think of it, wouldn't a lack of oxygen kill off all life?

crazyharp81602

[

mood

|

annoyed

]

Evolutionary paleontologists have recently claimed to have found evidence of early feather evolution in amber.

They ‘dated’ these finds to about 100 million years ago (Ma), and claim that they represent an intermediate stage in the evolutionary development of feathers.
Out of time

The title of the article reads: ‘The early evolution of feathers: fossil evidence from Cretaceous amber of France [emphasis added]’. This title is misleading for two reasons: (1) The article dates these fossil feathers to 100 Ma, but Archaeopteryx, a recognizable feathered bird, is dated by evolutionists to 150 Ma, and even the beaked bird Confuciusornis is dated to 135 Ma; (2) Archaeopteryx, by the authors’ own admission, has ‘modern-type feathers that are similar to those of extant birds’.

This begs the question: why are these fossil feathers evidence for the early evolution of feathers if they’re clearly (according to the evolutionists’ own dating scheme) anything but early?

johnny9fingers

you could try declaring yourself an atheist

Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats

When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers at Camp Speicher in Iraq, he was excited, he said, to see an officer attending.

But minutes into the talk, the officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, began to berate Specialist Hall and another soldier about atheism, Specialist Hall wrote in a sworn statement. “People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!” Major Welborn said, according to the statement.

Major Welborn told the soldiers he might bar them from re-enlistment and bring charges against them, according to the statement.

Last month, Specialist Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group, filed suit in federal court in Kansas, alleging that Specialist Hall’s right to be free from state endorsement of religion under the First Amendment had been violated and that he had faced retaliation for his views. In November, he was sent home early from Iraq because of threats from fellow soldiers.

deists

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 (3 Ramada I, A. H. 1211)

jk_fabiani

kulan

The fax stated, “We are religious people, but we were offended when Mr. Freshwater burned a cross onto the arm of our child. This was done in science class in December 2007, where an electric shock machine was used to burn our child. The burn was severe enough that our child awoke that night with severe pain, and the cross remained there for several weeks. ... We have tried to keep this a private matter and hesitate to tell the whole story to the media for fear that we will be retaliated against.”

pharyngula

crazyharp81602

[

mood

|

mellow

]

I not only since much anger, I get the idea that most people think that this is a religious movie. Many of the people in the film were not Christian. Last night at Southwestern Seminary in Fort Worth I attended a lecture by David Berlinski in which someone asked, if he, with his beliefs in intelligent design, would ever consider Christianity, and he flat out denied that he could ever become a Christian.
I already realize at this point that many of you are going to jump on the band wagon that all religion does is leave us with something to cling to when we are scared, or is the main motivation of war. The truth is, throughout all of history not only has there been violence done in the name of God, there has been violence done without invoking the name of God. I guess John Lennon’s song was wrong.
The debate is not about creationism verses evolution. It is about intelligent design verses evolution. There was, at no point in the film, an argumentation for a literal six day creation as recorded in Genesis. These people were simply challenging the orthodoxy of Darwinism and saying that Darwinism does not explain the origin of life. However, as I look at site after site, reading the anti-ID material, I see more bigotry coming from your side.
I wish to respond to this comment ,
“The damage that this movie has done is quite apparent, should you encounter internet creationists who’ve seen this movie. With a sudden surge of confidence, the most devestating tactic they’ve learned from this movie is the belligerant use of speculative ad hominems. “What are you so afraid of?” “Why are Darwinists so angry?” “If intelligent design is so stupid, why are you spending so much time talking about it?” “Why are you trying to silence new ideas?” Yeah. Thanks, Ben Stein. Now the creationists are even stupider than they were before.”
Propoents of ID do have a right to exist and those questions are indeed valid. You resort to calling them stupid. In a postmodern society, do not both the ID proponents and evolution proponents deserve to have an equal playing field in the realm of science? Teach evolution, there is not a problem, but allow people to have opposing views. I am neither a scientist nor a philosopher. I am striving to be a theologian. I must say that there is nothing that seems scientific to me about closing out evidential arguments simply because that do not fit the Darwinian orthodoxy. I can accuse all of you of the same bigotry that is often extended toward me.

pathofreason

[

mood

|

angry

]

Do any of you think that scientists will be more likely to speak out and take a stand against nonsense such as the film "Expelled"? My friend is a geologist and previous to even hearing about this movie he was always hesitant to talk to creationists about the age of the earth and anything contradictory to their beliefs. He felt that it was better to just leave it be as not to offend them. After hearing about the release of this film he now feels something should be done. He feels that not enough effort is being put into bridging the gap between Science and Layperson. What, if anything can we do to help push scientists to take a more affirmative stand?