Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WorldNetDaily)   Humans have been to space while chimps just sling poo, therefore evolution is bogus. Now buy this book   (wnd.com) divider line 58
    More: Obvious, straw man, scientific laws, Cell Biology, evolution, Carl Gallups, magic, superstitions  
•       •       •

3871 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jun 2012 at 9:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-12 03:59:13 PM  
10 votes:
Chimps have been to space too, your argument is invalid.
2012-06-12 04:40:15 PM  
6 votes:
"There is no 'supreme being' in heaven who reached down to create life on Earth or human beings. Nor is that being answering prayers. There is no soul. There is no everlasting life. Science tells us all of these things with complete clarity. God is imaginary."

Bullshiat. Scientists don't even pursue those lines of investigation.

Just once, I'd like to hear from a Creationist who actually understands science. But, if they did they probably wouldn't be Creationists.
2012-06-12 09:31:40 PM  
4 votes:

Sabyen91: dennysgod: Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.

If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?


If America declared independence from England, why is there still an England?
2012-06-12 08:00:21 PM  
4 votes:

Wangiss: If anything, I'd say the human race has evolved into a new species.
We are the only one that can change our offspring's DNA deliberately.
That's unique in the animal kingdom, significantly different from the humans 10+ millennia ago.

Can you think of a new name for this advanced human species?

Homo Sapiens Customizens
Homo Sapiens Arbitrensis
Homo Sapiens HowYouDoin


Homo Hubris
2012-06-12 10:39:10 PM  
3 votes:
I believe in the Strong Lithopic Principle.

The universe was designed and started by God specifically for rocks. I mean, seriously. Look how well the universe is suited for rocks. They survive great and last forever in a vacuum. The only places that are really bad for them are the stars, but the stars are merely the means to produce elements that will make more rocks from simple hydrogen and helium. Doing it this way means minimal work from God, as the universe simply maintains itself and replenishes the elements necessary to produce more wonderful rocks.

If the physical constants and laws of the universe were even a little bit different, then rocks would not form properly. That they form so perfectly and exist so well anywhere in the universe (except in stars; but since most of the universe is empty space where rocks survive just fine, one can reasonably say 99.999999999% of the universe is perfectly suitable for rocks) is a clear sign that the universe was designed for them.

It is an unfortunate side effect, however, that the physical constants and laws necessary to bring about the formation of such perfect rocks by God's design also cause certain classes of self-replicating chemical reactions that, given time, develop into complex "organisms" which then go on to blaspheme by damaging the beloved (by God) rocks. Luckily, such phenomena are not suited for survival in 99.99999999999999999% of the universe and so are of no consequence to God's plan.
2012-06-12 10:24:47 PM  
3 votes:

nmrsnr: Except that I didn't descend from my cousins, so that statement doesn't work.


Which is EXACTLY the point. We didn't descend from monkeys as in modern extant monkeys. So the premise "If we descended from monkeys..." is absurd and false. Granted, Apes and Monkeys share a common ancestor, and in all probability, if we could see one we would say, "Hey look, a monkey". But it would be quite genetically distinct from extant monkeys and apes. It would another in a long line of extinct species.

So the only way to make an accurate statement from the "If we descended from monkeys..." argument is to be very specific and say "If we descended from extinct monkeys which were also the ancestors of all other monkeys and apes, then why are there still monkeys?" And, when you put it like that, it is a question that answers itself and makes the person asking it sound like a retard.

Do you really think Creationists mean the question in that latter way? Or is it more likely they ask it in the former way with the misconception that evolutionists think that modern extant living things are the descendents of other modern extant things? Well, either way, it is a retarded and absurd question, and the person asking can't but sound retarded.
2012-06-12 07:47:11 PM  
3 votes:
I read through that who stupid article, and all I saw was an argument from personal incredulity.

That is, because Carl Gallups can't conceive of something, a god must have done it.

I also loved this gem from Gallups: "this notion that somehow the Christian is dedicated to a belief in a magic man in the sky is nothing more than a straw man argument fallaciously set up by the atheist. My book systematically exposes and demolishes this straw man argument."

I would love -- just LOVE -- to hear him explain how that argument is a straw man. I'd love to hear how he "systematically exposes and demolishes" it.

You can dress up your theology all you want, Pastor Gallups -- but if you believe in creationism, you believe in magic. If you believe in a god, you believe in a magic man. Maybe he's not "in the sky." Maybe he's on Titan. Maybe he's in France. Maybe he's not even a "he." But, your view of our existence absolutely hinges on magic. To argue otherwise is patently absurd.
2012-06-12 07:43:28 PM  
3 votes:
WND is proof that God does not exist.
2012-06-12 07:00:09 PM  
3 votes:
It doesn't matter what you believe.
It doesn't matter how hard you pray.
It doesn't matter if every person in the world decides that human kind emerged from the radioactive poop of a flying space turtle.

Evolution is independent of belief. It has happened, it is happening, and it will continue to happen and none of us can stop it. We can only hope to tweak the parameters.
2012-06-13 09:45:53 AM  
2 votes:

fozziewazzi: The point is science will never be able to push aside religion completely. There will always remain very basic fundamental questions of existence that science will never be able to answer satisfactorily.


Such as? And before you drop that old canard "Why are we here?" please be ready to answer the counter questions "Why do think there has to be a reason?"and "Why do you think that is a question that science will never be able to answer?".

Beyond that If someone is poor and in poor health with no prospect of every seeing anything better in this life, religion is better positioned to provide that person with hope and purpose. All science would offer is "you're going to live a miserable life, and then die. Sorry". Not a powerful message. Religion will remain.

And science is in a better position to actually make that person's life better. Scientific advances leading to medical advances lead to easier, cheaper, medical treatments that can (and many people believe should) be made available to all via social programs. Such social programs themselves are not necessarily science or religion dependent, but things like basic universal healthcare would be building off the fruits of science, not religion.

And, if science can be said to imply or inspire any overall messages about life, "you're going to live a miserable life and then die. Sorry" couldn't be further from the truth.

Science says "Hey, even you, poor miserable person, can learn to understand and appreciate the awesomeness of the Universe, because Science will not tell you that there are things you are not allowed to know or attempt to learn. Science itself cannot make your life automatically better, but it can say, 'hey, here are some tools. You now have the the means to do your best to make your life better. Best of luck to you.' And what will religion tell you? 'Hey there, it's OK to suffer and be miserable now, because things will be much better after you die. So, don't bother trying to better your miserable lot, but instead be content with it so you can enjoy bliss in the afterlife. How do I know? Oh, some guy wrote it down in a book a couple thousand years ago.' Certainly a good message for those who are not poor and miserable, because as long as the poor and miserable believe that, you won't have to worry about them rising up and upsetting things for all of you."

/but, you are probably right that science will never push aside religion completely. Nor is that its goal or intent
//science is merely attempting to explain the universe in a useful and consistent way. Any religion falling by the wayside due to that is merely a side-effect
2012-06-13 04:37:03 AM  
2 votes:
The anti-science dumbasses in this thread have absolutely no problem trusting the science that is all around them. Every single thing in your life -- plastics, computers, electricity, medicine, metals, flight, combustion -- literally EVERYTHING that you see and touch and wear and even eat, every single day, was at one point nothing more than a scientific theory that somebody figured out. It was all peer-reviewed, tested, challenged, just like every other scientific theory, and you have no problem believing in all of it.

But the second science challenges a book of fables written by a desert-dwelling sand cult 2,000 farking years ago, it's "WHOA, I DON'T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE NOW!" To fark with modern science -- you're siding with some sheep herders whose knowledge of the world began and ended in the mud hut village they spent their entire lives living in.

The same schools of thought and methodology that led to your very ability to live a modern life are the same elements that are telling you that evolution is real. You look like an idiot in denial by refusing to accept it, which is made even worse by the faux-intellectual vocabulary you awkwardly type on Fark in the middle of the night.
2012-06-13 02:12:03 AM  
2 votes:
Forgive me if this is an illogical argument, however...

I always find it interesting when people who do not believe in evolution will own specific breeds of animals. Logically, the selective breeding of the ancestor of dogs has led to many, many breeds that look nothing like each other.

retrieverman.files.wordpress.com

Chihuahua and a Great Dane. Yes, they're still the same species and they COULD still interbreed but dear god, would you want them to? Could they even do so without assistance? A male Great Dane would likely kill a female chihuahua and a male chihuahua would need a stepladder to get to a female Great Dane.
It could also be stated that some breeds of dogs, such as English Bulldogs, can't even naturally breed anymore. A genetic dead end.

The selective breeding for traits we find desirable could be said to mirror what nature inflicts on animals, which eventually leads to a species split where animals can no longer successfully interbreed. We just haven't driven any animals quite that far yet.

/have we?
2012-06-13 12:47:54 AM  
2 votes:

Corporate Self: All of sciences current hypothesis about Abiogenesis are not. Currently, all you get is hand-waving and rambling akin to million monkeys typing on a million typewriters for a million years producing the works of Shakespeare. Or in this case, life.


True, if by "hand-waving and rambling" you mean "developed over two billion years through complex chemical reactions based on really long, tetravalent carbon chains that bond really well with nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen molecules in the freewheeling, swash-buckling liberation of an aquatic 3D environment that thanks to the turbulent, volcanic nature of early earth, frequently smashed together and through heat and pressure fused into organic peptides that were nothing more than simple chemical polymers (repeating molecular structures, which occur naturally) that actively folded into globular or fibrous patterns to become proteins which were used as enzymes to catalyze the chemical process to make more of themselves, and in time the accumulating size of these proteins attracted lipids for use as insular membranes against harm that eventually became hardened cellular walls which permitted the formation of more symbiotic structures within to improve replication and energy consumption including nucleic acid and ribosomes, and once self-replication was mastered, everything thereafter was simple refinement and improvement."

I mean, come on. Give them a little more credit: They may not understand the exact details of the mechanisms inherent (yet), but it's a far cry from just making shiat up.
2012-06-12 10:47:52 PM  
2 votes:

fozziewazzi: nmrsnr: fozziewazzi: As long as we're mortal there will be religion. Few people can wrap their heads around and accept the notion of permanent oblivion after death. And then there's the eternal question of how existence began, which may never be answered. I agree that the same innate human hunger for knowledge that drives science also drives religion, but for now at least science is ill-equipped to answer the most fundamental questions humans have been asking themselves for millenia, So religion isn't going anywhere.

I agree with your assessment, except: If a set of theories is shown to be inaccurate and fail at being predictive in every testable way (read: religion), why would I trust it to predict what happens in the untestable realms?

The religious would tell you they're not looking for factual truth in the scientific, material sense. The ones that try fail miserably. Most are looking for purpose in life, even hope. Science isn't going to provide that.


Really? Really?

a) the religious can comfort themselves however they wish - we're all just trying to get through our days here and religion can be a beautiful thing to those in need - but if they're not looking for "factual truth" (is there any other kind?) then they can keep it out of the science classroom, and;

b) I hope that many diseases will be cured in my lifetime. I hope that crop yields will be increased, sustainable energy explored, the global standard of living raised, texts published and inventions shared around the world, infants vaccinated, lifespans extended, flying cars and high speed rail and jet packs and rocket ships built. And one day, travel to other worlds made possible. Science gives me a lot more hope and purpose than religion ever has.
2012-06-12 10:13:25 PM  
2 votes:

mamoru: Actually, the same logic would be "If I descended from my cousins, then why do I still have cousins." That is directly analogous, and it clearly illustrates the absurdity of the "If we descended from monkeys..." argument.


Except that I didn't descend from my cousins, so that statement doesn't work. I recognized that I wasn't entirely analogous hence the "roughly the same logic" statement. But since I've been called out on it let me explain why I still think my analogy is better.

The fallacy of the "if we descended from monkeys" argument is that they believe that evolution is linear, that one species becomes the next, and that branching is impossible, so if "monkeys" -> "humans" then there should be no more "monkeys."

This logic is false, and is similar to assuming that when parents have children, the parents' offspring can only have one outcome, so that all offspring must be identical, instead of varied, such as (non-identical) siblings.

So really, I should have said "If I descended from my parents, why are there still people who are related to me that aren't identical to me" but that's a bit of a mouthful, and I wanted to be pithy.
2012-06-12 09:50:25 PM  
2 votes:
Coming from a website that consists entirely of humans flinging poo...
2012-06-12 09:25:00 PM  
2 votes:
Never trust anyone who uses the word "evolutionist", because they are undoubtedly an ass-gibbet.
2012-06-12 09:22:09 PM  
2 votes:
Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.
2012-06-12 04:38:51 PM  
2 votes:
Evolution has to be a fact

/because there's certainly nothing intelligent about our design
//and who would plan THIS?
2012-06-12 04:20:01 PM  
2 votes:

vernonFL: Dogs were in space before humans OR chimps.


And cats are smart enough to know not to go into space to begin with.

Ergo, cats rule.
2012-06-12 04:13:45 PM  
2 votes:
Dogs were in space before humans OR chimps.
2012-06-12 04:10:24 PM  
2 votes:

Kredal: Chimps have been to space too, your argument is invalid.


Chimps BEAT us into space, therefore Dr. Zaius is president and "Mighty Joe Young" wins Best Picture every year.
2012-06-13 04:32:10 PM  
1 votes:

Nick the What: What do you mean by 'hope'? I'm confident you don't mean 'conviction'.


I guessed that in the future I may have to explain my statement. It was something I did not want to do. Therefore I recited a tiny prayer to Joe Pesci that he might somehow stop this event from coming to pass. I did this not because I lack an explanation, but because I would have to type a bunch of words that the person for which they were intended would ultimately not agree with anyway.

Instead, I find myself explaining my use of the word "hope". Although my prayer seems to have worked, I am left with the notion that Joe Pesci works in mysterious ways.

Also, what are you trying to say again?
2012-06-13 01:16:52 PM  
1 votes:

fozziewazzi: TFerWannaBe: fozziewazzi: The point is science will never be able to push aside religion completely. There will always remain very basic fundamental questions of existence that science will never be able to answer satisfactorily. Beyond that If someone is poor and in poor health with no prospect of every seeing anything better in this life, religion is better positioned to provide that person with hope and purpose. All science would offer is "you're going to live a miserable life, and then die. Sorry". Not a powerful message. Religion will remain.

I was with you until you said "All science would offer is . . . " That's complete bullshiat. Science gives us tools we can use to improve our lives, reduce human suffering, make the world safer and expand our knowledge of the universe. Science gives us medicine, food that grows in adverse conditions, technology that allows family to communicate long distance, and lesbian porn. How can you claim that science can only offer the knowledge of a miserable life?

One could argue that science also gives us the means to cause suffering - but since religion often provides the reason for doing so, you aren't going to get much traction there. The truth is that science gives the human spirit the means to achieve its greatest dreams. Religion- at best - merely guides the dream.

If you're poor and afflicted with a serious disease..is Mr. Science going to come to you and offer free medical care? No? Because at least Mr. Religion will come and while he won't lift you out of poverty and cure your disease, he will tell you that you're loved, that you count and a better life waits for you.


And that's the problem. How can lying to someone ever be considered medicinal?
2012-06-13 09:32:44 AM  
1 votes:

Splinshints: daveUSMC: I believe God created the world through evolution.

Head assplosion.

So you moved him back from differentiation of life to creation of life. What are you going to do when science figures out how life actually came to be through natural processes? Move him back to the universal singularity? What about when we understand that, move him back to brane collisions? And when we understand that, then what? What are you going to do if some day we have the capability to mathematically explain, map and predict everything in the universe from its smallest binding forces to its biggest explosions? Then what?

Constantly moving god back a step in response to new information is short-sighted and only ensures that this sort of retarded argument just keeps happening. You either believe your god created everything, you don't, or you don't believe there's a god at all. Anything else is just lying to yourself. At some point you're either going to have to accept that either whatever you think god is didn't do these things and isn't a natural part of our universe or anything in it at all or you'll have to conclude that science is lying to you. As long as humans continue to have the capability of unraveling the rules of the universe to a more specific degree, there is no constant middle ground you can stand on.


Truly, you care about this way more than I do.

Do I really portend to know or care to know exactly how God scientifically worked/works? No. I have my faith, which I don't think has to intrude on science. Maybe I will have to revise some ideas that I have about my faith along the way, as new scientific discoveries come out. Fine. If you will allow me to hold my religious beliefs- in which I find great personal strength and comfort; through which I try to be a better fellow human being; and of which I do not attempt to foist upon others- and somehow find it in yourself to not be a condescending burglar of turds, I would be most appreciative.
2012-06-13 09:09:48 AM  
1 votes:
This thread is reinforces my belief that people need to go to their nearest community college and sign up for a Philosophy of Science class.

The thing that makes science cool...the very thing that gives it the edge over religion and superstition...is that the aim of science is not to give us truth or facts, but rather models and best guesses that can be discarded when they cease predicting phenomena.

When confronted with Hume's "Problem of Induction" (white v. black swans), science gracefully sidesteps the issue. On the other hand, religion promises short cuts and superstitious paths to "truth." With science, there exists possible observations that can render hypotheses and theories false; with religion, the circularity of their thought processes (and adherence to faith as a virtue) means that there is no observation that can convince a religious mind that they are wrong.

To me, it's easy to see that there needs to be a concerted effort to rescue people from the brainwashing effects of religion. For a developed nation, the US tolerates too much ignorance of science.
2012-06-13 09:09:20 AM  
1 votes:

fozziewazzi: The point is science will never be able to push aside religion completely. There will always remain very basic fundamental questions of existence that science will never be able to answer satisfactorily. Beyond that If someone is poor and in poor health with no prospect of every seeing anything better in this life, religion is better positioned to provide that person with hope and purpose. All science would offer is "you're going to live a miserable life, and then die. Sorry". Not a powerful message. Religion will remain.


I was with you until you said "All science would offer is . . . " That's complete bullshiat. Science gives us tools we can use to improve our lives, reduce human suffering, make the world safer and expand our knowledge of the universe. Science gives us medicine, food that grows in adverse conditions, technology that allows family to communicate long distance, and lesbian porn. How can you claim that science can only offer the knowledge of a miserable life?

One could argue that science also gives us the means to cause suffering - but since religion often provides the reason for doing so, you aren't going to get much traction there. The truth is that science gives the human spirit the means to achieve its greatest dreams. Religion- at best - merely guides the dream.
2012-06-13 09:00:24 AM  
1 votes:
The politics tab needs to evolve some more headlines.
2012-06-13 08:21:22 AM  
1 votes:
Today's Evolution is:
D-evolution= Being reasonable to the point of whimpiness when faced with an opponent who hates you for no real reason at all except that they love hatin.
R-evolution= Slinging Poo and otherwise behaving like real shyts
2012-06-13 02:49:26 AM  
1 votes:

Corporate Self: If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?


You invented a way to detect small quantities of complex organic molecules from several light years away? Because the rest of us can barely manage to tell if there's a simple three-atom molecule on the moon without creating a giant explosion in the specific area we think exists.

Or are you getting this magical ability to search places outside Earth using your mutant power of teleportation? Because I hate to break it to you, but science doesn't have that either. All we've checked so far for life is a vanishingly small section of a very limited chemical range of an arbitrarily selected bit of Mars and an even smaller bit of the moon. If you want to make stupid assertions about how we've looked everywhere and haven't found anything you're going to have to wait another four or five centuries at minimum, right now we can't even get to most of the planets we know about, much less explore them in detail.
2012-06-13 02:42:02 AM  
1 votes:

Corporate Self: If its so natural and inevitable why is Earth the only place we have found it?


The light's better here.
2012-06-13 01:15:48 AM  
1 votes:

JRoo: I am a natural part of the universe. If someone wants to call the universe God, that's fine. I don't see why that means there's no room for anything to change in any way or why, if God is so powerful, he couldn't create something like evolution.

If God created the universe, why wouldn't he want his creations to be capable of understanding it? If you were God, would you fill the universe with idiots that accept only what they tell themselves is true?


fark yeah. If I were God my creation would be for my entertainment...
2012-06-13 12:25:52 AM  
1 votes:

clowncar on fire: Evolution has thusly been validated as the subcribers to any other beliefs are idiots. You heard it here. You realize that "evolution" is only a theory at this point. Has a few holes in it but appears to cover most of the bases for now...


Uh, no. Evolution (the change in allele frequencies in a population over time) is an observed fact. It's very easy to observe. Watch a population generation by generation and see the frequencies change, as well as the effects of those changes.

The mechanisms by which it happens contain both observed facts (mutation, migration) and theories (Natural Selection, Artificial Selection, Genetic Drift, etc), and the theories are probably the best supported in ALL of science. Physicists probably have wet dreams about having an actual theory of the mechanisms of gravity as well supported as the theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection.

Also, penalty for misusing the word "theory". In science it basically means "as close to whatever the actual truth is that we can get with the data currently available". A good equivalent would be "STRONGLY supported, never refuted despite all attacks, provisional truth" with the understanding that all "truth"s are subject to change with new evidence.
2012-06-13 12:15:24 AM  
1 votes:

Cythraul: [askwhy.co.uk image 430x295]

Damn those anti-evolution monoliths.


Time to recycle from Photoshop theme: 2010: The Year Fark.com Makes Contact

www3.picturepush.com
2012-06-13 12:11:49 AM  
1 votes:

Sabyen91: Daraymann: It is a proven fact that anyone who tries to use evolution to disprove the existence of God is, in fact, a Christian who is trolling.

/I like facts.

That is probably true. However, disproving parts of the bible through evolution is quite possible.

/Of course those parts just become allegorical.


So, we're down to the names of a few cities and a king or two and a metric assload of allegory?
2012-06-13 12:02:27 AM  
1 votes:
Far less chimps have died in space than have humans. Chimps also managed to get us to do all the work of getting them there and back. Then they figured out that there wasn't really all that much to see up there and stopped going decades before we did. All in all, you'd have to say that chimpanzees were much better adapted to space travel than humans.
2012-06-12 11:51:27 PM  
1 votes:

whytgai: You know what would be swell? A creationism advocate who actually knows the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Especially the part where abiogenesis isn't agreed upon or even proveable at this point, unlike evolution, which has been tested and says nothing about the ultimate origins of life.


If they did understand that they wouldn't be such clueless tools. Wouldn't work.
2012-06-12 11:49:59 PM  
1 votes:
You know what would be swell? A creationism advocate who actually knows the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Especially the part where abiogenesis isn't agreed upon or even proveable at this point, unlike evolution, which has been tested and says nothing about the ultimate origins of life.
2012-06-12 10:25:42 PM  
1 votes:

jj325: Again, in my book, I scientifically, logically, irrefutably, and historically PROVE the existence of God. Even the ardent atheist will have a difficult time refuting the evidence with any academic plausibility at all.

So this book includes God's origin story?


It's worth noting that even if this 'ardent atheist' WOULD have a difficult time refuting the evidence, doesn't that mean that the author accepts that it would still be possible to do so?

No...I'm just being silly. I'll go back to my corner now.
2012-06-12 10:20:42 PM  
1 votes:

fozziewazzi: As long as we're mortal there will be religion. Few people can wrap their heads around and accept the notion of permanent oblivion after death. And then there's the eternal question of how existence began, which may never be answered. I agree that the same innate human hunger for knowledge that drives science also drives religion, but for now at least science is ill-equipped to answer the most fundamental questions humans have been asking themselves for millenia, So religion isn't going anywhere.


I agree with your assessment, except: If a set of theories is shown to be inaccurate and fail at being predictive in every testable way (read: religion), why would I trust it to predict what happens in the untestable realms?
2012-06-12 10:16:36 PM  
1 votes:

clowncar on fire: eraser8: clowncar on fire: Creationist here- God gave the breath of life

What are you basing that on?

The greatest argument in favor of a god or gods is the need for a designer. But, since evolution by natural selection eliminates that need, why keep a god in the equation? What does a god add?

Does God need add anything?Aare you that vain? Life is not enough for you?


I'm vain because I don't think the universe was put here for me? I'm vain because I don't think that I'm so exceptional that only "the intervention of a deity" can explain my existence?

I think, perhaps, you don't understand what the word "vain" means.

In any case, my point was that natural selection explains the diversity of life without the need for a god or gods. So, what's the point of adding one to the explanation?
2012-06-12 10:12:59 PM  
1 votes:

clowncar on fire: Adam and Eve is allegorical- a tale of self awareness. A tale of how we discovered we differed from the creatures around us. I was referring to the first single cell.


Was that view common before Charles Darwin?
2012-06-12 09:59:28 PM  
1 votes:
TRy to keep in mind- we did not evolve from ape but rather, we and our ape cousins evolved from some similar predecessor. Like the Neanderthal, modern man may have peaked out in his evolution as we now have gotten to the point where we have retarded furter evolution by altering our environmentto meet our needs rather than altering ourselves to meet the requirements of our environment. That's not to say any one of us may be the forebearer of future species.

If life's purpose is, indeed to overcome and survive, we're in deep poo. We've stagnated ourselves, defeated our own programming and therefore destined for the finite.
2012-06-12 09:42:37 PM  
1 votes:

Sabyen91: If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?


If I descended from my parents, why do I have siblings?

/roughly the same logic.
2012-06-12 09:41:30 PM  
1 votes:
We get it. He's black!
2012-06-12 09:40:29 PM  
1 votes:

Minus1Kelvin: Religion really is gonna kill us all, ain't it?


The funny part is that the human instinct that created religion, the need to explain and control natural phenomena and the assumption that the Universe isn't random, is the same as that which lead to science. The only difference is that when religion stopped working as a predictive and useful theory, people refused to reject and replace it.
2012-06-12 09:34:40 PM  
1 votes:

dennysgod: Man didn't descend from apes, we share a common ancestor, but didn't come directly from apes, if you're going to try to mock or disprove evolution at least have a basic understanding on how it works.


Umm, yes we did descend from apes. We are apes. We are not descendents of the currently living apes, but we are the descendents of apes from the past - just as all the currently living ape species are.
2012-06-12 09:28:50 PM  
1 votes:
Religion really is gonna kill us all, ain't it?
2012-06-12 09:21:32 PM  
1 votes:
We've never seen evolution so therefore it doesn't exist.

We've never seen Go--

Blasphemer! We see god all the time. Just look around.

/facepalm
2012-06-12 09:08:06 PM  
1 votes:
Visit your local jail, prison or school board meeting and you will see plenty of poo throwing.
2012-06-12 07:50:06 PM  
1 votes:

eraser8: I read through that who stupid article, and all I saw was an argument from personal incredulity.

That is, because Carl Gallups can't conceive of something, a god must have done it.

I also loved this gem from Gallups: "this notion that somehow the Christian is dedicated to a belief in a magic man in the sky is nothing more than a straw man argument fallaciously set up by the atheist. My book systematically exposes and demolishes this straw man argument."

I would love -- just LOVE -- to hear him explain how that argument is a straw man. I'd love to hear how he "systematically exposes and demolishes" it.

You can dress up your theology all you want, Pastor Gallups -- but if you believe in creationism, you believe in magic. If you believe in a god, you believe in a magic man. Maybe he's not "in the sky." Maybe he's on Titan. Maybe he's in France. Maybe he's not even a "he." But, your view of our existence absolutely hinges on magic. To argue otherwise is patently absurd.


Clearly the words of a man possessed by demons.
2012-06-12 07:41:17 PM  
1 votes:
Whoops, the derpy sign that ironically could be construed to show common ancestry didn't link

www.whoisyourcreator.com
2012-06-12 07:05:10 PM  
1 votes:
TFA: "This pool of mud and its magical mixture has never been observed or replicated ... In over 150 years of human attempts at replicating this accidental process, we have not even come close to doing so - even with OUR intelligent input involved!

Ummmmmmmmmmmm. E. coli long-term evolution experiment^
2012-06-12 06:23:12 PM  
1 votes:
Again, in my book, I scientifically, logically, irrefutably, and historically PROVE the existence of God. Even the ardent atheist will have a difficult time refuting the evidence with any academic plausibility at all.

I'm guessing it is going to rather easy to refudiate anything in this book.
2012-06-12 04:11:56 PM  
1 votes:
Interesting. I can't help but notice that the author (Carl Gallups) has no scientific background at all.
Seems legit.
2012-06-12 04:00:50 PM  
1 votes:

Kredal: Chimps have been to space too, your argument is invalid.


Curses! I'll get you next time!
2012-06-12 04:00:38 PM  
1 votes:
Wangiss:

Homo Sapiens NTTAWWT
2012-06-12 03:58:25 PM  
1 votes:
If anything, I'd say the human race has evolved into a new species.
We are the only one that can change our offspring's DNA deliberately.
That's unique in the animal kingdom, significantly different from the humans 10+ millennia ago.

Can you think of a new name for this advanced human species?

Homo Sapiens Customizens
Homo Sapiens Arbitrensis
Homo Sapiens HowYouDoin
 
Displayed 58 of 58 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report