Slashdot Log In
Creationists Silence Critics with DMCA
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Sep 15, 2007 02:19 PM
from the they-need-dirty-tricks dept.
from the they-need-dirty-tricks dept.
Gothmog of A writes "As Richard Dawkins' offcial site reports, an organization called Creation Science Evangelism Ministries has been submitting DMCA copyright requests to YouTube. This has resulted in the Rational Response Squad (RRS) being banned after they protested against videos being taken down and accounts being closed. The RRS videoes attack creationism (AKA intelligent design) and promote the atheist viewpoint. According to the RRS, the copyright requests are without merit since the material in question is covered by fair use or has been declared to be in the public domain. Behind Creation Science Evangelism Ministries is the infamous Kent Hovind (AKA Dr. Dino) who is currently serving jail time for tax evasion."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Oh Shit (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh Shit (Score:4, Informative)
If anything, I do not see why this isn't more of a news.
Parent
Re:Oh Shit (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Oh Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't as simple as all that. There are plenty of very intelligent religionists. You can find solid evidence of this if you do a little directed reading of some of the deeper works on religion; textual criticism is one area I've found to be well populated with intelligent and insightful people, for instance.
Susceptibility to superstitious concepts has more to do with gullibility than it does intelligence, and unfortunately, the two aren't strongly related.
One example I like to cite is a PhD in psychology who fell for one of the Nigerian "prince" scam letters; managed to get himself published in the newspapers, because he lost six figures to the scam and he was smart enough to collect a PhD. Not stupid; but quite gullible.
Just as artistic or musical abilities are not tied to intelligence (see Ted Neugent and/or Ozzy Osbourne for prime examples of strong musical talents without significant indicators of intelligence), there's no indication that the other major religious susceptibility factors — fear of the unknown, gullibility, deep need for a father-figure post-puberty — are tied to intelligence (one way or the other) either. This is bolstered by adherents to religion falling all over the intelligence curve.
Personally, I like to think of the mind as having a 3d version of a set of pie slices. Slices overlap a bit, but generally exist as discrete elements which may reinforce one another, or not. Athleticism, intelligence, artistic vision, spatial adeptness, empathy, intuition, leadership, various types of fear, various types of stubbornness, the ability to make sideways connections (look for people who pun a lot, and well), the affinity for mathematics, the affinity for geometrics, fairness, honor, the ability to hold a "big picture" (certain classes of gamers, chess players, jet pilots, Hawking, Einstein) and so on. As a personal model of mine, it does a better job of accounting for the myriad types of people I've encountered in the last fifty years than a more basic "that person must be stupid" approach.
Parent
No! susceptibility = parenting and is unavoidable! (Score:5, Insightful)
Susceptibility to superstitious concepts has the MOST to do with upbringing and indoctrination. "Gullibility" is an unkind word, because all children are credulous. Credulity is a biological necessity, as it turns out.
Children are adapted (evolutionarily programmed, you might say) to believe their parents and elders. This is an important survival trait in a species that passes information socially. Because they implicitly believe their parents, children don't need trial and error to learn important survival information like "avoid that toxic plant!". Other species use instinct, and we do too, but we deal with too much information and flexibility for instinct to be sufficient - language and vertical information transfer between generations adds greatly to our ability to survive.
Think back on how many things you believe because a parent or teacher, or even an authoritative book, told you as a child. I'm constantly realizing things I "know" are not at all scientific, they're merely something I was told when I was still credulous and impressionable. Now that I am a critically thinking adult, I have to reevaluate those beliefs one by one as I discover them.
The side effect of childhood credulity is that people tend to believe what their parents do, or failing that, their elders and peers. Unnecessary/untrue/extra beliefs about the supernatural don't generally cause a fitness decrease: whereas not believing your parents about the poisonous plant will kill you, believing that Zeus is responsible for lightning bolts doesn't kill you. So we err on the side of being too credulous, and the more-or-less harmless beliefs accumulate over centuries. In fact, within societies that persecute or kill heretics and apostates (as many have), being credulous about the supernatural can be an important survival mechanism!
This is a pretty strong reinforcement mechanism. Some people break away, but in truth the universal best predictor of belief is parental belief. And often with those who do break away you'll find that their parents were lip-service religious more than deep believers.
When the rubber hits the road, religion ultimately has to retreat from explanations where science has achieved better/more supportable ones. It's painful, because our credulity for doctrine runs deep. But given time, it happens. It has long since happened for the weather (Zeus does not throw lightning bolts, electrostatic buildup in the clouds produces them) and for the structure of the universe (the Earth is not the center of things). For most of us, the age of the universe and the origin of species has left the religious purview as well, while a few holdouts entrench and struggle to cling to their sinking ship of explanation.
Mostly, religion has now retreated to "matters of the spirit", but this will also eventually fall as understanding of the human brain, body, psychology, and mind become more complete. The evidence is growing progressively compelling that the entirety of human consciousness and behavior can be explained as functions of our brain and body. No mysterious, undetectable "spirit" is necessary for us to be us.
Parent
Distinction w/o a difference. (Score:5, Insightful)
Gullibility is indeed a negative concept; it describes the (unfortunate) carryover of credulity from childhood into adulthood, where it is no longer very closely associated with fitness, and in fact tends to lower fitness. I wasn't addressing the credulity of children, I was addressing the gullibility of adults. This is precisely why I said what I said, the way I said it.
As for the rest, I really don't disagree.
Parent
Re:Distinction w/o a difference. (Score:5, Funny)
So negative, in fact, that the word has been removed from dictionaries and other reference works.
Parent
Re:Distinction w/o a difference. (Score:4, Funny)
Those are cached versions of the pages. Keep hitting reload until you see the updated versions.
Parent
Re:Oh Shit (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as I am concerned, the various religions are a subset of cases within superstition; I would not class astrology as religion, but I do think it slots perfectly into superstition. The same goes for ghosts, all classes of magic that are not simply misunderstood natural events, homeopathy, anthropocentric views in general (religion is that in specific), and a host of others from phrenology to past lives. Creationism itself is a subset of religion.
Parent
Re:Oh Shit (Score:4, Insightful)
To some it's a religion, to others it is a tool for political gain. To some it is both.
Parent
Re:Oh Shit (Score:4, Interesting)
And why does a religion have to be anthropocentric? When I was on my mathematical christology kick, 'the saviour of elm trees' was one of my standard test constructs. "Can trees be 'saved'? Might they benefit from it? What the f*** would that mean to a human Christian? And what would Jesus of Nazareth signify to a tree?" I would ask myself. But if your religion hands you avatars (as opposed to the standard Christian trinitarian incarnation structure, which is clearly species-indexed), your god can quite easily be a tree, I should think, even if you aren't a tree yourself.
I have no problem with areligious atheists (after all, a creator-god is unobservable by construction, so intellectually honest deism [perhaps even metatemporal theism] and areligious atheism are the same, up to isomorphism), but devout atheists who turn off their imaginations and disallow thought experiments when discussion religion hurt my head. How they think they can have certain knowledge (as opposed to a personal, but not persuasively communicable, belief) about the unobservable is beyond me. They're nuts in exactly the same way as the intelligent design crowd.
Let me put it this way: why would one suppose that Occam's razor is the right tool for answering the question 'what's your favourite story?' How can someone be wrong about their own imaginary friend?
Of course, when people start saying 'God told me to kill you,' it's time to lock them up. Weird thing is, organised religions - being, whether you hold to them or not, evolved social structures as well as metaphilosophical frameworks - will even agree with you on this. Of course there are plenty of homicidal maniacs who pretend otherwise - but they are, for the most part, consciously lying, and should no more be laid at the door of the religions in question than people who get their instructions from their gerbils.
Parent
Re:Superstition is belief without evidence. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure how that statement you made is any way insightful though. But the moderators around here are largely morons so I guess it's to be expected.
Parent
Re:Oh Shit (Score:4, Insightful)
I presume you're still talking about religion. I am unaware of any evidence for or against the proposition that "god did it"; I am aware of numerous views of what "it" actually consists of (and this is the basis for the difference between a creationist and the religious person who waves hands vaguely at a hubble deep space photo, asserting there "has to be" a god because otherwise, it's just too grand (or whatever.))
Personally, I am a hard line atheist, meaning literally a person without any shred of belief in a god or gods; but this is not due to any "mountain of evidence" pointing that way (I'm not even certain you could assemble evidence for a non-concept.) It is due to no evidence pointing the other way, towards the positive assertion that there is a god or gods. I have observed that it is in very few cases indeed that assertions without evidence turn out to be even marginally correct. This leaves me with no confidence whatsoever in the idea of a god or gods.
Consequently, I would be fascinated to hear about your "ginormous mountain" of evidence against the idea of a god or gods, if that indeed is what you were referring to. Please do elaborate so that I can see how it is that an intelligent person cannot possibly fall into the mental model of religion in such a way as to accept it.
Parent
Re:Oh Shit (Score:5, Informative)
I can't speak for the fellow you replied to, but I can tell you why I have a problem with religionists in the USA. It is because they have employed the legal and political systems to impose their beliefs, and behaviors based upon their beliefs, and symbols based upon their beliefs, and declarations based upon their beliefs, upon those who do not share them — one of whom, of course, is me.
For instance, I can't purchase liquor on Sunday; heck, in some places, I can't even shop. My money declares my (completely non-existent) trust in your deity. The country's very oath invokes the Christian god. The pledge of allegiance, something I don't otherwise have a problem with, is now layered with Christian sentiments that literally poison my otherwise highly patriotic willingness to give of myself. The expectation in the courtroom is that I swear to god; if I don't, I am literally putting my future at risk. My own taxes are being directly funneled into "faith-based initiatives." I have to bear the tax burden for religions I find abhorrent, intolerable or simply ridiculous, while they get a (nearly) free ride for property taxes (believe me, I'm in a position to know the facts on this one all too well, I bought an ex-church to live in, the first year we paid the (delayed) assessment for the church, which was $500; the second year, we paid almost five times that as "regular" folks.) There is more, but by now you should be getting the flavor of why I think the legal and political system has been co-opted by Christians.
Now, speaking generally, the problem goes much further. I am offended by all of this because I am not religious, and I am constantly compelled to deal with these religious things. But it isn't just me. Muslims aren't likely to be delighted with finding Christianity in their face all the time, either. Nor are Jews. Nor a whole list of other folks.
What I advocate is a religious and political system that is absolutely free of religious rules, religious oaths, religious slogans, religious tax breaks, religious marriage rationales (for government-sanctioned marriages... churches and religions and their adherents can do anything they like, of course) and so on. Under these conditions, no one would ever be asked in court to make a religious statement and be put in the position of having to state a religious denial or difference from the jury; marriage would be a state of co-ownership and co-obligation instead of one of a puritan sexual measure and an arbitrary enumeration of two; property taxes would be based on property ownership, not religious claims and the lack of them; non-government stores and service providers could stay open any hours they decided made sense for them, for any reason(s) the owner(s) found sufficient; money would simply be money; a pledge of national allegiance would be just that, not a declaration that the country exists under someone's favorite diety; no religious statue or platitude would look upon me from the halls (or lawns) of justice... and so on.
And frankly, I'm all for your religious scientists pursuing ID and any other idea they might have as to how all this stuff got here. I think they're almost certainly wrong, but the only way to know that is to pursue every question to its ultimate limit of supporting evidence and/or contrary indications. However, I think it is very important that such questions be asked without requiring the rest of us to agree either that the question itself is sensible or that the proposed answers are sensible.
So if I seem not very tolerant of your beliefs from time to time, keep in mind I may have just tried to buy a quart of scotch to lubricate an evening of movie-watching at home and found the liquor store closed for the day. Or something along those lines. I run into these things much more often than you might imagine. And they piss me off mightily.
Parent
Re:Oh Shit (Score:4, Interesting)
I also don't have a problem with faith-based initiatives, simply because the idea is that the money is for charitable works. It doesn't matter in the least to me who's doing these charitable works, just as long as they're getting done (and reasonably efficiently).
Now, shopping laws, that we can agree is ridiculous. I purchase liquor once in a blue moon, but it's none of anyone's business when I should choose to do that.
Finally, although you don't seem like a particularly intolerant person in general, I agree with what the quoted text in your post says. We should all be tolerant of each others' beliefs, and strive to refrain from mocking them. Disagree, debate, certainly. But the relentless mocking and hatred I've seen religion get at times makes me very sad indeed, because it's something people should be above.
Parent
Re:Oh Shit (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Slavery as a coonfederate issue (Score:5, Insightful)
That is an extremely naive and disingenuous viewpoint. Certainly there were many issues; but slavery was prominent among them and to claim otherwise denies enormous parts of the historical record. For both the north and south, it was an economic and social hard-line issue. Several of my ancestors died fighting for, or otherwise assisting, the north. One while assisting illicit transport of slaves out of the south. Others fought for the south. I have diaries, photos, artifacts and newspaper accounts that attest to the highly volatile and key nature of the issue for the time, and that's just in my own genealogical work [blish.org]. If you actually dig into history in general, you'll find an enormous amount of corroborating material.
On top of all this, the issue of slavery remains a very sore point with many people, as does more recent prejudice that descends directly from the attitudes of the very worst slaveholders. Because of that, the wearing of a confederate flag is a downright dumb thing to do; the symbol today is a veritable magnet for the very worst in human nature, specifically involuntary slavery. It makes no more sense than to wear a sign that says "I hate niggers" and then try to explain that what you meant was you hate "ignorant people", or to wear a swastika, and try to explain you're just waving an old Christian symbol about. These things mean what society decides they mean; and both you and Mr. Nugent should know that without anyone having to explain it to you. So the rest of us assume you do know, and attribute the common meaning to your use of symbols.
Parent
Re:Oh Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people don't know about the counter-DMCA notices.
I'd bet that if you made a realistic looking letter from a made-up law company it would be very hard to trace and YouTube would still remove the video. Once a DMCA notice has been received, Youtube would be also liable for copyright infringement so they'd have to remove it just in case.
Parent
Re:Oh Shit (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
religion (Score:5, Insightful)
If your entire system of beliefs relies on blindly sticking to what a book of scripture says, you have serious issues. It is not hard to fathom that there was human error somewhere in that book, be it in the writing, the translation (or the translation's translation), or your own interpretation. It should not be so hard to admit that you could be wrong, without your life falling apart.
The issue in TFA is really either all about Ego or Money. I tend to think it's a little of both.
Re:religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:religion (Score:5, Insightful)
you: Unfortunately what is obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone.
Interesting that you decide to pick on the phrase "obvious" and not "proven".
Further, there's a reason why he wrote relatively obvious. And yes, evolution is relatively obvious compared with the common alternatives including creationism. If you spend the time to look around nature, you can see the mechanics involved with evolution. That is certainly not true with creationism. The mechanics of evolution have been deduced by thousands of scientific studies and experiments from nature by scientists of many different fields, without looking up in some dubious guidebook labeled "The Scripture". You could look at a group of animals all day and not come to the conclusion that a single God, as described in the Bible, who himself had no creator, made all these creatures in a single day some 6000 years ago. That religious conclusion would not happen unless someone told you about it first.
So yes, evolution is relatively obvious.
Parent
Re:religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, that's just not true for most people in the US today. After years and years of media and academic conditioning, it's very difficult for many to admit that they might be wrong. That's not just when it comes to religion, but also when it comes to politics, sporting matches, and even celebrities!
In American schools today, and for the past decade or so, children are rarely told that their answers are wrong, even in courses like mathematics. Their answers are merely "not as correct" as they could be. So when a child writes on a math test that 2 + 3 = 4, they still get "part marks". Of course, what they should get on that question is zero, if not an outright loss of marks. Thus kids never learn that it's possible to be wrong. This is even the case in some American universities!
Of course, when it comes to religion it's even worse. At least with math there is some well-defined correct answer. But that just isn't the case when it comes to deities and gods and the afterlife. So when you have people who are used to never being "wrong" (even if they're completely incorrect) having to face questions without answers, it's beyond their comprehension. And so we see the rise of fundamentalism, with these religiously-confused individuals going so far as to try to censor others with differing, let alone contradictory, beliefs.
Parent
Re:religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Here we are almost 150 years later, and not only are we still discussing the theory of Natural Selection, but the argument has moved backwards to whether or not the observed fact of Evolution actually occurred!
Evolution is intuitive and obvious. The problem with Evolution is it means "humans aren't special" and that's a mental hurdle that Christians in this country just can't manage to get over. The hubris of modern Christians is that human beings are different from other animals, not just in amount of some attribute, but in category. Humans and animals must be in different categories from each other or else most of the Biblical statements on humans is flat out wrong.
I understand why the discussion is moving backwards, I just find it extraordinary.
Regards,
Ross
Parent
Well, that's easily remedied (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
It has been explained before. (Score:5, Insightful)
A. There is no "macroevolution".
B. New species are easy to show. Take a colony of animals, split it into two sub-groups and breed only within those sub-groups until the sub-groups cannot breed with each other.
What you refuse to accept is that a dog will NEVER conceive a cat because that would disprove evolution.
There is no "proof" except in Math. Everything else depends upon evidence. And there is plenty of evidence showing evolution.
No. Because you refuse to accept the repeatable experiments showing exactly that does NOT mean that those experiments do not exist.
Which "transitional forms" are those? All you're doing is repeating crap you've heard.
Someone who will violate the laws of his country and scripture is still to be respected because he wouldn't make false statements on other subjects?
Parent
Re:religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:religion (Score:5, Interesting)
Well then you might learn something today. The mice of Madeira:
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml [genomenewsnetwork.org]
And this is 7 years old now, so it does seem your facts may not be up to date.
2) To date, no direct ancestral chains have been established. That is, where one species can be definitively proven to have descended from another.
You mean like Hyracotherium, which evolved into modern horses and all the documented transitory species in between them?
If you need living examples and a DNA chain to follow, the mice above work as an example here as well.
Please do not let this color your opinion of the evidence for the creationist position.
What evidence would this be? I have never seen any. Only religious rhetoric. Surely you're not talking about scripture?
Parent
Re:religion (Score:5, Informative)
Thank you.
Most evolution critics are not familiar with any evolution science and simply ASSERT that evidence supporting evolution does not exist. They know nothing therefore they assume and positively assert that nothing exists.
There's nothing wrong with not being familiar with some particular field of science. Most people are not aware of the specific experiments and observations supporting quantum mechanics. Most people are not aware of the specific experiments and observations supporting relativity. Nothing wrong with that.
If someone with no degree and no special study in quantum mechanics or relativity were to assert that the experts in the field were all wrong and claim that there didn't exist any evidence to back up that field, that person would be ridiculed and insulted. For some reason it is only in the field of biology that some people violate that common sense rule, and are shocked and play the persecuted victim when they get insulted and ridiculed for it.
I am not lumping you in that group, at least not yet (grin). You directly mention that you are not familiar enough with the subject, and I take your wording and your post as an honest request "heay, does this stuff exist?". I am merely saying that there is a huge problem with people uninformed attacks on evolution and making (incorrect) positive assertions that evolution supporting information and facts *don't exist*, and that they are the reason evolution critics so often get treated so harshly.
I'm not going to spend much time on your point (1), it will pretty well be resolved as I address point your (2). I'll just say two quick things and move on. There is no such thing as "macroevolution" within the science of evolution... it's like referring to "macrogravity" or "macroelectricity"... the science of evolution only involves and only requires so-called "micro" variation accumulating over time and simply species splitting. There are countless documented cases of speciation if you look up "speciation" on Wikipedia or Google.
I'd like to go into much more depth on "2) To date, no direct ancestral chains have been established... It would also seem a step of faith that the missing transitional forms also exists". Not only can I answer this, I can do so with a single block of evidence that all by itself constitutes an iron clad case for evolution as a whole.
Most of the fossil record is indeed quite spotty. However there is one substantial chuck of the fossil record that is a scientist's wet-dream of evidence. A chuck of the fossil record that proves evolution true, beyond any reasonable doubt. That chuck is phylum foraminifera. (Note: A phylum is the biggest broadest division of life before you start lumping all animals into one group and all plants into another group, a phylum is a higher level grouping than "all mammals".)
Foraminifera are (usually tiny) animals that live in the sea. They grow intricate mineral skeletons. As they die, millions of these fossil skeletons rain down onto the sea floor every day. The sea floor builds up a continuous rain of sediment, including foraminifera fossils, day by day year by year over hundreds of millions of years.
All you have to do is go out on a boat and drop a pipe into the seabed and you can pull up a limitless supply of sediment cores and a limitless supply of foraminifera fossils. The supply of foraminifera fossils is *so* overabundant that scientists have been developing automated computer image analysis systems to sort and analyze foraminifera fossils thousands and tens of thousands per batch. A limitless supply of fossils. A perfectly continuous day by day year by year fossil record from bottom to top in the sea floor sediment.
This fossil record is perfect and continuous. It covers virtually an entire phylum of life. It documents in exqisit detail how one species can and does evolve over time into an entire family tree of diverse descendant species. Not only does it document each and every
Parent
Re:religion (Score:5, Insightful)
True - But in the complete lack of such evidence, despite people on both sides of the issue doing their damnedest to find any, only a fool would doggedly insist on the counterfactual stance. Evolution may well have a few holes that we find someday; perhaps even a complete parallel mechanism of speciation has played out over the eons of Earth's history (or even off-planet, "in a galaxy far, far away"). But the core mechanisms of evolution do not count as mere conjecture, or even mere theory.
We have absolute proof-of-concept of every aspect of evolution, from creation of increasingly complex organic molecules on a young Earth, to tidal and glacial generation of lipid membranes, to endosymbiosis as a means of producing progressively more complex cells, to progressively more cohesive "colonies" of multicellular life such as bacterial plaques to sponges to jellyfish, all the way through to producing divergent species via artifical separation of populations.
The "missing links" so proudly flaunted by creationists amount to nothing more than pages lost from the family album in a fire. Just because you don't have photographic proof that your grandfather existed, you don't presume that Prometheus scooped up some dust and breathed life into it to bridge the gap between the pictures of your great grandfather and your father.
a theory is only good so long as the evidence is (following Popper) - and none of us know the future.
In the strictest sense, you have it absolutely correct - Thus we still call evolution a "theory".
In practice, as humans, we can only reserve judgement on the validity of a theory against so much evidence before we informally accept it. Not knowing the future, we could also hold out judgement that the Earth will continue to have gravity tomorrow. But we don't.
Parent
Re:religion (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue here is really very simple. Scientific investigation and study has resulted in the understanding of evolution as the mechanism for ever increasing complexity in life. Science at its very foundation requires naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena. Since science has not advanced to the point where a set of axioms can be constructed that allow the deductive proof of these explanations, we have the situation where inductive logic is used for the proof of these explanations. It is the fundamental structure of science today.
Now we have the problem that the Bible teaches something else; i.e. an external supernatural force a.k.a. God is responsible for the creation of complex forms of life. Some people reject the teachings of science in this regard and choose the Biblical account instead. I have no problem with people having these beliefs. It is, or at should be a free country.
The problem I have is that some people who adhere to the Biblical account believe that this account means the scientific account is wrong despite the fact that they are unable to provide the counter examples that would invalidate the inductive reasoning used by in the scientific account. Not only is this an issue, but there have been endless attempts to teach these non-scientific beliefs (non-scientific in the sense that they rely on supernatural rather than naturalistic explanations) as if they were science, or even attempt to redefine the basic framework of science to accommodate these supernatural explanations, or use the legal process to forbid teaching the scientific explanation.
Here it is at the end. You cannot appeal to a higher power and call the result science. Creationism and its bastard stepchild, intelligent design are bankrupt intellectual concepts and frauds when they are presented as science or alternatives to scientific evolution.
Parent
Interesting position for U-Tube & Google to be (Score:4, Insightful)
The way they handled this (with banning the rational guys) is going to mean they can't have both.
I think they would have been better served to take the videos down, and then after processing that they were fair use, put them back up. That would have not pissed off either market particularly.
Re:Interesting position for U-Tube & Google to (Score:4, Insightful)
They aren't appealing to any group other than those that are willing to file a DMCA takedown request. The group, while also complaining in the way they are, should also file a counter-claim (as has been mentioned in this thread and others earlier in the week) and wait for it to be reinstated if GooTube decides it's appropriate.
Parent
Response to DMCA take down (Score:5, Insightful)
Counterclaim!!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is my copilot (Score:3, Funny)
Panda's Thumb (Score:5, Informative)
Hovind is currently serving 10 years in prison for tax evasion. One would think that his time would be better spent raising money to appeal his conviction, or getting his sentence reduced; rather than filing fraudulent DMCA takedown notices. Unless Hovind's son is running the ministry now while mum and dad sit in the pen. If that's the case then Hovind's son doesn't appear to be anymore aware of the law than his father was.
Religion! (Score:5, Insightful)
Show me a miracle! Not just a long shot chance, but an honest to god miracle (this means not someone who was resuscitated 5 minutes after death, or 1 hour after being frozen underwater. I'm talking about ashes->living. I'm talking about buried->talking)
I want evidence, or better yet, a "proof". A proof of miracles, or God, would be fine.
Barring proof, highly suggestive evidence, something that can be tested via the scientific method, would be good too.
You see, I can conduct all kinds of experiments that point at evolution, and I can dig up core samples with fossils that suggest it as well. I can do DNA analysis that point to it as well, and given enough time, I can develop an observational methadology to prove evolution going forward.
Do that for me with God. Or Miracles.
That's the difference between faith and science. Faith relies upon, "well, you can't prove it isn't true." Science relies upon, "All the evidence points in that direction, so lets test it."
It's stupid to base an argument on the impossibility of proving a negative result; yet thats what most creationists do. In this sense, as Richard Dawkins would say, religion is nothing more than a mental virus. A piece of intellectual stupidity that seems to resonate with people as an intellectual comfort blanket, no different than the ostrich sticking his head in the sand (or up his rear).
That's not to say there isn't value to spirituality. But creationism, and fundamentalist beliefs in the "reality" of the bible? Hogwash.
Whatever happened to.. (Score:5, Interesting)
People don't want to know the truth (Score:4, Interesting)
There's so much stuff out there that we don't know, that's completely mindblowing to contemplate, and most people are content getting slackjawed and starry-eyed over shit we already know the answer to. Go figure.
We're pretty pissed (Score:4, Informative)
I have yet to have any of my videos flagged, but I know many people that have. We are really pissed to say the least
Oh and Eric Hovind sent an email to Sapient asking him to "call" Hovind. Sapeient replied that under the circumstances it would be best to talk via email and say any reply will be publicly shown and can be used in a court of law and any reply would be a verification of that. Hovind has yet to reply.
All video's that have been taken down were in full compliance with "fair use". To make matters worse for Hovind, all material used was public domain anyways, the copyright archives (http://www.copyright.org/records) contain no filings reflecting any change from public domain to copyrighted material.
Check out http://www.rationalrespnders.com/ [rationalrespnders.com] to keep updated on the situation.
Re:Ugh...why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its as pointless as a Round Earth vs Flat Earth argument. In fact, people shouldn't even be debating these Creationist scumbags, since it just gives the false impression that their opinion carries any relevance to the origin of Life.
Also, As a Creationist, are you really in a position to determine what is or is not "dumb"? Come on man, you realize you're on a science and technology forum. You sure you're not just trolling?
Parent
Re:Ugh...why? (Score:5, Interesting)
You're obviously not well-versed on the tactics of proponents of creationism, because if you were, their actions here would come as absolutely no surprise. Intellectual dishonesty and sleazy tactics are par for the course because their argument is so much incredibly weaker than the argument for evolution. One of their most common tactics is "quote mining [aquaticape.org]," where they take a quote from a prominent scientist or scientific paper completely out of context, sometimes to create an impression that the scientist is saying the exact opposite of the point they're making. Or they will totally misapply other scientific concepts
At best, being a creationist means you're simply ignorant or uneducated on biology. If you actually seek to spread or reinforce that ignorance among the general public, you're either a jackass or an idiot and one shouldn't be surprised when you use the methods of a jackass or idiot.
Parent
Re:Ugh...why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:FIST SPORT (Score:5, Funny)
"Creationists always try to use the second law
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies.
Only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The Earth is not a closed system, it's powered by the Sun
so fuck the damn creationists! Doomsday, get my gun!"
-- MC Stephen Hawking
Parent
MC Hawking (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:FIST SPORT (Score:5, Informative)
The basis for this endlessly-parroted complaint is that evolution makes "simpler forms turn into more complex forms" while the Second Law predicts that in a closed system the entropy and disorder only increases and obviously we can't have that if trilobites are turning into people, right?
But the Earth is not a closed system. It receives high energy, low entropy photons from the sun at 6000K and reradiates low energy, high entropy photons into space at 300K. Any "closed system" that includes evolutionary processes would necessarily have to include the sun as well. Even if local entropy on Earth decreases in certain parts of the biosphere, it's only possible because the entropy at the center of the sun has been increasing the whole time as hydrogen turns into helium. Just imagine what will happen to the Lord's creation once that process comes to an end!
The sun is a cruel trickster- it makes a handy scapegoat in global warming arguments, but with the other hand it undermines this illiterate hocus pocus about the Second Law of Thermodynamics forbidding evolution.
Parent
Re:FIST SPORT (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Incredibly relevant (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it does. The DMCA claims were aimed at silencing criticism of him that stemmed from his imprisonment.
Parent
Re:Richard Dawkins irrational? Hah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Richard Dawkins is about as rational as any of the hoplophobes at the VPC
Wow never heard that term. Quick search, The term sheeple has also come to be used to describe hoplophobes and other similar persons - people with an illogical fear of weapons, fire, cars, machinery etc, and certain other things such as men in camouflage or ethnic minorities. In this sense it is used particularly amongst gun and knife enthusiasts.
You must be kidding. From the Wikipedia
Clinton Richard Dawkins (born March 26, 1941) is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.
Dawkins moved to England with his parents at the age of eight, and attended Oundle School. He then studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He gained a BA degree in zoology in 1962, followed by MA and DPhil degrees in 1966, and a DSc in 1989.
From 1967 to 1969, Dawkins was an assistant professor of zoology in the University of California, Berkeley. In 1970 he was appointed a lecturer, and in 1990 a reader in zoology in the University of Oxford. In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, a position endowed by Charles Simonyi with an express intention that Dawkins be its first holder. He has been a fellow of New College, Oxford since 1970.
Berkley, Oxford, Yep they churn out and promote as many irrational people as Liberty U. Pfft. Anyone who professes to be an atheist has voided any claim at rationality, period
Umm, I profess it, and for purely rational reasons. Ever do any comparative religion studies. No, I thought not. That would be rational, for you to explore the alternatives and weigh out the evidence rather than blindly follow what you were told. It requires just as much, if not more, blind faith as any actual religion.
No, actually it requires critical thinking, reasoning, and consideration of the presented evidence. Have you done so? Do you have some new theological supernatural evidence for me to consider? I'll wait.
....
...
... Maybe some evidence backing up your claim that I require blind faith to come to my conclusions.
No, Well I have some for you. http://video.google.com/url?docid=-5036418388026112799&esrc=sr1&ev=v&len=625&q=Atheism%3A%2BA%2BRough%2BHistory%2Bof%2BDisbelief&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DuhsMKQF1ROE&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-5036418388026112799%26q%3DAtheism%253A%2BA%2BRough%2BHistory%2Bof%2BDisbelief%26total%3D33%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H21-PwyzEntJXt5TFWxNQ_OtK85sCw [google.com]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1579120088897504565 [google.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgKTVPNW2kE [youtube.com]
Obviously I could go on all day, just with video links. I could very easily bury you in a mountain of books and papers. And your counter "evidence" is always going to be just one fictional book. Evolution is almost enough evidence of the non-existence of a supernatural GOD. This is why it frightens so many creationist. Tough.
Most people are atheist with respect to all the other religions of the world. I just go one GOD more.
BTW, Have you actually read anythi
Parent