Depressing isn’t it. I’ve always thought that chronic stupidity should be a Capital offence.

The woman thought Eve ate Adam’s rib and that’s what started all the trouble in the first place.

This reminds me of the time when one of my science students asked me which gender had more ribs.  I told her that they had the same number of ribs.  She, along with other students, were suprised at this because they beleived that the male had one less rib due to the female being created from a male rib by God.

Oh yeah, I want a Creationist doing surgery on me...yep yep yep…

I experience the stupidity of people all the time. For example I have people call me screaming their head off because they can’t understand their phone bill. I get a stupid response, “Oh....” when I ask them if they looked on both sides of the bill. Yes people, Paper can be printed on both sides!
Dumbasses.
(btw, I am a customer service rep for a phone company, just in case some stupid person is wondering why people call me about their phone bill.)

Stegbeetle, I don’t think making stupidity a capital offense is the right solution only in part because we all have moments of blinding stupidity and it’d be a hassle to have to prove that, normally, you’re not as stupid as you just appeared to be.

It used to be that the problem of stupid people sorted itself out through natural selection in the form of someone doing something incredibly stupid and killing themselves in the process, but we’ve passed all these laws now-a-days that protect them. Stuff like the mandatory helmet and seatbelt laws. As a result more stupid people are surviving longer and thusly breeding and filling a new generation with their ignorance.

Worse, the lawyers have figured out that these stupid people are a great source of income for them. First they’re stupid enough to injure themselves, then they’re stupid enough to believe the lawyer will make them rich by suing someone, then they make sure as many other stupid people as possible are on the jury for the trial. Voila! Instead income for the lawyers.

Well, that’s my theory anyway and I’m sticking to it.

UG, I’ve gotten into the unpleasant habit of questioning my medical professionals on their personal beliefs as a result of some of the things I’ve read in the paper over the years.

Macbros, I don’t work for the phone company anymore myself so why the hell are these idiots calling me about their phone bills?

Les if they’re calling you, I would actually have fun with that. > *Incert Evil grin here.*

Smartass Chicago columnist Mike Royko’s desk phone used to have the same number as the phone company’s 800- customer service line, only without the 800-.  So he got calls all the time from people too stupid to dial 800.  You can imagine what he did with that opportunity! 

When the phone company got pissed off at jerking their customers around, he said; “I had my desk phone number first - you change your phone number!  They couldn’t, so they started advertising “Don’t forget the 800-!”

OMG! Macbros’ avatar is tres awesome!  I can’t tell if he’s snickering behind his paw, or flipping me the bird, but either way, he rocks!

Oh yeah, I want a Creationist doing surgery on me...yep yep yep…

Look warbi, I can copy and paste, too!

Creationist Scientists:

Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) (glacial geology)
Charles Babbage (1792-1871) (computer science)
Robert Boyle (1627-1691) (gas dynamics)
David Brewster (1781-1868) (optical mineralogy)
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) (comparative anatomy)
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) (hydraulics)
Humphrey Davy (1778-1829) (thermokinetics)
Henri Fabre (1823-1915) (entomology of living insects)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867) (electromagnetics)
John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945) (electronics)
William Herschel (1738-1822) (galactic astronomy)
James Joule (1818-1889) (reversible thermodynamics)
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) (energetics)
Johann Kepler (1571-1630) (celestial mechanics)
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) (systematic biology)
Joseph Lister (1827-1912) (antiseptic surgery)
Matthew Maury (1806-1873) (oceanography)
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) (electrodynamics)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) (genetics)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) (calculus)
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) (hydrostatics)
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) (bacteriology)
William Ramsay (1852-1916) (isotopic chemistry)
John Ray (1627-1705) (natural history)
Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919) (dimensional analysis)
Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866) (non-Euclidean geometry)
James Simpson (1811-1870) (gynecology)
Nicholas Steno (1631-1686) (stratigraphy)
George Stokes (1819-1903) (fluid mechanics)
Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902) (pathology)
John Woodward (1665-1728) (paleontology)

I don’t know, Uber but if Lister were still with us-I think I’d trust him to perform sugery on me if I were in need. And I also might ask, Uber, what have you done that can even begin to compare with these great men?

Errr… since I haven’t posted on this thread until now, I am not sure what your point is.

Errrr, just trying to bait you and see if you were stalking me to every thread I go to, just as I suspected.

Hey, chief, you are correct (even in the gender department).  I actually sent her an e-mail that said more or less what you just said and explained that I didn’t want to clutter the thread with irrelevant crap.  (addressing me directly was the main issue, but I do scan the new posts.) And, Les, I do apologize for posting way off topic.  Peace.

And all of those Creationist scientists are either hypocrites or morons.Im sorry but to spend all that time in study and still believe in god? Must be a proper spastic.

and please Karen - tell me why a scientist knowledgeble about optical minerology,gas dynamics or oceanography should sway me in any way towards a belief in creationism? - cause of some fancy degree?

Karen says:

And I also might ask, Uber, what have you done that can even begin to compare with these great men?

Hmm...well...Not that it matters Ms. P.A. Karen but I have had the balls to open my mind and question/disbelieve a fairy tale dogma EVEN THOUGH the dogma is incredibly popular among the masses and its followers tend to promote it through harassment, hatred, prejudice, brainwashing, and violence.  That’s a little something.

Karen, Bring me a scientist who has scientifically PROVEN creationism, or scientifically proven anything WITH creationism, and I’ll be impressed.  I do not think ANY of those scientists proved anything about creationism.

Oh yeah, as an afterthought:  Ms. P.A. Karen, where did you “copy and paste” this list from, people who care about sources want to know…

Hmm...well...Not that it matters Ms. P.A. Karen but I have had the balls to open my mind and question/disbelieve a fairy tale dogma EVEN THOUGH the dogma is incredibly popular among the masses and its followers tend to promote it through harassment, hatred, prejudice, brainwashing, and violence.  That’s a little something.

Oh my gosh! Uber!  We have more in common than you think!  I have done the very same thing with the trinity and have received that very harrassment, hatred, prejudice, etc. Some of it from someone right here on this blog that referred to me as a cultist and nutty.  None of this makes me special, it just means I have settled on a belief-as you have.  Oh and let me also state that I have found the “masses"-wether they be christian or non-christian-are usually wrong.

I was asking what YOU have done in comparison to those great scientists.  I wasn’t insinuating that the list proved anything about creationism, just that intelligent people DO believe in it.  It isn’t just a bunch of dummies-as you tried to insinuate via your surgery comment.  Got it?

Oh and why are you calling me P.A? lol The site is right here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=creationists+scientists

I thought it seemed like a fair site since it also gave sources and dissenting opinions on why those scientists “don’t count”.  Go ahead and pick the site apart, though. I didn’t spend all night researching it.  I have however engaged in this debate before and recognized all those names.

and please Karen - tell me why a scientist knowledgeble about optical minerology,gas dynamics or oceanography should sway me in any way towards a belief in creationism? - cause of some fancy degree?

Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. Frumpy, that wasn’t my point. I am in no way trying to sway anyone’s opinion on creationism. I was attempting to point out that many intelligent, influential people historically and presently believe in creationism. Creationists aren’t a bunch of fantasy beliving, brainwashed dumb asses.

So hold tight to your opinion, hun. I don’t really care what you believe.

And all of those Creationist scientists are either hypocrites or morons.Im sorry but to spend all that time in study and still believe in god? Must be a proper spastic.

This is exactly my point about the collective mentality of this board! Believe as I do, align your thinking with what makes sense to me or your are a “moron”, “cultist”, “small town retard”, “sociopathic”, “nutty”, etc etc etc ad nauseum.

I actually sent her an e-mail that said more or less what you just said and explained that I didn’t want to clutter the thread with irrelevant crap.

You sent me an email? I didn’t receive any email from you, warbi.  Try sending it again:

I think it is telling that although many scientists may believe in a creator in some form, they rarely try and prove it scientifically. I have not seen any scientific argument to prove the creationists view.

Unless of course you count people with self awarded credentials such as Kent Hovind, and I think we’ve already done ‘Dr Dino’ to death here.

At the end of the day it comes down to belief vs provable facts, in my view. This doesn’t mean that to believe in a creator is ‘wrong’, but trying to insist it is a provable fact is.

Two things, Karen ..

First of all, if you’ve got multiple points to comment on, you can, in fact, put them in the same post rather than making several different posts a few minutes apart. This isn’t the first topic i’ve seen you do that in. It’s annoying, and you sound like someone who keeps saying “And another thing!..” when you finally think of something else to say.

Second, most of those people you mentioned who you claim are creation scientists ARENT.  They were involved in other branches of study.  They may very well have been Christians, but look at the times they lived in.  Most of them died at least 150-200 years ago! Letting it be known publicly back then that you weren’t as devout as the next guy could get you killed!  The best that could’ve happened is that their careers would have been over and noone would have taken their work seriously.

Besides, there’s no such thing as a creation scientist .. the two are mutually exclusive.  One can be a scientist and believe in creationism (although I’d take their work with a grain of salt), but a researcher into creationism?  That’s crap and you know it.  The only research necessary into creationism is to turn off your brain, drool out of the corner of your mouth, and intone the creationists creed “God did it”.

Most of those scientists were pre-Origin of Species. Before then, there weren’t any real alternatives to Creationism, so how, pray tell, could they have been anything but Creationists?

You’re just being silly.

Karen, your list of “Creationist Scientists” has been pretty well answered already, but here’s another way of looking at it.

I could make an equally long list of scientists, starting with, say, Aristotle, and going from Ptolomey up through Tycho Brahe and a bit beyond, who were all geocentrists.  After Copernicus and Gallileo came along, however, their numbers tapered off considerably, and nowadays you’d be hard pressed to find a geocentrist who isn’t just a tinhorn crackpot.

Today, a bit more than a century after Darwin’s death, there are still a few scientists who consider themselves creationists.  But not many, and none of the caliber of Aristotle or Newton.  Why not?  For the same reason that there are no geocentrist scientists now:  scientific progress.

Worse, the lawyers have figured out that these stupid people are a great source of income for them. First they’re stupid enough to injure themselves, then they’re stupid enough to believe the lawyer will make them rich by suing someone, then they make sure as many other stupid people as possible are on the jury for the trial. Voila! Instead income for the lawyers.

This paralegal can’t argue with that.  Those stupid people keep a roof over my head and fuel in the Benz.  After 20 years, it has, however, led to a decreased tolerance for stupidity that I do not get paid to deal with.

Kent Hovind is a total nutter.  I met him once though, he came to the school I was going to at the time.  He had some neat tricks for shooting rubber bands 30 feet, and a nifty paper airplane you could shoot over a building, but that’s about it. 

Crazy as a loon he was.