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  
•       •       •

14584 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

 
2011-05-20 11:53:37 AM  

Moonfisher: As an Anthropology major, I'm getting a huge kick out of many of your "arguments."


which ones? use the quote button!

Feepit: That was an interesting thread, to be sure.


i do enjoy them more once they get going, lately it's been more like pulling teeth in a old folks home
 
2011-05-20 12:07:29 PM  

Infinite Monkey: So, you don't like details


i don't like bickering about them no

but if the precision and accuracy of every little minutia is important to you perhaps you ought to bark up another tree, if you need a recommendation i'd start with entropic_existence and get some feedback from him

though i'll give you fair warning, he is a deist so you're probably not going to want to hear his view either

but if you'd rather just hear what you want to hear, trolloru's kool aid probably tastes delicious, since i'm sure he is very concerned about protecting you

/also i hear his farts smell divine
 
2011-05-20 12:12:18 PM  

Infinite Monkey: Do you have anything of substance to contribute here?


you mean like cracked.com articles that state that dogs learning to ride trains is proof of evolution which therefore allows trollmitter to conclude that God does not exist

which then opens the flood gates for the Idiot Brigade to assemble for yet another circle jerk of how they once again defeated the magical sky wizard of them knuckle-dragging creationists...?

that kind of "substance" ?

or perhaps i should just review your posts in this thread and attempt to match the quality therein?

i'm easy-game
 
2011-05-20 12:18:59 PM  

I drunk what: Infinite Monkey: So, you don't like details

i don't like bickering about them no

but if the precision and accuracy of every little minutia is important to you perhaps you ought to bark up another tree, if you need a recommendation i'd start with entropic_existence and get some feedback from him

though i'll give you fair warning, he is a deist so you're probably not going to want to hear his view either


I don't know what's been going on in this thread, I just came in because of the fark notification of my name appearing. I'd just like to point out that I am NOT a Deist. I'm an Atheist. I'm just willing to accept Deism as being the more probable of various Theistic positions.
 
2011-05-20 12:21:17 PM  

Infinite Monkey: 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?"


that's it, give in to your hate, come to the darkside

needs more "willful ignorance, intellectually disingenuous temptation to put on ignore"
 
2011-05-20 12:24:52 PM  

entropic_existence: I drunk what: Infinite Monkey: So, you don't like details

i don't like bickering about them no

but if the precision and accuracy of every little minutia is important to you perhaps you ought to bark up another tree, if you need a recommendation i'd start with entropic_existence and get some feedback from him

though i'll give you fair warning, he is a deist so you're probably not going to want to hear his view either

I don't know what's been going on in this thread, I just came in because of the fark notification of my name appearing. I'd just like to point out that I am NOT a Deist. I'm an Atheist. I'm just willing to accept Deism as being the more probable of various Theistic positions.


dude you have got to be more clear about your stance, i coulda swore you said that before...? whateva

so you wanna endorse a video for me so abbey will watch it and discuss what problems might be contained in it?

did i already ask you this before? this sounds familiar
 
2011-05-20 12:26:39 PM  

entropic_existence: I don't know what's been going on in this thread


i'll give you 3 guesses but the first 2 don't count

/you're not missing anything
 
2011-05-20 12:32:01 PM  

Infinite Monkey: Or maybe you could admit you have no idea what you're talking about.


Do any of them?
 
2011-05-20 12:33:33 PM  

Feepit: 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.


Actually, there is a theory (although not universally accepted by any means) that some of the archaea might have independent genesis (those critters are weird) but the eukaryotes and bacteria are probably from a unique genesis (we share a few genes with E. coli, after all). However, there are other arguments that suggest that archaea are more closely related to eukaryotes than to the bacteria. That's a contentious field right now.
 
2011-05-20 12:40:48 PM  

ninjakirby: Infinite Monkey: Or maybe you could admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

Do any of them?


2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


not a single one

not even a clue

/but you're not helping Leon nk
//why is that?
 
2011-05-20 1:35:50 PM  

I drunk what: so you wanna endorse a video for me so abbey will watch it and discuss what problems might be contained in it?


Endorse what video? You probably did, I probably said no. I'm not a fan of watching youtube videos on these topics. Especially anti-evolution ones. I'm likely to just start getting angry at all of the mistakes, misconceptions, and outright lies contained within it. At least with a text document it is easier for me to quickly scan and parse and focus attention on specific problems that I can quote and correct.

KiltedBastich: Actually, there is a theory (although not universally accepted by any means) that some of the archaea might have independent genesis (those critters are weird) but the eukaryotes and bacteria are probably from a unique genesis (we share a few genes with E. coli, after all). However, there are other arguments that suggest that archaea are more closely related to eukaryotes than to the bacteria. That's a contentious field right now.


That Eukaryotes group closer to Archea than to Bacteria on the "three-domain" tree isn't really contentious, or new. That's been standard for quite awhile now. The current argument is whether Eukaryotes emerge from within the Archea, making the Archea polyphyletic and not a monophyletic group. Archea have a different membrane system than the Eubacteria and Eukaryotes which is the real issue, but the information processing genes are more similar between Eukaryotes and Archea. Other then their membrane system and having a propensity to be extremophiles the Archea aren't that weird evolutionarily. And way too similar in most ways to be a truly novel and unique "origin of life". Unique origin of their membranes/cell structure? Maybe.
 
2011-05-20 1:49:28 PM  

entropic_existence: Endorse what video?


one of very few (new window) (that i'm aware of) that i'd even bother to defend, if some atheists want to have a discussion with theists about a little thing we call biology

/there is 7 parts try to get through all of them
//feel free to skip lengthy intros, eyecandy, etc..

and if you really like that one i think there was another (new window) i recall being filled with interesting topics of discussion

/12 parts

entropic_existence: I'm likely to just start getting angry at all of the mistakes, misconceptions, and outright lies contained within it.


well just don't type angry, and that would be exactly what i'd expect you to do

by all means debunk the whole thing, feel free to call out any shenanigans you spot and feel the need to correct

we can't have lies being spread around to the masses now can we?

entropic_existence: Especially anti-evolution ones.


scubaboard.comView Full Size


try not to be too biased, until at least AFTER you've seen it

/prejudice doesn't suit you
 
2011-05-20 1:53:43 PM  
Atheist idiots need a brigade. I drunk what is his own solitary idiot. Be the island, man!
 
2011-05-20 1:55:31 PM  

entropic_existence: At least with a text document it is easier for me to quickly scan and parse and focus attention on specific problems that I can quote and correct


man you guys sure love some text don't ya?

i've looked before to see if there are some transcripts available but as of yet i haven't been able to locate any

i'd love to transcribe them for you, however you probably cannot afford me
 
2011-05-20 2:11:46 PM  

Farker Soze: Be the island, man


mom-santa claus island?

Farker Soze: Atheist idiots need a brigade


resistance is futile
 
2011-05-20 2:16:02 PM  

I drunk what: try not to be too biased, until at least AFTER you've seen it


You should keep in mind that watching the videos isn't going to tell me something new. It isn't going to be an argument "against evolution" that I haven't seen, in some way, shape or form, repeatedly over the last 10 years or so of my life. It isn't biased to say "I don't want to waste my time watching 7 videos that just reiterate things I have heard before and have been thoroughly debunked and ripped apart elsewhere"

I drunk what: man you guys sure love some text don't ya?


Text and images are two of the most effective means of conveying information in an accurate way. Recorded speech on the other hand? Not so much. It's also easier to read a document over a long period of time when I have a second here and there, versus watching a video.

That and I read all day as it is. Remember I am engrossed in doing science. I write articles, I read articles, the publication IS how you formalize your arguments because it is efficient and effective.
 
2011-05-20 2:18:19 PM  
btw e_e while we're chatting

would you say that this (new window) is an accurate illustration of your view?

http://www.all-creatures.org/hope/gw/tree_of_evolution.jpg
 
2011-05-20 2:29:26 PM  

entropic_existence: You should keep in mind that watching the videos isn't going to tell me something new.


you know this before you see them?

quick tell me what my winning lotto numbers are! :P

entropic_existence: I have heard before and have been thoroughly debunked and ripped apart elsewhere"


i looked for a debunk, but couldn't find one, perhaps you can link me to one?

but by all means feel free to rip it apart

that is one of my favorite past times

dreager1.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2011-05-20 3:07:57 PM  

entropic_existence: KiltedBastich: Actually, there is a theory (although not universally accepted by any means) that some of the archaea might have independent genesis (those critters are weird) but the eukaryotes and bacteria are probably from a unique genesis (we share a few genes with E. coli, after all). However, there are other arguments that suggest that archaea are more closely related to eukaryotes than to the bacteria. That's a contentious field right now.

That Eukaryotes group closer to Archea than to Bacteria on the "three-domain" tree isn't really contentious, or new. That's been standard for quite awhile now. The current argument is whether Eukaryotes emerge from within the Archea, making the Archea polyphyletic and not a monophyletic group. Archea have a different membrane system than the Eubacteria and Eukaryotes which is the real issue, but the information processing genes are more similar between Eukaryotes and Archea. Other then their membrane system and having a propensity to be extremophiles the Archea aren't that weird evolutionarily. And way too similar in most ways to be a truly novel and unique "origin of life". Unique origin of their membranes/cell structure? Maybe.


Is this based on current-day eukaryotes or do we have fossils of those? Because it strikes me that such mundane organisms as the "first lifes" would likely have been able to share genetic material amongst themselves, like how cells have mitochondria, and even though they sprung up in different times and places their descendants would have similarities.
 
2011-05-20 3:19:43 PM  

I drunk what: you know this before you see them?


I haven't seen a fundamentally new anti-evolution argument in a looooong time. I click on your link and it appears to be all about the Cambrian explosion. I can surmise that it is as full of misunderstandings about what the Cambrian explosion actually WAS as any other argument I have seen concerning it.

One of the major issues is their arguments and data tend to be woefully out of date and don't include much in terms of fossils discovered in the last 5-10 years. Hell it's important just to keep in mind that the "explosion" occurred over a 35-40 million year timespan. Not exactly overnight delivery.

If Iw ant to learn about the Cambrian explosion I would tend to start here:

PubMed: Cambrian Explosion
 
2011-05-20 3:22:54 PM  

Feepit: Is this based on current-day eukaryotes or do we have fossils of those? Because it strikes me that such mundane organisms as the "first lifes" would likely have been able to share genetic material amongst themselves, like how cells have mitochondria, and even though they sprung up in different times and places their descendants would have similarities.


This is based on genetic data from a wide variety of living organisms. Keep in mind that modern phylogenetic techniques are a bit like forensics in some ways. By looking at diverse organisms and comparing their gene sequences in the context of an evolutionary tree we see both what their current state is, and an inferred record of past events.

And even today what we call lateral gene transfer happens. It's very prevalent among Bacteria and Archea, but it also happens in Eukaryotes. Organisms do end up acquiring genes from other organisms and have them get incorporated into their genomes. Which is awesome. We think that this was very rampant early in evolution because most of the molecular mechanisms that make this harder just didn't exist yet.
 
2011-05-20 3:23:11 PM  

I drunk what: entropic_existence: You should keep in mind that watching the videos isn't going to tell me something new.

you know this before you see them?

quick tell me what my winning lotto numbers are! :P

entropic_existence: I have heard before and have been thoroughly debunked and ripped apart elsewhere"

i looked for a debunk, but couldn't find one, perhaps you can link me to one?

but by all means feel free to rip it apart

that is one of my favorite past times


I don't know the lotto numbers but I am more than willing to take you up on a rather large bet that he's both heard them before and they have been debunked.

I drunk what: i looked for a debunk, but couldn't find one, perhaps you can link me to one?


Seriously. I doubt that. Try again, spend some actual time researching and looking, if you can't find a debunk for the video then you can always find one for the claims it makes. Or better yet, understanding the actual science first (whether it be biology, cladistics, paleontology, geology, genetics etc. at least a decent foundation in all of those), instead of a known, well established, pseudo sciences (creationism) presentation of 'science.'
 
2011-05-20 3:36:44 PM  

entropic_existence: I haven't seen a fundamentally new anti-evolution argument


dude maybe you should just stop talking about it until you've seen it

/people can see what you post
 
2011-05-20 3:39:26 PM  

I drunk what: btw e_e while we're chatting

would you say that this (new window) is an accurate illustration of your view?

http://www.all-creatures.org/hope/gw/tree_of_evolution.jpg


entropic_existence: And even today what we call lateral gene transfer happens


IDW, your picture doesn't show lateral transitions. It constantly branches out, and no branches come together or pass genetic information between them, so I guess that means it makes for a poor representation of what is actually occurring.
 
2011-05-20 3:41:10 PM  

I drunk what: i looked for a debunk, but couldn't find one, perhaps you can link me to one?


People have actually told you what's wrong with it, in this thread and more extensively in others. Including me. You dismiss all explanation.
 
2011-05-20 3:49:35 PM  
Well, it's nice to see that i drunk what continues to live down to my note on him of "willfully ignorant, intellectually disingenuous, and snide, crazier than a shiathouse rat".
 
2011-05-20 4:05:43 PM  

Infinite Monkey: I drunk what: i looked for a debunk, but couldn't find one, perhaps you can link me to one?

People have actually told you what's wrong with it, in this thread and more extensively in others. Including me. You dismiss all explanation.


They think that's a valid technique because it's what they think that people do to religion.(Miss application of "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander?)

However...
Religion =/= Explanation.

Why =/= How

Religion and Why tend to lean to intent. Explanation and How tend to lean on evidence, cause and effect, the mechanics of operations.

While these things aren't necessarily exclusive of each other all of the time, they are most of the time in a science related dicussion.

But some of the religious mouth breathers can't(or refuse to) separate the concepts of why and how, and treat them as interchangeable.

One of the core reasons they tend to fail so hard in such discussions.

Real intelligence comes from asking how(and genuinely wanting an answer). That's why ICP and their wonder at magnets is not representative of intelligent curiosity, but prefer to wallow in ignorance, because wonder feels cool.

Real knowledge ruins that euphoric experience religion junkies love. Modern magicians' tricks for example, the unwahsed masses' love for the trick is lost as soon as the trick is explained. That trick is now boring and mundane.

*shrugs*
 
2011-05-20 4:09:09 PM  

I drunk what: needs more "willful ignorance, intellectually disingenuous temptation to put on ignore"


Garbonzo42: Well, it's nice to see that i drunk what continues to live down to my note on him of "willfully ignorant, intellectually disingenuous, and snide, crazier than a shiathouse rat".


tempting you to place me on ignore, i'm sure

/dance for me puppet

Infinite Monkey: People have actually told you what's wrong with it, in this thread and more extensively in others.


which is interesting since you are the only one claiming to have seen it thus far...

who are these people you speak of?

Infinite Monkey: You dismiss all explanation


can you remind me of your explanation perhaps i didn't notice it?

feel free to quote which part of the vids you are responding to, which parts are incorrect and why

for example, you could say: In video (part 4) at time 2:34 the speaker claims X, which is not true because of [citation]

or something to that effect

or if you want to be lazy about it like e_e

AFTER you watch the video, you can say: everything in that video is wrong, i don't care to go over any details about it, so here's some stuff to read (133 artilcles); http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=cambrian%20explosion, even though many of these articles may or may not even actually address the points brought up, you can figure it out yourself

perhaps he will at least indicate which articles he feels is the most pertinent?
 
2011-05-20 4:20:48 PM  

omeganuepsilon: (Miss application of "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander")


FTFM
 
2011-05-20 4:40:51 PM  

I drunk what: Infinite Monkey: People have actually told you what's wrong with it, in this thread and more extensively in others.

which is interesting since you are the only one claiming to have seen it thus far...

who are these people you speak of?


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).


I drunk what: for example, you could say: In video (part 4) at time 2:34 the speaker claims X, which is not true because of [citation]


I did that for a related video, segment by segment, in an earlier thread. I see no need to re-watch this one, yet again. Life is short.

AGAIN- perhaps YOU could actually SAY what your argument against evolution is. But I have a feeling you don't actually understand the issue, and have simply picked a random youtube series because it's feel-good creationism. If I am wrong- and I'm saying this for about the third time- make a criticism and show that you actually understand what you're talking about. You don't even need to understand actual evolution! You only need to understand your own viewpoint, and I don't think you do.
 
2011-05-20 4:49:51 PM  

Infinite Monkey: I drunk what: AGAIN- perhaps YOU could actually SAY what your argument against evolution is. But I have a feeling you don't actually understand the issue, and have simply picked a random youtube series because it's feel-good creationism. If I am wrong- and I'm saying this for about the third time- make a criticism and show that you actually understand what you're talking about. You don't even need to understand actual evolution! You only need to understand your own viewpoint, and I don't think you do.


He most emphatically does NOT understand what he is talking about.
 
2011-05-20 4:50:28 PM  
I still don't understand why so many of you are still willing to argue with idw. He's never going to improve, as he demonstrably lacks the intellectual capacity to do so.

He's not a troll, he just isn't smart enough to understand he isn't smart enough.
 
2011-05-20 4:56:31 PM  

Garbonzo42: He most emphatically does NOT understand what he is talking about.


Seconded.

KiltedBastich: I still don't understand why so many of you are still willing to argue with idw. He's never going to improve, as he demonstrably lacks the intellectual capacity to do so.

He's not a troll, he just isn't smart enough to understand he isn't smart enough.


My bad, thirded then..
 
2011-05-20 6:09:13 PM  

Infinite Monkey: I did that for a related video, segment by segment, in an earlier thread.


is that the one where you picked the least relevant video of the three (the one talking about cosmic stuff) on purpose and then pretended that it was the main material i was positing for discussion about evolution?

maybe you should try that again in this thread and see if they fall for it, they are pretty dumb

*yawn*

of course in this thread you'll have to pretend that i posted a third one, that way you can create the illusion

just be sure to cover your tracks, everything you post is recorded for people to review at their own leisure

just fill each post with lots of drama, it will keep them running around in circles, they'll never suspect a thing

2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2011-05-20 6:25:59 PM  

Feepit: IDW, your picture doesn't show lateral transitions. It constantly branches out, and no branches come together or pass genetic information between them, so I guess that means it makes for a poor representation of what is actually occurring


sorry had trouble seeing your post with all the derp

i think e_e can answer for himself, but i appreciate your feedback as well

so then do you have a graphic that does accurately represent your view? (just for kicks)

Infinite Monkey: I see no need to re-watch this one, yet again.


i told you to re-watch it? if you've already watched it why would you need to watch it again? just simply point out the stuff that bothers you and why, then we can have a nice little discussion of the different views of biology, it's that simple

sometimes you try too hard and i think you strain or pull something in the process, perhaps you should do some stretching before you read each post?

Infinite Monkey: AGAIN- perhaps YOU could actually SAY what your argument against evolution is. But I have a feeling you don't actually understand the issue, and have simply picked a random youtube series because it's feel-good creationism. If I am wrong- and I'm saying this for about the third time- make a criticism and show that you actually understand what you're talking about. You don't even need to understand actual evolution! You only need to understand your own viewpoint, and I don't think you do


i wonder how long it will take him to figure out that i have no argument against evolution, i suppose i could tell him the answer but it probably won't help, to be honest i'm curious to see what he will post next

drjeffcornwall.comView Full Size


for SCIENCE!!
 
2011-05-20 6:35:33 PM  

Feepit: so I guess that means it makes for a poor representation of what is actually occurring


so then it would be like an old school view of evolution? like darwinian vs neodarwin?

btw do you know anything about the classifications being all screwed up or something, i recently caught some blurb about how traditionally life is classified Domain -} Kingdom -} Phylum -} ... Species, but modern views and evidence point more towards a upside down version of Species -} Genus -} Family -} Order... Domain

or something like that? any thoughts e_e?
 
2011-05-20 7:11:26 PM  

I drunk what: just fill each post with lots of drama


Yes, you do that quite well, Mr. 3 page wall of text.
 
2011-05-20 11:16:46 PM  
Retard Brigade in Full Effect
 
2011-05-21 11:04:10 AM  

abb3w: 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".


kingdoms were already covered under, the general topics of on this day plants were created, and on that day animals

but if i had to make a guess as to what was being referred to as "kinds" i suppose Phyla would be a healthy start.

even if bacteria was revealed, goat herders probably wouldn't have been able to process or convey such thoughts, and would probably lump them under creepy crawly things or something

so instead of just beating around the bush for another year or two, i'm just going to go ahead and propose some theories for either side to play with and see who can discuss what

in the mean time you guys should review any of their stuff, and i'd be happy to discuss any thoughts you have about them

Link (new window)

for now i will defend their point of views

and if e_e feels up to it, i may even develop a little theory of my own, and boost his career about 20-30 years into the future

as for happycatsigma's latest request for evidential proof of Christianity, i'll be happy to review any probability hypotheses that you submit to him and that he fully endorses and then forwards to me

since i always honor any old friend's request to removed from the auto-green club

fun while it lasted, eh lad?

good luck
 
2011-05-21 3:19:09 PM  

entropic_existence: I'd just like to point out that I am NOT a Deist. I'm an Atheist.


I think he was getting you mixed up with KiltedBastich. It's a hazard of having too many people color-coded the exact same shade. Even using the "note" feature to keep a thumbnail personality sketch as well only helps just so much.

KiltedBastich: He's never going to improve, as he demonstrably lacks the intellectual capacity to do so.


While that does imply it's unlikely, that makes him an interesting test subject in other ways; in that if you can find a method that is effective in his particular case, it might be effective over an extraordinarily wide fraction of the population.

It's also useful for finding out what attitude-bolstering responses to an argument are likely.
 
2011-05-21 3:39:47 PM  

abb3w: KiltedBastich: He's never going to improve, as he demonstrably lacks the intellectual capacity to do so.

While that does imply it's unlikely, that makes him an interesting test subject in other ways; in that if you can find a method that is effective in his particular case, it might be effective over an extraordinarily wide fraction of the population.

It's also useful for finding out what attitude-bolstering responses to an argument are likely.


That would require a willingness on his part to learn and change. It's a widely accepted theory in the psychology of education that without a willing participant, any attempt at education is almost completely pointless. You can't teach someone who does not want to learn.

As for the attitude-bolstering responses, he's yet to ever present anything that isn't an already-commonplace talking point, and usually he doesn't even understand those. It's basically the same problem. He lacks the capacity to generate a novel argument in support of his position because of his low general reasoning abilities.

All in all I just don't see much point in arguing with him at all.
 
2011-05-21 4:28:28 PM  

KiltedBastich: All in all I just don't see much point in arguing with him at all.


You know those annoying little dogs people carry around in their purses and such, who do nothing but yup and yap and serve no purpose but to utterly annoy you?

Well, you can't kick them.
 
2011-05-21 4:30:41 PM  

abb3w: I think he was getting you mixed up with KiltedBastich. It's a hazard of having too many people color-coded the exact same shade.


nope, but my horrible memory tricked me into thinking that i've personally had a conversation with him before where i understood that his view is primarily atheist concerning religion but deist in the big picture?? it's possible that i hallucinated the whole thing

abb3w: It's a hazard of having too many people color-coded the exact same shade.


a very good guess, except e_e isn't hot pink IB group, he actually made it to the sky blue potentially not an idiot clan

abb3w: Even using the "note" feature to keep a thumbnail personality sketch as well only helps just so much


i used to label farkers (because of that crappy memory thing) but i then later realized that people constantly label themselves so then i removed them all

abb3w: While that does imply it's unlikely, that makes him an interesting test subject in other ways; in that if you can find a method that is effective in his particular case, it might be effective over an extraordinarily wide fraction of the population.

It's also useful for finding out what attitude-bolstering responses to an argument are likely.


just a few more parting thoughts

have you noticed how much like Dimensio you are starting to sound like? perhaps you should see a quack?

pretty soon you'll just be asking Bevets why he knowingly lies

and poor dimensio will get mad at you for stealing his one and only schtick

tell Kilted i said hi, and i hope he finds the magic dolphin
 
2011-05-21 4:34:05 PM  

ninjakirby: KiltedBastich: All in all I just don't see much point in arguing with him at all.

You know those annoying little dogs people carry around in their purses and such, who do nothing but yup and yap and serve no purpose but to utterly annoy you?

Well, you can't kick them.


I can't kick idw either. It would probably be more satisfying if I could.
 
2011-05-21 4:39:38 PM  

ninjakirby: Well, you can't kick them.


i695.photobucket.comView Full Size


finally you get it! it only took you 4 years

good jorb lad

just don't troll them too deep some of em get a little confused
 
2011-05-21 11:52:06 PM  

Infinite Monkey: You don't even need to understand actual evolution! You only need to understand your own viewpoint, and I don't think you do.


He Doesnt, at all.
 
2011-05-22 12:02:21 PM  

I drunk what: Feepit: IDW, your picture doesn't show lateral transitions. It constantly branches out, and no branches come together or pass genetic information between them, so I guess that means it makes for a poor representation of what is actually occurring

sorry had trouble seeing your post with all the derp

i think e_e can answer for himself, but i appreciate your feedback as well

so then do you have a graphic that does accurately represent your view? (just for kicks)


i'm guessing you'd prefer something more like this?

static.newworldencyclopedia.orgView Full Size


or this

sciblogs.co.nzView Full Size


do you know of one of these that attempts to fill in some of these branches with animals like the first one i posted before?

i'd love to find some sort of interactive version where you could click on a section and it would illustrate how the evidence we have matches it or not
 
Displayed 47 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.