Evolution or Creation: The Great "Debate" (2817 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.84 on 171 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by The Descent of TTOM (View user info) at 2007-02-22 12:39:19 EST
User Reviews
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-09-29 23:35:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
TToM for President in '08
Submitted by Falafel (user info) at 2008-09-29 23:14:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
.....<UNNNNGGGGHHH!!>
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2008-09-28 13:15:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is shadow, and I approve of this message.
Submitted by Natures_Biggest_Mistake (user info) at 2007-09-12 10:28:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Excellent. What gets me is Christian activist think the dinosaurs were made up, we have museums etc to prove thier existance.
God, is a pile of toss. In my opinion, the bible was the first ever 'story' written. Due to the fact that it was a 'best seller' people through ages added to it rather than write new stories, thus spreading the word of Jesus Chrysler throughout the world. Perhaps jesus is real, but he was no magician. Just the first person in this world that has documentation of him caring more about others than himself.
Submitted by zwerg (user info) at 2007-09-12 10:05:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by ChaosJester (user info) at 2007-09-12 07:43:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ah...
So much entertainment, so little time.
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2007-09-11 14:10:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
this made me laugh again today.
Submitted by odin (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:22:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Huber_the_Nose (user info) at 2007-02-28 09:20:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Bravo. Excellent. Well done.
And to all the morons saying that microevolution is proven and macro isn't....educate yourselves. They are the same fucking thing. It is the equivalent to saying seconds are proven and hours aren't. That is how stupid you are.
You don't have to directly observe something happening to know that it does happen. Nobody has sat and watched a mountain form, that doesn't mean plate tectonics is unproven.
Every finding in every field of science that has anything to do with evolution, corresponds with evolution as we know it.
And for dumbshits who think evolution is "just a theory". No, it isn't. THAT it happened (and happens), is a fact. The theory of evolution explains HOW it happened. If you wan't to come up with your own damn alternative theory, great, go ahead. But you still have to explain how evolution happened.
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2007-02-26 03:01:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Science all the way.
Evolution rocks.
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2007-02-25 16:25:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
So many laughs. Well done...
While we're sort of on the subject, LOOK!
James Cameron found Jesus! Literally!
http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/02/jesus_tales_from_the_crypt.html
Submitted by hot_pocket (user info) at 2007-02-25 14:12:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Ms. Garrison: Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you!
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-25 13:42:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FatTony (user info) at 2007-02-25 00:10:12 (#)
Ranking: -2
Darwin is in Hell right now, screaming for Jesus to save him.
---------------
Fuck off you fat donkey-toucher
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2007-02-25 11:51:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Every single individual who gave this a -2 (not by accident) is a primate fuck who needs to go slinking back to their cave.
How the hell these retard children manage to survive every day is baffling to me...
Submitted by FatTony (user info) at 2007-02-25 00:10:12 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Darwin is in Hell right now, screaming for Jesus to save him.
Submitted by calbearspolo (user info) at 2007-02-24 18:09:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I always appreciate good humor, especially when it comes to god. =)
Submitted by ilikesteak (user info) at 2007-02-24 17:22:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Huzzah!
Submitted by orph (user info) at 2007-02-24 17:17:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This was fucking ace.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-24 17:13:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HadNadin (user info) at 2007-02-24 16:36:18 (#)
Ranking: -2
God help you for your blasphemy. --Angry--
--------
Get a grip
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-02-24 17:01:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I mean this is a non-homosexual way...
I want to fuck you.
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2007-02-24 16:45:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by HadNadin (user info) at 2007-02-24 16:36:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
God help you for your blasphemy. --Angry--
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-24 16:18:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Fair dos, lets fly in amongst the cunt wi the claw end of a hemmer!
Submitted by Black-Affronted (user info) at 2007-02-24 16:02:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Well well!!! Taking on the big man himself? Your a brave man TTOM. If you need back up, ill jump on his back after you throw dirt in his eyes then we can both shoe the living fuck out of him when he hits the deck screaming like a wee nancy!!!
U game?
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-02-24 04:12:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't get this debate. Everyone knows Shigeryu Miyamoto created Hyrule and Mushroom Kingdom.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-02-23 20:02:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You fucking rock.
No one cranks out such consistently entertaining nuggets of goodness on this site.
You = da man.
Would you consider making this into some kinda multi media flash presentation? Use this as a storyboard and make a cool kick ass segment? Either record the voice - or video tape the rant. The content is golden.
I'd be in for trying something like that out if you are keen.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2007-02-23 11:44:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-02-23 11:39:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 19:02:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-02-22 18:55:01 (#)
Ranking: 2
BTW, TTOM have you read Alfred W. Crosby? Not exactly evolution, but similar I guess.
-------------
No I havent but having read a little about him now I may well do so, seems an interesting subject.
==========
"Ecological Imperialism" and "Children of the Sun" are probably the best
Submitted by Life101 (user info) at 2007-02-23 11:11:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2007-02-23 11:03:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2007-02-23 10:59:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I've seen another version of the Eye Evolution thing, very interesting and a great point to throw in the face of God People. Great post.
Submitted by mynameisandy (user info) at 2007-02-23 10:20:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Nice.
Submitted by Maddog (user info) at 2007-02-23 10:12:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Three words: Flying Spaghetti Monster.
(It's sacrilicious!)
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-02-23 09:30:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Give unto God what is God's.
Give unto Darwin what is Darwin's.
Submitted by spyder882001 (user info) at 2007-02-23 09:14:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Wat if we are in gods shoe box under his bed and he is really a 15 year old kid and we were his failed science experiment. thats why he doesnt talk to us any more.
Submitted by Nellypaal (user info) at 2007-02-23 08:50:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Heh, brilliant. And I'm meant to be a Catholic.
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-02-23 07:49:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I love you TTOM. Gay or non-gay, your choice.
Submitted by Fey (user info) at 2007-02-23 03:25:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think I may have a crush on you.
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2007-02-23 03:04:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
acutlaly i enouyed this post erliar today, i just odnt agree with your point of view.
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2007-02-23 03:03:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I AM GOD I WIL SIMITE YOUR MOTHERUNKER. DONT TALK SHIT ABOUT BABY JEVOS.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2007-02-23 00:16:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by jfreakman (user info) at 2007-02-22 23:52:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
random curse.
Submitted by jfreakman (user info) at 2007-02-22 23:52:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
dammit.
Submitted by jfreakman (user info) at 2007-02-22 23:51:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
piss.
Submitted by jfreakman (user info) at 2007-02-22 23:51:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
FUCK I'M A RETARD PROVING YOUR POINT!
DAMMIT I HATE MYSELF.
Submitted by jfreakman (user info) at 2007-02-22 23:43:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
well....
you're wrong.
I don't have time or energy to explain why, but you are just plain wrong, about everything.
besides, what would be the point? neither one of us would ever get the point.
I usually don't do this, but most of your stuff is really pretty good.
+2 for ttom. not the post.
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2007-02-22 23:30:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Fucking awesome. I'm perpetually suprised at how seriously Americans take Christianity.
God Bless the South, I guess.
Submitted by eric_the_bread (user info) at 2007-02-22 23:13:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This arguement, however true, is apparently audible death poison to the faithful, because whenever I use it, they cover their ears and go "blah blah blah I cant hear you!"
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2007-02-22 22:56:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Bohme (user info) at 2007-02-22 22:29:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I prefer the ol' blood sacrifice to alters to cleanse my sins.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-02-22 21:54:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Hey Thorpe, what is Armageddon again?"
"I thought you were Christian."
"No we're Catholic."
"It's in the Bible dude, Revelations. It's the final battle between good and evil, the end of the world."
"I don't think I believe in all that. Hey dad, do we believe in the book of Revelations?"
"Yes, of course."
"Oh. OK, I do."
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-02-22 21:37:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2007-02-22 20:33:24 (#)
Ranking: 2
So many reasons this deserves more than a mere +2.
I'm a Yank (Scottish heritage though)...
=======
Holy fuck that makes me happy.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2007-02-22 20:33:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
So many reasons this deserves more than a mere +2.
I'm a Yank (Scottish heritage though) and I say "wee beasties" all the time.
As in, passing by a group of small children, I elbow my companion, point, and say;
"Lookit all the wee beasties there. RUN!"
Am I being a pretentious poseur?
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2007-02-22 20:11:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by ih8u2man (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:03:59 (#)
Ranking: 2
TTOM - "Raising the bar since 2003-09-15 06:58:21"
--------------------
i'll allow religion into the science classroom.
as soon as we can hold religion to the same standards of logic, reason, and proof to which we hold the other sciences.
Submitted by Progr3ss (user info) at 2007-02-22 20:00:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Great stuff
(please don't smite me oh mighty smoter)
Submitted by HurtByTheSun (user info) at 2007-02-22 19:22:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I used to go to church a lot and they told me how all the shit you talked about in this post was wrong and stuff.
Thanks for bringing back confused memories dude.
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2007-02-22 19:15:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
you're some kinda genius
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 19:02:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-02-22 18:55:01 (#)
Ranking: 2
BTW, TTOM have you read Alfred W. Crosby? Not exactly evolution, but similar I guess.
-------------
No I havent but having read a little about him now I may well do so, seems an interesting subject.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-02-22 18:55:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:35:24 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:26:32 (#)
Ranking: 2
I love how "creationists" always fall back on saying that evolution is a theory, and therefore has yet to be proven true. They get real pissed/confused when you explain to them that electricity is also theoretical, yet seems to work just fine.
+2 because Darwin was such a nice guy to Wallace
**********************
Here, wrap your fingers around the terminals in my clothes dryer while I plug it in.
You were just knocked on your ass by a theory. Electricity can be shown to exist and
act in predictable ways. It is no longer a theory, unless you listen to professors
who have never been outside a classroom.
================
I guess looking up the definition of "theory" is too hard for you huh?
BTW, TTOM have you read Alfred W. Crosby? Not exactly evolution, but similar I guess.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2007-02-22 18:38:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think I'd have to take Edison's side on this one and say we don't know shit. Or, "We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything. "
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-02-22 18:32:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Dawkins kicks major amounts of ass.
Daniel Dennett too, but hes more evolution of the mind.
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2007-02-22 18:29:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:21:23 (#)
Ranking: 2
The God Delusion was awesome as was the Blind Watchmaker too.
-------------
It sure was.
DAMN this post was good too.
*stands*
*applauds*
*more applause*
*sits down, a little embarrassed*
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 18:18:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Intelligent Falling!
AHAHHAHAHAHHAHHA!
Oh man, I wish I was as funny as those guys.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-02-22 18:14:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:48:57 (#)
Ranking: 2
The only problem with creationism is how Noah got all the animals together at the Arc so he could load them at the same time.
I know a lot of people like to throw out flying dinosaurs as a possible answer, but come on that is just silly.
**************
Yes, the dinosaur THEORY (hypothesis) is indeed silly. Everyone who's anyone knows Noah ate bunches of figs and, when he needed the animals, he farted "Come On Down To My Boat, Baby."
Sheesh!
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-02-22 18:11:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-02-22 16:14:07 (#)
I started the venom?
"Debate", in quotes, in the title, suggesting that there is no debate. Let alone the sarcasm in the post. And don't give me that "it's a humor post, not a scientific paper". Of course it is, but the use of humor & sarcasm, like on The Daily Show, is used to purposefully suggest what someone thinks the truth actually is.
-=-=-
Of the reviews on the post, yours was the first to take a nasty tone. Additionally, it lacked any pretense at humor, sarcasm, or wit, unlike the post itself.
-=-=-=-
And I still wasn't proved wrong, let alone "easily".
You inserted a definition for how I used 'macroevolution', and then proved that wrong.
I never agreed to your definition.
-=-=-=-
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were using the English language to discuss biology. I didn't realize that you, like Humpty Dumpty, can use words to mean whatever you want them to.
-=-=-=-
I just read up on the London mosquitoes that you cited. And as an example, just as I said before, it's filled with interpretation. For instance, from the article, "When Byrne crossbred the two varieties, none produced viable eggs--suggesting that C. molestus is reproductively isolated, the traditional signature of a new species. "1
The keywords: *suggesting*, and *traditional signature*. And even still, all that is proven is that some mosquitoes adapted to the conditions of the London Underground. So they are a new species of mosquito? Okay. So they are still mosquitoes, though? Riiight. That's what I call microevolution. I.e, adaptation. I.e, a mosquito changing into a different type of mosquito, not a mosquito changing into *something else*.
-=-=-=-
Like what, for example? A sasquatch? The Loch Ness Monster? A species is a species. You don't get to make up your own definition of species. Macroevolution is the evolutionary transition of one type of organism to the other occuring at the species and higher level.
Note: making up your own definitions for words is not the same as providing alternative viewpoints for discussion.
It's pretty obvious that you either can't provide any evidence for an alternative theory, or you can't be bothered. So, either you don't really care and you're just stirring up shit, or you're just going to try to process any arguments that don't fit your worldview.
I think I'm going to leave the Onion with the last word on this one.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:52:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
A hat maker, a centipede, and a frog dressed as a traffic warden, WILL be celebrating toooOOOOOoooooo...
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:48:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The only problem with creationism is how Noah got all the animals together at the Arc so he could load them at the same time.
I know a lot of people like to throw out flying dinosaurs as a possible answer, but come on that is just silly.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:45:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Many still refer to the "electron theory," but we all know that is bullshit. There are no electrons in those wires, only very tiny alligators. One bites the one in front of him on the ass, and he in turn bites the one in front of him. When the last one in line jumps out and bites you, you say you were shocked.
-Alligator Theory of Current Flow-
1979
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:39:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"That's 1 500 000 000 years. THAT IS A FUCKING LONG TIME."
****
Understatement of the year...
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:38:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:35:24 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:26:32 (#)
Ranking: 2
I love how "creationists" always fall back on saying that evolution is a theory, and therefore has yet to be proven true. They get real pissed/confused when you explain to them that electricity is also theoretical, yet seems to work just fine.
+2 because Darwin was such a nice guy to Wallace
**********************
Here, wrap your fingers around the terminals in my clothes dryer while I plug it in.
You were just knocked on your ass by a theory. Electricity can be shown to exist and
act in predictable ways. It is no longer a theory, unless you listen to professors
who have never been outside a classroom.
-------------
A scientific Theory and the normal use of the word theory are two different things.
In science an unproven idea is called a Hypothesis which can then be proven or disproven wheras a Theory is accepted fact that can be added to or changed but for the most part is true.
Submitted by BananaPhone (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:37:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I am fucking sick and tired of hearing the argument that you never see one species turn into another, like how did monkeys evolve into people and why aren't they still doing it.
Nothing wakes up the next day to find itself a different species. Monkeys don't give birth to people.
You get a slightly different monkey, maybe one that can stand up a bit easier. Then a slightly less hairier monkey. Then one with a shorter tail. Then one with slightly larger brain capacity.
This shit takes MILLIONS OF YEARS. You and every human being fails to understand just how long this is.
The Earth is around 4 and a half billion years old. Fossils have been found dating back about one and a half billion (apologies if numbers are a bit sketchy, but you get the idea) years.
That's 1 500 000 000 years. THAT IS A FUCKING LONG TIME. Think of the most utterly random thing that might be physically possible to happen. In 1.5 billion years, it'll probably happen twice.
That's plenty of time for single-celled organisms to become a whole barrelfull of wee beasties.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:35:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:26:32 (#)
Ranking: 2
I love how "creationists" always fall back on saying that evolution is a theory, and therefore has yet to be proven true. They get real pissed/confused when you explain to them that electricity is also theoretical, yet seems to work just fine.
+2 because Darwin was such a nice guy to Wallace
**********************
Here, wrap your fingers around the terminals in my clothes dryer while I plug it in.
You were just knocked on your ass by a theory. Electricity can be shown to exist and
act in predictable ways. It is no longer a theory, unless you listen to professors
who have never been outside a classroom.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:35:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ah, but what about that little phyllum with the outboard motor, huh? ITS IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX, ISNT IT!
HA!
I.D. 1 ... TTOM 0
oh, wait, some dude went and found a more primitive version of it, thereby shoving that defeatist non-argument right up that failed scientists arse.
i did a unit on this very topic last semester. sure it had absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with my course, and dragged me away from the world saving vagaries of russian formalism and modernist queer(literally) poetry, but it was one of, if not the, most interesting unit i took. i dont know if you read the last post i got on baw, if you havent, check it out, its about this very topic. you might enjoy it.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:26:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I love how "creationists" always fall back on saying that evolution is a theory, and therefore has yet to be proven true. They get real pissed/confused when you explain to them that electricity is also theoretical, yet seems to work just fine.
+2 because Darwin was such a nice guy to Wallace
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:24:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:13:52 (#)
Ranking: 2
well said, now explain the humming bird. (for real, creationists always bring this up in arguments and I just stand there like a retard going ' well you see i..it..you..the....*sound of feet running in other direction*)
------------
Havent heard them use this arguement before but I looked it up and it appears their arguement is that theyre too specialised and unique to have evolved.
So what, there are lots of specialised beasts in the world.
Parasitic worms that burrow into peoples eyes are fucking specialised but you never hear creationists talking about them, do you?
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:13:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 16:37:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-02-22 16:15:36 (#)
Ranking: 2
I thought the whole eye thing was because all the components needed to be there at the exact same time in order for the eye to work, evolution doesn't allow for this, apparantly.
----------------
That pretty much true but the thing is this:
Light receptor cell. Add an extra bit to get better cell, add another bit, another bit, another bit, another bit each time the organ gets better at what it does until you get an eye.
At no point was the eye incomplete, at each stage it was simply a slightly better version of the one before
-----
well said, now explain the humming bird. (for real, creationists always bring this up in arguments and I just stand there like a retard going ' well you see i..it..you..the....*sound of feet running in other direction*)
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:13:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:09:11 (#)
Ranking: -2
Bubba is spot on, once again.
I - A M - D E V A S T A T E D.
"Proclivity for arguing" is pretty accurate, though.
**
And an affinity for bullshit... :D
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:12:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. "
Douglas Adams
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:09:11 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Bubba is spot on, once again.
I - A M - D E V A S T A T E D.
"Proclivity for arguing" is pretty accurate, though.
Submitted by darkspoon (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:06:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 "wee beasties"
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-02-22 17:05:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Science and God are not mutually exclusive. The Bible is allegorical, and Adam is the
Hebrew word for 'man', just as Eve is the Hebrew word for 'woman'.
Would the people of those times have understood a million years? Not likely. When the
six days of creation were listed, why assume each was the length of a modern day?
Remember the audience.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-02-22 16:51:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070222/sc_nm/chimps_hunting_dc;_ylt=AozhNRbkljPVuxe_8ISuv60EtbAF
Pretty fucking cool if you ask me.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-02-22 16:49:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Other interpretations of what those fossils are and why they are there?
Go ahead, Gank, tell me they were put there by Satan to confuse men.
Go ahead.
You appear to have no sense of humor, a spotty and misbegotten education,
and a proclivity for arguing. All of that, while backed up by your glaring
lack of intellect, makes for a great read. Keep it up...
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 16:37:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-02-22 16:15:36 (#)
Ranking: 2
I thought the whole eye thing was because all the components needed to be there at the exact same time in order for the eye to work, evolution doesn't allow for this, apparantly.
----------------
That pretty much true but the thing is this:
Light receptor cell. Add an extra bit to get better cell, add another bit, another bit, another bit, another bit each time the organ gets better at what it does until you get an eye.
At no point was the eye incomplete, at each stage it was simply a slightly better version of the one before.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-02-22 16:35:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I hate those who use that Darwin quotation about the eye as a point towards god when in reality in the very next sentence Darwin explains how, eventhough the eye is an amazingly complex unit for sight, it could have still evolved.
Misquotations are fun!
I love the passage in The God Delusion about a Harvard educated geologist who became a Young Earth supporter and how Dawkins just feels pity that he allowed his mind to be taken over by such a virus when he had such a promising career ahead of him.
PS: Evolution isnt chance, its just a friggin simplification so most people get it. I hate how people will say "oh so it was chance that we became human?" NO! Its not chance, its evolution in its more pure sense, which is the polar opposite of just random chance.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 16:31:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-02-22 16:14:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
Coyote,
I started the venom?
"Debate", in quotes, in the title, suggesting that there is no debate.
------------------
Actually debate is in quotation marks in the title because I was suggesting that the "debate" that rages around the issue is not so much a debate as an all out blazing row, the philosophical equivelant of "no YOU shut up!"
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-02-22 16:15:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I thought the whole eye thing was because all the components needed to be there at the exact same time in order for the eye to work, evolution doesn't allow for this, apparantly.
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-02-22 16:14:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Coyote,
I started the venom?
"Debate", in quotes, in the title, suggesting that there is no debate. Let alone the sarcasm in the post. And don't give me that "it's a humor post, not a scientific paper". Of course it is, but the use of humor & sarcasm, like on The Daily Show, is used to purposefully suggest what someone thinks the truth actually is.
And I still wasn't proved wrong, let alone "easily".
You inserted a definition for how I used 'macroevolution', and then proved that wrong.
I never agreed to your definition.
I just read up on the London mosquitoes that you cited. And as an example, just as I said before, it's filled with interpretation. For instance, from the article, "When Byrne crossbred the two varieties, none produced viable eggs--suggesting that C. molestus is reproductively isolated, the traditional signature of a new species. "1
The keywords: *suggesting*, and *traditional signature*. And even still, all that is proven is that some mosquitoes adapted to the conditions of the London Underground. So they are a new species of mosquito? Okay. So they are still mosquitoes, though? Riiight. That's what I call microevolution. I.e, adaptation. I.e, a mosquito changing into a different type of mosquito, not a mosquito changing into *something else*.
1 - http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_1_110/ai_70770157
Submitted by messmind (user info) at 2007-02-22 15:50:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Have another for multiple smiles !
Submitted by messmind (user info) at 2007-02-22 15:47:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Damn ttom, with his top quality - hispeed production line !
We suffer his blessings ! :-(
Submitted by SPECIALk (user info) at 2007-02-22 15:41:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CabjQ6ReddE
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-02-22 15:39:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:50:07 (#)
Caul, who said I didn't believe in Evolution? I'm just trying to prove a point.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
By -2ing a humor post (not a science paper), and providing criticism based on one "fact" alone that turned out to be easily proven wrong?
-=-=-=-=-
You guys are dripping with venom at even the mention of a disagreement in this area.
And then accusing me of being bias and mindless. That's funny to me.
-=-=-=-=-
Considering you started the venom with a -2 and a snide comment, this statement is dripping with irony. You may imagine that there's this secret cult of scienticians who rub their hands together, stroke their mustaches, and cackle with glee at the thought of unveling their next sinister attack on outsiders who dare to propose alternate theories, but it just ain't so. Anybody is welcome to the table. But if someone pokes a hole in your pet theory and you decide to take your ball and go home, don't be surprised if you have a hard time finding people who are real inclined to be charitably disposed to you.
Contrary to what you might think, scientists *love* to demolish each other's theories. Paradigms exist to be challenged. Bullshit science doesn't survive, and neither does pseudoscience (see: string theory).
Submitted by whiskey_jack (user info) at 2007-02-22 15:31:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Everyone should watch that movie Jesus Camp, it'll flip your lid.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-22 15:30:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:50:07 (#)
Ranking: -2
Caul, who said I didn't believe in Evolution? I'm just trying to prove a point.
You guys are dripping with venom at even the mention of a disagreement in this area.
And then accusing me of being bias and mindless. That's funny to me.
===
actually, i heard a scientist and creationist on the CBC radio who had a very interesting point of view.
while i don't share his faith, i really enjoyed the interview.
but he actually sounded intelligent, you don't. :-(
Submitted by U927 (user info) at 2007-02-22 15:30:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." - God
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-02-22 15:27:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:45:22 (#)
Coyote,
I may have been going off a different definition, but my sentiment is the same. The references you cited are so trivial in comparison to the larger claim that, e.g., human beings evolved from single-cell organisms.
-=-=-=-=-=-
I wasn't trying to prove human beings evolved from single-cell organisms. You made the claim that macroevolution has never been observed, and I showed that you were wrong. Not only that, I didn't just make the claim, I showed where you could go look it up. Now you're going to move on, without acknowledging you made a completely unsupportable statement. You appeal a lot to the trappings of empiricism and skepticism but when push comes to shove and examples are produced, you don't actually play by the scientific rules.
-=-=-=-=-
Every time I've taken a reference, like the ones you've just given, and read the research myself, I invariably see a whole lot of interpretation. Next you'll tell me to ponder "The Panda's Thumb". Well, I have.
-=-=-=-=-
Fine, come up with an alternate interpretation, or link to someone else's. One that makes testable predictions. Albert Einstein applied "a whole lot of interpretation" to empirical data on the electrodynamics of moving bodies, and relativity theory has survived all subsequent tests. Do me a favor and try to name a scientific model that accounts for biological/zoological/botanical observations as well as evolution does, and has passed as many tests, and is as consistent with physics and chemistry.
-=-=-=-=-
RE: "...not to the larger number of transitional forms that are observed as fossils in sequentially layered strata."
See, this is what I mean. Since there is no way to observe the evolution of transitional forms, you must rely on fossils in sequentially layered strata. And that is circumstantial. You're seeing an experiment that already took place, and adding an interpretation to it. There are other interpretations on what those fossils are and why they're there.
-=-=-=-=-
Well, you mean, besides the observation of different subgroups of species evolving into new species that I already cited? Those are present-day transitional forms. Observed. Circumstantial isn't the word you're looking for, the word you're looking for is "inference by inductive reasoning". Again, alternative interpretations are awesome, especially if they fit with what we know about the world and make testable predictions.
Submitted by experima (user info) at 2007-02-22 15:21:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
fucking fantastic. pure scientific genius, that's what you are.
plus hilarious.
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-02-22 15:20:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The problem is, gank, that you seem not to be ruling out creationism, but you have made no mention of Shiva destroying the universe every 4 320 000 years, and then Brahma dreaming the universe back into existence, and the tears of Prajapati giving everything physical form. Clearly this is not without some proof.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-02-22 15:19:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 anyhow for stimulating intelligent conversation...something that has "de-evolved" on Uber in recent months. Good to see some of it returning.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-02-22 15:18:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:28:35 (#)
Ranking: 2
On one hand, I know what you mean. I've always wondered why Christians claim god is omnipotent and omniscient and all that but seem always to confine him to the knowledge and powers a human being can understand. I do not take evolution as evidence against a 'maker' but I do take it as evidence that the Christian God, and all the other identified dieties, are not real. On the other hand, I'd be very interested if you could point me to a bit of your evidence regarding a higher creator, because I have yet to see an ounce of anything like that.
----------------------------
Check out "The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. It's a hefty read with a lot of scientific and theological lingo, but well worth it.
Submitted by TheScaryGuy11 (user info) at 2007-02-22 15:16:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:56:02 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:42:23 (#)
Ranking: 2
I can't believe anyone takes Creationism seriously.
______
Well, I certainly don't dismiss it outright, like you guys do, without treating both sides of the issue fairly, like you guys don't.
Here's why I don't dismiss it outright: Let's say the Earth was created. Not at a certain date 6000 years ago, for fuck's sake, but created at some point in the past. Merely the fact that it began to exist, fully formed, with full grown trees and full grown animals, MEANS that when it was created it already looked like it had been there for a long time.
It looked older than it was. So, both sides of the debate are getting some things right, and both are getting some things wrong.
_____
And the big bang didn't happen 14 billion years ago either. *commences eye rolling*
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:59:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
beautiful work
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:56:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:42:23 (#)
Ranking: 2
I can't believe anyone takes Creationism seriously.
______
Well, I certainly don't dismiss it outright, like you guys do, without treating both sides of the issue fairly, like you guys don't.
Here's why I don't dismiss it outright: Let's say the Earth was created. Not at a certain date 6000 years ago, for fuck's sake, but created at some point in the past. Merely the fact that it began to exist, fully formed, with full grown trees and full grown animals, MEANS that when it was created it already looked like it had been there for a long time.
It looked older than it was. So, both sides of the debate are getting some things right, and both are getting some things wrong.
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:50:07 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Caul, who said I didn't believe in Evolution? I'm just trying to prove a point.
You guys are dripping with venom at even the mention of a disagreement in this area.
And then accusing me of being bias and mindless. That's funny to me.
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:48:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:31:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:28:35 (#)
Ranking: 2
On one hand, I know what you mean. I've always wondered why Christians claim god is omnipotent and omniscient and all that but seem always to confine him to the knowledge and powers a human being can understand. I do not take evolution as evidence against a 'maker' but I do take it as evidence that the Christian God, and all the other identified dieties, are not real. On the other hand, I'd be very interested if you could point me to a bit of your evidence regarding a higher creator, because I have yet to see an ounce of anything like that.
---------------------
I'd be quite happy to have a God that started the whole thing off but now that its up and running doesn't interfere.
Since that would essentially mean that God is a Scientist and the irony of scientists actually being closer to God than zealots would make me a happy camper in the after-life.
---
Hah! Now thats a little slice of irony I wouldnt mind tasting myself.
Yeah, I just love it when they run around telling each other about how 'God works in mysterious ways', and then they read Genesis and they assume that that's exactly how it went down.
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:45:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Coyote,
I may have been going off a different definition, but my sentiment is the same. The references you cited are so trivial in comparison to the larger claim that, e.g., human beings evolved from single-cell organisms. And "Just Add Lots of Time" isn't sufficient for me to agree. At least, not 7 days out of 7. 3-4 days out of 7 and I can agree. I'm fickle like that.
Every time I've taken a reference, like the ones you've just given, and read the research myself, I invariably see a whole lot of interpretation. Next you'll tell me to ponder "The Panda's Thumb". Well, I have.
RE: "...not to the larger number of transitional forms that are observed as fossils in sequentially layered strata."
See, this is what I mean. Since there is no way to observe the evolution of transitional forms, you must rely on fossils in sequentially layered strata. And that is circumstantial. You're seeing an experiment that already took place, and adding an interpretation to it. There are other interpretations on what those fossils are and why they're there.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:42:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I can't believe anyone takes Creationism seriously.
Submitted by ghola (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:41:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:35:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:50:25 (#)
Ranking: -2
All you can do is gather circumstantial evidence that points to an overall consistent story on how you think we got here.
===
most scientific creationists agree with the evolution theory, as they agree that the earth orbits around the sun and not the other way around.
you're shunned even by those, with a brain, who believe in God.
stfu.
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:33:10 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:13:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Circumstantial evidence?
Dont be so dense, theres more than enough evidence to point to one species evolving from another.
Ever heard of the Galapigos?
---------------------
Again, I'd say there's more than enough consistent interpretation of evidence to point to one species evolving from another. But that doesn't make it a scientific fact.
--------------
Ever heard of "comedy" you humourless prick?
--------------
Nope, never heard of it. Just like I've never heard of Galapigos.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:31:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:28:35 (#)
Ranking: 2
On one hand, I know what you mean. I've always wondered why Christians claim god is omnipotent and omniscient and all that but seem always to confine him to the knowledge and powers a human being can understand. I do not take evolution as evidence against a 'maker' but I do take it as evidence that the Christian God, and all the other identified dieties, are not real. On the other hand, I'd be very interested if you could point me to a bit of your evidence regarding a higher creator, because I have yet to see an ounce of anything like that.
---------------------
I'd be quite happy to have a God that started the whole thing off but now that its up and running doesn't interfere.
Since that would essentially mean that God is a Scientist and the irony of scientists actually being closer to God than zealots would make me a happy camper in the after-life.
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:28:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:53:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:36:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
If anything my staredown with the reaper only made me more certain that evolution is a fact.
I'm a good guy, I havent killed any babies or raped any babies or set fire to a convent using a flaming baby and yet here I was the the C.
What kind of bastard god would do that to a person?
------------------
One cannot know what is "good" without experiencing the polar opposite, "bad." That is precisely why God allows such things to happen...without fear, how would we define or appreciate joy? Without pain, how would we define or appreciate health?
For the record, I firmly believe that God created the process of evolution. There is far too much evidence pointing to the exist of both a higher creator AND evolution to deny either.
---
On one hand, I know what you mean. I've always wondered why Christians claim god is omnipotent and omniscient and all that but seem always to confine him to the knowledge and powers a human being can understand. I do not take evolution as evidence against a 'maker' but I do take it as evidence that the Christian God, and all the other identified dieties, are not real. On the other hand, I'd be very interested if you could point me to a bit of your evidence regarding a higher creator, because I have yet to see an ounce of anything like that.
Submitted by DrogoRoch (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:24:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I understand; it's *sniff* because *whimper* you Ignore me.
*goes and looks up Emo in the dictionary to find out how to spell my own name*
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:22:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:20:57 (#)
Ranking: 2
By the way, I forgot to attribute the quotes in my last review. They were taken from the talk.origins archive at talkorigins.org
-------------
Nice one coyote
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:21:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DrogoRoch (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:19:31 (#)
Ranking: 2
Crap chap. I didn't realise you had beaten the big 'C'.
I apologise for my flipant remark below; it was not designed to cause offence.
--------------
I had to read back to even see what the deal was. I didnt even notice, its not a problem, its not something Im sensitive aboot.
It was just a thing that happened to me, no more, no less.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:20:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
By the way, I forgot to attribute the quotes in my last review. They were taken from the talk.origins archive at talkorigins.org
Submitted by DrogoRoch (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:19:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Crap chap. I didn't realise you had beaten the big 'C'.
I apologise for my flipant remark below; it was not designed to cause offence.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:18:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:50:25 (#)
Ranking: -2
Fudge it a bit?
Macro-evolution is not testable. It is impossible to conduct an experiment that proves the sequential evolution of one species into another.
See how that works?
-=-=-=-=-=-
gank, you've been misled.
Macroevolution refers to speciation. Speciation has been observed.
* A new species of mosquito, the molestus form isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).
* Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).
A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venerial tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).
* Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).
And that just refers to examples that have been observed in present times, not to the larger number of transitional forms that are observed as fossils in sequentially layered strata.
Facts. See how that works?
Submitted by Dolson (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:15:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This needs to be added to the school curriculum.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:13:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:50:25 (#)
Ranking: -2
Fudge it a bit?
Macro-evolution is not testable. It is impossible to conduct an experiment that proves the sequential evolution of one species into another.
See how that works?
All you can do is gather circumstantial evidence that points to an overall consistent story on how you think we got here.
---------------------
Circumstantial evidence?
Dont be so dense, theres more than enough evidence to point to one species evolving from another.
Ever heard of the Galapigos?
---------------------
Micro-evolution is testable, or at least observable.
The plain fact that your formula contains such UNSCIENTIFIC terms as "Shitloads of Time" and "Chance" should at least allow you see that you're taking a bit of your belief on faith as well.
--------------
Ever heard of "comedy" you humourless prick?
And CT, all that "gave us bad so we could tell whats good" is the philospical equivelant of Buttheads quote "Of everything was cool how would we know what sucked?"
In other words its a fucking crock.
Submitted by Coleslaw_Murphy (user info) at 2007-02-22 14:03:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:21:23 (#)
Ranking: 2
The God Delusion was awesome as was the Blind Watchmaker too.
_______
As was The Everlasting Man (G.K. Chesterton).
Submitted by The_Drake (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:55:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The Drake is not a Creationist.
I approve of this message!
Submitted by Lib (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:55:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Thank you
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:53:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:36:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
If anything my staredown with the reaper only made me more certain that evolution is a fact.
I'm a good guy, I havent killed any babies or raped any babies or set fire to a convent using a flaming baby and yet here I was the the C.
What kind of bastard god would do that to a person?
------------------
One cannot know what is "good" without experiencing the polar opposite, "bad." That is precisely why God allows such things to happen...without fear, how would we define or appreciate joy? Without pain, how would we define or appreciate health?
For the record, I firmly believe that God created the process of evolution. There is far too much evidence pointing to the exist of both a higher creator AND evolution to deny either.
Submitted by DesolateMisanthrope (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:51:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I cannot bring light once it is dark.
Submitted by gank (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:50:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Fudge it a bit?
Macro-evolution is not testable. It is impossible to conduct an experiment that proves the sequential evolution of one species into another.
See how that works?
All you can do is gather circumstantial evidence that points to an overall consistent story on how you think we got here.
Micro-evolution is testable, or at least observable.
The plain fact that your formula contains such UNSCIENTIFIC terms as "Shitloads of Time" and "Chance" should at least allow you see that you're taking a bit of your belief on faith as well.
Submitted by Creepy_guy (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:49:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by tiaprae (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:45:34 (#)
Ranking: 2
Well, if there is a Hell, I'll be there too, we'll go bar hopping or something, it'll be fun
________________________________________
I wonder what bars would be like in hell. I bet the urinals are REALLY close together.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:47:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
heh, wrong rating
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:47:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DesolateMisanthrope (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:42:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
believe what you will, just be prepared for a rinql inquisition.
===
lol, i was raised in that kind of religion/fear climate.
"if you masturbate, god will smite you!"
you're gonna have to try harder than that if you wanna scare me into believing.
Submitted by tiaprae (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:45:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Well, if there is a Hell, I'll be there too, we'll go bar hopping or something, it'll be fun
Submitted by DesolateMisanthrope (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:44:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
final*
Submitted by DesolateMisanthrope (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:42:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt
this is the earth and we are humanity.. you are naive if you dont think someone will manipulate for their own gain.
believe what you will, just be prepared for a rinql inquisition.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:36:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Director (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:34:12 (#)
Ranking: 2
P.S. I admire the fact that you were just recently staring death in the face, and still haven't jumped on the "SORRY I WAS SUCH A JERK I REPENT FORGIVE ME PLEASE GOD!!!" Bandwagon.
Good show you Scottish cockhound.
------------
Cheers duder.
If anything my staredown with the reaper only made me more certain that evolution is a fact.
I'm a good guy, I havent killed any babies or raped any babies or set fire to a convent using a flaming baby and yet here I was the the C.
What kind of bastard god would do that to a person?
Submitted by Director (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:34:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
P.S. I admire the fact that you were just recently staring death in the face, and still haven't jumped on the "SORRY I WAS SUCH A JERK I REPENT FORGIVE ME PLEASE GOD!!!" Bandwagon.
Good show you Scottish cockhound.
Submitted by DirtyHarry (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:27:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
help me with my thrush
Submitted by DudeThatsBOSH (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:27:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
those dudes have AWESOME beards
Submitted by Hookhand (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:25:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Less than three
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:24:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Director (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:23:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I wouldn't worry too much about Hell, TTOM.
If it DOES exist, well...yeah...we're fucked....but at least all the cool people are going to be there.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:21:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DesolateMisanthrope (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:03:19 (#)
Ranking: -1
this theory is also used by the masses in an attempt to rationalize their beligerence. They are only deceiving themselves.
===
and religion has never been used to justify beligerence, right?
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:21:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The God Delusion was awesome as was the Blind Watchmaker too.
Submitted by Director (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:19:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Well. Jesus has a much better lodging than Darwin.
I'd hit it.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:19:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
i love how creationists refer to the evolution theory as 'just a theory'. the evidence is so overwhelming, even scientists who believe in god don't deny it.
i wonder if they would say 'gravity and magnetism are JUST theories'
Submitted by coley (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:16:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Now that I know that the earth is, also, a Scorpio; that explains its willingness to be dominated by other Scorpios such as myself.
Submitted by TheScaryGuy11 (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:15:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DesolateMisanthrope (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:03:19 (#)
Ranking: -1
Dont reference God as "pimp daddy".
the 'theory of evolution' is a contraption that is expressly designed to deflect people from pondering. no man is above judgement and everyone will be judged. this theory is also used by the masses in an attempt to rationalize their beligerence. They are only deceiving themselves.
Well he obviously had at least one "Ho" or else we wouldn't be here would we?
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:15:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:15:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
foolproof?
Submitted by DrogoRoch (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:14:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DesolateMisanthrope (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:03:19 (#)
Ranking: -1
Dont reference God as "pimp daddy".
the 'theory of evolution' is a contraption that is expressly designed to deflect people from pondering. no man is above judgement and everyone will be judged. this theory is also used by the masses in an attempt to rationalize their beligerence. They are only deceiving themselves.
--
Ahh the new Uber twatbag; dropping his pearls of syphalitic wisdom on us all. Proof, if any needed it, that there truly is no god.
*Puts on sun screen, cause skin cancer kills man, and prepares to burn with TTOM in hell (sorry you have to put up with me there)*
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:13:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This has been another TTOM Anti-Shitpost©. Remember, always ask for the TTOM Anti-Shitpost©, with the power to neutralize as many as 10 full-strength shitposts. Keep the e-air in your computer fresher with TTOM!
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:08:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DesolateMisanthrope (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:03:19 (#)
Ranking: -1
Dont reference God as "pimp daddy".
the 'theory of evolution' is a contraption that is expressly designed to deflect people from pondering. no man is above judgement and everyone will be judged. this theory is also used by the masses in an attempt to rationalize their beligerence. They are only deceiving themselves.
--------------
Why the fuck is God alway judging people?
Why cant he just be NICE for once?!
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:08:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I call those guys in the short-sleeve shirts 'Normans'.
Submitted by Snark (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:07:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
B@W
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:07:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Dude...what?"
Submitted by jade_digitalmedia (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:05:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
*pictures ttom in a mad scientist's workshop broiling up his next species of anthropod*
me wonders why these zealots never thought perhaps that god used evolution to create things.
*gets marshmellows and massage oil ready for trip to hell with ttom*
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:04:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"the faithful need only belief"
Actually, by definition, a belief is supposed to have some kind of evidence supporting it. That evidence doens't have to be conclusive, but it should exist. If it doesn't you don't really have a belief, just a groundless thought. http://www.ubersite.com/m/98527
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:04:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Your best post ever.
Submitted by ih8u2man (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:03:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
TTOM - "Raising the bar since 2003-09-15 06:58:21"
Submitted by DesolateMisanthrope (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:03:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Dont reference God as "pimp daddy".
the 'theory of evolution' is a contraption that is expressly designed to deflect people from pondering. no man is above judgement and everyone will be judged. this theory is also used by the masses in an attempt to rationalize their beligerence. They are only deceiving themselves.
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:01:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
By the way, the bad news is: you're going to hell. The good news is: there's no such thing.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-02-22 13:00:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-02-22 12:55:22 (#)
Ranking: 2
"wee beasties"
Hey, let's not forget the legislation introduced in the Georgia and Texas state legislatures stipulating that no one has ever proven that the Earth orbits the Sun or rotates on its axis.
Is this something that the rest of the world has to deal with, or is it a uniquely American thing?
-------------
It was until recently but not long ago we evolved our own group of Jesus-touchers called "Truth in Science" who want to teach Intelligent Design in schools.
They sent out a bunch of packages full of ID shite to schools and got slapped down for it but probably not hard enough so they'll crawl back out of the woodwork again no doubt.
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2007-02-22 12:59:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The earth is a Scorpio?! I'm a Scorpio!! Sweet!!
If that's really the astrology "prediction" for today though, that's strange, since today actually is my mom's birthday.
That proves it, there is no god, but when Jupiter aligns with Mars... watch out baby!
Peace will guide the planets
And love will stear the stars.
Submitted by scum101 (user info) at 2007-02-22 12:59:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
why does everything always have to black or white, this or that. why can't anyone ever just say i don't fucking know? how about this: god created the universe starting with a big bang, and he created it to a certain set of rules which allowed for evolution.
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2007-02-22 12:56:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I believe in cheeses.
Submitted by goferforhire (user info) at 2007-02-22 12:55:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You make this place 3000% more worthwhile
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-02-22 12:55:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"wee beasties"
Hey, let's not forget the legislation introduced in the Georgia and Texas state legislatures stipulating that no one has ever proven that the Earth orbits the Sun or rotates on its axis.
Is this something that the rest of the world has to deal with, or is it a uniquely American thing?
Submitted by maf54 (user info) at 2007-02-22 12:55:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
A barrelful of really complex wee beasties
Submitted by beeltea (user info) at 2007-02-22 12:53:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You are amazing
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-02-22 12:52:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
DAMMIT I WON'T LEARN!!!
YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!!!
Submitted by Hilarity_Ensues (user info) at 2007-02-22 12:50:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
TTOM, you are a wise and handsome man.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2007-02-22 12:46:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Luther (user info) at 2007-02-22 12:41:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
heh heh *snort*