| 73Q Music Videos | Vote On Clips | Submit | Login   |

Help keep poeTV running

And please consider not blocking ads here. They help pay for the server. Pennies at a time. Literally.

Comment count is 33
GQ - 2010-10-13

So are hemophiliacs godless sinners who brought their hereditary disorder on theirselves? Also, his logic seems to assume that every species needs to develop it's own ability to have blood clot, I guess

takewithfood - 2010-10-13

You mean every species needs to be CREATED WITH its own ability to have blood clot. Like much simpler and yet still effective system given to the lobster by the magic sky man.

oddeye - 2010-10-13

God sent a bloodclot into my grandmothers brain. Thanks God you asshole.

WHO WANTS DESSERT - 2010-10-13

"magic sky man"

stop that.

IrishWhiskey - 2010-10-13

I believe in God. But when people starting using God as a replacement for scientific theories they don't understand, its perfectly acceptable to point out that what they are really describing is magic done by an invisible being.

If there's any word in existence that distorts people's perceptions through the weight of authority, its "God". If accurately rephrasing the argument without that authority makes it sound silly, that's a problem with the argument.

memedumpster - 2010-10-13

I prefer "invisible desert leprechaun."

fluffy - 2010-10-13

IrishWhiskey, what is God aside from an abstract concept to fill in "things I don't understand?"

Faith and science are incompatible. They are diametrically opposed. Faith answers questions. Science questions answers.

cognitivedissonance - 2010-10-13

Bear in mind that this is the origin of the word "stroke"... when you had a stroke, it meant that an angel had clubbed you to death.


John Holmes Motherfucker - 2013-01-30

Intellectual integrity is a moral value. If being moral requires you to sacrifice intellectual integrity, you're sort of fucked.

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2014-06-27

Try to understand
Try to understand
Try try try to understand

I'm a magic sky man.

Johnny Madhouse - 2010-10-13


Millions of triggers? Really, little non-educated girl who doesn't really understand what she's saying?

I hate this.

Shanghai Tippytap - 2010-10-13

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/13/7527.full someone with a youtube account put this in his comments.

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2010-10-13

Whoops! Comments are moderated. Imagine that!

oddeye - 2010-10-13

Complex systems evolve in parts over many generations. What is so hard to understand about that?

Anaxagoras - 2010-10-13

When you're retarded, everything except "God did it" is hard to understand.

chumbucket - 2010-10-13

fuckin miracles

Chalkdust - 2010-10-14

how did we evolve magnets?

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2010-10-13

Again and again, anti-evolutionists talk about the moral implications of evolution, as if that matters. We're supposed to believe what we believe about the world based on what is morally edifying, not on the evidence. Here's an example from a 2005 interview with Rick Santorum by NPR's Steve Inskeep:

INSKEEP: Why do what you see as holes in the theory of evolution, and there are scientists who will hear on our air that will disagree with the idea that there really are that many holes...

Sen. SANTORUM: Sure.

INSKEEP: ...but...

Sen. SANTORUM: I just think they're wrong.

INSKEEP: ...why does that particular item of the academic curriculum concern you as a United States senator?

Sen. SANTORUM: It has huge...

INSKEEP: Why would those holes matter to you?

Sen. SANTORUM: ...consequences for society and it's where we come from. Does man have a purpose? Is there a purpose for our lives? Or are we just simply, you know, the result of chance. If we're the result of chance, if we're simply a mistake of nature, then that puts a different moral demand on us. In fact, it doesn't put a moral demand on us that if, in fact, we are a creation of a being that has moral demands.

So Rick seems to be saying is that he wants to base his beliefs about science on what he considers to be morally edifying. Obviously, that's bad science, but I think it's also bad morality. INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY IS A MORAL VALUE. In fact, I think it's the first moral value. If you can adjust your beliefs about the world based on your moral beliefs instead of the evidence, you'll be adjusting your moral beliefs based on expediency before long.

FABIO - 2010-10-13

Anytime crap like this is brought up in regards to religion, I always have to ask, "What does any of this have to do with being a good person?"

IrishWhiskey - 2010-10-13

Unless of course you start from the premise that the world was created in keeping with certain moral beliefs, and basing your reality on those beliefs rather than observed facts (which are flawed and not infallible) is the correct way to intellectual integrity.

Obviously this requires starting with certainty, which is why the defining principle of faith is removing doubt and skepticism. Its not an inconsistent view on his part, its just an ideology fundamentally at odds with scientific skepticism.

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2010-10-13

Well, it's not inconsitent for Rick Santorum, what with him being a giant douche and all.

But I don't think that faith has to be about removing uncertainty. It can be about sucking it up and living with it. We're finite beings in an infinite universe, and that means we're all going to have to go to our graves being wrong about many many things. It takes strength to believe anything under those circumstances, but it also takes humility.

Faith without doubt is cheating.

facek - 2010-10-14

Faith still means you're believing something without reason.

John Holmes Motherfucker - 2010-10-14

No, it means believing something without proof. I would maintain that if believing something allows you to function at a higher level, that's a perfectly logical reason for believing it, but you may be wrong. Iit works better for principles like "everything happens for a reason" and "let go and let god" than for" Jesus died for our sins." or sheer fucking idiocy like "Adam and Eve were historical figures"

If you go around believing that everything happens for a reason, and things work out REALLY well repeatedly, you may want to call that evidence, but it's not proof and it never will be, and you can always point to someone for which things seem to be working out horribly for no discernible reason, and you know that it could happen to you.

If believing something makes it necessary for you to fight against the evidence, that is not functioning at a higher level.

Corman's Inferno - 2010-10-14

Their main argument is without God we'd all be raping and murdering each other, because the only thing that keeps us in line is the belief we get to go to a magical wonderland in the clouds if we're good enough. Of course, the idea that we might value human life MORE if we recognize that it's finite never occurs to them.

Scrotum H. Vainglorious - 2010-10-13

Obey authority
Obey authority

Riskbreaker - 2010-10-13

Fucking everything in this world, how does that works?

Rudy - 2010-10-13

Creationism! It's non-sequiturtastic!

pastorofmuppets - 2010-10-13

I like this new strategy of disguising science lessons as creationist propaganda. They think they're gonna hear about God and then BAM! Magic School Bus'd!

pastorofmuppets - 2010-10-13

Also, not surprised that leeches know so much about coagulants.

Scynne - 2010-10-14

My cousins keep egging me to watch this DVD series...

phalsebob - 2010-10-14

Blood clots again?? The evolution of the clotting mechanism was a favourite stump for creationists after the evolution of the eyeball was studied. Clotting was studied and explained as well. I thought they were on to the miracle of the fire beetle's amazing ass, but maybe they've just gone back to clotting, because it's all hard to understand chemistry rather than something you can understand with structures.

oddeye - 2010-10-14

What ever it is that we don't know absolutely everything about, these yahoo's will use to argue for creation.

astropod five - 2011-01-07

Whenever I hear a variation of this argument it gives me the impression that creationists think evolution means one species breaking down into an amorphous mass of flesh dragging itself around with one oversized leg before transforming into another.

Register or login To Post a Comment

Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement