BoatBanter.com - They're out of the closet...again... :(

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - They're out of the closet...again... :( (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/160444-theyre-out-closet-again.html)

They're out of the closet...again... :(

Creationists Demand Airtime On 'Cosmos' For The Sake Of Balance

The Creationist group Answers In Genesis, which was already incensed
about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s revival of Cosmos, is now complaining that
the show lacks scientific balance because it fails to provide airtime
for evolution deniers.

Danny Faulkner of Answers In Genesis and the Creation Museum appeared on
The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to criticize Cosmos for not providing
airtime for Creationism adherents. When Mefferd asked if Cosmos will
“ever give a Creationist any time,” Faulkner responded by lamenting that
“Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t
even consider us plausible at all.”

Mefferd agreed that the show isn’t being very fair and balanced: “Boy,
but when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian
evolution it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there,
you know, the old, ‘some scientists say this, others disagree and think
this,’ but that’s not even allowed.”

“Consideration of special Creation is definitely not open for discussion
it would seem,” Faulkner added.

Arguing that evolution, the foundation of modern biology, and one of
many theological beliefs on human creation are simply “two sides” that
merit competing time on a science program is much like the equally
absurd argument Creationists use when trying to undermine the teaching
of evolution in public schools.

http://tinyurl.com/mf6y358

If the “creationists” weren’t such sad sacks, they’d be laughable.

"They wouldn't even consider us plausible at all." Damned straight.
A mention of religious superstition such as creationism as anything more
than religious superstition has *no place* on a science-based television
program. There is nothing underpinning creationism beyond religious belief.

I had to look up "special creation." It's been decades since I heard the
term, so I had forgotten what it was about.

From Wiki:

"In the creationist use of the phrase, special creation adheres to a
literal interpretation of the account of creation in the Book of
Genesis, accepting it as an accurate historical account of the creation
of the universe in essentially its present form over the course of six
24-hour days."

Why would a science-based program seriously consider "special creation"
as a topic worthy of discussion?

--
Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve
crazy!

They're out of the closet...again... :(

On 3/22/2014 9:35 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
Creationists Demand Airtime On 'Cosmos' For The Sake Of Balance

The Creationist group Answers In Genesis, which was already incensed
about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s revival of Cosmos, is now complaining that
the show lacks scientific balance because it fails to provide airtime
for evolution deniers.

Danny Faulkner of Answers In Genesis and the Creation Museum appeared on
The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to criticize Cosmos for not providing
airtime for Creationism adherents. When Mefferd asked if Cosmos will
“ever give a Creationist any time,” Faulkner responded by lamenting that
“Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t
even consider us plausible at all.”

Mefferd agreed that the show isn’t being very fair and balanced: “Boy,
but when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian
evolution it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there,
you know, the old, ‘some scientists say this, others disagree and think
this,’ but that’s not even allowed.”

“Consideration of special Creation is definitely not open for discussion
it would seem,” Faulkner added.

Arguing that evolution, the foundation of modern biology, and one of
many theological beliefs on human creation are simply “two sides” that
merit competing time on a science program is much like the equally
absurd argument Creationists use when trying to undermine the teaching
of evolution in public schools.

http://tinyurl.com/mf6y358

If the “creationists” weren’t such sad sacks, they’d be laughable.

"They wouldn't even consider us plausible at all." Damned straight.
A mention of religious superstition such as creationism as anything more
than religious superstition has *no place* on a science-based television
program. There is nothing underpinning creationism beyond religious belief.

I had to look up "special creation." It's been decades since I heard the
term, so I had forgotten what it was about.

From Wiki:

"In the creationist use of the phrase, special creation adheres to a
literal interpretation of the account of creation in the Book of
Genesis, accepting it as an accurate historical account of the creation
of the universe in essentially its present form over the course of six
24-hour days."

Why would a science-based program seriously consider "special creation"
as a topic worthy of discussion?

Why would anyone waste bandwidth in a boating newsgroup with this BS
unless he was just trying to cause problems and be disruptive?

They're out of the closet...again... :(

On 3/22/14, 9:45 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/22/2014 9:35 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
Creationists Demand Airtime On 'Cosmos' For The Sake Of Balance

The Creationist group Answers In Genesis, which was already incensed
about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s revival of Cosmos, is now complaining that
the show lacks scientific balance because it fails to provide airtime
for evolution deniers.

Danny Faulkner of Answers In Genesis and the Creation Museum appeared on
The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to criticize Cosmos for not providing
airtime for Creationism adherents. When Mefferd asked if Cosmos will
“ever give a Creationist any time,” Faulkner responded by lamenting that
“Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t
even consider us plausible at all.”

Mefferd agreed that the show isn’t being very fair and balanced: “Boy,
but when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian
evolution it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there,
you know, the old, ‘some scientists say this, others disagree and think
this,’ but that’s not even allowed.”

“Consideration of special Creation is definitely not open for discussion
it would seem,” Faulkner added.

Arguing that evolution, the foundation of modern biology, and one of
many theological beliefs on human creation are simply “two sides” that
merit competing time on a science program is much like the equally
absurd argument Creationists use when trying to undermine the teaching
of evolution in public schools.

http://tinyurl.com/mf6y358

If the “creationists” weren’t such sad sacks, they’d be laughable.

"They wouldn't even consider us plausible at all." Damned straight.
A mention of religious superstition such as creationism as anything more
than religious superstition has *no place* on a science-based television
program. There is nothing underpinning creationism beyond religious
belief.

I had to look up "special creation." It's been decades since I heard the
term, so I had forgotten what it was about.

From Wiki:

"In the creationist use of the phrase, special creation adheres to a
literal interpretation of the account of creation in the Book of
Genesis, accepting it as an accurate historical account of the creation
of the universe in essentially its present form over the course of six
24-hour days."

Why would a science-based program seriously consider "special creation"
as a topic worthy of discussion?

Why would anyone waste bandwidth in a boating newsgroup with this BS
unless he was just trying to cause problems and be disruptive?

Waste bandwidth? Oh, you mean so there would be more room in a boating
newsgroup for posts about model airplanes, golf, RV's, grandchildren,
obsolete computer operating systems, and suchlike? How about a
discussion about the relative value of stamps, perforated or unperforated?

The only thing "boating" about this newsgroup is the title, "rec.boats."
Most of the few remaining posters here haven't owned a boat for years
and some, for decades.

--
Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve
crazy!