Jump to content

Txviper Posts On My Blog


Mr. Neil
 Share

Recommended Posts

OH!!!!! Now I'm pissed the fuck off! I wrote a rather lengthy diatribe about why I get pissed off when theists tell me that loved ones have passed on "to a better place". I thought I made a pretty good point about how belief in the afterlife requires a forfeiture of reason and an embrace of faith. Naturally, I get a couple people who didn't get it, and that's okay.

 

Then guess who fucking posts a reply! That's right: TX FUCKING VIPER! Remember him? He's the fucking troll who basically argued by making shit up! To my utter amazement, he's learned absolutely nothing since the last time I exchanged words with him. That has to be well over a year ago. I cannot believe how fucking stupid this guy still is. It's as if he's stupid on purpose.

 

My driving point was that there's no reason to treat the human mind as if it's any different than any other physical object, which is why I believe that when the brain function is gone, so are we. To believe that we go somewhere requires something extra beyond what we observe in our universe.

 

Leave it to TXViper to take a huge dump on my post by completely missing the point...

 

You have to believe that this happened as a result of billions of random DNA replication errors. This is magnificent faith.

FUCK! ME! RUNNING! What the fuck does my post about the human brain have to do with evolution?! And a strawman of evolution at that! I can't believe that he's still arguing the same shit that I tore apart over a year ago!

 

What the fuck is the matter with creationists that they don't understand that they can't simply take all of the theories that they don't like and lump them under a single banner?! If the creationists want to compile a list of scientific theories that they don't like, then that's fine, but I'm sick and tired of them attempting to label them with the misnomer of "evolutionism". They should just come out and admit what we've known all along. The real enemy of creationism is the body of science. Period.

 

I know, I'm getting all excited over a stupid fucking idiot who is incapable of learning things that have been spelled out for him by me and people more knowledgeable than me.

 

But when I get my chain yanked, I have to let my rage fly. And you can see that rage in full effect rightchere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the fuck is the matter with creationists that they don't understand that they can't simply take all of the theories that they don't like and lump them under a single banner?!

 

<fundie mode>

 

Butbutbutbutbut that's soooo easy, calling it all evilution! That way it sounds like I actually have an argument, it doesn't work at all if I have to differentiate!!!111!!!!

 

Yes it's braindead... but honestly Neil, you should know that already, don't you? :banghead:;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I know all about it. Someone once compared arguing with creationists to pointing at something to a cat. If you point at the cat's water dish, the cat just looks at your finger. It doesn't understand what the finger is for. The cat's reaction is simply, "Hey, there's a finger".

 

Similarly, creationists simply react to anything remotely scientific that doesn't jibe with Christianity. It doesn't matter how well you explain things to people like viper. They just see it as, "Hey, there's something that doesn't fit the Christian paradigm; it must be evolution".

 

And more than anything else, I'm sick of them trying to bring science down to their level, as if accepting a hypothetical is the same as believing in something based on parables. Because something is a theory, they take it as meaning "unproven", and then take it a step further as if it is belief without reason. In a few short but misguided sentences, they attempt to confiscate credibility from science.

 

Sometimes, I can talk a creationist down from his high horse, but I figured out a long time ago that txviper is a disingenuous snot who will attempt to redefine everything just so he can win an argument. I'm finding more an more that the best way to argue against ANY form of theism is not simply not let them redefine ANYTHING from your point-of-view, because they will invariably get it wrong every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know Neil..part of the problem is explaining the definition of the word "theory" to someone without a real interest or ability in science. Not that its your job to do so.

 

My daughter and I had a discussion on this the other day. I was watching a program called "Brilliant Minds" and she came in, glanced at it and then asked if she could change the channel. She's never had any interest in Science (which confuses me, how could she NOT?) and the show was about Galilleo, Newton, Einstein and Hawking.

 

I tried to explain some of it to her, talking about the beginnings of our solar system, how the sun ignited and the planets formed from the disk matter (trying to keep it really simple, not that she's "simple minded", and she IS 22).

 

She looked at me and said "You mean, God didn't create it all? Afterall, its all just theory, right?"

 

I was floored..and speechless briefly! I've NEVER taught my children creationism, ever! I must have felt similar to the creationists whose children come home speaking of evolution! :twitch:

 

But, we went on a search for the definition of "theory" as pertains to science..and ended with me explaining that gravity is a theory too..after which I handed her the remote..

 

But, it does get irritating explaining the difference in definition of that one word..from common use to scientific use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, we went on a search for the definition of "theory" as pertains to science..and ended with me explaining that gravity is a theory too..after which I handed her the remote..
Funny that you mention that. People are so clueless as to what a theory is that they commonly confuse that which is theorized with that which is immediately observable. Obviously, you have dolts like Kent Hovind who always go around saying that "we've never seen a dog give birth to a non-dog", and other bullshit like that. The idea being that we should see evolution if it was a real theory.

 

And that's why creationists think that the theory of gravity has more credibility than evolution, because you can see gravity! But this is where they're mistaken, because what they see is the obserived phenomenon around which the actual theory itself is based. The theory of gravity does not simply state that things fall to the ground. The actual theory is that the total force between the bodies is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. If one is to take a theory as the sort of "wild guess" that creationists try to make it out to be, then I would think that the theory of gravity would be an even wilder claim than evolution.

 

I could just imagine the words of Kent Hovind if he was an intelligent falling advocate: "What is this 'force' you're talking about? So big things pull toward each other with invisible forces depending on how massive they are? Can we observe these forces? This is not science!"

 

To even say that it's "just theory" (i.e., speculation) is to miss the point entirely. Theories are more comparable to models, because they exist as a prototype to our ultimate understanding. That's why I always say that creationists have contempt for the very process by which we learn things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we do see evolution.

 

Viruses mutate. Why are people so afraid of the bird flu mutating, if there is no evolution? Why do they give out different normal flu shots every year? Because it mutates.

 

Not to mention, they've found the sea creature...I think it was a dolphin...with legs. And there was recently a duck born with 4 legs due to a genetic mutation. And don't forget the island with all the "dwarves" that they found the other year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's why creationists think that the theory of gravity has more credibility than evolution, because you can see gravity! But this is where they're mistaken, because what they see is the obserived phenomenon around which the actual theory itself is based. The theory of gravity does not simply state that things fall to the ground. The actual theory is that the total force between the bodies is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. If one is to take a theory as the sort of "wild guess" that creationists try to make it out to be, then I would think that the theory of gravity would be an even wilder claim than evolution.
Gahhh! I have been trying to articulate this thought forever. This is exactly why the anti-evolution argument is faulty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.