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.

(The Raw Story)   A creationist says things like "Tyrannosaurus Rex was created to eat plants", and then wonders why he isn't taken seriously. Bonus: he blames T-Rex's carnivorous reputation on original sin   (rawstory.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, Tyrannosaurus rex, plants, original sins, innovations, theropod dinosaurs, reputation  
•       •       •

2339 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Aug 2013 at 9:05 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-21 01:51:04 AM  
www.plognark.com
 
wee
2013-08-21 05:35:01 AM  
Any Youtube video with comments disabled is a troll.  Which, for Youtube, is saying a lot.
 
2013-08-21 06:15:56 AM  
A creationist is created to look like an ass.
 
2013-08-21 06:51:11 AM  
I bet it would have been easier to create a lawn mower.
 
2013-08-21 08:06:00 AM  
I don't get why some people can't rectify their belief that some god created the universe with evolution.  Why can't they both be true?
 
2013-08-21 08:24:01 AM  

nekom: I don't get why some people can't rectify their belief that some god created the universe with evolution.  Why can't they both be true?


I'm no scholar, but they need Genesis. If evolution is true, then God did not create the world in 6 days. And that means no Garden of Eden. Which means Eve did not eat the apple, so no Original Sin. And if we are not all born sinners, then no need for the story of Jesus to come.

Something like that.
 
2013-08-21 08:31:50 AM  
Adam +  Eve +  T-Rex +  Rule #34 + Taiwanese animation = Scary + Awesome?
 
2013-08-21 08:44:00 AM  
clancifer:
I'm no scholar, but they need Genesis. If evolution is true, then God did not create the world in 6 days. And that means no Garden of Eden. Which means Eve did not eat the apple, so no Original Sin. And if we are not all born sinners, then no need for the story of Jesus to come.

Something like that.


I get that, but if someone wants to believe the bible absolutely literally, evolution is the LEAST of their logical problems, especially when it comes to the old testament.  I may be in the minority, but I don't see why science and faith are ever at odds, they are absolutely separate.  Faith is sort of like philosophy, there's really no objective truth to it, just a lot of different schools of thought.  It encompasses ethics.  Science just explains how the world works, it doesn't give many pointers on how to live a good life or be a good person.  The two are in no way related, in my opinion.
 
2013-08-21 08:53:06 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: Adam +  Eve +  T-Rex +  Rule #34 + Taiwanese animation = Scary + Awesome?


Almost:
Adam +  Eve +  T-Rex +  Rule #34 + Taiwanese animation = ScaryAwesome
 
2013-08-21 08:55:02 AM  
If God created the Tyrannosaurus to be a plant eater, He really gave him the shiattiest teeth possible to eat plants. I mean, God obviously had figured out the whole "which teeth would be best suitable to eat plants" when He created the sauropods, so it's not like He didn't have some options available to Him. That's some really stupid "intelligent design" right there.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-21 08:57:13 AM  

nekom: I get that, but if someone wants to believe the bible absolutely literally, evolution is the LEAST of their logical problems, especially when it comes to the old testament.  I may be in the minority, but I don't see why science and faith are ever at odds, they are absolutely separate.  Faith is sort of like philosophy, there's really no objective truth to it, just a lot of different schools of thought.  It encompasses ethics.  Science just explains how the world works, it doesn't give many pointers on how to live a good life or be a good person.  The two are in no way related, in my opinion.


That is still a common opinion, but that's not what fundamentalists believe and this has become a part of the "culture war".
 
2013-08-21 08:59:22 AM  
Lies have a tendency to snowball.

News at 11.
 
2013-08-21 09:01:16 AM  

nekom: clancifer:
I'm no scholar, but they need Genesis. If evolution is true, then God did not create the world in 6 days. And that means no Garden of Eden. Which means Eve did not eat the apple, so no Original Sin. And if we are not all born sinners, then no need for the story of Jesus to come.

Something like that.

I get that, but if someone wants to believe the bible absolutely literally, evolution is the LEAST of their logical problems, especially when it comes to the old testament.  I may be in the minority, but I don't see why science and faith are ever at odds, they are absolutely separate.  Faith is sort of like philosophy, there's really no objective truth to it, just a lot of different schools of thought.  It encompasses ethics.  Science just explains how the world works, it doesn't give many pointers on how to live a good life or be a good person.  The two are in no way related, in my opinion.


That pretty much outlines my thoughts on the subject.

There is nothing that is inherently at odds between science and religion, except for when religion comes up with ideas that can be falsified.

Plus, unless you're reading the Old Testament in the original language it was written in (Ancient Hebrew), you're getting a skewed view.  Even if you believe it is literally the Word Of God, the translations were done by imperfect and fallible men.  Take the admonition in the Ten Commandments of "Thou Shall Not Kill".  That's what you see in almost all English translations, but apparently the original read "Thou Shall Do No Murder", which is different:  It implies that there are times when it's appropriate to kill.
 
2013-08-21 09:02:55 AM  

Diogenes: Lies have a tendency to snowball.

News at 11.


Also, snowballs have a tendency to just lie there*.

*Unless acted upon by an outside force.
 
2013-08-21 09:09:00 AM  
Let's be clear here. Right at 30% of Americans believe the Bible is the literal word of God. We're not talking about some tiny fringe. That's better than 90 million people. Do you really expect people to accept what some scientist tells them when they're holding in their hands the perfect, unblemished word of the Creator?
 
2013-08-21 09:09:22 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: If God created the Tyrannosaurus to be a plant eater, He really gave him the shiattiest teeth possible to eat plants. I mean, God obviously had figured out the whole "which teeth would be best suitable to eat plants" when He created the sauropods, so it's not like He didn't have some options available to Him. That's some really stupid "intelligent design" right there.


Giraffes look like God tossed a bunch of leftover parts together, which doesn't show much planning or intelligent design either.  Or he tested certain types of plants he created beforehand.
 
2013-08-21 09:12:37 AM  

clancifer: nekom: I don't get why some people can't rectify their belief that some god created the universe with evolution.  Why can't they both be true?

I'm no scholar, but they need Genesis. If evolution is true, then God did not create the world in 6 days. And that means no Garden of Eden. Which means Eve did not eat the apple, so no Original Sin. And if we are not all born sinners, then no need for the story of Jesus to come.

Something like that.


It's hard to have a first man and a first woman when "human" is a continuity between unicellular life and yourself.

Of course, if religious people thought often, they might also have issues with animal sacrifice, punishing a rape victim, forced marriage, or any of the other atrocities in the "Holy" books.
 
2013-08-21 09:12:48 AM  

Sybarite: Let's be clear here. Right at 30% of Americans believe the Bible is the literal word of God. We're not talking about some tiny fringe. That's better than 90 million people. Do you really expect people to accept what some scientist tells them when they're holding in their hands the perfect, unblemished word of the Creator?


It's also amusing that when those same people sit down with the serious intent to read every word on every page... they become atheists. Most of them don't even know the book, they let others tell them what it means for them.
 
2013-08-21 09:20:24 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: If God created the Tyrannosaurus to be a plant eater, He really gave him the shiattiest teeth possible to eat plants. I mean, God obviously had figured out the whole "which teeth would be best suitable to eat plants" when He created the sauropods, so it's not like He didn't have some options available to Him. That's some really stupid "intelligent design" right there.


Satan was a dentist and replaced all of the teeth just to test your faith
 
2013-08-21 09:20:41 AM  

nekom: I don't get why some people can't rectify their belief that some god created the universe with evolution.  Why can't they both be true?


Because truth has nothing to do with it. It's a function of history. After Christianity established itself as a world religion, it spent the bulk of its history operating in a centralized, top-down organizational structure. Everyone believed the same things, more or less, because the dogma of the church pushed downward through the hierarchy. This worked pretty well, until the Reformation. One of the key dogmatic changes of the Reformation is that  everyone can commune with the divine.

This is a deeply fundamental shift for an organization, and it's a huge risk. If  anybody can go talking to God, then anybody can start coming up with ideas which may conflict with established dogma. Religion's primary purpose is as a social organizing mechanism- it provides shared rituals and frequent gathering to keep the community on the same page. If your religion is fragmenting because people are running off and inventing their own versions of it, the power of religion declines. In the absence of another social organizing mechanism (like a powerful, secular communitarian ethic), this decline threatens the very fabric of society.

So you need a way to keep people in line, but without a powerful centralized church. How?  Literal interpretation. By adding one simple dogmatic tweak, you now (at least in theory) have a single authority that anybody can have a copy of. Of course, this is founded on the idea that the Bible is capable of being literally interpreted (it obviously isn't).

Now, you have a subset of Christianity that doesn't adhere to a secular communitarian ethic, and is even  hostile to the very idea that a society can organize around secular principles. Their organizing principle is built around  literal Biblical readings. Anything that doesn't jive with that is an assault on the very fabric of society. They are not interested in "truth", they are interested in organization and social control.
 
2013-08-21 09:21:10 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: If God created the Tyrannosaurus to be a plant eater, He really gave him the shiattiest teeth possible to eat plants. I mean, God obviously had figured out the whole "which teeth would be best suitable to eat plants" when He created the sauropods, so it's not like He didn't have some options available to Him. That's some really stupid "intelligent design" right there.


Watch the beginning of Water ship Down. Frith will explain nicely how all the animals went from herbivore to carnivore

/blame the rabbits
 
2013-08-21 09:23:57 AM  
images.wikia.com
 
2013-08-21 09:24:55 AM  
If you want to know what T-Rex ate, all you need to do is look and see what it says in The Bible.
 
2013-08-21 09:27:00 AM  

Sybarite: Let's be clear here. Right at 30% of Americans believe the Bible is the literal word of God. We're not talking about some tiny fringe. That's better than 90 million people. Do you really expect people to accept what some scientist tells them when they're holding in their hands the perfect, unblemished word of the Creator?


Actually, significantly less.  Those surveys are generally of adults.  There are roughly 235 million adults in the US, so 30% of that would be about 70 million.

I think the hardcore, true believers are even less.  For example, I have a neighbor who is a religious fundamentalist.  Very active in church, etc.   If you asked him, I'd bet you dollars to donuts he'd say the Bible is the literal Word of God.  That doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't believe in the forces of evolution though, or of the ability of science to describe the physical world around us.

Survey responses are very sensitive to the specific wording of the questions and to all other manner of biases, so you have to take any survey, especially about a sensitive topic, with a grain of salt.
 
2013-08-21 09:27:24 AM  
These posts don't work on me anymore. If you want to shock me, link to one of these luddites saying something smart.
 
2013-08-21 09:27:47 AM  

nekom: The two are in no way related, in my opinion.


They may not be in your mind, but religion is not a personal thing. Self-avowed mystics have been claiming to know inherent truths about an allegedly magical universe for tens of thousands of years. When people listen to them, it grants them authority and power and, like any other power, people are very resistant when anything comes along and forces them to cede some measure of it.

The only reason that science and religion continue to trample one another's feet is that religious people like this nutjob refuse to cede their authority on the matter of history and natural phenomena despite being provably wrong. Science is not interest in a pissing match with anybody because it's just a process by which we come to reliably understand the universe around us. Organized religion has a lot to lose in the face of that so they'll continue to challenge science and link the two together until the last one of them is laughed out of town.

As long as there is one person willing to accept magic as an explanation for something we have natural explanations for the two will clash because somebody will have some measure of power to lose by admitting their error.
 
2013-08-21 09:29:32 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: If you want to know what T-Rex ate, all you need to do is look and see what it says in The Bible.


Philistines?
 
2013-08-21 09:29:55 AM  

CPennypacker: These posts don't work on me anymore. If you want to shock me, link to one of these luddites saying something smart.


I can pretty much guarantee that's never gonna happen.
 
2013-08-21 09:31:49 AM  

nekom: I don't get why some people can't rectify their belief that some god created the universe with evolution.  Why can't they both be true?


the catholic church accepts evolution, i believe. it's really only evangelicals who believe that the bible - every word - is literally true and infallible (despite the fact that they cherry-pick the hell out of it, ignoring levitical mandates to not eat shellfish, cut their hair, etc.)

they also believe that every translation of the bible is the literal word of god and "the truth," as they call it, with the translators being divinely inspired (never mind the fact that many translations have been wrong over the centuries, including, hilariously, the wicked bible.)
 
2013-08-21 09:33:11 AM  

ChaoticLimbs: clancifer: nekom: I don't get why some people can't rectify their belief that some god created the universe with evolution.  Why can't they both be true?

I'm no scholar, but they need Genesis. If evolution is true, then God did not create the world in 6 days. And that means no Garden of Eden. Which means Eve did not eat the apple, so no Original Sin. And if we are not all born sinners, then no need for the story of Jesus to come.

Something like that.

It's hard to have a first man and a first woman when "human" is a continuity between unicellular life and yourself.

Of course, if religious people thought often, they might also have issues with animal sacrifice, punishing a rape victim, forced marriage, or any of the other atrocities in the "Holy" books.


And the parts of the Old Testament that verge on the pornographic like one of the prophets describing Israel as a harlot lusting after a man with a gigantic penis.  Or the parts where God talks incessantly about feces. Or...
 
2013-08-21 09:41:45 AM  

nekom: I don't get why some people can't rectify their belief that some god created the universe with evolution.  Why can't they both be true?


Because that would be a blindingly stupid way to Intelligently Design *anything*?

Dead ends and failures everywhere, for eons?  What the Hell kind of Creator does that?

For that matter, my herniated discs and dental cavities would like to have a word with this so-called Designer.  This is some seriously flawed engineering.

And while I'm on the subject, what sort of retarded Omnipotent Being would decide to make his very bestest Special Creations that He wants to spend Eternity with out of Meat?  Could there be a more flawed, fragile material?  Drop us from a not terribly great height?  We break.  We wear out after a ridiculously short period of time, considering that we're supposedly made for an Eternity.

You're telling me that Presbyopia is a Feature, not a Bug?

Yeah, well, Fark You, God.  You suck at Intelligent Design.
 
2013-08-21 09:46:42 AM  

Deucednuisance: Because that would be a blindingly stupid way to Intelligently Design *anything*?


This isn't really true. Evolution actually works  so well for mining a space of possible options that we use evolutionary algorithms to design everything from buildings to methods for arranging flat glass in a shipping container (I have a co-worker who wrote exactly that).

Deucednuisance: This is some seriously flawed engineering.


Or, you're simply looking at the wrong set of constraints. Human beings do a very good job reproducing and producing more human beings. We are able to survive across a the better part of 1/3 of the surface of the planet, and with some technological aid, we can survive for extended periods pretty much  any place on the planet (though the cost-benefit doesn't work out for large areas of ocean volume).

Deucednuisance: We wear out after a ridiculously short period of time, considering that we're supposedly made for an Eternity.


But we're not. To the contrary, Christian mythology falls apart if human flesh were designed for an eternity. Human beings  must die.
 
2013-08-21 09:46:51 AM  

FlashHarry: the catholic church accepts evolution, i believe. it's really only evangelicals who believe that the bible - every word - is literally true and infallible (despite the fact that they cherry-pick the hell out of it, ignoring levitical mandates to not eat shellfish, cut their hair, etc.)


Technically, they don't cherry-pick, they believe the prohibitions have been superseded by later pronouncements from the Messiah.
 
2013-08-21 09:47:07 AM  
I'd imagine that, like cats, Tyrannosaurs occasionally ate plants. As well as carrion, small animals, and possibly rocks.
 
2013-08-21 09:49:57 AM  

dittybopper: Diogenes: Lies have a tendency to snowball.

News at 11.

Also, snowballs have a tendency to just lie there*.

*Unless acted upon by an outside force.


I don't understand the purpose of your post.  You're a creationist?
 
2013-08-21 09:51:49 AM  

Nurglitch: I'd imagine that, like cats, Tyrannosaurs occasionally ate plants. As well as carrion, small animals, and possibly rocks.


In all likelihood, it would have eaten plants, small animals, and rocks only incidentally in the process of eating other large dinosaurs.
 
2013-08-21 09:57:19 AM  

Nurglitch: I'd imagine that, like cats, Tyrannosaurs occasionally ate plants. As well as carrion, small animals, and possibly rocks.


don't forget dino poop....
 
2013-08-21 09:58:02 AM  

dittybopper: Nurglitch: I'd imagine that, like cats, Tyrannosaurs occasionally ate plants. As well as carrion, small animals, and possibly rocks.

In all likelihood, it would have eaten plants, small animals, and rocks only incidentally in the process of eating other large dinosaurs.


Herbivores eat plants. T-Rex ate herbivores. By the transitive property, T-Rex is a herbivore.

/Algebra's awesome!
 
2013-08-21 09:58:12 AM  

nekom: I don't get why some people can't rectify their belief that some god created the universe with evolution.  Why can't they both be true?


Because the god story has zero evidence whatsoever.
 
2013-08-21 09:59:06 AM  

dittybopper: Nurglitch: I'd imagine that, like cats, Tyrannosaurs occasionally ate plants. As well as carrion, small animals, and possibly rocks.

In all likelihood, it would have eaten plants, small animals, and rocks only incidentally in the process of eating other large dinosaurs.


I respectfully disagree. Plenty of ostensible carnivores eat plants. I'd expect that, like wolves and bears and whatnot, they would eat more small animals than other large dinosaurs. And I'd suspect that they could have had crops that require gastroliths for dealing with bones and so on.
 
2013-08-21 10:00:18 AM  

Diogenes: dittybopper: Diogenes: Lies have a tendency to snowball.

News at 11.

Also, snowballs have a tendency to just lie there*.

*Unless acted upon by an outside force.

I don't understand the purpose of your post.  You're a creationist?


Pure snark based upon Sir Isaac Newton's First Law of Motion:

Law I: Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.

So what I was doing, essentially, was taking your statement, re-arranging the words to make a true statement under Newton's First Law, with the "exception" to that law expressed as a foot note.

Now, having explained that, would be you interested in purchasing a perpetual inertia machine from me?  It comes with an ironclad guarantee.
 
2013-08-21 10:02:25 AM  

dittybopper: Diogenes: dittybopper: Diogenes: Lies have a tendency to snowball.

News at 11.

Also, snowballs have a tendency to just lie there*.

*Unless acted upon by an outside force.

I don't understand the purpose of your post.  You're a creationist?

Pure snark based upon Sir Isaac Newton's First Law of Motion:

Law I: Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.

So what I was doing, essentially, was taking your statement, re-arranging the words to make a true statement under Newton's First Law, with the "exception" to that law expressed as a foot note.

Now, having explained that, would be you interested in purchasing a perpetual inertia machine from me?  It comes with an ironclad guarantee.


 In this thread, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
 
2013-08-21 10:03:17 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: Adam +  Eve +  T-Rex +  Rule #34 + Taiwanese animation = Scary + Awesome?



And you know T. Rex would be dying to get his freak on because his arms are too short to fap. Adam and (St)Eve are both getting torn to bits.
 
2013-08-21 10:06:19 AM  

dittybopper: Take the admonition in the Ten Commandments of "Thou Shall Not Kill". That's what you see in almost all English translations, but apparently the original read "Thou Shall Do No Murder", which is different: It implies that there are times when it's appropriate to kill.



Especially when you consider that about 30% of the content of the Old Testament after those rules got handed down was all about the Chosen People straight up killing everyone they meet.
 
2013-08-21 10:07:04 AM  

t3knomanser: This isn't really true. Evolution actually works  so well for mining a space of possible options that we use evolutionary algorithms to design everything from buildings to methods for arranging flat glass in a shipping container (I have a co-worker who wrote exactly that).


While true, this is misleading.

How long does it take for your algorithm to come to a solution?  Millenia?  Doubt you'd keep many contracts that way.  How many generations of living beings have to die til you get it right? (And of course, in a truly evolutionary scenario, you never get it "right" because there is no "right".)  It may work for shipping containers in a world of computers, but that doesn't mean it's not a piss-poor way to build living things over eons.

It's surprisingly effective in a world of godless Biology, though.

t3knomanser: But we're not. To the contrary, Christian mythology falls apart if human flesh were designed for an eternity. Human beings  must die.


OK, then: WHY "must" we die?  If the Soul is the part that matters, why build the Body in the first place?  As a Proving Ground, where the vast majority fail, doomed to The Pit?  (Great "design", there!)

Nothing about the Mythology makes the slightest bit of sense, and yet I'm supposed to accept that the Being that made Me and set up the System is Omniscient and Omnipotent?  When He's so obviously (if one observes His "work") a malevolent dope?

Not to mention that if you listen to a Rapture-believer, we're Taken Up, bodily.  Even if we're already pushing up daisies.

Heck, you don't even have to be Rapture-Ready to see that Scripture informs us that the body remains intact in the Hereafter, see: Matthew 27.

Although, there may be a stench: John 11
 
2013-08-21 10:07:15 AM  

give me doughnuts: I_Am_Weasel: Adam +  Eve +  T-Rex +  Rule #34 + Taiwanese animation = Scary + Awesome?


And you know T. Rex would be dying to get his freak on because his arms are too short to fap. Adam and (St)Eve are both getting torn to bits.


www.crazyrunninggirl.com
 
2013-08-21 10:10:31 AM  
What bugs me most about the literalists is the total arrogance. The claim not just that the bible is true (yes, even an atheist could say that the bible contains much truth), but that anyone can read the bible and that their interpretation is true - that is it is protected from grave error by divine grace. I am pretty sure that Thomas Aquinas, even being dead several hundred years, is more correct than half the people reading the bible today - probably including myself.
 
2013-08-21 10:12:42 AM  
nekom: it doesn't give many pointers on how to live a good life or be a good person.

This clunker, again?

When did spurious belief in magical sky faeries ever equate to being endowed with The One, True, Moral Instruction Set?

Morality is a cultural feature.

When religion gets involved is when it goes full retard.
 
2013-08-21 10:13:06 AM  

Diogenes: I don't understand the purpose of your post.


You're talking to dittybopper, and you expect anything other than

assets.rollingstone.com

?
 
2013-08-21 10:20:48 AM  

dittybopper: There is nothing that is inherently at odds between science and religion, except for when religion comes up with ideas that can be falsified.


I'd say that statement is moot.  Very few mainstream religions have ideas that can be falsified.  They are based on inherently supernatural explanations and foundations - supreme beings, miracles, magical constructs, divinity, and acts outside of any reasonable interpretation of physical reality.  Every belief in modern religions flows from those sources, particularly in the accepted western Judeo-Christian traditions.

Science and religion are very much at odds.  It doesn't mean they can't coexist, just that there will always be tension between the two, and to accept both you must be willing to handle some level of cognitive dissonance.
 
Displayed 50 of 144 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report