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.

(Popular Science)   The last dinosaur died in 1927: The gospel according to Creationists   (popsci.com) divider line 280
    More: Silly, creation myths, gospels, creationists, electronic publishing, human knowledge, Geologic Time Scale For Creationists, Adam and Eve, James Ussher  
•       •       •

22107 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Sep 2012 at 4:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



280 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-19 11:00:48 PM
What the fark is in these peoples drinking water? From there teeth its clearly not fluoride.
 
2012-09-19 11:02:34 PM
Wow, just wow, this is a new low, this chart gives Creationisms a bad name. Seriously, how do they explain that there are no recorded evidence of living dinosaurs between 1683 and 1927 on paper or film. Also on the side bar they said that the first mulitcell animal was in 1188, over a thousand years after Jesus and his multi-celled disciples ran around Israel, and single cells came around 81BC, way after the multicell Noah or even Abraham.

I also love how they discredit the notion that Jesus rode on a dinosaur because he was born and died before they existed.
 
2012-09-19 11:06:57 PM

dennysgod: Wow, just wow, this is a new low, this chart gives Creationisms a bad name. Seriously, how do they explain that there are no recorded evidence of living dinosaurs between 1683 and 1927 on paper or film. Also on the side bar they said that the first mulitcell animal was in 1188, over a thousand years after Jesus and his multi-celled disciples ran around Israel, and single cells came around 81BC, way after the multicell Noah or even Abraham.

I also love how they discredit the notion that Jesus rode on a dinosaur because he was born and died before they existed.


It was a lot easier for Noah to pack them single celled critters on the ark en route to Turkey..
 
2012-09-19 11:21:48 PM
Anyone with a brain knows that dinosaurs never existed. The devil and his demon helper elves planted those fossils to try to trick us and test our faith. Duh, guys.
 
2012-09-19 11:26:47 PM

Marcintosh: OH OH WAIT DON'T GO YET! I got this-


And if God did any of those things, would you have free will?
All you have got is an all purpose excuse.
 
2012-09-19 11:37:25 PM

asciidic: Anyone with a brain knows that dinosaurs never existed. The devil and his demon helper elves planted those fossils to try to trick us and test our faith. Duh, guys.



scienceblogs.com
 
2012-09-20 12:01:48 AM
 
2012-09-20 12:14:04 AM

Aussie_As: Marcintosh: OH OH WAIT DON'T GO YET! I got this-

[img.myconfinedspace.com image 556x380] 

I win I win!

That's good, I also like the graph which pops up on Fark from time to time showing the declination in god's powers over the last 6000 years, going from 'made the heavens and the earth' to 'appears on a piece of toast'.


You got a link? I don't recall seeing that one.
 
2012-09-20 12:32:52 AM
www.irreligion.org
 
2012-09-20 01:17:06 AM
Wasn't Jesus was married to a dinosaur?
 
2012-09-20 01:34:12 AM
Today marks my tenth year on Fark, and I'm pretty sure there's been a thread like this one every single day.

/wasn't gonna post about it
//fark it
 
2012-09-20 01:36:06 AM
So if the last dinosaur died in 1927, how did it meet its demise? Did John Dillinger run it over speeding away from a bank job in a stolen Packard?
 
2012-09-20 02:39:31 AM

Fano: And don't you have to walk to Paradise across a bridge whose size is determined by your life's deeds? Like if you are wicked it's as wide as a toothpick and if you are good it's a four lane highway?


...I'm going to be looking at a bridge shaped like a Mandelbrot set, aren't I.

Aussie_As: I'll just point out that many, many Christians utilise

utilize their religion as a language for expressing their moral compass

FTFY?
 
2012-09-20 02:40:21 AM

Anarchangel: Today marks my tenth year on Fark, and I'm pretty sure there's been a thread like this one every single day.

/wasn't gonna post about it
//fark it


Ten years? Respect, I've got another eleven months to go to that milestone.

/respect, mingled with a sense of loss for the hours we've both wasted
//we'll never get them back, man!
 
2012-09-20 02:48:48 AM

radiumsoup: not all creationists are short-day theorists.


However, the YEC/OEC ratio ("short-day"/"day=age" theorist; disregarding the ID/TE/AE parts of the population) is likely about 2:1, based from crossing Gallup and Mason-Dixon poll results.

Anarchangel: Today marks my tenth year on Fark, and I'm pretty sure there's been a thread like this one every single day.


It has oscillations. One active daily, give or take a factor of three-ish; depending on how you count major threadjacks.
 
mjl
2012-09-20 03:48:18 AM

vegasj: LoL

I just watched some Richard Dawkins' documentary on YT the other day about Darwin.

He was talking to some bible thumper in the UK who believed the earth was only about 600 yrs old or so.


Occasionally when accosted by evangelists I claim to be a 7th minute Adventist who believes the world was created 7 minutes ago complete in every detail. Any appeals to the Good Book can be deflected with arguments along the lines of "Oh you poor person, you don't understand, you were created believing that.. and now the infinite mercy of HoHoba (hubba hubba) has given you a chance of salvation if you convert to the true faith".
 
2012-09-20 03:56:46 AM
images1.dailykos.com
 
2012-09-20 05:31:20 AM

mjl: vegasj: LoL

I just watched some Richard Dawkins' documentary on YT the other day about Darwin.

He was talking to some bible thumper in the UK who believed the earth was only about 600 yrs old or so.

Occasionally when accosted by evangelists I claim to be a 7th minute Adventist who believes the world was created 7 minutes ago complete in every detail. Any appeals to the Good Book can be deflected with arguments along the lines of "Oh you poor person, you don't understand, you were created believing that.. and now the infinite mercy of HoHoba (hubba hubba) has given you a chance of salvation if you convert to the true faith".


I'm a 7-Minutes-From-Now Adventist. The creation of the world, which took place outside of time, created it in a state that will, from our point of view, be 7 minutes from now. We are consciousnesses formed by direct inference of what the past would have been like, our mental states implied like a logical palimpsest within the initial state of the universe.
 
2012-09-20 08:20:38 AM
Most creationists don't believe that.

Of course, in their poor attempts to argue against the theory of evolution, they misrepresent science far worse than that poster misrepresents creationism. Turnabout is fair play.

It's also funny. It gets a pass for that alone.
 
2012-09-20 10:09:44 AM

FloydA: reillan:

/Before the flame, I am an evolutionist. I'm not Bevets.

Would you be so kind as to define what you mean by that term? Thank you.


I am someone who believes evolution to be true...

I hold firmly to the belief that the Earth is billions of years old, that life sparked from amino acids, that it developed through a lengthy process of death and reproduction, that ultimately the traits that made certain organisms stronger than others also got passed along more easily due to that strength, and thus progressed to more and more complex and intelligent organisms.

Unfortunately, because of the complex nature of the evolution/creation debate in the US, it has become necessary to give a scientific fact a faith-based label...
 
2012-09-20 10:54:28 AM

reillan: I hold firmly to the belief that the Earth is billions of years old, that life sparked from amino acids, that it developed through a lengthy process of death and reproduction, that ultimately the traits that made certain organisms stronger than others also got passed along more easily due to that strength, and thus progressed to more and more complex and intelligent organisms.


sounds like a freakin oath, or pledge.

okay, repeat after me.

I hold firmly to the belief, that the Earth is billions of years old,...
 
2012-09-20 04:49:55 PM

colon_pow: reillan: I hold firmly to the belief that the Earth is billions of years old, that life sparked from amino acids, that it developed through a lengthy process of death and reproduction, that ultimately the traits that made certain organisms stronger than others also got passed along more easily due to that strength, and thus progressed to more and more complex and intelligent organisms.

sounds like a freakin oath, or pledge.

okay, repeat after me.

I hold firmly to the belief, that the Earth is billions of years old,...


*Holds one hand on the Bible, and the other on Dawkins' "Greatest Show on Earth", and repeats*
 
2012-09-20 08:10:22 PM

reillan: FloydA: reillan:

/Before the flame, I am an evolutionist. I'm not Bevets.

Would you be so kind as to define what you mean by that term? Thank you.

I am someone who believes evolution to be true...

I hold firmly to the belief that the Earth is billions of years old, that life sparked from amino acids, that it developed through a lengthy process of death and reproduction, that ultimately the traits that made certain organisms stronger than others also got passed along more easily due to that strength, and thus progressed to more and more complex and intelligent organisms.

Unfortunately, because of the complex nature of the evolution/creation debate in the US, it has become necessary to give a scientific fact a faith-based label...


I'd suggest rather than stating you're an 'evolutionist', you might prefer to refer to yourself as a Darwinist if you want to use a faith-based label (and your reasons for doing so are certainly fair). 'Evolutionist' implies, innaccurately, that you're a professional scientist studying evolution (eg geneticist, molecular biologist). I accept the science of chemistry, but it doesn't make me a chemist.
 
2012-09-21 02:11:57 PM

Aussie_As: reillan: FloydA: reillan:

/Before the flame, I am an evolutionist. I'm not Bevets.

Would you be so kind as to define what you mean by that term? Thank you.

I am someone who believes evolution to be true...

I hold firmly to the belief that the Earth is billions of years old, that life sparked from amino acids, that it developed through a lengthy process of death and reproduction, that ultimately the traits that made certain organisms stronger than others also got passed along more easily due to that strength, and thus progressed to more and more complex and intelligent organisms.

Unfortunately, because of the complex nature of the evolution/creation debate in the US, it has become necessary to give a scientific fact a faith-based label...

I'd suggest rather than stating you're an 'evolutionist', you might prefer to refer to yourself as a Darwinist if you want to use a faith-based label (and your reasons for doing so are certainly fair). 'Evolutionist' implies, innaccurately, that you're a professional scientist studying evolution (eg geneticist, molecular biologist). I accept the science of chemistry, but it doesn't make me a chemist.


Fair enough. My degree is in rhetoric (I minored in chemistry, but I still don't think that makes me a chemist, sadly), and your argument is rhetorically sound, so I accept it and will adopt the label "Darwinist" instead.

"Christian Darwinist" as a label will certainly mess with some people...
 
2012-09-21 03:51:29 PM

reillan: "Christian Darwinist" as a label will certainly mess with some people...


especially the people that require evidence for their scientific theories

as a Christian Darwinist do you believe in Universal Common Ancestry?
 
2012-09-21 04:25:06 PM

reillan: "Christian Darwinist" as a label will certainly mess with some people...


It's the only one that makes sense. Otherwise, said Christian is telling God what He can and can't do. I'm not a Christian but I'm pretty sure that's not considered OK in any other context within the faith.

The motto of the Creationist is basically, "Organisms that evolve by natural selection? Sorry, but while my God is an awesome God, He's not that awesome. He can only create static things that can't improve themselves."
 
2012-09-21 04:55:42 PM

Man On Pink Corner: reillan: "Christian Darwinist" as a label will certainly mess with some people...

It's the only one that makes sense. Otherwise, said Christian is telling God what He can and can't do. I'm not a Christian but I'm pretty sure that's not considered OK in any other context within the faith.

The motto of the Creationist is basically, "Organisms that evolve by natural selection? Sorry, but while my God is an awesome God, He's not that awesome. He can only create static things that can't improve themselves."


I lold
 
2012-09-21 05:07:58 PM

I drunk what: reillan: "Christian Darwinist" as a label will certainly mess with some people...

especially the people that require evidence for their scientific theories

as a Christian Darwinist do you believe in Universal Common Ancestry?


I'm really going to start stepping out of my knowledge zone here, but let me try to make a few assumptions...

First, it's completely possible that life sprouted in multiple places all around the world, not necessarily simultaneously, but certainly within close proximity. I don't know whether the very first cells were all identical in DNA, but that also seems unlikely.

Second, we've been bombarded with meteorites, and it's entirely possible that extraterrestrial dna hitched a ride.

So we could have multiple sources that have all since blended together. In essence, we all have a common ancestry, since it'd likely be impossible to back-track and identify the individual progenitors' dnas.

(but what I really think is that you were asking me if humans are part of the same evolutionary chain as everything else. That answer is a pretty resounding "yes")
 
2012-09-21 06:26:56 PM

stonicus: Indubitably: stonicus: Indubitably: Indubitably: Aussie_As: Mija: No, most creationists do not believe that but hey, any reason for the daily hate thread on Fark.

But aren't creationists about creation science? Are you admitting now it's just a belief, not science? Excellent honestly. A rare characteristic in a creationist. Thanks for destroying creation science for us.

Some people don't go to doctors b/c God told them so...

A real God would never advocate that, peoples.

Please go see a doctor.

Thank you.

You know the mind of god? Ask him why he made me look the way I do... =P

/also, wouldn't a "real god" not make us sick in the first place?
//using "real god" in your context, as a beneveloent one.

It isn't about you...

Ok, it's not about me, whatever that means. Now, why would a real god make us sick in the first place?


You make you sick.
 
2012-09-21 11:07:15 PM

reillan: completely possible


reillan: entirely possible


so then like 99.999...% sure?

reillan: So we could have multiple sources that have all since blended together.


and yet:

reillan: In essence, we all have a common ancestry


i having trouble locating any of your words that have meaning

reillan: I'm really going to start stepping out of my knowledge zone here


now this, i can concur with, you have convinced me

reillan: extraterrestrial dna hitched a ride


so you're not saying it's aliens but......., is this the part where you provide the scientific evidence to support the existence of such things? before you go and assume that's how it explains how life got here in the first place?

after that if you wouldn't mind i'd love to hear about your experiments with crashing dna-laden meteors into a planet and creating living organisms from it... i like science

/btw is your hair a bird?

reillan: (but what I really think is that you were asking me if humans are part of the same evolutionary chain as everything else. That answer is a pretty resounding "yes")


that is indirectly part of what i was asking, however after reviewing the rest of your post, i'm not sure where to even begin???

the question was quite simple, do you believe that ALL of life on Earth can be traced back to a single life form (or at least a few similar life forms), therefore forming a tree of life such as can be found in Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which you should be well aware of if you are going to be claiming that you are a "Darwinist"

also, if you are going to pretend to believe in Darwin's teachings you might also want to do some basic research on the central parts to his theory and what some of the major concerns he had about his theory, just in case recent evidence has gone and disproved his theory...

can you make an educated guess as to what a major problem would be for one of his supporters?
 
Displayed 30 of 280 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report