Three *Controversial* Websites

Men are better than women:
Men Are Better Than Women, by Dick Masterson

The earth is flat flat:
The Flat Earth Society -- Home

Evolution is not backed up by science:
Science Against Evolution Official Home Page

What do you think, about any of these? Are they satirical? The last one almost certainly isn't, but the first two, especially the second, might be.
My Catholic boyfriend likes the last one and thinks it speaks the truth. The second is just insane. The first is infuriating and crazy. I can hardly believe anyone really thinks like that.
(I've been making too many threads lately. I've just been thinking of too many topics. Sorry, I'll try to stop for a while.)

I'm pretty sure the second one is supposed to be joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick Masterson

... I don’t really give a fuck because everyone on the internet is a tough guy and, truth be told, in real life I could fight all of you all at the same time with my hands tied behind my back and my pants on backwards. So fuck you.

---

^ Based on that, I'm guessing the first one might be there just to screw with people. At least I hope that was his intention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

My Catholic boyfriend likes the last one and thinks it speaks the truth.

---

You poor, poor thing. =P

They sure went through a lot of trouble finding those articles and links to similar sites and I don't see any attempt at humor so I'm assuming it's meant to be taken seriously. I honestly can't understand how someone can say evolution doesn't make sense but the idea of creationism does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbvSywXDbxI

It's just sad that anyone believes the third one in this day and age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Evolution is not backed up by science:
Science Against Evolution Official Home Page

What do you think, about any of these? Are they satirical? The last one almost certainly isn't, but the first two, especially the second, might be.
My Catholic boyfriend likes the last one and thinks it speaks the truth. The second is just insane. The first is infuriating and crazy. I can hardly believe anyone really thinks like that.

---

Your Catholic boyfriend doesn't sound very smart. Sorry to say. Catholics are allowed to accept evolution. So he fails as a rational human being and he fails as a catholic. Sorry for being an asshole. I'm not sure if I'm impressed with your "tolerance" or not. I could never respect a creationist that's alive in 2011. I might respect certain things about individual creationists but I could never respect the person.

EDIT:

http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i1n.htm

That's a funny page from the first website. It's whole point is based on the classic "All X are Y, therefore all Y are X" fallacy (I'm sure it has a real name) and an appeal to ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

That's a funny page from the first website. It's whole point is based on the classic "All X are Y, therefore all Y are X" fallacy (I'm sure it has a real name) and an appeal to ignorance.

---

Affirming the consequent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Your Catholic boyfriend doesn't sound very smart. Sorry to say. Catholics are allowed to accept evolution. So he fails as a rational human being and he fails as a catholic. Sorry for being an asshole. I'm not sure if I'm impressed with your "tolerance" or not. I could never respect a creationist that's alive in 2011. I might respect certain things about individual creationists but I could never respect the person.

---

(Very tired, excuse any bad grammar. Sorry for the long post, just started type a lot.) He admitedly hasn't looked into the evidence for evolution very much, but from what he has covered it seems most likely to him that evolution isn't true. If he gets most of his information from sites like that, of course it's going to seem like evolution is false. I haven't looked into it much either. I've read The Greatest Show On Earth, taken a second year biology course and heard more about it around the internet, but apart from that I haven't looked into the evidence for evolution in detail. Almost all of the anti-evolution arguments I've read don't seem logically flawed. They usually make me think that okay, this could have a point, but only if some of the background information they're asserting is true, and I have no idea whether it is or not.

Like that e-coli experiment. I've heard it argued that the e-coli only lost genetic information, and that if evolution were true, they should have evolved a lot more than they did given the number of generations that passed. But then I was thinking, maybe they shouldn't be expected to evolve that much since they reproduce asexually, and their environment is a lot more controlled in the lab than it would be in the wild where they'd be able to evolve more freely. It's all blind pointless speculation. I'd need to actually dedicate a lot of time to looking it up to get to the truth, and every time I've tried to do that I've found myself burried in articles that are so time-consuming I end up giving up. If you don't mind me asking you or anyone else, what do you think the best way would be for me to learn why evolution is almost certainly a fact?

To me it seems knowing the specifics doesn't even matter. As long as I know almost every scientist who specializes in the subject and in other subjects like Geology agrees that evolution is a theory/fact, that should be a good reason to believe in it. But I guess he thinks they're all biased atheists, and believes in what that documentary or whatever it was proposes with Ben Stein, 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed', that scientists are in danger of losing their jobs if they hint at being skeptical toward evolution. For all I know, I'm being as irrational as he is for believing in evolution without a good reason.

He knows Catholics are allowed to accept evolution, and says that if he were to find out evolution is true, he'd have no problem believing it. You aren't being an asshole. I'm really not sure what is going on with him. Reason is important to him and he comes across as intelligent and rational if you ignore religion. He has no problem discussing philosophy, etc. and is a straight A student. I think that if he were presented with flawless evidence against theism, or against his arguments for theism, he'd have to stop believing in it. He isn't the type of person who will just believe on faith. I think he wants to believe it so badly, but realizes he needs a logical reason to believe, so he looks for logical reasons and thinks he's found them. Although I can't seem to get from him what they are. He's still planning on writing some long email to me one day explaining them. I've been trying to push him to write it soon but he's been busy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Like that e-coli experiment. I've heard it argued that the e-coli only lost genetic information, and that if evolution were true, they should have evolved a lot more than they did given the number of generations that passed. But then I was thinking, maybe they shouldn't be expected to evolve that much since they reproduce asexually, and their environment is a lot more controlled in the lab than it would be in the wild where they'd be able to evolve more freely.

---

That's a straw man argument. The theory of evolution doesn't a priori say anything about "genetic information". It says that organisms that reproduce reproduce and organisms that don't reproduce don't reproduce. Because there is variation in organisms, any variation that helps an organism reproduce will be present in future populations and any variation that prevents an organism from reproducing will not be present in future populations. By future generations, I don't necessarily mean the next generation but "far enough along". That's the core of it.

It's really exactly the same process as "artificial selection" or "selective breeding". Not even the creationists deny that. The only difference is that instead of a person selecting specific organisms for some inane and arbitrary trait, it's just life doing it. The traits that allow an organism to breed more get selected for. No designer required.

So however you define "genetic information", you would only expect to see it increasing over the generations if doing so helped the organisms that had more of it reproduce more than organisms that had less of it. The fallacy in their argument is that they're replacing the real predictions of evolution with something else and defeating that argument. Generally when you see people start talking about "genetic information", it's a sign that you're in for a load of bullshit. Also, most creationists don't even think about denying what they label "micro evolution" like what would happen over the order of a hundred generations in a lab with bacteria. There's just too much reproducible evidence. So whoever is making this e. coli argument is a hard liner indeed.

Quote:

---

It's all blind pointless speculation. I'd need to actually dedicate a lot of time to looking it up to get to the truth, and every time I've tried to do that I've found myself burried in articles that are so time-consuming I end up giving up. If you don't mind me asking you or anyone else, what do you think the best way would be for me to learn why evolution is almost certainly a fact?

---

Think about my explanation of it. In the first paragraph, pretty much the only thing that isn't self evident is the the observation that there is variation in organisms but that's an empirical fact that not even the creationists deny. I've even see creationists try to use it as evidence against god. How the fuck do you take the driving force of a theory and use it as evidence against it?

I think there was a thread in the science forum on book recommendations. Really, the beauty of evolution is that it's pretty much the only scientific theory for which you need no evidence. Once you get it, it has the force of a mathematical proof. There's no way that it could be wrong.
It would require a god to actively prevent it.

Quote:

---

For all I know, I'm being as irrational as he is for believing in evolution without a good reason.

---

I can vaguely agree with this. The problem is that you're believing in it. I don't believe in evolution. I accept it because I understand it. This is just like math. I don't believe that a² + b² = c². I know it. It's the same with evolution.

EDIT:

Also, Ben Stein is a lying sack of shit.

I didn't mean 'belief' as a synonym for 'faith'. To believe something is to think it's true for whatever reason. But I know the definition you're using is used too. My reason for thinking it's likely true is because almost all of the experts agree that it is. Isn't some trust of the experts required eventually, or have you really gone over enough of the evidence yourself?

I've never heard before that there is mathematical proof of evolution.

With the e-coli experiment, it isn't that they think a loss of 'genetic information' should be impossible, it's that they assert that a gain of 'genetic information' has never been observed, while plenty of losses have, and that that's suspicous. I was reading an antievolution book by someone who believes in 'kinds' which have undergone 'microevolution' since the ark story to diverge into all the species alive today. It brings up evidence like, dogs have less 'genetic information' than the their wolf ancestors, and that it's the same scenario in every case you consider. I'll read some more books about evolution.

Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proof of evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I didn't mean 'belief' as a synonym for 'faith'. To believe something is to think it's true for whatever reason. But I know the definition you're using is used too. My reason for thinking it's likely true is because almost all of the experts agree that it is. Isn't some trust of the experts required eventually, or have you really gone over enough of the evidence yourself?

---

Like I've said before, evolution doesn't really require evidence because it would require a god to actively intervene to prevent it. There's a ton of evidence for it and I've studied some of it and not studied the rest of it. It's surely necessary to trust the experts at time.

Also, do you "believe" in gravity or do you "accept" it?

Quote:

---

I've never heard before that there is mathematical proof of evolution.

---

It's not a formal mathematical proof. It's just undeniable. I really don't see why so many people have a hard time accepting it. I can generally tell pretty quickly if somebody will accept it or not. The ones that don't use sloppy logic and the ones that do generally don't. This is just through casual conversation, not even mentioning evolution. Only a very few times have I ever been surprised. And I'm drawing a distinction between people that accept evolution and people that believe in it.

Quote:

---

With the e-coli experiment, it isn't that they think a loss of 'genetic information' should be impossible, it's that they assert that a gain of 'genetic information' has never been observed, while plenty of losses have, and that that's suspicous. I was reading an antievolution book by someone who believes in 'kinds' which have undergone 'microevolution' since the ark story to diverge into all the species alive today. It brings up evidence like, dogs have less 'genetic information' than the their wolf ancestors, and that it's the same scenario in every case you consider. I'll read some more books about evolution.

---

Does it ever explain exactly what genetic information is? It's generally just a term that creationists toss around to sound like they know what they're talking about and confuse people. How would one measure genetic information?

I can't say I find the third site surprising at all. The second one is also real, and everyone there is batshit fucking insane. I recommend not to spend too much time reading the threads. It's pretty frustrating.

Another crazy site is the Vanguard News Network. I'm not allowed to post a link but you can google it. They have a forum and all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solipsism

The second one is also real, and everyone there is batshit fucking insane. I recommend not to spend too much time reading the threads. It's pretty frustrating.

---

I got into an argument with one of them a couple years ago and wish I hadn't. The whole experience was sickeningly frustrating.

I googled that other site. Wow...
"They’re the most unsuccessful humans on earth; many of them are only semi-human. Indeed, Blacks have been a burden to mankind. On the other hand, Whites invented the world."

Why aren't you allowed to post a link?

I just joined. It says I have to wait a week before I can post a link. I figure it's to stop spammers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

It's just sad that anyone believes the third one in this day and age.

---

not as bad as believing the second I would say..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dajo

not as bad as believing the second I would say..

---

FUCK, I thought that was a troll site. Goddamnit, people really are that stupid? There goes the rest of my confidence in humanity.

Flat earthers still aren't as bad a creationists. They're dumber perhaps (although we're going pretty far out on an asymptotic curve to notice a difference) but not as bad. Flat earthers are like having some rare, exotic, normally wild animal take up residence in your house. It's sort of cool. Creationists are like cockroaches. They're all over the place, everybody's seen them, and they could survive a nuclear holocaust.

EDIT:

Also, the second one has to be a joke

Quote:

---

To this end, the Flat Earth Society has reluctantly embraced technology as the means of getting our message out. Although more effective on a grass-roots level, our traditional means of pamphlet distribution, door-to-door support gathering, harassment and kidnapping of close relatives, threatening phone calls and abduction/brainwashing have been both slow to work and generally discouraged. So, despite four hundred-plus years of tradition, we have revised our philosophy, and have adopted a more insidious means of undoing Efimovich once and for all: subliminal messages.

---

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm

Yeah I thought it was stretching the bounds of plausibility with deeply serious and intellectual diagrams such as this

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...f/flatpic3.gif

Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?

Not sure about the website, but the Flat-Earth society was/is a real thing, it's nearly dead now.

Oh good. That's a relief. If loving flat earthers is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

Flat Earth Society's evidence page is currently "under construction", but a couple years ago when I first found the website, they had a map of the world (a colored, larger, more detailed version of the small image Xei posted). The way they rationalized it was hilarious because at first glance it almost makes sense. Since people have never gone over Antarctica, from one end to the other through the center (don't know if that's true), they claim the center doesn't exist. What we think is one continent is really a ring around the earth's circumference.

Stuff I found odd from the flat earth society link

"-After spending over sixteen million dollars and using over 48 thousand yards of industrial strength strapping tape, we of the Flat Earth Society were able to construct an enormously powerful neurotransmitter that can implant suggestions directly into the brains of the nearby non-Flat Earthers. Having set it up just outside of the Russian Antarctic exploration post (Vostok), we are awaiting word that all three scientists and 174 penguins have been shown the light. "

"In the small town of Grass Roots, MO, one of our members has successfully infiltrated the public education system. By being hired on as a teacher in the district, she was able to gain a foothold that has allowed us to "replace" nearly every lower grade teacher in the entire town with loyal Flat Earthers. The students are now undergoing deprogramming measures and are expected to be released when they reach their mid-thirties."

"On an unrelated note, we of the Flat Earth Society would like to wish a very happy forty-fifth birthday to Edmund Wilbur, our Vice-President in charge of Public Relations. Happy birthday to you, Wilbur, and to all our other members whose birthdays are also today, but whose importance fails to merit a mention by name."

sounds like a joke

Okay, I guess it is a joke, unless they're mocking the people who think they're irrational/evil. (Like if a creationist were to rant that they're planning to take over the world and make it a crime not to attend church).

It does sound like a satire (don't know if that or parody is the right word), from that second quote, of creationists trying to take over the education system. So the second link in the OP might be a satire of genuine websites like the third link.

The funny thing about the Antarctica theory is that you can disprove it without traversing Antarctica. All you have to do is bound it with a circle that you could traverse. If their theory is right, then the length of the circle would be 2 times the distance from the north pole times pi. Of course the circle would be far less then that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

That's a straw man argument. The theory of evolution doesn't a priori say anything about "genetic information". It says that organisms that reproduce reproduce and organisms that don't reproduce don't reproduce. Because there is variation in organisms, any variation that helps an organism reproduce will be present in future populations and any variation that prevents an organism from reproducing will not be present in future populations. By future generations, I don't necessarily mean the next generation but "far enough along". That's the core of it.

It's really exactly the same process as "artificial selection" or "selective breeding". Not even the creationists deny that. The only difference is that instead of a person selecting specific organisms for some inane and arbitrary trait, it's just life doing it. The traits that allow an organism to breed more get selected for. No designer required.

---

You've basically summed it up. How is this so f_cking hard to understand and accept? It's so obvious, but "oh I rather go believe in this other thing that has absolutely no evidence to back it up (Creation)".

I know more and more people are starting to get it as the years go by (haven't heard of too many old people arguing in favor of evolution). I just get tired of people on TV are all like "I survived the crash because God was on my side" or "if it weren't for Jesus, I'd be either be dead or in jail", like come on!

Hey, maybe they'll go extinct. (I know what a f_cked up thing to say).

Anyone else interested in the Evolution Vs Creation argument should check out this video: YouTube - God must exist... because the crocoduck doesn't!

^ lol'd @ "Being Christian is not a cultural thing. Being Christian is being converted by God Himself."

On an unrelated note, redheads are hot. Especially the girl in the vid.

I've watched that video before, near the beginning of my obsession with atheism-theism debates. Now I avoid those debates involving really stupid theists and atheists who (I find) seem focused more on entertaining themselves by laughing at the theists than presenting rational arguments.

The problem is that the theists that are objectively making incorrect statements aren't persuaded by rational arguments anyways. Neither is anybody that would be converted by them. So you might as well toss out the easy rational arguments just to show that you've got them and then pursue a strategy of ridicule and marginalization just so that they don't have public discourse all to themselves. I mean if you're going to be there, you might as well enjoy yourself.