Fweethawt Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 After reading the opening post to this thread by Neil, I came to the realization that he would be quite dangerous if he were a creationist. Then, after reading this quote from Zoe, I made another accurate observation... Eve mocked Adam's lack of nipples. He felt self-conscious. God said "what the hell, give him nipples." and fixed the problem. ... that being, that if she became a creationist, she would fit in well with them also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 gee thanks. I love you too. You are on probation in my harem. BITCH! But... But... I just meant that you did really well in coming up with a completely ridiculous answer to Han's question. That's all. Now do you understand why I said that you would fit right in? Sure you do... Can I get back to gettin' laid now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samurai Tailor Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 You guys are making my point for me. Science “ignores the supernatural because it cannot be proven” yet it embraces evolution and spontaneous generation which are also NOT proven. Again, my point is- It is arrogant to say your unproven is better than mine. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You need to stop bandying about variants of the word "proof." If it even has a place in scientific discourse - a usage that is widely opposed - it means something wholly different from a proof in mathematics or logic. In fact, it can never be established to statistical certainty that this or that event has occurred in the past, or will occur in the future. So, if we toss out your absurd equivocation, we can quite accurately say that there is a considerable discrepancy in the quality and quantity of evidence for the competing origin-of-life/diversity-of-life models, a discrepancy that decidely favors the naturalistic positions. Furthermore, your use of the term "spontaneous generation" betrays either a colossal ignorance of 19th century science, or a penchant for easily dismissed strawmen. Or both, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted July 8, 2005 Author Share Posted July 8, 2005 I somehow missed the fact that he said "spontaneous generation". If I had actually caught that, I would be have put him through the wringer. This is yet another example of how Invictus really has no integrity, because he insists on repeating things that have been long refuted. There is not one person here, nor is there a single reputable scientist, who thinks that life generated spontaneously. After reading the opening post to this thread by Neil, I came to the realization that he would be quite dangerous if he were a creationist. Not to worry. I'm far too intelligent and have absorbed way too much information to be a creationist. I might also add that there's nothing to fear from creationists, as they have no argument that can be considered valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted July 8, 2005 Author Share Posted July 8, 2005 Still the best satirical resource on the topic... http://members.aol.com/darrwin/things.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 awww poor fwee. I just said you are on probation...not that you are out of the harem. Just means I'm watchin you mister. Yeah, but if I'm on probation, that means that I'll be the one doin' the 'watchin''. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Still the best satirical resource on the topic... http://members.aol.com/darrwin/things.htm What makes that site a satire? Isn't it correct? Maybe I didn't read enough of it or somethin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slayer-2004 Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Many scientists are very arrogant. They hide behind the phrase “open-mind” because they don’t know the answer. Please tell me that you are no older then 17 . I would like to feel that there is some hope here . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Many scientists are very arrogant. They hide behind the phrase “open-mind” because they don’t know the answer. You consider it arrogant to admit that you don't know the answer? Should I infer from this that you consider it humility to claim to have knowledge when you obviously don't? "The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatifidontwantausername? Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 May I say that while you are more than welcome to your opinions, invictous, on this website opinions are generaly supposed to be supported by facts. Without having facts as a good foundation for your knowledge you cannot possibly succede in a Rational Life. I even churched that up for you, just so we are crystal clear... kay peaches? lol, I have been wanting to all someone peaches all day. Anywho, When I first heard your argument of, and let me quote, "Many scientists are very arrogant. They hide behind the phrase “open-mind” because they don’t know the answer. They have no idea how life started. Then, with no starting point, they insist they are going in the right direction while they search for their version of the “truth”. When someone tries to give them a possible explanation they have the arrogance to call that someone stupid for not buying into their ideology of “open-mindedness” or whatever the most recent catch phrase is for NOT KNOWING." I figured that you did not know what open minded ness ment. I will now explain for your enjoyment: Being open minded is nothing more than being willing to examine all possible points of view and then make your decision. Being a scientist, at its core, is wanting nothing more than to discover. Often the two need to go hand in hand. --Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sokudo Ningyou Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Come on, guys. Invictus has it right; scientists are bullish bastards because they refuse to conform to the creationists' and their pefect hypocrisy. After all, they have an answer; God created eveything, because the universe needs to start somehow. They just haven't answered the question of who created God, yet. But I'm positive they're on the right track! They've been right so far.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Eve mocked Adam's lack of nipples. He felt self-conscious. God said "what the hell, give him nipples." and fixed the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 I would like to see one, just one, single animal or plant being created out of thin air, just to prove Creationism. And I still want an answer to why men have nipples and milk glands, and have it explained through Creationism. And toes!!!! Why do we have toes? Monkeys and opossums use them to hang from trees. Why do we have these useless appendages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 crazy, You just referred to “an intelligent outside force” in another thread. Now you are trying to argue for natural selection. You can’t have it both ways. You really are retarted aren't you? You claimed he claimed it, I read the post. [insert your favorite ad homs here] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Because you men are supposed to be helping out the women folk with the job of nursing babies, but you all won't conform! Nope. I proves that we have a history of not conforming to this particular chore, and alas, our powers atrophied. Our lack of chivalry is reflected in the evolutionary map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 You need to stop bandying about variants of the word "proof." If it even has a place in scientific discourse - a usage that is widely opposed - it means something wholly different from a proof in mathematics or logic. In fact, it can never be established to statistical certainty that this or that event has occurred in the past, or will occur in the future. So, if we toss out your absurd equivocation, we can quite accurately say that there is a considerable discrepancy in the quality and quantity of evidence for the competing origin-of-life/diversity-of-life models, a discrepancy that decidely favors the naturalistic positions. Furthermore, your use of the term "spontaneous generation" betrays either a colossal ignorance of 19th century science, or a penchant for easily dismissed strawmen. Or both, I suppose. ST, Invictus has problems with the English language and nuance is pretty much lost on him. He will now proceed to claim that "science is useless because it can't "prove" anything. Na na na, na, na, na! You said it yourself. I win, you lose." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 ST, Invictus has problems with the English language and nuance is pretty much lost on him. He will now proceed to claim that "science is useless because it can't "prove" anything. Na na na, na, na, na! You said it yourself. I win, you lose." Oh shit! I just figured it out. Invictus is George Bush!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 And toes!!!! Why do we have toes? Monkeys and opossums use them to hang from trees. Why do we have these useless appendages? (Zoe answer: So girls can put on nail polish) OR [fundie mode] It's because it's an intelligent design, without the big toe we wouldn't be able to walk properly, so five is the divine number for perfect walking. [/fundie mode] It's incredible that ID and Creationists believe in the "perfect" creation, and because the "creation" is "perfect", then it proves it was created... aaaaargh! The stupidity in this argument is that the world is not perfect! So when it's not perfect, then the design is not intelligent, and hence it was not created! We have war, famine, sickness, diseases, heartfailures, fundamentalists and much more than can be pointed to as NOT perfect. So when the perfection is lacking, the creator has moved out of town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 We have war, famine, sickness, diseases, heartfailures, fundamentalists and much more than can be pointed to as NOT perfect. So when the perfection is lacking, the creator has moved out of town. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> [fundie mode] Yah, but it was created perfect and then sin ruined the party. Men have nipples as the result of sin. We have an appendix because of sin, and a vestigal tail because of sin. Fire ants are the result of sin. So is AIDS, oh boy is that one the result of sin. [/fundie mode] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 [fundie mode]Yah, but it was created perfect and then sin ruined the party. Men have nipples as the result of sin. We have an appendix because of sin, and a vestigal tail because of sin. Fire ants are the result of sin. So is AIDS, oh boy is that one the result of sin. [/fundie mode] [fundie spoof mode] And then Globs only Wholly son Jebuz Crispus, son of the mare Virgil, came to earth in a space ship and said (1) "Loo and behold and see and hear and whatnot and read Braille, I have come to save you from the imperfection and undo the nipples of men and the appendix and the vestigial tail. Blessed is he who believes in the book I didn’t write, because he will understand the words I never said, and he will never sneeze again. (2)” Footnotes: (1) This passage is to be interpreted with the help of the Wholly Spook and some whiskeys. The correct understanding is not that we will be saved from the sins and the imperfections in this world, but only in the spiritual world, or in heaven. The scribes haven’t decided yet if it is now in the spiritual world, or later in heaven… maybe it doesn’t happen at all… Ooops! This will get me fired as a heretic for sure… (2) We will not sneeze when we come to heaven, but we still sneeze here on earth. All sinners will be thrown into the pit of infinite sneeze powder and will sneeze for eternity! Muaha ha ha! And us Bobbleheads will sit in the front row of heaven and watch and laugh at the sinners’ suffering! [/fundie spoof mode] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 LOL! I thought Satan gave men nipples to confuse us and lead us astray! I think nipples are proof that if any gender was created first, it was women. I think so too. Women came first, and maybe there was some other species that got mixed up with the first woman at some party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 I'm actually not sure there was a "first" gender, but considering that women are the one's who actually have the equippment to produce a second human (sans the sperm), the creation story- woman from man- seems the least likely senario. I do suspect that the adam and eve story was created in order to "put women in their place" in a male dominated society. The one thing women could do in a patriarchal society, that men could not was give birth. So they had to kind of usurp that by claiming the "victory" of the first woman "birthing" (for lack of a better word) out of a man. Patriarchal society had pretty much robbed everything else away from women, so why not that one last thing too. I agree still. And my previous comment was just a little joke. Most likely at some time early on, the pre-mammal animal was androgyn and could didn't have a fixed sex. My thought about why evolution made it to be two different genders, and also the traits that come with them is as following: The animals where only one parent gave birth to babies, there was a problem to hunt for food and at the same time protect the children. So when animals that had two parents started to show up on the scene, they had a better survival rate, just because one could protect the home and the other could hunt for food. (I know it sounds sexist) One of the parent started to develop strength and better hunting abilities, and the other stronger drive to protect and nurse. (And I'm not saying we should follow this pattern today, we have evolved beyond that and today we should become equal) But it makes sense that a partnership for "family" protects and feed the family better than a single parent. It's not a matter of morals or ethics here, but just pure efficiency in a system. The single parent animals got extinct when their offspring got attacked all the time. The only single parent animals that could survive was the one that could hide its home while it was getting food. i.e. only small animals. For larger animals to evolve the dual parenthood had a better survival rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 cause my feet would look funny in sandals if I didn't have them. And how could I paint my toenails if I had none. I see you don't think these things out. Of course, and then how would you entice your harem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted July 8, 2005 Author Share Posted July 8, 2005 Still the best satirical resource on the topic... http://members.aol.com/darrwin/things.htm What makes that site a satire? Isn't it correct? Maybe I didn't read enough of it or somethin'. Perhaps satire wasn't the right word, although there is certainly satirical material there. It's more of a humor site than a scientific resource, but you're right... the site is dead on in it's attacks on creationism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Perhaps satire wasn't the right word, although there is certainly satirical material there. It's more of a humor site than a scientific resource, but you're right... the site is dead on in it's attacks on creationism. It was sure a pleasure to read. My job is boring and I can read pretty fast....so all I see is that evolution is a given. The idea that god interferes directly with us and our world on a regular and constant basis seems a very minute possibility. Even small interference could have unwanted long term effects on the whole damn project. Reminds me of how careful Star Trek crews had to be when travelling back in time. Invictus sure at hell hasn't bothered to read it. I haven't seen his ass all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts