Evolution didn't happen

Here's another very informative video on evolution.

Here's another very informative video on evolution.

Reported for spamming a serious discussion board.

Quote from: Anteater7171 on April 05, 2009, 11:37:42 PM

Here's another very informative video on evolution.

Reported for spamming a serious discussion board.

Is that intentionally ironic or are you an idiot?

Is that intentionally ironic or are you an idiot?

I planned to delete my post afterwards, so that anteater had an opportunity to see why it was removed.
Your hostility is unnecessary.

I'm not being hostile. That is about how you will get treated by me in any scenario.

The topic itself is a parody of the creationist side. He was about on par with the rest of the thread.

That is about how you will get treated by me in any scenario.

Good to know.

The topic itself is a parody of the creationist side.

So you do believe in evolution then?
Perhaps my lack of prior exposure made my judgment unclear. I do not know your beliefs nor posting habits well enough to realize when something is in or out of character, let alone what your character is. Next time you create a thread to troll in, I'll reconsider trying to keep it serious.

He was about on par with the rest of the thread.

I gather that the thread's intent was to made creationists find and highlight their own flaws through simple substitution, which seems like it could/would be done with serious intent and execution.
...But if the post was on par, are you implying the whole thread belongs in CN? A mature cartoon video clip using crude humor that briefly relates to the subject seems less than serious to me.

If you think the post is fitting in a serious forum, then leave it. I'd rather not get into a brand new obsessive discussion over more little stuff.

Evolution happened, it just wasn't a random, purposeless event. The on-going discovery that even the most simple of cells are basically uber-computers operating under strict guidelines completely kills that idea. In other words, Richard Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker" has been murdered by modern science, and using evolution as a means of becoming an "intellectually fulfilled atheist" is now D.O.A.

I know this isn't what you self-deluded folks would like to read, but it's the truth.

Did you read the thread?

Evolution happened, it just wasn't a random, purposeless event. The on-going discovery that even the most simple of cells are basically uber-computers operating under strict guidelines completely kills that idea. In other words, Richard Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker" has been murdered by modern science, and using evolution as a means of becoming an "intellectually fulfilled atheist" is now D.O.A.

I know this isn't what you self-deluded folks would like to read, but it's the truth.

I don't know about that, but I'm pretty sure a tornado in a wreckyard don't spawn no 747's you know what I mean?

I get it!

Ok, so whoever thinks evolution didn't happen should stick there head in a microwave.
I hope you stupid people all burn in heaven.

Ok, so whoever thinks evolution didn't happen should stick there head in a microwave.
I hope you stupid people all burn in heaven.

Troll alert.

Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!

Depends how you look at it.  One could argue that clothing was a tool invented as a portable shelter, if you will.

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 11:58:57 AM

Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!

Depends how you look at it.  One could argue that clothing was a tool invented as a portable shelter, if you will.

I'll have what you're smoking.

Evolutionists are making monkeys out of themselves!!!!

Richard Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker" has been murdered by modern science...

Also, what the hell are you talking about?  Read the book, I think that you have no idea what's in it.  Let me grab my copy and quote you something out of the preface to the revised edition written in 1996:

"I have been asked to provide a new introduction for this reissue of The Blind Watchmaker.  I thought that task would be easy.  All I had to do was list the ways - there surely had to be many - in which I should reform the book if I were writing it again today.  Eagerly, chapter by chapter, I scanned for errors, misguidednesses, out-of-datenesses, incompletenesses.  I genuinely wanted to find them, for science - whatever the frailties of its individual practitioners - is not naturally complacent and pays lip service to the ideal of progress through falsification.  But, alas, details aside, I can find no major thesis in these chapters that I would withdraw, nothing to justify the satisfying catharsis of a good recant."

These are literally the first words in the book after the title page.  The Blind Watchmaker isn't murdered by modern science, it is modern science. 

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 11:58:57 AM

Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!

Depends how you look at it.  One could argue that clothing was a tool invented as a portable shelter, if you will.

Oh yeah, and turtles just made some portable shelter for their backs cuz they was all like, I need a house.

I've heard ignorance is bliss, can I ask how awesome your life must be?

If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.

If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?

Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."

Trolllllllllled

Quote from: Delthan on May 04, 2009, 05:14:57 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 11:58:57 AM

Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!

Depends how you look at it.  One could argue that clothing was a tool invented as a portable shelter, if you will.

Oh yeah, and turtles just made some portable shelter for their backs cuz they was all like, I need a house.

I've heard ignorance is bliss, can I ask how awesome your life must be?

What's wrong with what I said? Clothing is used to shield us from the elements, cold, heat, rain whatever.  We have shelters to do the same thing.  Ergo, clothing is a crude shelter, broadly speaking admittedly.  The site is all about putting forward what sound like outlandish theories and ideas, you hack.  Do try and keep a civil tone if you read something you don't like.

What's wrong with what I said? Clothing is used to shield us from the elements, cold, heat, rain whatever.  We have shelters to do the same thing.  Ergo, clothing is a crude shelter, broadly speaking admittedly.  The site is all about putting forward what sound like outlandish theories and ideas, you hack.

We have to draw the line somewhere.

Quote from: Raist on May 05, 2009, 02:52:58 AM

Quote from: Delthan on May 04, 2009, 05:14:57 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 11:58:57 AM

Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!

Depends how you look at it.  One could argue that clothing was a tool invented as a portable shelter, if you will.

Oh yeah, and turtles just made some portable shelter for their backs cuz they was all like, I need a house.

I've heard ignorance is bliss, can I ask how awesome your life must be?

What's wrong with what I said? Clothing is used to shield us from the elements, cold, heat, rain whatever.  We have shelters to do the same thing.  Ergo, clothing is a crude shelter, broadly speaking admittedly.  The site is all about putting forward what sound like outlandish theories and ideas, you hack.  Do try and keep a civil tone if you read something you don't like.

I don't wear clothes as shelter, I wear them so women don't see my male parts and become all excited, poor little things, they lack the intelligence to control themselves. Bit sad they couldn't have "evolved" (wink wink nudge nudge) brains the size of ours. If it's cold I go inside where it is warm like a normal person. If your clothing is the only thing keeping you from the elements you should have worked harder and gotten a job as something other than an eskimo.

And your second to last sentence makes no sense. Please try harder next time, I know you descended from a monkey, but that doesn't mean you have to type like one.

Quote from: Delthan on May 05, 2009, 02:20:38 PM

Quote from: Raist on May 05, 2009, 02:52:58 AM

Quote from: Delthan on May 04, 2009, 05:14:57 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 11:58:57 AM

Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!

Depends how you look at it.  One could argue that clothing was a tool invented as a portable shelter, if you will.

Oh yeah, and turtles just made some portable shelter for their backs cuz they was all like, I need a house.

I've heard ignorance is bliss, can I ask how awesome your life must be?

What's wrong with what I said? Clothing is used to shield us from the elements, cold, heat, rain whatever.  We have shelters to do the same thing.  Ergo, clothing is a crude shelter, broadly speaking admittedly.  The site is all about putting forward what sound like outlandish theories and ideas, you hack.  Do try and keep a civil tone if you read something you don't like.

I don't wear clothes as shelter, I wear them so women don't see my male parts and become all excited, poor little things, they lack the intelligence to control themselves. Bit sad they couldn't have "evolved" (wink wink nudge nudge) brains the size of ours. If it's cold I go inside where it is warm like a normal person. If your clothing is the only thing keeping you from the elements you should have worked harder and gotten a job as something other than an eskimo.

And your second to last sentence makes no sense. Please try harder next time, I know you descended from a monkey, but that doesn't mean you have to type like one.

I assume you can't understand the Queen's English - my apologies for the assumption.  I was just asking you to keep criticism constructive rather than make childish comments - which you have done so again.  And while today, clothing is indeed used to protect modesty, among other things, at the time of its 'invention', it was most likely used as protection from the elements.

Quote from: Raist on May 05, 2009, 02:35:46 PM

Quote from: Delthan on May 05, 2009, 02:20:38 PM

Quote from: Raist on May 05, 2009, 02:52:58 AM

Quote from: Delthan on May 04, 2009, 05:14:57 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 11:58:57 AM

Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!

Depends how you look at it.  One could argue that clothing was a tool invented as a portable shelter, if you will.

Oh yeah, and turtles just made some portable shelter for their backs cuz they was all like, I need a house.

I've heard ignorance is bliss, can I ask how awesome your life must be?

What's wrong with what I said? Clothing is used to shield us from the elements, cold, heat, rain whatever.  We have shelters to do the same thing.  Ergo, clothing is a crude shelter, broadly speaking admittedly.  The site is all about putting forward what sound like outlandish theories and ideas, you hack.  Do try and keep a civil tone if you read something you don't like.

I don't wear clothes as shelter, I wear them so women don't see my male parts and become all excited, poor little things, they lack the intelligence to control themselves. Bit sad they couldn't have "evolved" (wink wink nudge nudge) brains the size of ours. If it's cold I go inside where it is warm like a normal person. If your clothing is the only thing keeping you from the elements you should have worked harder and gotten a job as something other than an eskimo.

And your second to last sentence makes no sense. Please try harder next time, I know you descended from a monkey, but that doesn't mean you have to type like one.

I assume you can't understand the Queen's English - my apologies for the assumption.  I was just asking you to keep criticism constructive rather than make childish comments - which you have done so again.  And while today, clothing is indeed used to protect modesty, among other things, at the time of its 'invention', it was most likely used as protection from the elements.

I understood the sentence completely. It was in relation to everything else that it made no sense. With no apparent context you stated "this site is all about putting forward outlandish theories and ideas," then you trailed off into some ad hominem attack. Are you saying that clothing being shelter is an outlandish idea? Or are you saying my ideas are outlandish, which fits the site, but makes me a hack. Neither of those are very useful things to say.

Also, you should probably read more of the thread than the first post before you begin a debate, you may feel a bit smarter, and see what has already been discussed thoroughly.

Quote from: Delthan on May 05, 2009, 02:44:21 PM

Quote from: Raist on May 05, 2009, 02:35:46 PM

Quote from: Delthan on May 05, 2009, 02:20:38 PM

Quote from: Raist on May 05, 2009, 02:52:58 AM

Quote from: Delthan on May 04, 2009, 05:14:57 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 11:58:57 AM

Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!

Depends how you look at it.  One could argue that clothing was a tool invented as a portable shelter, if you will.

Oh yeah, and turtles just made some portable shelter for their backs cuz they was all like, I need a house.

I've heard ignorance is bliss, can I ask how awesome your life must be?

What's wrong with what I said? Clothing is used to shield us from the elements, cold, heat, rain whatever.  We have shelters to do the same thing.  Ergo, clothing is a crude shelter, broadly speaking admittedly.  The site is all about putting forward what sound like outlandish theories and ideas, you hack.  Do try and keep a civil tone if you read something you don't like.

I don't wear clothes as shelter, I wear them so women don't see my male parts and become all excited, poor little things, they lack the intelligence to control themselves. Bit sad they couldn't have "evolved" (wink wink nudge nudge) brains the size of ours. If it's cold I go inside where it is warm like a normal person. If your clothing is the only thing keeping you from the elements you should have worked harder and gotten a job as something other than an eskimo.

And your second to last sentence makes no sense. Please try harder next time, I know you descended from a monkey, but that doesn't mean you have to type like one.

I assume you can't understand the Queen's English - my apologies for the assumption.  I was just asking you to keep criticism constructive rather than make childish comments - which you have done so again.  And while today, clothing is indeed used to protect modesty, among other things, at the time of its 'invention', it was most likely used as protection from the elements.

I understood the sentence completely. It was in relation to everything else that it made no sense. With no apparent context you stated "this site is all about putting forward outlandish theories and ideas," then you trailed off into some ad hominem attack. Are you saying that clothing being shelter is an outlandish idea? Or are you saying my ideas are outlandish, which fits the site, but makes me a hack. Neither of those are very useful things to say.

Also, you should probably read more of the thread than the first post before you begin a debate, you may feel a bit smarter, and see what has already been discussed thoroughly.

Yes, I was admitting that my claim was quite outlandish, as I of course have no proof.

I DID read the whole thread, what started me on this particular topic was Wardogg's claim that 'Clothes are proof evolution never happened'.

My attack was simply in response to the turtle joke you made, as I felt it was unjustified. Hence I called you a hack.

Yes, I was admitting that my claim was quite outlandish, as I of course have no proof.

I DID read the whole thread, what started me on this particular topic was Wardogg's claim that 'Clothes are proof evolution never happened'.

My attack was simply in response to the turtle joke you made, as I felt it was unjustified. Hence I called you a hack.

You have no evidence to support your claims (which you admit to being outlandish) and yet you feel that jokes made at the expense of such absurdities are unjustified? You, sir, are the hack.

And if you would have done the respectful thing and read the entire thread before commenting on my first post I wouldn't have taken out coming down off adderall on you so much. This whole thread was parody. And the clothes claim was hardly outlandish which through me off, outlandish would imply that it's not a common belief when in fact it is pretty much the main theory on clothing.

Now reread the thread, and maybe it'll make a bit more sense to you. (yes I know you read maybe 4 posts before you felt the needed to correct the obvious flaws in my posts, except I usually answered those flaws subtly within the posts.)

I'm saying my view of clothes as a 'portable shelter' is outlandish (perhaps too strong a word) simply because I imply that at the time of the invention of clothing, early man viewed it in a similar way that he would an actual shelter.

I have read many much more strange ideas and theories, of spotlight suns and dark energy accelerations, bendy light and perspective effects, and I have been highly sceptical of all, yet I have tried to remain civil when responding to an FEers posts.  Why the need for a sarcastic remark about a turtle when I put forward an abstract idea? There's no need to resort to the flaming and trolling of some of the less savoury members of this forum - though given some of the recent remakrs about Jews and homosexuals that you have recently made Raist, I'm getting a pretty good idea of the kind of person you are 

LOL.

No you aren't, but I'm now pretty aware of the kind of person you are. You think you are smart, yet you still have no idea what is going on. You take sarcasm at face value and then find people hostile. You refuse to read an entire thread, or even pay attention when I say I was making a point.

I was starting to think you were semi intelligent. I give up on you. Later.

At the risk of ostracizing myself from Raist (gasp!) I am going to have to lean towards agreeing with Delthan in part.  While clothing serves many functions, concealing shame, fashion, social deviance, or individuality to name a few, portable shelter can certainly be listed among them.

That device is obviously used to communicate the fact that you are a homosexual. Of course gays would believe in evolution.

That device is obviously used to communicate the fact that you are a homosexual. Of course gays would believe in evolution.

I don't think that anyone is here to dispute anything in that statement.