The Top 10 Ultimate Rivalries list listed the biggest and greatest rivalries ever, and now this list will introduce even more ultimate rivalries: some of which almost made the cut for the Top 10, and some of which I came up with only after the first list had been finished. Don’t underestimate these new rivalries, though; each of them still keeps the undying spirit of timeless conflict and ruthless confrontation of the first list’s rivalries.
This is a rivalry that has been ongoing since the dawn of man and while we may seem to be winning – there are two sides to the story. Rather than describing the rivalry – I have listed a few victories for nature and man – you be the judge of who is leading this battle.
Victories For Man
Cured diseases
Enormous cities – we conquered the land
Near absolute dominance over animals (we can defend or cure ourselves from even the most venomous creatures)
Victories For Nature
Incurable Diseases
Inhospitable regions (including the oceans which we have yet to conquer despite their vast size)
Extreme weather
For all of our efforts to suppress nature when it suits us, she manages to find a way to fight back. For every step forward, we appear to take a step back. Who the final victor will be – none of us know, but it is certainly interesting to speculate.
No other internet meme has triggered a more brutal conflict than the one pitting these two ruthless enemies against each other: the infamous pirates versus the legendary ninjas. These two adversaries have found themselves in natural antagonism along the recurrent battlefields of cyberspace. The origins of this bitter feud can be traced to a simple but intriguing question: “Who would win in a fight: a pirate, or a ninja?” Since then, both sides have developed a bitter hate for each other, which has soon escalated into an all-out war for the Supreme Crown of Awesome.
Although their opposition doesn’t seem evident at first glance, it’s their intrinsic qualities which make them natural enemies. The aggressive, no-holds-barred, outspoken corsair, wielding devastating weapons of high-seas warfare; against the cold, calculating, and devious techniques of the stealthy Japanese assassin. The radically dissimilar styles and philosophies of war make them admirable opponents, especially when it comes to defending their superiority over the other in countless chat rooms and message boards The internet still runs red with blood of both gunpowder-pelted shinobi corpses and shuriken-ridden buccaneer carcasses; and yet there seems to be no end in sight for what is probably the coolest war the world has ever seen.
When it comes to once-in-a-lifetime, legendary sporting clashes, look no further than the strife of the two great heavyweight champions Cassius Clay (a.k.a. Muhammad Ali), and Joe “Smokin’ Joe” Frazier, arguably the greatest rivalry in boxing history. It’s no fluke that their first boxing match was called “The Fight of the Century”. The then-undefeated champions went head-to-head for the first time in 1971, in an eagerly awaited bout sure to make history. And it seems to have lived up to all the hype. Pitting Frazier’s punching power against Ali’s speed and knack, the truly exciting match displayed the best the boxing world could offer; but only one could be declared champion. Although Ali proved his worth during the early rounds, Frazier held his own and by the later rounds had Ali against the ropes. After a definitive hook in the 15th round which crushed Ali’s jaw, Frazier was unanimously declared winner, marking Ali’s first-ever professional loss.
After the legendary bout, the rivalry between the two was kept alive both in and out of the ring. Verbal attacks between the two were common, and certainly fuelled a hate for each other that would flesh out once the gloves were on. After a second mostly unremarkable match which Ali won, the two boxers faced each other for the last time in 1975 in the “Thrilla in Manila” match. Their final fight was a brutal and relentless one, and after 14 fierce rounds, Frazier’s trainer decided to end the bout, just as Ali was pleading for the same. Ali was declared the winner of the match (and fainted seconds after). The Ali-Frazier era has since been considered a golden era of boxing, and the two rivals have earned their rightful place in sporting history.
Yet another item that could easily span a list of its own. If there’s a place nowadays that symbolizes the timeless rivalry between two opposing sides, it ought to be in sports. In every sport, in any given region of the world, you’ll probably find a bitter rivalry between two sports teams, an endless grudge between two (and sometimes three) sports teams who year after year face each other in tournaments and exhibition matches to prove “once and for all”, again and again, who the best team is.
Every city, every region has its own classic team rivalry. The grudges can be local, between cities, between countries, between entire continents, you name it. Wherever you live, you’re probably familiar with a certain intense clash between two rival teams, a rivalry that feels as old and natural as time itself, and that perhaps you feel as being part of. Football, Baseball, Rugby, Basketball, American Football, Cricket, Ping-Pong, whatever; every sport has many of these ultimate rivalries. There’s only one way to resolve these conflicts, though: cheer them on with all your heart as they go out to the field and duke it out.
Since ancient times, politics has been an undeniable driving element of human history. And global contemporary politics has experienced an evolution towards two opposing sides: the Right and the Left. Although the dynamics of these two factions throughout history have been anything but simplistic and dualistic, there are nonetheless discernible ideologies within the so-called “Political Spectrum”. Originally referring to seating arrangements in the French parliament of the 18th century, these two terms evolved to represent particular ideologies which would become very important in the following centuries. The “Right Wing” roughly represents conservative and traditional values, as well as an inclination for Capitalism, individualism, and Nationalism. The “Left Wing” refers for the most part to liberal, socially progressive and equalitarian values of government, with a penchant for communitarian and socialist ideas. As with anything, all these political and socioeconomic terms aren’t exclusive to either side, and in fact have been present in either side in one way or another throughout history.
Some people may be most familiar with this opposition of parties in time of elections, when “Red” parties face off against “Blue” parties. But within elected governments themselves, this clash between Right and Left is common. And of course, there is also a conflict of Right and Left within dictatorships, which have been both of “Right” and “Left” nature. Throughout history, in fact, we have seen the best and the worst of both ends. Repressive governments can be authoritarian and Fascist, that is, of an “Extreme Right” nature; others can do away with democracy altogether and embrace Communist ideals, known as “Extreme Left” governments. But for the most part, both political tendencies have seen both times of prosperity and times of crisis, as they have been embraced by countries from all over the world.
The highest representatives of natural rivalry in the Animal Kingdom of cartoons, the peculiar dynamics of the Coyote (Carnivorus desperatus) and its prey, the Road Runner (Supersonicus marvelous) are a sight to behold along their natural habitat of the southwest American desert. Despite persistent efforts to catch the remarkably fast Road Runner with bizarre ACME devices and convoluted trap contraptions, the self-proclaimed “super-genius” Wile E. Coyote has been, as of today, completely unable to outwit its succulent feathered prey.
But what is the real culprit of the Coyote’s recurrent failure? An irrational zeal to catch its prey stunted by a permanent state of starvation? An endless line of faulty ACME Corporation products overlooked by the competent quality control departments? Or the fact that the Road Runner seems to be perfectly impervious to any and all laws of gravity, causality, and probability? Whatever the reason, one cannot help but praise the unwavering determination of the wild Coyote to catch its formidable rival the Road Runner, even if we know he might never be able to.
This was the one notable omission of the Top 10, and as such requires some explanation. In 1996 and 1997, world chess champion Garry Kasparov, considered by some to be the greatest chess player of all time, was pitted against Deep Blue, a chess-playing computer developed by IBM. Garry Kasparov had already defeated its predecessor, Deep Thought, in 1989. But this upgraded version proved a much more worthy opponent. In the first set of six games, Kasparov won, but only after a win from each, two draw games (by agreement), and an offer from him to draw again on the fifth game.
The next year, a rematch was set, and turned out with similar results: a win from each for the first two games, three consecutive draws, and finally a victory for Deep Blue. Kasparov, and the world, were dumbfounded, as it was the first time a machine had beat a world champion in a match. Although Kasparov wanted a rematch, IBM retired Deep Blue before that could happen. But the importance of this result is definitely beyond that of chess. Deep Blue’s victory marked a definitive victory of the machine over its creator, man. Does it mean that the creation has already become superior to its creator? What will happen when computers become more proficient than humans in more and more activities? Will humans become obsolete? The answers aren’t clear, but Deep Blue certainly gave us a hint of what will become of the struggle of Man vs. Machine.
The all-important struggle of Good vs. Evil makes a familiar appearance in the form of classic Hero vs. Villain rivalries in fiction. The quintessential Hero, representing all that is good and noble, has to face a vile nemesis intent on making evil and wretchedness reign supreme. And thus, the biggest and most famous clashes in fiction come to be. The Hero of the story must defeat the Villain in order to re-establish peace and justice in the world, and sets on to a great adventure to face all the obstacles that the Villain will place in his or her path. The final battle between the Hero and the Villain is inevitable, and it is at that moment when we realize how different, and sometimes how very alike, the Hero and the Villain really are. Maybe the Hero defeats the Villain once and for all, or maybe the Villain will live to see another day, and thus the conflict between the two will become eternal and legendary.
The examples in fiction are countless and well-known. Modern audiences will probably be more familiar with the likes of Darth Vader vs. Luke Skywalker, Superman vs. Lex Luthor, Batman vs. The Joker, Harry Potter vs. Lord Voldemort, etc. These and many other examples of the Hero/Villain rivalry are diverse and quite emblematic. In fact, you should probably stay tuned for a fictional rivalry list in the near future…
This rivalry could also be considered a “Hero vs. Villain” sort of affair, but perhaps it’s a bit more complex than that. The Old Testament tells the story of the conflict between the Israelites and the Philistines. Goliath, the humongous champion warrior, is constantly taunting the Israelites to send out their champion warrior so he can face him and decide the outcome of the war in a single battle. But no one dares to confront the behemoth that is Goliath. Young David, future king of Israel, hears Goliath’s words and claims he is not afraid of him, accepting to battle him with just a sling and five stones. The armoured, shield-bearing Goliath towering way above David laughs at him, but David simply says that he’s got God by his side, and with that he strikes down Goliath with a single stone’s throw to the head.
Now, this tale could simply be about how the people of Israel always have God by their side; or, it could tell of an elementary struggle of Good vs. Evil, and how Good will surely win in the end. But, it could also represent the ways in which a strong faith in God can beat anything; or how appearances can be deceiving; or how size doesn’t matter; or even the eternal struggle of the underdog against seemingly insurmountable odds. This classic story can mean many different things to different people; as such, it has become an intrinsic aspect of our modern culture, and whether you’re religious or not, it may teach us a lesson about life if we just pay attention.
In the great quest for understanding the nature of our world, Science and Religion have clashed in multiple occasions over which of them holds the real truths to the biggest questions of the universe. In fact, both usually display contradicting views concerning subjects such as the origin of the universe, the nature of humanity, and the meaning of life. Although each holds entirely opposing values, such as the reliance on faith vs. the reliance on reason and the scientific method, the urge of each to answer similar and overlapping inquiries has been cause for much confusion and hatred. Creationism vs. Evolution, for example, is arguably the clearest representative of the modern clash between religion and science. Philosophers, both classic and modern, have studied the problem of where religion should stop and science should start, and viceversa.
What is God? What is the soul? What is life? What is the origin of the universe? What is the nature of humanity? Why are we here? These are all questions that have been tackled by both religions and sciences, with obviously differing results. So it would seem that science is doomed to be in unassailable conflict with religion; but there are also those (St. Thomas Aquinas, for example) who have tried to reconcile the two to reach a mutual understanding in order to reach the ultimate truths with both. Hopefully, one day religion and science will finally reach the same place both have been looking for all along, and celebrate together…























March 25th, 2009 at 2:14 am
Fantastic list.
This is the earliest comment I’ve ever made. How exciting.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Pyrratus: wow – you must be a bloody fast reader!
March 25th, 2009 at 2:16 am
nice list ninjas for the win
March 25th, 2009 at 2:19 am
I really wanted put Mccain as “right” he is more liberal
March 25th, 2009 at 2:20 am
I meant wouldn’t, it’s 4 in the morning here…a little tired, nice list thought, I enjoyed it
March 25th, 2009 at 2:27 am
Can this be a new battleground for a religion vs science debate? lol
Great list btw
March 25th, 2009 at 2:35 am
Finally, science vs religion… The biggest omission in the previous list… How about 50 cent vs every other rapper on the planet?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:37 am
East side vs West side?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:39 am
Just a note on David and Goliath, if I remember correctly, David was actually fitted with armour and a sword when he faced Goliath.
He then charged towards Goliath and slung his stone. The stone struck Goliath down, and David proceeded to decapitate him. Not bad for the lil shepherd boy, but then again he’d had some practice taking on bears & lions that would run off with one of his sheep.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:40 am
by the way, great list (sorry for the triple post). Who’s the author?
March 25th, 2009 at 2:40 am
Great list – 2nd best to JF`s death lists.
Well done K
March 25th, 2009 at 2:59 am
the author is at the top of each list by the published date
March 25th, 2009 at 2:59 am
awesome, and hilarious, list.
on a side note, McCain does look like he’s gonna shit himself in that photo doesn’t he?
March 25th, 2009 at 3:00 am
Yet another great list.
Love it
March 25th, 2009 at 3:23 am
Got to love lists like this. Though it is 3:20-something in the a.m and I don’t have a functioning braincell, I have to congratulate Kreature on this fine piece of work!
I know I’ll have more to say when I’m actually awake.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:27 am
Ehh…
you forgot me vs. ex-wife. Maybe next time…
March 25th, 2009 at 3:32 am
I want that last picture as a wallpaper
March 25th, 2009 at 3:39 am
I see you’ve learned your lesson Jamie. Didn’t say Penis this time. And in my honest opinion, nature will, by far, win that rivalry. It was here long before us, obviously, and will be here long after we are gone, unless of course we destroy the planet which is always a possibility. And by possibility I mean probability. I just confused myself.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:44 am
Wheres Russia Vs US ???
March 25th, 2009 at 3:52 am
#16. 68PlexiMarshall: yeah, me and wife always had a good fight- particularly above 1 am followed by local earthquake in my bed. Awesome.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:53 am
Science doesn’t have a view on the meaning of life and is often an unwilling opponent.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:55 am
oh so i guess that the big bang and evolution have nothing to do with life. Oh ok
March 25th, 2009 at 4:03 am
Also, who said there was a meaning of life? Maybe we’re all just useless lifeforms that have no meaning in life other to survive and reproduce.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:04 am
21. Kazorek : Many philosophers have theories on it, the difference being their views on it are based on logic and reasoning – like some theists like Aquinas – whereas most theists just take their meaning straight from the Bible etc. To say that science has no answers as to the meaning of life is a glaring fallacy and a blatant lie.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:06 am
22. Angry onliner : Well you know that a Creationist will just come back with “Well, if they’re not true they don’t”, why start that stupid debate here? We have a whole bloody topic on it elsewhere…
23. Angry onliner : Well then there’s still a meaning isn’t there? Maybe articulate your arguments a bit better next time.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:07 am
I really hope this list doesn’t become another Atheist vs believers battleground. It got pretty messy the last time.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:23 am
9. Stizzy: David was fitted with armour and a sword and then he said he couldn’t move so he removed all the armour and weapons and faced Goliath in ordinary clothes, a sling shot and some rocks.
Great list. Love this site.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:27 am
The team a vs. team b and the hero vs. villain are kinda lame on this list. I get what you are trying to do, because every city/country would argue their rivalry is greater. Having said that though you really can’t just put two teams on a list of ultimate rivalries because thats like saying a rivalry is the number 7 ultimate rivalry. Yeah their are lots of rivalries between many sporting teams, countries, cities, heroes and villains, but you should choose the best. The rivalries no one has any doubt about. Oh yeah and btw Bugs Bunny vs. Elmer Fudd way bigger then Coyote and Road Runner.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:33 am
What about Red vs Blue?
Halo and machinma should know what I’m talkinga bout here
March 25th, 2009 at 4:37 am
Ninjas FTW.
A ninja can break a pirate’s cutlass with his heel. FACT.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:37 am
ninjas will beat pirates. o yea and u forgot to put in that list indians vs. cowboys thats the all time rivalry
March 25th, 2009 at 4:39 am
28 nolod1207 – “Bugs Bunny vs. Elmer Fudd way bigger then Coyote and Road Runner.”
When you think about it, Elmer is rubbish. He has a gun, and yet cannot defeat a smartmouthed, cocky rabbit. Yet an idiotic coyote and a roadrunner never fail to entertain. Yeah. ^W^
March 25th, 2009 at 4:42 am
Man vs nature? That´s easy. Nature will still be there when man is gone and forgotten. In the history of life on earth, the rule of mankind will be just a glimpse of an eye…
March 25th, 2009 at 4:47 am
galaxy girl: ah yes that’s it
he knocked him down with the stones, then used Goliaths own sword to cut off his head. Owned.
As for the question of science providing a “meaning of life”, I wonder if chemical processes have the means to produce meaning? Without interpretation, can information have meaning? And without an absolute, is any interpretation reliable? This isn’t a question of the order in the universe as we currently see it, but how that order arose in the first place.
And since science is based on observational and repeatable events, can it truly define the origins of life or the universe as neither are observable or repeatable? And before science can even determine a meaning for existence, can it determine an origin for meaning itself?
If nothing can produce meaning then surely meaning is really nothing and nothing means anything. To put it simply, what’s the point of anything? There is no point, because there are no points.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:54 am
Tea vs Coffee. Go coffee!
March 25th, 2009 at 5:08 am
in all the rivalries you have, one side gets one up on the other side and then vice versa. . . but when has religion gotten one up on science? I mean really.. religion just answers things that science hasn’t explained properly but then when science advances and can explain the phenomenon properly religion can’t compete. has religion reproved that the earth is the centre of the universe since we figured out it wasn’t?it cant.
All that religion can do is try and stay ahead of science like holding on to things that we haven’t already discovered (what was there before the big bang? why are certain molecules alive and others not?). eventually its ground will get smaller and smaller until science reaches its limit.(for example we may well do experiments in the future that show complex organic molecules forming and then reaching the point where they start building replicas of themselves but we may never be able to establish anything as fact before the big bang.)
religion is hardly rivaling science. it just babysits our curiosity until science comes home.
as for creationism, lets not bother trying to educate the people that support it. lets all just take the piss out of them. . . we’ll all start changing all the wiki sites, start publishing books, preaching to anyone that will listen that gravity moves objects up!whats our proof? – we believe it!its in a book!must be true. who cares if the evidence contradicts us.what evidence could possibly contradict us?
and science will also end the ninja vs pirate debate with the ninja-pirate hybrid-u won’t even see it drink the rum but the rum will be all gone. . .
March 25th, 2009 at 5:17 am
33. Stizzy: Very interesting! I need to print out your post and think about it over a glass of red wine tonight.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:17 am
I think Johnf, you’re confusing evidence with interpretation. Creationism and evolution use the same evidence and start from different presuppositions and world views.
e.g Evidence: millions of animal and plant remains buried beneath layers and layers of rock.
Evoluion and Uniformitarianism: layers laid down gradually through unchanging natural processes over millions of years, showing the upward evolution of organisms.
Creationism: layers laid down rapidly during a global flood over a period of a year, with organisms ordered according to their proximity to sea levels and / or randomly sorted due to intense tidal motions.
Religion doesn’t rival science because they aren’t seeking the same answers, (at least they shouldn’t be).
Science indevours to explain how.
Religion usually tries to explain why.
When religion tries to answer scientific questions, it’s stepping outside its boundary.
When science tries to answer philosophical and spiritual questions, it’s stepping outside its boundary.
The only way scientists could do an experiment to show complex molecules forming and replicating themselves is if they guide the process or pre-program it, and that doesn’t prove anything except “intelligence required”.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:18 am
How about Tom and Jerry?
March 25th, 2009 at 5:18 am
The answer to the question “What is the meaning of Life?” is simple. Its 42. The trick is to find out what the real question is…
March 25th, 2009 at 5:20 am
Why is the rum always gone?
March 25th, 2009 at 5:24 am
32. Sch or sch : Not if man destroys nature before we leave. If you believe everything the media tells you it’s an inevitability, in that case nature is – I would’ve said quite obviously, but to some it evidently hasn’t been – screwed. Does nature still win then? Not to mention that no species has ever had to control over nature mankind has secured, so why does everyone just assume that history is going to repeat itself?
33. Stizzy : I’m pretty sure you should read the philosophy list :
http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-schools-of-philosophy/
But if we aren’t experiencing and interpreting right now, what are we doing? So I think your suggestion of no meaning is a bit specious, but it’s a very ambiguous and insanely interesting field.
35. johnf : Can I ask – as politely as possible – do you walk around all day with your eyes closed? Or only when you walk past a cruxifix or a church? What do you mean when has religion gotten one up on science? Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? How about the Holy Roman Empire? The Pope? The Vatican? All of these things are examples of what religion has that science is still lacking, followers, followers from all walks of life, with different levels of natural intelligence, from different etnic backgrounds etc need I continue? So unless you’re going to argue intelligently don’t insult others’ beliefs
March 25th, 2009 at 5:30 am
Mark, yeah I read that list before hehe “But if we aren’t experiencing and interpreting right now, what are we doing? So I think your suggestion of no meaning is a bit specious, but it’s a very ambiguous and insanely interesting field.”
That’s exactly my point. For someone to say that random chemical processes can produce what we have now is basically to say that nothing has meaning and there is no point to anything. Therefore, how do you know you’re experiencing and interpreting? You only know because an intelligence or authority has told you you have, and because you yourself have that intelligence.
Obviously we are experiencing and interpreting, and therefore for anything to make sense or have meaning, there must be an intelligence behind it.
And I know some will say “prove this intelligence exists”, well, if this intelligence truly is beyond time and space, all knowing and all powerful, and a human being (equivalent to a spec of insignificant dust on a bigger ball of dust in an ambiguous part of the universe) could prove this intelligence exists through any natural means, He wouldn’t be very all knowing or all powerful because this “proof” would be mightier than He.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:36 am
How bout Cripz and bloodz and India and Pakistan?
March 25th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Mark – lol. I love how you say to loads of people to not insult others…whilst you gently insult them!
Tres amusant mon ami!
March 25th, 2009 at 5:40 am
42. Stizzy : Wait… Wait a second… Am I arguing with a Christian? Because I assumed you were just questioning our perception, not bringing any Evolutionism vs. Creationism to the table… But I guess that if you are, why can’t random chemical reactions eventually lead to ordered and rational intelligence and therefore consciousness and perception? I mean, chaos is a phenomenon, it happens, but in the end it will eventually cause some form of order. So why can’t chemical reactions – that would have been occurring practically ad infinitum before humans – have culminated in what we are now? Living, breathing, reasoning, intelligent creatures?
March 25th, 2009 at 5:41 am
Sega & Nintendo!! Actually a CRIME that that’s not there :p
March 25th, 2009 at 5:43 am
43. Dzaky : Crips and Bloods, classic
44. cymraegbachgen87 : Lol, I was pulling a Pi on his ass. There was a difference between what I said and what he said – I thought for a second first, which is all I said he needed to do, argue intelligently.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:43 am
O boy, im not even going to comment on this list. Im going to get my popcorn and watch the fur fly!
March 25th, 2009 at 5:48 am
Mark: I didn’t actually realise we were arguing loooool.
Take the building blocks of life. DNA. DNA is composed of information. Where did this information come from? Did it just produce itself rapidly?
Say for example, you have a slow machine with letters instead of fruit. You pull the handle and it randomly spins and eventually you may make “H.U.M.A.N”.
Says “Human” right? Well how do you know it says human? You know because you have dictionaries and dictionaries are full of information, but who wrote these dictionaries? People, intelligence.
You can assemble all manner of random things to form something, but these things won’t have meaning unless meaning has been defined by an intelligence, and this intelligence cannot be purely human because human beings aren’t the supreme authority in the universe. Anything the human defines as truth is relative unless there is an over-arching absolute to refer to, and that requires an outside intelligence.
So, how can the information in DNA produce anything unless meaning has been defined? How is this information even produced?
Also, mutation is mean to be the driving force behind molecules-to-man evolution, yet mutation always involves either reassembling, re-ordering, or a loss of information, never an addition.
You, as an individual, are a composite of information provided by your parents, yet you only have half of the information from both of them. When they die, half of that information will potentially be lost forever.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:49 am
eek, spelling mistakes. Meant “produce itself randomly” and “slot machine” loool
March 25th, 2009 at 5:49 am
Marino and Favre battled it out for the record books but this was not an on field rivalary. The Packers and Dolphins rarely played eachother….GO DOLPHINS!!!!
March 25th, 2009 at 5:55 am
49. Stizzy : Why do I find someone interesting to converse with when I have a bloody exam tomorrow??? What if there isn’t a “supreme authority” – you are a theist aren’t you?
– then humans can’t have intelligence, is that what you’re claiming? I think you completely missed with the absolute truth bit, I don’t think there is an absolute truth so I don’t like that statement. Everything is relative, if it’s defined by humans so be it, that’s what we’re feeling, thinking, perceiving right now. There’s no arbitrary “right” and “wrong” there’s everyone’s thoughts and idea formulated inside them and conmmunicated somehow – whether it be written, oral, other visual means etc. I think it’s specious to claim that we can’t have meaning without a “greater being”.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:56 am
“Also, mutation is mean to be the driving force behind molecules-to-man evolution, yet mutation always involves either reassembling, re-ordering, or a loss of information, never an addition.
The three (major) types of genetic mutation are Deletion, substitution and ADDITION. (I leave out inversion and duplication here as they are slightly more complex mechanisms)
I don’t think you quite get genetics, Stizzy. You are arguing that information cannot be added (possibly using 2nd law of thermodynamics as reasoning) but I give you this to think about.
Say there is a mutation that causes all carriers to not have a big toe. Now mutation is random. Therefore it is equally likely that somewhere down the line two people carrying this big toe-less mutations have a child which itself has a mutation. This new mutation causes the child to be born WITH a big toe. Surely this is the addition of information? I am painfully aware of this oversimplification!
Check out my posts on the Creationism Your View and look for my New Scientist link – it addresses many of your points.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:57 am
“because human beings aren’t the supreme authority in the universe”
Really? Prove it.
Don’t make categoric statements if you don’t have categoric proof.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:00 am
“DNA is composed of information”
AGGGHHHH this is painful to read. No DNA is not composed of information. DNA is composed of a purine or pyrimidine base, a pentose sugar and a phosphate backbone.
It IS a form of information STORE.
You can argue truth and meaning until you are blue in the face, but the process by which we evolved did not require any outside guidance. I urge you to read Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene” (I think the man himself is arrogant and annoying but his book chronicles quite succinctly how “molecules to man” evolution can naturally occur – even slotting in some simple math to assist)
March 25th, 2009 at 6:05 am
41. Mark
sorry mark your right about those things. What i meant was when has it gotten one up on science in establishing truth.
stizzy
yeah i like what you say they shouldn’t really be rivalling. science and religion should be for different purposes, the how and the why. its when they cross over.and unfortunately people try to make them crossover believing the biblical view of the formation of the earth etc. its in that crossover that religion can never get one up on science.
as for interpretation of data, :-
“e.g Evidence: millions of animal and plant remains buried beneath layers and layers of rock.
Evoluion and Uniformitarianism: layers laid down gradually through unchanging natural processes over millions of years, showing the upward evolution of organisms.
Creationism: layers laid down rapidly during a global flood over a period of a year, with organisms ordered according to their proximity to sea levels and / or randomly sorted due to intense tidal motions.”
the creationists have to ignore carbon-14 and other types of dating don’t they? SCience could theorise the above defintion of the organisms but dating the different specimens brings it a bit closer to the truth.educate me, do creationists take into account those data? because its very rude to only interpret the data that suits your argument(not that scientists havent done this in the past and no one likes them for doing that)
March 25th, 2009 at 6:06 am
“there must be an intelligence behind it.
Why?
That is just a hope. A form of comfort blanket so that life actually means more than what is here and now in front of us. The more I look at the Judeo-Christian God, the more insulted and affronted I am. What sort of all powerful being creates creatures in order to be worshipped? He is saying worship me or be damned for all eternity; highly arrogant and not a being worthy or Lordship or worship.
I know that we could never prove the existance of such a being, just as we cannot prove the existence of extra dimensions (although mathematics point towards them) but I would prefer to live my life in a just and good way and be satisfied with my own existance rather than satisfy a power trip of an extra-dimensional being. If He truly is just, then that will be enough for Him.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:07 am
People say that science is based on facts. That statement is completely false. Science is based on being ignorant of facts. If people knew everything, there would be no science. In the fight between science and religion, science loses, because it never explains the “why”, only the “how” (which a lot of the time is incorrect anyways).
March 25th, 2009 at 6:07 am
Mark: I am what I am :p “I think you completely missed with the absolute truth bit, I don’t think there is an absolute truth so I don’t like that statement.”
Surely whether you like it or not doesn’t change whether it is true or not. You don’t “think” there is absolute truth, but again, this doesn’t change whether there is absolute truth or not. If everything is relative, how do you even define relativity? It’s a comparison of two different things, yet without absolute truth, how do you know what’s different? You’re relying on your senses right? Well if your senses are the result of random chemical processes, how do you know they’re reliable? How do you know that what your mind is interpreting is what is truly there?
Who said everything is relative? People? Fallible arrangements of molecules driven by random chemical processes?
Can these processes produce the means to write, speak or see?
I believe human beings have intelligence, therefore I believe a greater intelligence gave us that intelligence and the means to understand and communicate it.
cymraegbachgen87: perhaps I should rephrase…NEW information cannot be randomly created. If a mutation causes someone to be born without a big toe, they have lost the genetic information that produces a big toe. Could a random genetic mutation reproduce this lost information? And even if it did, this isn’t new information but pre-existing information. It’s simply losing a toe and regaining a toe, rather than losing a toe and growing wings.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:10 am
Butter vs. Margarine?
March 25th, 2009 at 6:12 am
“AGGGHHHH this is painful to read. No DNA is not composed of information. DNA is composed of a purine or pyrimidine base, a pentose sugar and a phosphate backbone.”
You’re splitting hairs because I’m sure you understood what I meant.
“That is just a hope. A form of comfort blanket so that life actually means more than what is here and now in front of us. The more I look at the Judeo-Christian God, the more insulted and affronted I am. What sort of all powerful being creates creatures in order to be worshipped? He is saying worship me or be damned for all eternity; highly arrogant and not a being worthy or Lordship or worship.
I know that we could never prove the existance of such a being, just as we cannot prove the existence of extra dimensions (although mathematics point towards them) but I would prefer to live my life in a just and good way and be satisfied with my own existance rather than satisfy a power trip of an extra-dimensional being. If He truly is just, then that will be enough for Him.”
The “Judeo-Christian God” didn’t create man to be worshipped, He created man because He wanted a family and because it simply pleased Him to create man. What is arrogant about that? Before you assume He is arrogant, perhaps you should seek to understand him.
And what would you define as a just and good life? And who are you to define what is just for Him? You seem to think being just is letting you do and define what you want.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:13 am
@ Stizzy: I agree with you 100%. There are very few ideologies I hate more than postmodernism/relativism. They are rapidly increasing in popularity, and are becoming a real blight on common thinking.
People love to adopt those thoughts because they free said people up to do whatever they want. If there is no absolute truth, there is no absolute accountability for actions. It’s a much easier lifestyle. It’s just sickening.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:15 am
John McCain does not represent the “right”, granted he is a republican, but not a “conservative” republican. They mean two totally different things. Obama does in fact represent a “left”, or “liberal” democrat.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:16 am
Not to mention, you could define “Worship” as to love unquestioningly and uncritically or to show devotion to. If God is perfect, you’d be foolish to question or criticize Him.
So God is arrogant because He wanted to be loved and have a devoted family?
March 25th, 2009 at 6:16 am
Ali’s disgusting behavior outside the ring towards Joe made me lose a lot of respect for him. There’s evidence that Joe helped him financially during his protest against the draft, and yet Ali treated him like an Uncle Tom.
You can call it hype to promote interest in the fight, and there’s no question about Ali’s skills and greatness as a fighter, but his humiliating and revolting treatment of Joe was just despicable.
No one was more satisfied than I was to see that left hook, which would have overturned a bus, crash into Ali’s jaw and send him to the canvas. Heavyweight boxing will probably never see this kind of skill and range of talent ever again. Frazier, Ali, Ken Norton and George Foreman were just the best.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:18 am
And I realise I just contradicted myself haha, shame on me. Allow me to explain…when people generally say “worship” these days, they attach a meaning of blind or foolish allegience to it. So when I say God didn’t create man to be worshipped, I mean He didn’t create man to be worshipped blindly and foolishly to satisfy His ego.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:19 am
AGH this is what I get for a simple example. I didn’t say that the original mutation masked the growth of the toe, I said it removed it, then a new mutation came along and added it.
“Could a random genetic mutation reproduce this lost information?”
Yes.
What about the mutations that cause people to be born with EXTRA fingers, or extra nipples, or a tail, or with XXY trait.
New information is created all the time. Look at HIV constantly mutating – adding NEW antigens to its surface to avoid detection or treatment. This is the same in the common cold.
I will not argue with you on philosophy – you clearly are well hersed and I would agree with you on many points, but I urge you to stay there. Your knowledge of Genetics and molecular biology is woeful. If you had taken an UG Evolution or Genetics course, you would not be throwing these ‘problems’ up.
“yet mutation always involves either reassembling, re-ordering, or a loss of information, never an addition”
That statement sums up your lack of genetics knowledge. Any AS level student (thats 16years old for my american brethren) would know that is wrong.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html
If you want to further your understanding then read the above. Everything is cited and referenced in peer reviewed journals, and not some clap trap creationist site. You may not understand everything, but at least it will put you above most of the evolution debunkers on this site. Happy reading.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:21 am
Aww, cym and Mark have a new plaything! All well and good but no one still has answered the most important question on the list.
40. cymraegbachgen87 – March 25th, 2009 at 5:20 am
Why is the rum always gone?
cym, Mark and Stizzy…you realize you won’t get any progress done right? cym and Mark are trying to have a scientific discussion and Stizzy is taking a philosophical approach. Two different methods but if it pleases you all to go ’round and ’round, then by all means, please continue. I do enjoy seeing faulty science try to wiggle its way out with crazy retractions and addendums.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:23 am
58. Brad – “In the fight between science and religion, science loses, because it never explains the “why”, only the “how” (which a lot of the time is incorrect anyways).”
And religion’s why is that much better? please….
March 25th, 2009 at 6:27 am
Brad: I know what you mean, it seems to me that “relativity” is more an excuse for people not to make an absolute choice. One may not like the labels “right” and “wrong” so they toss them away and simply say “what I do is what I do”, but then they may want to be known as good and just. If all things are relative, it shouldn’t matter what is good or just because surely goodness is relative?
Why condemn someone for being rude or disrespectful? Why charge a criminal with an offense? Why do you take offense? Because of a “selfish gene”? Why is a selfish gene selfish? All things are relative right?
I truly believe human beings do do most things because we are selfish. Am I typing this because I want to talk truth or because I want to look good? Am I happier about the opinions of another or whether they agree with me?
And I believe we are selfish because that is the nature we chose for ourselves, and now people like Dawkins use that to justify the world as if the world made us selfish. No, WE did that.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:27 am
60. Rob S. – Butter vs. Margarine?
They’re pretty much the same thing!
At least grocery store brands are similar because a lot of butters are also using similar margarine ingredient ratios. My roommate was on a health food binge for a while and we had spent nearly half an hour in the refrigerated section while she tried to find real butter. She found her butter and I found that grocery stores make me cranky.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:32 am
“You’re splitting hairs because I’m sure you understood what I meant.”
I suppose I was, but others might not.
“So God is arrogant because He wanted to be loved and have a devoted family”
That isn’t what I said. I said he is arrogant because he says worship me or be damned. Parents don’t say “love me or get out” to their children They love their children regardless.
The meaning of worship these days is irrelevent seeing as the bible was written centuries ago where the meaning was the one I was alluding to.
“He didn’t create man to be worshipped blindly and foolishly to satisfy His ego”
Again. How do you know
“Before you assume He is arrogant, perhaps you should seek to understand him.”
An extra dimensional God is unfathomable. Therefore your advice is impossible to act upon
“If God is perfect, you’d be foolish to question or criticize Him”
True. But as an imperfect being I am apt, able and likely to. Perfection breeds jealousy. Also, the concept of absolute perfection is similar to that of infinity – we cannot comprehend it. We don’t follow leaders that are necesarily the ‘best’ or ‘most perfect’
My biggest problem is this point of ‘if you don’t believe in me and worship me you are going to be tortured for the rest of time’ Why would a truly merciful God do that? Surely living a decent moral life should be enough? I also take issue with the whole faith thing. God doesn’t have to prove his existence and goes to great lengths to shroud himself in mystery (deceitful? that goes against christian teachings;) ). Yet, when anything fortuitous happens it is Gods Will; anything bad happens ‘God works in mysterious ways’
March 25th, 2009 at 6:33 am
cymraegbachgen87: “What about the mutations that cause people to be born with EXTRA fingers, or extra nipples, or a tail, or with XXY trait.”
Again, not an addition of NEW information but a multiplication of pre-existing information. The genetic capacity to produce all those things already exists within the genetic code.
When bacteria mutate, it is not due to new information.
For example, bacterial resistance to antibiotics comes about because the antibiotic is engineered to latch on to a genetic trait within the bacteria. When the bacteria mutates, it loses this trait and therefore the antibiotic can no longer use it to kill the bacteria. No addition of new information, but a loss of information.
And you’re using the arrangement of my sentences to determine what I do or do not know. Poor choice of words doesn’t account for a lack of knowledge.
gabi319: Why is the rum always gone? Because someone always drinks it
March 25th, 2009 at 6:34 am
Gabi (68)
Fantastic. Just fantastic.
Am still laughing.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:35 am
rut-roh.
I’m gonna comment while it’s still civil that I enjoyed this list, and laughed out loud at that part about ACME’s quality control….and then I’m going to go hide out in the forums while this descends into madness. Enjoy, everyone!
March 25th, 2009 at 6:36 am
“Poor choice of words doesn’t account for a lack of knowledge.”
Perhaps not but this does:
“For example, bacterial resistance to antibiotics comes about because the antibiotic is engineered to latch on to a genetic trait within the bacteria. When the bacteria mutates, it loses this trait and therefore the antibiotic can no longer use it to kill the bacteria”
Read my link.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:38 am
39. cymraegbachgen87
I can’t believe what you wrote! The correct answer is 47 – everyone knows that.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:38 am
And I believe we are selfish because that is the nature we chose for ourselves, and now people like Dawkins use that to justify the world as if the world made us selfish. No, WE did that.
Dear (boy/girl delete as appropriate) it is obvious you havent read the book. Its title is misleading and intended to bring people into the book. Read it first, then comment.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:39 am
TEX – I bet you didn’t carry the three…thats where I went wrong. check it again and you should come to 42.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:40 am
Supreme Crown of Awesome? let me guess. tinfoil and jelly beans?
..and Deep Blue spawned the Deep Green project, the war prediction devise(s). This may be far fetched but on the opposite extreme of this might be the non-evasive policeman armed with a tazer. sort of a doomsday senerio on the small, magnify that to a commander’s reliance on predictive battlefront options for evasive maneuvers. Okay, I may be jumping the gun.
“Deep Green will ensure that the commander rarely reaches a point in the operation at which he has no options. This will keep the enemy firmly inside our decision cycle.”
the folkloric origins of man vs machine like John Henry, the steel driving man and the ancient battlefield game on a board and the real time dynamics of troops and troops in machines and troops using machines, the machine mind and the human decision based on the machine mind as course of action where the machine mind is ahead real time.
The whole Dark Knight as superhero is like a battle with subcoscious demons; the joker being, a free reign manifestation of the forces that the batman tries to conceal through Bruce Wayne.
with Saint George and the Dragon (the dragon sleeps in a deep dark lake and batman as a child falls into a cave of bats)- The beast must be fed….when full of sheep, feed it children, when children will no longer do, a damsel in distress shall take the place and be saved by the knight. So the beast is given ignorance, innocence and love/lust(?) of coarse St.George used the dragon to convert the king’s villager’s to Christianity…
they will slay the dragon to gain access to the higher kingdom.
Batman’s battle with himself is in essence, a quest for salvation.
The David vs Goliath picture has me thinking of the famous ad in the back of old comic books, Charles Atlas.
I mean, look at it. Big Brute Goliath is kicking dirt on poor-little-david.
“The insult that turned a chump into a champ!”
March 25th, 2009 at 6:42 am
“My biggest problem is this point of ‘if you don’t believe in me and worship me you are going to be tortured for the rest of time’ Why would a truly merciful God do that? Surely living a decent moral life should be enough? I also take issue with the whole faith thing. God doesn’t have to prove his existence and goes to great lengths to shroud himself in mystery (deceitful? that goes against christian teachings;) ). Yet, when anything fortuitous happens it is Gods Will; anything bad happens ‘God works in mysterious ways’ ”
If our very existence and being is within and upheld by God, then it stands to reason that our closeness to Him determines our fate. What people define as “sin” is more than breaking rules, it’s estrangement from God. When you do something that upsets and creates a gulf between you and a loved one, you effectively sin against them. By doing something God told man not to do, man estranged Himself from God and therefore from His life sustaining power.
Now, if you have a God who is also just and does indeed have laws, He wouldn’t be a very faithful or reliable God if He didn’t do something about injustice. If we can’t trust Him to judge, how can we trust Him to love?
You ask how do I know He didn’t create man to satisfy His ego. Would having an ego be the same to God as it would for us? And who said God is entirely unfathomable? Is He unfathomable in His entirety, no doubt. But can He be fathomed according to the limits of the human mind, I believe so. Otherwise He wouldn’t bother trying to commmunicate at all.
“We don’t follow leaders that are necesarily the ‘best’ or ‘most perfect’ ” No doubt, hence why the world is so messed up. When a perfect leader comes along, we don’t want to listen because he’s too perfect looool
How would God “prove” Himself? By coming down and speaking to you face to face perhaps? :p
Is it deceitful when you yourself said God is unfathomable. It’s not that He shrouds Himself in mystery, it’s that we wouldn’t be able to comprehend Him beyond what He reveals to us. He reveals His power, His mind and His heart through creation. Of course, what we see now is poor corruption of what originally was, but you can still see the echos.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:42 am
by subcoscious i meant subconscious
March 25th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Think on this:
For any mutation that results in a loss of information, logically, the reverse mutation must result in its gain. So the claim that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic.
I see I will also have to move to less obvious examples.
It has been shown a simple change in gene activity in sea squirts can turn their one-chambered heart into a working two-chambered one. Surely this counts as increasing information?
No? Ok try this:
Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein called TRIM5 that results in a piece of another, defunct protein being tacked onto TRIM5. The result is a hybrid protein called TRIM5-CypA, which can protect cells from infection with retroviruses such as HIV. Here, a single mutation has resulted in a new protein with a new and potentially vital function. New protein, new function, new information.
All taken from the link I gave you. It would be courteous to read it. I’ve read YOUR textbook…
March 25th, 2009 at 6:49 am
“Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein called TRIM5 that results in a piece of another, defunct protein being tacked onto TRIM5. The result is a hybrid protein called TRIM5-CypA, which can protect cells from infection with retroviruses such as HIV. Here, a single mutation has resulted in a new protein with a new and potentially vital function. New protein, new function, new information.”
Combination or arrangement of pre-existing information, not NEW information.
“Can mutation really lead to the evolution of new species?
Yes. Several species of abalone shellfish have evolved due to mutations in the protein “key” on the surface of sperm that binds to a “lock” on the surface of eggs.”
But they are all shellfish right? None of them have become whales or mammels?
Care to check my link?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0408lab_evolution.asp
March 25th, 2009 at 6:51 am
and by “free reign”, I meant “free rein” or did I?
I’ll have to refer to yesterday’s list.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:53 am
Can we take the religion talk to the “your view” section?
Pirates will kick ninja’s ass everytime!
How about LV commentors vs Trollz?
This was a great list, btw.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:54 am
“It has been shown a simple change in gene activity in sea squirts can turn their one-chambered heart into a working two-chambered one. Surely this counts as increasing information?”
Isn’t that just taking one thing and making two of them? Not exactly an increase in information if its doubling already present information.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:56 am
Perhaps we should let everyone have the thread back cym haha.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:57 am
“Otherwise He wouldn’t bother trying to commmunicate at all”
…Never spoken to me (raised CoE for 16 years) my fiancee (an avid christian) my grandparents (who pressured my parents into christening me)
If he truly communicated with the earth then, by the laws of physics (which I assume he would have to obey whilst operating in our universe – if he didnt then this universe would cease to be as he is unaproachable:
“Notice how similar this was to Abraham’s experience. But these revelations, although awe-inspiring, were only partial, for when Moses asked to be shown God’s glory, God replied ‘you cannot see my face, for a man shall not see my face and live’ (Exodus 33.20))
then there would be some trace of these communications
God IS unknowable – the bible says so (and christianity teaches the bible is innerant even though it clearly is):
Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, His greatness is unsearchable’ (Psalm 145.3)
If he exists, then more than half of this planet is screwed. Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam – none of them worship this god.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:57 am
that should read “clearly isnt”
March 25th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Smeagol v Gollum, me preciousess. Nasty tricksey hobbittesses keep nasty taters.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:58 am
oouchan you are a regular. You know that LV is only fun when the comments are wildly off topic.
And this one is mildly on topic
March 25th, 2009 at 6:59 am
“Combination or arrangement of pre-existing information, not NEW information”
Thats churlish. That is like saying re-arranging letters in the alphabet doesn’t make any new words! You have to define information in definite terms here – you are moving the goalposts!
March 25th, 2009 at 7:02 am
85. Stizzy
It’s that damn website again!
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/
This blog is solely focused on researching the faults of that genesis website.
I’ll limit one link per comment but I’ll also mention the Answers in Creationism website (a pro-Creationist) website says AiG’s slant (and particularly its new museum) is a scientific joke because it takes a wrong approach to science. The article is “Creation Science Rebuttal” by Grey Neyman. Excerpt from the conclusion:
Even in this brief walk-thru [of the museum], it is easy to see the flawed science and wrong Biblical interpretation used by Answers in Genesis. Once again, the world will laugh at young earth creationists (and in doing so, at the church as a whole), as they try to pass off their bad science as the truth.
If you don’t believe the validity of the blog linked above, then this second bit is a published article which is more reputable.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:02 am
it just occurred to me, based on your #5 description, that Wile E. Coyote was an Order and Assemble Daredevil.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:04 am
“…Never spoken to me (raised CoE for 16 years) my fiancee (an avid christian) my grandparents (who pressured my parents into christening me)”
If you never listened when He did, how would you know He never did? And if He uses the Bible as one of His means of communication and you dismiss it, He won’t get through to you that way.
“If he truly communicated with the earth then, by the laws of physics (which I assume he would have to obey whilst operating in our universe – if he didnt then this universe would cease to be as he is unaproachable:”
Clearly He doesn’t have to obey the laws of physics if Jesus walked on water and turned water into wine? The laws are subject to Him, not the other way around. You’re assuming He has to cease being what He is in order to communicate when obviously He doesn’t. “His greatness is unsearchable” and yet you’re telling God what He can and cannot do, surely this area of His working is unsearchable right?
Unsearchable as in by mankinds own hand or effort, He can never know it. He can only know it if God Himself reveals it.
“then there would be some trace of these communications”
Such as an eye-witness account?
“If he exists, then more than half of this planet is screwed. Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam – none of them worship this god.”
Scary thought right? Heck, if God truly exists, all religion is screwed because religion is man trying to build a staircase to the throne of God…it’ll never get there.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Just like the last “vs.” list, I’ll step in and settle things.
10). Man
9). Ninjas
8). Ali
7). Team B, definitely
6). Right Wing
5). Roadrunner
4). Deep Blue
3). Hero X
2). David
1). Religion
There, now that’s settled. Next?
March 25th, 2009 at 7:06 am
OOOO come ON stizzy! you were doing so well I am vaguely disappointed by you throwing up AiG!
Other creationist sites say the science on AiG is flawed.
They aren’t real scientists – contributors have to sign a declaration stating the inerrancy of the bible before they can contribute.
“Isn’t that just taking one thing and making two of them? Not exactly an increase in information if its doubling already present information.” You don’t understand the difference between a two and one chambered heart obviously.
“But they are all shellfish right? None of them have become whales or mammels?”
Newsflash. Whales ARE mammals. And evolution is not just change from class to class. It is change from species to species too – Do you know what constitutes a species?
We will not reconcile – that much is clear. As gabi sagely stated, you are arent arguing science! I hope Randall doesn’t get hold of you
PS – here is some of the criticism of AiG from Creationists, craftily stolen from Wiki
Ham’s beliefs and tactics have also been criticized by other Christians. Answers in Creation, an Old Earth creationist website, has called Ham willfully ignorant of evidence for an old earth and said he “deliberately misleads” his audiences on matters of both science and theology.[87] Astronomer Hugh Ross’s organization Reasons to Believe, a progressive creationist organization, is a critic of Answers in Genesis.[88][89][90][91] Ross has publicly debated Ham on the age of the Earth and the compatibility of an old Earth with the Bible,[92] as well as other AiG staff.[93] Young Earth creationist Kent Hovind criticized AiG after the group called his claims “fraudulent.”[94] Hovind removed a link to AiG from his website[95] and said AiG was “misguided” for criticizing other creationists, including Hovind’s alleged “cure for cancer.”[96] Hovind also claims they “overreacted” and “misunderstood” issues and Hovind criticized AiG for claiming he wrote something that he did not.[97]
March 25th, 2009 at 7:06 am
87. oouchan
Oh please, oouchan… Pirates are too drunk to see straight much less fight. What happens to drunk ninjas? You get Jackie Chan in Drunken Master… Ninjas ftw.
And no contest between LV regs and trollz. As you can see, the regulars are still regular, haha.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:06 am
65. bucslim
right on
loved to watch Ali fight – then he would get out of the ring and open his mouth – disgusting
And you are right, the days of the greats is gone – why did the heavy weight division have to die? Don King killed it, and that godamned pay-per-view. let’s hope not forever.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:07 am
Pirates win! And will always win with the FSM having their back…
March 25th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Ninjas… clearly.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:11 am
Gabi: wouldn’t be the first time a christian argued with another christian, and most of the attacks I’ve seen hurled at AiG have consisted of “They are not real scientists, and they believe the Bible, so there!”
“http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/
This blog is solely focused on researching the faults of that genesis website.”
Surely if it’s so wrong, it won’t amount to anything and people can just get on with their lives, the writers of the blog included. Or is it because of some sense of wanting to “open the eyes of the ignorant”? Because usually when someone says that, they assume the people they’re trying to save are too stupid to realise what’s going on, and one could wonder if it’s not simply a matter of “I want to prove them wrong because they don’t think like me!”
“Even in this brief walk-thru [of the museum], it is easy to see the flawed science and wrong Biblical interpretation used by Answers in Genesis. Once again, the world will laugh at young earth creationists (and in doing so, at the church as a whole), as they try to pass off their bad science as the truth.”
It’s easy to see but he doesn’t want to explain what it is?
March 25th, 2009 at 7:12 am
93. cymraegbachgen87: I know, but its getting tedious.
and god doesn’t exist anyway.
100. gabi319: Hello?……What about Jack Sparrow? (sorry couldnt help myself)
But the trollz keep coming, and they never learn….or win.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:14 am
“You’re assuming He has to cease being what He is in order to communicate when obviously He doesn’t”
I’m not assuming anything. I am relaying what the bible states (you left out my scripture in your quote)
When Moses asked to be shown God’s glory, God replied ‘you cannot see my face, for a man shall not see my face and live’ (Exodus 33.20)
More examples in 1 Timothy 6.161 Timothy 6.16 Genesis 15.12 Genesis 15.17 Isaiah 6.5 Ezekiel 1.28
“Heck, if God truly exists, all religion is screwed because religion is man trying to build a staircase to the throne of God…it’ll never get there”
Something we can agree on! Don’t get me wrong – I am not averse to the idea of a creator per se, and I can marry a degree of spiritualism with my work as a scientist, but organised religion? The bible? Count me out thank you.
“Such as an eye-witness account”
I was thinking more residual energy answering all these prayers, which would also leave energy if they were heard and transmitted to gods kingdom.
You cannot ask a scientist to suspend the laws of the universe when it suits their viewpoint.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:17 am
How could you leave out vi vs. emacs ?
March 25th, 2009 at 7:20 am
I find it odd that I’m being criticised based on the reputation of the entire website when I simply pasted a link to one article, no one has bothered to mention the article itself, only to try and discredit what it says by attacking the website.
“They aren’t real scientists – contributors have to sign a declaration stating the inerrancy of the bible before they can contribute.”
Why aren’t they real scientists? And doesn’t it make sense that if an organisation is based on the inerrancy of the bible, those who want to contribute should also believe that?
“Newsflash. Whales ARE mammals. And evolution is not just change from class to class. It is change from species to species too – Do you know what constitutes a species?”
Splitting hairs again, let me rephrase…land mammals :p And do you know what constitutes a species? Do scientists know what constitutes a species? They seem to change the definition of species every few years to keep up with new findings.
And what does quoting criticisms from other creationists prove? It proves the same thing you find everywhere, people don’t always agree even when they claim to be on the same page. There are scientists who disagree on scientific theories, does that immediately disregard the validity of everything they say?
March 25th, 2009 at 7:21 am
“Because usually when someone says that, they assume the people they’re trying to save are too stupid to realise what’s going on, and one could wonder if it’s not simply a matter of “I want to prove them wrong because they don’t think like me!””
Sounds suspiciously like most YEC, and most christians I know.
I had the dubious honour of being at a house party with several friends and one annoying girl who started most sentences with:
“If you accept jesus into your heart”
Christianity is the worst religion for trying to convert others to their faith, IMO
March 25th, 2009 at 7:22 am
I just have to say that after reading comments on this site, the readers definitely hold a higher standard of conversation rather than just the “gay” or “noob” stuff on most other sites….so kudos for regaining my faith in mankind…there’s still intelligent people out there!
March 25th, 2009 at 7:26 am
Yup, and no one has seen God’s face in His full glory, and yet Jesus Himself said that if you’ve seen Him, you’ve seen the Father. In other words, you may not physically see God’s full glory (not to mention, being spirit that’d be kinda hard) but you can see His nature and it’s His nature that He communicates.
“Something we can agree on! Don’t get me wrong – I am not averse to the idea of a creator per se, and I can marry a degree of spiritualism with my work as a scientist, but organised religion? The bible? Count me out thank you.”
Organised religion isn’t something I’m fond of either, but why do you immediately place the Bible right next to it? Surely, organised religion comes from the attempts of men to interpret texts through their own understanding? Should we throw out the baby with the bath water?
“I was thinking more residual energy answering all these prayers, which would also leave energy if they were heard and transmitted to gods kingdom.
You cannot ask a scientist to suspend the laws of the universe when it suits their viewpoint.”
Unless of course you’re dealing with something that is beyond the laws of the universe. If these events were supernatural, who says they would have left residual energy? Would that energy still be detectable today?
March 25th, 2009 at 7:28 am
“Do scientists know what constitutes a species? They seem to change the definition of species every few years to keep up with new findings.”
*facepalm*
Another way of saying “No I don’t know but you don’t either”
Problem with that is I DO.
A species is a group of individuals that can interbreed with one another to produce viable offspring.
That basic definition has been a staple for years.
“Why aren’t they real scientists”
Because they don’t follow the Scientific method. If you don’t understand what a species is then you don’t understand what happens in a proper lab.
“And doesn’t it make sense that if an organisation is based on the inerrancy of the bible, those who want to contribute should also believe that?”
I completely agree, except the fact that the bible is nowhere NEAR inerrant.
“There are scientists who disagree on scientific theories”
100% correct. But you wont find many accredited scientists disagreeing with Evolution. And usually they disagree on hypotheses, not theories. I doubt you know the difference.
“Splitting hairs again”
You may think that, but after interaction with many creationists, I have found it best that I pick out each mistake as many of them don’t believe they have made any. FFS – the papacy says beaver is a fish.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:28 am
You downplayed the David and Goliath story. Not only did he slay Goliath with the sling, he then walked over and cut off his head and taunted the Philistines with it. He then proceeded to kill Goliath’s brothers too. Take that!
March 25th, 2009 at 7:32 am
TEX – #101 I suppose Tyson could have saved it, but when Cus died, he was left to his own devices and Don King can smell a dollar a million miles away. Enter Robin Givens, Buster, rape, a craving for ear cartilage and face tattoos. Presto, the horse’s ass of the decade!
Thankfully there are fantastic rivalries and awesome boxers in the lower divisions. Of which Manny Pacquiao is my favorite right now. Floyd Mayweather Jr. is probably the best fighter out there if he wants to step into the ring again.
Unfortunately, outside of Klitchko, I can’t name any heavyweights. Sucks. Can you imagine the damage Frazier or Ali would do to these tomato cans today?
March 25th, 2009 at 7:33 am
“but why do you immediately place the Bible right next to it? Surely, organised religion comes from the attempts of men to interpret texts through their own understanding?”
Because the bible was compiled at the first council of Nicea when Emperor Constantine and the leaders of fledgling christianity met to discuss how the new state religion of Rome would take shape. They decided on gospels and books that made christ god like, and left out gospels that suggested jesus’ mortality. This was the Nicean Creed (the cornerstone of Christianity):
Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added.
1. Jesus Christ is described as “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,” confirming his divinity. When all light sources were natural, the essence of light was considered to be identical, regardless of its form.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be “begotten, not made”, asserting his co-eternalness with God, and confirming it by stating his role in the Creation. Basically, they were saying that Jesus was God, and God’s son, not a creation of God. This is considered one of the mysteries of the Catholic Church.
3. Finally, he is said to be “from the substance of the Father,” in direct opposition to Arianism. Some ascribe the term Consubstantial, i.e., “of the same substance” (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority.
Hence the bible was constructed by organised religion and thus falible.
“Unless of course you’re dealing with something that is beyond the laws of the universe. If these events were supernatural, who says they would have left residual energy? Would that energy still be detectable today?”
Of course, and I don’t think such an energy could be found. It is merely my interpretation of how day to day prayers would reach ‘heaven’ would require some sort of energy transfer. Further proof really that god is unknowable!
March 25th, 2009 at 7:38 am
104. Stizzy
I mentioned that’s only an excerpt. He goes far more in depth in the article. And the website does go into different aspects as well. That simply had most of the information in one article.
“I want to prove them wrong because they don’t think like me!”
If the blog were a “don’t think like me” situation, it’d be full of ad hominem attacks rather than citing sources and writing eloquently enough that someone wants to publish this blogger’s work in book form. There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity even though you lumped them together. And something ’so wrong’ does not have have to be in conjunction with ‘won’t amount to anything.’ Given that it’s been the focus of many a Federal Supreme Court hearing and a number of future generations are being taught Creationism as a science and at times only this, I think that something this wrong surely has amounted to something.
And you’re being attacked for that website because it’s been proven quite wrong. Add some more information and other backed up facts and it’ll make your argument stronger.
But thank you for finally limiting your comment to a minimal of questions. One comment had close to ten questions in it. Socratic method really works best when its short and to the point. Three is alright but the best philosophers can cut down their opponent with just one question.
Why is the rum always gone?
Take it to the Creationist Your View. I’m busy arguing about the superiority of Ninjas.
Oouchan, you saw my Jackie Chan with a Jack Sparrow. I will raise you with a Bruce Lee! HA!
March 25th, 2009 at 7:41 am
gabi I raise you…the mighty beard. Thats right, I just went chuck norris on your asse.
You know when chuck norris does a press up, he is actually pushing the world down?
March 25th, 2009 at 7:43 am
And actually oouchan, I don’t think this cym v. stizzy thing isn’t all that tedious. Stizzy can actually write decently and sort of respond eloquently, which is one up from most of those supporting that side.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:44 am
America, sterotypically, sees itself as a world leader in everything. Even if intelligent people know better, lay people often dont (evidenced by a guy on another list saying american cars are the best in the world)
Surely even these people can see that if you are not teaching proper science at school, this leadership is going to rapidly disappear – particularly to china!
Off topic but hey…shoot me.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:48 am
Chuck Norris sides more with the ninjas than the pirates! There are ninja cowboys but no cowboy pirates!
Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:56 am
If you have five dollars and Chuck Norris has five dollars, Chuck Norris has more money than you.
If CN wanted to be a cowboy pirate he would be.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:58 am
“Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird”
Some people get lucky and kill two birds with one stone. Chuck Norris once killed four birds with half a stone.
What’s that?
You say there’s no such thing as half a stone?
The four dead birds didn’t think so either.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:58 am
118. cymraegbachgen87 – (evidenced by a guy on another list saying american cars are the best in the world)
CROSS TOPIC BUGGERY! oouchan, we’ve got a 2319!! A 2319!!
March 25th, 2009 at 8:00 am
please don’t hurt me
March 25th, 2009 at 8:02 am
115. gabi319: I will see your Bruce Lee and raise you a Yellowbeard!
119. gabi319: And all movies he has done with his bad acting!
I know that topics can go off on different tracks…I have done that myself. I just find it boring….IMO.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:02 am
I would love to get in on this discussion but cymraegbachgen87 is doing such a fantastic job, I’m going to sit back and enjoy the fact that I don’t have to respond.
cymraegbachgen87, you are on my list of new inspirations, do you have a YouTube channel, website or facebook profile I can subscribe to?
Here’s a synopsis of the debate as I’m seeing it so far.
Stizzy:
“Scripture, conjecture, anecdotal evidence, appeal to authority, appeal to belief, appeal to popularity, hearsay, misinformation, circular reasoning, scripture, scripture, scripture, faith….”
cymraegbachgen87:
“Empirical evidence, fact, logic, reason, science, fact, evidence, logic, reason, the ability to admit I may be wrong, fact, logic, science, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence…”
Funny how these debates always seem to have the same type of pattern when you break them down to their most basic forms.
Carry on fellas.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Don’t wanna piss all over the theological debate, but this is just boring and stupid.
How many opportunities are there on this site to get your ya-ya’s out concerning your beliefs? Do we really have to slay these dragons again?
I guess I gotta new category here Religious LVers v Scientific Lvers.
I want you guys to listen up. As soon as you roll that boulder up the hill, it’s gonna roll back down the hill mocking your struggle. And if you think you’re gonna have to hustle down there and roll it back up again, you’re out of your friggen mind. No one here really cares that you got a gold star in sunday school, or won the science fair in junior high.
Just who are you trying to convince? The regulars around here aren’t going to jump into the fray, . . . sit down Randall . . . because we’ve heard all of this b.s. now so often that we could take the other side and fight that battle just as well as our own personal view.
So please refrain, chill out, let it go. It’s ok to shake your head and move on to other things in your day. God’s not gonna toss you down the chute if you don’t defend, and Niels Bohr isn’t rolling grave because you weren’t in attack mode.
Just relax.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:16 am
126. bucslim – “No one here really cares that you got a gold star in sunday school, or won the science fair in junior high.”
Hey! I almost won the science fair in my category! Some crazy man with a gigantic bowtie wasn’t digging my study on the effects of wood smoke on immune system suppression. I ended up second to the girl who tested the effect of glasses versus contacts on peripheral vision. Really? …really?! I lost to THAT?! This is close to a decade ago and I’m still bitter.
*weeps silently in the corner*
March 25th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Niels Bohr? NIELS BOHR!? Sir I find that insulting! It is Darwin himself and he is spinning, yes SPINNING in his grave!
Skydiver – thanks! At least I have achieved something today
Nowt to subscribe to though – am far too lazy to maintain something like that.
I am going to congratulate my opponent – no ad hominem attacks, cool head and the realisation that we are not going to agree. I have to say, Stizzy, that you are the best religious person I have ever debated!
PS I apologise for the tone of 111 – I didnt realise how confrontational it became!
March 25th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Congrats to both Cym and Stizzy on the debate, very amusing I must say. Particularly impressed that Cym didn’t attack Stizzy’s somewhat inferior debate skills, not that they were that bad, but really Stiz, you had enough circular logic in there to kill a large marine mammal
Also suprised that no one even from the sidelines brought up the God/Evil Paradox.
As for Pirates vs Ninjas, obv the ninjas were in the lead for quite some time, what with global warming and all that, but with Somalia on the rise as the new Carribean, we may finally see an end to this whole climate change issue.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Ninjas.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:26 am
CONCERNING GOD VERSUS SCIENCE!!
1)Chuck Norris could kick Gods ass – anytime, anywhere
2)Chuck Norris could kick any pirate, any ninja – anytime, anywhere
3)Any pirate could kick any ninjas ass – anytime, anywhere
And as a profound conclusion – you would be much more likely to find ninjas floating around in one of those stupid junk boats than to find pirates sailing their cool ship around a Japanese war lords castle a hundred miles inland – now that is a scientific fact!
And need I say –
A pirate ship would kick a junks ass – anytime, anywhere
March 25th, 2009 at 10:56 am
What about PC vs MAC?
And the all important, yet unresolved “Less Filling” vs “Tastes Great!” (I’m referring to Lite Beer and not lesbians).
March 25th, 2009 at 11:12 am
If there is a god – he prays to Chuck Norris.
Sorry.. I wanted to be part of the group too.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:15 am
133. TEX – “now that is a scientific fact!”
Sorry TEX, but I gotta say this…. cite your sources. Peer reviewed papers?
Sure Pirate boats look prettier but junk boats are far more slender, allowing it to sail into the wind if need be. And battens on the side add stability without unnecessary weight, enabling them to sail the seas with the stealth of a ninja!
‘poop deck’…haha
oouchan: Yellowbeard, eh? Then I raise with Ong Bak’s Ting! So far, I’ve three martial artists who can (and in Ong Bak’s
Jaa’s case will) perform stunts without special effects, you’ve got one ‘drunken’ actor with a very skilled double and a pirate who was felled by tax evasion. haha…
I suppose the new honorable mention for this list could be Chuck Norris vs. Everything else.
Chuck Norris won the 1983 World Series of Poker, despite holding only a Joker, a Get out of Jail Free Monopoloy card, a 2 of clubs, 7 of spades and a green #4 card from the game UNO.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:42 am
I just got a tattoo of a pirate and a ninja holding hands. So…there ends that debate…
even though pirates would totally win =D
nice list!
March 25th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
It took me 10mins to connect to the site today – probably very busy – although in that time only 8 comments were further posted to this list.
128: Bucslim – still applauding you on how you handled that situation.
V funny, forthright, …and true. We’ve covered all this already, and there is no escape from personal subjectivity. I thought the argument actually started off very well – at first. Being a very enthusiastic pholosopher myself, I never forget my lesson No.1 – listen, contemplate, absorb, acknowledge – and then leave it well alone!
Anyway, I hope nature will win the global war against humanities terror – it’s not that I have no love for mankind, on the contrary, but I have a bigger love for the planet and the animals.
Ninjas cunning will always win over pirate brut force.
Left Wing is good for me – power to the people!
Roadrunner was always better than Speedy, Tweety, or Bugs – but a very close contender with Tom and Jerry for me.
Science and religion – both talk about the same thing from different angles. Here’s to the day when they meet in the middle!
March 25th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Ninjas ftw
March 25th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Great list, I enjoyed it thoroughly.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
gabi319 & oouchan
First I would point out that Jack was not a drunk, he obviously had a slight nervous disorder, and it would be best to not making further folly of the disabled.
Peer reviews – after extensive wiki research of thousands of pirate peers I am pleased to report that pirates all agree that they are the coolest bad-asses in the world, with the exception of Chuck Norris who they acknowledge as beyond cool.
I did equivalent research on the “ninjas”, however I found absolutely nothing positive about them, as a matter of fact most of the results came in some kind funky hieroglyphic looking characters, apparently they never have learned to write in English, nor was there any mention of the CN in their chicken scratching that I could find.
I then did a scientific analysis of the cultural and stylistic differences of ninja vs. pirate, but had to omit the CN due to a search which sent my processor into a Super Johnny Cool loop that required me to unplug it from the sparking wall socket.
Results:
Ninjas are Maoist ant-people that hide until night and come out in their pajamas with their faces hidden and throw little stars they make out of the tin foil that comes with their fish-head take out.
Following is the best day time image of a ninja I could find –
http://www.freefoto.com/images/01/08/01_08_52—Duck_web.jpg
note the dark beady eyes, long orange snout, the disgusting webbed feet
Pirates NEVER run out of rum.
Here is a historically correct depiction of a pirate -
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/pirate-9.jpg
Note the coolness of everything they wear, nice embroidered hat and long jacket, colorful silk sashes, big leather belts with BIG silver buckles, ass kicking boots, and multiple shooting and stabbing and slashing weapons, and the ever-present pile of solid gold booty and parrot squawking “pieces of eight-pieces of eight”.
A scientific thought experiment – What would you want coming at your face? A pirates’ musket ball or one of those silly ninja star thingies?
March 25th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
127. gabi319: At least is wasn’t to a paper mache volcano…
136. gabi319: ha! You got 2 failed actors and Bruce Lee. (I will admit that Lee is cool!) So I will throw in Drake and Morgon!
137. Yummy-Taquitos – would love to see that tattoo!
March 25th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
robot pirates vs. zombie ninjas
March 25th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
128. bucslim – you’ve summed it all up – yet again.
You’re very good at this.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Christiane: bucslim has had a lot of practice
March 25th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Ugh… im stifling a yawn right now
March 25th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Nice list, though the coyote cartoon was out of line :\
March 25th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Thank you Christiane, and welcome to the bucslim posse.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
same goes for Lifeschool and gabi.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
you people forget that vikings beat both pirates AND ninjas!
March 25th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
# 28. nolod1207 – I agree, saying team A vs. team B is too general. Same with superhero X vs. villan X. I think those should be seperate list to themselves.
# 29. cymraegbachgen87 – Red vs. Blue is hilarious.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
151. LittleNut: I agree, vikings would rule!
March 25th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
You missed one: Silverback gorilla vs. bull walrus.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I have to say, bucslim’s comment (128) was one of the more entertaining rants I have read on listverse.
If there was a “Most Entertaing Rants” section in the forums it would defiantly be included.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Rock vs. Paper vs. Scissor
One of the few ultimate 3-way rivalries – each with its own powers and weaknesses…
Rock crushes Scissors
Paper smothers Rock
Scissors slices Paper
March 25th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Just to be funny….
Anon vs Q
March 25th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
bucslim~
aw honey! you always so good & keeping the peace & all. seems we got us a new crop of LVers to initiate. might I suggest a hazing ritual?
as for myself, I think i have made it quite clear how i feel about the science vs. religion debate. commented till my fingertips bruised the last go around. no more. can’t change people’s minds in a comment forum… all we can do is spark their curiosity and allow them to come to their own conclusions.
it’s like i told my 8 year old sister in law…
‘question EVERYTHING. don’t believe everything you hear. think for yourself, and even though you have to do what grown ups say, if it feels like it’s not right, it’s probably wrong. you know you can tell me anything, right? i won’t judge you, and i don’t snitch’
to which she responds
‘i know i can trust you and you won’t tell mommy. because mommy says you hate jesus and she can’t stand to be seen with you at the mall’
ringtailroxy
March 25th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Each of these ultimate rivalries has a third party to consider…each has a reason to distrust the others, but sometimes two join against one.
Man vs. Nature…. vs. Machine
Pirates vs. Ninjas…. vs. the Law
Ali vs. Frazier…. vs. Time
Right vs. Left…. vs. Middle
Coyote vs. Roadrunner…. vs. ACME
Team A vs. Team B…. vs. the Refs
Hero X vs. Villian Y…. vs. the Cops
Science vs. Religion…. vs. Apathy
March 25th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Randall vs. everyone else
March 25th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
janus~
i just laughed so hard i spilled my tea!
however, in Randall’s defense, we have never had any problems. maybe it’s because i have no problem posting pics in the forum of my cleavage…
rtr
March 25th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
rtr – i will have to visit the forums more often…
March 25th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Ninjas own it up everytime
March 25th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
CLEAVAGE!!?!! YEEEEE- haaaaaaaaWWWWW!!!
(a sweaty buc 23-skidoos to the forums)
March 25th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
70. gabi319
Like the Big-Bang Theory is very hard for me to understand. What caused the Big-Bang nothingness? If had a closed box and opened it after a billion years would their be a planet inside?
If god is extremely powerful it would be a complete waste of time to even attempt to understand him.
There is some things i do not understand maybe because of my age as i am quite young
Our different views represents how we are from very different walks of life and our views on different things.
And nah Chuck Norris sucks Bruce Lee would destroy him any day.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
*note to JFrater*
given the poll outcomes & response to the word ‘cleavage’ in a comment..suggest more ‘cleavage’ in the list content.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
my previous comment led me to consider the ultimate hetro male rivalry…T vs A. as in ‘tit’ men vs ‘ass’ men. granted at least part of that could go either way. er..so to speak.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Next time add this:
End justifies the means vs. End doesn’t justify the means.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
What about Stalin vs. Trotsky??????
March 25th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
how about pacquiao vs abs cbn
March 25th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
or willie revillame vs. humor ( because he lacks 0ne)
March 25th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
141. TEX
HAHAHAHAHAHA!! Thank you TEX! Hip Hop class was angry tonight and coming back home to that comment you made was wonderful! Although… taken out of context, embroidered hats, colorful silk scarves, and a golden booty take on a completely different spin on “The Pirate.”
142. oouchan
Ong Bak’s making a sequel so Jaa’s not a failed actor yet! I’ve got an under-health-insured aging actor, a relatively unknown, and Bruce Lee. Can I add Darkwing Duck? Technically not a ninja but he wears a mask and is the Terror that Flaps in the Night. close ’nuff.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
nice list. I’m not sure if science vs. religion is the most ultimate rivalry though. I’m trying to say a side or anything, but I kinda agree with 138. Lifeschool. There’s no contradiction (differences maybe, but not outright contradictions) between science and religion of any kind.
and ninjas would totally kick pirates ass.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
I would have put:
“Gary Kasparov’s rivalry with the Flying Penis” above his rivalry with Deep Blue.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Why is there even a Ninja Vs Pirate Debate. I am pretty sure everyone these days now agree a ninja would kill a pirate! How do you kill something that can not be seen?
March 25th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
everyone has forgotten the big one…
it’s caused millions of deaths…
its been around for hundreds of years…
ladies and gentlemen, its PROTESTANT VS CATHOLIC!
there’s also blur vs oasis
March 25th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
On David vs. Goliath, David actually had the advantage. His sling was a much longer ranged weapon and he could carry a lot more stones than Goliath could spears.
I’d have been more impressed with David’s god if David had faced Goliath with a spear and shield and had won.
Religion vs. Science is more properly labeled Superstition vs. Knowledge in my opinion.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Great list, but you forgot
assholes who cant stand music not classified into a tiny genre vs normal people who enjoy music
March 25th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
calm down guys. the cleavage is real world & ‘G’ rated… look under the Listverse Pic Thread page 45. my hair is a bit longer now. my attitude may be more intense than last year. my knowledge base certainly is.
rtr
March 25th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Family Guy VS. Simpsons
Family Guy vs. South Park
March 25th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Sorry Rox, you can’t say that word to me. It’s like tossin doughnuts to fat guys or Shriners scattering candy on the street during the parade to kids. We simply must sprint towards the ‘prize.’
It’s programmed into my DNA to do a Lurch imitation towards the cleavage. I won’t say what happens to the DNA after that exchange because this is a family thread.
I just hope you’ve removed the sticks from your compost pile this year, put a few more bags of cushy leaves on top so I can relax instead of standing on my tippy toes all friggen night. And turn on the lights a couple of times, the night vision goggles gives me a rash.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
foohy: the front page has been changed to make it more apparent to new readers what it is all about. There have been too many comments from people who see it for the first time and don’t understand – there was a lot of clutter from “your view”, the store, the books, the admin posts, the forum posts.
What we have now will be updated a little in time – I may do an admin post about it just to clear it all up for people.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
I don’t like the new home page…
March 25th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
For information on today’s big site update visit this article on the forums which I wrote – it explains it all
March 25th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
penis: why?
March 25th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
171. gabi319 – Ok…I’ll give you darkwing. He was extra cool!
174. Klingon: because the pirates are still around? That means ninjas haven’t won.
178. General Tits Von Chodehoffen: so true!
185. jfrater: just got back from dinner and pulled up the site and I see your comment…. o.O
It took me a moment to realize you were talking to someone instead of having an envy moment. (sorry)
March 25th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
lindsay lohan vs people of the united states
March 25th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Duck the Fodgers.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Cool list..very true too..i like the science vs. religion… it is a neverending battle
March 25th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
buclim~
you havn’t noticed i replaced the compost pile with a decent compost box? you can just sit on top now and even use my barbeque if you like…
rtr
March 25th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
o0h- and the rash is from the diatamaceous earth… or from other activities you engage in while you satisfy my exhibitionist tendencies…
rtr
March 25th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Dante vs Virgil in Devil May Cry!!! wooooo!
March 25th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
78 Travis: Hard core porn v soft core porn OOh Porn FTW
156 Travis: Anon v Randall Oh but maybe that would clog things. Both so verbose.
And Vikings all the way!!
March 25th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
“Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame.” – Einstein.
I don’t see them as rivals.
I love this list otherwise. Entertaining indeed.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
@rocknopera: I’d rather be lame, than blind…^^
March 25th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Pirate all dee way! Great list.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
“194. rocknopera”
The quote by Einstein is:
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”
The tone and meaning is rather different when the quote is presented correctly.
Science and religion are -and always will be- incompatible.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the Universe.”
_Einstein
March 25th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
180. brooklyn718
lol, how dare you. South Park and Family Guy will never compare to the Simpsons, ever.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:13 am
The Simpsons are definitely in a different class than Family Guy and South Park, IMO.
Also, JFrater, you said ‘penis’ again. heh heh.
Copperdragon’s comment is pretty interesting, I like the idea of the rivalries teaming up against a common enemy.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:45 am
how bout itchy and scratchy?
March 26th, 2009 at 1:47 am
sorry Jfrater, much prefered the previous home page – everything was to hand, not cluttered at all, and gave you a glimpse of the full diversity of the site
March 26th, 2009 at 3:26 am
“I am going to congratulate my opponent – no ad hominem attacks, cool head and the realisation that we are not going to agree. I have to say, Stizzy, that you are the best religious person I have ever debated!
PS I apologise for the tone of 111 – I didnt realise how confrontational it became! ”
Didn’t get a chance to reply to anything else, as I remembered I was at work and should actually have done some :p
But it was an awesome debate, thoroughly enjoyable. Hope to continue it again some time
March 26th, 2009 at 5:44 am
#130 cymraegbachgen87 – sorry – I didn’t realize the Niels Bohr Anti-Defamation Society Flying Squad (LV Chapter) held their bi-monthly meetings here.
March 26th, 2009 at 5:48 am
204 – We have just migrated. It used to be the facebook chapter but they weren’t hardline enough.
March 26th, 2009 at 8:21 am
198. Martin: “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the Universe.”
_Einstein
****
Leave it to Einstein to get straight to the root of the problem.
March 26th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Must have been those killer shoes he wore
March 26th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Must have been the Shoes. And you forgot Allied vs Axis on the list.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:29 am
BTW: One of the best written lists on the sites.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
These are the sides I’m taking
10: Man (I am a Homo Sapien after all)
9: Pirates (Took forever to decide)
8: Ali
7: Utes (Against BYU)
6: Liberal
5: Coyote (I always wanted him to win)
4: Kasparov
3: Depends on who it is.
2: Goliath
1: Science
March 26th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I don’t consider science and religion to be rivals. Never have, never will.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
197. Skydiver
“Science and religion are -and always will be- incompatible.”
absolutely correct
same thing I’ve said several times when this came up,
and inevitably will come up again…and again……and again
March 26th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Wait…you’re saying ID ISNT the perfect marriage of science and religion?
STOP THE PRESSES!
lol
March 27th, 2009 at 12:18 am
In response to those who responded to me…
Well… Fair enough for you. But religion and science can exist together… Preferring to be lame over blind is still worse than being neither… Which was kind of my point.
I didn’t mean to “misquote” Einstein there, doesn’t change the message at all. I know that being a Christian makes me pretty unpopular on this site. But, I have a brain, and I’m a science dork… Haven’t come across anything in science that has threatened my faith. Not everyone is able to understand, but I don’t expect people to…
The correct Einstein quote:
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”
Tone feels the same to me.
Bring on the attacks.
March 27th, 2009 at 12:40 am
213. rocknopera – “Haven’t come across anything in science that has threatened my faith.”
THAT is what makes people unpopular here – not their religion or lack of one. It’s those who use their religion as an excuse to disbelieve anything else they come across.
…hmm…that and commentors who repeat what was mentioned 50 times on the board already. And question ‘talkers’. Nothing drives me crazy like the question talkers…
March 27th, 2009 at 3:18 am
question talkers?
March 27th, 2009 at 4:58 am
Addiction vs. Sobriety
March 27th, 2009 at 6:23 am
All religions have, at their core, an indisputable dogma. This common aspect prevents adherents from straying from a set of tenets which are designed to direct the thought processes (programming) of the adherent. In general dogma commands that information contrary to the basic tenets be IGNORED. Thus IGNORance is a common characteristic of the religious.
And I would like to say I’m not directing this towards religious people with malice – it’s just the way it works.
(and they are required to ignore this statement of course)
March 27th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
213. rocknopera
No attacks. It’s just a misquote; happens all the time.
Einstein meant that without religion dictating our way of thinking for centuries and raising the questions that it did, scientists wouldn’t have pushed so hard to make science what it is; therefore science may have moved along at a far slower pace. Religion forced mankind to beg question after question. This urged science to try find the real answers to those questions. Religion was a driving force for science to advance as fast as it did. “Religion without science is blind” only means that religion will always remain what it is without science to open our eyes.
The meaning changes when the quote is in its proper order because Einstein is stating that religion has pushed science into discrediting it, but you don’t realize this until you read the second half. The cleverness of the quote is that the first half makes it sound as if he’s praising religion however when you read the second half, you realize that both halves are berating religion while science is being praised. When the quotes are reversed, the implication changes, as though they need one another; which they do not.
March 28th, 2009 at 3:18 am
The problem is fundamentalism and authority. Religion itself is foolish but the spiritual tenets that appeal to us aren’t religion- they have intrinisic wisdom and value- the organization of a hierarchy of authority to try to regulate them is just ridiculous and will always become corrupt.
Fundamentalism (aka Dogma) is the real threat, where even in the face of irrefutable proof the individual refuses to change their views, and this fundamentalism is always the result of social programming by those in power in the hierarchy who imprint their vested interests on others.
Spirituality is a beautiful and amazing thing- the corruption of it into religion is a human flaw, and the difference between the former and latter is huge. Spirituality is an anarchism of the heart, and religion is a fascism of the soul.
March 28th, 2009 at 6:31 am
219. Mr.Graves
Beautifully written.
215. cymraegbachgen87 – “question talkers?”
*face slap*? You’re a jerk? for question talking? haha? I hope you have a great weekend, sir?
March 28th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Pirates vs. Ninjas:
Why don’t they just join forces? Then you could have pirate ninjas. Or ninja pirates. They could wear black and swing giant swords and sneak around (but leave the parrot behind – don’t want Polly yelling “SQWAAAAWWWKK!!” when you’re trying to ambush a foe) bashing evildoers. Make a great comic book!
On #3 – great pic. That’s my favorite movie!
March 28th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
I feel that ninjas win, because of all the hardcore training they have to do. All a pirate needs to do is live on a boat and not die.
Wasn’t there controversy regarding Deep Blue having human help? I remember a documentary about it, and although it was largely one-sided in favor of Kasparov there did seem to be some interesting evidence.
The Science vs. Religion debate is a big wank. All either side succeeds in is convincing me there are annoying yahoos on both sides. (Protip: If this compels you to respond defensively, then yes, I meant you)
March 29th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Pirates win of course. Pirate Regalia is the holy dress of Pastafarians!
My His Noodliness’ appendages bless you!
Long live the church of FSM
RAmen
March 29th, 2009 at 7:44 am
To give fascism as an example of “the Extreme Right” is to spread misconceptions. How a collectivist ideology can be attributed to be a part of the Right? Fascism, the same as Nazism is only another type of socialism – this time in a nationalist disguise. It’s because of this uncomfortable fact the leftwingers took it to themselves to spread this misconceptions. This way they kill two birds with one stone – not only do they get away from being associated with another (apart from communism) atrocious ideology but they also manage to smear their opponents at the same time.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:32 am
“218. Mr. Graves
Spirituality is an anarchism of the heart, and religion is a fascism of the soul.”
What utter nonsense.
How does one have “anarchism of the heart”? A massive coronary perhaps?
My heart is a muscle that pumps blood throughout my body, what does yours do?
There is no evidence of a soul.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
224. Skydiver: I wouldn’t bother getting into any conversations with Mr. Graves. Several months ago he and Anon got into a lengthy verbal battle, and Graves claimed, at that time, to be a scientist living in Chile. Not just in Chile, mind you, but in the same town as Anon!
Now, Graves has reinvented himself, and is in the U.S.
He is untrustworthy, has some kind of mental condition which makes it impossible for him to tell the truth or react as most humans react. I’m not saying he’s a bad man, I’m saying he’s a damaged man.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
to#225: You know, it’s funny segue, as I have read you saying similar things before about others and I have often wondered, when scanning your comments, if you yourself are a pathological liar (pseudologia fantastica ) with a complex and defensive resilience to counterbalance wrongful intruders within your personal domain.
I find this mildly intriguing. Acknowledgment, might give you strength to stand on your own.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
My answers:
man (I’m a man)
ninjas
equal (I’m not in to boxing)
depends on the people in the team
Left Wing (I’m a liberal)
I don’t know… I don’t watch the cartoon
I don’t know… I’m not in to chess too.
Hero
David
Science
March 29th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
and more again…
toys and computer games
skiing and surfing
potato chips and chocolates
Plankton and Mr. Krabs
Multiply, Friendster, Facebook, and Myspace
structure (discipline) and creativity (uniqueness)
sweet and sour
ketchup and mayo
skirts, shorts and pants
meat lover and vegetarian
macabre and cute
dimsum and sushi
modern and antique
pride and humility
heels and flats (shoes)
boxers and briefs
plucking, waxing, threading, and shaving
day and night
love and money
splendor and austerity
shoes and slippers
monsters and aliens
vampires and werewolves
instant coffee and brewed coffee
drum set and cajon
classic and contemporary
wine and beer
planes and ferries
movie stars and rock stars
March 30th, 2009 at 7:12 am
Nice list.
By the way, go ninjas!
March 30th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Ringtailroxy-the comment your 8 yr old sis in law about you hating Jesus and your mom in law don`t want to be seen in the mall with made me spit a perfectly good mouthful of Budweiser on my sons computer screen. Out of the mouth of babes.
All you people who think you know about Ninjas go to Youtube and type in REDNECK NINJA. You will learn a vast amount of secrets.
Remember// Never ninja someone that don`t need to be ninja`d !
March 31st, 2009 at 6:12 am
How about the Underdog vs. the Powerhouse…especially in sports!
April 1st, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Uncle Scrooge v. John D. Rockerduck?
April 1st, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Dallas Cowboys vs Washington Redskins.
Los Angeles Lakers vs Boston Celtics.
New York Yankees vs Boston Red Socks.
900 lb Gorilla vs John 3:16 fan.
April 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
The thing about Man vs. Nature is there really will never be a winner.
If man wins and conquers nature, our world will be destroyed, thus ruining our lives.
If nature wins and conquers man, man will be destroyed, thus ruining our lives.
Once nature finally retaliates to our constant badgering with another Ice Age, however, will probably be the KO Punch.
April 6th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Oh and one other thing, until you hear of a music genre called “Ninja Metal”, Pirates will always have the upper hand in that battle!
April 9th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
How about wolverine and Sabertooth or Tom and Jerry?
April 12th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
226. Diogenes – March 29th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
to#225: You know, it’s funny segue, as I have read you saying similar things before about others and I have often wondered, when scanning your comments, if you yourself are a pathological liar (pseudologia fantastica ) with a complex and defensive resilience to counterbalance wrongful intruders within your personal domain.
I find this mildly intriguing. Acknowledgment, might give you strength to stand on your own.
****
I’m not sure I know what you happen to be referring to, but I have never told a falsehood on LV. I simply have no reason to, nor would it do me any good.
I’ve had a very interesting and varied life. I’ve had the most interesting jobs and met some fantastic people because of those jobs. I’ve raised 3 wonderful children to adulthood, all of whom are well adjusted and self-starters. I have a very, very nasty disease, a genetic syndrome, which is exceedingly rare, and for which there is no cure and no treatment save palliative care. That treatment itself causes other problems, which we then have to deal with as if they were diseases in and of themselves.
I have several degrees, and continue learning on an ongoing basis; mostly sciences, but also history, neurology, neurobiology, anthropology, physics, and classic literature and poetry.
I am an artist, and a writer, I used to be a musician, but haven’t my instruments any longer.
Now, Mr. Diogenes, what about any of that would I lie? And why?
Is it a requirement that everyone live a boring life? I haven’t. Ever.
Perhaps you think you are clever and have smoked out a pathological liar.
Sorry Di.
Hate to burst your crystal bubble there, but Everything has been true. It’s so much easier to tell the truth. You never have to remember what story you told to whom.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:48 am
the coyote did manage to catch the road runner!! problem was, when he was going to cook him, he started having flashbacks and second thoughts, and let him go to chase again!!
April 14th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Great list!
April 14th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
NINJAS!!!
April 14th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Pirates! (hehe)
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:07 am
Science VS religion is crap. They’re not rivals.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
What about the Hatfields and the McCoys?–
BTW: McCain is not a “conservative” by any definition of the word.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
212 rocknopera
“But religion and science can exist together…”
Just a quick question… You do believe in evolution and the like, right? Just cause I interpreted your comment as an expression of my own belief. I dont ignore science because of my faith, I just dont see it as necessarily contradictory either.
gabi319 (213): I think he was saying that science does not automatically invalidate religion, nor does religion mean that you have to ignore and supress science. The two can coexist.
Atheism is not necessarily a sign of superior intellect, just as religious faith is not necessarily a sign of fundamentalist simplicity.
“It’s those who use their religion as an excuse to disbelieve anything else they come across.”
I completely agree, that is fundamentalist dogma in the extreme but it´s just that I dont think that´s what he meant with “Haven’t come across anything in science that has threatened my faith.”
Just a thought (could be wrong!)
June 8th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Anyone ever see the show ‘The Deadliest Warrior’ They put two groups or 2 people together from the past and present and simulate who would win in a fight. They have scientists, doctors, and other experts who compare fighting tactics and weapons of each groups. They had an episode on Ninja’s versus Spartans. Needless to say the Spartans won.
Other episodes:
Pirates V. Knights
Yakuza V. Mafia
Viking V. Samurai
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
On a global scale, Pirates were far more influential than ninjas
August 30th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Considering that 99% of everything that has ever lived is now extinct, I’d say that in the end nature always wins.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
u could have had
stalin vs hitler
bill vs ben
me vs everyone
jews vs palestinians
tomato vs tomAto
September 26th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
tesla vs edison? that would be sick
October 8th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
DANTE vs VERGIL must be in the bonus list!!!!
November 14th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
good list, but you forgot a major one
TOM VS. JERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!