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.

(Why evolution is true)   Creationist lists biologists who don't accept natural selection. Another biologist writes them and asks them if that is so. "Annie Hall" hilarity ensues he publishes the replies   (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com) divider line 179
    More: Obvious, Annie Hall, Discovery Institute, selections, Marshall McLuhan, multicellular organisms, innovations, Michael Lynch, Rick Warren  
•       •       •

10048 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Dec 2012 at 12:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-12 02:25:30 PM  

entropic_existence:
Why are you calling FloydA a racial epithet and what exactly is wrong with his statement?


That person is my own special little stalker. He's apparently completely obsessed with trying to attract my attention. It's almost flattering in a way.
 
2012-12-12 02:27:42 PM  

Khellendros: [people.virginia.edu image 500x840]

Until a creationist has a reasonable rebuttal to this, I don't care what they have to say on the issue. Too many simply don't understand what it is they're saying, and don't understand the basics of what they're arguing against.


I've been on Fark for five or so years now. I've seen this posted dozens of times. Not once has there been a single response from a Creationist. They'll happily go and build a strawman and tear it down, but I've never seen an actual response to this image.
 
2012-12-12 02:40:41 PM  

I drunk what: for starters

though, from one creationist to another, i was rather amused that you were so quick to agree with him, whether or not you are throwing jabs at him or just patting him on the back, it all sticks the same... 

don't mistake his faux apologetic tripe as sincere open-minded intellectual discussion

you'll just make yourself appear more foolish in the process


I've known and talked with FloydA on these threads for a loooooong time. Longer than you have been participating in them.

And I'm not a Creationist. I have no idea why you keep wanting to paint me with that brush.

That and this keeps coming back to your insistence to be obtuse about other people's use of the term Creationist, despite it being perfectly obvious in context the "subset" (if you will) of the broadest possible use of the term, which is what you insist on using.

And I still think your use of the term "tar baby" speaks directly to your character. Then again this is coming from someone who called the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon in another thread.

Be careful, your obvious bigotry is starting to show these days more and more.
 
2012-12-12 02:47:58 PM  

FloydA: entropic_existence:
Why are you calling FloydA a racial epithet and what exactly is wrong with his statement?

That person is my own special little stalker. He's apparently completely obsessed with trying to attract my attention. It's almost flattering in a way.


ah yes i forgot, to also remind you that he is completely delusional, egotistical and gets his jollies by trolling folks like us, to gain street cred with his idiot brigade

but hey whatever floats your boat dude, i'm not going to stop you

just try real hard not to high five him while he is insulting you to your face, it makes the rest of us look bad

/creationist
//professional
 
2012-12-12 02:50:34 PM  

Elzar: Scientists can play the devil's advocate and take the position of YEC for argument's sake at which point it quickly becomes apparent there is not a shred of physical evidence/proof for the existence of a Abrahamic god/Jesus/Holy Ghost.


what about the hummingbird?

Look, what I believe - what I believe is that the overwhelming majority of all life that has ever existed came about by the blind application of natural selection upon replicating entities. All God did was make the hummingbirds. Look, a scientist must take each case on its merits, free from prejudice. And I have to admit that hummingbirds.... Have you seen one? They're amazing! They beat their wings eighty times a second. They can fly backwards! They can't have just happened by accident, so in this extremely unusual case the most credible explanation is that they were formed by a superhuman creative intelligence.
 
2012-12-12 02:58:58 PM  

entropic_existence: And I'm not a Creationist.


is that so?

maybe i've confused you with yourpal32, but i coulda swore, we've had this discussion before, ending with a clear declaration that you were

my bad

nevermind, keep on truckin'

feel free to join in with him to condescend and slander all creationists, theists, deists, whatever

you can put lipstick on a religious idiot pig, but it's still just a derp

entropic_existence: And I still think your use of the term "tar baby" speaks directly to your character.


because FloydA is black and i'm being racist? wow dude

entropic_existence: Be careful, your obvious bigotry is starting to show these days more and more.


lol, srsly ??

entropic_existence: That and this keeps coming back to your insistence to be obtuse about other people's use of the term Creationist, despite it being perfectly obvious in context the "subset" (if you will) of the broadest possible use of the term, which is what you insist on using.


oh, sorry, i wasn't aware that this is one of the threads where words don't have meaning, my bad again

i'll just bail out now, and save us both some trouble

you and FloydA have fun belittling and slandering anyone that has a different philosophical view than you, after all he is the grand pope master of science, you can learn a lot from him

*eject*
 
2012-12-12 03:03:58 PM  

entropic_existence: And I'm not a Creationist. I have no idea why you keep wanting to paint me with that brush.


Dafuq? Someone tries to paint you as a creationist?

*looks up*
Oh... It's the idiot who hasn't figured out the Wason after this many years. Never mind.
 
2012-12-12 03:08:32 PM  
"I admire your willingness to take on creationists in public; I find their views so antediluvian that I can only ignore them."


"Antidiluvian". Awesomely ironic adjective to apply to someone who believes the Noah story is fact.

Love it.
 
2012-12-12 03:10:55 PM  
 
2012-12-12 03:21:25 PM  

roc6783: FloydA: ***snip***

If what you say is true, then why don't we have monkey butlers, hmmmm?

///I don't want to argue with creationists, I just want a monkey butler.


Ask Professor Elemental. I'm sure he'll let you know where he found his monkey butler (ok, so his butler is an orangutang but that's still freakin cool).
 
2012-12-12 03:24:29 PM  

Prison Bryan: Could evolution be a part of the Creationist plan? Lets say you created something that you wanted to last a really long time. Wouldn't it make sense to allow your creation to adapt in the changing environment that you also created?


Sure. As a life-long Catholic, there is nothing strange about this. So the Bible has a creation myth in it. Creation myths were very popular a long time ago. All major religions have at least one. The assemblers of the Bible decided it should have one also. So fricking what? The problem is these wackos who insist that the creation myth is absolutely true. You simply don't have to buy into that. The Catholic teaching I've been exposed to throughout my life includes informed discussions of Bible authors, where the books come from, the apparent order in which they were written, and how even the text has evolved over the years. We don't believe everything written there is absolutely true. That is for religious nuts.

There is nothing inherently contradictory between being a Catholic and adhering to truth, including scientific learning. While idiots have, from time to time, tried to suppress education in the name of the Church, those times are (at least should be) long gone.

When Marco Rubio says there is "debate" about whether the Earth is old, I just want to punch him in the brain. These anti-reality "beliefs" are not and should not be viewed as mainstream. I have never heard this kind of crap in any sermon at any Catholic Church I have ever attended. These are whacko views.
 
2012-12-12 03:26:43 PM  

T-Boy: When Marco Rubio says there is "debate" about whether the Earth is old, I just want to punch him in the brain.


Why? Aim for something he actually uses, like his mouth.
 
2012-12-12 03:31:23 PM  
Arguably, isn't saying there is debate better than saying there is no debate; it's 6000 years old?
 
2012-12-12 03:33:20 PM  

I drunk what: entropic_existence: ***snip***


I hope you check this thread and continue posting as I want to hear more about your views and how they contradict accepted scientific findings. I find you very entertaining and my intent is neither to slander nor be condescending. You are not a bad person for being wrong, you're just a person. I really would like to understand your reasoning and how you came to your illogical conclusions.
 
2012-12-12 03:36:23 PM  

Khellendros: [people.virginia.edu image 500x840]

Until a creationist has a reasonable rebuttal to this, I don't care what they have to say on the issue. Too many simply don't understand what it is they're saying, and don't understand the basics of what they're arguing against.


Why? No rebuttal is needed. Evolution is "primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things". It does not try claim to have created life, it just explains how life has change since it was created.
 
2012-12-12 03:36:32 PM  

Glenford: There are over 1200 scientists named Steve know evolution to be true.


1201 if I ever get this thesis submitted.
 
2012-12-12 03:54:07 PM  
Oh, we've also started seeing it occur recently in the Galapagos islands. Peter and Rosemary Grant have been watching finches since the 70's.

Speciation of the galapagos finches
 
2012-12-12 04:21:46 PM  

Khellendros: Until a creationist has a reasonable rebuttal to this, I don't care what they have to say on the issue. Too many simply don't understand what it is they're saying, and don't understand the basics of what they're arguing against.


QFT, ironically enough.
 
2012-12-12 04:23:35 PM  

entropic_existence: Don't toss all scientists who are Christians (or other religions) in the same pot. I know plenty who are both good scientists, good people, and not hacks and snake-oil sales-people.


Sorry but being a christian is just farking insane - doubly so if you're a scientist. Shame on them, they know better and yet willfully choose to enable homophobes, bigots and liars.

Uchiha_Cycliste: what about the hummingbird?

Look, what I believe - what I believe is that the overwhelming majority of all life that has ever existed came about by the blind application of natural selection upon replicating entities. All God did was make the hummingbirds. Look, a scientist must take each case on its merits, free from prejudice. And I have to admit that hummingbirds.... Have you seen one? They're amazing! They beat their wings eighty times a second. They can fly backwards! They can't have just happened by accident, so in this extremely unusual case the most credible explanation is that they were formed by a superhuman creative intelligence.


How about my penis, I rub it vigorously and life-giving elixir is produced - often on my keyboard and monitor. A never-ending supply on demand. By will alone I can set it in motion.

/ Not saying its aliens, but...
 
2012-12-12 04:32:05 PM  

entropic_existence: And I still think your use of the term "tar baby" speaks directly to your character.


He's not using "tar baby" to mean ni*bong*! Read.

Now that I've debased myself defending that asshole, I'm going to punch myself in the dick.
 
2012-12-12 04:37:35 PM  

Elzar: Uchiha_Cycliste: what about the hummingbird?

Look, what I believe - what I believe is that the overwhelming majority of all life that has ever existed came about by the blind application of natural selection upon replicating entities. All God did was make the hummingbirds. Look, a scientist must take each case on its merits, free from prejudice. And I have to admit that hummingbirds.... Have you seen one? They're amazing! They beat their wings eighty times a second. They can fly backwards! They can't have just happened by accident, so in this extremely unusual case the most credible explanation is that they were formed by a superhuman creative intelligence.

How about my penis, I rub it vigorously and life-giving elixir is produced - often on my keyboard and monitor. A never-ending supply on demand. By will alone I can set it in motion.

/ Not saying its aliens, but...


No, that's definitely the blind application of natural selection upon replicating entities. I mean,you even talked about replicating the entities.
 
2012-12-12 04:39:11 PM  

I drunk what: you and FloydA have fun belittling and slandering anyone that has a different philosophical view than you, after all he is the grand pope master of science, you can learn a lot from him


Affirming the truth of evolution is no more a "philosophical view" than affirming that the Earth is round. It's just a fact. Deal with it.
 
2012-12-12 04:45:27 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: what about the hummingbird?


What about them?

Look, what I believe - what I believe is that the overwhelming majority of all life that has ever existed came about by the blind application of natural selection upon replicating entities.

Really? Where is that idea supported, either in science or in scripture?

All God did was make the hummingbirds. Look, a scientist must take each case on its merits, free from prejudice.

So we have to look at each species and see if they pass the "holy cow!" test or not?

Have you seen one? They're amazing! They beat their wings eighty times a second. They can fly backwards!

And this requires a maker, how?

They can't have just happened by accident

They didn't. Evolution is not "an accident".

so in this extremely unusual case the most credible explanation is that they were formed by a superhuman creative intelligence.

So that's what this boils down to: it's too amazing, God done it. *sigh*
 
2012-12-12 04:47:30 PM  

NateAsbestos: I drunk what: you and FloydA have fun belittling and slandering anyone that has a different philosophical view than you, after all he is the grand pope master of science, you can learn a lot from him

Affirming the truth of evolution is no more a "philosophical view" than affirming that the Earth is round. It's just a fact. Deal with it.


It's best not to wrestle a tar baby. You just get pulled ever deeper into the mire and get covered with foul-smelling goo. Just let that clown rail against the wind.
 
2012-12-12 04:59:54 PM  

Elzar: entropic_existence: Don't toss all scientists who are Christians (or other religions) in the same pot. I know plenty who are both good scientists, good people, and not hacks and snake-oil sales-people.

Sorry but being a christian is just farking insane - doubly so if you're a scientist. Shame on them, they know better and yet willfully choose to enable homophobes, bigots and liars.



I disagree. I'm about as athy as anyone can be, but "Christian" is far too broad a taxon to conclude that it is always insane. Some people are "culturally Christian," raised in a Christian family, and benefit from the social structure and camaraderie that is available through religion. Some admire the celebratory, symbolic, and artistic elements of religion. Some, as Malinowski noted, engage in religious ritual in order to relieve anxiety in situations where their own abilities are insufficient to guarantee success in some dangerous endeavor.

Those are predominantly emotional reasons, and are therefore "non-rational," but not necessarily "irrational."

Now biblical literalism, by contrast, that IS insane. It not only conflicts with all of the available evidence, but it is not even internally consistent. In order to be a biblical literalist, one must believe several mutually exclusive claims simultaneously. Biblical literalism is absolutely nuts. It's also counter to a couple thousand years of Christian teachings, so creationists are not just in conflict with science and reality, they are even in conflict with religion.

One can be a perfectly rational Christian (depending on how one defines the term "Christian"). Theodosius Dobzhansky is the obvious example.

Creationism is insane, and creationists call themselves "Christians," but it's inaccurate to allow the creationists to discredit all Christians by association.

/$0.02
 
2012-12-12 05:04:45 PM  

roc6783: I hope you check this thread


who, me?

NateAsbestos: Affirming the truth of evolution is no more a "philosophical view" than affirming that the Earth is round. It's just a fact. Deal with it.


FloydA: If God exists and was involved in some way in the existence of humans, He used evolution to do it. I don't know if God exists, that's up to you to decide for yourself. But evolution definitely does exist.


yeah, no philosophical stuff here, just plain old cold hard Science!!1!

but who cares what creationists think, everyone knows they are just liars, uninformed liars

/you gotta use fancy words like uninformed, so those morans don't know you're insulting them
//wink wink nudge nudge
 
2012-12-12 05:07:51 PM  

FloydA: Now biblical literalism, by contrast, that IS insane. It not only conflicts with all of the available evidence, but it is not even internally consistent. In order to be a biblical literalist, one must believe several mutually exclusive claims simultaneously. Biblical literalism is absolutely nuts. It's also counter to a couple thousand years of Christian teachings, so creationists are not just in conflict with science and reality, they are even in conflict with religion.


affirm the truth brother! affirm it!!1!

FOR SCIENCE
 
2012-12-12 05:11:53 PM  

Ed Grubermann: It's best not to wrestle a tar baby.


hey! you be nice to FloydA, i'm sure he means well even if he is completely uninformed and a liar, take that back

Be careful, your obvious bigotry is starting to show these days more and more.

/your use of the term "tar baby" speaks directly to your character
 
2012-12-12 05:18:08 PM  

I drunk what: roc6783: I hope you check this thread

who, me?

***snip***


Yes. All of your posts so far have been snarky responses to commentary about religion/Christianity, but none have described your views and how they contradict accepted scientific findings. I find you very entertaining and my intent is neither to slander nor be condescending. You are not a bad person for being wrong, you're just a person. I really would like to understand your reasoning and how you came to your illogical conclusions.
 
2012-12-12 05:22:58 PM  

Khellendros: [people.virginia.edu image 500x840]

Until a creationist has a reasonable rebuttal to this, I don't care what they have to say on the issue. Too many simply don't understand what it is they're saying, and don't understand the basics of what they're arguing against.


OK, I'll bite. #12 is wrong. This is not sufficient to explain differing numbers of chromosomes. Two creatures with a different number of chromosomes generally cannot produce fertile offspring, and any gain from that change is going to be offset by the lack of fertility. There must be something else going on as well.

/not a creationist.
 
2012-12-12 05:23:00 PM  

roc6783: Yes. All of your posts so far have been snarky responses to commentary about religion/Christianity, but none have described your views and how they contradict accepted scientific findings. I find you very entertaining and my intent is neither to slander nor be condescending. You are not a bad person for being wrong, you're just a person. I really would like to understand your reasoning and how you came to your illogical conclusions.


<sloeclap.jpg>
 
2012-12-12 05:28:03 PM  
I personally prefer the Back to School example, where Kurt Vonnegut writes a paper about Kurt Vonnegut novels for Dangerfield and the professor replies "Whoever did write this doesn't know the first thing about Kurt Vonnegut."
 
2012-12-12 05:31:02 PM  

I drunk what: feel free to join in with him to condescend and slander all creationists, theists, deists, whatever

you can put lipstick on a religious idiot pig, but it's still just a derp


Considering his statement explicitly said that acceptance of evolution has no bearing on the existence/non-existence of God or whatever deity you are choosing to describe.

I drunk what: you and FloydA have fun belittling and slandering anyone that has a different philosophical view than you, after all he is the grand pope master of science, you can learn a lot from him


Apparently your memory really is shiat. I have no interest in slandering people for the act of believing in God, never have. I'm pointing out again, for the millionth time, that you are the one who insists on using the absolute broadest sense of the term "creationist" possible in order to cover any and all theist/deist belief. Then get offended when people mock creationism, despite it being patently obvious the much more narrow sense of the term that is being used.

Kome: entropic_existence: And I'm not a Creationist. I have no idea why you keep wanting to paint me with that brush.

Dafuq? Someone tries to paint you as a creationist?

*looks up*
Oh... It's the idiot who hasn't figured out the Wason after this many years. Never mind.


At most I occasionally entertain thoughts of Deism in my more pious moments. Otherwise I'm an Agnostic. But yeah, given I actually went through the effort to get a PhD in molecular evolution and all. But again he wants to try and claim all Christian theists as "creationists" since they believe in God as creator. Nevermind that this flies in the face of philosophical and historical usage for at least the last 100-150 years.
 
2012-12-12 05:36:43 PM  

Ed Grubermann: entropic_existence: And I still think your use of the term "tar baby" speaks directly to your character.

He's not using "tar baby" to mean ni*bong*! Read.

Now that I've debased myself defending that asshole, I'm going to punch myself in the dick


Yes, he wasn't using it as an actual racial epithet. I am aware of the origin and history of the term. It's basically also pretty moronic to use it seriously, given its connotations. Like I said, I've also caught him out in a thread calling the Catholic church the "Whore of Babylon" and a tool of Satan.
 
2012-12-12 05:50:09 PM  

MrEricSir: Remember that "pray for Romney to win" site a while back? They had a whole list of papers "proving" that prayer was effective...

...unless you bothered to google those papers and read them, in which case it turned out their conclusions were quite the opposite. Funny how that works.


This is not at all unusual. A lot of newer "fwd:fwd:fwd:" e-mails will claim that they've been confirmed true by Snopes, but if you actually check Snopes you find that they've been determined to be false.
 
2012-12-12 05:51:12 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: TabASlotB: The saddest thing: the creationist nitwit shows up in the comments and digs in his heels.

Owch. The guy is conflating "skepticism about the efficacy of natural selection" with the well-known and not even remotely controversial idea that natural selection isn't the only process involved in evolution. The bits that he quoted in order to defend himself seem to refer to stochastic processes like drift, and sources of variation like mutation. It's a far cry from those to "skepticism about the efficacy of natural selection".

If the contention in TFA is that this guy is guilty of distorting information, he's proving it himself there.


What is even better the first one he quoted basically says: Of course there are other things involved in evolution. Don't be like those ID idiots.
 
2012-12-12 05:59:44 PM  

entropic_existence: It's basically also pretty moronic to use it seriously, given its connotations.


tell us how you really feel

entropic_existence: Like I said, I've also caught him out in a thread calling the Catholic church the "Whore of Babylon" and a tool of Satan.


prove me wrong

entropic_existence: Considering his statement explicitly said that acceptance of evolution has no bearing on the existence/non-existence of God or whatever deity you are choosing to describe.


yes, i'm completely aware of his passive-aggressive style of concern trolling, but the fact that you keep falling for it, is the only thing in this thread that bothers me

entropic_existence: Apparently your memory really is shiat.


your tempting me to go back and find some incriminating evidence, however, this may be one of those times i let you off the hook, because i enjoy our conversations (of course its entirely possible that my memory has failed me and somehow i imagined that to be the case, and boy will my face be red)

but if you're going to play the stubborn old card of humpty dumpty, then i will gracefully concede the point to FloydA for successfully trolling the shiat out of you, note how increasingly apologetic his posts are becoming, do you think is by accident?

let's take a break, and ponder things, and reconvene at a later time

for now it seems a challenger has appeared...

/this should be fun
 
2012-12-12 06:01:25 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Uchiha_Cycliste: what about the hummingbird?

What about them?

Look, what I believe - what I believe is that the overwhelming majority of all life that has ever existed came about by the blind application of natural selection upon replicating entities.

Really? Where is that idea supported, either in science or in scripture?

All God did was make the hummingbirds. Look, a scientist must take each case on its merits, free from prejudice.

So we have to look at each species and see if they pass the "holy cow!" test or not?

Have you seen one? They're amazing! They beat their wings eighty times a second. They can fly backwards!

And this requires a maker, how?

They can't have just happened by accident

They didn't. Evolution is not "an accident".

so in this extremely unusual case the most credible explanation is that they were formed by a superhuman creative intelligence.

So that's what this boils down to: it's too amazing, God done it. *sigh*


Yup, Natural selection for everything... but the hummingbird.

\On a completely unrelated note, John Finnemore's Souvenir program is a fantastic show. I would recommend it highly especially episode 2.
 
2012-12-12 06:10:39 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Khellendros: [people.virginia.edu image 500x840]

Until a creationist has a reasonable rebuttal to this, I don't care what they have to say on the issue. Too many simply don't understand what it is they're saying, and don't understand the basics of what they're arguing against.

OK, I'll bite. #12 is wrong. This is not sufficient to explain differing numbers of chromosomes. Two creatures with a different number of chromosomes generally cannot produce fertile offspring, and any gain from that change is going to be offset by the lack of fertility. There must be something else going on as well.

/not a creationist.


Wouldn't the chromosome 2 fusion in humans be proof that chromosomes can, for whatever reason at least fuse and have enough viable offspring to eventually lead to us; and if they can fuse, it would not be that far out there to assume they can also split in a similar manner and have a new viable species come of it.
 
2012-12-12 06:21:21 PM  

roc6783: I drunk what: entropic_existence: ***snip***

I hope you check this thread and continue posting as I want to hear more about your views and how they contradict accepted scientific findings. I find you very entertaining and my intent is neither to slander nor be condescending. You are not a bad person for being wrong, you're just a person. I really would like to understand your reasoning and how you came to your illogical conclusions.


roc6783: ***snip***

Yes. All of your posts so far have been snarky responses to commentary about religion/Christianity, but none have described your views and how they contradict accepted scientific findings. I find you very entertaining and my intent is neither to slander nor be condescending. You are not a bad person for being wrong, you're just a person. I really would like to understand your reasoning and how you came to your illogical conclusions.


woah, deja vu... polly want a cracker?

i dunno, what do you guys think? he seems legit... *game face*

...where to begin...

if your intent is not to be condescending, then perhaps you should not, in the VERY same breath, imply that a person with whom you are not familiar, is:

1. a person who has beliefs that contradict Science
2. wrong (with a condescending reassurance, nice touch btw 9/10)
3. illogical

concerning your accusation of: all my posts being "snarky responses to commentary about religion/Christianity", please provide one example, (quote is fine)

if you would like to hear more of my views, though i haven't shared any yet (and corresponding reasoning) you'll have to be a little more specific

though i'm glad to hear that you find me entertaining, i try to please
 
2012-12-12 06:34:00 PM  
Uchiha_Cycliste:
Elzar: Scientists can play the devil's advocate and take the position of YEC for argument's sake at which point it quickly becomes apparent there is not a shred of physical evidence/proof for the existence of a Abrahamic god/Jesus/Holy Ghost.

what about the hummingbird?

Look, what I believe - what I believe is that the overwhelming majority of all life that has ever existed came about by the blind application of natural selection upon replicating entities. All God did was make the hummingbirds. Look, a scientist must take each case on its merits, free from prejudice. And I have to admit that hummingbirds.... Have you seen one? They're amazing! They beat their wings eighty times a second. They can fly backwards! They can't have just happened by accident, so in this extremely unusual case the most credible explanation is that they were formed by a superhuman creative intelligence.


Oh don't be ridiculous. One day a large bird that flapped its wings slowly had a bunch of eggs and one of them grew up to be a tiny bird that could hover. Amazingly, nearby, another big, slow bird had an egg that produced another tiny, fast bird just like the first except the opposite sex. This of course allowed them to mate and spawn the lineage we now know as hummingbirds. Checkmate, creationists.
 
2012-12-12 06:34:27 PM  

meat0918: HotWingConspiracy: [www.sojones.com image 390x285]

"One word, Poindexter - Crocoduck. Let's see you evolve your way out of that one."


Oh, can I post this now?!?!?

[i457.photobucket.com image 750x574]


Why does that cockoduck have a mouse head for its nose?
 
2012-12-12 06:47:24 PM  

No Such Agency: Uchiha_Cycliste:
Elzar: Scientists can play the devil's advocate and take the position of YEC for argument's sake at which point it quickly becomes apparent there is not a shred of physical evidence/proof for the existence of a Abrahamic god/Jesus/Holy Ghost.

what about the hummingbird?

Look, what I believe - what I believe is that the overwhelming majority of all life that has ever existed came about by the blind application of natural selection upon replicating entities. All God did was make the hummingbirds. Look, a scientist must take each case on its merits, free from prejudice. And I have to admit that hummingbirds.... Have you seen one? They're amazing! They beat their wings eighty times a second. They can fly backwards! They can't have just happened by accident, so in this extremely unusual case the most credible explanation is that they were formed by a superhuman creative intelligence.

Oh don't be ridiculous. One day a large bird that flapped its wings slowly had a bunch of eggs and one of them grew up to be a tiny bird that could hover. Amazingly, nearby, another big, slow bird had an egg that produced another tiny, fast bird just like the first except the opposite sex. This of course allowed them to mate and spawn the lineage we now know as hummingbirds. Checkmate, creationists.


I just find that to be too unbelievable, you know, as a scientist. It's just much more likely God made the humingbird. The oddest thing being I don't believe in God. But I think God having made the hummingbird is the exception that proves the rule that God doesn't exist.
 
2012-12-12 07:04:31 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: No Such Agency: Uchiha_Cycliste:
Elzar: Scientists can play the devil's advocate and take the position of YEC for argument's sake at which point it quickly becomes apparent there is not a shred of physical evidence/proof for the existence of a Abrahamic god/Jesus/Holy Ghost.

what about the hummingbird?

Look, what I believe - what I believe is that the overwhelming majority of all life that has ever existed came about by the blind application of natural selection upon replicating entities. All God did was make the hummingbirds. Look, a scientist must take each case on its merits, free from prejudice. And I have to admit that hummingbirds.... Have you seen one? They're amazing! They beat their wings eighty times a second. They can fly backwards! They can't have just happened by accident, so in this extremely unusual case the most credible explanation is that they were formed by a superhuman creative intelligence.

Oh don't be ridiculous. One day a large bird that flapped its wings slowly had a bunch of eggs and one of them grew up to be a tiny bird that could hover. Amazingly, nearby, another big, slow bird had an egg that produced another tiny, fast bird just like the first except the opposite sex. This of course allowed them to mate and spawn the lineage we now know as hummingbirds. Checkmate, creationists.

I just find that to be too unbelievable, you know, as a scientist. It's just much more likely God made the humingbird. The oddest thing being I don't believe in God. But I think God having made the hummingbird is the exception that proves the rule that God doesn't exist.


Be careful of any zebra stampedes
 
2012-12-12 07:18:09 PM  

I drunk what: roc6783: I drunk what: entropic_existence: ***snip***,

woah, deja vu... polly want a cracker?


I repeated myself because you asked, "Who me?" and I reiterated my original statement to be sure you saw it.


***snip***

if your intent is not to be condescending, then perhaps you should not, in the VERY same breath, imply that a person with whom you are not familiar, is:

1. a person who has beliefs that contradict Science


Your statement, "though, from one creationist to another, i was rather amused that you were so quick to agree with him," implies that you are a creationist. Please let me know what interpretation of creationism you use that does not contradict science.

2. wrong (with a condescending reassurance, nice touch btw 9/10)

You were wrong in assuming that entropic_existence was a fellow creationist as you noted in the quote above.

3. illogical

In one post, you denigrate FloydA "ah yes i forgot, to also remind you that he is completely delusional, egotistical and gets his jollies by trolling folks like us, to gain street cred with his idiot brigade" and yet in another suggest that entropic_existence "can learn a lot from him".

concerning your accusation of: all my posts being "snarky responses to commentary about religion/Christianity", please provide one example, (quote is fine)

Your words below are in bold. If you are not being snarky in this quote, then I misinterpreted it, but it is then another example of you being illogical.

FloydA: If God exists and was involved in some way in the existence of humans, He used evolution to do it. I don't know if God exists, that's up to you to decide for yourself. But evolution definitely does exist.

yeah, no philosophical stuff here, just plain old cold hard Science!!1!

but who cares what creationists think, everyone knows they are just liars, uninformed liars

/you gotta use fancy words like uninformed, so those morans don't know you're insulting them
//wink wink nudge nudge


if you would like to hear more of my views, though i haven't shared any yet (and corresponding reasoning) you'll have to be a little more specific


The creationism interpretation that you use that does not contradict science is the view in which I am interested in hearing more about.

though i'm glad to hear that you find me entertaining, i try to please

You have so far.
 
2012-12-12 07:23:30 PM  

GardenWeasel: I, for one, welcome this new post-Steve B. Fark.com

post? eh?



Yes, it's true: Bevets has quit. He's still around, but he doesn't threadshiat evolution threads with his tiresome quote mining anymore.
 
2012-12-12 07:29:23 PM  
For the folks moving the goalposts to "god created life with the capability to evolve," I would be willing to bet that your next step is but god created the nucleobase rich asteroids!!!
 
2012-12-12 07:30:12 PM  

Lord Dimwit: I've been on Fark for five or so years now. I've seen this posted dozens of times. Not once has there been a single response from a Creationist. They'll happily go and build a strawman and tear it down, but I've never seen an actual response to this image.


I'm tempted to register an account and post it to Evolutionfairytale.com, which is one of the hubs of Creationist thought and understanding on the Internet. They nitpick things like this to death, and some are even scientists (or students studying a scientific field). They are very smart and very stupid at the same time.

But it's hard to get on because its invite-only and they insta-ban anyone who expresses even the slightest non-YEC opinion.
 
2012-12-12 07:30:53 PM  

meat0918: Uchiha_Cycliste: No Such Agency: Uchiha_Cycliste:
Elzar: Scientists can play the devil's advocate and take the position of YEC for argument's sake at which point it quickly becomes apparent there is not a shred of physical evidence/proof for the existence of a Abrahamic god/Jesus/Holy Ghost.

what about the hummingbird?

Look, what I believe - what I believe is that the overwhelming majority of all life that has ever existed came about by the blind application of natural selection upon replicating entities. All God did was make the hummingbirds. Look, a scientist must take each case on its merits, free from prejudice. And I have to admit that hummingbirds.... Have you seen one? They're amazing! They beat their wings eighty times a second. They can fly backwards! They can't have just happened by accident, so in this extremely unusual case the most credible explanation is that they were formed by a superhuman creative intelligence.

Oh don't be ridiculous. One day a large bird that flapped its wings slowly had a bunch of eggs and one of them grew up to be a tiny bird that could hover. Amazingly, nearby, another big, slow bird had an egg that produced another tiny, fast bird just like the first except the opposite sex. This of course allowed them to mate and spawn the lineage we now know as hummingbirds. Checkmate, creationists.

I just find that to be too unbelievable, you know, as a scientist. It's just much more likely God made the humingbird. The oddest thing being I don't believe in God. But I think God having made the hummingbird is the exception that proves the rule that God doesn't exist.

Be careful of any zebra stampedes


Zebras get a bad wrap. I'll bet if they weren't half black people wouldn't think they were so dangerous.
 
2012-12-12 07:32:56 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: meat0918: Uchiha_Cycliste: No Such Agency: Uchiha_Cycliste:
Elzar: Scientists can play the devil's advocate and take the position of YEC for argument's sake at which point it quickly becomes apparent there is not a shred of physical evidence/proof for the existence of a Abrahamic god/Jesus/Holy Ghost.

what about the hummingbird?

Look, what I believe - what I believe is that the overwhelming majority of all life that has ever existed came about by the blind application of natural selection upon replicating entities. All God did was make the hummingbirds. Look, a scientist must take each case on its merits, free from prejudice. And I have to admit that hummingbirds.... Have you seen one? They're amazing! They beat their wings eighty times a second. They can fly backwards! They can't have just happened by accident, so in this extremely unusual case the most credible explanation is that they were formed by a superhuman creative intelligence.

Oh don't be ridiculous. One day a large bird that flapped its wings slowly had a bunch of eggs and one of them grew up to be a tiny bird that could hover. Amazingly, nearby, another big, slow bird had an egg that produced another tiny, fast bird just like the first except the opposite sex. This of course allowed them to mate and spawn the lineage we now know as hummingbirds. Checkmate, creationists.

I just find that to be too unbelievable, you know, as a scientist. It's just much more likely God made the humingbird. The oddest thing being I don't believe in God. But I think God having made the hummingbird is the exception that proves the rule that God doesn't exist.

Be careful of any zebra stampedes

Zebras get a bad wrap. I'll bet if they weren't half black people wouldn't think they were so dangerous.


I saw zebras mating once. It was like the Heimlich...with stripes!
 
Displayed 50 of 179 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report