Try Song of Solomon: “may her breasts satisfy you always”
I, for one, got a real chuckle out of it. Remember the failed SNL character of “Frenchie”? He would say something grossly inappropriate, and then say, “Oh, but I do not mean to offend anyone!”
Mmmmyeah, that’s one of the more amusing ideas I’ve heard in a while. Like I always say-
DEATH TO ALL FANATICS!!
I read a little bit on that page but I really couldn’t get much of a sense of it. At some parts it seems to be arguing that creation and evolution are one in the same (the last sentence I believe). There is also a confusing little poem about creation theory and evolutionary theory.
Here’s the problem: Creation isn’t science, it’s not a theory, it is a religious attitude. That’s not to say that basic creation is wrong (ie, God created the Universe), but it is to say that creation doesn’t belong in a science class. Evolutionary theory at the same time does not effect religion, unless you are a biblical literalist. In which case I would think that evolution would be the last problem on your mind, the first of course being the contradictory nature of the first two chapters of Genesis, then the age of the earth, then the impossibility of a world wide flood, etc.
Evolution would be last on the list of problems to defeat in my mind.
That reminds me of the Babylonian punishment for sodomy…
…forced sodomy.
To quote myself…
A few people asked for cites…so here you go. I stayed away from any relgious type sites simply to avoid any claims of bias. These are just some of the few sites I have visted.
http://clasnews.clas.ufl.edu/news/clasnotes/9702/evolution.html
http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/071102/new_071102033.shtml
http://home.primus.com.au/bonno/evolution15.htm
http://www.evidence.info/design/evolprob.html
http://www.inform.umd.edu/News/Diamondback/archives/2002/10/14/commentary2.html
http://www.mcremo.com/museum.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/fossils.htm
http://www.arn.org/docs/hartwig/mh_missingevidence.htm
does any of this mean that evolution is not true? No, of course not! I read something once (I will find a cite!!) that said 99% of all Biologist’s belive in the theory of human evolution from primates, BUT that those same 99% only represent .00012% of the human population. Make of that what you will!!
I make of that that the people who actually study a phenomenon are more likely to know something about it than those who never do.
However, the percentages that you posted are completely irrelevant to each other:
The percentage of humans who happen to be biologists has no bearing on the accuracy of the studies of those biologists.
At one point, only one human had any understanding of the Theory of Relativity. (That would have been roughly .000000000062% of the world’s population at the time.) That hardly stands as a challenge to (much less a refutation of) the Theory of Relativity.
404 Error
Religious site, laden with bias (not to mention false conclusions, numerous fallacies, and underscored by a complete ignorance of how eovlution works).
Another religious site, similarly laden with bias and false conclusions. None of the listed papers represent “problems” with evolution. Take the “really quickly evolving dinos”, for example. See here for an explanation of the findings. Now, for extra credit, point out how those findings are in any way problematic.
Letters to the editor by students who have no grasp of evolutionary theories.
Um…okay.
Nonsense about “missing transitional forms”?! Do people pay attention at all any more? Who here thinks that everything that ever lived has been fossilized?
A review of Philip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial. For a more reasonable review, see here.
“Problems” for evolution do not come in the form of “missing information”. They must necessarily come in the form of data which falsify an existing theory. One cannot argue, for example, that the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record demonstrate a problem for evolution, simply because evolutionary theory does not, and never has, predicted that all such forms would be fossilized. Some such transitional forms most assuredly exist. However, that they are comparatively sparse is a geological/chemical issue, not an evolutionary one. It is quite the leap in logic to go from “transitional forms are lacking in the fossil record” to “therefore, transitional forms never existed”.
No scientist today labors under the notion that we know all there is to know. To point to an area where explanation is lacking or thin does not demonstrate a problem with the overarching science, but rather a lack of data. I some cases, we may never have enough data to fully explain a phenomenon. But that something is simply not known, or poorly understood, is poor grounds for demonstrating that a “problem” exists.
Responing to Dob’s assertion that biologists make up a small percentage of the world’s population.
I imagine brain surgeons make up an even smaller portion of the world’s population. So, do you think we should have a consensus to see if brain surgery is being properly practiced? Should we wait until 50% of the world’s population agrees on how brain surgery should be done before even one more brain operation is performed?
Then again, there was a time when only a VERY small percentage of the world’s population believed that the Earth revolves around
the Sun.
HAH–from one of the “cites” above:
ROTFLMAO!
My ASS is sitting on a chair that’s over 100 years old–I’m my own grandpa!
Darwin’s Finch-You want a cite that will thoroughly disprove evolution, do ya?
This man is a “Dr.”, he knows what he’s talking about. Also, don’t you want to collect the money? Why don’t you prove evolutionary ‘theory’ by answering these four questions:
Alrighty then.
The lying “Dr Dino” is still keeping that up on his website? That figures.
I do enjoy how he conflates abiogenesis and cosmology with evolution.
(And, of course, the only way to collect the cash is to convince his unnamed and unnameable panel of purported experts–probably his wife and kids with degrees in “science” from Bob Jones U.)
Unfortunately yes. Actually IIRC AiG disagreed with him on a number of issues, showing him to be wrong (I think it was a debate between the two), yet he still keeps up the same fallacies on his website.
Hovind is either:
A complete liar,
So secure in his assumptions he doesn’t bother to check if he’s wrong,
or
Totally ignorant.
(My father actually called him a ‘scoop’ the other day; because when he was born, the doctors took an ice cream scooper and scooped the brains clean out of him.)
Well at least if they had a degree in ‘science’ they’d be more relevant then him. His degree is in “Theology” isn’t it?
I like how on his “offer” page, he has to insist that he actually has the money to pay.
Of course he has the money to pay- he’s been saving up all the money he refuses to pay in taxes!
**
Meatros would have us beleive:
This man is a “Dr.”, he knows what he’s talking about. Also, don’t you want to collect the money? Why don’t you prove evolutionary ‘theory’ by answering these four questions:
quote:
If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:
- The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
You mean like fossils, platonic shifts, sedementary layers, carbon dating, orbital decay, and all that nonsense? Or do we have to have been there with direct observation for it to count?
- No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
This is well documented even here, on a recent thread on speciation. However, if you choose to define “fundamentally different” as major changes that occur over a period longer than any human’s lifespan, you are ignoring basic tenets of evolutionary process to make a feel good claim while ignoring the evidence in front of your own eyes.
- No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
Crick and Watson to name just a couple.
- Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.
True, it is made out of energy. It decays back into energy as well. Studied any quantum physics?
Here’s the rub: Prigogine won a nobel prize for demonstrating that life is not only likely to occur given the environment, * It would be nearly impossible for it not to occur!*
There are two ways to look at this:
On the one hand, some say God is unneccesary to validate our existence.
On the other, he has everything to do with it. But you better rethink him, because he has been reduced to mathematical principals and a fundimental order that exists in the universe.
Either way, there is no guy in the sky stroking his beard and judging you on whether or not you masturbated today.
frithrah,
Meatros knows the site is a crock. He was posting it for its entertainment value. Meatros is not a creationist, he was just being sarcastic.
Let’s confess here people: a little tongue and cheek, but not entirely. Far too many of us are just DYING for someone to come along an start a creationism/evolution thread. We know how silly and desperate we’d all look if we started it ourselves, but how can we pass up the opportunity to display our battle-tested knowledge of evolutionary theory, an win easy victories over the misinformed and the eternally clueless? The only problem is that there’s often so few people around here interested in defending creationism that there’s essentially nothing to do, exposing our rather odd desperation.