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.

(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
    More: Obvious, Annie Hall, Discovery Institute, selections, Marshall McLuhan, multicellular organisms, innovations, Michael Lynch, Rick Warren  
•       •       •

10066 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Dec 2012 at 12:29 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



179 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-12-12 10:38:52 AM  
There is very little funny about "christian scientists" - they are simply flat-out snake-oil hacks. They don't care about facts - only maintaining an illusion of authority among their followers. Its another example of the one-eyed man being king in the land of the blind. The followers are by and large ignorant and will never question what is being shoveled at them.

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.

"True" christians on the other hand will almost never allow themselves to even consider that god might not be real or the bible untrue and/or that evolution is real. They surround themselves in a protective bubble and support the voices that echo the bible and reinforce their faith-based knowledge of "what is true".

So we get "institutions" like Discovery Institute whose sole purpose is to bilk religious folk out of their hard-earned dollars and maintain the continual goal-post moving necessary to evolve christianity alongside modern science and its advancements.
 
2012-12-12 10:58:55 AM  
"I admire your willingness to take on creationists in public; I find their views so antediluvian that I can only ignore them.

Eric"



LOL
 
2012-12-12 11:40:36 AM  
Those scientists are using big words and logic. It's no wonder IDers are confused.
 
2012-12-12 12:29:10 PM  
Professional creationists are, without exception, liars. They are aware that the things they are saying are false.

The majority of creationists are simply not knowledgeable about the topic, and repeat what they have been told because they have never sought out the relevant information.

If you are a creationist, you are either uninformed (most) or dishonest (the few professional creationists), but either way, you are mistaken. Evolution happens, evolution has happened, and evolution will continue to happen. Natural selection is one of the most significant causes of evolution, and it results in adaptation to local environments. Darwin was absolutely correct about that.

None of this has any bearing on the existence, actions, or intent of any supernatural deities. 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. Offspring are not all "clones" of their parents; each generation is slightly different from the one before it, and those slight differences are cumulative.

There are several people on Fark who are experts in one or another aspects of evolution (the observed process) and/or evolutionary theory (the explanation for the observed process), so if you're not certain what it's all about, please ask questions.
 
2012-12-12 12:32:09 PM  

FloydA: Professional creationists are, without exception, liars. They are aware that the things they are saying are false.

The majority of creationists are simply not knowledgeable about the topic, and repeat what they have been told because they have never sought out the relevant information.

If you are a creationist, you are either uninformed (most) or dishonest (the few professional creationists), but either way, you are mistaken. Evolution happens, evolution has happened, and evolution will continue to happen. Natural selection is one of the most significant causes of evolution, and it results in adaptation to local environments. Darwin was absolutely correct about that.

None of this has any bearing on the existence, actions, or intent of any supernatural deities. 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. Offspring are not all "clones" of their parents; each generation is slightly different from the one before it, and those slight differences are cumulative.

There are several people on Fark who are experts in one or another aspects of evolution (the observed process) and/or evolutionary theory (the explanation for the observed process), so if you're not certain what it's all about, please ask questions.


Not only that, science has actually, compeltely, *reproduced evolution of a new trait* in a laboratory (which is SERIOUSLY WICKED COOL). That is, a trait that did not even *exist* in the bacteria prior to the experiment (E-coli capable of surviving on citric acid, if I remember right).
 
2012-12-12 12:36:17 PM  
I know a guy with a Master's of Science degree in biology from the Univesity of Alabama who's a straight up young Earth creationist. It's really weird.
 
2012-12-12 12:39:25 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-12 12:44:01 PM  

www.sojones.com

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

 
2012-12-12 12:45:19 PM  

error 303: I know a guy with a Master's of Science degree in biology from the University of Alabama who's a straight up young Earth creationist. It's really weird.


Think I found your problem.

CSB:
My first non-TA teaching gig was at a university college (halfway between a college and a full university). The very first person to graduate with a B.Sc. from that institution turned out to be a creationist, and he came back to his alma mater with a whole display. They room they gave him was as far from the Science department as possible.

I got my picture in the paper arguing with him. His responses didn't make a whole lot of sense. However, I got the sense that he was probably a nice guy underneath all the willful ignorance (he was Canadian, after all).

The one thing I took offense to was the poster on the wall describing non-believers as "wicked". Well fark you too, buddy.
 
2012-12-12 12:47:17 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.


i105.photobucket.com

Science: 1
Creationism: 0
 
2012-12-12 12:47:22 PM  

FloydA: ...so if you're not certain what it's all about, please ask questions.



I, for one, welcome this new post-Steve B. Fark.com
 
2012-12-12 12:48:26 PM  

Elzar: There is very little funny about "christian scientists" - they are simply flat-out snake-oil hacks. They don't care about facts - only maintaining an illusion of authority among their followers. Its another example of the one-eyed man being king in the land of the blind. The followers are by and large ignorant and will never question what is being shoveled at them.


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.

FloydA: Professional creationists are, without exception, liars. They are aware that the things they are saying are false.

The majority of creationists are simply not knowledgeable about the topic, and repeat what they have been told because they have never sought out the relevant information.

If you are a creationist, you are either uninformed (most) or dishonest (the few professional creationists), but either way, you are mistaken. Evolution happens, evolution has happened, and evolution will continue to happen. Natural selection is one of the most significant causes of evolution, and it results in adaptation to local environments. Darwin was absolutely correct about that.

None of this has any bearing on the existence, actions, or intent of any supernatural deities. 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. Offspring are not all "clones" of their parents; each generation is slightly different from the one before it, and those slight differences are cumulative.

There are several people on Fark who are experts in one or another aspects of evolution (the observed process) and/or evolutionary theory (the explanation for the observed process), so if you're not certain what it's all about, please ask questions.


Pretty much this. Also, not all of the best scientists in particular fields are very eloquent, which is a disadvantage. Many of the professional conmen involved in ID, YEC, etc are pretty good at speaking to their target audience. Although we can claim the excuse that it is farking hard to explain science sometimes. If you simplify too much people still reject it because it seems too simple, and they have enough "yeah but what about x?" type questions. Trying to explain the breadth and depth of evolutionary biology takes semesters of course-time...
 
2012-12-12 12:49:03 PM  
We are supposed to get a new flu vaccine every single year because the flu virus mutates and is different every year. How is this not proof enough that evolution is real?
 
2012-12-12 12:50:57 PM  

error 303: I know a guy with a Master's of Science degree in biology from the Univesity of Alabama who's a straight up young Earth creationist. It's really weird.


I know a few as well. It is less weird when you realize you can do entire biology degrees (particularly molecular biology or biochemistry) with only superficial education in evolutionary biology. In a typical intro biology course it is glossed over in one unit, and you might not have to take any sort of specific course in it. If you do molecular work you can then never think about it again and go on experimenting on your particular protein or pathway of interest.
 
2012-12-12 12:51:36 PM  
The saddest thing: the creationist nitwit shows up in the comments and digs in his heels.
 
2012-12-12 12:52:14 PM  

phaseolus: FloydA: ...so if you're not certain what it's all about, please ask questions.


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


post? eh?
 
2012-12-12 12:53:44 PM  

ManOfTeal: We are supposed to get a new flu vaccine every single year because the flu virus mutates and is different every year. How is this not proof enough that evolution is real?


Yeah, but the flu virus never mutates into an ostrich or Ponderosa pine.

Check. Mate.
 
2012-12-12 12:58:25 PM  

FloydA: 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.

[i105.photobucket.com image 640x478]

Science: 1
Creationism: 0


That one looks like it is taxidermied. Please send me a live one at once.

entropic_existence: Elzar: ***snip***
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.

***snip***


Not to speak for anyone else, but there is a difference between scientists who are Christian and "christian scientists" and would guess the original comment was referring to the second kind.

ManOfTeal: We are supposed to get a new flu vaccine every single year because the flu virus mutates and is different every year. How is this not proof enough that evolution is real?


Because people believe Jenny McCarthy over scientific evidence? Of course before she started spouting off about fake science, I didn't even realize that she could talk, so I may be biased.
 
2012-12-12 01:01:15 PM  

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
 
2012-12-12 01:02:22 PM  
If we evolved from monkies, how's become there are still monkies, Poindexter?

Oh, and BANANAS!
 
2012-12-12 01:06:06 PM  

roc6783: Not to speak for anyone else, but there is a difference between scientists who are Christian and "christian scientists" and would guess the original comment was referring to the second kind.


There's also a difference between scientists who are Christian, "christian scientists," and Christian Scientists, due to an unfortunate bit of effective branding...
 
2012-12-12 01:06:38 PM  

roc6783: Not to speak for anyone else, but there is a difference between scientists who are Christian and "christian scientists" and would guess the original comment was referring to the second kind.


I thought maybe, but it would be a little odd. Christian Scientists is a religious group which wasn't mentioned in TFA at all.
 
2012-12-12 01:11:13 PM  
It's funny when Darwinists accuse theists of living in a little bubble and agreeing with themselves, as they comment on an article from 'whyevolutionistrue,com'

Guess it takes intelligence to figure out the irony.
 
2012-12-12 01:16:32 PM  

Quigs: It's funny when Darwinists accuse theists


Well, there's your first problem....

6/10. Like that little bit of subtlety
 
2012-12-12 01:17:20 PM  
Way too many big words in that article.
 
2012-12-12 01:19:59 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]


Haha, nice.
 
2012-12-12 01:23:05 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-12 01:24:55 PM  
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?

Just a thought.
 
2012-12-12 01:27:44 PM  
I saw this bumper sticker coming home from a wedding this weekend:

i.ebayimg.com

I guess the one about lying doesn't count?
 
2012-12-12 01:28:32 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?

Just a thought.


The ultimate "compromise" is that God created evolution.
 
2012-12-12 01:30:02 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: TabASlotB: ***snip***

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


Well it is just a theory...
 
2012-12-12 01:32:59 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?

Just a thought.


And provide no proof or evidence of your great plan? Why not include this information in your "Bible" and let everyone know from the start? Doesn't sound like divine planning to me, sounds more like human planning. Like one group trying to control another group
 
2012-12-12 01:34:10 PM  
And please, let's not conflate these "christian" "scientists" with scientists who are Christian. The latter two are not mutually exclusive by any means.

/yes, the quotes were intentional
//these people are seldom either Christian or scientists
 
2012-12-12 01:34:26 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?

Just a thought.


If you've made up your mind to believe in a God (god, gods, etc), then making that sort of leap isn't unheard of. You're hardly the first to suggest such a thing. I will point out though that this is very much a "god of the gaps" type of reasoning. That is to say that God is the part of science and nature that we don't understand.

Currently, that's quite a lot but the reality is that we understand more and more every day and there's no reason to think this won't continue. As our understanding increases, the space that God occupies shrinks. Eventually, as time goes no, God is relegated to smaller and smaller portions of our ignorance until one day he's just... gone.
 
2012-12-12 01:38:53 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.


MONKEY HATE CLEAN
 
2012-12-12 01:39:41 PM  

error 303: I know a guy with a Master's of Science degree in biology from the Univesity of Alabama who's a straight up young Earth creationist. It's really weird.


No it isn't.
 
2012-12-12 01:41:19 PM  

I Like Bread: The ultimate "compromise" is that God created evolution.


i thought we agreed that Evolution created god!!!

we should just say Naturedidit and call it day, all this bickering is really starting to exhaust me
 
2012-12-12 01:42:07 PM  
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.
 
2012-12-12 01:46:04 PM  

entropic_existence: Pretty much this.


ministryplace.net

easy on tar baby there buddy, he isn't here to help you
 
2012-12-12 01:48:36 PM  
For folks who claim to believe in an all knowing god who's capable of creating an entire universe, they seem to think he's rather weak in regards to setting up the system so that it can't evolve

c'mon folks, either you believe he's all powerful, or you don't.

/most of these folks are really religious traditionalists who hate to have their applecarts turned over.
 
2012-12-12 01:50:56 PM  

MightyPez: I saw this bumper sticker coming home from a wedding this weekend:

[i.ebayimg.com image 300x225]

I guess the one about lying doesn't count?


Lying for Jesus is a well known and documented allowable set of lies.

//Fill them pews people!
 
2012-12-12 01:54:14 PM  

Felgraf: Not only that, science has actually, compeltely, *reproduced evolution of a new trait* in a laboratory (which is SERIOUSLY WICKED COOL). That is, a trait that did not even *exist* in the bacteria prior to the experiment (E-coli capable of surviving on citric acid, if I remember right).


Correct. Also, the protocols of the experiment allowed the researchers to determine that it took two mutations that occurred over 10,000 generations apart for this to occur.
 
2012-12-12 01:54:44 PM  

I drunk what: easy on tar baby there buddy, he isn't here to help you


Why are you calling FloydA a racial epithet and what exactly is wrong with his statement?
 
2012-12-12 01:56:37 PM  

natazha: Correct. Also, the protocols of the experiment allowed the researchers to determine that it took two mutations that occurred over 10,000 generations apart for this to occur.


Which for a clonally reproducing bacteria living in an isolated environment so there is no gene exchange going on (bacteria LOVE to swap genes with other species of bacteria), is not bad.
 
2012-12-12 02:03:06 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: Quigs: It's funny when Darwinists accuse theists

Well, there's your first problem....

6/10. Like that little bit of subtlety


that and ripping material from trolls with better practice at that sort of thing
 
2012-12-12 02:03:11 PM  
people.virginia.edu

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.
 
2012-12-12 02:04:27 PM  
TL;DR: Scientists trolling stupid people
 
2012-12-12 02:19:49 PM  
b>born_yesterday: If we evolved from monkies, how's become there are still monkies, Poindexter?


Corollary : If evolution is true, then why are there still creationists?
 
2012-12-12 02:20:50 PM  

entropic_existence: Why are you calling FloydA a racial epithet


just a fair warning:

images2.wikia.nocookie.net

entropic_existence: and what exactly is wrong with his statement?


FloydA: Professional creationists are, without exception, liars. They are aware that the things they are saying are false.

The majority of creationists are simply not knowledgeable about the topic, and repeat what they have been told because they have never sought out the relevant information.

If you are a creationist, you are either uninformed (most) or dishonest (the few professional creationists), but either way, you are mistaken.


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
 
2012-12-12 02:23:13 PM  

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


Oh god, he did...

Wow. Just wow.
 
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!
 
2012-12-12 07:36:36 PM  

meat0918: 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.


The devil put telomere-like structures in chromosome 2.
 
2012-12-12 07:36:41 PM  

Lord Dimwit: 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!


I'll bet that would have kicked ass on shrooms!

\I'm so disappointed that so few people are familiar with John Finnemore. Especially with all the attention Benedict Cummberbatch gets.
 
2012-12-12 07:38:43 PM  
I see IDW is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

IDW is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or
3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this three year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the Wason Selection Task with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually revealed that everyone was wrong.

It's part of his technique to constantly assume Authoritarian control. He gets off on giving people challenges and quests with no point other than so he can withhold the non-existent answers from them (like his "True Definition of Nature" theory -- he poses this riddle to everyone but there's no answer. He just enjoys watching people struggle). It's the old schoolyard power trip: "I know something you don't and I won't tell you what it is".

That he's been doing this schtick for so long is an indication that he will never stop and there's nothing new to be garnered from him, like he's stuck in a perpetual feedback loop, recycling the same arguments in every religion thread (he's probably already posted the Wason test that he so infamously failed at solving many years ago. It's his way of dealing with the embarrassment by mocking it).

Despite the fact that he frequently loses these discussions, he'll continue posting them as if they're unsolvable, ignoring repeated and consistent replies defeating them. He has never been the type to swallow his pride and admit when he's wrong so you'll never get anywhere with him (and he'll always mock you if you try). It is very likely that he has NPD and people replying to him on Fark is how he strokes his ego so he can never stop no matter how many humiliating threads send him down in flames.

In short: He is a complete and total waste of your god damn time. Reply at your peril; I suggest ignore.
 
2012-12-12 08:08:19 PM  
I was amused by the part of the discussion where Nelson was talking to a grad student of one of the aforementioned professors and encouraged him to ask the professor about his views... and the response came back:

I asked him, and I'm afraid he asked me how my projects were doing. I interpret this as his way of telling me not to waste my time on the Internet.
 
2012-12-12 08:17:27 PM  
There seems to be a lot of "Evolution vs. Creationism" crap going on.

But shouldn't it be "Abiogenesis vs. Creationism"? I mean, even creationism doesn't exclude evolution does it?

/genuinely curious
//agonistic atheist who believes science FTW!111eleventy
///live in a country where this BS either doesn't occur (doubtful...) or doesn't get any of the spotlight (much more likely)
 
2012-12-12 08:22:11 PM  

phaseolus: "I admire your willingness to take on creationists in public; I find their views so antediluvian that I can only ignore them.

Eric"


LOL


Although, in reality, wouldn't we all be antediluvian, since the flood hasn't actually happened yet?
 
2012-12-12 08:23:48 PM  

error 303: I know a guy with a Master's of Science degree in biology from the Univesity of Alabama who's a straight up young Earth creationist. It's really weird.


That's like being a mathematician who says there are no numbers higher than ten.
 
2012-12-12 08:32:18 PM  

I Like Bread: 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?

Just a thought.

The ultimate "compromise" is that God created evolution.


See, I'm fine with that. My own way of saying it is, "Evolution is Intelligent Design!" And I'm fine with the religious using that justification to jibe the facts with their faith.
 
2012-12-12 08:53:59 PM  

Legios: I mean, even creationism doesn't exclude evolution does it?


That depends on what sort of "creationism" it is. I suppose it could be watered down so much as to allow evolution as we know it.
 
2012-12-12 09:16:43 PM  

meat0918: 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.


Indeed. It's not #12 that's wrong, it's that #5 is incomplete, or at least not clear enough that large-scale genomic changes (horizontal gene transfers, gene, chromosome, and even whole genome duplications, etc) do happen. Sure, while they are relatively rare (compared to point mutations), and many may not be viable, any of the few that inevitably are have a chance of being passed on and spreading in the population either by selection or drift.
 
2012-12-12 09:22:52 PM  

IlGreven: "Evolution is Intelligent Design!"


Except it's not. Unless you think the "design" of making many many more items than can possibly survive and then killing off the combinations that don't work well, while keeping and reproducing the survivors is good design. :-/

In a way, evolution is a lot like throwing shiat and seeing what sticks, except the shiat can undergo some random changes, and the ones that stick can pass on their stickiness to their offspring. Not really a good design methodology, unless you a.) don't intend to mess with the system once you start it and b.) don't care how the system ends up (i.e. have no intended design goals).

B.) is kind of the antithesis of design, no?
 
2012-12-12 10:07:07 PM  

roc6783: Please let me know what interpretation of creationism you use that does not contradict science.


well according to wikipedia (and good enough for intelligent folk):

the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being

this is my "interpretation" of creationism (though english is my primary language, so i don't have to put much effort into interpreting it)

This^ does not contradict Science

roc6783: You were wrong in assuming that entropic_existence was a fellow creationist as you noted in the quote above.


yeah we'll get back to this one, since e_e is in one of those moods, again

...to be continued

roc6783: and yet in another suggest that entropic_existence "can learn a lot from him"


well, it would certainly be illogical to suggest that anyone can learn from FloydA, you make a good point...

nah just kidding, it's actually quite logical to suggest that e_e can learn from him, as abbey so eloquently put (recently): one can learn a lot from epic failure.. [paraphrased]

sorry lad, no cookie

well skippy you're already 0/3 so far, i certainly hope your luck improves

roc6783: 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.


good show chap, you are correct, that was truly a snarky post, however you know must finish the claim and show that ALL of my posts are snarky responses to commentary about religion/Christianity

you can do them one at a time or all in one post, whatever you deem suitable, we'll just wait patiently here

i've got a sticker with your name on it, make us proud

roc6783: The creationism interpretation that you use that does not contradict science is the view in which I am interested in hearing more about.


well we already covered that one, though if you have any further inquiries i'd be happy to assist, unfortunately we've come to the end of your initial round of feedback, to which i must say you've done a terrible job of defending your case(s)

one thing remains unresolved with e_e (which i will be addressing shortly), however aside from that minor detail, it would seem you failed one of you primary objectives: not to be condescending and/or slanderous

so it would seem that you owe me an apology

/ready when you are

roc6783: You have so far.


you aint seen nothin yet

/i see ishkur has shown up just in time for the entertainment portion of the thread
//coincidence? i think not
///he's so cute
 
2012-12-12 10:13:06 PM  

Ishkur: They are very smart and very stupid at the same time.


Christianity has a long tradition of this, they're called "apologists". Meaning, "let's use reason and logic, except for the step where we use tautology to assume God exists and the bible is true". Even a bright, decent guy like C.S. Lewis was one of these, pondering how many angels could dance on a pinhead.

Also, being such a closed community with bans for any doubters strongly suggests they have crushingly weak faith, terrified of any challenge... which is sad for people whose only source of identity is their faith.
 
2012-12-12 10:13:32 PM  

Ishkur: I see IDW is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

IDW is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or
3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this three year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the Wason Selection Task with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually revealed that everyone was ...


I drunk IB: 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.


EL OH EL

you gotta love 'em, they are comedy gold (in a truman show sort of way)
 
2012-12-12 10:55:10 PM  

Legios: There seems to be a lot of "Evolution vs. Creationism" crap going on.
But shouldn't it be "Abiogenesis vs. Creationism"? I mean, even creationism doesn't exclude evolution does it?


To them, it's all one thing: Atheism/Evolution/Abiogenesis/BigBangTheory/Science. They see values in terms of package deals (like "liberal" and "conservative") and if you subscribe to one you automatically subscribe to all. They don't differentiate from nuance and they don't understand how someone can pick and choose their valueset based on individual issues rather than blanket full-ticket "check all" subscriptions.

And it doesn't occur to them that the rest of us don't think that way.
 
2012-12-12 10:59:36 PM  

entropic_existence: 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.


Has he tried his "definition of natural" thing yet? That's just as loopy.
 
2012-12-12 11:24:59 PM  

Legios: There seems to be a lot of "Evolution vs. Creationism" crap going on.But shouldn't it be "Abiogenesis vs. Creationism"? I mean, even creationism doesn't exclude evolution does it?


This is fark, where that sort of thing is usually daily, sometimes

Of course these usually just turn into some sort of pissin contest after awhile, so don't leave yer boots out
 
2012-12-13 12:25:55 AM  

mamoru: IlGreven: "Evolution is Intelligent Design!"

Except it's not. Unless you think the "design" of making many many more items than can possibly survive and then killing off the combinations that don't work well, while keeping and reproducing the survivors is good design. :-/


Well, if you started with absolutely nothing (well, absolutely everything in a teeny tiny dot, but anyways), how would you go about finding out what works and what doesn't?
 
2012-12-13 12:32:00 AM  

IlGreven: Well, if you started with absolutely nothing (well, absolutely everything in a teeny tiny dot, but anyways), how would you go about finding out what works and what doesn't?


That depends... Am I an omnipotent being?
 
2012-12-13 12:35:25 AM  

mamoru: IlGreven: Well, if you started with absolutely nothing (well, absolutely everything in a teeny tiny dot, but anyways), how would you go about finding out what works and what doesn't?

That depends... Am I an omnipotent being?


And, regardless, design implies a purpose or a goal. Evolution does not work that way. Evolution selects for what works now, with no foresight for what might best work tomorrow.
 
2012-12-13 12:44:44 AM  
I have no problem with creationists, just like I have no problem with people at a poker table who "believe" they are good players. Being stupid/willfully ignorant of reality, does not mean that they are bad people, some of the nicest people in the world are retarded, so what?

I'm not saying that I know absolutely everything about processes that occurred millions of years ago, but I am saying that relying on the "scientific" observations of people who existed 5000 years ago is at the most retarded and at the least intellectually lazy. I'm sure that they can babble for hours with confidence on all sorts of subjects upon which they base their delusions, but don't expect a person who values his/her finite time on this planet to listen.

I'm sure the same people can explain at length why the Bible states that that pi is "exactly" 3. Being confident and strong about a lie does not make it truth. Before a creationist explains why they are right, perhaps first they should explain something simple and absolute. Mathematically, prove that pi is exactly 3. Once a creationist can do that - a simple task - then I'll start listening to them about new Earths; otherwise, you're a fairly ignorant lot.

//Note, that I did not support evolution in any fashion
 
2012-12-13 01:41:17 AM  
i49.photobucket.com

Y'all know exactly which threadschitting troll this is meant for.
 
2012-12-13 02:45:27 AM  
I can't comprehend how somebody can devote their entire life to promoting what they know to be a lie in order to prop-up their imaginary bearded sky-fairy.

I would be incredibly nervous around lunatics like this. Especially if they have guns laying around the house.
 
2012-12-13 06:15:37 AM  

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


Saddest or most completely predictable, given that it was predicted in the blog post?

Chalk another one up!
 
2012-12-13 08:17:38 AM  

IlGreven: how would you go about finding out what works and what doesn't?


cache.gawkerassets.com

nature, uhhhhhhh .. finds a way

/naturedidit
 
2012-12-13 08:36:26 AM  

cthellis: entropic_existence: 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.

Has he tried his "definition of natural" thing yet? That's just as loopy.


e_e, go easy on them, they think you're being serious

mamoru: And, regardless, design implies a purpose or a goal. Evolution does not work that way.


show us one of your designs that is superior to evolution

or say nothing and expose yourself as the worthless troll that you are, i'm easy

---

FloydA: Professional creationists are, without exception, liars. They are aware that the things they are saying are false.

The majority of creationists are simply not knowledgeable about the topic, and repeat what they have been told because they have never sought out the relevant information.

If you are a creationist, you are either uninformed (most) or dishonest (the few professional creationists), but either way, you are mistaken.


Ishkur: To them, it's all one thing: Theism/IntelligentDesign/Creation/God'sWord/Religion. They see values in terms of package deals (like "liberal" and "conservative") and if you subscribe to one you automatically subscribe to all. They don't differentiate from nuance and they don't understand how someone can pick and choose their valueset based on individual issues rather than blanket full-ticket "check all" subscriptions.

And it doesn't occur to them that the rest of us don't think that way.


...wait for it... wait for it.....

...wait... there

Elzar: <slowclap.jpg>


*bows*

thank you, thank you, you're too kind, really, stop it, you're embarrassing me *blows a kiss*

//sloe clap??
 
2012-12-13 08:42:53 AM  

cthellis: Has he tried his "definition of natural" thing yet?


How would you define Nature?

Kome: Oh... It's the idiot who hasn't figured out the Wason after this many years.


upload.wikimedia.org

How many cards would you turn over?

if you need some assistance Ishkur would be happy to help...

and on that note, i'll tell ya what roc6783, i will crowbar the truth you seek out of e_e in exchange you must first crowbar the truth out of Ishkur.

Deal?
 
2012-12-13 09:26:27 AM  

error 303: I know a guy with a Master's of Science degree in biology from the Univesity of Alabama who's a straight up young Earth creationist. It's really weird.


Not weird at all. Religious beliefs are strategic, so he thinks this belief will either get him approbation (parents, friends), or money (grants), or sex (religious girls). Figure out which it is and you'll understand his passion for religion.

Likewise political beliefs. Ever considered that? Your politics is a strategic choice.
 
2012-12-13 09:40:19 AM  

Breathe Laugh Twitch: error 303: I know a guy with a Master's of Science degree in biology from the Univesity of Alabama who's a straight up young Earth creationist. It's really weird.

Not weird at all. Religious beliefs are strategic, so he thinks this belief will either get him approbation (parents, friends), or money (grants), or sex (religious girls). Figure out which it is and you'll understand his passion for religion.

Likewise political beliefs. Ever considered that? Your politics is a strategic choice.


I thought the form said "libertine party."
 
2012-12-13 10:07:52 AM  

MightyPez: I saw this bumper sticker coming home from a wedding this weekend:

[i.ebayimg.com image 300x225]

I guess the one about lying doesn't count?


"The Ten Commandments are not multiple choice"

What does that even mean? Is the Eleventh Commandment "Thou shalt chooseth 'All of thee above'"?
 
2012-12-13 10:48:19 AM  

Angry Buddha: MightyPez: I saw this bumper sticker coming home from a wedding this weekend:

[i.ebayimg.com image 300x225]

I guess the one about lying doesn't count?

"The Ten Commandments are not multiple choice"

What does that even mean? Is the Eleventh Commandment "Thou shalt chooseth 'All of thee above'"?


Yeah, I'm thinking it should really say "The 10 Commandments are not a menu" and that the author of the bumper sticker has problems expressing themselves clearly.
 
2012-12-13 11:58:15 AM  

cthellis: entropic_existence: 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.

Has he tried his "definition of natural" thing yet? That's just as loopy.


The secrets of Nature are kept by a privileged few, like myself, sence the Age of Enlightenment. IDW does not keep it. Only I have the TRUE study of nature, for nature is God and is alive and intelligent. Others perhaps have sought for knowledge, and joined ranks to keep the secret within the system, not to expose it. Many women who were exploring these secrets were killed under the name witch hunt. Back then, the study of nature was considered beyond reality.
 
2012-12-13 12:41:18 PM  

vactech: cthellis: entropic_existence: 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.

Has he tried his "definition of natural" thing yet? That's just as loopy.

The secrets of Nature are kept by a privileged few, like myself, sence the Age of Enlightenment. IDW does not keep it. Only I have the TRUE study of nature, for nature is God and is alive and intelligent. Others perhaps have sought for knowledge, and joined ranks to keep the secret within the system, not to expose it. Many women who were exploring these secrets were killed under the name witch hunt. Back then, the study of nature was considered beyond reality.


aw cheez not this shiate again

can't you do something useful? go play in traffic or somethin'
 
2012-12-13 12:52:47 PM  

I drunk what: vactech: cthellis: entropic_existence: 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.

Has he tried his "definition of natural" thing yet? That's just as loopy.

The secrets of Nature are kept by a privileged few, like myself, sence the Age of Enlightenment. IDW does not keep it. Only I have the TRUE study of nature, for nature is God and is alive and intelligent. Others perhaps have sought for knowledge, and joined ranks to keep the secret within the system, not to expose it. Many women who were exploring these secrets were killed under the name witch hunt. Back then, the study of nature was considered beyond reality.

aw cheez not this shiate again

can't you do something useful? go play in traffic or somethin'


lulz!
Ooohh that is fresh. IDW is annoyed by my posts about a superior Nature definition.

Is it that you can't fathom God having the ability to be nature? It's probably a thought that makes you uncomfortable. Maybe it's something God can't do? Yeah! That's it! He isn't capable!

Perhaps you need some time to think it over, I drunk what. It's ok, take your time.
 
2012-12-13 12:59:15 PM  

vactech: Perhaps you need some time to think it over, I drunk what. It's ok, take your time.


can i poll the audience? phone a friend??

the answer is C the lizard king behind doors number 3
 
2012-12-13 01:11:29 PM  
I love reading discussions about religious zealots on a site that protects its precious snowflake visitors from the f-word and nudity.
 
2012-12-13 01:17:39 PM  

I drunk what: vactech: Perhaps you need some time to think it over, I drunk what. It's ok, take your time.

can i poll the audience? phone a friend??

the answer is C the lizard king behind doors number 3


Stumped huh? That's ok . I'm God's easy. He is the (A) through (Z) The Alpha all the way ------------------> to the Omega.

i1234.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-13 01:26:49 PM  

vactech: Stumped huh? That's ok .


two pair huh? i got blackjack, who wins??
 
2012-12-13 01:49:02 PM  

mamoru: IlGreven: Well, if you started with absolutely nothing (well, absolutely everything in a teeny tiny dot, but anyways), how would you go about finding out what works and what doesn't?

That depends... Am I an omnipotent being?


...does it really matter if God is for those who believe him and know that evolution is happening?

Me, I cut out the middleman. Since no God is required for literally anything, no God is used. But if you wanna shoehorn God into your business, I'll readily accept your view of things, and give you helpful slogans like mine. Just don't try and shoehorn your God into my business.
 
2012-12-13 01:59:22 PM  

vactech: I drunk what: aw cheez not this shiate again


Sorry friend, you can't escape it.

vactech: Is it that you can't fathom God having the ability to be nature?


I drunk what: can i poll the audience? phone a friend??


vactech: Alpha all the way ------------------> to the Omega.


I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. -Revelation 22:13

So ,should we amend that to say everything but nature? Would that make you more comfortable?

I drunk what: who wins??


God wins. God, lad.....

God exists, exists in a state of absolute-isness. Beyond time, beyond space. God creates infinite reality, finite reality. He is beyond both. Beyond limitation. And yes, if God wants to be Nature, then He can and is. 

Joke all you want IDW. But you haven't really presented any logical challenge to myHis True definition. Quit fighting it young Starling. You know I've got it Right(TM)
 
2012-12-13 02:26:14 PM  

phaseolus: "I admire your willingness to take on creationists in public; I find their views so antediluvian that I can only ignore them.

Eric"


LOL


Normally for me a LOL is at best a chuckle. This one was boisterous and brought a ter to my eye.
 
2012-12-13 04:40:36 PM  

Ishkur: Legios: There seems to be a lot of "Evolution vs. Creationism" crap going on.
But shouldn't it be "Abiogenesis vs. Creationism"? I mean, even creationism doesn't exclude evolution does it?

To them, it's all one thing: Atheism/Evolution/Abiogenesis/BigBangTheory/Science. They see values in terms of package deals (like "liberal" and "conservative") and if you subscribe to one you automatically subscribe to all. They don't differentiate from nuance and they don't understand how someone can pick and choose their valueset based on individual issues rather than blanket full-ticket "check all" subscriptions.

And it doesn't occur to them that the rest of us don't think that way.


And it happens in far more than just Creationist circles. I have no qualms about calling out people for parroting Fox News talking points, and in return I've been called everything from a "dyed-in-the-wool Democrat" to a "CNN watcher".

/lives in the SF bay area, so it doesn't happen that often
 
2012-12-13 07:09:58 PM  

IlGreven: mamoru: IlGreven: Well, if you started with absolutely nothing (well, absolutely everything in a teeny tiny dot, but anyways), how would you go about finding out what works and what doesn't?

That depends... Am I an omnipotent being?

...does it really matter if God is for those who believe him and know that evolution is happening?

Me, I cut out the middleman. Since no God is required for literally anything, no God is used. But if you wanna shoehorn God into your business, I'll readily accept your view of things, and give you helpful slogans like mine. Just don't try and shoehorn your God into my business.


Wait, what? How did me pointing out that evolution is neither intelligent nor design count as me shoehorning a God (in which, FTR, I have no belief) into anything? Did we somehow switch sides in our discussion? Weren't you the one who said...

IlGreven: "Evolution is Intelligent Design!"


?

Design implies purpose or goal, of which evolution has neither (evolution is an emergent property of any system of replicators constrained by their environment). Intelligence implies some intelligent agent, which evolution neither requires nor implies.

So, I was merely refuting your statement. Evolution most certainly is not intelligent design. Not unless you want to stretch the meanings of the words "intelligent" and "design" beyond all usefulness. In which case, we already have one person in this thread, whom I thankfully cannot see thanks to the ignore function, who does that, and you can see what a laughing stock he is. ;)
 
2012-12-13 07:26:41 PM  

I drunk what: expose yourself as the worthless troll that you are

:D

mamoru: and you can see what a laughing stock he is. ;)

:D

THIS^ ;)

hence the title "worthless troll" :D

;) wink wink nudge nudge ;)

hey guys, if you need any proof of how cool and awesome i am, just let me show you my extensive ignore list, it has all kinds of people that are smarter than me and disagree with my narrowminded and intellectually disingenuous views :D

that's what makes me so clever :D ;)
 
2012-12-13 08:31:04 PM  
people.virginia.edu

in·tel·li·gent adjective \in-ˈte-lə-jənt\

Definition of INTELLIGENT

1
a : having or indicating a high or satisfactory degree of intelligence and mental capacity
b : revealing or reflecting good judgment or sound thought : skillful
2
a : possessing intelligence
b : guided or directed by intellect : rational
3
a : guided or controlled by a computer; especially : using a built-in microprocessor for automatic operation, for processing of data, or for achieving greater versatility - compare dumb 7
b : able to produce printed material from digital signals

de·sign verb \di-ˈzīn\

Definition of DESIGN

transitive verb
1
: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive
2
a : to conceive and plan out in the mind
b : to have as a purpose : intend
c : to devise for a specific function or end
3
archaic : to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name
4
a : to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of
b : to draw the plans for
intransitive verb
1
: to conceive or execute a plan
2
: to draw, lay out, or prepare a design
- de·sign·ed·ly adverb
See design defined for English-language learners »
See design defined for kids »

i have a question about #12 if anyone is interested
 
2012-12-13 08:50:55 PM  

Legios: 1.There seems to be a lot of "Evolution vs. Creationism" crap going on.

2. But shouldn't it be "Abiogenesis vs. Creationism"? 3. I mean, even creationism doesn't exclude evolution does it?

/4. genuinely curious
//agonistic atheist who believes science FTW!111eleventy
///live in a country where this BS either doesn't occur (doubtful...) or doesn't get any of the spotlight (much more likely)


1. Welcome to Fark
2. It should but that would require intelligent people, however see #1.
3. Nope. Only the anti-christian butthurt hatetheist trolling douchebags idiot brigade (we call them IB for short) feels the need to keep perpetuating this strawman. Of course there are some flavors particularly the YEC brand, that have great difficulty reconciling their beliefs with all of the claims, including timelines, that are swept under the "evolution" umbrella (not to mention the obvious agenda that comes with it) however in the end they really don't care that much about the fine details of the topic, but rather are more interested in combating the IB who are trying to subvert it for their own twisted objectives.

tl;dr Welcome to Fark.

4. In that case, you really don't belong here.
 
2012-12-13 08:52:58 PM  

vactech: vactech: I drunk what: aw cheez not this shiate again

Sorry friend, you can't escape it.

vactech: Is it that you can't fathom God having the ability to be nature?

I drunk what: can i poll the audience? phone a friend??

vactech: Alpha all the way ------------------> to the Omega.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. -Revelation 22:13

So ,should we amend that to say everything but nature? Would that make you more comfortable?

I drunk what: who wins??

God wins. God, lad.....

God exists, exists in a state of absolute-isness. Beyond time, beyond space. God creates infinite reality, finite reality. He is beyond both. Beyond limitation. And yes, if God wants to be Nature, then He can and is. 

Joke all you want IDW. But you haven't really presented any logical challenge to myHis True definition. Quit fighting it young Starling. You know I've got it Right(TM)


Oh bugger, they're trolling each other now. Maybe they'll cancel each other out and leave the rest of us alone.
 
2012-12-13 09:06:17 PM  

Bondith: they're trolling each other now. Maybe they'll cancel each other out and leave the rest of us alone.


How meta, eh?

But at least you have posted without adding anything to the discussion, that should lead to plenty of alone time for you, right skippy?

Go ahead, ignore the points I have made and links/citations I have posted. You are sure to win

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-13 09:13:41 PM  

IlGreven: ...does it really matter if God is for those who believe him and know that evolution is happening?


Oops, wait. Upon re-reading, I think I misunderstood with my previous reply. As I said above way above when I responded previously, it doesn't really matter, except that evolution gives every appearance of neither being intelligent nor following some design.

If people want to believe in a deity and evolution, power to them (so long as they stop trying to legislate their beliefs). However, it seems to me that it such a situation would mean that a.) the deity does not particularly specifically favor humans (sorry, folks, but I gotta go with the lithopic principle for this one: the universe seems to be especially suited for rocks) and we are not necessarily the goal but merely a side effect of the process, or b.) the deity is deliberately obtuse in creating a universe for us that has ever appearance not being created or guided. Chalk that up to "mysterious ways", I guess, but it has always seemed like a mind-boggling stretch to me. :-/

But, whatever. I see what you mean. I just disagree with your phrasing of "Evolution is intelligent design", for the same reasons I mentioned in my previous post: it stretches the meanings of those words nearly to the point of uselessness. :)
 
2012-12-13 09:29:23 PM  

Bondith: Oh bugger, they're trolling each other now. Maybe they'll cancel each other out and leave the rest of us alone.


actually that one is a bit more of a one way monologue, but i try to be polite
 
2012-12-13 10:31:48 PM  

I drunk what: Bondith: Oh bugger, they're trolling each other now. Maybe they'll cancel each other out and leave the rest of us alone.

actually that one is a bit more of a one way monologue, but i try to be polite


Yeah "polite"! Sure...that's the ticket! You keep telling yourself that.

Actually, ISers like you two gentlemen are good for business. Great "springboards" to get my ultimate Truth out there to these otherwise corrupted farkers.

But you see IDW... *chuckles nervously as he leers around to see if anyone notices his ineptitude* you keep thinking that everyone sees my Nature/God theory as the greatest universalist abstractionism ever, and I will keep this flock turned towards HIS light. All the while you can do your best to twist God's message. Whatever, I'm easy.
 
2012-12-14 08:46:57 AM  
nobody wants to talk about Science? ok, later

vactech: You keep telling yourself that.


sorry i can't hear you, because i'm awesome-clever-smart which means you're on ignore

everyone look at what a laughing stock he is ;)
 
2012-12-14 08:55:10 AM  

I drunk what: nobody wants to talk about Science? ok, later

vactech: You keep telling yourself that.

sorry i can't hear you, because i'm awesome-clever-smart which means you're on ignore

everyone look at what a laughing stock he is ;)



No one gets you quite as wound up as mamoru does. Not sure what happened there, but it is amusing to see you thrash whenever he shows up in a thread.
 
2012-12-14 09:04:58 AM  

I drunk what: so it would seem that you owe me an apology

/ready when you are


*crickets*

if you don't respond by the time this thread closes, we will accept your answer of:

"i regretfully decline"

as for the only unresolved issue, if e_e is still around and wishes to throw you a bone, and give you one thing to be right about, i'd be happy to inquire him about what his actual position on this topic is... *readies crowbar*

...even though you weren't able to invest the slightest bit of effort on your part

/i wouldn't hold my breath

peace be with you
 
2012-12-14 09:26:41 AM  

guestguy: No one gets you quite as wound up as mamoru does. Not sure what happened there, but it is amusing to see you thrash whenever he shows up in a thread.


i wouldn't quite say thrash, however you are correct some people go the extra mile to make it on my shiat list

and i'm quite sure i've already explained this multiple times before,

back in the day, when i fell for trolls more often (when i was a tad less jaded and waaaay too patient) i made the terrible mistake of wasting days, threads, endless walls of text (and we all know how much IDW hates those things), on that sorry good for nothing wretch

he actually literally TROLLED me into thinking that he was a sincere intellectually curious civilized human being

we had conversed back and forth for an average amount of time, and one day in the middle of a VERY long series of posts, with no snark or sarcasm from me, he then posts to another person in the thread (and did not even have the decency to inform me directly) that: lulz that IDW is such laughing stock cuz i haz him on ignore TROLOLOLOLOL, I TROL HIM!

so yes, even though by that time i had already been prepared to deal with complete and utter disappoint (this was ironically around the time that KB, FloydA, etc... were forming the IB) needless to say, i was a little more miffed than usual seeing how i was IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONVERSATION with him

i wasn't even sure why he wasn't responding... i just assumed like most cases, that what i said struck a nerve and that person is no longer interested in continuing the discussion

but to pull the old lulz I TROL U bit?? not cool

but hey, who am i to judge? looking back on it now, i'm sure it earned him all sorts of street cred with his beloved Idiot Brigade, so clearly it was worth it after all...

there is a special place in Hell reserved for this type

at least FloydA is able to remain civil, though i utterly detest his whole purpose in life, i respect him 1,000 times more than those good for nothing trolls (which still doesn't say much)
 
2012-12-14 10:23:35 AM  

I drunk what: guestguy: ***snip***


I will say, on a scale of 1-Entertaining, you crank that shiat to 11.
 
2012-12-14 10:28:57 AM  

roc6783: I drunk what: guestguy: ***snip***

I will say, on a scale of 1-Entertaining, you crank that shiat to 11.


*ahem*

I drunk what: if you don't respond by the time this thread closes, we will accept your answer of:

"i regretfully decline"


tick tock tick tock

/not kidding
//you know the magic word
 
2012-12-14 11:16:35 AM  

I drunk what: i have a question about #12 if anyone is interested


Then ask it
 
2012-12-14 11:28:43 AM  

I drunk what: as for the only unresolved issue, if e_e is still around and wishes to throw you a bone, and give you one thing to be right about, i'd be happy to inquire him about what his actual position on this topic is... *readies crowbar*


If you want me to respond to something it helps if you quote my full name in bold, so I get an e-mail alert. I don't always keep up with these threads continuously. Either way, since you are responding to yourself in that thread, I have no idea what the original statement or person you are referring to there. Or what I am supposed to be giving my opinion on.

Oh and as for you're whole Idiot Brigade nonsense. FloydA isn't a "hateful atheist." Despite what you want to force on others with your overly broad usage, he, myself, and many others, when we use the term Creationist/creationist are not referring to all theists of any stripe. It is a narrower subset of YEC, OEC, and ID (of the Discovery Institute variety). See usage of the term Creationism in legal proceedings and academic texts since about the Scopes trial or so and the various Supreme Court cases in the US that are relevant.

I've been participating, with him and others, in these threads since 2005. About the time the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial kicked off.

Yes, there are plenty of anti-theist, anti-Christian trolls in these threads as well. I find it best to ignore them. But not everyone attacking Creationism (how I and others use it) and Intelligent Design (again how it is typically used in this context) are attacking theism or belief in general.
 
2012-12-14 12:35:40 PM  

entropic_existence: I drunk what: i have a question about #12 if anyone is interested

Then ask it


where in the fossil record do we find sufficient evidence to explain the diversity of life (namely the sudden appearance of the phyla during the cambrian explosion)?

also does this lack of any supporting evidence bother any evolutionists who claim to subscribe to Darwin's theory of evolution which clearly focuses on concepts such as Universal Common Ancestry, and any associated claims-beliefs resulting from this premise?
 
2012-12-14 12:48:11 PM  

entropic_existence: Despite what you want to force on others with your overly broad usage, he, myself, and many others, when we use the term Creationist/creationist are not referring to all theists of any stripe. It is a narrower subset of YEC, OEC, and ID (of the Discovery Institute variety). See usage of the term Creationism in legal proceedings and academic texts since about the Scopes trial or so and the various Supreme Court cases in the US that are relevant.


ok humpty dumpty, let's do it the hard way

we'll go real slow so everyone can keep up:

1. is the wiki def. i posted earlier in this thread, acceptable for any discussion?

2. for now, don't worry about how other people are using it, just establish what it means first, then we can come back to other's views later

3. if you are using some other def. of "creationist" than the commonly used def. please provide it now, however please do not confuse yourself by introducing subsets of that def., nor historical analysis of this word, unless it has direct bearing on the proposal of your current version of this word

tl;dr

Is this a creationist? (a simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice):

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. ~wiki

and therefore...

A Creationist is a person who has the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
 
2012-12-14 01:13:54 PM  

I drunk what: namely the sudden appearance of the phyla during the cambrian explosion)?


I'll field this one boys. I am a master theologian, but I dabble in Agrophysics.

The Cambrian Explosion is a cosmological theory (as documented by Newton), holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent "explosion" (of the cambrian type) of a very small agglomeration of cambrian matter of extremely high density and temperature.

Again IDW, you are way off here as no respected scientasist currently believes this to be a valid explanation for the now defunct theory of abiogenesis.
 
2012-12-14 01:49:52 PM  

vactech: I drunk what: namely the sudden appearance of the phyla during the cambrian explosion)?

I'll field this one boys. I am a master theologian, but I dabble in Agrophysics.

The Cambrian Explosion is a cosmological theory (as documented by Newton), holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent "explosion" (of the cambrian type) of a very small agglomeration of cambrian matter of extremely high density and temperature.

Again IDW, you are way off here as no respected scientasist currently believes this to be a valid explanation for the now defunct theory of abiogenesis.


Ok, now you're...parodying yourself? I'm so confused.
 
2012-12-14 02:11:39 PM  

I drunk what: we'll go real slow so everyone can keep up:


The question isn't whether your usage of the word creationist is right or wrong, I've not said that it is incorrect after all. What I have said is that you appear to want to be deliberately obtuse. You insist on ONLY recognizing the broadest possible usage of the term:

A Creationist is a person who has the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.

In order to extend that to apply to basically any sort of theist, at least any theist of the Abrahamic variety.

It isn't that this is incorrect, it is that there do exist more narrow definitions of the term which are in common usage. I would argue that, in the context of "discussions" around evolutionary biology, those usages are in fact more common and more appropriate.
 
2012-12-14 02:12:40 PM  

Bondith: Ok, now you're...parodying yourself? I'm so confused.


I tend to skip his posts. I don't tend to actually ignore many people on Fark, but there are definitely people whose posts I generally skip over.
 
2012-12-14 02:13:05 PM  

Bondith: vactech: I drunk what: namely the sudden appearance of the phyla during the cambrian explosion)?

I'll field this one boys. I am a master theologian, but I dabble in Agrophysics.

The Cambrian Explosion is a cosmological theory (as documented by Newton), holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent "explosion" (of the cambrian type) of a very small agglomeration of cambrian matter of extremely high density and temperature.

Again IDW, you are way off here as no respected scientasist currently believes this to be a valid explanation for the now defunct theory of abiogenesis.

Ok, now you're...parodying yourself? I'm so confused.


Alright fine, maybe aeophysics isn't my thing. But at least I am trying. All you've managed to do is thread shiat and levy ad homogeneous attacts my way. Bravo Bondith, bravo.
 
2012-12-14 02:30:51 PM  

I drunk what: where in the fossil record do we find sufficient evidence to explain the diversity of life (namely the sudden appearance of the phyla during the cambrian explosion)?

also does this lack of any supporting evidence bother any evolutionists who claim to subscribe to Darwin's theory of evolution which clearly focuses on concepts such as Universal Common Ancestry, and any associated claims-beliefs resulting from this premise?


Well I've been over this a few times. The problem is it is a long and complicated subject. The tl;dr version is that evolutionary biologists are not troubled by the Cambrian Explosion for a variety of reasons. It is an interesting time period worthy of study but it is not inconsistent with what we know about evolution or the theory itself. It is also worth noting that the "sufficiency" above describes the sufficiency of evolutionary theory, not the sufficiency of the fossil record. The fossil record represents one line of evidence, not the sum total of the evidence.

Here are the cliff notes in point form:

1) The "Cambrian Explosion" refers almost exclusively to the development of animal life, which is actually a minuscule fraction of life that has existed on Earth, and is even only a minuscule fraction of life that currently exists on Earth. It would be like if we were talking about only animals we were focusing on the "explosion" in rodent species.

2) The fossil record is not the be-all and end-all of the evidence for evolutionary biology. It is basically our most prominent early evidence because we can see it, and we have had the technology to observe and make sense of it for a long-time. It is still useful, we still learn lots of amazing things from it, but we also have other lines of evidence and methods for studying evolution.

3) Similar explosions of diversity are not unknown in the fossil record, generally after large extinction events. And there is plenty of evidence that such an event occurred before the Cambrian as well.

4) We see a tremendous amount of diversification AND extinction going on during the period. Which is consistent with rapid diversification as organisms fill new niches and compete, with entire phyla dieing off as well.

5) Changes in geochemistry AND the development of hard body parts means we expect to see more fossils starting during this period compared to earlier time periods, as more fossils will be formed and those fossils will be easier to find, study, and identify

6) While not 100% conclusive there is good evidence that at least some of the ediacaran fauna that predate the Cambrian are related to later Cambrian forms

7) It isn't really that "sudden." It isn't like someone snapped their fingers and poofed all of the phyla into existence at one time-point.
 
2012-12-14 02:35:14 PM  

vactech: Bondith: vactech: I drunk what: namely the sudden appearance of the phyla during the cambrian explosion)?

I'll field this one boys. I am a master theologian, but I dabble in Agrophysics.

The Cambrian Explosion is a cosmological theory (as documented by Newton), holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent "explosion" (of the cambrian type) of a very small agglomeration of cambrian matter of extremely high density and temperature.

Again IDW, you are way off here as no respected scientasist currently believes this to be a valid explanation for the now defunct theory of abiogenesis.

Ok, now you're...parodying yourself? I'm so confused.

Alright fine, maybe aeophysics isn't my thing. But at least I am trying. All you've managed to do is thread shiat and levy ad homogeneous attacts my way. Bravo Bondith, bravo.

 
2012-12-14 02:36:35 PM  

vactech: Alright fine, maybe aeophysics isn't my thing. But at least I am trying. All you've managed to do is thread shiat and levy ad homogeneous attacts my way. Bravo Bondith, bravo.


image.legios.org 

Preview is my friend.
 
2012-12-14 02:44:51 PM  

DarwiOdrade: vactech: Alright fine, maybe aeophysics isn't my thing. But at least I am trying. All you've managed to do is thread shiat and levy ad homogeneous attacts my way. Bravo Bondith, bravo.

[image.legios.org image 320x187] 

Preview is my friend.


Thank You. Thank you very much.

phew tough crowd.
 
2012-12-14 03:35:29 PM  

entropic_existence: What I have said is that you appear to want to be deliberately obtuse. You insist on ONLY recognizing the broadest possible usage of the term:


as an Middle Earth Creationist (theistic evolutionist flavor) i haven't the foggiest idea what you mean...

perhaps you have me confused with someone else?

FloydA: Professional creationists are, without exception, liars. They are aware that the things they are saying are false.

The majority of creationists are simply not knowledgeable about the topic, and repeat what they have been told because they have never sought out the relevant information.

If you are a creationist, you are either uninformed (most) or dishonest (the few professional creationists), but either way, you are mistaken.


though, just for shiats and giggles, i am curious what a "professional" creationist is? I'm a Professional Engineer, is it sorta like that? do they also have to take an incredibly difficult exam to obtain their licensure? ... and have cute little stamps like us?

i was browsing the classifieds the other day, but i wasn't able to locate any job openings for a "professional creationist", are you sure such things exist?

but i digress, back to your original concern. you feel that i'm not using the terms properly (broad vs. precise) yet I am the ONLY one in this thread that is properly doing such

YOU are the ones that wish to pretend that you can use the broad term but secretly mean a particular subset or specialty, and then get all fussy when someone complains about it, funny that

I am well aware of the different brands of Creationism, ranging from YECs to OECs to anti-evolutionists or deistic evolutionists, etc.. and so on, yet your little tar baby pal there just lumps them altogether into one nice little condescending-slandering package and suddenly you don't have any problem with it:

d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net

which i find particularly interesting. seeing how someone just finished white knighting for that cause in this very thread:

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.


0.0 isn't he great? so compassionate, so caring (brave)

/srsly we were quite touched
//warm fuzzies

entropic_existence: In order to extend that to apply to basically any sort of theist, at least any theist of the Abrahamic variety.


what difference does this make? ... and aren't you forgetting some other groups? no love for the deists...?

speaking of which, aren't you an agnostic deist?
 
2012-12-14 04:00:49 PM  

I drunk what: ok humpty dumpty


and just so we're clear this isn't a racial slur cuz you're a whitey cracker, this is my token for your desire to stick with the alice theme

paulgerhards.com

but skip everything else i just said and answer this one question:

Are you an agnostic deist? yes or no
 
2012-12-14 04:17:52 PM  

I drunk what: entropic_existence: What I have said is that you appear to want to be deliberately obtuse. You insist on ONLY recognizing the broadest possible usage of the term:

as an Middle Earth Creationist (theistic evolutionist flavor) i haven't the foggiest idea what you mean...

perhaps you have me confused with someone else?


No, you get offended anytime anyone uses the term Creationist, making it seem as if they are attacking all theists. It happens again and again, thread after thread.

I drunk what: though, just for shiats and giggles, i am curious what a "professional" creationist is? I'm a Professional Engineer, is it sorta like that? do they also have to take an incredibly difficult exam to obtain their licensure? ... and have cute little stamps like us?

i was browsing the classifieds the other day, but i wasn't able to locate any job openings for a "professional creationist", are you sure such things exist?


It should be rather obvious the types of people he is referring to. Some of them do have other jobs but the Discovery Institute and associated groups do actually employ people full-time, as do other similar centres. Clearly he is referring to people like say Paul Nelson, who is a Discovery Institute fellow.

I drunk what: but i digress, back to your original concern. you feel that i'm not using the terms properly (broad vs. precise) yet I am the ONLY one in this thread that is properly doing such

YOU are the ones that wish to pretend that you can use the broad term but secretly mean a particular subset or specialty, and then get all fussy when someone complains about it, funny that

I am well aware of the different brands of Creationism, ranging from YECs to OECs to anti-evolutionists or deistic evolutionists, etc.. and so on, yet your little tar baby pal there just lumps them altogether into one nice little condescending-slandering package and suddenly you don't have any problem with it:


I didn't say you weren't using it properly, I said you were being obtuse. What I continue to point out is context. Context that makes it bleedingly obvious, except to people choosing to be deliberately obtuse, what someone means when they use the term. FloydA, myself, and others have used the term in the manner it has been used in this context for decades. It is how it has been used in court cases and by the groups themselves when trying to inject things like "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" into school curricula. It is generally obvious, based on history, that when he said Creationist it included YEC, OEC, and ID (of the discovery institute variety) and not say, theistic evolution a la Kenneth Miller, who was a witness at the Dover trial. So no, he wasn't "lumping them all in together." I can pretty confidently state that given about 7 years of these threads since the Dover trial for instance.

I drunk what: which i find particularly interesting. seeing how someone just finished white knighting for that cause in this very thread:


Again, context. See, I can discriminate between when someone says Creationist, in a thread about evolution, and Christian because I take in to consideration the historical context of how the term has been used, in this context, for decades.

I drunk what: what difference does this make? ... and aren't you forgetting some other groups? no love for the deists...?


I didn't feel like typing it. Feel free to throw it in. It wasn't exactly germane to my point.

I drunk what: speaking of which, aren't you an agnostic deist?


Not exactly no. I think it would be a somewhat nicer, more comforting alternative. I'm comfortable with the idea, and I occasionally lean in that direction. But I also occasionally lean towards atheism. I mostly just live my life as an agnostic, and I don't particularly care one way or the other as it doesn't impact how I live my life. I'd rather just try and be a good person for its own sake. And I mostly don't care what other people's religious beliefs are or how they chose to worship.
 
2012-12-14 04:18:45 PM  

I drunk what: but skip everything else i just said and answer this one question:

Are you an agnostic deist? yes or no


Too late. Besides the answer is "its complicated" with a touch of "doesn't really matter"
 
2012-12-14 04:37:53 PM  
oy vey, e_e

... so stubborn, is it that time of the month again?


I summon abb3w (chronicler of teh farks)

in the mean time here is some interesting reading, filed under "theistic evolutionist" of all places...?

Deism
See also: Deism
Deism is belief in a God or first cause based on reason, rather than on faith or revelation. Most deists[who?] believe that God does not interfere with the world or create miracles. Some deists[who?] believe that a Divine Creator initiated a universe in which evolution occurred, by designing the system and the natural laws, although many deists believe that God also created life itself, before allowing it to be subject to evolution. They find it to be undignified and unwieldy for a deity to make constant adjustments rather than letting evolution elegantly adapt organisms to changing environments.

One recent convert to deism was philosopher and professor Antony Flew, who became a deist in December 2004. Professor Flew, a former atheist, later argued that recent research into the origins of life supports the theory that some form of intelligence was involved. Whilst accepting subsequent Darwinian evolution, Flew argued that this cannot explain the complexities of the origins of life. He also stated that the investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved."[31] He subsequently clarified this statement in an interview with Joan Bakewell for BBC Radio 4 in March 2005: "What I was converted to was the existence of an Aristotelian God, and Aristotle's God had no interest in human affairs at all."[32][relevant? - discuss]

so then e_e, you wanna save us some time and just answer the question:

Do you believe the universe is the creation of a supernatural being (or "deity" if you will)?

A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice...

/please keep your answers to yes or no

if no, please present what belief you do have

//we will just wait patiently here
 
2012-12-14 07:38:41 PM  
i just heard about the conn. shooting, and don't feel like talking anymore
 
2012-12-14 11:29:19 PM  

guestguy: No one gets you quite as wound up as mamoru does. Not sure what happened there, but it is amusing to see you thrash whenever he shows up in a thread.


Mamoru winds me up too, if you know what I mean!

And YOU know...

...

...what I mean.
 
2012-12-15 01:00:14 AM  

guestguy: No one gets you quite as wound up as mamoru does. Not sure what happened there, but it is amusing to see you thrash whenever he shows up in a thread.


I put him on ignore, denying him the attention he craves.

I used to try to converse with him as well as a few others that were as (if not more, if you can believe that) insufferable, but have long since given it up as futile, as he has little grasp of logic and no understanding of science, nor any apparent desire to learn. Instead he'd rather play word games and twist meanings to suit his points, whatever they may be, and generally carry on acting like a childish ass. So, on to ignore he went.

And it's amazing how much better threads about science in general and evolution in particular have become. ;)

cthellis: Mamoru winds me up too, if you know what I mean!


But apparently not enough to earn a quote in your profile. :(

;D
 
2012-12-15 11:09:50 AM  

mamoru: But apparently not enough to earn a quote in your profile. :(

;D


I'm sorry! Truth be told, the links started getting torn up at one point, and I kept swearing to fix it and never got around to it, so I stopped adding to it as well.

Hmm...

Perhaps SOME day...!

Hehe.
 
Displayed 179 of 179 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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