Comments by "Ungoogleable o_O" (@oO_ox_O) on "Lawrence Krauss: Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse | Big Think" video.

  1. > Those who teach creation do believe in creation - it's not child abuse, it's just ignorance. Those who physically abuse their children are just ignorant of the potential side effects and therefore it's not child abuse?!
    1
  2. In the US there is another religion with texts from a person who "married" also quite young women.
    1
  3. > it's an abstract thought, not a concrete thought. Ye, just like maths, that's why it has no applications, right? :->
    1
  4. I bet you haven't even tried to research the subject, have you?
    1
  5. Jews as in followers of Judaism? No? I thought so. Then what kind of Jews? Racial Jews? Well, there is no scientific definition of human races.
    1
  6. Well, by this he has to dismiss quite some parts of the scientific consensus.
    1
  7. > Even most evolutionists admit they have no problem doing science without underlying it with evolutionary theory. Ye right, because genetics makes much sense without evolution. Oh not to forget all that has to do with causing evolution on purpose or studying evolving organisms (e.g. virus). And last but not least mathematics/computer science with their evolutionary algorithms. :->
    1
  8. > The Catholics LOL, so I suppose you are an old-school protestant believing certain conspiracy theories like the ones found in the Chick comics? > "then"
    1
  9. I am no equating it, I am just pointing out that it something done out of ignorance doesn't make it any less child abuse.
    1
  10. Are you talking about Mendel? Research his story. ;)
    1
  11. > clearly pseudoscience Clearly?
    1
  12. > human testimony is the greatest form of evidence! I lol'd, still your trolling is mediocre, it doesn't create rage.
    1
  13. To be fair creationists are no uniform mass (after all they hardly follow scientific standards), and what constitutes macro evolution depends on the definition of "species".
    1
  14. > evolution has no foundation in moral truth at all Huh? How/why would a scientific theory have a foundation in _moral_ truth anyway?
    1
  15. > but why does the Atheist harbor such hatred for those with faith? Those atheist you know about? I would argue that there are quite some pragmatic atheists, but who might not want to change the status quo, e.g. because they believe religion to be necessary for "others". Ever thought of that?
    1
  16. > linguistic, religious, or social affiliation Ye, everywhere but in the US you would use terms like "ethnic groups" for that.
    1
  17. What makes you think so many people you don't agree with are sockpuppeteering? The numbers?
    1
  18. Actually I intended to write something longer how even subspecies wouldn't fit since it would mean long isolation and not merely some 1000s years, but then that come across exceptions to this rule. As the definition of a species is already problematic and not as clear-cut as one would like it to be, the one for subspecies is even worse, still I don't know whether it's right to talk about a Jewish subspecies, Israel is no island.
    1
  19. Well using that argument and considering there are (and probably always will be) gaps in our knowledge you could always argue for religion, more specifically for the "god of the gaps".
    1
  20. I don't like "spongy" terms so I personally wouldn't talk about it at all, but yes in this case I would be included to. But going back to what you originally wrote, do you think those people you talked about really identified as Jews? I doubt it.
    1
  21. OK, then please tell me about it and also how the age of the earth is any less factual, than e.g. our understanding of plate tectonics.
    1
  22. > To say Atheists have no faith, is untrue, they believe in science Ignoring that "believe in science" sounds ridiculous, it's not correct, the definition of atheism does _not_ imply that. You might e.g. believe things considered "supernatural" or otherwise unscientific and still be atheist.
    1