I just watched it...
I HAVE to murder someone now.
I HAVE to murder someone now.
Cunt
Thunderf00t vs Eric Hovind @ The Reason Rally
|
I just watched it...
I HAVE to murder someone now. Cunt
I've seen this cunt on his own 'educational program'. Makes me fucking sick. It's a disgrace to humanity that he is allowed to spread his lies and poison the minds of children.
I remember watching Eric Hovind in an interview once. As he was babbling his creationist nonsense about dinosaurs he explained that 'dino-saur' literally means 'terrible lizard' (which is actually true). Then, at the end of the interview, he plugged the DrDino website. Usually I don't bother, but I couldn't resist leaving a comment on the video which said something like: "Dinosaur means terrible lizard? Wouldn't this make Hovind 'Dr Terrible'?"
RE: Thunderf00t vs Eric Hovind @ The Reason Rally
April 7, 2012 at 1:58 pm
(This post was last modified: April 7, 2012 at 1:58 pm by Rev. Rye.)
The fact that Eric Hovind has a lot more experience with public speaking than Thunderf00t really shows, but, that said, Hovind clearly knows absolutely nothing about the subject at hand.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad. (April 6, 2012 at 10:08 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: To be honest Thunderf00t dug himself into a very deep philosobabble hole, I agree. I don't know why Thunderf00t could not rebuttal the argument about the knowledge of the universe. "99% of the unknown can contradict what we know about the 1%". Isn't this the fundamental idea of Atheism - that we don't know? If even an additional 1% percent of the 99% currently unknown becomes known, and that 1% proves the existence of god beyond any demonstrable doubt, would Atheism still exist? And playing by the same rules, if the 99% currently unknown becomes known and it proves that God does not exist, would theists still cling to their beliefs? The answer to both questions is a resounding NO! BUT, our current levels of knowledge greatly diminish the probability of a god existing, so based on our current knowledge, we can safely assume that god probably does not exist. (April 7, 2012 at 6:15 pm)Forsaken Wrote: BUT, our current levels of knowledge greatly diminish the probability of a god existing, so based on our current knowledge, we can safely assume that god probably does not exist. When you say probably, Forsaken, I assume you mean that the chances are infinitesimally small. What we're talking about here is something that is less likely than, well, this guy existing. I am clarifying, because I usually put tradiional monothiestic Gods in the same category as mythical beings and similarly ridiculous concepts, like any of the infinite possible unfalsifiable claims that I could make up. My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity. -Bertrand Russell |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|