Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thefugitivesaint · 01-12-2002, 08:24 PM

I came upon <a href="http://science.krishna.org/Articles/2000/10/00169.html" target="_blank">this "article"</a> during a recent search. The various other "articles" concernig evolution and science are also worth looking into for their humor value.

-theSaint

Quetzal · 01-12-2002, 11:49 PM

Okay Saint: I'll see your Hare Krishna and raise you one <a href="http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/fossil_illusion.htm" target="_blank"> rabid foaming cretinist</a> in the "you have to laugh" card game.

gallo · 01-13-2002, 12:02 AM

I wonder how Wells and Johnson feel about being used to support Hare Krishna?

The use of Fred Williams in the game of "rabid creationist" is cheating. That's like using nuclear weapons in a game of darts. Obliterating the target doesn't count.

Quetzal · 01-13-2002, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gallo:
I wonder how Wells and Johnson feel about being used to support Hare Krishna?

More to the point, I wonder if the Hare Krishnas know Wells is a moonie?

Quote:

The use of Fred Williams in the game of "rabid creationist" is cheating. That's like using nuclear weapons in a game of darts. Obliterating the target doesn't count.

Pr'olly true. I apologize, Saint. Still, you have to admit old Fred's most recent magnum opus is a real hoot.

thefugitivesaint · 01-13-2002, 01:01 AM

well, there's <a href="http://www.theory-of-evolution.org/default.htm" target="_blank">this</a> to add to the list.

And, there is <a href="http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/nat-select" target="_blank">this</a> to consider.

And, <a href="http://www.origins.org/offices/dembski/docs/bd-theologn.html" target="_blank">this</a> too.

One of my personal favorites is right <a href="http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/" target="_blank">here</a>.

Just for giggles, there is <a href="http://www.idurc.org/index.shtml" target="_blank">this</a> page to browse.

Oh, there's <a href="http://www1.umn.edu/ships/religion/design.htm" target="_blank">this</a> out there putting evolution in its place.

My <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/design.html#TOP" target="_blank">last</a> is also good for a laugh. His home page has some enjoyable recreation (for the blind).

-theSaint

Quetzal · 01-13-2002, 01:20 AM

Saint: <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

The only one that's really "funny" though is the IDEA website. I wonder if those cretins know Stanley Miller is working at UCSD these days? As well as Jeff Bada and others who are working on showing abiogenesis in action. ID my left foot! They represent a student club at a university whose faculty is on the leading edge of the science they're protesting against. Too funny!

Oolon Colluphid · 01-14-2002, 04:10 AM

Sorry, but I just don't get the joke. In response to the thread's title, crying and banging my head on the desk are equally likely responses, though less fun than laughing. Oh well. I'll laugh anyway, but it'll be a wild-eyed, teeth-clenched manic sort of mirth...

Oolon the miserable git

scombrid · 01-14-2002, 05:33 AM

You guys have got to stop posting those ID, YEC, IMADUMBASS, etc... websites. They give me heartburn in the morning. I can never understand how those people live in constant delusion. They're either incredibly stupid or deliberitely lieing (hey, the same thing they say about atheists, how ironic). I am new to this game so fruits like Fred Williams are still new to me. Some Fred Williams quotes:

Quote:

but also missing in action are the enormous number of transitionals that must have existed to bridge the gap between invertebrates and vertebrates.

Quote:

The bulk of this sliver is made up of fish, where we again find no sign of evolution whatsoever

He asserts this while ignoring things like tunicates and Amphioxis that have extant species as well as fossil ancestors. He asserts that we see no evolution signs in fish. I guess things like the transition from cartilaginous to bony skeletons, the appearance of tail flexion in teleosts for more powerful swimming, and the appearance of protrusible jaws (hell, the appearance of jaws for that matter) don't count.

The Jackass must be one of the fundie masters of mis-quotes and out of context statements. His assertions about lack of invertebrate transitions and lack of support for the fossil record come from this article.

<a href="http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles_2000_6.html" target="_blank">inverts</a>

I wonder if Dr. Zimmer cares that he is mis-represented so egregiously.

(I hope nobody sees the smoke coming out of my ears

, it might betray the fact that I'm not working right now)

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: scombrid ]</p>

KweschunThEAnserz · 01-14-2002, 07:59 AM

Hey, I'm fairly new to this site and not up to par with all the recent evidence. I'm guessing from the humor involved in this post means that these sites have no idea what they're talking about. Where can I find good rebuttals for this misinformation and/or weak info? any links would be helpfull. Or you can just tell me to read the infidels archives I suppose. Also, I'm not that familiar with names of scientists that you mentioned. Any info would be appreciated,
thanks.

Oolon Colluphid · 01-14-2002, 08:46 AM

Hi Kweschun! Welcome to E/C! (KweschunThEAnserz introduced himself <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=43&t=000102" target="_blank">here</a>.)

So much to rebut, so little time...

I can suggest two sites as good places to start:

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org" target="_blank">The Talk.Origins Archive</a>

and

<a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm" target="_blank">No Answers in Genesis</a>.

Between these and the creationist ones, that should keep you reading for a few weeks

. But I strongly suggest you start with the <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html" target="_blank">TO Must-Read FAQs</a>. Creationists are great at playing on the ignorance of evolution of their audience (it’s the only reason they get away with it

). Some of those pages will show you what evolution really is.

The reason creationist sites are so exasperating is that they are jam-packed with half-truths, outright lies ('no transitional fossils' -- but try getting the buggers to define transitional!

), apparently deliberate misunderstandings of evolution ('straw man' arguments), lots of ‘gee-wizz, isn’t life complicated’ (like we don’t know that) -- IOW, probability arguments, lousy science ('evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics'), quotes by people unqualified in evolutionary biology (eg Fred Hoyle) and out-of-context quotes by those who are (eg Gould's 'lack of transitionals being one of science's best-kept secrets'), attacks on out-of-date information (Haeckel’s embryos, Piltdown Man), misdirection ('evolution doesn’t explain where the first thing came from!') , etc etc. In short, sophistry not science. Many also promote a young (ie c.6000 year old) earth, thus throwing out all of modern geology, geophysics, astronomy and quantum physics.

Good luck. Any questions, let us know.

Cheers, Oolon

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

01-12-2002, 08:24 PM	#1
thefugitivesaint Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: philadelphia, PA. USA. Posts: 682	You have to laugh...what else CAN you do? I came upon <a href="http://science.krishna.org/Articles/2000/10/00169.html" target="_blank">this "article"</a> during a recent search. The various other "articles" concernig evolution and science are also worth looking into for their humor value. -theSaint

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-12-2002, 11:49 PM	#2
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	Okay Saint: I'll see your Hare Krishna and raise you one <a href="http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/fossil_illusion.htm" target="_blank"> rabid foaming cretinist</a> in the "you have to laugh" card game.

01-13-2002, 12:02 AM	#3
gallo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Houston, TX, US Posts: 244	I wonder how Wells and Johnson feel about being used to support Hare Krishna? The use of Fred Williams in the game of "rabid creationist" is cheating. That's like using nuclear weapons in a game of darts. Obliterating the target doesn't count.

01-13-2002, 01:01 AM	#5
thefugitivesaint Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: philadelphia, PA. USA. Posts: 682	well, there's <a href="http://www.theory-of-evolution.org/default.htm" target="_blank">this</a> to add to the list. And, there is <a href="http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/nat-select" target="_blank">this</a> to consider. And, <a href="http://www.origins.org/offices/dembski/docs/bd-theologn.html" target="_blank">this</a> too. One of my personal favorites is right <a href="http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/" target="_blank">here</a>. Just for giggles, there is <a href="http://www.idurc.org/index.shtml" target="_blank">this</a> page to browse. Oh, there's <a href="http://www1.umn.edu/ships/religion/design.htm" target="_blank">this</a> out there putting evolution in its place. My <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/design.html#TOP" target="_blank">last</a> is also good for a laugh. His home page has some enjoyable recreation (for the blind). -theSaint

01-13-2002, 01:20 AM	#6
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	Saint: <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> The only one that's really "funny" though is the IDEA website. I wonder if those cretins know Stanley Miller is working at UCSD these days? As well as Jeff Bada and others who are working on showing abiogenesis in action. ID my left foot! They represent a student club at a university whose faculty is on the leading edge of the science they're protesting against. Too funny!

01-14-2002, 04:10 AM	#7
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Sorry, but I just don't get the joke. In response to the thread's title, crying and banging my head on the desk are equally likely responses, though less fun than laughing. Oh well. I'll laugh anyway, but it'll be a wild-eyed, teeth-clenched manic sort of mirth... Oolon the miserable git

01-14-2002, 07:59 AM	#9
KweschunThEAnserz Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 32	Hey, I'm fairly new to this site and not up to par with all the recent evidence. I'm guessing from the humor involved in this post means that these sites have no idea what they're talking about. Where can I find good rebuttals for this misinformation and/or weak info? any links would be helpfull. Or you can just tell me to read the infidels archives I suppose. Also, I'm not that familiar with names of scientists that you mentioned. Any info would be appreciated, thanks.

01-14-2002, 08:46 AM	#10
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Hi Kweschun! Welcome to E/C! (KweschunThEAnserz introduced himself <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=43&t=000102" target="_blank">here</a>.) So much to rebut, so little time... I can suggest two sites as good places to start: <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org" target="_blank">The Talk.Origins Archive</a> and <a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm" target="_blank">No Answers in Genesis</a>. Between these and the creationist ones, that should keep you reading for a few weeks . But I strongly suggest you start with the <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html" target="_blank">TO Must-Read FAQs</a>. Creationists are great at playing on the ignorance of evolution of their audience (it’s the only reason they get away with it ). Some of those pages will show you what evolution really is. The reason creationist sites are so exasperating is that they are jam-packed with half-truths, outright lies ('no transitional fossils' -- but try getting the buggers to define transitional! ), apparently deliberate misunderstandings of evolution ('straw man' arguments), lots of ‘gee-wizz, isn’t life complicated’ (like we don’t know that) -- IOW, probability arguments, lousy science ('evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics'), quotes by people unqualified in evolutionary biology (eg Fred Hoyle) and out-of-context quotes by those who are (eg Gould's 'lack of transitionals being one of science's best-kept secrets'), attacks on out-of-date information (Haeckel’s embryos, Piltdown Man), misdirection ('evolution doesn’t explain where the first thing came from!') , etc etc. In short, sophistry not science. Many also promote a young (ie c.6000 year old) earth, thus throwing out all of modern geology, geophysics, astronomy and quantum physics. Good luck. Any questions, let us know. Cheers, Oolon [ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.