Slashdot Mirror
Creationists Silence Critics with DMCA
Gothmog of A writes "As Richard Dawkins' offcial site reports, an organization called Creation Science Evangelism Ministries has been submitting DMCA copyright requests to YouTube. This has resulted in the Rational Response Squad (RRS) being banned after they protested against videos being taken down and accounts being closed. The RRS videoes attack creationism (AKA intelligent design) and promote the atheist viewpoint. According to the RRS, the copyright requests are without merit since the material in question is covered by fair use or has been declared to be in the public domain. Behind Creation Science Evangelism Ministries is the infamous Kent Hovind (AKA Dr. Dino) who is currently serving jail time for tax evasion."
Don't bother entering this topic unless you have asbestos briefs on.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I have no beef with any major religion, but when large groups of people continue to insist that something as definatively proven (and relatively obvious) as evolution does not exist, they lose an awful lot of credibility.
If your entire system of beliefs relies on blindly sticking to what a book of scripture says, you have serious issues. It is not hard to fathom that there was human error somewhere in that book, be it in the writing, the translation (or the translation's translation), or your own interpretation. It should not be so hard to admit that you could be wrong, without your life falling apart.
The issue in TFA is really either all about Ego or Money. I tend to think it's a little of both.
"The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
Do they want to appeal to the religio-creationist market or to the more technical athiest, sceptic, agnostic market.
The way they handled this (with banning the rational guys) is going to mean they can't have both.
I think they would have been better served to take the videos down, and then after processing that they were fair use, put them back up. That would have not pissed off either market particularly.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Isn't the correct response to a false DMCA take-down notice to file a DMCA counterclaim? Was that done in this case?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Since the videos are public domain, we can follow the recent tactics of the Jedi teacher vs. Viacom.
There is no god but the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. --Denis Diderot
If you need an evangelist ministry to get people to believe your claims, it's not really science.
"In case of emergency, break glass. Scream. Bleed to death."
I believe the religious guys also tried to stop the Grand Canyon stores from selling books on similar topics. They must figure if they can shield people from scientific speculation promoting evolution their case for creation gets a "fairer" chance.
looks like I will have to get my abestos suit...
As a Creationist I'm stunned that they would do something this dumb. Honestly, I have no problem with people arguing about religion and trying to prove it wrong, that's to be expected and trying to silence it is akin to saying that your argument is weaker than your opponent's. This is really quite a dumb thing for them to do, I hope some kind of counter-claim is filed and the videos are put back up. There are some extreme Creationists out there who don't want to debate the topic and just want to shut up anyone who doesn't believe, I would hate for those people to become the stereotypical Creationist when they're really the minority (though having been on /. a which that stereotype is already in effect to an extent...ugh).
Not cool guys. Don't go making the rest of us look bad just because you can't take some criticism/arguing. And really don't make the rest of us look back by using a sore subject (DMCA) improperly and illegally to try and silence the criticism.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
The Panda's Thumb also has a story about this, along with a video of "Dr." Hovind. Up until a few days ago CSE's website had this disclaimer: "None of the materials produced by Creation Science Evangelism are copyrighted, so feel free to copy those and distribute them freely.", now that disclaimer is gone. Is Hovind trying to retroactively copyright stuff that has been in the public domain for years?
Hovind is currently serving 10 years in prison for tax evasion. One would think that his time would be better spent raising money to appeal his conviction, or getting his sentence reduced; rather than filing fraudulent DMCA takedown notices. Unless Hovind's son is running the ministry now while mum and dad sit in the pen. If that's the case then Hovind's son doesn't appear to be anymore aware of the law than his father was.
Dear Whiners,
We here at YouTube are all about free speech. We like it so much we are an outlet for free speech.
Starting immediately, we have implemented a policy so that things are kept fair and balanced around here for the First Amendment. Every time you request a certain video/user removed just because you don't like what they have to say, not only will their account/video be deleted, but an account/video that advocates your point of view will also deleted.
There will be some dissent over this policy in the short term. However, in the long term it will serve to stop filling our email boxes full of whining complaints and petty bullshit.
For those wanting to play the DMCA card where it doesn't belong, we have also instituted a policy of banning your IP so that we don't have to listen to your illiterate ass.
Play nice in the sandbox and make YouTube a thing that all can enjoy!
Sincerely,
The YouTube Management
The game.
Do they want to appeal to the religio-creationist market or to the more technical athiest, sceptic, agnostic market.
They aren't appealing to any group other than those that are willing to file a DMCA takedown request. The group, while also complaining in the way they are, should also file a counter-claim (as has been mentioned in this thread and others earlier in the week) and wait for it to be reinstated if GooTube decides it's appropriate.
Except evolution has nothing to do with thermodynamics. If you took your head out of your ass long enough to read books, you would see that evolution doesn't have a single thing to do with thermodynamics.
Lemmings are silly; dinosaurs are extinct.
A. There is no "macroevolution".
B. New species are easy to show. Take a colony of animals, split it into two sub-groups and breed only within those sub-groups until the sub-groups cannot breed with each other.
What you refuse to accept is that a dog will NEVER conceive a cat because that would disprove evolution.
There is no "proof" except in Math. Everything else depends upon evidence. And there is plenty of evidence showing evolution.
No. Because you refuse to accept the repeatable experiments showing exactly that does NOT mean that those experiments do not exist.
Which "transitional forms" are those? All you're doing is repeating crap you've heard.
Someone who will violate the laws of his country and scripture is still to be respected because he wouldn't make false statements on other subjects?
it to mean that ideas, philosophies or thoughts that seek the abolishment of reason, freedom, democracy should be covered by it.
"creationism" seeks to set up a delusion that world have come to existence with some supernatural power's calling, and even 6000 years ago too. To the contrary of hard, solid evidence against.
Allowing that would in future would mean that same people will start to call for abolishment of certain sciences and procedures, because they would be continually providing evidence challenging the 6000 year old lie.
Read radical news here
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
A challenge:
Show me a miracle! Not just a long shot chance, but an honest to god miracle (this means not someone who was resuscitated 5 minutes after death, or 1 hour after being frozen underwater. I'm talking about ashes->living. I'm talking about buried->talking)
I want evidence, or better yet, a "proof". A proof of miracles, or God, would be fine.
Barring proof, highly suggestive evidence, something that can be tested via the scientific method, would be good too.
You see, I can conduct all kinds of experiments that point at evolution, and I can dig up core samples with fossils that suggest it as well. I can do DNA analysis that point to it as well, and given enough time, I can develop an observational methadology to prove evolution going forward.
Do that for me with God. Or Miracles.
That's the difference between faith and science. Faith relies upon, "well, you can't prove it isn't true." Science relies upon, "All the evidence points in that direction, so lets test it."
It's stupid to base an argument on the impossibility of proving a negative result; yet thats what most creationists do. In this sense, as Richard Dawkins would say, religion is nothing more than a mental virus. A piece of intellectual stupidity that seems to resonate with people as an intellectual comfort blanket, no different than the ostrich sticking his head in the sand (or up his rear).
That's not to say there isn't value to spirituality. But creationism, and fundamentalist beliefs in the "reality" of the bible? Hogwash.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
> It goes against base thermodynamic principles, but we don't hear the Darwinites ... whining about that.
"Creationists always try to use the second law
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies.
Only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The Earth is not a closed system, it's powered by the Sun
so fuck the damn creationists! Doomsday, get my gun!"
-- MC Stephen Hawking
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
The link is to blurb that explains nothing which links to another blurb that explains nothing. All this story accomplished was to start yet another creation/evolution war. Come on now, I know it's Saturday, but it can't be that slow of a news day. I did a quick google news search and the only link that came up for this story is the slashdot one. It's not even a story.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
Evolution is just a THEORY, and a shabby one at that. It goes against base thermodynamic principles
The basis for this endlessly-parroted complaint is that evolution makes "simpler forms turn into more complex forms" while the Second Law predicts that in a closed system the entropy and disorder only increases and obviously we can't have that if trilobites are turning into people, right?
But the Earth is not a closed system. It receives high energy, low entropy photons from the sun at 6000K and reradiates low energy, high entropy photons into space at 300K. Any "closed system" that includes evolutionary processes would necessarily have to include the sun as well. Even if local entropy on Earth decreases in certain parts of the biosphere, it's only possible because the entropy at the center of the sun has been increasing the whole time as hydrogen turns into helium. Just imagine what will happen to the Lord's creation once that process comes to an end!
The sun is a cruel trickster- it makes a handy scapegoat in global warming arguments, but with the other hand it undermines this illiterate hocus pocus about the Second Law of Thermodynamics forbidding evolution.
The alleged infringement is of video tapes of his trial for tax evasion.
Geeze, while you're at it, you ought to at least provide a link to the site MC Hawking's Crib.
Im sure voltaire or whomever said it didnt intend it to mean that ideas, philosophies or thoughts that seek the abolishment of reason, freedom, democracy should be covered by it.
The quote in question is from a biographer of Voltaire, as a summary of Voltaire's attitude. As many of Voltaire's debating opponents did seek such goals, I would find it surprising that such a summary could be made of his attitude if he hadn't believed that free speech was that important. He lived in a different world to us, where all of these things had to be fought for. And only by sticking absolutely to those principles could he hope to show what they could achieve. Yes, I'm sure he would have defended the free speech of opponents of democracy. And of free speech.
The article stating that he is in jail for tax evasion is a blatant red herring. It has no bearing on the group's DMCA claims whatsoever.
Actually it does. The DMCA claims were aimed at silencing criticism of him that stemmed from his imprisonment.
'Thou shalt not bear false witness'?
Technoli
Exactly. Evolution is a scientific theory, whereas "intelligent design" is an attempt to justify people's rejection of science in favor of mythology.
Susceptibility to superstitious concepts has more to do with gullibility than it does intelligence,
Susceptibility to superstitious concepts has the MOST to do with upbringing and indoctrination. "Gullibility" is an unkind word, because all children are credulous. Credulity is a biological necessity, as it turns out.
Children are adapted (evolutionarily programmed, you might say) to believe their parents and elders. This is an important survival trait in a species that passes information socially. Because they implicitly believe their parents, children don't need trial and error to learn important survival information like "avoid that toxic plant!". Other species use instinct, and we do too, but we deal with too much information and flexibility for instinct to be sufficient - language and vertical information transfer between generations adds greatly to our ability to survive.
Think back on how many things you believe because a parent or teacher, or even an authoritative book, told you as a child. I'm constantly realizing things I "know" are not at all scientific, they're merely something I was told when I was still credulous and impressionable. Now that I am a critically thinking adult, I have to reevaluate those beliefs one by one as I discover them.
The side effect of childhood credulity is that people tend to believe what their parents do, or failing that, their elders and peers. Unnecessary/untrue/extra beliefs about the supernatural don't generally cause a fitness decrease: whereas not believing your parents about the poisonous plant will kill you, believing that Zeus is responsible for lightning bolts doesn't kill you. So we err on the side of being too credulous, and the more-or-less harmless beliefs accumulate over centuries. In fact, within societies that persecute or kill heretics and apostates (as many have), being credulous about the supernatural can be an important survival mechanism!
This is a pretty strong reinforcement mechanism. Some people break away, but in truth the universal best predictor of belief is parental belief. And often with those who do break away you'll find that their parents were lip-service religious more than deep believers.
When the rubber hits the road, religion ultimately has to retreat from explanations where science has achieved better/more supportable ones. It's painful, because our credulity for doctrine runs deep. But given time, it happens. It has long since happened for the weather (Zeus does not throw lightning bolts, electrostatic buildup in the clouds produces them) and for the structure of the universe (the Earth is not the center of things). For most of us, the age of the universe and the origin of species has left the religious purview as well, while a few holdouts entrench and struggle to cling to their sinking ship of explanation.
Mostly, religion has now retreated to "matters of the spirit", but this will also eventually fall as understanding of the human brain, body, psychology, and mind become more complete. The evidence is growing progressively compelling that the entirety of human consciousness and behavior can be explained as functions of our brain and body. No mysterious, undetectable "spirit" is necessary for us to be us.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
This is an obvious violation of the Cthurch of Scientology's trademark, trade secret, copyright and patented techniques for dealing with its critics. How dare they!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Case in point, my co-workers. We're having drinks after work and the conversation turns to pothead cosmology, i.e. the stuff that sounds profound when you're 14 and blitzed on something mind-altering. Direct quote: "Man, how do we even know that we're what people say we are? This whole solar system could just be an atom in a booger in the nose of some giant." I swear to God, direct quote. This is the point at which I bowed out of the conversation. Previously the question was "Like how do the scientists even know what they're saying, like space is really expanding?" Redshift, I reply. "Yeah, but how can you really know?" Redshift, it's the doppler shifting of light from radiant stellar objects as they recede into the distance. How do we know that atoms aren't just miniature solar systems? Firstly, the whole electrons as planets around a nuclear as sun model is 19th century. Electrons are actually in zones of probability, the electron cloud. Furthermore, matter does not scale down to the atomic scale and retain all the characteristics we're used to. It's the same reason why "shrinking man" stories won't work, a human whose entire body, including atoms, is reduced to the size of an ant would not be able to breathe normal-sized air molecules, the gas could not exchange in the lungs. A miniature-sized human would need to breathe miniaturized air. "Ok. Well dude, could you imagine what the fourth dimension would be like?" It's time. Length, width, height, time. Four dimensions. You'll get people arguing some strange stuff off of string theory with 11-dimensions but I don't think anybody really understands what's going on there. Quantum mechanics makes grown men cry.
There's so much stuff out there that we don't know, that's completely mindblowing to contemplate, and most people are content getting slackjawed and starry-eyed over shit we already know the answer to. Go figure.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Gullibility is indeed a negative concept; it describes the (unfortunate) carryover of credulity from childhood into adulthood, where it is no longer very closely associated with fitness, and in fact tends to lower fitness. I wasn't addressing the credulity of children, I was addressing the gullibility of adults. This is precisely why I said what I said, the way I said it.
As for the rest, I really don't disagree.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Newton was a genius, but not very rational, no. Let alone humble. Dabbling in alchemy, strong believer in God, declaring that the three body problem was unsolvable (by him) and that therefore the balance in the solar system was actively maintained by God. Nope, not very rational at times. Excellent brain, weak mind.
Someone set up a listing of those that are issuing the DMCA notices. Then begin to issue DMCA notices to them. Also it would be good to issue counter complaints against those issuing the notices. That's your right. It works too.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
you have it absolutely correct - Thus we still call evolution a "theory".
AH, you bring up something many don't understand about science and theories. Yes evolution is theory, specifically it's Scientific Theory, which has a totally different connotation to what many people take "theory" as meaning, how it's used colloquially. When we say evolution is a scientific theory part of it's meaning is that it has not been proved scientifically false as of yet. Then if and when it is proven false the theory is modified to account for the discrepancy. If there are too many discrepancies, it's tossed out and research starts over with a new Hypothesis.
FalconShould there be a Law?
That is an extremely naive and disingenuous viewpoint. Certainly there were many issues; but slavery was prominent among them and to claim otherwise denies enormous parts of the historical record. For both the north and south, it was an economic and social hard-line issue. Several of my ancestors died fighting for, or otherwise assisting, the north. One while assisting illicit transport of slaves out of the south. Others fought for the south. I have diaries, photos, artifacts and newspaper accounts that attest to the highly volatile and key nature of the issue for the time, and that's just in my own genealogical work. If you actually dig into history in general, you'll find an enormous amount of corroborating material.
On top of all this, the issue of slavery remains a very sore point with many people, as does more recent prejudice that descends directly from the attitudes of the very worst slaveholders. Because of that, the wearing of a confederate flag is a downright dumb thing to do; the symbol today is a veritable magnet for the very worst in human nature, specifically involuntary slavery. It makes no more sense than to wear a sign that says "I hate niggers" and then try to explain that what you meant was you hate "ignorant people", or to wear a swastika, and try to explain you're just waving an old Christian symbol about. These things mean what society decides they mean; and both you and Mr. Nugent should know that without anyone having to explain it to you. So the rest of us assume you do know, and attribute the common meaning to your use of symbols.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
In the end God will win.
Even if you do get your YouTube account unbanned, it will be little comfort when you're burning up in hell.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Richard Dawkins is about as rational as any of the hoplophobes at the VPC
Wow never heard that term. Quick search, The term sheeple has also come to be used to describe hoplophobes and other similar persons - people with an illogical fear of weapons, fire, cars, machinery etc, and certain other things such as men in camouflage or ethnic minorities. In this sense it is used particularly amongst gun and knife enthusiasts.
You must be kidding. From the Wikipedia
Clinton Richard Dawkins (born March 26, 1941) is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.
Dawkins moved to England with his parents at the age of eight, and attended Oundle School. He then studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He gained a BA degree in zoology in 1962, followed by MA and DPhil degrees in 1966, and a DSc in 1989.
From 1967 to 1969, Dawkins was an assistant professor of zoology in the University of California, Berkeley. In 1970 he was appointed a lecturer, and in 1990 a reader in zoology in the University of Oxford. In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, a position endowed by Charles Simonyi with an express intention that Dawkins be its first holder. He has been a fellow of New College, Oxford since 1970.
Berkley, Oxford, Yep they churn out and promote as many irrational people as Liberty U. Pfft. Anyone who professes to be an atheist has voided any claim at rationality, period
Umm, I profess it, and for purely rational reasons. Ever do any comparative religion studies. No, I thought not. That would be rational, for you to explore the alternatives and weigh out the evidence rather than blindly follow what you were told. It requires just as much, if not more, blind faith as any actual religion.
No, actually it requires critical thinking, reasoning, and consideration of the presented evidence. Have you done so? Do you have some new theological supernatural evidence for me to consider? I'll wait.
....
...
... Maybe some evidence backing up your claim that I require blind faith to come to my conclusions.
No, Well I have some for you. http://video.google.com/url?docid=-5036418388026112799&esrc=sr1&ev=v&len=625&q=Atheism%3A%2BA%2BRough%2BHistory%2Bof%2BDisbelief&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DuhsMKQF1ROE&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-5036418388026112799%26q%3DAtheism%253A%2BA%2BRough%2BHistory%2Bof%2BDisbelief%26total%3D33%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H21-PwyzEntJXt5TFWxNQ_OtK85sCw
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1579120088897504565
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgKTVPNW2kE
Obviously I could go on all day, just with video links. I could very easily bury you in a mountain of books and papers. And your counter "evidence" is always going to be just one fictional book. Evolution is almost enough evidence of the non-existence of a supernatural GOD. This is why it frightens so many creationist. Tough.
Most people are atheist with respect to all the other religions of the world. I just go one GOD more.
BTW, Have you actually read anythi
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
These flagging have been carried out by Dr Dino's son Eric Hovind. The RSS got involved after RabidApe got suspended and Sapient was basically sticking up for RabidApe. Eddygoombah and co have also been on the receiving ends of takedowns but as far as I know, the RSS and RabidApe are the only ones that have actually been suspended as a result of Hovind's illegal activities.
I have yet to have any of my videos flagged, but I know many people that have. We are really pissed to say the least
Oh and Eric Hovind sent an email to Sapient asking him to "call" Hovind. Sapeient replied that under the circumstances it would be best to talk via email and say any reply will be publicly shown and can be used in a court of law and any reply would be a verification of that. Hovind has yet to reply.
All video's that have been taken down were in full compliance with "fair use". To make matters worse for Hovind, all material used was public domain anyways, the copyright archives (http://www.copyright.org/records) contain no filings reflecting any change from public domain to copyrighted material.
Check out http://www.rationalrespnders.com/ to keep updated on the situation.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
The country's very oath invokes the Christian god. The pledge of allegiance
The phrase "under god" in the USA Pledge of Allegiance was only added to the pledge around 1959 while Ike was president.
The expectation in the courtroom is that I swear to god
You're not required to swear to "god" in a US court. If you aren't Christian or otherwise object to swearing on a bible they have to allow you some other sort of swearing in.
My own taxes are being directly funneled into "faith-based initiatives."
Yeap, King George has taxpayer dollars going to his faith based organizations. What's more, though I haven't verified it yet, is that only Judaic, Christian, and Muslim groups are given money. In 2004 Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, "confirmed that no direct federal grants from his program had gone to a non-Christian religious group. This kind of religious favoritism is exactly what the Constitution's establishment clause was put in place to prevent."
I'm all for your religious scientists pursuing ID
Just don't try to have it taught in schools as a science, it's not.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You need to understand the Dawkin's just claims that without any evidence the God as described by the various existing religions is non-existent. Just like you are an atheist with respect to the Greek and Roman Gods he is an atheist to the God of the Bible.
Here is a Dawkin's quote that illustrates the point.
There's no reason for it to be on there, but there's also no reason to take it off, since that would incur extra expense as the plates they use to print money were re-done.
There is no extra cost in removing "In God We Trust" from US currency. Take a look at some US money, both coins and bills have the year it was printed or coined, so the plates and molds used are changed yearly anyway. Also every bill has a serial number printed on it, a different one for each bill.
Similarly, why care about the pledge of allegiance? It's one small line, and you can omit it if you wish.
Perhaps you didn't see or experience yourself but I experienced as well as saw other children having a ruler forcibly applied to my and their hands in a public school because we refused to say the pledge with "under god". Me, I refused to say it because at that tyme I considered myself Buddhist. And some Christians refuse to say it because to them it's calling the Lord's name in vain, which is one of the 10 commandments.
I also don't have a problem with faith-based initiatives, simply because the idea is that the money is for charitable works.
There's a problem if those getting the money require those they help to have the same faith the organization has or if it is used to try to convert people to that faith.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Where did you get the idea that "faith" in supernatural things is anything other than superstition. You most certainly do have a choice as to whether you want to be superstitious. At least as much choice as you have in anything. Obviously the superstitions you are raised with have an advantage but that's nothing to stop you from being reasonable anyway.
I'm not sure how that statement you made is any way insightful though. But the moderators around here are largely morons so I guess it's to be expected.
The Farewell Tour II
Unlike you, I do have a big problem with faith-based initiatives. I'll explain:
As you may or may not know, Bush is using his muscle to channel foreign aid to faith-based initiatives, contrary to all that "just a piece of paper" separation of church and state. This administration sees to it that foreign aid money goes (more) to groups who profess to be Christian. No big problem there yet.
The problem is here: Money is consistently refused to foreign aid institutions who condone or practice sex education, especially birth control.
As a result of US faith-based policy, poor black people in Africa (and South America, and...) are practicing unprotected sex, having more offspring than they can feed and keeping deadly diseases in circulation.
Put in starkly simple terms, I think it could be demonstrated that together, with their stance on condoms, George Bush and the Pope are responsible for more deaths than Hitler.
Quibble about numbers or details; people are dying because of political decisions poorly informed by faith. If you were aware of this and don't have a problem with it, then you're not a caring human being.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
Up until a few days ago CSE's website had this disclaimer: "None of the materials produced by Creation Science Evangelism are copyrighted, so feel free to copy those and distribute them freely."
This would not surprise me. However... the Wayback Machine seems to have a decent collection of content from the CSE website at DrDino.com; my quick sampling indicates they started asserting at least some copyright in 2005, and didn't turn up any quote on those lines. Care to point to a particular page from the WBM?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
"Faith" is just the possesive form of the word superstition. It makes it sound more legitimate.