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.

(Panda's Thumb)   Not news: "Scientist" from the Discovery Institute gives talk on "intelligent design" while sitting in her lab that confuses basic concepts. Obvious: She was sitting in front of a green screen, the lab was a stock photo   ( pandasthumb.org) divider line
67
    More: Fail, Discovery Institute, Tute, stock photos, health effects of tobacco, polymerase chain reactions, Lee Atwater, laboratory, intelligent design  
•       •       •

7094 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Dec 2012 at 8:00 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
Ishkur
2012-12-21 04:03:40 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Stop waffling and get on with v3


Yes sir, right away sir.

/where does Stereo MCs go anyway?
//or Renegade Soundwave?
///or Frou Frou?
 
Ishkur
2012-12-21 04:08:27 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Give me one reason to believe climatology is a science.


Science is a process for studying the natural world and its faculties. It is not dogma -- it is a methodology.

Climatology is the science of studying weather patterns and changes in the Earth's atmospheric composition over time. Irrespective of whether the conclusions published or correct or not, the process of studying the climate still makes it a bonafied science.
 
Bacontastesgood
2012-12-21 05:14:31 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: Why do you put "scientist" in quotations, subby?


Actually, I looked her up and I do take exception to the scare quotes.

Ann Gauger is a zoologist with a BS in biology from MIT and a 1989 PhD from the University of Washington. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

1. As James Randi said, "a PhD is not an inoculation against foolishness".
2. Being a scientist is not like being part of a priesthood. Many scientists, even prominent ones who have done very good work in the past, say and do remarkably stupid things. It is a vital feature of science that the dumb things get shunted aside and the things that work become part of the core, but the individuals are pretty poor at doing this.
3. It is important to note that the Discovery Institute is apparently attempting to ramp up their cred. This is fine, since attacks on the credibility of their people should never have been the focus anyway. Attack their shiatty and worthless science instead, how it ignores evidence. Way too easy of a victory for them if you chase your tail going "she's not a REAL scientist".
4. The photo thing is still pretty farking funny.
 
Keizer_Ghidorah
2012-12-21 05:39:35 PM  
If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.
 
Ishkur
2012-12-21 05:45:02 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.


Well, of course you can because you've already seen the life that can exist.

Let's see you try doing it from SCRATCH.... with nothing existing to give you any inspiration. Then see how well you fare.

You think this Universe building shiat is easy?
 
ProfessorOhki
2012-12-21 05:50:36 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.


Designing is easy, I don't know why everyone gets hung up on that part. It's always the implementation that gets you.
 
Keizer_Ghidorah
2012-12-21 05:55:12 PM  

Ishkur: Keizer_Ghidorah: If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.

Well, of course you can because you've already seen the life that can exist.

Let's see you try doing it from SCRATCH.... with nothing existing to give you any inspiration. Then see how well you fare.

You think this Universe building shiat is easy?


Hey, I'd have enough foresight to make life forms that can adapt very quickly, and to not run the waste-disposal channel through a recreational area.

ProfessorOhki: Keizer_Ghidorah: If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.

Designing is easy, I don't know why everyone gets hung up on that part. It's always the implementation that gets you.


Which makes you wonder how many times the designer reset the universe because he goofed.
 
ProfessorOhki
2012-12-21 05:58:08 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Ishkur: Keizer_Ghidorah: If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.

Well, of course you can because you've already seen the life that can exist.

Let's see you try doing it from SCRATCH.... with nothing existing to give you any inspiration. Then see how well you fare.

You think this Universe building shiat is easy?

Hey, I'd have enough foresight to make life forms that can adapt very quickly, and to not run the waste-disposal channel through a recreational area.

ProfessorOhki: Keizer_Ghidorah: If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.

Designing is easy, I don't know why everyone gets hung up on that part. It's always the implementation that gets you.

Which makes you wonder how many times the designer reset the universe because he goofed.


I don't know, but after the first few, he/she/it became exceedingly efficient at it.
 
Keizer_Ghidorah
2012-12-21 06:02:22 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Keizer_Ghidorah: Ishkur: Keizer_Ghidorah: If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.

Well, of course you can because you've already seen the life that can exist.

Let's see you try doing it from SCRATCH.... with nothing existing to give you any inspiration. Then see how well you fare.

You think this Universe building shiat is easy?

Hey, I'd have enough foresight to make life forms that can adapt very quickly, and to not run the waste-disposal channel through a recreational area.

ProfessorOhki: Keizer_Ghidorah: If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.

Designing is easy, I don't know why everyone gets hung up on that part. It's always the implementation that gets you.

Which makes you wonder how many times the designer reset the universe because he goofed.

I don't know, but after the first few, he/she/it became exceedingly efficient at it.


Not really. Life forms are still quite inefficient at many things, not to mention the waste-disposal channel through the recreational area problem.
 
ProfessorOhki
2012-12-21 06:05:12 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: ProfessorOhki:
Which makes you wonder how many times the designer reset the universe because he goofed.

I don't know, but after the first few, he/she/it became exceedingly efficient at it.

Not really. Life forms are still quite inefficient at many things, not to mention the waste-disposal channel through the recreational area problem.


Oh c'mon, that one wasn't even remotely obscure.
htmlgiant.comView Full Size


/hot
 
Keizer_Ghidorah
2012-12-21 06:10:01 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Keizer_Ghidorah: ProfessorOhki:
Which makes you wonder how many times the designer reset the universe because he goofed.

I don't know, but after the first few, he/she/it became exceedingly efficient at it.

Not really. Life forms are still quite inefficient at many things, not to mention the waste-disposal channel through the recreational area problem.

Oh c'mon, that one wasn't even remotely obscure.
[htmlgiant.com image 615x345]

/hot


Never saw The Matrix.
 
Ishkur
2012-12-21 06:39:12 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, I'd have enough foresight to make life forms that can adapt very quickly, and to not run the waste-disposal channel through a recreational area.


It's a perfectly fine model of efficiency that eliminates redundancy. Why have three orifices when the same tasks can be accomplished with two?
 
ProfessorOhki
2012-12-21 06:58:17 PM  

Ishkur: Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, I'd have enough foresight to make life forms that can adapt very quickly, and to not run the waste-disposal channel through a recreational area.

It's a perfectly fine model of efficiency that eliminates redundancy. Why have three orifices when the same tasks can be accomplished with two?


Platypuses only have the one orifice and, as we all know, are the most convincing proof of ID. Well, more of "crap, I only have enough parts for one more critter and they don't line up," design really.
 
Ishkur
2012-12-21 07:24:45 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Platypuses only have the one orifice and, as we all know, are the most convincing proof of ID. Well, more of "crap, I only have enough parts for one more critter and they don't line up," design really.


The Platypus is God saying "I'm putting tobasco sauce, cayenne, nutmeg, oregano, basil, paprika and garlic salt in my chocolate mousse and you can't stop me!"
 
jso2897 [TotalFark]
2012-12-21 07:48:54 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?

Hurr durr herr derr hurr herr der.

/There is it. You speak derp, right?

No I don't. I assume you gave me your reason in derp, but I must respectfully ask you to supply it in English.

Climatology is science, intelligent design is the opposite of science.

Give me one reason to believe climatology is a science.


If you understood what science was, you would understand that no one can give you any reason to "believe" that something is or isn't science, and that science doesn't care if you "believe" it or not.
 
way south
2012-12-21 08:45:43 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Never saw The Matrix.


It was a great movie.
Too bad they never made any sequels.
 
Incorrigible Astronaut
2012-12-22 09:34:24 AM  

way south: Keizer_Ghidorah: Never saw The Matrix.

It was a great movie.
Too bad they never made any sequels.


I would've been happy if they took that scene (and a few Monica Bellucci cleavage shots) and somehow shoehorned it into the original.
 
Displayed 17 of 67 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More funny for your money.

learn more | sign up

Report
On Twitter

Report
Top Commented
Top Commented ▼
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

  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