Gravity Hoax?

[busterdog]

Are you that eager to slam creationists at every turn? Only one person had any thought of it being real, and that person is an old core earth/old universe/young biological 6 day creation (still trying to wrap my head around that one) -- not a typical creationist by any stretch of the imagination -- yet somehow you generalize it to an entire group of people. Sheesh!

I have become more and more convinced that the time we move from respectful discussion to insults is quite often when we talk about the entire "group" of people -- YEC or TE or.... as opposed to specific issues.

Well, hold on Pop.

What is being satirized? By some scientific standards, the ID thing is so far fetched that it is absurd. Judging by that standard, without knowing what keyarch thinks of ID, why would it be crazy to think that there was another crazy ID variant dealing with gravity?

I don't think keyarch endorsed the view proposed in the satire. The question whether there was a body of believers of that stripe.

And some others here are willing to take the proposition with the broadest brush possible to create that admixture of theology and science that so provokes our TE brothers. And that would be me.

 

[busterdog]

Shaggy trousers and horns I think...

An umbrella helps too.

Very llame, like your avatar. Bad puns are the lowest form of humor.

 

[keyarch]

Are you that eager to slam creationists at every turn? Only one person had any thought of it being real, .

Just for clarification, since the article came to me from another source and not the 'onion' I thought it was a real story, but in no way did I accept what was being put forth. So in that case, all one can do is say "are these people really saying that?" and dig deeper. By your response, it makes it sound like I was the only gullible creationist to buy into the parody, but as you can see by my OP, I found out it was fake before even bringing it up.

Also, I'm not sure what my creation model has to do with anything. Are you are suggesting that it makes sense that I would think something like that was true, because I have these other strange beliefs?

 

[Assyrian]

Didn't you know that there were creatures like this before the great flood, when the fallen angels (or their offspring) did the wild thing with animals, and that's why God had to wipe out everything on land?
Now you can take that comment as parody ... or maybe not if you read the book of Enoch.

Mr Tumnus one of the Nephilim? Keyarch how could you?

Very llame, like your avatar. Bad puns are the lowest form of humor.

Wellcome to the cllub.

 

[Assyrian]

___________λ____

. ¿What Señor Dog say?
________________

 

[busterdog]

___________λ____

. ¿What Señor Dog say?
________________

I said you were llame. So what are you going to do about it?

[SIZE=-1]"The one-L lama, he's a priest: The two-L llama, he's a beast: And I would bet a silk pajama: There isn't any three-L lllama." Ogden Nash

I will forgive you for your satirization if you can tell whether there is in fact a three-L llama.
[/SIZE]

 

[laptoppop]

Just for clarification, since the article came to me from another source and not the 'onion' I thought it was a real story, but in no way did I accept what was being put forth. So in that case, all one can do is say "are these people really saying that?" and dig deeper. By your response, it makes it sound like I was the only gullible creationist to buy into the parody, but as you can see by my OP, I found out it was fake before even bringing it up.

Also, I'm not sure what my creation model has to do with anything. Are you are suggesting that it makes sense that I would think something like that was true, because I have these other strange beliefs?

No, no no -- I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to say anything about you -- and I totally recognize that you were checking it out. My response was meant to highlight Dannager's lumping creationists into one non-reasoning gullible group. I don't agree with YBC -- but I appreciate you as an intelligent independent thinker who is trying to make sense of it all - just like all of us -- definitely NOT a gullible go along because someone else said it type of person that Dannager seems to think all of us creationists are.

 

[busterdog]

Wellcome to the cllub.

touche.

 

[Assyrian]

___________λ____

. .. Señor Asseerian he make me
... speech bubble eet beegin with
. Greek letter lamda. That make me
. speaking λ-Llama. Lamda-llama ees in
... song from Grease, no?
________________

I said you were llame. So what are you going to do about it?

[SIZE=-1]"The one-L lama, he's a priest: The two-L llama, he's a beast: And I would bet a silk pajama: There isn't any three-L lllama." Ogden Nash[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]I will forgive you for your satirization if you can tell whether there is in fact a three-L llama.[/SIZE]

 

[busterdog]

___________λ____

. .. Señor Asseerian he make me
... speech bubble eet beegin with
. Greek letter lamda. That make me
. speaking λ-Llama. Lamda-llama ees in
... song from Grease, no?
________________

No, its a fire in Brooklyn!

 

[Assyrian]

Or when you apply for a llama driving licence, do you have an [L]llama?

 

[Assyrian]

double post
so I might as well add

​

 

[busterdog]

double post
so I might as well add

​

Too cute. Now everyone will want one!

 

[Assyrian]

Thought you might appreciate this busterdog
http://lolllama.ytmnd.com/

 

[Parmenio]

I also gather from your post that you consider "creationists" as more gullible and would believe anything. Actually, most creationists (by definition) believe that evolution is a lie even with all the media slanted in that direction. Apparently they (I) don't believe everything that is printed.

It's really where they assign their truth value. Creationists assign more truth value to their pastor and their interpretation of one book of the Bible than they do the entire field of biological sciences and the scientists within the field. So, in a sense, it would not be out of character for someone with this set of truth values to be "gullible" by some standards. For if someone can get them to interpret a certain passage in the Bible a certain way, it is nearly certain that they could be goaded into disregarding some other part of reality in favor of whatever they now interpret the Bible to say. Then they can always back it up with having "God's Wisdom" on their side as opposed to man's wisdom.

 

[busterdog]

Thought you might appreciate this busterdog
http://lolllama.ytmnd.com/

That was truly edifying. I can't thank you enough.

 

[keyarch]

Creationists assign more truth value to their pastor and their interpretation of one book of the Bible than they do the entire field of biological sciences and the scientists within the field.

I just love these generalizations assigned by someone of an opposing view.