Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 06-30-2003, 06:15 AM

I just noticed that said creationist can't count.

MrDarwin · 06-30-2003, 06:30 AM

Geesh, I just checked it out and it's worse than I thought. Are we sure this isn't an elaborate spoof by somebody with way too much time on his hands?

Quote:

91. Living Trilobites
Wouldn't it be troublesome if a creatures said to be dead since near the beginning of time were found living? What trouble would this cause for the assumptions made by historical geology? Well, you aren't going to believe this. Some folks in the Falkland Islands seem to be indicating that these "long extinct creatures" which are evidence of the former world, millions of years ago, haven't left the building, so to speak

The very article this claim links to, supposedly to back it up, explains that they aren't trilobites at all, but rather trilobite-like isopods (a kind of crustacean).

RRoman · 06-30-2003, 06:35 AM

ugh! *puke* :banghead:
Oh the humanity. I honestly fear for the future of our species.
People like these are the best proof against an omnipotent god! No one in his right mind would create such blatantly idiotic, stupid creatures, completetly ignorant of the world aroung them! If I were god, I would be ashamed to have created such stupid creatures.

Oolon Colluphid · 06-30-2003, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
46. Bombardier Beetles

Christ on a bike?! Just how long ago was that one refuted?! The �inhibitor� thing comes from Gish, iirc. And Dawkins described what happens when you mix hydrogen peroxide to hydroquinone together back in, what, 1986? in Blind Watchmaker. What happens is, bugger all. Doesn�t even get warm. It will go brown after a while, though, apparently.

What happens is, of course, that the beetle adds an enzyme, an �organic catalyst�, as my old biology teacher used to handily define them.

Back in �99, when I wrote to him mentioning this, Dawkins pointed out that creationists only read and regurgitate the writings of other creationists, hence the way these piles of poo continue to be propagated. How right he was.

47. Giraffe necks.
Recurrent laryngeal nerves, anyone?

Ah shit, guys

I�ve looked through the list more thoroughly, and now feel sick. Mark Twain (understandably) missed one. There�s lies, damned lies, statistics... and creationist websites. And there was me thinking that lying was supposed to be a sin.

Oolon the Depressed

Undercurrent · 06-30-2003, 06:50 AM

Mmmmm. Ignorance and arrogance, together at last. At least his web-authoring skills are not subpar.

What the fuck is "quantum" history?

Rational BAC · 06-30-2003, 06:51 AM

I see that no one has tried to explain the lack of a very thick layer of dust on the moon. That one puzzles me too.

Are you all just avoiding a difficult question? Not trying to be overly argumentative----just would like to see some sort of rational explanation.

RRoman · 06-30-2003, 06:56 AM

I think the moon dust thing is based on inaccurate measurements, which have been corrected since.

KC · 06-30-2003, 06:57 AM

Well, I do hate beets (#90)

KC

Kuu · 06-30-2003, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
I see that no one has tried to explain the lack of a very thick layer of dust on the moon. That one puzzles me too.

Are you all just avoiding a difficult question? Not trying to be overly argumentative----just would like to see some sort of rational explanation.

You don't have to go far for the answer to this

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...moon_dust.html

lpetrich · 06-30-2003, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JaeIsGod
"How in the world can evolution explain away the four stages that a butterfly goes through from egg, to larva, to pupa and finally to butterfly? If you find a great explaination of this, email me and I will post the explaination here"

I heard that one before from a creationist. Is there an easy way to refute it?

The insect gets adapted in different directions over different parts of its life.

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

06-30-2003, 06:15 AM	#11
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	I just noticed that said creationist can't count.

06-30-2003, 06:35 AM	#13
RRoman Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Durham, UK / Frankfurt, Germany Posts: 345	ugh! puke :banghead: Oh the humanity. I honestly fear for the future of our species. People like these are the best proof against an omnipotent god! No one in his right mind would create such blatantly idiotic, stupid creatures, completetly ignorant of the world aroung them! If I were god, I would be ashamed to have created such stupid creatures.

06-30-2003, 06:50 AM	#15
Undercurrent Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Santa Fe, NM Posts: 2,362	Mmmmm. Ignorance and arrogance, together at last. At least his web-authoring skills are not subpar. What the fuck is "quantum" history?

06-30-2003, 06:51 AM	#16
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	I see that no one has tried to explain the lack of a very thick layer of dust on the moon. That one puzzles me too. Are you all just avoiding a difficult question? Not trying to be overly argumentative----just would like to see some sort of rational explanation.

06-30-2003, 06:56 AM	#17
RRoman Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Durham, UK / Frankfurt, Germany Posts: 345	I think the moon dust thing is based on inaccurate measurements, which have been corrected since.

06-30-2003, 06:57 AM	#18
KC Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Narcisco, RRR Posts: 527	Well, I do hate beets (#90) KC

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.