Skip to content
 
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.

(Cracked)   Seven animals that are conspiring with atheist scientists to destroy God   (cracked.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

14583 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 May 2011 at 2:42 AM (9 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



247 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2011-05-19 5:03:34 PM  

I drunk what: because it is actually worth discussing?


Fine. Can you actually articulate what aspect of the Cambrian explosion presents a problem for evolutionary theory? Because you tend to refuse to do this, and just tell people to watch a video.

Or, you know, you could actually just go with the actual linked article, and talk about elephant tusks and lizard placentas. Because that's interesting.
 
2011-05-19 5:06:01 PM  

I drunk what: does mamoru concur with your analysis?


Let me guess: he's the latest to get fed up with you and put you on ignore, so you're again trying to get people to argue by proxy because you can't deal with the drop in attention?
 
2011-05-19 5:10:30 PM  

cbackous: are you at all capable of making an original thought


are you at all capable of asking an original question?

/you must be new here
//welcome to fark

cbackous: or do you just quote random people


how else ought we to respond to worthless trolls?

cbackous: to try and appear educated


who is doing that here?

*reviews mamoru's posts*

ah, i see
 
2011-05-19 5:15:19 PM  

I drunk what: how else ought we to respond to worthless trolls?



And what "worthless troll" was he responding with his initial post in this thread?
 
2011-05-19 5:18:19 PM  

guestguy: I drunk what: how else ought we to respond to worthless trolls?

And what "worthless troll" was he responding with his initial post in this thread?


going for the easy green trollmitter?
 
2011-05-19 5:20:44 PM  

I drunk what: going for the easy green trollmitter?



If his target was the submitter, then I would think he'd quote the Fark headline and not the actual article title...
 
2011-05-19 5:48:15 PM  

xkillyourfacex: The rest of us don't have a hard time telling the difference between, say, an animal with wings and one without.


upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size



I drunk what: so then there is no possibility that micro vs. macro can include the transition between other structures such as Genus, Family, Order, Class, Phylum, etc..?


Those categories simply indicate what depth of further sub-speciation divisions have developed. EG: the order carivora results from one species that was successful enough to subdivide in several further species, which in turn subdivided several more times.

s2s2s2: Let me know when we observe an ape giving birth to a human


See back at This response reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the theory of evolution works.

Infinite Monkey: I have explained to you that your concept of it is wrong, that it does not not present a single problem for evolutionary theory because of the immense time scale of the "explosion" and the increasing availability of atmospheric oxygen to make new biological strategies possible.


Not to mention the development of proto-skeletons (leading to increased rates of fossilization) and directed motility (leading to increased allopatric speciation by access to new environments).
 
2011-05-19 6:01:08 PM  

Infinite Monkey: Or, you know, you could actually just go with the actual linked article, and talk about elephant tusks and lizard placentas.


oh boy, that does sound like a stimulating conversation, i wonder what sort of exchange that topic would produce

*reviews thread*

wow, fascinating

Infinite Monkey: Can you actually articulate what aspect of the Cambrian explosion presents a problem for evolutionary theory?


here's a hint:

veritas-ucsb.orgView Full Size


do you need me to translate-articulate this into words for you? it seems pretty self explanatory

of course the vids did a pretty sufficient job of articulating it into words, so then you want me to re-articulate what has already been articulated?

tell ya what, articulate on why you feel i should re-articulate existing articulations and then we can articulate together the beauty of articulation

Infinite Monkey: and just tell people to watch a video


i know it's so hard, but i figure that even the most special IB member can hack it, since you don't have to bother reading n' stuff, gettn' an edumacation is rough

Infinite Monkey: I drunk what: does mamoru concur with your analysis?

Let me guess: he's the latest to get fed up with you and put you on ignore, so you're again trying to get people to argue by proxy because you can't deal with the drop in attention?


guess again lad

but you're heading down the right path, yes that's it! give in to your hate
 
2011-05-19 6:11:15 PM  

untaken_name: No, it isn't. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is transition between species. Learn some science.


Eukaryotes are always eukaryotes. This includes vertebrates.
Vertebrates are always vertebrates. This includes tetrapods.
Tetrapods are always tetrapods. This includes mammals.
Mammals are always mammals. This includes primates.
Primates are always primates. This includes apes.
Apes are always apes. This includes humans.

Why don't you learn what the theory of evolution by natural selection actually says rather than trying to include something it doesn't?
 
2011-05-19 6:33:17 PM  

Firefly4F4: Why don't you learn what the theory of evolution by natural selection actually says rather than trying to include something it doesn't?


Because if the deniers don't build strawmen, they have no argument.
 
2011-05-19 6:34:37 PM  

Firefly4F4: Why don't you learn what the theory of evolution by natural selection actually says rather than trying to include something it doesn't?


Because Jesus and magic, that's why.
 
2011-05-19 7:00:33 PM  
dangit, abbey

fark ate my wall of text, and now i have to motivate myself to conjure it up again... >:(

stupid farkin whiskey servers!!!1!
 
2011-05-19 7:17:24 PM  

ryant123: Because Jesus and magic, that's why


DarwiOdrade: if the deniers don't build strawmen, they have no argument


indeed
 
2011-05-19 7:44:41 PM  
anyways here's the shorter and far less elegant version (i'm too tired to retype):

abb3w: Those categories simply indicate what depth of further sub-speciation divisions have developed. EG: the order carivora results from one species that was successful enough to subdivide in several further species, which in turn subdivided several more times.


here's a fun little exercise: suppose i posit a theory of adaptation that says that once phylum (aka "kinds") are created they can adapt and change and even give rise to new flavors (aka "species") and even further into groups called class, order, ec.., a nickname for this phenomena we'll nickname "micro-adaptation"

however one day, someone suggests that they think that these core phyla can produce other kinds of phyla which would be called "macro-adaptation" however he is unable to find any evidence to support this modification to the theory

do you think you can support his conjecture?

furthermore there are some who believe that adaptation isn't sufficient to explain all the flavors of life and is too weak of a term, and therefore think that we should start with presumptions, such as things like "life can evolve from dead stuff", etc.. to propose a new theory called evolution

does this sound like a good idea?

abb3w: Infinite Monkey: I have explained to you that your concept of it is wrong, that it does not not present a single problem for evolutionary theory because of the immense time scale of the "explosion" and the increasing availability of atmospheric oxygen to make new biological strategies possible.

Not to mention the development of proto-skeletons (leading to increased rates of fossilization) and directed motility (leading to increased allopatric speciation by access to new environments)


rates of fossilization was addressed in the vid, so like i said before if you would like to address all the details covered and discussed i'd be happy to review a point by point basis of some major problems with the theory

we can even discuss the probabilities of certain events and whether or not it would be reasonable to believe them
 
2011-05-19 7:49:47 PM  

I drunk what: do you need me to translate-articulate this into words for you? it seems pretty self explanatory


Other than the difference between the "data" and "phylum" branches. That's a bit... bizarre?

And the fact that most branches of life that existed in the Cambrian don't exist anymore, so probably less of those should stretch to the top?

Is the graph trying to show that there's been no more "branching" on the phylum order since the Cambrian era? You're talking about a very high order branch. That's like asking why a century-old tree hasn't sprouted any new large branches since the Titanic sank. Trees do not grow that way. The life that exists on the planet, currently, is the leaves on the tips of the small branches that grow from the few remaining original branches life took. The rest of those original branches are dead. New phyla would have to evolve from long-extinct ancient organisms.
 
2011-05-19 8:02:58 PM  

I drunk what: DarwiOdrade: if the deniers don't build strawmen, they have no argument

indeed


Yep - I'm talking about you, for one.

Firefly4F4: Why don't you learn what the theory of evolution by natural selection actually says rather than trying to include something it doesn't?

 
2011-05-19 8:19:05 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Yep - I'm talking about you, for one.


precisely what is "it" that i am denying?
 
2011-05-19 8:36:48 PM  

Infinite Monkey: Let me guess: he's the latest to get fed up with you and put you on ignore, so you're again trying to get people to argue by proxy because you can't deal with the drop in attention?


It's so cute when people on my ignore list try to engage me in conversation. If they were worth discussing anything with, they wouldn't be on my ignore list. But, that is another in a long line of very simple facts that those such as he cannot grasp.

But you've essentially voiced whatever needs to be said about the cambrian "explosion". The only "controversy" is which model of what happened is more accurate: sudden explosion (of say 10My), slow burn explosion (of say 50-100My), or no explosion (more and more genetic evidence is suggesting the possibility that the divisions that we now see all major metazoan phyla happened long before, despite the lack of fossils earlier than the ediacarian fauna). But in no way is any of the particular models a challenge to biological evolution.

OMG STOP THE PRESSES, Science is claiming that it doesn't yet have a model that best fits the available evidence!! (or rather that multiple models do fit the available evidence and it will take more research and observation to rule out the competing models). Ric Romero will be reporting on this strange new phenomenon at 11.

/I'm definitely not the latest, though. He's been on my ignore list for a year or two now.
 
2011-05-19 8:47:24 PM  

I drunk what: DarwiOdrade: Yep - I'm talking about you, for one.

precisely what is "it" that i am denying?


Looks like you're saying that science can't explain the Cambrian explosion. I'm not saying that current theories are complete, but science is filling in missing pieces all the time.
 
2011-05-19 8:52:24 PM  

mamoru: OMG STOP THE PRESSES, Science is claiming that it doesn't yet have a model that best fits the available evidence!! (or rather that multiple models do fit the available evidence and it will take more research and observation to rule out the competing models). Ric Romero will be reporting on this strange new phenomenon at 11.


I usually love the answer of "I don't know" because it's honest, but, man, I hope this "I don't know" isn't permanent. There's got to be some more undiscovered Burgess Shale-type areas to find. That kind of unimaginably-deep time is fascinating, and it'd be good to know more about it.

I kinda like thinking of the current world as it might be seen from a half billion years in the future. Like, if all that was left of our biosphere is an imprint of some unfortunate chihuahua in some ancient stone. Both funny and sad.
 
2011-05-19 8:54:17 PM  

Firefly4F4: untaken_name: No, it isn't. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is transition between species. Learn some science.

Eukaryotes are always eukaryotes. This includes vertebrates.
Vertebrates are always vertebrates. This includes tetrapods.
Tetrapods are always tetrapods. This includes mammals.
Mammals are always mammals. This includes primates.
Primates are always primates. This includes apes.
Apes are always apes. This includes humans.

Why don't you learn what the theory of evolution by natural selection actually says rather than trying to include something it doesn't?


Because what the Ancient Latins were handed down from Zeus is good enough for me. Sic semper tyrannis, and all.
 
2011-05-19 9:09:25 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Looks like you're saying that science can't explain the Cambrian explosion.


feel free to use the quote button, that way we can all see

DarwiOdrade: I'm not saying that current theories are complete, but science is filling in missing pieces all the time.


this implies that i said, that you were saying or implying this?

are we looking at the same fark?

mamoru: It's so cute when people on my ignore list try to engage me in conversation


not half as cute as worthless trolls who think that people on their ignore list who are using them as an example of the weapons grade stupidity that is not worth the time and effort are trying to engage them in conversation

for those of you keeping score at home this is a classic example of when the idiot brigade cannot discern the difference of when someone is making an example out of them and when someone falls for their idiotic trolls and "attempts to engage them in conversation"

tl;dr

he wouldn't be able to figure out that i'm not conversing with him if the entire fark collective tried to explain it to him, complete with small words and pictures

/he's so cute
//lulz :D
:D:D
:D:D:D
 
2011-05-19 9:18:04 PM  

"mamoru": "But" "you've" "essentially" "voiced" "whatever" "needs" "to" "be" "said" "about" the cambrian "explosion". The only "controversy" "is" "which" "model" "of" "what" "happened" "is" "more" "accurate": "sudden" "explosion" ("of" "say" "10My"), "slow" "burn" "explosion" ("of" "say" "50-100My"), "or" "no" "explosion" ("more" "and" "more" "genetic" "evidence" "is" "suggesting" "the" "possibility" "that" "the" "divisions" "that" "we" "now" "see" "all" "major" "metazoan" "phyla" "happened" "long" "before", "despite" "the" "lack" "of" "fossils" "earlier" "than" "the" "ediacarian" "fauna"). "But" "in" "no" "way" "is" "any" "of" "the" "particular" "models" "a" "challenge" "to" "biological" "evolution".


wow, well he's got me there, can't argue with that

lulz
 
2011-05-19 9:24:49 PM  

mamoru: But in no way is any of the particular models a challenge to biological evolution.


ok IM, here's your chance to lap trolloru in the IQ race, is that what i was saying?

again use the pic for a hint:

is the title of the graph "BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION vs. THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE" ?
 
2011-05-19 9:31:14 PM  

I drunk what: not half as cute as worthless trolls who think that people on their ignore list who are using them as an example of the weapons grade stupidity that is not worth the time and effort are trying to engage them in conversation

for those of you keeping score at home this is a classic example of when the idiot brigade cannot discern the difference of when someone is making an example out of them and when someone falls for their idiotic trolls and "attempts to engage them in conversation"

tl;dr

he wouldn't be able to figure out that i'm not conversing with him if the entire fark collective tried to explain it to him, complete with small words and pictures

/he's so cute
//lulz :D
:D:D
:D:D:D


I drunk what: wow, well he's got me there, can't argue with that

lulz


I drunk what: ok IM, here's your chance to lap trolloru in the IQ race, is that what i was saying?

again use the pic for a hint:

is the title of the graph "BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION vs. THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE" ?



Haha, wow. This guy really got under your skin, huh? Do you have a link to the thread where he snapped the needle off your hate gauge? I'm intrigued.
 
2011-05-19 9:39:12 PM  

I drunk what: however one day, someone suggests that they think that these core phyla can produce other kinds of phyla which would be called "macro-adaptation" however he is unable to find any evidence to support this modification to the theory


mamoru: despite the lack of fossils


his cuteness multiplies with delicious irony

don't worry lad, who needs evidence when you have faith?

---

..and one day while i was walkingeth in the woods, i was visited by the angel morani and he did sayeth unto me, hearken

morani: more and more genetic evidence is suggesting the possibility that the divisions that we now see all major metazoan phyla happened long before

, and he assured me that i need not seek out evidence for it haveth been delievered unto me by divine revelation..

IB Chronicles 4:17

---

IM for the love of lulz, please get him to keep talking

/i beseech thee
 
2011-05-19 9:48:22 PM  

guestguy: This guy really got under your skin, huh?


who IM? he's a little slow, but i actually kinda like him
 
2011-05-19 9:50:04 PM  

xkillyourfacex: TFA one big div/zero. Natural selection isn't evolution.

abb3w: That said, none of TFA's examples look to involve a speciation event. Contrariwise, it does look like the demarcation between Polar and Grizzly bears wasn't a full species-level divide, but merely a temporary allopatric barrier.

Whatever you say. The rest of us don't have a hard time telling the difference between, say, an animal with wings and one without.

None of the examples in the article involve organisms acquiring new attributes from genetic changes.

The elephants without tusks were already around, there already were moths of that color, etc etc.

The animals are not evolving before our very eyes.


Except the dogs learning to ride the subway, the skinks developing live birth, and of course, the birth of grolar bears. But don't let that stop you, you're on a roll.
 
2011-05-19 10:00:37 PM  

I drunk what: who IM?


i296.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2011-05-19 10:07:11 PM  

guestguy: Do you have a link to the thread where he snapped the needle off your hate gauge? I'm intrigued


Oh, you mean trolloru? you want a link to the thread where he convinced me that he is nothing but a troll?

or are you asking for a thread where he convinced me that he is a completely worthless troll?

because you can probably just pick any thread he posts in...? have you read his quality work in this thread?

i'm actually going quite easy on him or else i could just respond to all his posts, but i think just a handful should cover it

this is simply just some troll-spray being applied to the thread, that's all, try not to read too much into it

he's not the first IB-Troll that has faced the wrath of IDW

/prolly won't be the last

btw the only thing i hate is stupidity

//and i don't particularly enjoy the trolling
 
2011-05-19 10:13:10 PM  

guestguy: I drunk what: who IM?


[thatlook]

hey don't give me that look Mr.

you said "getting under my skin", and of the two in that quote, IM gets under my skin (which isn't much) more than any worthless troll ever would (which is zero), so be careful how you phrase stuff around me, words have meaning
 
2011-05-19 10:28:26 PM  
cbackous:

are you at all capable of making an original thought, or do you just quote random people to try and appear educated?

I drunk what:

are you at all capable of asking an original question?

mamoru:

this is a reminder that biological evolution is defined as genetic change in a population over time (more usually and specifically, the change in allele frequencies over time); while the appearance of new features and new species can be results of these changes, such results are not required in order for evolution occur. All that is required is genetic change over time, whether positive, negative, or neutral

Bevets:

Evolution is a kind of funny word -- it depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time even the most rock ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the earth has changed -- that there's been change over time. If you define 'evolution' precisely though to mean 'the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection', that's textbook definition of neo Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions. ~ Paul Nelson

I drunk what:

quick, throw up a smokescreen and talk how stuff changes and pretend like that is what the debate is about

NOTES FROM THE ATHEIST PLAYBOOK:

1) If time is short skip to step 11

2) Assume 'Science' and 'Atheism' are interchangeable (but ONLY use the first word).

3) Assume 'Microevolution' and 'Macroevolution' are interchangeable (which means drop the 'micro' and the 'macro').

4) When asked for clarification, ignore the request.

5) If step 4 does not work, ignore the request.

6) If step 5 does not work, return to step 4

7) Deny it

8) Pretend to miss the point

9) Buffalo

10) Seem sincere

11) Ad Hominem, Smear, Poison the Well

12) Smear, Ad Hominem, Poison the Well

13) Poison the Well, Ad Hominem (and smear)
 
2011-05-19 10:28:40 PM  

I drunk what: however one day, someone suggests that they think that these core phyla can produce other kinds of phyla which would be called "macro-adaptation" however he is unable to find any evidence to support this modification to the theory


Then you're not understanding what evolution says; to wit, that these core phyla are in turn subdivisions from even earlier groups of organisms, which make for "kingdoms".

I drunk what: furthermore there are some who believe that adaptation isn't sufficient to explain all the flavors of life


Largely, those who aren't paying attention to the evidence of common descent even at the phylum level.

I drunk what: rates of fossilization was addressed in the vid


Rates, or frequency?

Either way, you don't have enough credibility left with me to get me to spend the time watching a vid of your suggestion. Feel free to find someone else that I still take seriously who's willing to co-endorse its worth.
 
2011-05-19 10:34:41 PM  

I drunk what: Oh, you mean trolloru? you want a link to the thread where he convinced me that he is nothing but a troll?



I looked over the linked thread...are you saying that you became convinced he was nothing but a troll when you discovered that he had placed you on ignore? I may be wrong, but I don't think that's how "trolling" works...

I drunk what: btw the only thing i hate is stupidity



img.fark.net

What are you, a masochist or something?
 
2011-05-19 10:53:54 PM  

Bevets: NOTES FROM THE ANTI-THEIST PLAYBOOK


ftfy

we call them IB for short

guestguy: are you saying that you became convinced he was nothing but a troll when you discovered that he had placed you on ignore?


look dude it would take too long to explain the full back story, but you'll just have to trust me on this, i don't lie

/and i am fully aware of what a troll is (thanks for your concern)

abb3w: I drunk what: however one day, someone suggests that they think that these core phyla can produce other kinds of phyla which would be called "macro-adaptation" however he is unable to find any evidence to support this modification to the theory

Then you're not understanding what evolution says; to wit, that these core phyla are in turn subdivisions from even earlier groups of organisms, which make for "kingdoms".

I drunk what: furthermore there are some who believe that adaptation isn't sufficient to explain all the flavors of life

Largely, those who aren't paying attention to the evidence of common descent even at the phylum level.


oh abbey, this is why i don't like to pretend to care about all these details :( because then you'll just make me write a dissertation on it and overhaul the entire field of biology as we know it

just like you expect me to rewrite all the mathematical laws and theorems everytime we play a little math game, on my coffee break

i enjoy our little food for thoughts however i'm afraid i just wont get into the deep waters like you and kerpy and like kilted tries to do and floyda pretends he can do

frankly i just have my own set of priorities, cups of tea, boats to float

abb3w: Rates, or frequency?


probably both, can't remember off the top of my head

abb3w: Either way, you don't have enough credibility left with me to get me to spend the time watching a vid of your suggestion


hey don't type angry :(

abb3w: Feel free to find someone else that I still take seriously who's willing to co-endorse its worth


oh and just who might that be?

i really don't like this new game we're playing, the rules blow
 
2011-05-19 10:57:00 PM  
NOTES FROM THE CATHOLIC PLAYBOOK:

1) God says so.

2) If you disagree, you will burn in HELL.

3) Return to step 2.
 
2011-05-19 10:58:08 PM  

guestguy: What are you, a masochist or something?


well i do still talk to abbey

/i think someone peed in his cheerios
//don't tell him i said that
 
2011-05-19 11:26:23 PM  

I drunk what: look dude it would take too long to explain the full back story



Fair enough, though I struggle to see how any backstory could justify someone putting you on ignore as the epiphanous troll moment.

I drunk what: but you'll just have to trust me on this, i don't lie



How could I not implicitly trust some anonymous stranger on an internet message board, particularly if he/she tells me they don't lie?
 
2011-05-20 12:40:56 AM  

abb3w: See back at This response reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the theory of evolution works.


And no, I don't mean what you think I mean by that.
 
2011-05-20 1:06:39 AM  

guestguy: How could I not implicitly trust some anonymous stranger on an internet message board, particularly if he/she tells me they don't lie?


It's like the old adage, "Never trust a man who says 'trust me.'"
 
2011-05-20 1:15:06 AM  

Bevets: 9) Buffalo


i268.photobucket.comView Full Size

You called?
 
2011-05-20 1:43:53 AM  

Bevets: cbackous:

are you at all capable of making an original thought, or do you just quote random people to try and appear educated?

I drunk what:

are you at all capable of asking an original question?

mamoru:

this is a reminder that biological evolution is defined as genetic change in a population over time (more usually and specifically, the change in allele frequencies over time); while the appearance of new features and new species can be results of these changes, such results are not required in order for evolution occur. All that is required is genetic change over time, whether positive, negative, or neutral

Bevets:

Evolution is a kind of funny word -- it depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time even the most rock ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the earth has changed -- that there's been change over time. If you define 'evolution' precisely though to mean 'the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection', that's textbook definition of neo Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions. ~ Paul Nelson

I drunk what:

quick, throw up a smokescreen and talk how stuff changes and pretend like that is what the debate is about

NOTES FROM THE ATHEIST PLAYBOOK:

1) If time is short skip to step 11

2) Assume 'Science' and 'Atheism' are interchangeable (but ONLY use the first word).

3) Assume 'Microevolution' and 'Macroevolution' are interchangeable (which means drop the 'micro' and the 'macro').

4) When asked for clarification, ignore the request.

5) If step 4 does not work, ignore the request.

6) If step 5 does not work, return to step 4

7) Deny it

8) Pretend to miss the point

9) Buffalo

10) Seem sincere

11) Ad Hominem, Smear, Poison the Well

12) Smear, Ad Hominem, Poison the Well

13) Poison the Well, Ad Hominem (and smear)


Theist play book.

1) It's the sky wizard I was told to believe in.
2) ???
3) Profit
 
2011-05-20 1:47:41 AM  

guestguy: How could I not implicitly trust some anonymous stranger on an internet message board, particularly if he/she tells me they don't lie?


I drunk what (ignored: Retarded and High Theist)

He's constantly posting multiple times in a row, reads poorly, and comes out of far left field.

He makes bevets look sane, and the Rapture people.
 
2011-05-20 2:33:45 AM  
As an Anthropology major, I'm getting a huge kick out of many of your "arguments."
 
2011-05-20 7:49:53 AM  

Bevets: ~ Stephen Jay Gould


Stephen Jay Gould was an evolutionary biologist who postulated the theory of punctuated equilibrium, a theory which replaced Darwin's theory of slow, gradual evolution. If you see a Bevets quote where Gould is supposedly critical of Darwin, it will be on this theory. Neither Gould's theory nor the discredited Darwin theory do anything to advance intelligent design/creationism as a credible theory. It is the evolutionary equivalent of the difference between a slope and stairs, while Bevets is arguing it's impossible to go up.
 
2011-05-20 7:54:09 AM  

Bevets: ~ Paul Nelson


Paul Nelson is a fellow at the Discovery Institute, an organization dedicated to disproving evolution and promoting creationism (which they will not call it under any circumstances, preferring intelligent design). He has a PhD in philosophy, with little or no training in biology. He has also been interviewed as admitting there is no scientific theory of intelligent design, meaning that the Institute is drawing their conclusions first, then using data to match it, which is the opposite of what the scientific method advises.
 
2011-05-20 10:05:27 AM  

I drunk what: Oh, you mean trolloru? you want a link to the thread where he convinced me that he is nothing but a troll?


That was an interesting thread, to be sure.


Bevets: If you define 'evolution' precisely though to mean 'the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor.


I imagine evolutionists would accept that there may have been multiple events where "life happened", some of which failed, and others of which succeeded. As such, the odds are that there isn't a single organism from which all life sprang, but possibly multiple organisms.
 
2011-05-20 11:18:33 AM  

mgshamster: It's like the old adage, "Never trust a man who says 'trust me.


then don't trust me, i'm really quite mad

/starts to disappear

omeganuepsilon: He's constantly posting multiple times in a row, reads poorly, and comes out of far left field.

He makes bevets look sane, and the Rapture people


you can implicitly trust omega because he is an anonymous stranger on an internet message board

guestguy: Fair enough, though I struggle to see how any backstory could justify someone putting you on ignore as the epiphanous troll moment.


i understand, i can also perfectly understand why if i provided you with 3 other threads, that you would somehow come to the conclusion that i cannot grasp basic logic

some of these threads can get a little tricky

many conversations here have been going on for many years, you can rarely just read one thread to get the full story...

guestguy: How could I not implicitly trust some anonymous stranger on an internet message board, particularly if he/she tells me they don't lie?


oh, don't take my word for it, would you like a 2nd opinion?

/of course you are free to go back and review as many threads as you deem fit
 
2011-05-20 11:43:55 AM  

AfroSpatula: i drank what


oh boy this ought to be good

/i love the formal approach

AfroSpatula: You seem revolutionary in your field of study.


my 'field of study'? i don't follow

AfroSpatula: I couldn't watch the video you posted


are you talking about conversations in this thread or other ones? because you will have to specify which

btw can you simply state the title of the video so that i can know if we are speaking about the same thing?

AfroSpatula: (my computer doesn't have audio and I fear I wouldn't glean much)


you poor guy, we should take up a collection so that you can experience the wonderful world of sound

so then you are only able to experience the internet in visual form? :(

/the horrah

AfroSpatula: as you've expressed consternation over reciting your perfectly salient points.


they aren't my points, i tend to reserve my arguments that involve less speculation, but i humor some old friends here to keep the conversation from becoming a monologue

AfroSpatula: I'm curious about this whole field, this iconoclastic approach


that makes two of us, i'd really like to hear more about this iconoclastic field of mine? i'm intrigued

AfroSpatula: Mind you, I looked at the links supplied by your opponent(?) mamoru


LOL, oh heavens no

i never argue with worthless trolls, knowingly that is :/

try again lad

AfroSpatula: and I'm grateful that he showed interest in sharing things he thought interesting.


unfortunately you probably wouldn't be grateful for me sharing things i think is interesting, since i only really argue things like religion, morality, etc... here

the only reason why i even remotely get involved in these evolution vs creation threads is because most of the people who post in these threads don't even know what science or religion is or how to use them

i'm just trying to bump up the IQ of this forum from the sidelines, though i must say, it appears i haven't been very successful... :(

are you just trying to bum me out?

AfroSpatula: I was hoping you'd express a similar show of curiosity


i'm curious on how far you're willing to go with this

/sounds like fun
 
2011-05-20 11:49:18 AM  

I drunk what: oh abbey, this is why i don't like to pretend to care about all these details :( because then you'll just make me write a dissertation on it and overhaul the entire field of biology as we know it


So, you don't like details, therefore you're right. Riiight.

Of course, you still won't actually specifically SAY what arguments you have with evolution, preferring to vaguely point in the general direction of where those arguments might be found. Makes it convenient when counterarguments are made.

"Oh, dear me, no, that's not what I was trying to say. That's just plain silly. La la la. Why don't you look a little harder in that direction to figure out the REAL arguments I'm making against evolution?"

Do you have anything of substance to contribute here?

Explain your position that the Cambrian explosion presents problems for evolution. Seriously, do it. Or any other argument against it, if you're finally going to abandon that. Go ahead. If you're really the guy who could overhaul the entire field of biology, get on it. Your Nobel Prize is waiting.

Or maybe you could admit you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Displayed 50 of 247 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





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.